Londonistan, Eurabia

[Jokodo]

Yes, sure. But you can't blame other people for not sharing your preferences.

I don't blame anyone, but I do blame religion.

It doesn't make any difference to you whether the reason other costumers' demands are different from yours are religious, purely cultural, or whatever else: If people want to make sure that their food hasn't touched any pork, they'll create a demand for eateries that don't sell pork whether their reason is that they consider it a sin, or that the idea of the knife that cuts their turkey stake having previously cut ham is as appalling to them as the idea of a cockroach having crawled across the ham is to you for purely cultural reasons, or a biological difference in their taste-buds/scent receptors makes them actually faint from the mere smell of ham.

I don't know what you mean: the reason something is no longer available on the market matters, if only in a moral sense.

I can envision a world far in the future where cage eggs might be considered so morally repulsive that there is simply no market for them. But the people avoiding cage eggs now are (generally) doing it for a good reason: cage eggs cause unnecessary suffering compared to eggs produced without birds locked in tiny cages. The consciences of the egg eaters are assuaged, but the suffering of millions of birds is actually reduced.

Eating halal meat over haram meat might assuage the conscience of Muslims, but their beliefs are delusional. They'd be better off, and the world would be better off, if they did not have such deluded beliefs.

Then don't compare it to free range eggs (not really a valid comparison anyway), compare it to something you (or at least a majority of people in your culture) wouldn't eat for no rational reason. Say, horse meat, or fried insects. The world is not becoming a better place by people in English speaking countries not eating horse (no, don't start to argue that eating horse is repugnant because they're such intelligent, sentient animals - pigs are more intelligent; and don't try with the fact that horses are less efficicient plant-matter-to-meat converters than pigs - it's probably true, but by that logic you should go poultry only, or better yet vegan).

To repeat: For someone who thinks life is much worse without product X, it is an inconvenience if product X becomes harder to come by because of other consumers' mismatching preferences. How those other consumers rationalise those preferences doesn't make it any better or worse, and telling off Muslims for prefering to eat halal is no more rational, or less egocentric, than telling off native-born Britons for not buying enough horse meat or fried locusts for British mainstream supermarkets to carry those products.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Oh no. I've read all I care to read on the subject and am not convinced in the least.

Statements like this usually mean the poster has read very little and is afraid to question their beliefs.

Minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

First off, 85% eat pork? Where did you get this number? And why is eating pork so important*? And why would they demand it be put on a menu? Have you ever went down to and demanded pork be put on the menu of a restaurant?

The Subways in question are not dictating anything to anyone. Just like a vegetarian restaurant that does not serve pork and is not dictating to anyone. Just like a sushi bar that does not serve pork and isn't dictating to anybody. Just like a creamery that does not serve pork and isn't dictating to anybody. Just like a seafood restaurant that does not serve pork and isn't dictating to anybody. They have these things called "menus", and you can eat what is on the menu or ask for something that is not on it but if they refuse, that is their business not Sharia Law oppressing Porky.

The outrage over the Subways is just simple fear mongering.

*Members of the Pork Counsel: don't answer this.

 

[Metaphor]

Then don't compare it to free range eggs (not really a valid comparison anyway), compare it to something you (or at least a majority of people in your culture) wouldn't eat for no rational reason. Say, horse meat, or fried insects.

I already do. A lot of jokes are made at the expense of South Koreans and their consumption of dog meat, by non-vegetarians in the West. If the topic comes up for some reason, I always point out how irrational these people are to believe cow meat is somehow not ridiculous to eat but dog meat is ridiculous. If I tried dog meat and I thought it was delicious, I would lament too that I lived in a culture where it was not widely available.

The world is not becoming a better place by people in English speaking countries not eating horse (no, don't start to argue that eating horse is repugnant because they're such intelligent, sentient animals - pigs are more intelligent; and don't try with the fact that horses are less efficicient plant-matter-to-meat converters than pigs - it's probably true, but by that logic you should go poultry only, or better yet vegan).

Please ascribe to me only arguments I've made or agree with.

To repeat: For someone who thinks life is much worse without product X, it is an inconvenience if product X becomes harder to come by because of other consumers' mismatching preferences. How those other consumers rationalise those preferences doesn't make it any better or worse, and telling off Muslims for prefering to eat halal is no more rational, or less egocentric, than telling off native-born Britons for not buying enough horse meat or fried locusts for British mainstream supermarkets to carry those products.

Huh? Who is 'telling off' anyone? Why is pointing out that deluded religious beliefs harm the people who believe them as well as raise the cost for non-believers 'telling off'?

You can't really believe that the world would not be better off if the deluded were suddenly free of their delusions?!

