Yeah', the west banned flogging years and years ago, for a good reason.
And although I totaly agree, I suppose I could play Devil's Advocate and ask who are we to impose rules onto other people's land?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:50, archived)

We're the British, it's in our blood to bully impoverished foreigners

( Grrrmachine the indifference engine, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:53, archived)

Who is talking about 'imposing' rules?
Condemning something because it is quite fucking unequivocally morally abhorent is entirely within the realms of reasonable behaviour.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:55, archived)

Yes, but ultimatly, would do fuck all to help.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:57, archived)

Why?
International condemnation is a perfectly valid way to get things changed. Ghandi didn't invade India in tanks.

(there should probably be an inverse-godwin law for mentioning ghandi in a discussion like this)
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:59, archived)

NAZI

( spangolin - the odds are good but the goods are odd, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:02, archived)

Would you automatically win the argument?

( Cap'n Tallbeard, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:03, archived)

That can't be right, can it?
I need to give this more thought. I'll just be in my room spinning some yarn.
( Dr. Shambolic je suis charlie, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:04, archived)

What would Ghandi do?

(PsychoChomp, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:05, archived)

weave socks out of yoghurt.

( Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 16:08, archived)

Who are the theocrats to impose laws on 'their' land?
People don't have more right to torture people on 'their' land than anywhere else.
( Newington, Wed 28 Nov 2007, 15:56, archived)