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

81–90 of 104 posts

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#81

Post by chuckee »

sofixa wrote: post #80
chuckee wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards: ethnic violence is more prevalent in diverse countries without boundaries separating different groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal... Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag? "Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.

People in Yugoslavia weren't genociding each other in regular times (outside of WW2 and the Yugoslav wars), there was just ethnic tension. Furthermore, present post-Yugoslav countries aren't homogenous, and there's still ethnic tensions there ( in Bosnia, or Serbia and Kosovo). I'm not sure "working out" is how I'd put it.

Interesting standard. So only genocides during "regular times" count? And as long as there are tensions, you can't say things are working out? Anything short of perfect harmony might as well be civil war and genocide?

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#82

Post by the-dude »

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.

> How religion emerged has nothing to do with how things should be in secular societies today.

This assumes literally everything is different today. Which of course is nonsense.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#83

Post by danbruc »

WithinReason wrote: post #76
danbruc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is a valid argument. If you have a conflict between what your religions says and what you conclude by other means and you decide - for whatever reasons - to follow the religion, then you still want this thing. It might not be a case of I really, really want this but it is still a case of I just want this.

Case in point: "Really really wanting" to make an animal suffer is only possible for people with a certain level of cruelty. Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way.

I do not think that there is necessarily a conflict - you could really, really want this animal killed in this specific way for religious reasons and still not want the animal to suffer. You might believe that animals can not suffer, you might believe that god makes the animal not suffer in this case, or whatever. So I think one should be careful to not mix up really, really wanting to kill an animal in a certain way and really, really wanting the animal to suffer. But I will happily accept that there are at least some people facing a conflict.

With regard to your more general point that those desire are not exceptionally strong and involve conflicts - sure, notwithstanding me arguing against this in this specific case, I will grant you that, this is certainly possible. But I am not sure that you could make this point in the general case, I do not see why there could not be strong religiously motivated desires without conflicts.

Finally and notwithstanding the points above, I still think we are focusing to much on the really, really aspect. I do not think that the focus of the original comment was on the strength of the desire but on the lack of rational justification.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#84

Post by wayneftw »

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…

It's easy to over simplify things to the point of absurdity.

This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#85

Post by dekken_ »

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…

change is difficult

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#86

Post by [deleted] »

bobthechef wrote: post #56
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.

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?

[deleted]

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#87

Post by brabel »

throw-8462682 wrote: post #59
FDSGSG wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 operatin…

You bring up a good point about religion, it does make millions of people feel better by belonging to a group they see as being benign.

But my question still stands, specially on the light of such view of religion: if religion is, these days, meant to give people internal piece, does it need to dictate such practical things as how you should kill animals?! How do you reconcile that with your view on religion?

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#88

Post by hackeraccount »

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 makes a show of pointing out that religious views are arbitrary and capricious to a degree that implies that isn't the case with any number of non religious views.

Freedom of conscience is a tricky thing. There are a lot of things that one person might see as falling under that while another might see as affecting the rights of some third party.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#89

Post by Ancapistani »

mantas wrote: post #74
dx034 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not just about immigrants. You also forbid people born in your country to develop other habits or change religion.

If a bunch of locals decide to bring back old slaughtering methods (or dealing with spouses or skipping judicial system to settle issues and so on), I'm pretty use that'd be banned in no time.

See also: the birth and growth of the Mormon religion in the US.

Re: Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter

#90

Post by blix »

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.

I don't understand the obsession with the 'pain-free' death. Surely the animal feels something in all slaughter methods, and either way it's getting killed and eaten. Frankly unless you have even been slaughtered by a Jewish butcher, how can you truly judge how much pain the animal feels?

Besides, most people have experienced a cut by a sharp edge where they don't feel pain or even realize they are bleeding for some time. This is actually a goal of Jewish and Halal butchering methods. And frankly, I'm not sure attempting to perform some 'pain-free' slaughter via impersonal machine is more humane than having another sentient being in close proximity to the animal perform the act. Modern factory slaughter is humane in the same sense a drone strike is humane.

Post reply on HN