Adi Godrej first to speak out: Beef ban, prohibition are hurting economy

[Samudra Manthan]

Country after country in the West people are turning towards vegetarianism and veganism and they don't seem to be shrinking their economy due to avoiding beef but the 2-3% of population which eats beef in India would tank India's economy if beef is not provided to them. While people all over the world are advocating eliminating animal cruelty, Indian bhadralok want more animals to be killed because killing is how they champion animal rights. Killing is considered progressive and beef ban primitive by these worthies. Not killing cows is as gross as Sati system per them.

 

[Bombermanx1]

Democracy is not exactly based on majority rule, basically in a democracy several groups of people form several political parties and go to the citizens with their policies of good governance that they promise within the ambit of constitution, and whom citizens elect gets to govern the country within the ambit of constitution for a stipulated time. The elected government is not supreme, but constitution is, and we have several checks and balances to ensure that the elected government works within the ambit of constitution and cannot enforce brute majoritarianism, that's why we have two different houses and an independent judiciary, a civil society and media.

Some of the practical examples of majoritarianism are Nazis and communist regimes where all differing voices are crushed.




Mere existence of "polytheists idol-worshiper pagan Hindus" could offend believers of Abrahamic religions, would you support them if they ban all Hindu practices wherever they are in majority in the world?

All fundamentalists and radicals use the same argument that you are pitching here to justify their action.

Democracy is the rule of Majority, in the big picture, its upto you whether you want to water it down and make it look as if everyone get's a say,limited time, checks and balances,judiciary etc.
The brutal truth and the whole gist of Democracy is a party which gets voted by majority of citizens gets into power if that is not majoritarianism then i don't know what is.

Two different houses are a symbolic relic of the british rule.Judiciary might look independent, but when a party comes into power it places its people in judiciary,that is a inevitable eventuality.

Civil society hardly cares about what happens, if they cared they would not have voted the same Corrupt looters again and again, people have herd mentality and they behave like a flock.

Media its a sold out enterprise to the highest bidder and its in cahoots with Abrahamic religions in order to tarnish Hindus and harvest more souls.

Was it not banned earlier? Did you forget the inquisitions of Portugese,or the systematic persecution by Islamic invaders?
A wolf in sheeps clothing always remains a wolf it won't change into a sheep overnight.
They can impose a ban,if they want and we will impose bans on them in this country.You give them a inch they take a mile,only Hindus put up with such nonsense of getting insulted by abrahamic cultists in their own temples and public.

The definition of Fundamentalists is not bad in abrahamic sense, it means going back to the fundamental foundations of their religion
which is
1) everyone is born a sinner.The original sin
2) Only jesus can save everyone,rest will go to hell.
3)The Trinity and bible.
So in their view going back to their basic fundamentals is called as born again christian,who follows his/her religion dutifully according to its tenets, which good as per them and .Not bad as you try to make it look.

While Hindus have no Fundamentals like Abrahamic religions be it Judaism,Christianity or Islam.
So how do you apply the word Fundamentalists to Hindus,when we have no original sin, Trinity,Jesus is the saviour belief system as they do?
It is like comparing Apples and Oranges, because there is no similarity.

This is the same mistake every Hindus makes in espousing Secularism,when that idea originated in Europe, wherein Church powers were curtailed,Church won't have a say in matters of state.
How do such paramaters of Europe apply to India and Hindus, when did our Temples have a say in State matters? Our Kings never asked the temples on how to run a nation.
Again Secularism is a European Construct, not suitable nor applicable to Indian context.

Read Rajiv Malhotras book "Being Different" it will explain the fundamentalists in detail

 

[AbRaj]

Country after country in the West people are turning towards vegetarianism and veganism and they don't seem to be shrinking their economy due to avoiding beef but the 2-3% of population which eats beef in India would tank India's economy if beef is not provided to them. While people all over the world are advocating eliminating animal cruelty, Indian bhadralok want more animals to be killed because killing is how they champion animal rights. Killing is considered progressive and beef ban primitive by these worthies. Not killing cows is as gross as Sati system per them.

Calm down buddy, I too am a vegetarian (eggitarian actually ) but you can not just impose your will on others.
Primitive practice in the sense that in older days cows have very important role in each family in the form milk, farm labour, manure and meat. But in modern days they are not that important

 

[Samudra Manthan]

Calm down buddy, I too am a vegetarian (eggitarian to be absolute) but you can not just impose your will on others.
Primitive practice in the sense that in older days cows have very important role in each family in the form milk, farm labour, manure and meat. But in modern days they are not that important

Yeah, buddy since you are a vegetarian or eggitarian every foolish thing you sprout from your mouth should be considered divine wisdom. True, in the older days cows have important role in each family in form of milk, manure, and farm labor. Now with our half an acre plot farmland, we can be more efficient and use tractors. Instead of milk we can satisfy ourselves with Desi Daru. Instead of manure, we can entirely rely fertilizers derived from petroleum products and contribute to killing a lot of Muslims in Middle East. I guess it is cheaper to kill Muslims and get their oil cheap to produce fertilizers than use our useless cows. We are living in modern days after all.