 

[Warpoet]

Why on earth is this thread still going?

Still waiting for any of the people sounding the alarm (read: grinding the axe) about this to explain why they don't give two fucks that the Kosher equivalent has existed for years.

But then, I think we all know the reason.

 

[Deepak]

Why on earth is this thread still going?

Still waiting for any of the people sounding the alarm (read: grinding the axe) about this to explain why they don't give two fucks that the Kosher equivalent has existed for years.

But then, I think we all know the reason.

Because the Subway halal meat, which totally isn't even technically halal, is inhumanely slaughtered.

Sorry I'm having difficulty thinking of a good quip on account of my crippling vitamin bacon deficiency.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why on earth is this thread still going?

I assume we're waiting for Derec to identify who said it would be impossible to have dual-menu outlets.

Or for angelo to explain why stunned-yet-alive-and-halal is more inhumane than stunned-cow slaughter without the butcher praying.

One of those, surely.

 

[Jokodo]

I already do. A lot of jokes are made at the expense of South Koreans and their consumption of dog meat, by non-vegetarians in the West. If the topic comes up for some reason, I always point out how irrational these people are to believe cow meat is somehow not ridiculous to eat but dog meat is ridiculous. If I tried dog meat and I thought it was delicious, I would lament too that I lived in a culture where it was not widely available.

The world is not becoming a better place by people in English speaking countries not eating horse (no, don't start to argue that eating horse is repugnant because they're such intelligent, sentient animals - pigs are more intelligent; and don't try with the fact that horses are less efficicient plant-matter-to-meat converters than pigs - it's probably true, but by that logic you should go poultry only, or better yet vegan).

Please ascribe to me only arguments I've made or agree with.

To repeat: For someone who thinks life is much worse without product X, it is an inconvenience if product X becomes harder to come by because of other consumers' mismatching preferences. How those other consumers rationalise those preferences doesn't make it any better or worse, and telling off Muslims for prefering to eat halal is no more rational, or less egocentric, than telling off native-born Britons for not buying enough horse meat or fried locusts for British mainstream supermarkets to carry those products.

Huh? Who is 'telling off' anyone? Why is pointing out that deluded religious beliefs harm the people who believe them as well as raise the cost for non-believers 'telling off'?

You can't really believe that the world would not be better off if the deluded were suddenly free of their delusions?!

The world would be a better place if the deluded were free of their delusions, but the fact that people's culinary choices impact food markets isn't going to go away for it, and thus doesn't serve as an illustration thereof.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Oh no. I've read all I care to read on the subject and am not convinced in the least. Minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

Your reading of "all you care to read on the subject" does not appear to have included the following and documented in this thread information :

1) Regarding your claim that the animal is not halal if stunned prior to the slaughter, it was documented that your claim is invalid.

2) Regarding the case discussed in the OP which clearly mentions Subway, you have provided NO support whatsoever to any claim that the halal meat Subway uses comes from halal slaughter houses which do not stun the animal prior to slaughter.

3) Based on the 2 above, one has to wonder about your "concern" regarding the welfare of animals slaughtered in halal slaughter houses which use stunning prior to the dhahiba and are suppliers to Subway throughout its 200 locations out of over 1700 locations in the UK and Ireland.

4) Your conclusion that " minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it" does not apply to the specific presented case in the OP(again Subway) since the majority still has access to over 1500 Subway locations which will serve pork products and non halal products. While the minority has now access to 200 halal Subway locations versus none prior to Subway accommodating the minority dietary needs. Such accommodation does not result in depriving the majority from consuming non halal and pork products under the claim that it "dictates" to them "what to eat and how to eat it" since they are free to consume pork and non halal products in over 1500 Subway locations.

Nothing you have stated in this thread "boils down" to anything rationally constructed especially in view of repeated claims on your part which were demonstrated to be gross misinformation. To add the irrational aspect of launching into inflammatory comments targeting Warpoet earlier on. A tad of civility on your part would have triggered retracting your attributing to Warpoet the motive of being "okay" with FGM, stoning adulterers, flogging rape victims, marriage between a child and an adult male etc....

 

[Jayjay]

If I really cared about humane treatment of animals, I'd be a vegetarian. My main gripe is that if I had to buy Halal meat as opposed to regular meat I'd be subsidizing the crackpot medicine man who executes the ritual slaughtering while reciting a magic spell.

 

[The Paul]

Concern for animal welfare who some disregard in case it offends some minority. That is my gripe!

