This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Poland's parliament votes to uphold ban on kosher [and halal] slaughterhouses

#61JIC XPosted 7/18/2013 9:11:03 AM(edited)
blacktrance posted...
Consider, for example, that a driver is bound by the rules of the road even if he doesn't know what they are (errors of law are no defence), and even if he's gone to great personal lengths to reject them

Implicit consent also exists. If you go into a restaurant and order food, you never explicitly agree to pay, but even if you don't know that you've consented, you still have. Or that people are bound by EULAs even though no one reads them.


Most courts would treat those as forms of explicit consent.
In addition to a pretty well-established cultural norm that restaurants are not charities, almost every restaurant I've ever been to uses some sort of menu with posted prices. I don't think I've ever had someone just foist food on me and then demand that I pay for it. Legally, they can't do that, because foisted consideration is not consideration, and without consideration, there's no contract.

And as for EULAs, the only reason they're binding without having been read is that they normally contain (a) a provision stating that the customer has read and understood the agreement and (b) a an "entire agreement" clause excluding the court from considering any extrinsic evidence to the contrary.* If a written scheme like that doesn't yield "actual" consent, it comes very close to doing so.

...If a EULA didn't contain terms to that effect, it would be open to the customer to argue that there was no consensus ad idem, and therefore no contract.

*One way of phrasing the effect of this: consensus ad idem can be proved by reference to the express terms of a written agreement, and, subject to some narrow exceptions (such as the absolute voidability of an agreement procured by fraud), evidence to the contrary is inadmissible. This is basically a rule of practicality; if anybody who didn't read an agreement could successfully rescind it on that basis, well, the entire sector of the economy that uses standard form contracts would grind to a virtual halt.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#62blacktrancePosted 7/18/2013 10:56:52 AM
Regardless, to legally drive on government roads, you need a driver's license, and to get one you have to know the rules of the road.
---
"With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line." - Rebelscum
#63YouAreCrumbsPosted 7/19/2013 7:38:13 AM
JIC X posted...
kozlo100 posted...
Iamvegito posted...
I think it was more an early effort to avoid bloodborne illness being transferred via food.


Yea, that was probably part of it. Though at least in the kosher rules, there is significant consideration given to the knife being very sharp and smooth, so as to slice the flesh rather than tear it. I think that pretty clearly goes to a concern for reducing the animal's suffering.


That seems unlikely given that the germ theory of disease is a few thousand years younger than the Mosaic dietary code.
Nobody in antiquity understood the root causes of disease.


We didn't understand the root cause, but we've always understood cause and effect. The people drinking wine or beer aren't getting sick like the people drinking still water. The people who ate the pork got sick, while the people who ate beef didn't, etc.
---
joey444
We elect Obama and all the capitalists will be executed. This is a legitimate concern of mine. - OMGWTFPIE, 2011
#64AdirothPosted 7/19/2013 8:00:34 AM
This is really non-issue since the Torah promotes Jewish vegetarianism as the moral ideal.
---
"If you talk to God, that's a prayer. If God talks back to you, that's schizophrenia."---
OSCAR CRUZ, outspoken Philippine bishop
#65bsballa09Posted 7/19/2013 9:32:14 AM
Its funny that the people who voted yes have absolutely no idea what kosher slaughter is other than "Oh no! They don't stun animals before they kill them!".

For one, animals MUST be treated good or else they are not fit to eat. Animals in kosher slaughterhouses are treated vastly better than non-kosher. Two, when the animals throat are slit, the butchers are taught to do it in a way where the animal instantly is killed/is rendered
unconcious.
---
Diet Coke does not taste like regular Coke. If they did, there wouldn't be a Diet Coke.
#66AdirothPosted 7/19/2013 9:58:32 AM
bsballa09 posted...
Its funny that the people who voted yes have absolutely no idea what kosher slaughter is other than "Oh no! They don't stun animals before they kill them!".

For one, animals MUST be treated good or else they are not fit to eat. Animals in kosher slaughterhouses are treated vastly better than non-kosher. Two, when the animals throat are slit, the butchers are taught to do it in a way where the animal instantly is killed/is rendered
unconcious.


While ritual slaughter is not banned in Australia, it is considered inhumane.

Exemptions to pre-slaughter stunning for sheep and cattle

For cattle and sheep, the requirements for religious slaughter without prior stunning are set out in a nationally adopted guideline Ritual Slaughter for Ovine (Sheep) and Bovine (Cattle):

For cattle, this means the animal must remain in an upright position with the head and body restrained. The animal must be stunned with a captive-bolt pistol immediately after the throat is cut (known as ‘sticking’). Two separate people must perform the sticking and stunning. If there are any problems restraining the animal while attempting to stick it, then it must be stunned immediately.

For religious slaughter of sheep, the guideline requires cutting both the carotid arteries and the jugular veins. This must be confirmed — if they are not completely severed, then the animal must be immediately stunned.

