Enlightened community bans "outdated" religious practice

[Sparko]

He's probably going to claim that 'anti-Semitic' is irrelevant and that he's not sure what the word means.
At least that is how he sunk my foie gras argument.

I'm never going to give you up, gerbz.

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm never going to give you up, gerbz.

I'm going to head back over to -=|The Drama Club|=- for awhile.
Darth Executor and Starlight were kind of mean to me.

If you want to join me over there while I complain about how unfair life is, please do so.

[rogue06]

I'm never going to give you up, gerbz.

You're never gonna give him up
Never gonna let him down
Never gonna run around and desert him
Never gonna make him cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt him




Uh oh. I just mighta assumed gender here.

[Sparko]

You're never gonna give him up
Never gonna let him down
Never gonna run around and desert him
Never gonna make him cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt him




Uh oh. I just mighta assumed gender here.

you should check out his link in post #44 for context.

[Teallaura]

But now we are in a post-firearm technological society it is no longer the most human way.

You'd think that if the practice was originally instituted because it was humane, then the people of those religions would be clamouring for the introduction of even more human methods, but that is rarely the case. A few Muslim authorities favour stunning or anaesthesis of animals prior to halal slaughter, but many don't, not do I recall any such move from the kosher advocates.

Animals don't have rights - that's NOT why we have laws against cruelty. If they had even one right then they would have all rights

Not necessarily.

[/QUOTE]

1) Not necessarily - original intention may not be reflected in the desire to preserve tradition.

And even if we accept that modern methods are more humane (which I agree in theory but find debatable in practice) that doesn't make the practice inhumane.

2) Yes, necessarily unless you can come up with a limited basis to grant rights in the first place - I can't think of one.

Conscious enough to experience pain? Then why isn't that sufficient to grant representation to have a voice in the legal process that governs when pain/death may be dispensed?

Really tough can of worms if you're going to make an actual legal argument that has to stand up.

[Roy]

1) Not necessarily - original intention may not be reflected in the desire to preserve tradition.

Desiring to preserve tradition beyond the point where traditional practices cease to fulfil the requirements for the task at hand makes little sense to me. Even if it's being used as a means if distinguishing ingroup vs outgroup.

[Meh Gerbil]

Desiring to preserve tradition beyond the point where traditional practices cease to fulfil the requirements for the task at hand makes little sense to me. Even if it's being used as a means if distinguishing ingroup vs outgroup.

As I'm sure you realize, it doesn't have to make sense.
That is known as freedom.

I think most of what orthodox Jews do is borderline retarded.
That is why I'm for putting them in their own walled neighborhoods.
You know, for their protection.

[Mountain Man]

wait. what? So you think anyone who is antisemitic is a neo-nazi? That liberals can't be antisemetic? What about muslims? Can they be antisemetic?

Haven't you figured it out by now? In Dimbulb's world, everything evil and unpleasant is rooted in conservatism.

[Sparko]

As I'm sure you realize, it doesn't have to make sense.
That is known as freedom.

I think most of what orthodox Jews do is borderline retarded.
That is why I'm for putting them in their own walled neighborhoods.
You know, for their protection.

No need. they already create their own walled neighborhoods with a wall called an Eruv.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jewis...abbath-2015-10

[NorrinRadd]

if you had told me a week ago that a tweb thread would soon devolve into a gerbil/starlight back and forth about how much they both hate Jews I'd have thought you were crazy. the end of the world must be coming soon

Cannot possibly come soon enough.

Maranatha.

[Teallaura]

Desiring to preserve tradition beyond the point where traditional practices cease to fulfil the requirements for the task at hand makes little sense to me. Even if it's being used as a means if distinguishing ingroup vs outgroup.

Wasn't arguing for it, merely explaining that original intent was probably not in view in their decision making process.

[Terraceth]

But now we are in a post-firearm technological society it is no longer the most human way.

You'd think that if the practice was originally instituted because it was humane, then the people of those religions would be clamouring for the introduction of even more human methods, but that is rarely the case. A few Muslim authorities favour stunning or anaesthesis of animals prior to halal slaughter, but many don't, not do I recall any such move from the kosher advocates.

Well, that's because they claim stunning isn't as humane. Not sure how valid the arguments in that article are, though.

[Teallaura]

Well, that's because they claim stunning isn't as humane. Not sure how valid the arguments in that article are, though.

Interesting - their reasoning is much better than I'd assumed.

The arguments are valid - the facts supporting them are also true, although not extremely common in the case of misfire. As in humans, stunned doesn't necessarily mean insensible to pain.