!MUSLIM SAMWICH ARMYGEDDON!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rofflay said:
They cannot make moral judgements though, We can and we can eat rice and tofo and vitamin supliments including iron and zinc. And you can get it delivered to your door. Animals really have little option but to be brutal to get meat or a meat suppliment.


It makes me laugh about halal anyways if sky pixie really cared about animal welfare, Explain the sheep and the wolf.
Click to expand...

But we are predators - end of. Nature has conditioned animals to eat other animals, nature has conditioned other animals to eat plants. It's perfectly normal to eat meat or veg - we have the choice, that is our luck.
 
spoffle said:
Why would my dictionary be little if it has expanded definitions? :confused:

Inhumane means not humane, and it's not humane to kill an animal that is in perfectly good health, just so that we can eat it. It's fairly simple, how are you not understanding it?
Click to expand...

What expanded definition?

You have made up your own definition of inhumane. It does not mean what you think it means.

The definition of humane is:

"Having or showing compassion or benevolence:"

You can still kill an animal for food but show compassion or benevolence for the animal at the same time. So you can kill in a humane manner.

spoffle said:
it's not humane to kill an animal that is in perfectly good health, just so that we can eat it
Click to expand...

That is just your opinion.
 
TwsT said:
no Christians are bias and judgemental of lots of things.
Click to expand...

All or just some? I guess I should qualify that by saying more biased and judgemental than our good non-intrusive never a little bit excitable atheist friends. Because I know some pretty judgemental atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Christians. Most though seem to just keep themselves to themselves and not really do too much of that bar the weather and Cameron/Clegg.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
What expanded definition?

You have made up your own definition of inhumane. It does not mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

Nope. They are not the only definitions of human, hence why I suggested you look it up again. Also look up "Humane", and you will realise that inhumane (which means not humane) covers what I have described.





That is just your opinion.
Click to expand...

Nope.
 
Xordium said:
All or just some? I guess I should qualify that by saying more biased and judgemental than our good non-intrusive never a little bit excitable atheist friends. Because I know some pretty judgemental atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, Jews and Christians. Most though seem to just keep themselves to themselves and not really do too much of that bar the weather and Cameron/Clegg.
Click to expand...

Really, it seems that Atheists are the worst of the lot.
 
You wouldn't know how your meat came to being anyway, some saboteurs are no better and perhaps even worse
 
spoffle said:
Nope. They are not the only definitions of human, hence why I suggested you look it up again. Also look up "Humane", and you will realise that inhumane (which means not humane) covers what I have described.
Click to expand...

Where? It does not.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/humane?q=humane

Let us take the Cambridge definition and it's example-


"I don't support the death penalty, but if people are to be executed, it should be done humanely."

.....:rolleyes:


spoffle said:
Nope.
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense.

A different source:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/inhumane

Read the oxford definition. Read it's origin. The word is derived from the term 'inhuman'

"late Middle English (in the sense 'inhuman, brutal'): originally a variant of inhuman (rare after 1700); in modern use from in-1 'not' + humane (the current sense dating from the early 19th century)."

i.e. not human.

So you are saying that something that human beings have done for the entirety of their existence (killed animals for food...as they are omnivores) is actually NOT human and is in fact inhumane.
 
Jono8 said:
Where? It does not.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/humane?q=humane

Let us take the Cambridge definition and its example-


"I don't support the death penalty, but if people are to be executed, it should be done humanely."

.....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You can roll your eyes all you want, an actual execution is not humane, this is why I said look up "HUMANE" because you would realise it means more than you are claiming, one of the meaning relating to kindness, and it's unkind to animals to kill them when they are perfectly healthy and have no issues.

Ergo, it's inhumane to kill.


Your argument makes no sense.

A different source:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/inhumane

Read the oxford definition. Read it's origin. The word is derived from the term 'inhuman'

"late Middle English (in the sense 'inhuman, brutal'): originally a variant of inhuman (rare after 1700); in modern use from in-1 'not' + humane (the current sense dating from the early 19th century)."

i.e. not human.

So you are saying that something that human beings have done for the entirety of their existence (killed animals for food...as they are omnivores) is actually NOT human and is in fact inhumane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.
 
spoffle said:
You can roll your eyes all you want, an actual execution is not humane, this is why I said look up "HUMANE" .
Click to expand...

I did, and that is an example of the term humane used in a sentence by the Cambridge dictionary. If the word had your definition, that sentence, and the thousands of examples of the use of the words humane and inhumane in dictionaries everywhere would not make any sense.

The act of killing an animal for food is not, by definition, inhumane.
 
spoffle said:
Really, it seems that Atheists are the worst of the lot.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are to be honest I think there are some personalty types that are just that way whatever they believe. I think those sort of people have never really argued themselves into a position through experience and logic with an objective assessment and are blind adherents to their dogma whatever it's origin.
 
That's it, Subway are on my banned list.

We should not be conforming to religious views of any background. This is backwards thinking.

Religion needs eradicating and its quite sad in these days with the amount of free knowledge out there that religion is still as relevant as it is.
 
Last edited:
Well I am guessing the free information out there isn't very persuasive or that its advocates are rather poor at explaining it then. Maybe the advocates don't understand it that well themselves - that often seems to be the case to me. There are an awful lot of non-believers on these forums and elsewhere who bleat on about how science trumps religion and when you ask them about the basic science to underpin their position they haven't got a ******* clue. Which kind of makes them no better than what they are railing against doesn't it. They are accepting a position with a lack of knowledge and understanding and therefore accepting it on faith.
 
Tefal said:
only if its marketed as halal a lot of "normal meat" is actually halal as its cheap. it isnt a requirement to have the symbol
Click to expand...

Yeah I know. :rolleyes: Still I do what I can. New Zealand Lamb is mostly Halal hence why I only buy British.
 
Explains why my Turkey Breast and Ham has become Turkey Breast and Turkey Ham?

Hold on a sec while I search for some care...

...

...

...nope, all out. Guess I will have to find more important things to worry about, like whether I need to pick my nose or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom