Sancho “Even better, I can't wait to see how it's handled by posters such as Col Rouge and Peter Hume, who are both anti-Muslim and pro-animal cruelty. My bet is that they'll avoid the thread altogether.”

Spoken like a small minded nong who has nothing better to write about than anticipating my personal view.

As to “anti-Muslim”, wrong,

Nothing I have written has ever been “anti-Muslim”.

I am anti-moron.. .so I guess SANCHO can consider himself a target.

“Pro-animal cruelty” wrong again.

I have never promoted any action which could ever be perceived, by any "mentally stable" person as “cruel”.

Of course, what Sancho makes of my posts might well qualify as outside the limits of “stable”.

I have observed the notion that critters should have the same cognitive appreciation and rights as humans to be utter nonsense.

Hence, the idea that battery chooks “suffer” is a nonsense but that in itself is not a “pro-animal cruelty” stance, merely the difference between me and the “over sentimental“ and "emotionally cripped", who have no idea of life in the real world.

Speaking personally, I know little of ritual butchery processes, being neither Muslim (Halal) or Jew (Kosher) but having seen the stupid and emotional whining advert regarding pigs recently on TV, I can assure everyone, I still eat pork and I make a point of buying eggs from chooks who live in cages and I would wear a fur coat if the weather were cooler…

my conscience, my choice…

if that gives Sancho or anyone else a problem.. .

I simply do not care…

you can object and criticise me all you want but I devote my efforts to remain free to ignore you and all those other tossers who fund organisations like PETA and btw I will exercise my legal rights to defend myself against any action by any "animal advocate" who disturbed my peace.

Yet another whack-a-mozzie troll.

>>Even meat lovers would like to think that the animal they are eating was killed as humanely as possible.<<

Show me someone who actually gives a tuppeny toss about the method by which the animal they are eating is put to death, and I'll show you a vegetarian.

>>Halal and kosher foods, however, apparently require that the animal be conscious while it’s throat is cut.<<

We all know , HermanYutic, that this is simply code for "let's all have another go at Islam"

You are just not honest enough to admit it.

Pericles,
By your logic then, not only am I an Islamophobe but I'm also an anti-semite,
referring as I did to both halal and kosher killing.
Anti-semitism is presumably acceptable to you then, as you fail to accuse me of whack-a-hymie trolling.
Does this make you an anti-semite?
It also follows from your tuppeny tossing that all the laws and regulations pertaining to animal cruelty were passed by vegetarians.
Are you sure yours isn't just a whack-a-hermie troll?

Nice try, HermanYutic.

>>By your logic then, not only am I an Islamophobe but I'm also an anti-semite<<

Your post history here is a dead giveaway.

From your very first attempts at derogatory sarcasm...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#75561

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#75623

To your thoughtful provision on some dubious anti-Islamic statistics

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75748

And an exhortation to proactively put the boot in...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#76158

There's more, of course.

So there's not much point pretending that you directed our attention to the suffering of poor widdle animals out of a distaste for cruelty.

We know exactly where you are coming from.

And its somewhere pretty rank, in my view.

Good Evening Herman,

"Should animals suffer to maintain religious
sensibilities?"

I don't know anything about Halal or Kosher
methods of killing. However, the answer to
your question is - I guess it depends on
whether you believe in people having the
right to practice their religious freedom.
That is, whether you place people's rights
above those of animals.

Most of us can only give you an "armchair"
opinion. The best people to answer your
questions would probably be the people who
practice those religions and possibly know
more of what's involved.

As Col pointed out - there are many cruel
practices that occur concerning animals.
They're killed for their fur. They're trained
for our entertainment in circus's et cetera.
Their appearance is altered in breeding to
produce fashionable "toy" breeds. Baby seals
are bashed to death. Whales are hunted
mercilessly - the lists go on. Religion, is only
a small part of what is inflicted on animals in
general - and that's not even counting the damage
that is done to the oceans, forests, and elsewhere
where animals live - by humans.

Perhaps a better question would be - should
animals suffer at all at the hands of humans?

<< I have never promoted any action which could ever be perceived, by any "mentally stable" person as “cruel”. >>

Really, Col? Then I must have hallucinated the thread where you gleefully fantasised about killing dogs.

Or not: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2131&page=0#45502

<< you can object and criticise me all you want but I devote my efforts to remain free to ignore you and all those other tossers who fund organisations like PETA >>

Obviously. Nothing says "I don't care about your opinion" like a 300-word post refuting my opinion.

I enjoyed HermanYutic's posts more when he was calling himself KMB. I guess the whole, "I'm not hardline Catholic, just a secular agnostic who loves Catholicism", schtick fell through.