India : Food for thought.

[JIMMY12345]

I am a vegetarian and oft visit churches and Temples. I hold the Hindu religion in very high regard. It is peaceful and good.
Some Politicians in Delhi want closure of meat shops during Navaratri. In the past there has never been a problem - Why ever suddenly create problems?. India is the world's biggest democracy. It must accommodate all its citizens. Its enduring stability is a magnet for international financial investment. If it is to compete with China it must not risk its reputation for tolerance for all. Comments?

 

[sayak83]

I am a vegetarian and oft visit churches and Temples. I hold the Hindu religion in very high regard. It is peaceful and good.
Some Politicians in Delhi want closure of meat shops during Navaratri. In the past there has never been a problem - Why ever suddenly create problems?. India is the world's biggest democracy. It must accommodate all its citizens. Its enduring stability is a magnet for international financial investment. If it is to compete with China it must not risk its reputation for tolerance for all. Comments?

It gives votes

 

[Secret Chief]

I am a vegetarian and oft visit churches and Temples. I hold the Hindu religion in very high regard. It is peaceful and good.
Some Politicians in Delhi want closure of meat shops during Navaratri. In the past there has never been a problem - Why ever suddenly create problems?. India is the world's biggest democracy. It must accommodate all its citizens. Its enduring stability is a magnet for international financial investment. If it is to compete with China it must not risk its reputation for tolerance for all. Comments?

Why stop at Navaratri.

 

[sayak83]

Why stop at Navaratri.

You want to ban meatshops?

 

[Secret Chief]

You want to ban meatshops?

Sure.

 

[sayak83]

Sure.

Why?

 

[Secret Chief]

Why?

To stop the relentless killing of sentient beings.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To stop the relentless killing of sentient beings.

That raises quite a few problems for you. How would you define a "sentient being"? Why is it okay, and very very often necessary for carnivores to kill what you kill a sentient being but not okay for man to do the same? If your beliefs are only based upon religion then it would be correct for others to reject your attempt to impose your religious beliefs upon others.

 

[Secret Chief]

That raises quite a few problems for you.

Actually it does not. Maybe for you.

How would you define a "sentient being"?

In the context of this thread, cows, sheep, goats, hens ie those that end up in a butcher's shop.
More broadly:
"Here is a short description to define sentient beings:

• Able to experience feelings
• Has a sense of impression
• Has physical feelings
• Has emotional feelings
• Has a conscious"

- Sentient Being (Legal Definition: All You Need To Know)

Why is it okay, and very very often necessary for carnivores to kill what you kill a sentient being but not okay for man to do the same?

The clue is in the word carnivore.

If your beliefs are only based upon religion then it would be correct for others to reject your attempt to impose your religious beliefs upon others.

This has nothing to do with religion, for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually it does not. Maybe for you.



In the context of this thread, cows, sheep, goats, hens ie those that end up in a butcher's shop.



The clue is in the word carnivore.



This has nothing to do with religion, for me.

Such a short post and you had to use the technique of breaking it up excessively. That is not a good sign for your argument. People are not carnivores. We are not herbivores. We are omnivores. That means that we evolved to eat from all sources so pointing out the word "carnivore" means almost exclusively meat easters does not really help your argument. It looks as if you cannot support your beliefs by the way that you answered my questions. When one cannot properly support their beliefs that they want to impose upon others then they should not be surprised when others refuse to follow their beliefs.

I am waiting for a rational reason not to eat other animals. There very well may be a rational argument for that. I am not going to hysterically claim that you are wrong and then fry up half a cow in response. Give me reasons and I can be convinced.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Some Politicians in Delhi want closure of meat shops during Navaratri. In the past there has never been a problem - Why ever suddenly create problems? India is the world's biggest democracy. It must accommodate all its citizens. Its enduring stability is a magnet for international financial investment. Comments?

Just as you pointed, I do not like this, though I favor the current National government and the so-called Hindu party. They say 70% of Hindus (including most in my community are non-vegetarians), and these problems have made the price of meat sky-rocket. These thing are irritants and more. I do not like even banning of beef in many Indian states. I do not have any problem in eating beef. It is against economic principles. The result will be that people would not raise cows. After all, we consume the flesh of so many other animals. I endure this because we have a honest government after 70 years of independence.

It gives votes.

I do not think so. Ram Janma Bhoomi also did not bring them votes. It is important only to a section of Hindus, and disliked by many others. The current price of meat is double what it was five years ago. Do they want to weaken the next generation Indians?
List of countries by meat consumption - Wikipedia

To stop the relentless killing of sentient beings.

Hindu books said 'Jeevo Jeevasya Bhojanam". What, then, is the problem?
"Brahmarpanam Bhrahmahavir Brahmagnou Brahmanahutam" BhagawadGita
In short, what is eaten is Brahman, who eats is Brahman.

 

[Secret Chief]

Such a short post and you had to use the technique of breaking it up excessively. That is not a good sign for your argument.

I broke it up to respond to each relevant point as I saw fit. Looks like I'm doing it again.

People are not carnivores. We are not herbivores. We are omnivores.

I know and I know what the words mean too.

That means that we evolved to eat from all sources so pointing out the word "carnivore" means almost exclusively meat easters does not really help your argument.

In my eyes it is an obvious point to make in response. You asked about us doing the same as carnivores. Pointing out the word carnivore is to point out that carnivores have to eat meat. We can eat from all sources, but we do not have to.

