Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[jaffka]

If I'm totally honest I don't really get what the whole big deal is with birthdays, I can understand it when your a child and you get presents and toys and that but once you get to about 17 or so it becomes a bit pointless.

Do you worry about nuclear war and the world suddenly ending?

[bwfcdan94]

Not really but if the mass media and scientists and politicians said it's going to happen tomorrow why would I care there is nowt I can do about it and I would probably be pleased that I wouldn't have to go through the many difficulties I would face in the future for the occasional bit of joy. If however I was in a position of major importance and I therefore could affect such outcome then I would be deeply troubled as I would know that most people aren't as pessimistic as me and would be very unhappy if they had it under good authority that everything was going to end tomorrow.

[Dujon]

Oh dear, Dan, you're not still striving for the Pessimist of the Year Award are you? At your age the whole world is your oyster and you make your own life from here-on in. Do you really think that those thousands of people who you walk past or deal with over a year are different to yourself in that respect? As GBS once wrote "Life wasn't meant to be easy, my child, but take courage; it can be delightful." Like anything on this world of ours you have to work (and work hard) to earn a decent living. So stop your snivelling and groaning and complaining and get on with it.

[TANGODANCER]

^^^
This......

[thebish]

just had to arrange a funeral for my birthday... way to celebrate reaching the half-century - a reminder of my mortality!

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

just had to arrange a funeral for my birthday... way to celebrate reaching the half-century - a reminder of my mortality!

As long as it's not your own funeral you're winning

[Dujon]

Few of us like birthdays, thebish, but burying them seems a bit harsh.

[KeyserSoze]

big debate on another forum i'm on about halal.

pretty sure LLS would blow a fuse.

[Prufrock]

The Sun article is pernicious nonsense. It's a valid issue from an animal rights perspective, but it's hard to separate those who are bothered about that and those who just want an excuse to slag off the Muzzies. In this case, it's chicken, and 100% of halal chicken in the UK has been stunned before it's killed. The meat used by both Pizza Express and Subway (which has also been targeted recently) only comes from pre-stunned animals. Veiled anti-muslim nonsense.

I'll also be interested to see the Sun's front-page exposé on the treatment of battery-farmed chickens, or the conditions pigs are kept in. Can't wait.

[KeyserSoze]

aye, tis muslim-bashing veiled as true welfare concern. which again just trivialises the issue.

apparent Jo, 22, from Solihull has offered her opinion on the matter overleaf.

[TANGODANCER]

Is there any real difference in the taste of chicken, between throat slitting, or that well-known traditional chicken disposal method of neck-wringing that's been going on since Adam was a lad? Just wondering?

[Prufrock]

Is there any real difference in the taste of chicken, between throat slitting, or that well-known traditional chicken disposal method of neck-wringing that's been going on since Adam was a lad? Just wondering?

It's not about the taste, it's (for some people at least) about animal welfare. There is a massive difference between the suffering of animals which are conscious when their throats are slit vs those which are stunned before they are killed. The idea that they fall painlessly unconscious within seconds is utter bollocks. However, the simple argument against the fuss raised this time is that the animals *have* been stunned as have 88% of all halal slaughtered animals inc 100% chickens.

I think both sides of this current debate are wrong though, because I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect, trying to argue that only vegetarians can have complaints about animal welfare. Firstly, he surely means vegans, and secondly, that's utter nonsense. The idea that it's only intellectually consistent, if you eat meat, to not give any shit about how the animals are treated is ridiculous. People are clearly welcome to their own beliefs, but a belief that the animals one eats ought to have suffered as little as possible is not in and of itself contradictory.

[jaffka]

With Pru on this.

In the wild its kill to eat, using whatever method, or starve.

We aren't in the wild though here, we are in civilization, so wanting the animals to be killed as painlessly as possible isn't unreasonable at all.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Is there any real difference in the taste of chicken, between throat slitting, or that well-known traditional chicken disposal method of neck-wringing that's been going on since Adam was a lad? Just wondering?

I saw a bird's neck wrung when I was a teenager. I damn near fainted. I've avoided seeing anything like that ever since.

[TANGODANCER]

Is there any real difference in the taste of chicken, between throat slitting, or that well-known traditional chicken disposal method of neck-wringing that's been going on since Adam was a lad? Just wondering?

It's not about the taste, it's (for some people at least) about animal welfare. There is a massive difference between the suffering of animals which are conscious when their throats are slit vs those which are stunned before they are killed. The idea that they fall painlessly unconscious within seconds is utter bollocks. However, the simple argument against the fuss raised this time is that the animals *have* been stunned as have 88% of all halal slaughtered animals inc 100% chickens.

I think both sides of this current debate are wrong though, because I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect, trying to argue that only vegetarians can have complaints about animal welfare. Firstly, he surely means vegans, and secondly, that's utter nonsense. The idea that it's only intellectually consistent, if you eat meat, to not give any shit about how the animals are treated is ridiculous. People are clearly welcome to their own beliefs, but a belief that the animals one eats ought to have suffered as little as possible is not in and of itself contradictory.

Er, yes, quite. I was making the point that without knowing which method was used on the plate of roast chicken you're tucking into, who would ask? How many people would be able to kill a chicken/any animal, that we regularly smack our lips over before taking a knife and fork to it?
People living on farms have had to do that regularly since time immemorial, so animal welfare is fine in as much as it's possible. I don't have religious beliefs regarding food, nor do I believe in any form of cruelty to anyone. anything living, but neither do I ask for the store manager to find out my dinner's history before buying it. Some folk do, fair enough. Two of my daughters are fierce vegetarians and think meat eating is for savages....guess I'm a savage then.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect

Urgh, really?

