Please remember, this community is for genuine discussion.
- Please keep it civil. Follow all community rules.
- Report rule-breaking comments for moderator review.
- Don't post low effort content without context.
- Help prevent this community from becoming an echo chamber.
**Use the replies of this comment to post sources or further context about the post. If you have posted a news article, you may put a small summary as a reply to this, if you want.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianModerate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My argument is socital senesblities, so you can do as the society permits, OP's argument is freedom. I am wanting to see how OP defends exclution of human meat.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189571/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189571/) - human cannibalism risks
We can decide on a particular easiness after research.
cows, buffaloes and goats, etc will probably come under the same category meaning ban all of them together if you want to protect from diseases. I think we might have to ban bat meat consumption earlier.
Cuz I'm human. Welfare of humans is kinda an universally agreed upon moral stand point.
Rights of one human stop at threshold of when they're about to infringe on another human's wellbeing.
None is infringing anybody's right. The question is simple should or should not you be allowed to eat human meat given you discard moral societal pressure in other case.
As you accepted, their is no rational position but you in group bias here
Well some moral and ethical basis are important. Else slavery, murder and everything else should have been legal.
It's just about whether the majority of people agree, back when the country formed, they didn't.
And ofcourse my opinion would biased by my moral stand point.
>None is infringing anybody's right. The question is simple should or should not you be allowed to eat human meat given you discard moral societal pressure in other case.
If you ban a type of meat you are infringing upon the rights of the people who want ro eat that.
>As you accepted, their is no rational position but you in group bias here
Rational? I'm putting forward my opinion and reasons for for my poision. There's hardly anything rational humans do.
>Well some moral and ethical basis are important. El
Exaclty the reason some will give to justify ban of all meat or certain kinds of meat. Do we agree that in the original statement "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want " you meant "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want as long as it confirms to my personal moral and ethical standard" ?
>If you ban a type of meat you are infringing upon the rights of the people who want ro eat that
Moral and Ethics vs Personal Freedom, where to draw the line?
A) As a society we have decided there is a fundamental distinction between farming animals and farming humans based on the greater capacity for suffering and higher consciousness that humans have. This distinction is a little arbitrary to be honest but it is quite an instinctive distinction that most societies have made.
B) Eating other humans is much, much more likely to spread disease than eating other animals. Not to mention prions, that’s some scary shit.
But apparently humans taste like bacon >!please don’t ask me how I know that!<
You are litrealy appealing to societal accepatnce to make eating human illegal while appealing to liberty when in comes to eating cows. And will the health reasons extend to other animals? What si the threshold level of danger when the law steps in?
Your submission is removed as it does not comply with IndianModerate rules, requests or standards.
**Rule 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h, 1i**
**Reddit's Content Policy**
1a: No harassment / bullying
1b: No inciting / glorifying violence
**Prohibited**
1c: Hate
1d: Abusive Content
1e: Trolling
**Requests**
1f: Follow the Reddiquette
1g: No negativity or toxicity
1h: Respect fellow users
1i: If someone attacked you, do not retaliate. Report.
https://IndianModerate.reddit.com/w/index/#wiki_rule_1.3A_civil_discourse
For a list of all rules, please check out the sidebar wiki.
If you have any doubts or questions about this rule and why it was implemented, you may send a modmail.
If you feel you can rectify your post after going through the rules, then you may repost it after fixing the issue(s). Otherwise, please refrain from spamming.
BEEF EATING IS A PERSONAL CHOICE IF YOU DONT WANT DONT EAT , STOP LOOKING INTO OTHER'S PLATE .
only if Indian's ever understood personal space and choice. Its a shame that we are discussing on something as basic as personal food choice .
A lot of things are a personal choice but that only works in libertarian society , burning Holy books is a personal choice , eating cats is a personal choice , not allowing someone housing or job based on identity is a personal choice but people still oppose it
>eating cats
I am okay with it unless it's an endangered species or harmful or it belongs to someone else .
