Halal being served secretly throughout Britain

[eFestivals]

Depends which fish we're talking about.

Really?

Which fish aren't killed by suffocation (simply by being out of water) then?

How does that make me 'off the target'?

I guess that's the result of me misunderstanding what you meant, due to you typing non-sense for some reason.

(I'm not having a go - read back what you posted. There's a typo or something in there).

[rfs]

Because they are in heaven watching over you.

[worm]

Yet dealing with animal welfare is possible thru legislation, while it's not (to the same extent, anyhow) for human welfare. Hence the difference.

[worm]

Which fish aren't killed by suffocation (simply by being out of water) then?

[eFestivals]

People have autonomy in the human world, animals don't as they're dependent on human action in terms of their environment and general well being. People are inclined to be more charitable towards the innocent and vulnerable than the able, so I'd suggest that this is the reason that child based charities and animal charities are more succesful in relation to their aims than amnesty international, vision aid, christian aid et al. To boot, the gulf of distiance in terms of cause and effect is a problem for recruiting the potential charity giver.

I'm not disagreeing here by the way. I'm just giving you some pretty straight forward reasons why this would be the case. Incidentally, I was talking to a vision aid recruiter yesterday and we went over this particular topic in much finer detail.

Then both you and that vision aid person are both off the mark.

Animal charities get some huge amount more than charities for the infirm-elderly (who surely class as "vulnerable" and not able). I forget what the ratio is, but have a feeling it's something extreme like 50 times the amount.

[worm]

Then both you and that vision aid person are both off the mark.

Animal charities get some huge amount more than charities for the infirm-elderly (who surely class as "vulnerable" and not able). I forget what the ratio is, but have a feeling it's something extreme like 50 times the amount.

[eFestivals]

Indeed. But you're just comparing one minor human charity against animal charities in full. For example, the Cat Concern charity gets nothing compared to Help the Aged.

I'd also suggest that the aged are still perceived as having a degree of autonomy in that they can get help from the NHS, social care and from their families. Then you've got the fact that they have had their whole life to save up their money to look after themselves plus pensions etc. This is just a perception of course, not the reality. I think a better comparison would be with children as they are innocent as well as lacking in autonomy.

Anyway, this is an entirely different conversation about a different subject so that'll do as far as voicing my opinion goes on the difficult plight of charities.

Yep, but there's shit loads of animal charities, and far fewer for the old and infirm. So of course a minor one like Cat Concern will get less than HTA.

The fact that there are those shit loads of animal charities is yet another indicator of where our priorities wrongly lie. If we were better able to look after our fellow humans, then I believe that would better impact on how we then choose to treat animals than the current set-up we have - after all, despite the huge amounts of money that animal charities get, very little is actually achieved with improvements going forwards.

[5co77ie]

I eat only fish now. I've always despised the idea that it's okay to not care for animal welfare, but to feel it inhumane to treat another human with disrespect. Being inhumane is about what you do as a human, not what you do it to.

It's going to be interesting in ten years time when in vitro produce is consumed instead of farm produce. It won't be long thereafter until halal meat and kosher meat is banned. Cultural divisions will become rife.

[RichieParf]

I don't particularly like many, if any, of the methods of killing animals for food or anything else. I've always acknowledged my own hypocrisy in continuing to eat it but that's probably beside the point.

I think the outrage in the case of the Halal meat presented here is certainly motivated by more than pure animal rights emotion. The fact that this is being done for religious reasons is in itself, to the daily mail audience, something to be disgusted at. If the same was being done for reasons beyond the religious then the outrage would not be as intense. That, I would argue, is wrong.

Cruelty is cruelty however you dress it up. Either you're angry about all the methods of killing that follow this line or you accept them all. The fact that there is a religious motivation should not make you more disgusted or more accepting.

[staggerlee]

Thats just the mail trying to make it seem like its some kind of conspiracy tho

[worm]

Did you miss my post on how important livestock farming is to preserving green spaces - if that in vitro produce plan does happen there won't be any green and pleasant land left. If even the veggies (well one eminent one) say it has to be preserved, I can't see anyone preferring this method of food production.

[dakyras]

Really?

Which fish aren't killed by suffocation (simply by being out of water) then?

[llcoolphil]

People have autonomy in the human world

[Nyika]

I'm a pescatarian who only eats sustainably sourced fish, fish get to live a much better life than any farm animal and as a student it's cheaper and easier to eat fish rather than be a vegetarian. I only eat free range eggs and drink soya milk as well, but the soya milk is more cos I'm slightly intolerant to cows milk.