[BWFC_Insane]

Is there any real difference in the taste of chicken, between throat slitting, or that well-known traditional chicken disposal method of neck-wringing that's been going on since Adam was a lad? Just wondering?

It's not about the taste, it's (for some people at least) about animal welfare. There is a massive difference between the suffering of animals which are conscious when their throats are slit vs those which are stunned before they are killed. The idea that they fall painlessly unconscious within seconds is utter bollocks. However, the simple argument against the fuss raised this time is that the animals *have* been stunned as have 88% of all halal slaughtered animals inc 100% chickens.

I think both sides of this current debate are wrong though, because I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect, trying to argue that only vegetarians can have complaints about animal welfare. Firstly, he surely means vegans, and secondly, that's utter nonsense. The idea that it's only intellectually consistent, if you eat meat, to not give any shit about how the animals are treated is ridiculous. People are clearly welcome to their own beliefs, but a belief that the animals one eats ought to have suffered as little as possible is not in and of itself contradictory.

Er, yes, quite. I was making the point that without knowing which method was used on the plate of roast chicken you're tucking into, who would ask? How many people would be able to kill a chicken/any animal, that we regularly smack our lips over before taking a knife and fork to it?
People living on farms have had to do that regularly since time immemorial, so animal welfare is fine in as much as it's possible. I don't have religious beliefs regarding food, nor do I believe in any form of cruelty to anyone. anything living, but neither do I ask for the store manager to find out my dinner's history before buying it. Some folk do, fair enough. Two of my daughters are fierce vegetarians and think meat eating is for savages....guess I'm a savage then.

Thing is, I'll wager that the majority of those who are expressing "outrage" about Halal meats would be equally as outraged were it Muslim belief that animals shouldn't be consumed and only shopped in places where no meat was present. Those very same people would be citing their right to eat meat and kill animals rather than being concerned over animal welfare.

I think the argument that everyone who eats meat should kill an animal etc is absolutely ridiculous. Most adults who eat meat are broadly aware of how it arrives on their plate. Even if they aren't I don't particularly think many don't realise that the lamb chop they are tucking into was once a wooly four legged creature gaily skipping round a meadow or whatever. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that people who eat meat should experience the process of slaughtering and butchering animals. Should everyone who eats an egg have to try laying one? Should everyone who eats a carrot have to grow one? No. People should be free to decide what they believe and consume whatever that may be.

Where businesses feel that they can make money serving Halal meat I really do not see the issue. If the Muslim population in those areas make up the bulk of their customer base then so be it. As long as it is clear what people are being offered to buy I have no issue. Choice.

[Prufrock]

Is there any real difference in the taste of chicken, between throat slitting, or that well-known traditional chicken disposal method of neck-wringing that's been going on since Adam was a lad? Just wondering?

It's not about the taste, it's (for some people at least) about animal welfare. There is a massive difference between the suffering of animals which are conscious when their throats are slit vs those which are stunned before they are killed. The idea that they fall painlessly unconscious within seconds is utter bollocks. However, the simple argument against the fuss raised this time is that the animals *have* been stunned as have 88% of all halal slaughtered animals inc 100% chickens.

I think both sides of this current debate are wrong though, because I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect, trying to argue that only vegetarians can have complaints about animal welfare. Firstly, he surely means vegans, and secondly, that's utter nonsense. The idea that it's only intellectually consistent, if you eat meat, to not give any shit about how the animals are treated is ridiculous. People are clearly welcome to their own beliefs, but a belief that the animals one eats ought to have suffered as little as possible is not in and of itself contradictory.

Er, yes, quite. I was making the point that without knowing which method was used on the plate of roast chicken you're tucking into, who would ask? How many people would be able to kill a chicken/any animal, that we regularly smack our lips over before taking a knife and fork to it?
People living on farms have had to do that regularly since time immemorial, so animal welfare is fine in as much as it's possible. I don't have religious beliefs regarding food, nor do I believe in any form of cruelty to anyone. anything living, but neither do I ask for the store manager to find out my dinner's history before buying it. Some folk do, fair enough. Two of my daughters are fierce vegetarians and think meat eating is for savages....guess I'm a savage then.

Well then why are you on about the taste?! It's no surprise I'm confused!

And I still don't know what your point was. What does 'without knowing which method was used on the plate of roast chicken you're tucking into, who would ask?' mean? You need to know how it was killed to ask how it was killed?

As for the rest of it, that's fine. I get that some people are happy to eat what they get from the supermarket without asking any questions. No problems with that. Some people do though, which is also fine.

My point is both sides in the current argument are wrong. The Sun making out halal chicken is some sort of animal rights issue. It isn't. They're stunned. The opposite point that anybody who kicks off about halal who isn't a vegetarian is either a hypocrite or hiding some Muslimophobia is nonsense too.

[Prufrock]

I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect

Urgh, really?

You're surprised?! I thought you might have come around to him by now, Guardian boy

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I've read Medhi Hassan, a man whose opinion I massively respect

Urgh, really?

You're surprised?! I thought you might have come around to him by now, Guardian boy

He's one of those overly partisan nice people I would have thought might annoy you - also guilty of overreaching himself all the time, as on the issue you have highlighted.