You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] ougNaHadNepVed 5 points 66 points (+71|-5) ago 

It's only right. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is still animal cruelty. At the time these religions were founded, cruelty was commonplace for people, so no one thought about animals. But we are more civilized now, and should consider such things.


[–] 9-11 2 points 23 points (+25|-2) ago 

REMINDER as to why halal slaughter is wrong



[–] Ifaptocomments 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

that's barbaric.


[–] Aswimmingday 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago 

Well, I put chickens upside down into a traffic cone and than take their heads. So there's that. I've also slashed the throats of larger mammals who I failed to make a perfect kill shot on. People are pussies who don't harvest their own meat anymore.


[–] OriginalReaper 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago  (edited ago)

fyi (for those reading this,) more humane slaughter include shocking the animal before death and not allowing it to see other animals get butchered


[–] Thin_White_Duke 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

If they do that to their lovers, imagine how they treat their women


[–] BLOODandHONOUR 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

And mutilation of infant baby boys genitals in the name of religion is still mutilation and child abuse.


[–] Broc_Lia 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

And adolescents. They do it anywhere from infancy to early teens.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 


[–] [deleted] 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 



[–] BLOODandHONOUR 9 points -4 points (+5|-9) ago  (edited ago)

What the hell are you talking about? Now compared to when? Did you see where the white race was in the 1700s? 1800s? 1900s? Edit: apparently I wasn't clear. The white race has declined since these years. We are in a decline into degeneracy. Look at how we used to dress and act- just that can show you where we were.


[–] Martel-Sobieski 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Actually you've got it backwards. At the time those religons were founded slaughtering animals like that was the LEAST cruel method available. That was the point of the method. Our technology has moved well past that and now it's extremely cruel relative to other methods.

It's following the letter of the rule rather than the intent of the rule itself. This is something jews have a big problem with and something Jesus called them out on


[–] JamesMatthewsBand 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Nah that's bullshit. If Islamist were nice they would say slaughter animals in the most painless way possible. They choose to slaughter animals halal style because they are backwards fucks, has nothing to do with being nice. They fuck little kids and rape is okay as long as you have 4 witnesses, afterwards you can kill your wife for adultery.

People knew from the beginning of time that destroying the brain is an instant kill. You're a fucking idiot Muhammad.


[–] ougNaHadNepVed 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm not sure I agree. Even in those times, people knew about the heart, and that stabbing the heart caused death, near instantaneously. A butcher especially would know where a heart was located in an animal, and could easily use a sword or special knife to stab there. Especially a domestic animal, that was just standing quietly. Loss of blood pressure when the heart stops beating would cause unconsciousness very quickly.

I think it is this passage in the Koran that is the reason for this method of killing:

sura 16:115. He hath forbidden for you only carrion and blood and swineflesh and that which hath been immolated in the name of any other than Allah; but he who is driven thereto, neither craving nor transgressing, lo! then Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Because they aren't supposed to eat blood, they let the animal suffer while it pumps its blood out. And, of course, it is impossible to remove all the blood from flesh, the point of a very famous ruling that a creditor could take a pound of flesh from his debtor, but no blood. Maybe, if the flesh was broken into its constituent proteins, and washed, the blood could be completely removed, but certainly not just by using this form of killing. To claim otherwise is to practice sophistry.

My reading of that sura is that Allah wants Muslims to be vegetarians, with the possible exception of insects, because they don't have blood. All mammals, birds, and fish have blood, and so eating their flesh is always eating blood, as well.

Interesting as well is that if Muslims practice human sacrifice to Allah by cutting the throat and letting the blood flow out, and hold to their interpretation of 'no blood', they are allowed to eat human beings, according to that passage. i.e. human flesh is halal, if butchered properly.