General News & Politics (5 Viewers)

OP
Ocelot

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #101
    France had traditinonal culture and some of the greatest minds and artists ever and he denied its uniqness over cultural diversity which was born in like XX century. Stendhal and Balzac probably feel quite proud.
    But culture in France is diverse, as it is in any slightly larger country.
     

    Buy on AliExpress.com
    OP
    Ocelot

    Ocelot

    Midnight Marauder
    Jul 13, 2013
    18,943
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #103
    I agree.

    But I see a difference between what you said and what he stated.
    Probably to some degree, yes.

    But looking at the entire passage, I still don't see anything wrong with it.

    “Our culture can no longer wall itself away from other cultures, as if under voluntary house arrest. We would not have the multiplicity of cultures, this amazing French cultural richness, which exists, by seeking to deny parts of it. French culture doesn’t exist in and of itself; there is no such thing as a single French culture. There is culture in France and it is diverse and multiple. And I will not exclude from this culture, certain authors or musicians or artists, on the pretext that they supposedly come from elsewhere.”
     

    Dostoevsky

    Tzu
    Administrator
    May 27, 2007
    88,428
    Probably to some degree, yes.

    But looking at the entire passage, I still don't see anything wrong with it.

    “Our culture can no longer wall itself away from other cultures, as if under voluntary house arrest. We would not have the multiplicity of cultures, this amazing French cultural richness, which exists, by seeking to deny parts of it. French culture doesn’t exist in and of itself; there is no such thing as a single French culture. There is culture in France and it is diverse and multiple. And I will not exclude from this culture, certain authors or musicians or artists, on the pretext that they supposedly come from elsewhere.”
    That's fine. I see a lot of wrong in it, though.

    He talks about the present France, post WW2, which is kinda different than what it was. He talks about the diverse culture which exists at this very moment. But imo he erased what it used to be, giving all the credit this century.

    Being welcoming is one thing, but erasing a big part of your history is totally another issue.

    Also, it's kinda debatable if 'this amazing French cultural richness' is better than the 'old French cultural richness'.
     

    Osman

    Koul Khara!
    Aug 30, 2002
    59,103
    I'm all for it. Has nothing to do with being vegan or not, we just don't live in the stone age anymore.
    You are all for deciding how people prepare their meat? Really, why? How is that living in stone age? You are killing the animal to eat it either way, and hardly threat it humanely while doing so, who makes you the arbitrator of decididng who's food preparing rites is right or wrong? And how does that effect you they adhere to their customs like that? Are you forced to eat kosher or halal food?
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    38,179
    You are all for deciding how people prepare their meat? Really, why? How is that living in stone age? You are killing the animal to eat it either way, and hardly threat it humanely while doing so, who makes you the arbitrator of decididng who's food preparing rites is right or wrong? And how does that effect you they adhere to their customs like that? Are you forced to eat kosher or halal food?
    There's one obvious factor as to why yes, you can decide how people should kill animals for consumption. And that is pain. I'm sorry, but if one way is proven to be less painful than the other, it's outrageous that you would still go for the painful one merely on religious grounds. That being said, keyword here is 'proven'. Most of the time I think decapitating an animal is probably still the best way to go and we don't do that either.
     

    Osman

    Koul Khara!
    Aug 30, 2002
    59,103
    There's one obvious factor as to why yes, you can decide how people should kill animals for consumption. And that is pain. I'm sorry, but if one way is proven to be less painful than the other, it's outrageous that you would still go for the painful one merely on religious grounds. That being said, keyword here is 'proven'. Most of the time I think decapitating an animal is probably still the best way to go and we don't do that either.
    You honestly think they care that much about the animals pain in this? How we process the animals up to that point, and keep them "tender" and "amicable" beforehand is extremely brutal. And the contention is solely the final slaughtering, that basically happens to goes against the customs of two huge religions? Come on.
     

    Mohad

    The Ocean Star
    May 20, 2009
    6,122
    Actually banning the koshar and halal slaughter loses more than it saves since those two in markets are highly profitable.
     

    Seven

    In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
    Jun 25, 2003
    38,179
    You honestly think they care that much about the animals pain in this? How we process the animals up to that point, and keep them "tender" and "amicable" beforehand is extremely brutal. And the contention is solely the final slaughtering, that basically happens to goes against the customs of two huge religions? Come on.

    I don't know what "they" care about. I'm not exactly involved in lawmaking. I'm just saying that this is the sole reason why people can make that call.
     

    DAiDEViL

    Senior Member
    Feb 21, 2015
    62,568
    You honestly think they care that much about the animals pain in this? How we process the animals up to that point, and keep them "tender" and "amicable" beforehand is extremely brutal. And the contention is solely the final slaughtering, that basically happens to goes against the customs of two huge religions? Come on.
    It is already brutal all the way til the slaughtering, agreed. But that doesn't mean we have to make it even more brutal for no reason.
     

    Fr3sh

    Senior Member
    Jul 12, 2011
    36,938
    I don't know what "they" care about. I'm not exactly involved in lawmaking. I'm just saying that this is the sole reason why people can make that call.
    That law got passed to ruffle feathers, nothing more, nothing less.
    Personally I believe as a whole the global community should ease out on the heavy meat consumption since it's not as sustainable as the green alternative. However most lawmakers don't care for starving children why would they sympathize for a dying cow....:boh:
     
    OP
    Ocelot

    Ocelot

    Midnight Marauder
    Jul 13, 2013
    18,943
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread Starter #115
    You are all for deciding how people prepare their meat? Really, why? How is that living in stone age? You are killing the animal to eat it either way, and hardly threat it humanely while doing so, who makes you the arbitrator of decididng who's food preparing rites is right or wrong? And how does that effect you they adhere to their customs like that? Are you forced to eat kosher or halal food?
    First of all, a lot of the voters voting for the ban probably didn't care much for the animals here.

    But that does not mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for the law. It's a trade off between religious freedom and humane treatment of animals for sure, but if those slaughter rites are actually causing disproportionate amount of pain for the animals (and I honestly don't know that much about that, but this seems to be the case), there is certainly an argument to be made.

    - - - Updated - - -

    That law got passed to ruffle feathers, nothing more, nothing less.
    Personally I believe as a whole the global community should ease out on the heavy meat consumption since it's not as sustainable as the green alternative. However most lawmakers don't care for starving children why would they sympathize for a dying cow....:boh:
    In some cases there's a connection between that dying cow and the starving children actually.

    http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_u...alized Animal Agriculture on World Hunger.pdf
     

    DAiDEViL

    Senior Member
    Feb 21, 2015
    62,568
    http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/security/1246622/pattani-bomb-blasts-leave-scores-hurt

    PATTANI: At least 59 people, several of whom were children, were injured when two powerful bombs went off at a Big C Supercentre in Muang district Tuesday afternoon.

    The shopping centre was also the target of a bomb blast in 2005 and an arson attack in 2012.

    The first explosion, which sounded like a giant firecracker, occurred near the entrance to the Big C building around 2.50pm, security officials said.

    About 10 minutes after the first blast, a second bomb blast occurred outside the building, damaging the structure and causing a fire.
    Most of the injured were parents and their children, who were shopping for the new school term.
     

    Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)