I am getting this information from the various scientific studies that have been done on this topic. The process of knocking the animal unconscious causes more pain than the process of slicing open it's throat. (Assuming that the least painful forms of restraint are used on the animal)

http://www.grandin.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Schul...inary_medicine)



Extremely sharp. If the knife has the slightest nick in it, the knife can not be used. The knife needs to be sharpened or inspected after every kill. There was recently a case where the largest kosher slaughterhouse in America was breaking many of the rules, and nobody in my community will eat from them anymore.

Feel free to read up on it on the internet, there are plenty of sites that explain everything. (of course there are also many sites that say that it's the most inhumane thing you can ever think of doing, so I suggest reading the sites carefully and looking for documented studies and evidence based (not speculation based) websites)

But I'd be really curious to see any evidence of someone Jewish not taking a heart valve because it came from a pig, that isn't just an episode of Grey's Anatomy that got the Jewish community really upset.

Wikipedia is of course not one of those sites, so instead, we go to the very first line of the results to show that faulty methods were used:

"The first three seconds from the time of knife (Islamic) slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision."

Because being stabbed does not hurt.

EDIT: This needs some softening, though. Kosher slaughter is not unnecessarily cruel and should not be equivocated with senseless animal abuse. Back when the practice was developed, they were ahead of their time. Kudos to them for that. We're better than that these days, though, and it would be nonsensical to claim that allowing an animal to bleed out induces less suffering than near-instant unconsciousness.

The cows are not stabbed, they are sliced, with a razor sharp edge. Are you being disingenuous on purpose? Never cut yourself with a razor and not noticed it until you saw the blood?

What faulty method was used exactly? If you wish, you can read the results in the original German here:

http://www.tiho-hannover.de/service/presse...hulze_preis.pdf

I'm not really sure what point you are making.

It's entirely possible if the slice was exceptionally sharp and fast that it wouldn't stimulate the anterolateral system (the tract that conveys pain and temperature from the body to the brain) for several seconds. The ALS pathway is much better at detecting blunt/crude stimuli than a razor sharp slice.

Likewise, an EEG measures electrical activity of neurons in the brain. If no activity was detected post slice for 3 seconds, I think it's reasonable to suggest that the animal wasn't feeling pain. I would note, however, that this isn't at all what an EEG is used for clinically. It doesn't actually confirm it. Pain is very difficult to accurately measure, and there are large variations in reactions from person to person (and I infer pig to pig).

Of course, because I read German. I bet you do too!

I can't believe I'm about to have this argument. Ok. Here goes:


Knife designed for slaughter. Notice the smooth, sharp, un-nicked edge. Also notice the visible taper. That is gonna hurt.


Notice the difference in scale and the lack of visible blade tapering.

Now, to the wounds!


Kosher neck wound.


Crazy guy with a particularly nasty shaving cut. He probably felt that one.

Now, go back to the claim that there was no change at all in the EEG. The electrodes may have been in the wrong place. The electrodes may not have been properly attached. He might have been looking at the completely wrong brain signals. I would not be qualified to make that determination. I am, however, as a fellow mammal, qualified to make the determination that getting stabbed hurts.

They use the lack of change in the EEG to prove that the animal didn't have a response to anything. They are inferring that no change in the status of the brain is an indication that there is no change in the pain/stress/discomfort level, but not using it as direct proof.

Xavius, the knife used in that image with the cow with hit's head sliced open, and the knife in the picture claiming to be a slaughter knife are two different types of knives. BOTH of which are not valid for kosher slaughter.



This is a picture of an unkosher Shochet knife. Notice how it looks nothing like the images you produced.

edit: it's unkosher because it hasn't been sharpened recently.

Seriously? why are you trying to hard to give misinformation?

Your first image
http://antiquescientifica.com/mis_id_CW_am...y_Grunewald.jpg

appears to be an antique amputation knife... nothing used for slaughtering or butchering at all.

Seriously? Why all the missinformation?


Here is a collection of knives that can be bought today and what they -actually- look like.

I might note that for all practical purposes, we should examine the other end of the argument.

Stunning a cow with a taser is going to result in an exceptional amount of pain. I don't see how anyone would argue or on what basis they could argue that this method is more humane. Here's a little wiki blurb on tasers and pain:

That is misleading also, since they don't use generic tasers to stun animals. Dr. Grandin wrote that if you use enough amps, then the eletrocution process will be humane.

http://www.grandin.com/humane/cap.bolt.tips.html

However, electro immobilzation has the opposite affect.

http://www.grandin.com/humane/electro.html

Grey's Anatomy is a good show! I haven't seen that episode though. Anyways, I'm more referring to a case that was presented to us in my philosophy class.

When did we get sidetracked to a kosher only argument? I don't think Xavius is arguing against Kosher practices, merely that slitting someone's throat isn't a dismissible experience, and not "painless."

I will state that you kind of invalidated you whole argument that kosher, in practice, is not cruel via this line: "There was recently a case where the largest kosher slaughterhouse in America was breaking many of the rules, and nobody in my community will eat from them anymore."

Anyone who's ever had a job, anywhere, knows that businesses take shortcuts and break rules.

If you are still in that class, I suggest talking to your teacher about that, because that is just nonsense. I can't find a single article online that says such a thing ever happened. (except on grey's anatomny)

It's not just kosher, its all ritual slaughters done today. (Kosher and Halal)

The largest kosher slaughterhouse got in trouble for hiring illegal immigrants and child workers, those are the rules they broke.

Heh. How do you know that Daganev? Likewise, if you break law A to break law B, you've broken laws A and B. You don't escape consequences from law B because you used an alternative method to violate it, assuming you did so willing.

huh? I'm not understanding.
It's been all over the news. They had to declare bankruptcy and will likely be out of business completely soon.

The point Fryler made was that given business shortcut to save profit and what not, it's practical to assume that a costly kosher practice that could achieve a humane kill on a cow would still likely be no more humane than other practices when corners were cut, sharp/quality/kosher knives were not used, etc.

If the business was willing to break laws to employ illegal immigrants or children, it's fair to assume they broke kosher laws in their slaughter of beef as it appears their chief concern was profit.

Ahh, ok. But I'm not sure how that says anything about the differences between the different methods of slaughter, or why one business strengthens or invalidates the argument.

I was trying to point out that when such places break rules, the consumers who buy from them stop buying.

I was hoping someone other than me would make this point. Thank you!

It's a well known scientific fact that suffering causes the meat of the animal to become imbued with trace amounts of deliciousness. Also, veal is even more tender if the calves are kept in horribly cramped conditions and not allowed to grow muscle and become all stringy. And as for foie gras... mmmm.

Weird tangent

This is most especially true when devouring the meat of man, specifically that of Jack. The more he suffers, the better he tastes. The more he is restrained, the more tender his flesh. mmmmmm