Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#51

Post by tremon »

Zababa wrote: post #39
josh_fyi wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jews have lived in Europe for 2000 years. Who's importing whom? https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/what-disraeli-actua... "In the course of his unrestrained invective, he referred to Disraeli’s Jewish ancestry. Disraeli replied, ‘Yes, I am a Jew, and while the ancestors of the right honorable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.'”

I don't think we should apply the same standards to Jews that have been in Europe for a long time, and Muslims that are a very recent addition, especially when you compare the numbers.

South-Eastern Europe has had a large muslim (because Ottoman) population for centuries; which part of Europe are you referring to?

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#52

Post by lordwarnut »

FredPret wrote: post #12
brabel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Are you serious? I’m no social conservative, but labelling that as Nazism just degrades your own political capital. People are allowed to expect immigrants to fit in.

Well the homogenisation of society is a common aspect of fascist ideologies.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#53

Post by FDSGSG »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #43
chuckee wrote: post #7

I find the appeal to religious freedom contemptible. An animal does not suffer any less if it has to be conscious during its slaughter for religious reasons, rather than secular ones.

I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to. There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes…

Why does this get downvoted? Does there exist a reasonable counterargument to this? I'd really like to hear it.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#54

Post by NikolaNovak »

FDSGSG wrote: post #53
NikolaNovak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to. There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes…

Why does this get downvoted? Does there exist a reasonable counterargument to this? I'd really like to hear it.

Because it sounds antagonistic, it's counter indicated by modern culture, plus large proportion of any given audience IS religious and firmly believes they are entitled to special treatment, which is indeed enshrined in laws of most countries.

I've been atheist all my life and it took Me 30 years to get beyond my own cultural conditioning and allow myself to To think "religion is not special belief above all others". Still sounds like a sacrilege even to me and I have to fight the instinct to give it special privilege mentally and automatically.

Note that most other protected features are assumed to be ingrained and largely immutable for the purpose of the law (race, age, etc). The law treats religion the same, as opposed to personal choice that it is like all others. One of my light-bulb moments was when I started replacing phrase "Christian /Muslim / Etc child" with "child of Christian / Muslim / Hindu /etc parents". We should not pretend we do not have agency and freedom of belief... And thus be judged upon that chosen belief like all others.

"I want to hurt that animal / abuse women / disrespect others /etc" should be treated no differently whether suffixed by "because religion" or "because I want to".

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#55

Post by wongarsu »

vadfa wrote: post #36
wongarsu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The latter would argue that the former are violating the animal's right to a pain-free death.

Animals are... animals.

I guess it comes down to whether you think of animals as soulless automata or as beings with conscious thought and emotions, worthy of (some amount of) empathy.

And while I can't say much about sheep, in the last ~50 years we have found that some kind of animals are remarkably far on the latter side

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#56

Post by bobthechef »

wongarsu wrote: post #23
vadfa wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The former obviously. The latter are the ones who want to restrict the freedoms of others.

The latter would argue that the former are violating the animal's right to a pain-free death.

Right? You can argue that it is immoral for a human being to inflict needless suffering on animals, but I don’t know where right enter the picture. Ever watch a nature show? You think the alligator tearing pieces off a living zebra is violating the rights of the zebra? Or even that it’s immoral for it to do so?

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#57

Post by danbruc »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #43
chuckee wrote: post #7

I find the appeal to religious freedom contemptible. An animal does not suffer any less if it has to be conscious during its slaughter for religious reasons, rather than secular ones.

I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to. There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes…

But even then, if the better part of a population [1] just really, really wants something even if it objectively makes no sense at all, on which ground do you oppose the desire of the majority? I am not sure if you could justifiably oppose the majority, but if you can, it requires probably quite a bit of philosophical work to make that case.

[1] Just to be clear, I am not talking about this specific case, there is no majority here, but about the general case where a majority has some unreasonable ideas.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#58

Post by rjtavares »

ardit33 wrote: post #38
rjtavares wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: has any empire (or powerful nation) ever been homogenous without genocide?

Japan? Their natives were few in numbers (less than 2%), so it can be considered a Homogenous nation.

That's a good example (if we ignore their attempted expansion). I guess being an island helps.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#59

Post by throw-8462682 »

FDSGSG wrote: post #47
the-dude wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you could study religion some more, why and when it emerged as it did, etc. There is plenty of common sense in the holy books.

Maybe you should consider that we no longer live in the period in which those books were written? How religion emerged has nothing to do with how things should be in secular societies today. It could not matter less that the advice given in these books used to make sense at some point.

And maybe you should consider the power of religion, the sense of belonging and origin it gives you, and the good it is doing to this world today (despite many missteps as well), before being so judgemental. I am saying this as someone not religious but grown up with religion.

Some religions evolve faster than others. I would hope the different faiths can come up with iterative improvements to their standard operating procedures that still meets the requirements. I believe the Jewish religion even has a concept about creatively outsmarting the religious rules as being a virtuous thing (eg women wearing wigs).

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#60

Post by FDSGSG »

danbruc wrote: post #57
NikolaNovak wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to. There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes…

But even then, if the better part of a population [1] just really, really wants something even if it objectively makes no sense at all, on which ground do you oppose the desire of the majority? I am not sure if you could justifiably oppose the majority, but if you can, it requires probably quite a bit of philosophical work to make that case. [1] Just to be clear, I am not talking about this specific case, there is no…

Our democratic model will bend to the unreasonable demands of the majority.

But religious people are increasingly not the majority in Europe, certainly not the ones that demand special animal abuse privileges.

Post reply on HN