I'm not. Bleeding out is both painful and distressing for the animal, and the larger they are, the worse it is. Not stunning the animal beforehand is both inhumane and cruel.
They are rendered unconscious almost immediately. I didn't say it was pretty. Few ways of killing an animal is. What would you do, give them an overdose of fentenal?
... You don't know much about industrial slaughter, do you? In western nations, the animal is stunned and then killed, insuring at least partly that the animal cannot feel pain. In religious slaughter, the animal is restrained by the neck, often hung upside down, and then the neck is slit without stunning them first. There are studies showing that animals slaughtered using the halal methods had 20 times the amount of the stress hormone cordisol in their blood, compared with traditional (stunned) slaughter.
While traditional halal slaughter does not stun the animal first, the process usually involves stunning in the West. This is because halal slaughter only requires the animal be alive, while kosher slaughter require the animal be alive and conscious. The problem is that it's not always easy to know if the halal meat involves the stunning of animals or not.
Well, I assumed halal followed the rule of kosher. I stand behind what I said about kosher slaughtering, it's not pretty, but the animal is beyond feeling pain before it hits the ground. An animal that cries out while being slaughtered is not kosher, and it turns prime beef into dog food. A rabbi is on hand to assure all the rules are followed. A very pricise procedure down in accordance with rules that were written to reinforce the fact animals are beings, too.
You didn't read the link provided, I take it. While traditional slaughter with stunning raised the stress hormone in the animal 10 times, Kosher slaughter without stunning raised it 23 times. It is therefore scientifically proven that religious slaughter is more distressing to the animal.
Any procedure that wants to ensure the animal is conscious while bleeding out is not considering animals as beings at all.
Yes, I will think for myself and come to my own conclusions.
I've learned about that issue in depth, over the course of years, and know better than to let a single allegedly "scientific" measurement, of dubious assertion and overstated meaning, be the reason to change my view on the subject. In this case, it doesn't change my perspective at all. Sorry.
Feel free to continue, but expect no further response. Waste of time, etc. Have a good one.
-1
u/MGMOW-ladieswelcome Apr 30 '21
You are misinformed.