 

[v9s]

When they do beef festivals in universities and on roads - YES THEY ARE IMPOSING ON US.

No they aren't. Those activities are for Muslims, not for you. I would not go to a pork festival, nor would I go to a Bar.

 

[AbRaj]

Yeah, buddy since you are a vegetarian or eggitarian every foolish thing you sprout from your mouth should be considered divine wisdom. True, in the older days cows have important role in each family in form of milk, manure, and farm labor. Now with our half an acre plot farmland, we can be more efficient and use tractors. Instead of milk we can satisfy ourselves with Desi Daru. Instead of manure, we can entirely rely fertilizers derived from petroleum products and contribute to killing a lot of Muslims in Middle East. I guess it is cheaper to kill Muslims and get their oil cheap to produce fertilizers than use our useless cows. We are living in modern days after all.

Let farmers decide what best for them. Bull vs tractor or Cow manure vs fertilizers.
As I said you can't just impose your demands to everyone. It's not a autocratic society.
But no body can stop you from doing what you like.

 

[Samudra Manthan]

Let farmers decide what best for them. Bull vs tractor or Cow manure vs fertilizers.
As I said you can't just impose your demands to everyone. It's not a autocratic society.
But no body can stop you from doing what you like.

We already are. This is just the beginning.

 

[AbRaj]

We already are. This is just the beginning.

Trust me, it's not going to work

 

[Samudra Manthan]

Trust me, it's not going to work

It already is a reality in 90% of our states and landmass. This when secularism was at its zenith. India is going to get more and more Hinduized as knowledge and truth of the wisdom of our culture spreads.

 

[Nimitam]

Let farmers decide what best for them. Bull vs tractor or Cow manure vs fertilizers.
As I said you can't just impose your demands to everyone. It's not a autocratic society.
But no body can stop you from doing what you like.

That is a stupid argument.

That is like saying let Fathers decide what is best for their daughters. To Rape them or get them married off, to sell them or educate them or keep them as household slaves.

Society does not work that way. Farmers or butchers or even father do not get to decide everything in their best selfish interests.

Societies run on its values, on its social contracts. So Farmer can do what is best for them as long as it is in conformity with Social values.

It is not an autocratic society, neither is it a mindless free uncivilized society. It is a ancient cultured, civilized society where the values and ethics has been long established.

Finally, plenty of people can Stop you from doing what you like. Just try walking on the street and molesting a girl. You will know how people can stop you.

 

[AbRaj]

That is a stupid argument.

That is like saying let Fathers decide what is best for their daughters. To Rape them or get them married off, to sell them or educate them or keep them as household slaves.

Society does not work that way. Farmers or butchers or even father do not get to decide everything in their best selfish interests.

Societies run on its values, on its social contracts. So Farmer can do what is best for them as long as it is in conformity with Social values.

It is not an autocratic society, neither is it a mindless free uncivilized society. It is a ancient cultured, civilized society where the values and ethics has been long established.

Finally, plenty of people can Stop you from doing what you like. Just try walking on the street and molesting a girl. You will know how people can stop you.

Hilarious comparison, beyond logic.
You certainly have a twisted though process

 

[Nimitam]

There are thousands of reasons to not ban beef, but the most important reason is that it is ethically, democratically and logically wrong to ban a particular food for all just because one community, even if it is the majority, don't consume that food.

It is same like any non-Hindu majority country banning Hindu practices in their country because it is contrary to their belief system.

By that logic we should be permitted to sell Dead Bodies of Humans as meat for consumption. They can be consumed by people or by animals.

That way we will not need graveyards either and that land can be used to property development.

All dead bodies can be converted into dog food and cat food and we can even export that.

Hilarious comparison, beyond logic.
You certainly have a twisted though process

Nope. I have clarity of thought.

You posts however show neither awareness nor Logic.

My personal perversions are not open for debate. Focus on the Facts of the case.

Adi Godrej forgot to make a few more important points.


India looses a lot of money by banning the use of Drugs and export of Drugs. This Ban is hurting the economy. India should now make drugs legal.

Also it has been observed that we are loosing out on Tourism by not having enough quality prostitutes in India. We too can become a huge tourist destination like Thailand if we can lift the ban on prostitution and paedophilia.

In fact we can also grow the economy by allowing Gambling in a big way. India can become the Gambling and prostitution capital of the world and it will improve our Economy Tremendously.