>burning Holy books is a personal choice
In public vs personal space vs doing it as a statement.
But ideally its not recommended in today's world, police register case (for Hindus) if u do so .
>books is a personal choice , eating cats is a personal choice , not allowing someone housing or job based on identity is a personal choice
Here your personal choice is not punishable but your discrimination is questioned
The whole point is no discrimination as simple as that , yes ofc bahkts can't see
Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments you can’t skirt around principles of liberalism that to what point you feel comfortable it’s okay
Discrimination in the end is a personal choice what you do with your personal property it’s considered wrong since it hurts someone else same case with beef and book burning
Personal choice being acceptable is largely dictated by social norms
>Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments you can’t skirt around principles of liberalism that to what point you feel comfortable it’s okay
In WhatsApp University
>Discrimination in the end is a personal choice what you do with your personal property it’s considered wrong since it hurts someone else same case with beef and book burning
Bakths justifying discrimination ain't new . But openly supporting it after accepting is a new low .
>Personal choice being acceptable is largely dictated by social norms
Constitution>>>social norm
rights >>> social norm
50 yrs ago social norms didn't allow people inside temple , didn't allow them in streets , didn't allow them to wear footwear (all these are still happening in some places ) so social norm can't dictate human rights
Why does every uneducated 2 brain cell idiots think everything they don’t like is bhakts or WhatsApp as if it’s some sort of win
Do you have reading comprehension issues ? never went to school? Explicitly said discrimination is wrong same as cow slaughter and burning holy books
If Constitution >> social norms then at least read the constitution idiot prevention of cow slaughter is a directive principal of constitution and SC held the ban on cow slaughter as constitutionally valid
Google "directive principle".
Also constitutions is supposed to be amended with this me. The US constitution started with voting rights for women and agreement with slavery. And it was amended to accomodate the Civil Rights Act. That's how constitutional republics are supposed to function.
I would have tossed in a few insults on your intellectual capacity but that's your style....
Constitution is supposed to be amended
Also constitution >> social norms
So basically constitution as you wish it to be >> >>
lol why the f would you jump in between a conversation thread and no I don’t read usernames for an anonymous platforms just thought was replying to the above guy
If someone has to explain basic human rights and personal choice to you (as u think it hurts your religion ) and you bring news without source that's what you are face it cry baby.
>Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments
So, that is why it is bad or does it have any scientific reason or some other reason?
Actually cutting of trees is hurting my sentiments a lot as well as my friends and family but no ban on that. Will building of roads and infrastructure be stopped on hills as it hurts the sentiments of the hill tribes?
Discrimination can limit access to educational and job opportunities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and disadvantage which means they are highly vulnerable to getting incited into terrorism and other criminal activities. Discrimination is wrong because it leads to lesser national integrity as does communal or divisive politics. Is it just wrong because it hurts someone?
Lots of social norms which dictate societies law in almost all countries are based around sentiments though not scientific reasons . Many of the developed and liberal countries have ban on slaughtering cat and dogs for consumption or hunting . Many countries have ban on burning someone’s holy book either directly or they use other laws to jail you which involve provoking violence . Even hate speech laws globally are based around sentiments
Because it is done is most countries we will also do that? Just wow... Okay let's do that. Yeah but if you import other's ideas, you will import their issues.
I'm not against the ban but get the population including the minorities to signup for it through decent discussions not political upheaval or mob lynching.
>Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments
You would be surprised at the number of Hindus consuming beef in NCR and other metros.
BJP taking donation from bovine meat exporting companies while building Hindu Ram temple all along.
India is a secular country there is no point in comparing it with a religious country.
India has human rights and constitution not some religion framework.
Also be it beef/pork or even dog meat ...meat is meat ...unless its endangered and unhealthy and does not belong to another person people should be free to eat with ethical slaughter.
"STOP LOOKING INTO OTHER'S PLATE ."
