Racist UK Government to Ban Eating Dog Meat

 

The Prime Minister has been warned by an international canine group that rising immigration has caused a spike in the consumption of dog meat in the UK.

Under current laws it is legal to kill and eat dogs in Britain, but the World Dog Alliance is calling for a full ban on any interaction with dog meat and will launch a nationwide campaign in the autumn.
“With three million immigrants from East Asia in the UK, we cannot deny this situation exists here too”.
“We also believe legislation against dog meat in UK would provide us with strength to continue our work in Asia, as the UK could influence other countries to stop dog meat consumption.
 

Sounds like you need Piggy Powder. One tablespoon contains a minimum of 10,000 swine.

I thought about making this stuff after buying a ham and sald sandwich for a jew not knowing he couldn't eat it and he said loudly . YOU KNOW I CAN'T EAT THAT.  This annoyed me.

This Jewish person was my boss of 20 years after that and a trully great person

Now this is going to sound bad but back then i was bad . So i was able to sneak bacon product on three jewish peoples lunches on several occasions.  

The first time i fed a jew ham i ummmm kept a cloes eye on him that day thinking maybe like he was going to melt. 

What a shlt i was.  His since passed , and ive bad morals so i occasionally very rarely say to myself, I doubt you could get to heaven with that much pork in his belly. 

Heaven entrence requirements #341  ( total pork consumption ) 

Now Stephen, to address this post,  and stay on toipc so to speak. 

Eating dogs i know nothing about this. And have only viewed your link only on the topic. 

But killing animals by a slit to their throat.. maybe when this was written they use to kill animals by kicking them to death or butchering them slowly and to make it more humane on the poor little animals a slit to the throat was considered quick.

But this is not the case so ..

To kill animal's that way these days is not needed. FULL STOP

But also.

It's only common sense you dont go to heaven if ya don't eat food prepared this halal way.  

*Pat pen pig pow.  Just One tablespoon makes it near impossible to get to heaven. 

 

 

 

Moral behavior is largely a subjective opinion. Some people think it is immoral to slaughter animals and some people think it is not. If one feels it is not immoral to slaughter animals but it is wrong to slaughter dogs or that some methods of slaughter are "more moral" than others then you merely having a discussion of degree. 

Why is this in the religion forum?  

Do you think a country should have multicultural zones with their own laws?

They could have such "zones" I suppose. Should have however is a subjective opinion. From an objective stand point there is no should be only what is and what isn't.

No?

No what?

Do you think a country should have multicultural zones with their own laws?

How would any answer I give be more than a subjective opinion?

I am asking for your opinion, obviously.  That's really up to you

Post #3.   Nice man.. telling it like it is.

In that case I must ask what we are trying to accomplish with this system. If our goal is to protect animals from whatever we consider animal cruelty for example you shouldn't because some zones will have less protection from animals than others and a unified system could be geared to more effectively protect more animals. If on the other hand your goal is to allow communities the greatest possible freedom to live as the prevailing majority of any given zone feels is best then you should impliment the system.

I am not asking you for my opinion.  Two different cultures, one that wants to pet dogs more like family, and one that likes to eat them more like livestock, existing in the same country.  Do you think there should be multicultural zones with their own laws?

That depends on whether our goal is protecting dogs or providing a system that allows for cultural heritage to dictate laws for each separate heritage. What are we trying to accomplish by creating or outlawing these zones?

How do you determine what "our" goal is?

What does "our" constitute?

Why is there a goal?

Do you have an opinion yet?

Unless we agree on a goal we are not even having the same conversation. Our goal in this context refers to a goal that you and I agree on as our standard for the purposes of this conversation. My personal opinion actually has no place in a debate.

Your goal is to place dogs over humans as a superior species and literally feed them on the next generation of humans to save the environment. This literally your goal, in real life.  

Two different cultures, one that wants to pet dogs more like family, and one that likes to eat them more like livestock, existing in the same country.  Do you think there should be multicultural zones with their own laws?

I do not agree that this is a worthwhile goal from my subjective perspective as a human and the vested interest I have in preventing human harm but if that is hypothetically our intended goal no such zones need be established.

A country already is such a zone.

To a lesser degree so are smaller principalities within countries.

I did not say you should or even could make my opinion for me. What I said was that if we do not agree on a goal then we may not be having the same conversation. The goal would still beca subjective standard rather than an objective one.

Do you want me to be your master?  If so, I want a sandwich.   If not, tell me what you think, not the other way around please.  That satisfies your basic needs, does it not?

Political systems do not work permanently ever. It does not matter what system you institute. I do not have an opinion in the way you seem to want me too.

Thank you

Although I am uncertain what I have done you are welcome.

Even if I did my personal opinion has no place in a debate.

Are you always a con when you debate?