5 ms·

I have no problem with the concept of killing an animal to eat it. However this method doesn't appear to be humane. Just cut the damn fish head and be done with

I have no problem with the concept of killing an animal to eat it. However this method doesn't appear to be humane. Just cut the damn fish head and be done with it already.

hprotagonist 8y ago
It’s a fancier pithing process and step one is “scramble the brain”. I don’t see how it’s worse, and it’s probably better. draining the blood off rapidly and shorting out the spinal column really does improve matters, too. It’s not all that different in intent from kosher and halal slaughter: minimize pain and suffering, respect the animal, get tastier food while you’re at it.
- Yetanfou 8y ago
  > It’s not all that different in intent from kosher and halal slaughter: minimize pain and suffering, respect the animal, get tastier food while you’re at it. Except that this is not the intent for kosher and halal, nor do these methods minimize pain and suffering. In both kosher and halal the animal has to fully conscious when its jugulars are cut, the difference lies mainly in whether the name of god is to be proclaimed over every slaughtered animal (halal) or only on the first and last one (kosher), whether slaughter can be performed by any believer (halal) or only by a specific priest (kosher, only Sachets (a type of rabbi) can perform kosher slaughter), whether the whole animal is considered to be edible (halal) or only its forequarters (kosher) and which animals can be consumed (rabbit, wild hens, shellfish, duck and goose can be halal but they can never be kosher). Kosher and halal were and are ways to identify tribes as being part of a religious group - a form of shared ritual - and probably also contain some vestiges of lore (trichine-infected pork can kill, Red Tide-infected shellfish likewise, a rule which makes sure the animal is fully conscious when slaughtered also gives a reasonable guarantee it is not diseased, etc). Whacking the animal over the head with a mallet or using a more modern equivalent like a bolt pistol (cattle, horses) or electric shock (pigs) before slitting its throat does tend to reduce suffering when done correctly so it can not be said that kosher and halal lead to 'minimize[d] pain and suffering'.
  - hopler 8y ago
    You are stretching. Obviously pistols and electric shocks aren't recommended by the Bible. The incompatibility between technological progress and ancient gospel is a different problem, which is why there is a rift between modern "progressive" sects of a religion and fundamentalist sects. For example, see magentzedek.org/animal for a modern kosher.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > which is why there is a rift between modern "progressive" sects of a religion and fundamentalist sects. Fundamentalism (with a capital-F), which is the inspiring example from which the more general concept of “fundemantalism” is derived, is actually one of the younger branches of Christianity. It's even one of the younger branches of Protestant Christianity. This is actually true fairly generally; fundamentalist sects tend to be products of reactions against modernism being perceived to influence the core religion rather than being the oldest branches of religion.
  - ars 8y ago
