Italy bans halal slaughter

[MultaniGuy]

No one knows about suffering when you cut throat or chop from behind but you can certainly avoid mental trauma animal has to go through when cut throat of an animal Infront of its eyes slowly by chopping an unsuspecting animal from behind .. vegetarian is best and our digestive system is built for it ..

It is scientifically proven that Humans are Omnivores. Nice try though.

 

[Roybot]

Oh yes we do. You should go according to your claim. If you are not going to your claim, then we have the right to question your claim.

You can question it all you want, but no one is going to give a toss about your objections.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Let's see how many of you have the guts to condemn this.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...galises-reeducation-camps-for-muslims.581095/

I condemn it, but then again China is a Communist country, so it is their internal affairs.

 

[fitpOsitive]

Our country, our rules

Kicking blacks, ban halal, beat the air, punching the soil, touching the fire... rather then focusing on problems, you guys are just wasting ur remaining time.

 

[MultaniGuy]

You can question it all you want, but no one is going to give a toss about your objections.

Same goes about your opinion about our Political system. No one gives a damn what you think.

 

[Vortex]

We do see. The more extreme anti migrant laws we pass, the more popular our party gets. The people want this.

I was talkng about kosher. Wait and see i told

 

[MultaniGuy]

You can question it all you want, but no one is going to give a toss about your objections.

It's not about caring about what others think, its about living up to your claims. Something which shows your hypocrisy.

 

[zip]

Aoa



Such a fascinating argument.

if you must empathise with the animal, why kill it at all? Why is it that 'killing' must be done at all? If the argument is one must imagine oneself as the animal - then why stop at the method? Why not ask:


If you were an animal, would you rather you were slaughtered humanely so someone could enjoy your meat or would you prefer you weren't killed at all?


...

What option animals have when carnivores are salivating for its meat ?

 

[El Sidd]

@Solomon2

I guess No kosher Salami Pizza.

No soup for you!!!!

 

[zip]

It is scientifically proven that Humans are Omnivores. Nice try though.

Can you provide any facts about our digestive system which prove we should fill our stomach with meat ?

 

[MultaniGuy]

Can you provide any facts about our digestive system which prove we should fill our stomach with meat ?

Here you go:

Sorry Vegans: Here's How Meat-Eating Made Us Human


You know you want it—or at least your brain does

The Washington Post/Getty Images
By JEFFREY KLUGER
March 9, 2016
Science doesn’t give a hoot about your politics. Think global warming is a hoax or that vaccines are dangerous? Doesn’t matter, you’re wrong.

Something similar is true of veganism. Vegans are absolutely right when they say that a plant-based diet can be healthy, varied and exceedingly satisfying, and that—not for nothing—it spares animals from the serial torments of being part of the human food chain. All good so far.

But there’s veganism and then there’s Veganism—the upper case, ideological veganism, the kind that goes beyond diet and lifestyle wisdom to a sort of counterfactual crusade. For this crowd, it has become an article of faith that not only is meat-eating bad for humans, but that it’s always been bad for humans—that we were never meant to eat animal products at all, and that our teeth, facial structure and digestive systems are proof of that.

You see it in Nine Reasons Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You a Meat-Eater; in PETA’s Yes, It’s True: Humans Aren’t Meant to Eat Meat; in Shattering the Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians. (Google “humans aren’t supposed to eat meat” and have at it.)

But sorry, it just ain’t so. As a new study in Nature makes clear, not only did processing and eating meat come naturally to humans, it’s entirely possible that without an early diet that included generous amounts of animal protein, we wouldn’t even have become human—at least not the modern, verbal, intelligent humans we are.

It was about 2.6 million years ago that meat first became a significant part of the pre-human diet, and if Australopithecus had had a forehead to slap it would surely have done so. Being an herbivore was easy—fruits and vegetables don’t run away, after all. But they’re also not terribly calorie-dense. A better alternative were so-called underground storage organs (USOs)—root foods like beets and yams and potatoes. They pack a bigger nutritional wallop, but they’re not terribly tasty—at least not raw—and they’re very hard to chew. According to Harvard University evolutionary biologists Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman, the authors of the Nature paper, proto-humans eating enough root food to stay alive would have had to go through up to 15 million “chewing cycles” a year.