. It looks as if you cannot support your beliefs by the way that you answered my questions. When one cannot properly support their beliefs that they want to impose upon others then they should not be surprised when others refuse to follow their beliefs.

I'm not trying to impose. I'm expressing my opinion in a public forum. I have no urge or expectation of persuasion.

I am waiting for a rational reason not to eat other animals. There very well may be a rational argument for that. I am not going to hysterically claim that you are wrong and then fry up half a cow in response. Give me reasons and I can be convinced.

The bottom line is eating other animals is not nutritionally necessary for humans. Maybe once it made our brains grow bigger and we dropped out of the trees, but I don't see that as a justification today. In fact quite the opposite, eating meat is a good way to increase the chance of becoming overweight and of getting a cancer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I broke it up to respond to each relevant point as I saw fit. Looks like I'm doing it again.



I know and I know what the words mean too.



In my eyes it is an obvious point to make in response. You asked about us doing the same as carnivores. Pointing out the word carnivore is to point out that carnivores have to eat meat. We can eat from all sources, but we do not have to.



I'm not trying to impose. I'm expressing my opinion in a public forum. I have no urge or expectation of persuasion.



The bottom line is eating other animals is not nutritionally necessary for humans. Maybe once it made our brains grow bigger and we dropped out of the trees, but I don't see that as a justification today. In fact quite the opposite, eating meat is a good way to increase the chance of becoming overweight and of getting a cancer.

If you truly want people to change their ways then you should debate properly. Right now it looks as if you want to preach and proselytize. That is often counterproductive.

 

[Secret Chief]

If you truly want people to change their ways then you should debate properly. Right now it looks as if you want to preach and proselytize. That is often counterproductive.

Weird, because as I just said, I'm simply expressing my opinion, not preaching, not proseltyzing, not posting in any expectation of persuading. Maybe someone reading my posts will be nudged to change, but that seems pretty unlikely. If someone knows what goes on in the meat industry and is still happy to eat meat, then a few words on an internet forum isn't going to change their mind. Globally, meat consumption is increasing and it will no doubt carry on in that direction for a good while yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Weird, because as I just said, I'm simply expressing my opinion, not preaching, not proseltyzing, not posting in any expectation of persuading. Maybe someone reading my posts will be nudged to change, but that seems pretty unlikely. If someone knows what goes on in the meat industry and is still happy to eat meat, then a few words on an internet forum isn't going to change their mind. Globally, meat consumption is increasing and it will no doubt carry on in that direction for a good while yet.

I will grant that the meat industry needs a bit more oversight. There are contradicting demands between efficiency and compassion. I do believe that ultimately science and technology will provide a solution. Would you be opposed to meat that is essentially grown in a test tube?

 

[Secret Chief]

Would you be opposed to meat that is essentially grown in a test tube?

Simple answer no as there is no animal welfare issue. However, I do consider it a waste of resources (since meat is not nutritionally essential) and is likely to maintain the "taste" for the "real thing" - which will probably be sold as a premium luxury good.

Personally, I would not want to eat it. Pleasure in taste is of course psychological and subject to change. Till the age of 24 I loved meat, fish and poultry. Now....I'd gag. Plus, I wouldn't trust the provider to be honest. When McD launched plant burgers in the UK there were multiple persistent cases of the outlets running out and selling meat burgers instead to customers who thought they were being given plant burgers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple answer no as there is no animal welfare issue. However, I do consider it a waste of resources (since meat is not nutritionally essential) and is likely to maintain the "taste" for the "real thing" - which will probably be sold as a premium luxury good.

Personally, I would not want to eat it. Pleasure in taste is of course psychological and subject to change. Till the age of 24 I loved meat, fish and poultry. Now....I'd gag. Plus, I wouldn't trust the provider to be honest. When McD launched plant burgers in the UK there were multiple persistent cases of the outlets running out and selling meat burgers instead.

But even McD's failures should be promising. The reason that they sold out was the enough people ate the plant burgers and found them to be tasty and wanted more. If they tasted awful there would not be a supply chain issue. That they cheated is only a small set back. I have had a Burger King Whopper made with "impossible meat" and it is very close to the real thing. The open market is your best bet to change people, not lectures.

 

[Secret Chief]

But even McD's failures should be promising. The reason that they sold out was the enough people ate the plant burgers and found them to be tasty and wanted more. If they tasted awful there would not be a supply chain issue. That they cheated is only a small set back. I have had a Burger King Whopper made with "impossible meat" and it is very close to the real thing. The open market is your best bet to change people, not lectures.

I agree the open market is where it's "tested" although the demand has not come from the market, it's good that companies are having to step up to the plate (sorry).

 

[sayak83]

To stop the relentless killing of sentient beings.

You may believe this, but many do not and consider animal we eat as rightful and essential source of food humans have always eaten (as do all omnivores). What is the moral justification for a democratic government to impose a certain view about food onto all it's citizens?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree the open market is where it's "tested" although the demand has not come from the market, it's good that companies are having to step up to the plate (sorry).

You are at least meeting me halfway. Can you understand that many meat eaters see a need to lower animal cruelty? It is far less cruel to die in a slaughterhouse than to be eaten by a carnivore in the wild. Plus the vast majority of those animals would not have been alive in the first place if not for being a source of meat.