    You are incorrect. I can not speak for halal, but in Kosher slaughter minimizing pain IS a primary goal. You have completely skipped the stringent rules about the knife in your summary, so perhaps you are just not aware of it. The knife must be razor sharp - the slightest knick renders it unusable. The knife must be drawn in a single motion, any hesitation, or pressure, while cutting makes the animal not kosher. The location of the cut is precisely defined. All of the above are there to minimize pain, because the knife is so sharp the animal doesn't feel the pain, any pressure on the wound would also trigger pain. > or only on the first and last one (kosher) This isn't correct. Only one blessing is said, and not saying the blessing does not render the animal not-kosher. The blessing is about the shochet, not the animal. This is different in Halal were the blessing is the primary thing that makes the animal halal. > whether slaughter can be performed by any believer (halal) or only by a specific priest (kosher, only Sachets (a type of rabbi) can perform kosher slaughter) The shochet is not a priest. Being a shochet is 100% about knowing what to do, and 0% about any kind of special status. Anyone can be a shochet, including women. And you do not need to be a Rabbi, you just need to be trained. > bolt pistol A captive bolt pistol has an unacceptable high failure rate. You can NOT consider them more humane than Kosher slaughter.
- artificial 8y ago
  All of these methods are not equal nor about tastier foods. Both of those are ideological lawfulness. My point is not denigration, Kosher and Halal for the most part stuns animals just like nonreligious slaughtering, however there still are traditional outlets that slit the neck of unstunned conscious animals.
bryanlarsen 8y ago
A brain spike is seen as more humane than decapitation for larger animals like cattle, I imagine the same applies for fish. And given that this method provably results in less trauma byproducts than traditional methods, there is strong evidence that this is a more humane method.
- strainer 8y ago
  I think the modern western practice owes more to what is most convenient in industrial setting than most considerate to the last moment of consciousness or spirit. fwiw I would personally go with hypoxia over deep brain trauma, of course also hoping it matters little whatever else may or may not be in store.
Tor3 8y ago
The method is better than just cutting its head - it starts with quickly destroying the brain.
gotocake 8y ago
Cutting off the head of a fish or eel is not as quick a death as you might hope. Destroying the brain is.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  You might find this mobidly interesting... http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/02/06/lavoisier-blinks/ http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/02/06/lavoisier-blinks/
  - gotocake 8y ago
    Oh wow. That really is dark and fascinating, thanks!
  - reitoei 8y ago
    I know what this is, and I'm not clicking it.
    - mfoy_ 8y ago
      There's no graphic images. It's not a "shock" or "gotcha" link. The TL;DR is that the head can stay "alive" for some time after decapitation. The nominal example (see the URL) being Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who was guillotined during the French Revolution and committed to blinking for as long as he possibly could after being decapitated. There are also more modern examples "thanks" to ISIS.
      - reitoei 8y ago
        Oh I didn't think you were trying to trick me or anything. I read about Lavoiser and the guillotine when I was a child and it stuck with me. The Russian experiment with the reanimated dogs heads... I'll let you google that one yourself.
  - apo 8y ago
    Debunked here: As for the story of the postmortem experiment with Lagrange, no mention is made of it in any of the reputable biographies of Lavoisier. ... https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed081p629 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed081p629
rtkwe 8y ago
The very first step in this is destroy the brain that's wat faster than just cutting off the head and letting it slowly die of hypoxia. After the pithing everything is just dealing with autonomic systems to prevent muscles from working and building up lactic acid. After the first step there's nothing there to feel pain.

