Posted December 18, 2016
I can't include whole comments, especially with swearing. But there is a arrow above each quote to open up the whole comment and if you dislike how I have formulated them, you are welcome to correct it.
What exactly should I question? I am collecting all types of evidence in this thread.
On top of it? Not on top of dog/cat eating, but on top of "advanced liberalism". You wrote yourself that reason why population does not want animal protection law to be passed is the high liberal values. From Blick comments: "Meat is meat", "dog meat is not worse than any meat", "if you own it, you are free to do anything with it".
There were already cases, where cannibals and pedophiles claimed that the victim willingly agreed to it . So, why you think that acts of pedophilia or cannibalism on the very same basis would present an exception under this rule set?
Whats genuine about it? The 3% value being without proof - yes; that Swiss have consumed dog and cats in recent past - yes; that SOS Chats are campaigning to forbid their consume - yes.
Claims that Swiss do not consume cats and dogs , and that population justifies dog/cat consume with 66% (using liberal values, as you wrote) were not refuted/addessed in "antihoax" sites.
That doesn't have to be mutual.
What exactly should I question? I am collecting all types of evidence in this thread.
On top of it? Not on top of dog/cat eating, but on top of "advanced liberalism". You wrote yourself that reason why population does not want animal protection law to be passed is the high liberal values. From Blick comments: "Meat is meat", "dog meat is not worse than any meat", "if you own it, you are free to do anything with it".
There were already cases, where cannibals and pedophiles claimed that the victim willingly agreed to it . So, why you think that acts of pedophilia or cannibalism on the very same basis would present an exception under this rule set?
Siannah: Sadly you don't seem to see how much you disqualify yourself, as you're to abstracted stirring the pot.
How am I disqualifying myself, when I just collect all types of evidence? For example, the video of swiss cat meat restaurant was included in OP, until we found out it to be a crafted fake - but I have not edited it out of my comments. Whats genuine about it? The 3% value being without proof - yes; that Swiss have consumed dog and cats in recent past - yes; that SOS Chats are campaigning to forbid their consume - yes.
Claims that Swiss do not consume cats and dogs , and that population justifies dog/cat consume with 66% (using liberal values, as you wrote) were not refuted/addessed in "antihoax" sites.
Siannah: All the while each and every little snippet supporting the believe cats and dogs are being used as meat today, get's a pass from you without scrutinizing it.
Those little snippets were written by swiss citizens. Siannah: Though I found no direct confirmation, it can't be excluded that you are an escaped lunatic.
If that is the way you want to argue, we have nothing to discuss about. You can't just throw stuff in and expect others to "prove" it isn't so - that's the definition of "pull out of your ass".
Blick site is swiss, article is in swiss, comments are in swiss, written by Swiss via Facebook, votes are to high degree Swiss. Lunatic? Pulling out of your ass? : / If that is the way you want to argue, we have nothing to discuss about. You can't just throw stuff in and expect others to "prove" it isn't so - that's the definition of "pull out of your ass".
That doesn't have to be mutual.