nopeand i'm not revealing why - there is a point beind it all.
Why? its amusing winding people up who take things seriously
![]()
(i'll say it again. Our rules are better. I hope you dont have the nerve to deny that after this. I really do xd)
In 2004, President Pervez Musharraf outlawed the practice, known as "honor killings" – violations of the law carry the death penalty.
(i'll say it again. Our rules are better. I hope you dont have the nerve to deny that after this. I really do xd)
i think you missed this bit
in summary it shows that what they did is against the law in that country.
it would also be illegal in the western world.
to conclude, the law is the same as ours.
I think its worth noting that Musharraf is a puppet of the west. --> western values making the country better. Thanks for proving my point
Anyways, theres still alot of political support for that.
edit for golena: That argument was so weak that im not going to dignify it with an answer.
i think you missed this bit
in summary it shows that what they did is against the law in that country.
it would also be illegal in the western world.
to conclude, the law is the same as ours.
That argument was so weak that im not going to dignify it with an answer.
thats why their law is the same as our law now. And their law is the same as our law because they realised that its better.
I let you off too easily on this one.
pc as tohtori and the rest of you
Had these human rights activists been as cowardly and pc as tohtori and the rest of you these animals would still be killing their women for standing up for their rights.
Not condemning things that are wrong is a cowardly act. And this proves it.
.....(i'll say it again. Our rules are better.
Are you a vegetarian?
If not why are we right about this, but vegetarians are incorrect when they say killing animals for food is wrong?
Now if you believe that we are in any way more important than a cow or that killing a cow isn't as bad as killing a human then you've stepped outside science and are pretty much entirely relying on religious beliefs here. You could argue it from a genetics standpoint maybe, but that also states we should kill off weaker members of the species so your not going to get far by doing that are you.
Is not condeming McDonalds for killing cows also a cowardly act?
Now why should they listen to you about our views when your not listening to the vegetarian about his?
who is pc?
or are you just calling names now because people are arguing oposing points?
i never said which side i believe, as its not relevant. im just arguing the oposing point.
Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tony Martin (farmer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
If i want to pick on cases where i think the law sucks in a country its easy.
BUT WE DONT ADVOCATE IT FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
Killing animals is wrong for food (in other words, entermainment, which is what it is) is wrong.
Killing animals is wrong?
Science tells us pretty much exactly the opposite, which is that we were designed to kill and eat animals.
That means your descision here can only possibly be based off a RELIGIOUS belief. NOTHING else.
Now why is that religious belief something you support and would vote for but someone else's religious belief is obviously wrong? What makes your belief right? You're just as much a religious fanatic as the people your criticising here.
I fully expect some bullshit answer or a changing of the subject here but i'll ask anyway.
Why is that a religious belief? I have none. Its the result of my inability to come up with a moral excuse to kill animals because i like eating them.
So you bring morals to animals?
Which, makes them as humans.
Yet you say our culture is more civilized, when you condemn killing animals, and we do it daily, in THOUSANDS.
You eat meat, but say you'd want it banned.
Like said, you're a hypocrite and more dangerous thinker then the terrorists 'cause you're the kind of people who do what they want, preach about everything on the off-chance they are right ONCE and possibly would condone the death of a billion people just to rid of religion 'cause "i don't like it".
Hell, atleast al-qaida have some consistency.
Ok Gorbo, your the new president of the USA.
Please tell us all how your going to intervene & stop this guy being executed, without anyone else being killed.
The changing of religious beliefs takes 100s of years, unless you use brute military force. The only way your gonna change the laws, is if you ship in 500,000 extra troops and make sure they follow our wubbly western laws hey ?
The islamic world fell into decline when they shunned the printing press in the 16th - its taken us this long to become the shining example you seem to think we are.
I view it as religious because it implies that animals are more than simply moving bonds of protein. That killing the animal actually in some way hurts it instead of simply changing the state of some matter in the universe.
It doesn't fit into a specific religion maybe, but religion is usually about creatures (humans/animals) being more than simply blobs of matter reacting in a set fashion to stimulus.
Scientifically a cow or a human isn't really different to the cold you tried to kill last year with beechams. It's just followed a different evolutionary path and possibly isn't as evolved as us. Killing humans is considered worse because there's "something" else about us other than simply our matter that's more important, which is why I view your belief that killing animals is wrong but eating plants isn't (or would you also vote that we didn't eat vegetables?) as you believing that there's something about an animal that differs from the plant.
Now if you can't explain what that is without stepping outside the bounds of known science then your doing exactly what everyone who believes in a religion is doing.