Human rights to dolphins?

[mmadiver]

It seems a bit hypocritical. My vote is we stop slaughtering our own species first...

Casualties of the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Lorenzoid]

It seems a bit hypocritical. My vote is we stop slaughtering our own species first...

Casualties of the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In all fairness to the animal rights side, their argument would be that these situations--animal slaughter and human slaughter--are independent of each other, so it's not an either/or situation.

To the extent there could be an overlap in resources that could directed to either human slaughter or animal slaughter, I too would be in favor of directing the resources toward the former. To me, unless an animal is threatened with extinction, preventing people from killing it is low on my list of things we humans should devote our resources towards.

 

[letterboy]

It seems a bit hypocritical. My vote is we stop slaughtering our own species first...

Casualties of the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am in favor of allowing stupid to kill stupid.

 

[AfterDark]

This thread started out as human rights to an animal, now its about slaughter well we can protect them without running some kind of phony human rights scam. Marine mammals are protected here in US waters, we don't hear of any mass slaughter, just some intuits hunting a few whales which they do to live. They use them because they can't sell them or the parts. The possession of any marine mammal meat or bone or ivory is a federal crime here, and we can and do enforce it. How's that for civilized?

 

[gcarter]

This thread started out as human rights to an animal, now its about slaughter well we can protect them without running some kind of phony human rights scam. Marine mammals are protected here in US waters, we don't hear of any mass slaughter, just some intuits hunting a few whales which they do to live. They use them because they can't sell them or the parts. The possession of any marine mammal meat or bone or ivory is a federal crime here, and we can and do enforce it. How's that for civilized?

Exactly!!!!

 

[Greenjuice]

Denmark has just made the headlines today with this ruling, coming to effect on Monday:
http://elitedaily.com/news/politics...er-halal-meats-leaving-jews-muslims-outraged/

By outlawing the Jewish Kosher and Muslim Halal methods of animal slaughter, they are declaring (possibly for the first time in a democratic Western country) that animal rights are greater than human religious rights.

What does the panel think of that?

 

[gcarter]

Denmark has just made the headlines today with this ruling, coming to effect on Monday:
Denmark Just Banned All Kosher And Halal Meats, Leaving Jews And Muslims Outraged | Elite Daily

By outlawing the Jewish Kosher and Muslim Halal methods of animal slaughter, they are declaring (possibly for the first time in a democratic Western country) that animal rights are greater than human religious rights.

What does the panel think of that?

This is the only part I take issue with:

Schwartz doesn’t believe the ban was in any way anti-Semitic but noted that the minister did not go through parliament before declaring the law.

“When you have religious minorities in a society you should also respect the religious minority even if you really don’t like some of the things [they] are doing. If you want to change fundamental rules that concern the religious minorities then you should have an open discussion,” he said.


​

By-passing open discussion is not the way to achieve anything in a truly democratic society. It becomes not the rule of law but the rule of tyranny.

Nonetheless, I do agree with the outcome. Such slaughtering practices are not exactly humane. Judaism and Islam are not alone in having certain of their practices curtailed by society. This should not be viewed as religious prosecution. And it certainly stays within the realm of policies that promote humane treatment without over-reaching and declaring them persons.

FTR, the article states that such bans also exist in Poland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

 

[Greenjuice]

Nonetheless, I do agree with the outcome. Such slaughtering practices are not exactly humane.

FTR, the article states that such bans also exist in Poland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland.

I did say 'possibly' because ironically the bans in these other countries may have been introduced before a formal system of democracy, for example by the Nazis culture of the time. For example in Poland after invasion by Nazi Germany.

This article gives a bit more information:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_aspects_of_ritual_slaughter

Interestingly, the article also informs that in US law, under the Humane Slaughter Act, religious slaughter is defined as humane (!).

If nothing else, this provides another example of the fact that all rights are in reality man-made.

To take it a step further, all religion probably is too!

It also is not correct to take the position that those with less intelligence, unable to sue or defend themselves cannot be bestowed rights. We have laws for child protection and statuatory rape. I'm afraid I still have difficulty with the concept I 'God-given' rights not least because they were written down by humans (typically not very clearly) and in the same books that include acceptance of practices like sacrifice of life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AfterDark]

My understanding of Jewish Kosher laws is that the animal must be killed quickly and humanely. That's the kind of thing that should be banned?

Why not just adapt the laws we have in the USA? Ban all contact with marine mammals except when they make contact; can't chase them down with a boat for example, and all possession of marine mammal parts is prohibited.

These other ideas have the foul smell of a secondary agenda to me.

 

[Greenjuice]

My understanding of Jewish Kosher laws is that the animal must be killed quickly and humanely. That's the kind of thing that should be banned?

These other ideas have the foul smell of a secondary agenda to me.

Agreed. The underlying motivation makes a difference to acceptability, if it is ever declared. Was animal welfare their only concern when passing these laws. Does it matter to activists if achieves the same result?

The legal definition in the US states that the practice is humane. I have a friend from Saudi Arabia who agrees and describes their Islamic method as follows:

The animal must be properly cared for and soothed before slaughter. The knife must not be shown to the animal. The act must not be witnessed by other animals. The cut must be swift and precise, with blood letting and death following quickly.

It is also apparently stated that the animal should be conscious (which is a point of debate) and not stressed or distressed (for example, by a chase after wounding, because of a belief that the meat will taste bad if this is allowed to happen).

This friend also agrees that in reality, what actually happens is far from the intended (using the word 'horrific'). There is, apparently, covert video footage from the middle east showing the slaughterers deriving warped pleasure from this work.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk