Is there a “humane” way to slaughter animals?

vegetarianism is great for the environment and is much more efficient at combating world hunger. This I agree with. This also I am already familiar with. But to say that eating meat is simply unhealthy is a blanket statement. And is equally as ignorant as claiming meat production is good for the environment and is not one of the contributing factors of world hunger.

You need to look deeper. Though I agree with how you handled the not so bright Vierotchka, you are wrong about this and need to do some research. Yes, crops use more water than livestock, but, what does livestock eat? There needs to be vast amounts of crops grown to feed that livestock. So, MOST crops grown are for animal feed (mainly corn) just imagine if we cut out livestock. Not only would you eliminate the water needs of the livestock, but you also could eliminate the water usage of the crops that is used to feed them. You need 6 kilograms of plant matter to produce 1 kilogram of animal protein (Thats not too good of a deal, is it?).Also, its not just about water usage. What industry uses the most fossil fuels? LIVESTOCK production. Another thing, you can produce many more calories of food with 1 acre of farmland compared to 1 acre of graze land.

what? meat tastes good!

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat?

People are made up of meat as well, are we supposed to eat them too?

There are cannibals in this world. Though there are a slew of health problems that come from continuously ingesting the flesh of your own species.

Actually, most humans cannot afford to buy meat.

who says they have to buy it?

The majority of the world's population lives in urban areas - what meat will they eat if they don't buy it? Rats?

yes, people do in fact eat rats, dogs, and cats. You know, all the good stuff. Go do some research (not like that would do you any good, you would just misconstrue that as well to somehow benefit your erroneous argument) PWNED!! bahahahah

ummm.... ok... now how about something that is related to the topic at hand?

I agree.... but... how do you suggest 'we' (by we, I mean the people or the people who 'make' the meat) start producing "cruelty-free" animal meat?

The guy who added this article, didn't really add any way that seemed to be very 'friendly'.

I like meat, but... just reading this article, makes me want to go vegi for a day... It just doesn't sound as yummy when you know how it was made.

that's really sad..

this is the subject that was covered up by faux news under the "right to lie".

Yes, I think so, at least it is related to it.

The raw food diet consists entirely of living food and not of dead things.

So are you saying a raw kale salad with carrots, quinoa, and a lemon-tahini dressing is "living meal"? Because last time I checked they were all harvested from plants that were connected to a living, breathing system of roots, and as soon as you remove that fruit, seed, or leaf from the plant, it is no longer a part of that living system.

Yes, to both counts, and you know it.

Don't use controversy to shield your point from the truth.

If someone slipped someone a downer and raped while they were unconscious, that's pretty different from attacking someone at knife point and violating them deliberately for several hours.

Sleep deprivation and mild beatings are a far cry from shoving someone into an Iron Maiden.

And I hate to break it to ya, but herbivores kill shit all the time too. Ever heard of rhinos or hippos or elephants? There's a reason plant eating animals evolved size and strength, it's not vestigial.

And what about omnivores? Primates in particular are pretty brutal.

Your point is full of holes.

ok, there are different ways to rape and torture, but none of them are humane. because they involve taking away someone's rights and expoiting that person. i do get it it that some ways are worse than others.
point i was trying to make is that we should should be trying to avoid slaughtering. we dont promote other forms of violence when performed in a regulated, 'humane' way.

While we're completely going against the basic way our bodies were built, why don't we just align ourselves with flying animals? I'd much rather fly than just change my diet, plus it makes the same amount of sense if you have a clue about how human nutrition works.

Yeah we do, it's the basis of the Geneva Conventions.

It's why we don't nuke people or dip them in acid or use poison gas or chemical attacks.

If we're gonna do evil shit, we might as well minimize the suffering that it causes.

Arguing that there is no "humane" way to kill is a useless game of semantics that misses the point. See my post below.

http://realnaturalhealth.com/img/articles/colon_article.htm

Not exacly, and by the way, incisors are NOT for meat-eating. Canines are, and we have tiny canines. Furthermore, our long intestinal tract is more adapted to a vegetarian diet than to a meat-laden one - meat is not fully digested in the stomach and small intestine, its transit is too long, it largely remains in the colon, forming a thick lining that remains for years and even a lifetime - this thick, sticky lining consists of rotting and putrefied partially digested meat and prevents the full absorption of vital nutrients. It is a festering breeding-ground for harmful bacteria and the cause of many diseases. Bon appétit!