This is where meat stepped—and ran and scurried—in to save the day. Prey that has been killed and then prepared either by slicing, pounding or flaking provides a much more calorie-rich meal with much less chewing than root foods do, boosting nutrient levels overall. (Cooking, which would have made things easier still, did not come into vogue until 500,000 years ago.)

In order to determine how much effort primitive humans saved by eating a diet that included processed animal protein, Zink and Lieberman recruited 24 decidedly modern humans and fed them samples of three kinds of OSU’s (jewel yams, carrots and beets) and one kind of meat (goat, raw, but screened to ensure the absence of any pathogens). Using electromyography sensors, they then measured how much energy the muscles of the head and jaw had to exert to chew and swallow the samples either whole or prepared one of the three ancient ways.

On average, they found that it required from 39% to 46% less force to chew and swallow processed meat than processed root foods. Slicing worked best for meat, not only making it especially easy to chew, but also reducing the size of the individual particles in any swallow, making them more digestible. For OSUs, pounding was best—a delightful fact that one day would lead to the mashed potato. Overall, Zink and Lieberman concluded, a diet that was one-third animal protein and two-thirds OSUs would have saved early humans about two million chews per year—a 13% reduction—meaning a commensurate savings in time and calorie-burning effort just to get dinner down.

That mattered for reasons that went beyond just giving our ancient ancestors a few extra free hours in their days. A brain is a very nutritionally demanding organ, and if you want to grow a big one, eating at least some meat will provide you far more calories with far less effort than a meatless menu will. What’s more, while animal muscle eaten straight from the carcass requires a lot of ripping and tearing—which demands big, sharp teeth and a powerful bite—once we learned to process our meat, we could do away with some of that, developing smaller teeth and a less pronounced and muscular jaw. This, in turn, may have led to other changes in the skull and neck, favoring a larger brain, better thermoregulation and more advanced speech organs.



“Whatever selection pressures favored these shifts,” the researchers wrote, “they would not have been possible without increased meat consumption combined with food processing technology.”

None of that, of course, means that increased meat consumption—or any meat consumption at all—is necessary for the proto-humans’ 21st century descendants. The modern pleasures of a grilled steak or a BLT may well be trumped by the health and environmental benefits of going vegan—and if the animals got a vote, they’d surely agree. But saying no to meat today does not mean that your genes and your history don’t continue to give it a loud and rousing yes.

http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/

Sorry mate, but Humans are Omnivores.

Had humans been Herbivores, then Humans would not be able to digest meat.

 

[IbnAbdullah]

Aoa

What option animals have when carnivores are salivating for its meat ?

I agree. However, my point is that the greater moral question is of killing or not killing an animal. Once you've decided that you will kill, I think the question of zabiha or stun methods are not really the kind you can wag your finger at the other about (in terms of moral high ground).

...

 

[HannibalBarca]

Kicking blacks, ban halal, beat the air, punching the soil, touching the fire... rather then focusing on problems, you guys are just wasting ur remaining time.

Rome created the famous" Gladiator fights" for that same purpose that gov is jumping on those "subjects"...
Giving the people a bone to chew on... and let them far from "National" core problems...

It's Populism 101...

And The Irony in this "Christian country"...is that "modern" slaughter way is against the Catholic liturgy...
But Hey... Ignorance is the key to gain Power...So why not using it...

 

[zip]

Here you go:

Sorry Vegans: Here's How Meat-Eating Made Us Human


You know you want it—or at least your brain does

The Washington Post/Getty Images
By JEFFREY KLUGER
March 9, 2016
Science doesn’t give a hoot about your politics. Think global warming is a hoax or that vaccines are dangerous? Doesn’t matter, you’re wrong.

