Respect should not be "pretend"; it should be real.
A big topic. Science and religeon don't address the same area in my view. from or whether there is a right or wrong involved. Happy to discuss this but in a thread of its own, I think.
Who's "we" here?
"They" being Muslim?
Anybody can eat-not-eat whatever they want on whatever grounds they choose. "I don't want to eat it so I won't" is ok with me be it on religeous grounds, on the grounds that they don't like it, on the grounds that they think it is unhealthy or, even if it's because they don't like the colour... or whatever.
And that applies to any food judgements (except health hazards) - religeous, veggie etc.
If someone wants to say what I can eat, then they should provide a suitable argument which we both believe in. Health hazards are one such reason and this is a case where science has the deciding factor IMV.
religion & food was Hallal fishYes. I do have some resistance to people who move to a country (in this case ours) and proceed to try to change it to be like the one...
Yes. Food should show its source. Not sure about the legal position about specifi=ying that ATM - trade agreements seem to apply. There is the complication that there is a process called cheddaring which may or may not have been named after Cheddar but which was probably not limited to that area.
I remember a study (but cannot unfortunately give a reference) when the animal distress involved was formally recorded. It was done by recording a specific reaction which was believed to be triggered during distress; it did not depend on what the animal appeared to be doing. AIRI Hallal dissolution did not cause more distress than "UK" stunned. There is, of course, the choice of factor to be used to indicate distress; is it an adequate indicator of distress? I may not have the information now because we have had computer problems (major) recently and have ahd to resort to reformatting the disk so it depends whether the information was amongst that which was backed up.
Yes. When I was a volunteer at the CHiltern Open Air Museum a visitor told me that she thought all farmers should keep their animals as pets and not kill them. Sort of "pinned me in a corner" while she expounded her views, in fact. Generally very happy to talk to visitors but that was a discussion I found difficult because there probably wasn't anything I could sya which she would not take offence to.
Yes. But you will not get that while it is cheaper to buy meat from areas which have no interest in animal welfare unless you can persuade the buying public to support animal welfare.
What evidence is there for saying that such enthusiasts do not have compbuttion?
Interesting topic. JAne
--