Yes but we have them, sure the majority of our diet isnt meat, hell most of a healthy persons diet is veggies, but without protein your body will shut down, and if you dont eat meat most people have to take protein supplements, the one time I went veggie, not out of like morals or anything but I am the person that wants to try it all, anyways i tried and I got sick, like really sick. I will continue to eat meat and without regret you dont begrudge a tiger or a lion or a bear, or any other predators why begrudge me. I am not however judgeing anyone who makes this choice, i deeply respect thier decision because i know it is for spiritual reasons. My best freind in the world is vegan and I dont pick on her, well somtimes a little when she picks on me for hunting but only a little.

There is an abundance of vegetable protein, and if you have a balanced vegetarian diet you don't need any supplements whatsoever. When you tried it, you certainly made a whole bunch of fundamental mistakes, otherwise you'd never have been sick.

Our bodies only assimilate about 70% of vegetable protein, compared to almost a 100% animal protein. The problem is not the fact that we eat meat but its how we raise livestock in the corporate farms of today. There are people who rarely eat vegetables due to climate limitations like the Inuit and yet they manage to live surprisingly healthy lives.

You've completely bought into the vegan myths I'm afraid. That's simply not how the human body works. Compared to our other primate brethren the human body is MORE adapted to eat meat than they. Additionally the human body is fundamentally built to require more specific fats from animal sources than the other primates. Additionally we require more essential vitamins that are only abundant from animal sources than the other primates. The essential nutrients that our body requires to function correctly are coincidentally enough the same types of nutrients that herbivores readily manufacture and store in their meat/fat/organs!

These digestive issues you are referring to are ONLY present when you're consuming high amounts of grains/starchy plants. How does that actually lead people to think that eating MORE plants is the right answer?? Currently the most unhealthy thing about our meat consumption is the unnatural diet we force on feedlot livestock. This is why natural (no grains) fed livestock contain considerably more favorable nutrient profiles as well as all of the essential vitamins that we humans need! Meanwhile as a vegetarian you actually have to be careful to get all of the essential compounds needed by your body since most it is strongly locked away in it's structure and NOT readily available to humans.

Not exactly - it all depends on the source. For example, the body absorbs practically all the protein from hemp seeds which are the richest source of assimilable vegetable protein. As for meat, much of the protein is not absorbed but accumulates in the colon where it putrefies and emits toxins for years. Yes, there are peoples whose diet consists mostly of meat, but they also eat the marrow, uncooked, which is the main source of their health. They also eat the contents of the intestines of those animals which feed on plants only.

Bollocks - I never mentioned veganism, only vegetarianism, and referred to scientific facts. Also, it is a verified fact that vegetarians and vegans live considerably longer and are considerably healthier than people who eat meat, and have far fewer incidences of cancer.

Far from a "verified fact", all studies supposing said life expectancy increase have absolutely terrible methodology and traditionally compare the standard american diet (higher in meats but also much higher in refined sugars) to a basic whole foods vegetarian diet. These studies also fail to account for differences in artificial hormone consumption from POORLY RAISED livestock/dairy as well as improper cooking methods for meats which creates unnecessarily high levels of free radicals, both major contributing factors to cancers and heart disease but not even slightly relevant when talking about properly raised and prepared meats. These poorly designed studies that even admit to their weak correlations are far from scientific and I highly suggest you make an attempt to actually read through the studies with a discerning eye, conclusion/abstract sections of old articles are notoriously inaccurate since they base their opinions off of outdated scientific knowledge.

You can't simply compare one group who's not paying attention to anything they put in their mouth with another group that is an active participant in their bodies health, that's not how scientifically valid comparisons are made.