Look. It's trivially easy for anyone to see that if your gripe were concern for animal welfare then you wouldn't be posting a bunch of rants about imaginary slaughter practices (as imaginary practices can not harm real animals that actually exist). You'd be far to busy addressing real things that actually happen to threaten or harm animals. But you clearly are posting a bunch of rants about imaginary slaughter practices. So it's simple for everyone present to conclude that no, your gripe has nothing to do with the treatment of animals.

And since you won't say what it really is, everyone is left wondering and drawing their own conclusions.

Any guesses as to what sorts of conclusions might be drawn?

 

[PyramidHead]

On top of that, a real concern for animal welfare would prompt most people to avoid factory-farmed meat, if not meat in general. Smells like a fishy red herring to me.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Something is haram in the state of Denmark...?

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, a total of 12 Kosher Subway outlets opened in the US. Five in NYC. Those five are closed, now. All but five of the Kosher outlets are closed.

Problems include that they never got any advertising from the main office; they were (in NYC) competing with a LOT of Kosher establishments, esp. delis; higher costs, and not open on Saturdays.

The fact that they closed tends to say, to me, that it was a money decision. If Subway Corporate was somehow coerced into the openings, they'd be afraid to close them even if they were taking a loss.

With nearly 200 stores, instead of 12, in a much smaller area, i would hope that they'd have more opportunities for advertising, or that the main office would see an advantage in springing for some of the advertising.

Ultimately, though, we'll just have to see where they stand in six years (the Kosher outlets started opening in 2008). If they're kept open, even while losing money, then clearly it's a fear-of-reprisal thing. If they're closed while losing money, it's definitely a business decision. If they're kept open while making profits, then it's hard to be sure either way, but not inconsistent with a supply and demand business stance on the matter.
And if more stores open wiht halal-only menus, it's clearly a terrorist threat to dominate the fast food industry.

 

[RavenSky]

Oh no. I've read all I care to read on the subject and am not convinced in the least. Minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

So you are equally outraged by every restaurant with a focused menu? You are outraged by restaurants that serve only Greek food or only Chinese food too?

No one "dictated" to anyone what to eat or how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a niche market just as every ethic/specialized restaurant does, but that in no way restricts you from also eating Greek, Chinese or Halal if you want.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I assume you mean ethnic, although a vegan eatery may be an ethic restaurant...

 

[Selsaral]

This thread....

 

[angelo]

Oh no. I've read all I care to read on the subject and am not convinced in the least. Minorities have no right to dictate to the majority what to eat and how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a what, 15% minority? But ignoring the 85% of the majority who do eat pork. That's what it boils down to.

So you are equally outraged by every restaurant with a focused menu? You are outraged by restaurants that serve only Greek food or only Chinese food too?

No one "dictated" to anyone what to eat or how to eat it. The Subway in question is catering to a niche market just as every ethic/specialized restaurant does, but that in no way restricts you from also eating Greek, Chinese or Halal if you want.

I'm "outraged" when religion starts to dictate what I can and can't eat. I'm outraged that religion may be used as a tool to garner new business. I'm especially outraged when animal welfare takes a back seat to religious custom.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm "outraged" when religion starts to dictate what I can and can't eat.

So, you're outraged by Prohibition, but not by some restaurants here and there going Kosher halal?

I'm outraged that religion may be used as a tool to garner new business.

For fuck's sake, why?
If someone's going to spend their money, not on the best product/service available, but on the one where the salesman wears a Cross, a Star of David, or carries a prayer rug, exactly BECAUSE of the cross, star or rug, they get what they deserve. If someone's going to pick a church to go to because the congregation is a better demographic for his business, that's his freedom.
Why is a religion-friendly business any different than one that makes sure the clerks speak English and Korean, in or near a Korean neighborhood?

I'm especially outraged when animal welfare takes a back seat to religious custom.

So why are you angry about the Subway change?

 

[angelo]

Subway is an example. Not sure about where you live, but here this halal bullshit is getting a little out of hand. I want to make sure that the steak I pick up at the supermarket is not halal. A meat packer from one establishment said that this particular store to appease moslems is selling halal meat and not labelling it as such.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Subway is an example.

An example? Of using religion to get new business? That outrages you?
It's sure not doing anything else listed in your post...

I want to make sure that the steak I pick up at the supermarket is not halal.

Does this include stunned-before-slaughter halal meat?

A meat packer from one establishment said that this particular store to appease moslems is selling halal meat and not labelling it as such.

Why in the fuck would they do that?
What is the POINT of paying someone to keep the meat halal, of paying to keep the slaughterhouse compliant, and then not making sure Muslim consumers know that their meat is halal? That makes zero sense.
Sounds like a bullshit conspiracy claim to me. In what sort of world does a business increase costs without seeing a direct benefit on their bottom line?