Something similar is true of veganism. Vegans are absolutely right when they say that a plant-based diet can be healthy, varied and exceedingly satisfying, and that—not for nothing—it spares animals from the serial torments of being part of the human food chain. All good so far.

But there’s veganism and then there’s Veganism—the upper case, ideological veganism, the kind that goes beyond diet and lifestyle wisdom to a sort of counterfactual crusade. For this crowd, it has become an article of faith that not only is meat-eating bad for humans, but that it’s always been bad for humans—that we were never meant to eat animal products at all, and that our teeth, facial structure and digestive systems are proof of that.

You see it in Nine Reasons Your Canine Teeth Don’t Make You a Meat-Eater; in PETA’s Yes, It’s True: Humans Aren’t Meant to Eat Meat; in Shattering the Myth: Humans Are Natural Vegetarians. (Google “humans aren’t supposed to eat meat” and have at it.)

But sorry, it just ain’t so. As a new study in Nature makes clear, not only did processing and eating meat come naturally to humans, it’s entirely possible that without an early diet that included generous amounts of animal protein, we wouldn’t even have become human—at least not the modern, verbal, intelligent humans we are.

It was about 2.6 million years ago that meat first became a significant part of the pre-human diet, and if Australopithecus had had a forehead to slap it would surely have done so. Being an herbivore was easy—fruits and vegetables don’t run away, after all. But they’re also not terribly calorie-dense. A better alternative were so-called underground storage organs (USOs)—root foods like beets and yams and potatoes. They pack a bigger nutritional wallop, but they’re not terribly tasty—at least not raw—and they’re very hard to chew. According to Harvard University evolutionary biologists Katherine Zink and Daniel Lieberman, the authors of the Nature paper, proto-humans eating enough root food to stay alive would have had to go through up to 15 million “chewing cycles” a year.

This is where meat stepped—and ran and scurried—in to save the day. Prey that has been killed and then prepared either by slicing, pounding or flaking provides a much more calorie-rich meal with much less chewing than root foods do, boosting nutrient levels overall. (Cooking, which would have made things easier still, did not come into vogue until 500,000 years ago.)

In order to determine how much effort primitive humans saved by eating a diet that included processed animal protein, Zink and Lieberman recruited 24 decidedly modern humans and fed them samples of three kinds of OSU’s (jewel yams, carrots and beets) and one kind of meat (goat, raw, but screened to ensure the absence of any pathogens). Using electromyography sensors, they then measured how much energy the muscles of the head and jaw had to exert to chew and swallow the samples either whole or prepared one of the three ancient ways.

On average, they found that it required from 39% to 46% less force to chew and swallow processed meat than processed root foods. Slicing worked best for meat, not only making it especially easy to chew, but also reducing the size of the individual particles in any swallow, making them more digestible. For OSUs, pounding was best—a delightful fact that one day would lead to the mashed potato. Overall, Zink and Lieberman concluded, a diet that was one-third animal protein and two-thirds OSUs would have saved early humans about two million chews per year—a 13% reduction—meaning a commensurate savings in time and calorie-burning effort just to get dinner down.

That mattered for reasons that went beyond just giving our ancient ancestors a few extra free hours in their days. A brain is a very nutritionally demanding organ, and if you want to grow a big one, eating at least some meat will provide you far more calories with far less effort than a meatless menu will. What’s more, while animal muscle eaten straight from the carcass requires a lot of ripping and tearing—which demands big, sharp teeth and a powerful bite—once we learned to process our meat, we could do away with some of that, developing smaller teeth and a less pronounced and muscular jaw. This, in turn, may have led to other changes in the skull and neck, favoring a larger brain, better thermoregulation and more advanced speech organs.



“Whatever selection pressures favored these shifts,” the researchers wrote, “they would not have been possible without increased meat consumption combined with food processing technology.”