No, exactly. Plant protein and animal protein have different amino acid compositions. How do I know this? I have my undergrad in biology and I am currently getting my masters in biochemistry, but I'm sure this wont be enough to convince your skeptical hippie perspective .So, heres a little a snippet from the Harvard School of Public Health, "Some of the protein you eat contains all the amino acids needed to build new proteins. This kind is called complete protein. Animal sources of protein tend to be complete. Other protein sources lack one or MORE "essential" amino acids—that is, amino acids that the body can't make from scratch or create by modifying another amino acid. Called incomplete proteins, these usually come from fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. Vegetarians need to be aware of this." Also, protein is absorbed in the small intestine long before is reaches your colon. So, again, if eating meat isn't healthy go talk to the Inuit and I'm sure you'll get laughed out of their ice huts.

I love how people refuse to abandon their faulty argument even in the face of defeat. It's like a captain who refuses to leave his sinking ship. lol

Well, the Harvard School of Public Health is strangely ignorant about vegetarians, because vegetarians also eat eggs, chicken, fish, and dairy products, which supply all these essential amino acids. Also, most and possibly all the essential amino acids can be produced through the fermentation of germinated grains and sprouts. See also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/benefits-of-vegetarianism_n_112431.html

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-Vegetarians-Live-Longer-Than-Meat-Eaters&id=19...

http://www.nutraingredients.com/Research/Vegetarians-live-longer-says-study

http://www.cancerproject.org/survival/cancer_facts/meat.php

http://www.britishmeat.com/prostate.htm

Etc., etc.

You're obviously talking about yourself, since contrary to you, I am far from having been defeated and none of my arguments are faulty.

What planet do you spend most of your time on ? "the Harvard School of Public Health is strangely ignorant about vegetarians, because vegetarians also eat eggs, chicken, fish, and dairy products," first, the Harvard school of public health is ignorant to what vegetarians are? that shouldn't even be dignified with a response.Second, LMFAO, vegetarians eat chicken and fish? ummmm no sweety. look at the beginning of the word vegetarian. look again, doesn't vegetable start out the same as well? heres the definition of vegetarian.( I cant believe I actually have to do this)
Vegetarian:–noun
1.
a person who does not eat or does not believe in eating meat, fish, fowl, or, in some cases, any food derived from animals, as eggs or cheese *(this would be a vegan in case you didnt know that)*, but subsists on vegetables, fruits, nuts, grain, etc.
2. herbivore *(this means an organism that eats plants, just in case you didn't know that)*

So, I think it is you who is ignorant to what a vegetarian is. Sweetheart, if you eat fish and chicken you ARE NOT a vegetarian. Simply from abstaining from red meat does not qualify someone as a vegetarian, it simply makes them someone who doesn't eat red meat. LOL.

Now, no amount of 'mashing or mixing" can replicate the amino acid composition of animal protein (proteins are made up of 20 amino acids, in case you didnt know that). Not all proteins are created equal. this is fact, no ifs and or buts. sorry.

And you have yet to acknowledge the Inuit. Their diet consists of around 95% animal protein. They get all there vitamins ans minerals from RED MEAT. They are extreme;y healthy people. Why is this? So....... this leads us back to what everyone has been saying: eating meat is not the cause of the adverse health effects we are seeing in America but rather the way we raise our livestock.
So, Captain Ding Bat, your ship has been completely sunk, and your argument couldn't have more holes even if I shot it with a machine gun. Now, Im going to go enjoy my "vegetarian" diet consisting of chicken and fish.LOL.

"As for meat, much of the protein is not absorbed but accumulates" WRONG Protein is absorbed in the small intestine. You refused to acknowledge this just like you did with the Inuit.

I can tell you didn't actually read any of those studies you linked. Let's ignore the 2nd and last link you provided since they are nothing but random blog posts. For some reason you've decided to link the very same german article twice in the first and 3rd link.

This german article was actually one that I was specifically referring to above when I mentioned how absolutely unscientific it is to compare a population that is an active participant in their diet to the general population. How ever if you do look even slightly into the results of the study (instead of just going by the biased conclusion section or the uninformed media headlines) you get this neat little bit:

"However, entirely abstaining from meat consumption does not appear to be the healthiest nutritional lifestyle. Comparison of the three categories suggests that those who occasionally consume meat have an even lower risk of mortality than the other groups. For every 100 deaths among vegans, there were 66 among vegetarians and 60 among occasional meat eaters."