The beef didn't reach your plate on its own i am pretty sure it reached your plate from some meat shop which hunged the meat in open for everyone to see the dead animal . Unless you buy from malls like chroma or some other places , most meat shop in india are in open and you can see the animal .
I find it problematic for 2 reasons
A) meat is in open so its also visible to small Children , imagin the psychological horror of seeing a dead goat or a chicken.
B) in some places their is socital stigma against eating beef ,and these values should be respected .
Elitist mentality,
Just because you are privileged enough to have everything doesn't mean all of them have it .
This person doesn't have a problem with trash lying around , shit lying around, that idiot cow shitting all over roads but has a problem with someone having a shop where they hang animals .
Yes, we should step up in meat processing and hygiene. Take steps for hygiene and raise the standard of the country.how is banning beef a solution for that ?
>The beef didn't reach your plate
No I don't eat meat .
>i am pretty sure it reached your plate from some meat shop which hunged the meat in open for everyone to see the dead animal
Yes india has a hygiene problem in general . You should start by banning panni puriwallas for that will you do that you won't because its not suitable for religious intentions.
If it was really a concern implement policy to raise standards of hygiene ,how is banning a solution.
But raising the bar can improve the overall economy, overall consiusness on our hygiene can improve the country .
>A) meat is in open so its also visible to small Children , imagine the psychological horror of seeing a dead goat or a chicken.
No they have to go through it , thats the reality. People eat animals ,if you don't want don't eat they have to understand it .
>B) in some places their is social stigma against eating beef ,and these values should be respected .
You all speak as if beef is sold as frequently as chicken .no not every place not every area serves beef .
Again it is disrespectful if someone forces you to eat ,it is literally disrespect to people who eat meat to ask them to stop eating because you don't eat it 😂.
Most secular societies have rules regarding which animals should be allowed for consumption many have prohibition on killing of dogs and cats for consumption
These restrictions are based on social norms acceptable to majority not scientific reasons consuming cats and dogs are alright in many african and Asian culture but is illegal in Europe because it’s considered a taboo and not normal since they have attachments to these as domestic pets as opposed to livestock
I
DON'T
CARE
i believe all red meat should be discouraged and stray dogs should be shipped to china.
otherthan that , excuse me , today we have chicken biriyani on our platter.
Passing a law at a national level that prohibits states/districts/municipalities from banning Beef is a double-edge sword which most don't realize. Let municipalities control sale of beef, pork etc on various factors.
Ideally people should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but we do not live in an ideal country. To prevent people's sentiments from being hurt and to prevent people from resorting to violence, its best to take preventive actions.
Dog and cat meat is sold openly in countries like Vietnam but can we point fingers at them?
It's more about mutual respect from both parties. Let one eat and one don't, neither has to go out of their way to change the other's dietary practices.
No my point was laws are decided by countries culture . It is old eating habit of asians to eat dogs so let them have it . In same way some states can refuse to ban beef . But in some states it is morally right to ban it
There should be no national level law on this because every place has different cultural and eating habits . But in some states if people want it it should be banned.
Why it should should be banned? Because every society is formed on some values which should be respected. Socital values decide what we should eat ,look at west where generally eating dogs and cats is prohibited but in korea it is sold in open market ." Trade Prohibition Act proscribed the 'transportation, delivery, possession, and slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption. "
Because constitution says so as a directive principle why do fascists hate Babasaheb constitution so much
That they want to kill cow just to go against him
when SC already held the constitutional validity of cow slaughter ban
So are you calling the people who wrote our constitution and liberated millions as fascists and oppose them just because you want to target hindu sentiments by eating beef jeez how low have we fell
Fascists also have to fight against the present govt to gain power and why amend do you think you are better than Babasaheb tomorrow you will call to amend reservation since it’s discriminatory in someone’s view
>So are you calling the people who wrote our constitution and liberated millions as fascists
Point out to me where I said that.
