I was more skeptical about conservatives suddenly affecting a deep concern for the treatment of livestock. Usually they're the ones telling animal rights people to give it a rest.
Honestly, the concern is not deep, I give little thought to animal welfare; least of all for animals destined for the dinner plate. I do however have a deep respect for them, and I do believe more people should understand and be thankful for what had to die in order to feed them, if you haven't killed your food before or seen a slaughter meat is just meat, but after that it's much more meaningful.
I also find we should treat cows better, though that's just some Hindu influence from childhood (I am quite biased for cows), I believe we should get rid of cosmetic testing on animals (but medical is completely fine) and I think if we're going to slaughter animals in such large numbers we should do them the courtesy of making death swift.
What madness is this
I find myself in agreement with you. Probably because I'm tired so it's harder for my brain to make reasoning errors without telling me about it. Also probably because I give fewer pats about cow suffering than I do about human suffering. Or something.
But also because ease/capability of affecting halal/Jewish animal slaughter to be more human or whatever or reduce amount is somewhat more easily accomplished than reducing failure rates. I would not consider saying it would be twenty times easier to be an exaggeration.
Numbers helps too, probably. Oh! And simple solution proposed.
This is the only way I can rationalize my possibly actually being convinced of something on the Internet forums where I come to try and be convinced of things.
2016 is the year for rarities it seems. I don't think there's a lot of people who place animal suffering above human suffering (I've only ever met one person to do so, and she was completely bonkers) but this is a really quick and easy solution, that does not even violate kosher or halal principles ;
D
Very rare is it to find a solution that literally keeps everyone happy
A few months ago I would have agreed with you. Then these stories (English) started surfacing, and it turned out that the sources I had dismissed out of hand as "obscure, questionable and highly biased" had been the ones telling the truth all along.
I must admit I don't like the way things turned out, it was a thoroughly unsettling shaking of everything we knew and took for granted.
For that matter, some historians argue that the only reason Europe isn't Islamic today is because Charles Martel pushed back the Umayyad caliphate in the Battle of Tours (AD 732).
Well duh, then you've got the endless slave raids on Russians, Poles and Ukrainians up until the Cossacks finally BTFO the Crimeans, or the Barbary Corsair raids that depopulated the French and Spanish coast, the Balkan slavery or East African Arab slave trade, or the cheeki genocidal run through India. The Ottomans also kinda fucked up when they abandoned their last siege of Vienna, they reasoned they had been the undisputed power for so long they could just come back any time they wanted to complete their conquest of Europe, only by then the European powers had industrialized.
Also, almost every ideology is inherently violent against most other ideologies. Islam today is pretty mild in comparison to the world-shattering crusade that Christians have pulled just a couple of centuries ago, enslaving and killing dozens of millions of people on its way of supremacy. Hell, even the traditionally portrayed as "peaceful" ideologies - like Buddhism - are not free of violence in the name of ideology. So that question is not "real", it's just stupid.
There is a profound difference between a religion started by a Carpenter and a religion started by a Statesman, I find it quite interesting how short term solutions that were put in effect by Muhammed or the Rashidun Caliphate turned out to not be so short term, creating the precedence for Jihad as invasion, the notion of the infidel being against God, apostasy warranting death, special taxes for the people of the book
There is a big difference between an ideology used for violence and one which has uses of violence by design