So the only actual scientifically valid comparison across similar groups in the study, that you are claiming supports a vegetarian lifestyle, actually found that the MORE meat someone ate, the HIGHER their life expectancy was! This is why it's pointless to try and get information from just conclusion sections or what a newspaper reports on a study. The methods and results sections are the ONLY sections that actually matter as all of the other sections are open to severe personal or professional bias.

As for the information in the cancerproject (4th) link, it continuously mentions how the carcinogenic effects of meat eating are a direct result of improper preparation and preservation. And since the writing of that information, the Harvard School of Public Health has actually mentioned that the results are severely different when you stop automatically grouping together processed meat consumption with red meat consumption!

Yet people never actually read into the results or how the study was put together, what type of populations were compared or what sorts of intakes were lumped together. As a result we end up with all of this completely uninformed noise that some how ended up being repeated across our population saying that we need to eat less meat and fat!

Edit: you can most often safely disregard the conclusions of any paper that still tries to claim that saturated fat is linked to heart disease. This has been disproved on numerous occasions and never was really fully supported by the initial research that first vilified it, it's just been another one of these scientific "facts" that everyone repeats without actually taking the time to look at what the real scientific data supports.

Acting like an obnoxious teenager does not make your post anymore convincing.

I could care less what you feel is convincing or not you pompous asshole :)

If you're aware of the great meat hoax then you should also be aware of how ridiculously prevalent it is throughout our society. Hell even doctors still pass on this crap to their patients!
Vierotchka seems somewhat averse to what we are saying and rightly so. We're basically telling her that everything she has been taught about food so far is a lie. Considering the vast amount of sources that have perpetuated this lie to her anyone in her position would be quite cautious of even considering what we're saying, hell I know I was when I first started hearing about it.
It basically meant that every single nutrition book and professor I'd had was wrong. Worse still it meant that much of what I had taught to others was wrong! It wasn't until I started thoroughly reading up on these alternative views that I realized how large the lies/inaccuracies were.
We are all at one point or another in our journey of knowledge where Vierotchka is now and helping someone to start searching out the truth by exposing the lies is infinitely more useful than simply ridiculing them for being in the same position you were at some point in your life. It's more useful to them and also to you as it progresses yet another small fracture of the population.

Guy, you take this way too seriously. You think you can change anyone on these boards with a comment? People on here argue just to argue no matter how futile it ends up being; even when they are dead wrong. Gotta love the power of anonymity. You are however quite the adept writer; I myself choose to exercise my own literary abilities in the real world, but you refer to that as me being immature and obnoxious. Maybe that is true, but, I don't really give a flying fuck. LOL LOL. But all jokes aside, have a good night and peace be unto you.

to you as well =).

Neither plants nor animals make vitamin B12. Bacteria are responsible for producing vitamin B12. Animals get their vitamin B12 from eating foods contaminated with vitamin B12 and then the animal becomes a source of vitamin B12. Plant foods do not contain vitamin B12 except when they are contaminated by microorganisms or have vitamin B12 added to them. Yeast is also a good source of vitamin B12. Oh, and I feel fine, and I abstain from eating liver as it is full of the toxins it has removed from the body of its owner. In general, offals are very bad for your health - seeing the usual contents of your posts, I reckon you eat mostly tripe.

I know full well that proteins are absorbed in the small intestine, but much of it is not absorbed and collects in the colon. Educate yourself.

Then why do you insist on constantly acting like an obnoxious teenager?

The only liars here are you and your ilk.