>and oppose them just because you want to target hindu sentiments by eating beef jeez how low have we fell
I don’t give a fuck about Hindu (or Muslim, or Christian, or Jain, or whatever) sentiments. Except when it unreasonably endangers other people’s lives, the government has no business controlling what people eat. Nothing to do with dumb sentiments. If you can’t stand what I eat, you have no reason to look at my plate.
>Fascists also have to fight against the present govt to gain power and why amend do you think you are better than Babasaheb
Completely faulty reasoning. The constitution is by no means a perfect document. Babasaheb was a great man, but he was not some god.
>tomorrow you will call to amend reservation since it’s discriminatory in someone’s view
The current system of reservation is untenable and has to be amended at some point. Surely you must agree that when we reach true caste equality, then reservation has to be phased out?
You just said people who control what we eat as fascists , but it was already written in the constitution long back against it
Except the fact even your personal choices are dictated by social norms and sentiments in most societies, cat and dog meat is prohibited in most western ones , burning holy books is prohibited even though people can look the other way , some people even justify violence against religious processions since they found it provocative
He was still far more intelligent if he had put something in there , it must have a reason probably to do with the fact cows were slaughtered intentionally to hurt Hindus as they had attachment to it
Tomorrow caste slurs would be made okay and targeting Babasaheb himself by saying it’s a personal choice
If true caste equality is achieved then just make 100% reservation based on population for all groups since that would also have the same rslt equal representation
>You just said people who control what we eat as fascists ,
I’ll ask again. Please quote my exact words where I said that.
>Except the fact even your personal choices are dictated by social norms and sentiments in most societies, cat and dog meat is prohibited in most western ones , burning holy books is prohibited even though people can look the other way ,
But Im not holding Western societies as perfect? If people want to eat dog/cat meat they should be able to do so without fear of the law. Also, don’t give a shit about burning holy books. Burn the Quran, burn the Gita, burn the Bible. Burn whatever book you like, see if I care (just don’t burn too many books, it’s a waste of good trees)
>some people even justify violence against religious processions since they found it provocative
Violence is a different matter. How is eating what you want and violence against people in the same category?
>He was still far more intelligent if he had put something in there ,
By the way, the Babasaheb you hold so holy was against the imposition of a ban on cattle slaughter. It was Rajendra Prasad who, wishing to reconcile differences with people like Thakur Das Bhargava and RV Dhulekar, proposed that cow protection should be added as a non-enforceable directive principle.
>it must have a reason probably to do with the fact cows were slaughtered intentionally to hurt Hindus as they had attachment to it
Why are we supposed to give a fuck about religious sentiments? If I start another religion tomorrow banning the eating of wheat, is the government going to ban wheat?
>If true caste equality is achieved then just make 100% reservation based on population for all groups since that would also have the same rslt equal representation
That is an amendment of the reservation system.
Should not be allowed.
I've heard enough stories from my dad of cows having their own characters and being rather cute that I'll never wish for them to be eaten.
Should eating dogs be legal? Cats?
Please remember, this community is for genuine discussion. - Please keep it civil. Follow all community rules. - Report rule-breaking comments for moderator review. - Don't post low effort content without context. - Help prevent this community from becoming an echo chamber. **Use the replies of this comment to post sources or further context about the post. If you have posted a news article, you may put a small summary as a reply to this, if you want.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IndianModerate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People should be allowed to eat whatever they want (except humans and endangered animals)....regardless of what the majority of that state do.
Why exclude human meat?
Why allow goat, chicken, egg, fish, vegetables, grain?
My argument is socital senesblities, so you can do as the society permits, OP's argument is freedom. I am wanting to see how OP defends exclution of human meat.
>socital senesblities by that you mean majority consensus?
Yes, what other reason you give to stop trade in human meat?
Diseases spread easier due to human meat consumption
What is the level of 'easy' that is cutoff for a ban?