Adi Godrej will lead the way.

 

[dray]

By that logic we should be permitted to sell Dead Bodies of Humans as meat for consumption. They can be consumed by people or by animals.

That way we will not need graveyards either and that land can be used to property development.

All dead bodies can be converted into dog food and cat food and we can even export that.

We have done this argument a thousand times already Manavan, we live in a human civilization, not a cow civilization, eating a human being is not same as eating any other animal including a cow, just like the way killing a human being is not same as killing any other animal like a cow, or a goat, dog, hilsa fish, cockroach, mosquito or chicken. It's a difference between own species and others.

 

[Nimitam]

We have done this argument a thousand times already Manavan, we live in a human civilization, not a cow civilization, eating a human being is not same as eating any other animal including a cow, just like the way killing a human being is not same as killing any other animal like a cow, or a goat, dog, hilsa fish, cockroach, mosquito or chicken. It's a difference between own species and others.

My name is Nimitam and I am not interested in the KIND of ANIMAL you eat.

What makes one species more sacrosanct than the other ? PURE LOGIC will dictate that it is no different.

Especially if it is dead. After all, All Flesh is measured in Carbohydrates and proteins it will deliver and on that ground Human Flesh is just as nutritious as flesh of ANY other animal.

I am debating the PRINCIPLE behind the decision making process. What you are suggesting that we need not have any underlying principle or guide line, but we just take arbitrary decision and call that LOGIC.


Not very logical, is it ? LOGIC does not work that way.


Human civilization does not consist only of Humans. It consists of everything in our Environment and ecosystem. Every element in this planet plays an role in what you call 'human civilization'. Every insect, every animal, every plant, every weed, every molecule and every drop of water.

Just by calling it 'human civilization' you cannot dismiss every other element of this civilization, society, environment, universe. THAT is not very Logical.

 

[dray]

Democracy is the rule of Majority, in the big picture, its upto you whether you want to water it down and make it look as if everyone get's a say,limited time, checks and balances,judiciary etc.
The brutal truth and the whole gist of Democracy is a party which gets voted by majority of citizens gets into power if that is not majoritarianism then i don't know what is.

Two different houses are a symbolic relic of the british rule.Judiciary might look independent, but when a party comes into power it places its people in judiciary,that is a inevitable eventuality.

Civil society hardly cares about what happens, if they cared they would not have voted the same Corrupt looters again and again, people have herd mentality and they behave like a flock.

Media its a sold out enterprise to the highest bidder and its in cahoots with Abrahamic religions in order to tarnish Hindus and harvest more souls.

What is 'rule by majority' when BJP govt. got only 31% votes, and previous Congress govt. got even less? Why do you think both the previous govt. and now BJP govt. are having difficulties in getting the bills passed? Because they all work under the constitutional framework and need to work with all, even the political minorities that got votes in single digits!

The situation you are suggesting is not new, it happened in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's USSR, Kim Jong's North Korea, erstwhile East Germany, and many other places, and briefly in India during Indira Gandhi's period. But those are not great examples to follow.

Was it not banned earlier? Did you forget the inquisitions of Portugese,or the systematic persecution by Islamic invaders?
A wolf in sheeps clothing always remains a wolf it won't change into a sheep overnight.
They can impose a ban,if they want and we will impose bans on them in this country.You give them a inch they take a mile,only Hindus put up with such nonsense of getting insulted by abrahamic cultists in their own temples and public.

The definition of Fundamentalists is not bad in abrahamic sense, it means going back to the fundamental foundations of their religion
which is
1) everyone is born a sinner.The original sin
2) Only jesus can save everyone,rest will go to hell.
3)The Trinity and bible.
So in their view going back to their basic fundamentals is called as born again christian,who follows his/her religion dutifully according to its tenets, which good as per them and .Not bad as you try to make it look.

While Hindus have no Fundamentals like Abrahamic religions be it Judaism,Christianity or Islam.
So how do you apply the word Fundamentalists to Hindus,when we have no original sin, Trinity,Jesus is the saviour belief system as they do?
It is like comparing Apples and Oranges, because there is no similarity.

This is the same mistake every Hindus makes in espousing Secularism,when that idea originated in Europe, wherein Church powers were curtailed,Church won't have a say in matters of state.
How do such paramaters of Europe apply to India and Hindus, when did our Temples have a say in State matters? Our Kings never asked the temples on how to run a nation.
Again Secularism is a European Construct, not suitable nor applicable to Indian context.

Read Rajiv Malhotras book "Being Different" it will explain the fundamentalists in detail

Secularism is not an European concept, it's just an English word. Many Indian kings have followed the concept for thousands of years in ancient times.