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/11/2355.full

I addressed the Inuit two days ago, and I know full well what a vegetarian is. You are ridiculing yourself. Vegetarians eat eggs, fish, chicken and dairy products too. There are several kinds of vegetarians - some will not eat fish and chicken but will eat eggs and dairy product (ovo-lacto), others will eat eggs but not dairy products, some will not eat eggs, chicken or fish but will eat dairy products. Vegans, on the other hand, do not eat any animal products whatsoever and even exclude honey, so yes, you badly need to educate yourself instead of spewing your ignorance.

http://www.themedicalquestions.com/altmed/102A60542010.html

Yeah, didn't think she was that short witted. It's pointless trying to reason with anyone who gives any credence to colon cleansing, A PRACTICE PROVEN TO BE HARMFUL AND POTENTIALLY FATAL!!!! The studies that she personally cited showed an increase in life span with meat consumption but I guess that doesn't matter because she doesn't agree with it... Guess this is what comes cognitively with relying on delta-6-desaturase to try to mimic a proper diet!

Oh look, the exact same thing I talked about above (multiple times), a very poorly designed study lumping together red meats with processed meats. Whatcha think of the following one from one of the same institutions you tried to claim validated your position above:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/processed-meats-un...

First, who gets their butt cleaned and then says, "hey, make sure you put a picture of me next to what ever comes out." Second, who handles what ever comes out with their bare hands? What kind of sick people are these? lol

This is complete crap. Pun intended.

Now I need to tell you what meat is? " Meat or flesh is any edible part of the striated muscle of an animal. The term 'animal' as herein used, indicates a mammal, a fowl, a fish, a crustacean, a mollusk, or any other animal used as a source of food."
Any vegetarian who eats fish, chicken, or turkey or whatever kind of other bird is sadly confused about the title they appoint themselves;they are not vegetarians. You are right, vegetarians do eat dairy products, good to see you know something, and vegans abstain from all animal derived food, right again. You hardly addressed the Inuit, saying they eat the intestines of their animals who feed on plants. During the winter months(WHEN THEY EAT NO VEGGIES AT ALL) their primary animal of hunt is the walrus which eats only sea organisms,, fish clams...tube worms and seals. No veggies. They get all the nutrients they need from RAW MEAT and TISSUE primarily from the liver and skin.

The Inuit consume a diet of foods that are fished, hunted, and gathered locally. This may include walrus, Ringed Seal, Bearded Seal, beluga whale, caribou, polar bear, muskoxen, birds (including their eggs) and fish. While it is not possible to cultivate plants for food in the Arctic the Inuit have traditionally gathered those that are naturally available. Grasses, tubers, roots, stems, berries, fireweed and seaweed (kuanniq or edible seaweed) were collected and preserved depending on the season and the location.

You have been pwned yet again!

lmfao. Ive been pwned again? you say vegetarians eat fish and chicken, turkey. you sound like a complete idiot (pwned). Then you go around in circles with the INUIT(which I doubt you even knew who they were until I brought them up) (again pwned) the fact is almost all of their calories come from animal fat and protein(yes they eat vegetables and may preserve them but those preserved vegetables are just a small fraction of their diet compared to meat. (pwned) this in turn debunks your argument that eating meat is unhealthy since they are in fact healthy people (pwned) Now, if you want to argue that eating grass fed beef is healthier than corn fed beef then I will agree, but no, you simply said eating meat is unhealthy. (pwned) Hey guys, vegetarians eat chicken fish and turkey, but the dictionary says a vegetarian is an herbivore. Im confused? Eating both plants and FLESH, TISSUE, MEAT whatever, of any kind makes you an OMNIVORE not a herbivore which then makes YOU a NON VEGETARIAN. but oh well, Thank god we have Viercrotcha to shed some light on these misunderstandings lmfao.

Also, . I think it was you who said Iceland was born from no war, exploitation, and violence. You didn't answer back when I easily proved you wrong. HAHAHA still no ideas yet? (PWNED!!!!!)

Yes, dearie, you've been pwned again and again - your ignorance and your presumptions about my person only exacerbate how much and how often you have been pwned.