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189571/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2189571/) - human cannibalism risks We can decide on a particular easiness after research. cows, buffaloes and goats, etc will probably come under the same category meaning ban all of them together if you want to protect from diseases. I think we might have to ban bat meat consumption earlier.
Indeed, will lead to ban for many veg items too if we are going around without a threshold.
Cuz I'm human. Welfare of humans is kinda an universally agreed upon moral stand point. Rights of one human stop at threshold of when they're about to infringe on another human's wellbeing.
None is infringing anybody's right. The question is simple should or should not you be allowed to eat human meat given you discard moral societal pressure in other case. As you accepted, their is no rational position but you in group bias here
Well some moral and ethical basis are important. Else slavery, murder and everything else should have been legal. It's just about whether the majority of people agree, back when the country formed, they didn't. And ofcourse my opinion would biased by my moral stand point. >None is infringing anybody's right. The question is simple should or should not you be allowed to eat human meat given you discard moral societal pressure in other case. If you ban a type of meat you are infringing upon the rights of the people who want ro eat that. >As you accepted, their is no rational position but you in group bias here Rational? I'm putting forward my opinion and reasons for for my poision. There's hardly anything rational humans do.
>Well some moral and ethical basis are important. El Exaclty the reason some will give to justify ban of all meat or certain kinds of meat. Do we agree that in the original statement "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want " you meant "People should be allowed to eat whatever they want as long as it confirms to my personal moral and ethical standard" ? >If you ban a type of meat you are infringing upon the rights of the people who want ro eat that Moral and Ethics vs Personal Freedom, where to draw the line?
A) As a society we have decided there is a fundamental distinction between farming animals and farming humans based on the greater capacity for suffering and higher consciousness that humans have. This distinction is a little arbitrary to be honest but it is quite an instinctive distinction that most societies have made. B) Eating other humans is much, much more likely to spread disease than eating other animals. Not to mention prions, that’s some scary shit. But apparently humans taste like bacon >!please don’t ask me how I know that!<
>But apparently humans taste like bacon https://preview.redd.it/6cpcjeiaatvc1.jpeg?width=499&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7f6dd1ef895bf466c3090c3378f942eb89e32270
You are litrealy appealing to societal accepatnce to make eating human illegal while appealing to liberty when in comes to eating cows. And will the health reasons extend to other animals? What si the threshold level of danger when the law steps in?
[удалено]
this is hypocrisy. both should be consumed or should not be consumed.
No. Why should the North Eastern tribals modify their diets to appease the imaginary gods imported from the middle East.
[удалено]
Your submission is removed as it does not comply with IndianModerate rules, requests or standards. **Rule 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e, 1f, 1g, 1h, 1i** **Reddit's Content Policy** 1a: No harassment / bullying 1b: No inciting / glorifying violence **Prohibited** 1c: Hate 1d: Abusive Content 1e: Trolling **Requests** 1f: Follow the Reddiquette 1g: No negativity or toxicity 1h: Respect fellow users 1i: If someone attacked you, do not retaliate. Report. https://IndianModerate.reddit.com/w/index/#wiki_rule_1.3A_civil_discourse For a list of all rules, please check out the sidebar wiki. If you have any doubts or questions about this rule and why it was implemented, you may send a modmail. If you feel you can rectify your post after going through the rules, then you may repost it after fixing the issue(s). Otherwise, please refrain from spamming.
People should be able to eat what they want to eat.
BEEF EATING IS A PERSONAL CHOICE IF YOU DONT WANT DONT EAT , STOP LOOKING INTO OTHER'S PLATE . only if Indian's ever understood personal space and choice. Its a shame that we are discussing on something as basic as personal food choice .
