Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


View Poll Results: Do you support the Supreme Court's Descision?
Religious freedom is more important, allow the Sikhs to carry thier kirpans to school 9 18.00%
Personal Security is more important, No weapons in school, period. 41 82.00%
Voters: 50. You may not vote on this poll

Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Kensaki
_


Member 2194

Level 15.48

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 11:40 AM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 06:40 PM #51 of 65
Sikh that reminds me of Sith somehow...

Anyhow if they can wear small ones on a neclace why not just demand they do that? Governments are much to pussy footed towards religions imo.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
loyalist
Carob Nut


Member 1217

Level 6.05

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 03:41 PM #52 of 65
Quote:
I don't know about you - but I have a whole lot of knives in my silverware drawer at home and have never stabbed anyone ever.
I was referring to the fact that a butterknife cou;ld be used to break the stiches, which would then grant acess to a knife of stabbing proportions. Read carefully.

Quote:
Funny, it would seem to me that allowing certain religious behaviors (Communion, for example, just because I love symbolic cannibalism ) and not others would be the double standard.
Communion lies well within the laws of Canada. You must understand that the government of Canada does say exactly what you can do, it merely says what is unacceptable. Communion doesn't involve killing anohtr human being, cannibalism does.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Last edited by loyalist; Mar 19, 2006 at 03:43 PM.
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 11:05 PM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 09:05 PM #53 of 65
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Considering it usually involved murder, I'd say so, yes.
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
can·ni·bal

1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans.
2. An animal that feeds on others of its own kind.
I don't see why cannibals would be prosecuted for eating someone. Sure, they could get it for murder, but if you're lost with your buddy in the arctic wilderness and there's not enough food for both of you and he dies of frostbite or something, why should it be illegal to eat him?

The only way I could see cannibalism being illegal is if it's for 'safety' issues, much like why marrying your first cousin is (Oddly enough, we seem to have no problem with animals being cannibals. If you look at the ingredients of fish food one of the first ingredients will be fish.).

I was speaking idiomatically.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 11:08 PM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 09:08 PM #54 of 65
Originally Posted by RacinReaver
(Oddly enough, we seem to have no problem with animals being cannibals. If you look at the ingredients of fish food one of the first ingredients will be fish.).
I think we have a thing called "mad cow" disease thanks to just that.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 11:17 PM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 11:17 PM #55 of 65
Originally Posted by Watts
I think we have a thing called "mad cow" disease thanks to just that.
Because fish food contains fish?

FELIPE NO
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 11:18 PM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 09:18 PM #56 of 65
Which is why fish-food importers had a hard time after that mad-cow scare (US government prevented the import of all animal-based foodstuffs that would be fed to animals). Now things are back to normal and the tetras in your tank are gobbling up their cousins without a second thought.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2006, 11:19 PM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 09:19 PM #57 of 65
Originally Posted by Lord Styphon
Because fish food contains fish?
It could happen....

No seriously, because when cows eat their own kind they get mad. Apparently cannibalism breeds all sorts of genetic and brain defects that can be passed unto humans.

Jam it back in, in the dark.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 01:20 AM Local time: Mar 19, 2006, 11:20 PM #58 of 65
Originally Posted by RacinReaver
I don't see why cannibals would be prosecuted for eating someone. Sure, they could get it for murder, but if you're lost with your buddy in the arctic wilderness and there's not enough food for both of you and he dies of frostbite or something, why should it be illegal to eat him?
Hmm... Well now, that would depend on the circumstances, such as possible prior agreement (If I die before you and there's no food, it's okay to eat me), the availability of other food sources, etc., etc.

And that is why a lot of these issues are so complicated, because you have to make a lot of difficult moral decisions based on the circumstances. This smilie speaks to me: :juggler:

Oh, and coincidentally, the main attraction of hard-line conservative movements such as the right-to-life is that it's an incredibly easy path to take. No moral judgements required: they're wrong, period.


Most amazing jew boots
Locke
Flying High


Member 488

Level 23.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 09:42 AM #59 of 65
What about the other kids, how is it fair to let a Sikh bring in a dagger, when maybe poor billy really wants to bring his klingon dagger to show off to his friends?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 09:49 AM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 09:49 AM #60 of 65
If poor Billy has reached the Age of Ascension and has committed himself to becoming a Klingon warrior, then the decision would suggest he has as much right to bring his d'ktahg to school as a poor Manmohan has to bring his kirpan.

How ya doing, buddy?
Locke
Flying High


Member 488

Level 23.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 10:43 AM #61 of 65
Ah - but would you let a Klingon Warrior bring a weapon (intended for agression), to a school?

I was speaking idiomatically.
Lord Styphon
Malevolently Mercurial


Member 3

Level 50.41

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 02:39 PM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 02:39 PM #62 of 65
If the Klingon warrior in question had a religious obligation to carry it, it would border very strongly on religious discrimination to not allow it. If they are required to carry it by their beliefs on penalty of going to hell or whatever, are required to not carry it by school rules under penalty of not being allowed into school, you've essentially established a policy of preventing good Klingon warriors from attending classes. Fortunately for those who have to compromise respecting another's beliefs and keeping weapons out of school, Klingon warriors don't exist, and the question of letting Klingon warriors into school is irrelavent.

Sikhs, on the other hand, are very real.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
RacinReaver
Never Forget


Member 7

Level 44.22

Feb 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 04:19 PM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 02:19 PM #63 of 65
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Hmm... Well now, that would depend on the circumstances, such as possible prior agreement (If I die before you and there's no food, it's okay to eat me), the availability of other food sources, etc., etc.
But, see, that's why the murder would be the illegal part. Or maybe taking a body without permission or something like that.

What makes me doubt there's a law out there is that story about the dude from California that broke into a morgue in order to have sex with some of the dead bodies. The only thing they were able to convict him on was breaking and entering (or something close to that) since there was no law against necrophilia.

FELIPE NO
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 04:33 PM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 02:33 PM #64 of 65
Point conceded, RR.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court to Look at 2nd Amendment Ridan Krad Political Palace 33 Dec 19, 2007 11:36 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.