Sweetheart. the fact that you say vegetarians eat chicken is so hilarious, and now it will live for ever through print. and all you can say is pwned. you have nothing but a debunked argument not to mention you pulled out the platitude of pwned in the first place lmfao, then you flag my comment because it completely clowns you.(dnt even bother denying you didnt either, and as i recall it used no profanity, you just dont want your current clones to see you get absolutely humiliated in verbal warfare.)., hey at least you are a more intelligent person now-you know who the Inuit are!! and what a REAL vegetarian is!! and what the difference is between an omnivore and herbivore is!!
But hey!! still no ideas about another country still? Thats what I thought, thats what I thought. Now, be a good little girl and move along.

Oh you poor deluded and ignorant child! You know full well the reason why I flagged your comment, and it was not because it "completely clowns" me (you don't have the first iota of what it takes to do so). You didn't humiliate me, you humiliated yourself and are making a total fool of yourself. Lastly, I don't take orders from second-rate lackeys like yourself.

Your reply is rather simple minded. Clearly some methods of slaughter are more humane than others. To claim "slaughtering is slaughtering" without distinguishing between a quick, relatively painless death; and a slow, tortuous, painful death, is ignorant and inhumane.

Next time you might want to think before you spew.

God is a figment of your imagination.

Unfortunately, few people use intelligence and thought.

Clearly, this isn't true.

Yes, most first-world nations don't REQUIRE meat to maintain their own survival, but couldn't the same thing be said of practically anything? By this line of reasoning, we should all be living Spartan lifestyles devoid of any luxury that harms something else. Clearly, no one is willing to do that.

Furthermore, there are still plenty of places on the planet that DO need meat for just basic survival and nutrients.

And this notion of sadism is ridiculous. We don't kill and eat animals because we enjoy killing them. Did you forget that you're in a story talking about people developing more humane methods of killing? Why would we even bother if we were all sadists?

Think things through before you make a statement like that.

And I assure you, if you think human beings are "sketchy," you'd probably think most other animals were practically demonic.

The behaviors of other creatures on this planet, most notably predators, are shockingly brutal. Hyenas and lions and other predators murder children to ensure that there's no competition for them. Chimpanzees routinely rip off the testicles of competing males. Wolves often deliberately choose scapegoats in their packs to redirect aggression to.

Human beings are probably the most compassionate animals on the planet.

Don't let your despair of the state of the world blind you to reality.

Lots of good points here. +^d

Animals kill. All the time. That's what we do. Violently most of the time. But recently humans have become aware and want to kill things in a "humane" way. All that means is killing something in a compassionate and merciful way. Well if one had compassion and mercy they probably wouldn't be killing animals in the first place. All we should be worrying about is that the animals live real lives and not caged lives and that they are killed in the quickest way possible. If you really have that much of a problem with the way meat is handled then be a vegetarian.

I think no DEAD is gonna be "as little suffering as possible" unless you are committing suicide you may eager to do it but still you would suffer because you are moron to do that

I like what your saying but I don't agree. If I were to be trapped in a cage my whole life just to be slaughtered for another animal's consumption, I'm not sure if I would mind many of these slaughtering methods. Like the Captive-Bolt Stunning: Seems like a quick and relatively painless way to go. They shoot a bolt threw your head like a bullet and then cut your major arteries and wind pipe. Seems like you'd have about 30 seconds before your completely dead.
What's wrong with that?

The electrocution method is a little more debatable. We all know it's painful by watching prisoners go by electric chair, but it's still "humane" in my opinion. No too violent or bloody. Takes about a minute. Not a terrible way to go. But it's not one that I would choose.

I don't think the issue should be the manner in which we kill livestock, but instead the manner in which we store them. Chickens are kept in a cage for their entire life just to be pulled out and killed and sold. I'm all for free range chickens that roam around until it's their time to go. Thats the way it was done in the olden days on farms and small villages. We can still do it now. The only problem is, that would mean farmers have to buy up new land for the chickens to walk around instead of just getting a warehouse to store them in.

I agree with you, and so I'm not exactly sure what I said that you disagree with.

I meant to communicate, more or less, exactly what you've just said right here.

What did I say that you didn't agree with?

Now that I reread it Idk. I think that I thought you were saying that none of the methods above were a "humane" way to kill something. I got confused and began typing about how the methods above were fine and that you should lighten up. But now I see my error.
We're on the same page now.

maybe a staffer?