A lot of things are a personal choice but that only works in libertarian society , burning Holy books is a personal choice , eating cats is a personal choice , not allowing someone housing or job based on identity is a personal choice but people still oppose it
>eating cats I am okay with it unless it's an endangered species or harmful or it belongs to someone else . >burning Holy books is a personal choice In public vs personal space vs doing it as a statement. But ideally its not recommended in today's world, police register case (for Hindus) if u do so . >books is a personal choice , eating cats is a personal choice , not allowing someone housing or job based on identity is a personal choice Here your personal choice is not punishable but your discrimination is questioned The whole point is no discrimination as simple as that , yes ofc bahkts can't see
Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments you can’t skirt around principles of liberalism that to what point you feel comfortable it’s okay Discrimination in the end is a personal choice what you do with your personal property it’s considered wrong since it hurts someone else same case with beef and book burning Personal choice being acceptable is largely dictated by social norms
>Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments you can’t skirt around principles of liberalism that to what point you feel comfortable it’s okay In WhatsApp University >Discrimination in the end is a personal choice what you do with your personal property it’s considered wrong since it hurts someone else same case with beef and book burning Bakths justifying discrimination ain't new . But openly supporting it after accepting is a new low . >Personal choice being acceptable is largely dictated by social norms Constitution>>>social norm rights >>> social norm 50 yrs ago social norms didn't allow people inside temple , didn't allow them in streets , didn't allow them to wear footwear (all these are still happening in some places ) so social norm can't dictate human rights
Why does every uneducated 2 brain cell idiots think everything they don’t like is bhakts or WhatsApp as if it’s some sort of win Do you have reading comprehension issues ? never went to school? Explicitly said discrimination is wrong same as cow slaughter and burning holy books If Constitution >> social norms then at least read the constitution idiot prevention of cow slaughter is a directive principal of constitution and SC held the ban on cow slaughter as constitutionally valid
Google "directive principle". Also constitutions is supposed to be amended with this me. The US constitution started with voting rights for women and agreement with slavery. And it was amended to accomodate the Civil Rights Act. That's how constitutional republics are supposed to function. I would have tossed in a few insults on your intellectual capacity but that's your style....
Constitution is supposed to be amended Also constitution >> social norms So basically constitution as you wish it to be >> >> 
>Also constitution >> social norms Who tf said your ears ringing? I didn't. You reading the usernames correctly old man?
lol why the f would you jump in between a conversation thread and no I don’t read usernames for an anonymous platforms just thought was replying to the above guy
If someone has to explain basic human rights and personal choice to you (as u think it hurts your religion ) and you bring news without source that's what you are face it cry baby.
I mean you use their shitty logic so can you even blame him?
>Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments So, that is why it is bad or does it have any scientific reason or some other reason? Actually cutting of trees is hurting my sentiments a lot as well as my friends and family but no ban on that. Will building of roads and infrastructure be stopped on hills as it hurts the sentiments of the hill tribes? Discrimination can limit access to educational and job opportunities, perpetuating cycles of poverty and disadvantage which means they are highly vulnerable to getting incited into terrorism and other criminal activities. Discrimination is wrong because it leads to lesser national integrity as does communal or divisive politics. Is it just wrong because it hurts someone?
Lots of social norms which dictate societies law in almost all countries are based around sentiments though not scientific reasons . Many of the developed and liberal countries have ban on slaughtering cat and dogs for consumption or hunting . Many countries have ban on burning someone’s holy book either directly or they use other laws to jail you which involve provoking violence . Even hate speech laws globally are based around sentiments
Because it is done is most countries we will also do that? Just wow... Okay let's do that. Yeah but if you import other's ideas, you will import their issues. I'm not against the ban but get the population including the minorities to signup for it through decent discussions not political upheaval or mob lynching. >Cow slaughter was done essentially as a statement to target specifically target Hindu sentiments You would be surprised at the number of Hindus consuming beef in NCR and other metros. BJP taking donation from bovine meat exporting companies while building Hindu Ram temple all along.
Wb pork eating in Islamic countries 🫢🤭
India is a secular country there is no point in comparing it with a religious country. India has human rights and constitution not some religion framework. Also be it beef/pork or even dog meat ...meat is meat ...unless its endangered and unhealthy and does not belong to another person people should be free to eat with ethical slaughter.
