Honor killings are outlawed in Europe and also occur in the US, so I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.

So the world is USA (I suppose that is what you mean with America/Americans) and Europe. You have a big big world my friend!

Remember the context in which this conversation is occurring. The article is about European law. Most people reading this live in the USA (yes, I also wish there was a better demonym for people from the US than "Americans", but there isn't).

Kind of a case in point. Your last sentence is arguably anti-American hate speech (pejorative) under the UN’s broad definition [1]:

> any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor

which they note is broader than the typical American definition:

> While the above is not a legal definition and is broader than “incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”

[1]: https://www.un.org/en/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/...

I’m sorry, but no one who wrote that definition would agree with your interpretation. You are being intentionally misleading in an attempt to make a point.

My point is that different people groups might have good reasons for doing things particular ways, but that doesn't mean there aren't better ways of doing things.

But the countries that are being compared to the US are actually good places to live, so the analogy is flawed.

They are worse places to live because of the speech restrictions. I live in the UK.

In your personal opinion. The actual surveyed happiness levels of the average person in those countries' begs to differ.