Cattle and sheep requirements are different because cattle have an extra blood supply to the brain through the back of the neck. Therefore, cutting cattle’s throats results in less rapid loss of consciousness.

Kosher beef, sheepmeat and chicken are produced from animals that have not been stunned prior to having their throat cut.

The RSPCA is concerned there are greater risks of animal suffering during religious slaughter without stunning than for conventional slaughter. The number of animals involved is a tiny percentage of all animals killed but, regardless, the method is distressing to the animal due to:

increased restraint
injury caused by the slaughter methods
subsequent bleeding out.

The use of stunning during the slaughter process can remove some, but not all, of these concerns.

The RSPCA definition of humane killing is: ‘an animal must be either killed instantly or rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes’. When killing animals for food, this means they must be stunned before slaughter so they immediately become unconscious. The RSPCA policy on ritual slaughter is clear: slaughter without prior stunning is inhumane and completely unnecessary. The RSPCA is opposed to inhumane methods of killing and continues to promote this view to governments and the public.


From: http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-kosher-slaughter-in-Australia_117.html

Until it can be demonstrated that animals in kosher abattoirs are living in presidential suits & feels no pain, there is no contest.

It's time to take the moral high ground & become a vegetarian.
---
"If you talk to God, that's a prayer. If God talks back to you, that's schizophrenia."---
OSCAR CRUZ, outspoken Philippine bishop
#67bsballa09Posted 7/19/2013 10:35:17 AM
Until it can be demonstrated that animals in kosher abattoirs are living in presidential suits & feels no pain, there is no contest.

It's time to take the moral high ground & become a vegetarian.


http://tinyurl.com/ofzooep

The set up might look weird because I had to cache it. I couldn't open the PDF for some reason.

So the whole "not stunning being inhumane" is already out of the water. If your only other argument is that they are being restrained while being killed, then you really need to find another argument. If you want to be a vegetarian, thats fine. But Kosher slaughter is vastly better than normal slaughter.
---
Diet Coke does not taste like regular Coke. If they did, there wouldn't be a Diet Coke.
#68kts123Posted 7/19/2013 11:15:32 AM
If it's sentient enough that it's "cruel" to bleed it out, then isn't it sentient enough to be "cruel" to herd, kill, and eat en-mass? "Well, sure we herd them from birth for the express intent to slaughter and eat, but we do so humanly!"
#69AdirothPosted 7/19/2013 12:26:08 PM
bsballa09 posted...
Until it can be demonstrated that animals in kosher abattoirs are living in presidential suits & feels no pain, there is no contest.

It's time to take the moral high ground & become a vegetarian.


http://tinyurl.com/ofzooep

The set up might look weird because I had to cache it. I couldn't open the PDF for some reason.

So the whole "not stunning being inhumane" is already out of the water. If your only other argument is that they are being restrained while being killed, then you really need to find another argument. If you want to be a vegetarian, thats fine. But Kosher slaughter is vastly better than normal slaughter.


Have you read the pdf you've posted yourself? It focuses on people's opinion, not real science. All he did was play around with the wordings of a questionnaire aimed at a group of student and did a few light meta analysis before concluding with what he admitted to be "personal belief". He did not actually conduct any experiment with any cows.

The document is a Reciprocal Meat Conference Hot Topics Paper™

published on: Meat Trade Daily News. Not a respectable journal is it?

http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/110812/uk___the_politics_of_religious_slaughter___how_science_can_be_misused.aspx
---
"If you talk to God, that's a prayer. If God talks back to you, that's schizophrenia."---
OSCAR CRUZ, outspoken Philippine bishop
#70bsballa09Posted 7/19/2013 12:36:55 PM
Adiroth posted...
bsballa09 posted...
Until it can be demonstrated that animals in kosher abattoirs are living in presidential suits & feels no pain, there is no contest.

It's time to take the moral high ground & become a vegetarian.


http://tinyurl.com/ofzooep

The set up might look weird because I had to cache it. I couldn't open the PDF for some reason.

So the whole "not stunning being inhumane" is already out of the water. If your only other argument is that they are being restrained while being killed, then you really need to find another argument. If you want to be a vegetarian, thats fine. But Kosher slaughter is vastly better than normal slaughter.


Have you read the pdf you've posted yourself? It focuses on people's opinion, not real science. All he did was play around with the wordings of a questionnaire aimed at a group of student and did a few light meta analysis before concluding with what he admitted to be "personal belief". He did not actually conduct any experiment with any cows.

The document is a Reciprocal Meat Conference Hot Topics Paper™

published on: Meat Trade Daily News. Not a respectable journal is it?

http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/110812/uk___the_politics_of_religious_slaughter___how_science_can_be_misused.aspx


Actually, it focuses on the criteria its considered "inhumane".
---
Diet Coke does not taste like regular Coke. If they did, there wouldn't be a Diet Coke.