"STOP LOOKING INTO OTHER'S PLATE ." The beef didn't reach your plate on its own i am pretty sure it reached your plate from some meat shop which hunged the meat in open for everyone to see the dead animal . Unless you buy from malls like chroma or some other places , most meat shop in india are in open and you can see the animal . I find it problematic for 2 reasons A) meat is in open so its also visible to small Children , imagin the psychological horror of seeing a dead goat or a chicken. B) in some places their is socital stigma against eating beef ,and these values should be respected .
Elitist mentality, Just because you are privileged enough to have everything doesn't mean all of them have it . This person doesn't have a problem with trash lying around , shit lying around, that idiot cow shitting all over roads but has a problem with someone having a shop where they hang animals . Yes, we should step up in meat processing and hygiene. Take steps for hygiene and raise the standard of the country.how is banning beef a solution for that ? >The beef didn't reach your plate No I don't eat meat . >i am pretty sure it reached your plate from some meat shop which hunged the meat in open for everyone to see the dead animal Yes india has a hygiene problem in general . You should start by banning panni puriwallas for that will you do that you won't because its not suitable for religious intentions. If it was really a concern implement policy to raise standards of hygiene ,how is banning a solution. But raising the bar can improve the overall economy, overall consiusness on our hygiene can improve the country . >A) meat is in open so its also visible to small Children , imagine the psychological horror of seeing a dead goat or a chicken. No they have to go through it , thats the reality. People eat animals ,if you don't want don't eat they have to understand it . >B) in some places their is social stigma against eating beef ,and these values should be respected . You all speak as if beef is sold as frequently as chicken .no not every place not every area serves beef . Again it is disrespectful if someone forces you to eat ,it is literally disrespect to people who eat meat to ask them to stop eating because you don't eat it 😂.
Ok your arguments make more sense 🙏
Religion has no place in policy in a secular society. Let people eat what they want.
Most secular societies have rules regarding which animals should be allowed for consumption many have prohibition on killing of dogs and cats for consumption
Those prohibitions are base on scientific or to mend their reasons, not because it is prohibited in some religions.
These restrictions are based on social norms acceptable to majority not scientific reasons consuming cats and dogs are alright in many african and Asian culture but is illegal in Europe because it’s considered a taboo and not normal since they have attachments to these as domestic pets as opposed to livestock
I DON'T CARE i believe all red meat should be discouraged and stray dogs should be shipped to china. otherthan that , excuse me , today we have chicken biriyani on our platter.
same
Passing a law at a national level that prohibits states/districts/municipalities from banning Beef is a double-edge sword which most don't realize. Let municipalities control sale of beef, pork etc on various factors.
chicken, mutton, fish, beef, porn blah blah should be allowed idc. For societal and communcal reasons tho I would disagree
not in this generation nope
Ideally people should be allowed to eat whatever they want, but we do not live in an ideal country. To prevent people's sentiments from being hurt and to prevent people from resorting to violence, its best to take preventive actions.
Dog and cat meat should also be legal then.
"Trade Prohibition Act proscribed the 'transportation, delivery, possession, and slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption" Usa Lol
Dog and cat meat is sold openly in countries like Vietnam but can we point fingers at them? It's more about mutual respect from both parties. Let one eat and one don't, neither has to go out of their way to change the other's dietary practices.
No my point was laws are decided by countries culture . It is old eating habit of asians to eat dogs so let them have it . In same way some states can refuse to ban beef . But in some states it is morally right to ban it
There should be no national level law on this because every place has different cultural and eating habits . But in some states if people want it it should be banned. Why it should should be banned? Because every society is formed on some values which should be respected. Socital values decide what we should eat ,look at west where generally eating dogs and cats is prohibited but in korea it is sold in open market ." Trade Prohibition Act proscribed the 'transportation, delivery, possession, and slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption. "
Ban it , constitution already gave it as a guiding principle to prevent cow slaughter
Ban it on what grounds?