I have no problem with the concept of killing an animal to eat it. However this method doesn't appear to be humane. Just cut the damn fish head and be done with it already.

hprotagonist 8y ago

It’s a fancier pithing process and step one is “scramble the brain”. I don’t see how it’s worse, and it’s probably better. draining the blood off rapidly and shorting out the spinal column really does improve matters, too. It’s not all that different in intent from kosher and halal slaughter: minimize pain and suffering, respect the animal, get tastier food while you’re at it.

Yetanfou 8y ago
> It’s not all that different in intent from kosher and halal slaughter: minimize pain and suffering, respect the animal, get tastier food while you’re at it. Except that this is not the intent for kosher and halal, nor do these methods minimize pain and suffering. In both kosher and halal the animal has to fully conscious when its jugulars are cut, the difference lies mainly in whether the name of god is to be proclaimed over every slaughtered animal (halal) or only on the first and last one (kosher), whether slaughter can be performed by any believer (halal) or only by a specific priest (kosher, only Sachets (a type of rabbi) can perform kosher slaughter), whether the whole animal is considered to be edible (halal) or only its forequarters (kosher) and which animals can be consumed (rabbit, wild hens, shellfish, duck and goose can be halal but they can never be kosher). Kosher and halal were and are ways to identify tribes as being part of a religious group - a form of shared ritual - and probably also contain some vestiges of lore (trichine-infected pork can kill, Red Tide-infected shellfish likewise, a rule which makes sure the animal is fully conscious when slaughtered also gives a reasonable guarantee it is not diseased, etc). Whacking the animal over the head with a mallet or using a more modern equivalent like a bolt pistol (cattle, horses) or electric shock (pigs) before slitting its throat does tend to reduce suffering when done correctly so it can not be said that kosher and halal lead to 'minimize[d] pain and suffering'.
- hopler 8y ago
  You are stretching. Obviously pistols and electric shocks aren't recommended by the Bible. The incompatibility between technological progress and ancient gospel is a different problem, which is why there is a rift between modern "progressive" sects of a religion and fundamentalist sects. For example, see magentzedek.org/animal for a modern kosher.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > which is why there is a rift between modern "progressive" sects of a religion and fundamentalist sects. Fundamentalism (with a capital-F), which is the inspiring example from which the more general concept of “fundemantalism” is derived, is actually one of the younger branches of Christianity. It's even one of the younger branches of Protestant Christianity. This is actually true fairly generally; fundamentalist sects tend to be products of reactions against modernism being perceived to influence the core religion rather than being the oldest branches of religion.
- ars 8y ago
  You are incorrect. I can not speak for halal, but in Kosher slaughter minimizing pain IS a primary goal. You have completely skipped the stringent rules about the knife in your summary, so perhaps you are just not aware of it. The knife must be razor sharp - the slightest knick renders it unusable. The knife must be drawn in a single motion, any hesitation, or pressure, while cutting makes the animal not kosher. The location of the cut is precisely defined. All of the above are there to minimize pain, because the knife is so sharp the animal doesn't feel the pain, any pressure on the wound would also trigger pain. > or only on the first and last one (kosher) This isn't correct. Only one blessing is said, and not saying the blessing does not render the animal not-kosher. The blessing is about the shochet, not the animal. This is different in Halal were the blessing is the primary thing that makes the animal halal. > whether slaughter can be performed by any believer (halal) or only by a specific priest (kosher, only Sachets (a type of rabbi) can perform kosher slaughter) The shochet is not a priest. Being a shochet is 100% about knowing what to do, and 0% about any kind of special status. Anyone can be a shochet, including women. And you do not need to be a Rabbi, you just need to be trained. > bolt pistol A captive bolt pistol has an unacceptable high failure rate. You can NOT consider them more humane than Kosher slaughter.
artificial 8y ago
All of these methods are not equal nor about tastier foods. Both of those are ideological lawfulness. My point is not denigration, Kosher and Halal for the most part stuns animals just like nonreligious slaughtering, however there still are traditional outlets that slit the neck of unstunned conscious animals.

bryanlarsen 8y ago

A brain spike is seen as more humane than decapitation for larger animals like cattle, I imagine the same applies for fish. And given that this method provably results in less trauma byproducts than traditional methods, there is strong evidence that this is a more humane method.

strainer 8y ago
I think the modern western practice owes more to what is most convenient in industrial setting than most considerate to the last moment of consciousness or spirit. fwiw I would personally go with hypoxia over deep brain trauma, of course also hoping it matters little whatever else may or may not be in store.

Tor3 8y ago

The method is better than just cutting its head - it starts with quickly destroying the brain.

gotocake 8y ago

Cutting off the head of a fish or eel is not as quick a death as you might hope. Destroying the brain is.

mfoy_ 8y ago
You might find this mobidly interesting... http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/02/06/lavoisier-blinks/ http://www.strangehistory.net/2011/02/06/lavoisier-blinks/
- gotocake 8y ago
  Oh wow. That really is dark and fascinating, thanks!
- reitoei 8y ago
  I know what this is, and I'm not clicking it.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    There's no graphic images. It's not a "shock" or "gotcha" link. The TL;DR is that the head can stay "alive" for some time after decapitation. The nominal example (see the URL) being Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier who was guillotined during the French Revolution and committed to blinking for as long as he possibly could after being decapitated. There are also more modern examples "thanks" to ISIS.
    - reitoei 8y ago
      Oh I didn't think you were trying to trick me or anything. I read about Lavoiser and the guillotine when I was a child and it stuck with me. The Russian experiment with the reanimated dogs heads... I'll let you google that one yourself.
- apo 8y ago
  Debunked here: As for the story of the postmortem experiment with Lagrange, no mention is made of it in any of the reputable biographies of Lavoisier. ... https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed081p629 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ed081p629

rtkwe 8y ago

The very first step in this is destroy the brain that's wat faster than just cutting off the head and letting it slowly die of hypoxia. After the pithing everything is just dealing with autonomic systems to prevent muscles from working and building up lactic acid. After the first step there's nothing there to feel pain.