- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
“My food needs to be slaughtered using an ancient method that causes tremendous pain to the animal I’m going to eat before I’m allowed to eat it”
Why are religious people seen as sane?
Have you ever been in a jiu jitsu class and gotten choked ?
I don’t understand the question.
Have I ever been choked out? Absolutely.
Have I ever had my throat slit and dealt with that pain and adrenaline keeping me conscious up until there’s not enough blood in my body to stay conscious? Obviously not.
My point is we have instantaneous ways of killing animals yet for some dumbass ancient religious traditions certain people need their food to suffer.
Australia stun the animal before the halal slaughter.
Modern technology allows for this.
But in more rural areas how would you like the animal to be slaugtered humanely ? Bludgeoned to death ?
Regadring the choke out point, getting head locked will quickly knock you unconcious, so I imagine once the bood is cut off the same should happen to the animal.
Insects above shrimp, lobster, and vegatables. Quite the interesting tastiness scale.
The author really despises Jell-O lol.
But scorpion, a type of
insectbug, at the bottom of the tastiness scale??scorpion, a type of insect
Nope.
Scorpions are arachnids.
Something to note is that in the Quran god mentions that if you’re starving then none of the rules apply and you can eat anything you need to. The dietary rules seem to function moreso as a test of dedication rather than a inviolable rule.
It goes further than that. If you’re away from home and in a place where halal is not available, or you are a guest in someone’s home and it was not reasonable for you to bring your own food, then eating anything is halal. And even without these things, there is ritual cleansing.
Intent matters.
Like there was an intense controversy in Malaysia a few years ago where a traveling “show” called “I Want To Touch A Dog” allowed Malay Muslims to come, touch a cute dog, and then quickly perform 7 ritual cleansing steps. The argument centred on the intent - driving to a place to touch a dog shows an intent to break the rule, and might even invalidate the cleansing.
All mumbo jumbo of course but it’s interesting at least.
you can touch and pet a dog, but slobbering over you yes you need to do the ritual thing.
Owning a dog is only permissible for guard and shepherding.
Also the trade of anything with canines is not allowed only adoption (cats and dogs) This was propably to prevent puppy and cat mills which are notoriously horrific.
That’s super interesting. Honestly I found it fascinating just how chill god was in the quran about a lot of things that i figured were hardline rules. The haj, Ramadan, the prayers all had plenty of exceptions allowed… Its just unfortunate how very not chill god goes on to be about topics like women, slavery, and non-believers etc…
It is because “god” is very chill about sins that the religious leadership would often commit.
Then not chill about everyone’s rights to stand up to, and impact the wealth, power, and influence of the religious leaders.
Funny little coincidence there. Almost like the rules skew to the benefit of those who wrote them “by the will of god.”
AFAIK, the first part of your answer is correct, the second part I don’t think so. There are some laws in Islam that came down with some of the reasoning behind the prohibition including pig meat being essentially unclean.
The whole infographic is called into question by calling prawns only ok.
It seems to me that people who follow kosher and halal dietary restrictions should move to the areas surrounding Yellowstone (Idaho, Wyoming and Montana).
what’s the debate over Giant Nasty Dumpling?
How did you know my college nickname?
Oh it’s not a dumpling. It’s jell-o. It’s debated coz majority of those are made with some sort of pork byproduct.
Apparently if someone genetically engineered a potato with pig genes (to make it extra tasty when roasted, presumably), it would be one but not the other, due to philosophical differences between Judaism and Islam.
Which one (not) and on what philosophical grounds ?
I don’t remember which one, but apparently the question of whether the genetics of a species define its nature for religious reasons is where Judaism and Islam diverge. One would hold that, if no actual pigs were involved, a potato with pig genes is just a potato and thus allowed, and the other would hold that the pig genes make it sufficiently porcine to be forbidden.
How is the bear not bearable?!
It is, but only bearly.
There are factually incorrect assertions in this infographic, subjective tastiness scale aside.
Yeah there is definitely some strangeness going on since most Muslims consider all seafood halal
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/1919/is-all-seafood-halal
You can find other references, maybe Shia Muslims ban shellfish, I’m not sure but it’s certainly not the dominant sect of Islam.
Which one(s)?
Elk, shrimp, lobster are halal
For Shia Muslims lobster and other shellfish is strictly haram. Some other groups consider seafood halal.
Missing a lot of “debatable” astrixes at the very least.
Well for one, human is way better than just “average.”
Kosher is RED and halal is BLUE. And not-kosher has RED icons and not-halal has BLUE icons. And it’s Information is Beautiful…
How do we know what surf shorts guys taste like?
The stupidity of that cult never ends
Wow, meat eaters are really, really, really stupid…
Shrimps are “meh”?
Common!
I am sorry but this form of religion is so postfactical it hurts.
Especially it being respected today. Guys! We are not in the middle ages anymore!
Eating bugs is good for the climate… at least as a vegan that doesnt really matter.
Hmm. Redit is blocking my VPN access. I’m shocked. Shocked I tell you.