None of that, of course, means that increased meat consumption—or any meat consumption at all—is necessary for the proto-humans’ 21st century descendants. The modern pleasures of a grilled steak or a BLT may well be trumped by the health and environmental benefits of going vegan—and if the animals got a vote, they’d surely agree. But saying no to meat today does not mean that your genes and your history don’t continue to give it a loud and rousing yes.

http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/

Sorry mate, but Humans are Omnivores.

Had humans been Herbivores, then Humans would not be able to digest meat.

I read that article as if I will get a Yureka moment but sadly it says our ancestors used to eat meat and it's calorific value ..Article concludes going veg is good for health .. Homosapiens must have done so many things that doesn't mean we have to do it ..

 

[MultaniGuy]

I read that article as if I will get a Yureka moment but sadly it says our ancestors used to eat meat and it's calorific value ..Article concludes going veg is good for health .. Homosapiens must have done so many things that doesn't mean we have to do it ..

You fool it doesn't say that.

It says meat processing and digesting comes naturally to humans.

Nice try though.

Physiological Proof That Humans
Are Omnivores


Humans are omnivores. This is not a passed-down oral tradition used to exploit animals… it is a scientific fact supported by extensive evidence. Even famous vegan-promoting blogs like Vegan Biologist and VRG admit that humans are natural omnivores. Anatomically, psychologically, and socially, our very being is one meant to eat meat. Let’s look at some specific examples, and the research behind them, to find out why:

Evolutionary Advancement
Consuming animal products played a crucial role in humans becoming the dominant species on earth.
higher quality protein, gave humans accelerated development in areas such as younger weaning ages, logical processing skills, language, and socialization. Many vegans say that humans are not supposed to eat meat because we cannot consume it raw. The truth is that, originally, we could eat uncooked meat, and would be just fine. However, with the advancements of cooking food, especially by way of fire, our digestive system devolved and became sensitive to now-disease-causing bacteria in raw meat. To anyone who claims this devolution means we should no longer consume meat, I ask you to go to a farm, pick any fruit or vegetable straight from the plant, and eat it without washing it. Bugs, roots, dirt, and all. We used to be able to do that, as well. If your logic states that if we can’t eat a product in its original form, then you shouldn’t be able to eat anything at all.

Sources:
McBroom, Patricia. "Meat-eating Was Essential for Human Evolution, Says UC Berkeley Anthropologist Specializing in
Diet." 06.14.99 - Meat-eating Was Essential for Human Evolution, Says UC Berkeley Anthropologist Specializing in Diet.
University of California at Berkley, 14 June 1999. Web. 26 June 2017.
Milton, Katharine. "The Critical Role Played by Animal Source Foods in Human (Homo) Evolution1,2." The Journal of Nutrition.
The American Society for Nutrition, 01 Nov. 2003. Web. 26 June 2017.
Psouni, Elia, Axel Janke, and Martin Garwicz. "Impact of Carnivory on Human Development and Evolution Revealed by a New
Unifying Model of Weaning in Mammals." PLOS ONE. Public Library of Science, 18 Apr. 2012. Web. 26 June 2017.
Smil, Vaclav. "Should Humans Eat Meat? [Excerpt]." Scientific American. Scientific American, 19 July 2013. Web. 26 June 2017.

Intelligence
The majority of the most intelligent species on Earth are omnivorous. This applies to humans and explains our outstanding reasoning skills that surpass the vast majority of the animal kingdom. For example, dolphins, swine, and, believe it or not, even wolves are species that consume both plant and animal-based foods, resulting in higher cognitive abilities. Even among apes, there is a clear distinction between those that only eat plants, who function at lower levels, and meat-eating types. The very weak vegan argument claiming humans should not eat meat because we do not possess claws or sharp teeth, or cannot keep up with our prey, making us “ineffective” hunters is not applicable because it was our advanced reasoning that enabled us to come up with hunting methods, such as spearing, trapping, and, eventually, shooting animals for food.