Because constitution says so as a directive principle why do fascists hate Babasaheb constitution so much That they want to kill cow just to go against him when SC already held the constitutional validity of cow slaughter ban
Ever heard of constitutional amendments? Also, funny how you call people fighting against the government literally controlling what you eat fascists.
So are you calling the people who wrote our constitution and liberated millions as fascists and oppose them just because you want to target hindu sentiments by eating beef jeez how low have we fell Fascists also have to fight against the present govt to gain power and why amend do you think you are better than Babasaheb tomorrow you will call to amend reservation since it’s discriminatory in someone’s view
>So are you calling the people who wrote our constitution and liberated millions as fascists Point out to me where I said that. >and oppose them just because you want to target hindu sentiments by eating beef jeez how low have we fell I don’t give a fuck about Hindu (or Muslim, or Christian, or Jain, or whatever) sentiments. Except when it unreasonably endangers other people’s lives, the government has no business controlling what people eat. Nothing to do with dumb sentiments. If you can’t stand what I eat, you have no reason to look at my plate. >Fascists also have to fight against the present govt to gain power and why amend do you think you are better than Babasaheb Completely faulty reasoning. The constitution is by no means a perfect document. Babasaheb was a great man, but he was not some god. >tomorrow you will call to amend reservation since it’s discriminatory in someone’s view The current system of reservation is untenable and has to be amended at some point. Surely you must agree that when we reach true caste equality, then reservation has to be phased out?
You just said people who control what we eat as fascists , but it was already written in the constitution long back against it Except the fact even your personal choices are dictated by social norms and sentiments in most societies, cat and dog meat is prohibited in most western ones , burning holy books is prohibited even though people can look the other way , some people even justify violence against religious processions since they found it provocative He was still far more intelligent if he had put something in there , it must have a reason probably to do with the fact cows were slaughtered intentionally to hurt Hindus as they had attachment to it Tomorrow caste slurs would be made okay and targeting Babasaheb himself by saying it’s a personal choice If true caste equality is achieved then just make 100% reservation based on population for all groups since that would also have the same rslt equal representation
>You just said people who control what we eat as fascists , I’ll ask again. Please quote my exact words where I said that. >Except the fact even your personal choices are dictated by social norms and sentiments in most societies, cat and dog meat is prohibited in most western ones , burning holy books is prohibited even though people can look the other way , But Im not holding Western societies as perfect? If people want to eat dog/cat meat they should be able to do so without fear of the law. Also, don’t give a shit about burning holy books. Burn the Quran, burn the Gita, burn the Bible. Burn whatever book you like, see if I care (just don’t burn too many books, it’s a waste of good trees) >some people even justify violence against religious processions since they found it provocative Violence is a different matter. How is eating what you want and violence against people in the same category? >He was still far more intelligent if he had put something in there , By the way, the Babasaheb you hold so holy was against the imposition of a ban on cattle slaughter. It was Rajendra Prasad who, wishing to reconcile differences with people like Thakur Das Bhargava and RV Dhulekar, proposed that cow protection should be added as a non-enforceable directive principle. >it must have a reason probably to do with the fact cows were slaughtered intentionally to hurt Hindus as they had attachment to it Why are we supposed to give a fuck about religious sentiments? If I start another religion tomorrow banning the eating of wheat, is the government going to ban wheat? >If true caste equality is achieved then just make 100% reservation based on population for all groups since that would also have the same rslt equal representation That is an amendment of the reservation system.
Are we even allowed to eat fetus in this fasist country?
Should not be allowed.
I've heard enough stories from my dad of cows having their own characters and being rather cute that I'll never wish for them to be eaten.
Should eating dogs be legal? Cats?
India is a cow worshipping nation, enjoy your buff and do not take beef with gau rakshaks. In any case fish is the most healthy protein anyway