Oh fuck off. I was specifically talking about stoning people to death, and compared it to what horrible things we used to do way back like burning at the stake etc. We don't do that any more thank god. I wasn't referring to acts of war that you have brought up, so you can fuck off with your allegations of my views being racist you idiot.
acts ordered by a state less barbaric then cos of gloss of government. and the holocaust? was that an act of war?
yes. what of it? would it be better or worse, iyo, if it was a stranger?
perhaps you could outline your reasoning for me here.
it's not barbaric, according to farmerbarleymow, if it's ordered by a modern, democratic, western state unlike those nasty auld dark age feudalisms or those asian countries.
this wasn't infanticide. iirc the romans thought the crime of parricide the most heinous of all offences.
i don't see why you're so horrified when we live in a society in which two women are killed by their partners - their family - every week. when we live in a society in which familial child abuse is far more common than the more feared stranger abuse. when we live in a country in which it's within my living memory that a man could rape his wife with impunity. perhaps we have fewer 'honour' killings than pakistan, but then we've a population 2.5 times smaller than theirs yet we manage quite a number of squalid killings of women by their partners, of children by their parents, each year.
There is a key difference here, and that is that the people who carried out this murder are unlikely ever to appear in any court to account for what they did, despite everyone knowing that they did it.
you asked 'You seriously think that the duty of trust a parent owes their child doesn't make infanticide more repulsive than other forms of murder?' the romans thought that a breach of the respect a child owes its parents a more repulsive thing. there's arguments both ways. but what i object to is the notion that somehow this is evidence that brown people in southern asia are more backward than we advanced white people in europe when the events of e.g. the 1990s in the balkans or the 2000s in iraq - or the small wars at the end of empire - not to mention the holocaust should make us realise that our prized civilization is only a veneer.
sorry, that was a typo for patricide.
and? this makes it better how? stable door and horse leap to mind. wouldn't it be better if you could honestly say 'we don't kill women in the uk'?
You don't see how that changes things? Really?
it doesn't seem to stop the tide of killing, does it? grand, people are locked up and they're unlikely to reoffend. but, as i say above, wouldn't it be better if you could honestly say 'we don't kill women in the uk'? instead of saying 'we kill women in the uk but, hey, don't mind because the culprits are put on trial'.
What is this 'we' nonsense? People are killed here in the UK, but society as a whole in no way condones that killing. In fact, society as a whole roundly condemns it.
You know, in spite of your seemingly desperate attempt to out a tewibble wacist, it may just be possible for people to think both things are barbaric.
Nah, that's just pickmans.So, because the events in Lahore aren't uniquely despicable, you're some sort of hypocrite to be upset or outraged by them? That appears to be the tenor of the discussion here.
