One thing I'm upset by is this creeping insistence that food all be halal. Even apples are halal! I promote creating a pork-fat based coating on all fruits and vegetables to counter this halal thing. There needs to be some kickback against this.
Why not all Halal?
Only opposition is based off either traditionalism or petty animal welfare concerns who can't handle enrichment
Don't believe anything the media says and you're much more likely to get the truth.
Your "truth" is what you want to believe in and nothing more.
No - for example during the coverup for the last 15 years with the checki rape gangs, whether you believed in it or not when it all came to light come 2013 there was a truth there that existed independently of whether you believed in it m9
Propose we rename the thread to "Europol REAL Truth Thread: Kebab Can't Melt Braunschweiger!"
I'll go back to now to the Ameripol thread where we're contemplating electing a guy who thinks he can build a giant 3,000 mile wall and get the people he's walling off to pay for it. And that seems sane by comparison.
Keep us noted if Cruz manages to absorb the Eagle's strength by mating with it to challenge the wizard that dwells within the Tower of Trump
You have to get several secondary sources or a few primary sources to get some idea of anything approaching the truth.
Do you know what usually happens when people do this? They invent their own reality. They combine several sources (some of which are bullshit) and adapt it to fit their own believes and ideas.
So is it better to pick one authority and put all your trust in it? That seems silly to me.
One should create mental lists like
95% level of trust
80% level of trust
66% level of trust
10% level of trust
5% level of trust
0% level of trust
If several independent 95% sources claim something - it is true\very likely to be true. If 95% source claim one thing, and 5% source claim another, then you should stick with 95%
Not go "everyone lies" and read just everything and try to make a "truth" out of it. Your brain will create patterns that fit your mentality.
Having one authority is bad, having no authorities is much worse.
Such mental lists is retarded and prone to abuse, having one authority is objectively worse than having no authorities - with none, information battles it out on the free mediums, whilst with one authority you get one narrative controlled with more ease by one power.
Just look at things on a case by case basis. For example I consider Al Jazeera, BBC, Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph e.t.c. to be respectable and reliable, yet I would not for a moment take them for granted as being implacable, incorruptible, impartial bastions of truth.
I think now of all times we can see where even supposedly respectable and trustworthy "sources" are never a viable substitute for primary sources and your own scrutiny. Consider the new year checki bants in Sweden and Germany only coming to light when independent bloggers forced the media and police to actually report on the mad damn bants.
My main problem is how inhumane halal slaughters are compared to how it's normally done. They're really horrible.
One thing to note is that halal is at its core the slitting of the animal's throat with the animal unaware of its approaching death (so it can't see the knife or signs of previous slaughter). It's not as humane as boltguns, it's still second best. Much of the uproar over
inhumane halal abattoirs have actually done things that make them haram, such as kicking the animal in the face or showing them the knife. Teaching these butchers how to actually perform a proper halal slaughtering would be more ethical, though I suppose teaching them how to use a boltgun would also do the trick.
EDIT*
Staff laughing over a sheep bleeding to death with spectacles drawn around its eyes in green paint.
Just saying this is not exactly how to properly conduct a halal slaughter