Morrissey is a cunt

Absolute nonsense. The sources I have cited demonstrate that a great deal of effort has been put into understanding the stress caused by non-stun slaughter and then formulating a policy based upon that. If you actually bothered to check out the websites of these organisations you would know this.

Tell me, what information provided by these groups do you actually find sketchy at best? Do you mean sketchy as opposed to the scientifically verifiable information contained in the religious texts which support non-stun?

And why do you persist with the childish misquoting of me? Do you genuinely believe it actually adds to the debate?

 

I didn't know such a thing existed but sure as anything, when something is branded "luxury" it is never luxury

 

My chicken sandwichs are Luxury,but i would still sacrifice one to put down that *'s mouth,if i was hungry i would be literally crying with laughter

 

You're gonna have to run that "scientifically verifiable" information past me again, cause all I remember was an unsourced quote from a charity mostly known for taking injured sparrows from people's gardens and tossing them in the bin (with a quote from their website saying, "this is all dead scientific, honest" - granted).

 

Again, you have completely misrepresented the RSCPA. All of these groups have a clear position on animal slaughter and reports on the impact of non-stun are easily accessible online.

Of course, the non-stun issue is only a small part of the works they carry out and I am doubtful that you would even consider refuting any of their policies if there wasn't a religious element to it.

Again, give me just one example of a policy supported by these groups which you believe to be wrong and the reasons that you think as such. And what reason would any of these groups have to fabricate the position they take?

 

You're the one beating the dead horse here mate. Pure pounding some wee soundbite fae the RSPCA cause you think repeating yourself over and over again will make it true.

And once again, you're asking me to prove your claims aren't true, rather than providing proper evidence yourself. Ridiculous.

You take * ages to reply as well. I'm not gonna sit on my phone all week replying to some wee moron on a Celtic forum just because he's got a hard on for bashing halal food. Away and message Tommy Robinson, I'm sure he'll entertain you. In fact he's probably the one you get your 'facts' from anyway.

 

No, you claimed the sources were sketchy - I am asking you which ones (that you obviously read to make the claim) you think are sketchy. I've given you the websites that these groups present their findings on, go and read them.

As for the Tommy Robinson gambit, pathetic. You are the one that is supporting the idea that religion be allowed certain exemptions from the law, I am the one advocating a one-law-for-all approach, an approach that treats everyone as equal under the law. In my experience, those who prefer a religious approach to the law are more often than not a product of far right politics.

If the best you can muster is to revert to childish name calling, I suggest you go away and learn how to debate like an *. Otherwise, showing that you find a sexual connection with religious animal slaughter will come across as very disturbing indeed.

 

*??

So halal meat is now a sexual fetish? Take it that's another one of your "scientifically verifiable" facts.

The mask's slipped now. That's a line right out the Tommy Robinson handbook. Typical anti-Muslim pish.

Away back to yer EDL forums dumpling heid.

 

All I've tried to do is demonstrate that the same bodies we look to for guidance on every other element of animal treatment are the ones that argue against non-stun exemptions based on scientific research.

You've done little more than trivialise the issue and try to prove your infantile points by selectively quoting posts and failing to back up statements you made.

You are the one who has brought hard ons, Tommy Robinson and the EDL into the thread, instead of being able to debate like an *. Though they do say, stick to what you know.

I am not familiar with this Tommy Robinson handbook you refer to - when did you get it?

And the idea that you would equate fair treatment for all under the law as "anti-Muslim pish" demonstrates a deeply twisted outlook indeed.

If you want to debate like an *, fine, if you want to revert to this childish need to vilify me in order to obfuscate the matter, carry on showing yourself up.

 

Simmer down dumpling heid.

Conveniently backtracking on the anti-Muslim slur already? Pathetic.

If you're going to be a troll and a bigot then just own it. Don't be a snivelling wee coward about it.

You've already cracked open your big can of EDL patter, don't try and go back to pretending there's a pseudo-scientific reasoning behind you're massive support for animal welfare (which just so happens to begin and end with "get halal chickens out muh country).

Don't pretend you're having an * debate, when after being pressed for the evidence behind your "scientifically proven" soundbite all you can do is claim people who eat halal meat do so because they get sexual pleasure from how the animals are killed.

Just admit it the truth, that among racist and pro-ethnic Brit groups you like to circulate an unsourced quote with the names of a couple of organisations (who have a very loose connection to anything scientific) attached to it, because you think it provides a concrete reasoning for you racist and anti-Muslim viewpoints.

You and your wee racist chums then trawl internet forums waiting for something about halal to pop up so you can go "here it is - proof that halal slaughter is cruel while our proud white British slaughter is equivalent to sending those pigs for a fortnight in Benidorm". You're pathetic.

It's like when the huns find a quote from Uefa which mentions something about Rangers from pre-2012 and the bang on about it like its evidence that the didn't sit there with their thumbs up their arses while their club died.

* you and your hunnish behaviour, your fake support for animal welfare, your half-baked psuedo-scientific reasoning for your anti-Muslim opinions, and your frankly-*-autistic method of debate.

And * the RSPCA anawl.

 

I love him, to be honest.

 

You're coming across as a complete * Mick!

A forum wind-up or a deliberately provocative posting is one thing, but you've gone so far over the top with this that you're doing little else but confirming you're a bit of a *.

HoopSprings has been perfectly polite. You however are acting like a tool. Your ramblings about him being 'hunnish, 'anti-muslim', and 'autistic', based on his passion to defend animal-rights is just plain * bizarre. Get this - you can be critical of the kosher / halal slaughter method without being a 'Hun', 'anti-muslim', or 'autistic'.

Seems you're trying to win a non-existant argument by hysterically calling-out non-existant behaviours. Someone else does that, but on the other side of the spectrum... he is called Tommy Robinson. Seems you and that moron have your similarities - both grubby roasters.

I'm out. Have fun! x

 

Likewise.

 

Cut out thee personal insults in this thread. Any more and those responsible will be facing warnings/bans. You have been warned.

 

Can we still call Morrisey a weird *??

 

Reported.

 

Morrisey you big halal *

 

I bets ye that * has.a.daisy instead of a *