Sources:
Bradshaw, John W. S. "The Evolutionary Basis for the Feeding Behavior of Domestic Dogs (Canis Familiaris) and Cats (Felis
Catus)1–3." The Journal of Nutrition. Journal of Nutrition, 01 July 2006. Web. 26 June 2017.
Marino, Lori, and Christina M. Colvin. "Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus
Domesticus." EScholarship. California Digital Library, 2015. Web. 26 June 2017.
Seyfarth, Robert M., and Dorothy L. Cheney. "What Are Big Brains For?" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America. The National Academy of Sciences, 02 Apr. 2002. Web. 26 June 2017.
Eyes
By design, mankind is a hunter, not a prey. For example, like many other animals that hunt such as lions, owls, and wolves, humans have eyes out of the front of their heads. However, most prey animals, which are lower on the trophic levels making them herbivores, have eyes on the sides of their heads to look out for predators. Humans would not have this ability to look straight ahead of ourselves if we weren’t meant to hunt for meat. The shape of our pupils is significant, too. Throughout the animal kingdom, circular pupils typically means animals that hunt for their prey, in contrast to the horizontally elongated pupils that many exclusive herbivores have.
“How to ‘Read’ a Skull: Eye Placement and Size.” SKELETONS: Museum of Osteology (Oklahoma City), SKELETONS: Museum of
Osteology.
“Predator Vs Prey.” Vision Source Specialists - Rapid City, Hot Springs, Phillip Eye Doctors, Vision Specialists, 3 Sept. 2016.
Yang, Sarah. "Hunter or Prey? The Eyes Are the Key." University of California. UC Berkeley, 7 Aug. 2015. Web. 26 June 2017.


Digestive System
Human intestinal length and digestive enzymes are more similar to carnivores than they are to herbivores. Most herbivores actually have cellulosic symbionts, or colonies of bacteria, fungi, or protozoa that live in their stomachs and break down the chemical cellulose from their food. Humans do not have this capability, so we cannot digest cellulose, which, in most cases, is what constitutes as fiber. One reason we cannot digest certain plant materials is that our cecum is not functional, whereas, in legitimate herbivores, the cecum is a very large organ that plays a major role in digestion. Fiber, by definition is any food substance we cannot digest (all of which comes from plant sources), and is beneficial because it cleans out our digestive system and promotes colon health. However, the very fact that we cannot digest fiber when true herbivores can proves we are not meant to be exclusively plant eaters.

Sources:
"Fiber." The Nutrition Source. The President and Fellows of Harvard College, 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 26 June 2017.
"Gastrointestinal Microorganisms and Other Animal Hosts." Gastrointestinal Microorganisms and Other Animal Hosts |
Department of Microbiology. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 26 June 2017.
Jolitz, Stephanie. "Digestive Tract Comparison." Cal Poly Ponoma. Kellogg Honors College Capstone, 2011. Web. 26 June 2017.


Health Outcomes:
As I mentioned in Part 2 of my Complete Debunk of Every What The Health Statistic, if humans were naturally herbivorous, every single human being would be perfectly healthy on a plant-based diet. However, my several-month-long Nutrition Series explained all the ways that each animal product is an essential component to our health, and also all of the negative health effects of a vegan diet. In it, I cited over 100 studies, each of which proved that a balanced omnivorous diet is healthier than even the most well-planned vegan one. From hormonal imbalances, to nutrient deficiencies, to decreased cognitive functions, the data collected from devout vegans proves that we are not meant to survive only on plants.

Some additional sources:
Fischler, Claude, 1988. "Food, Self and Identity." Social Science Information 27:275-293.
Motley, Heath. "Human Are Omnivores - Collection of Papers, Studies and Links." Scribd. Scribd, n.d. Web. 26 June 2017.
Shute, Nancy. "For Most Of Human History, Being An Omnivore Was No Dilemma." NPR. NPR, 20 Apr. 2012. Web. 26 June 2017.
https://farmingtruth.weebly.com/omnivores.html

There are countless articles which say Humans are Omnivores.