So what you are saying is causing animals maximum stress during their death is OK even though there are other methods to reduce stress and suffering and that are widely available? And this is based on text that is thousands of years old? If you don't have the morality to know that animal suffering is bad then I pity you.
Do you eat meat? The animal suffers either way. Either you stop eating meat or stop being a hypocrit. Edit: Just to be clear, I never said casuing maximum stress during their death it ok. I just find people who think one death is better than the other when it all leads to the same place a bit hypocritical. And who says it causes maximum stress? You? Biased reporting? If you want to know about maximum stress, go see how they kill dogs in Korea.
I'll make it a bit simpler for you. During dispatch, the least amount of suffering to the animal the better. If this does not make sense to you then you are either a (a) psycopath or (b) ******ed.
I'll make it simpler for you. If you don't want to cause pain to the animal that you are eating, stop eating animals. If this does not make sense to you then you are either a (a) hypocrit or (b) ******ed.
I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. The animals are going to be slaughtered anyway, so why not do it as humanely as possible?
One method hasn't clearly been proven either way being more humane than the other. All the reports from science that supports either side of the arguement seems to be biased. You can easily find people stating one view vs the other view using studies. What I have an issue is people think one is more humane without facts and think because the other "method" is old or linked to religion. This to their minds makes it bad automatically. I've had to kill animals. Let's just say, whichever way it is done, it ain't pretty or painless.
So, who's gonny break the news to the lions and tigers and suchlike that they're doing it wrong. They should be sneakng up behind that zebra and smackin it on the noggin with a baseball bat before ripping it's throat out.
how does a stunned animal retain more blood? they both get hoisted in the air and throats cut when they are still alive
they're the kings though. 10 seconds of mouth to throat pressure and the wee ****s are pan. <dinnertime>
That's only after the outright terror and distress the animal has to endure while getting chased down by a pride of lions. Somebody should do something to stop it. It's disgusting. I'm disgusted. Outraged even.
And what about those crocodiles and alligators? Those bastards grab the animal and drown it. What a stressful way to die. The ****s. Why is this wholesale cruelty to animals allowed to continue?
Depends on cost really. If stunning the animal is going to impact on your bottom line then I understand why some may skip that process. Times are tight.
lets not forget Killer Whales they are seriously cruel.. after killing a seal they then have the audacity to play volleyball with the poor thing. bastards
Birds are just as bad - how can anyone justify the shock and terror experienced by a mouse when it's just wandering around minding it's own business and suddenly a big eff off hawk comes swooping out of nowhere and casually eats it? They hanged Saddam for less.
This cruelty to animals is more widespread than I thought. Yet nobody, even the stick their oar into everything do-gooders, is doing anything about it. Conspiracy
What about a praying mantis?? the females are evil bitches.. they seduce the males lure them back to their place for illicit sex, **** them then eat them..
Exactly - WWF and Greennpeace are all for hunting down the ivory traders and having a go at people who have spent years of hard work, love and dedication learning to be a matador or teaching bears how to dance but you never hear them moan about the casual and mindless violence that lions cause to zebras. Double standards at work again.
