A debate is about one point of view against other.
The reason I said that killing for food is as per the basic law of mother nature because mother nature has made many life forms carnovoruous or omnivorous, including us humans.
Our mere existence is detrimental to many life forms..plants have life too, our breathing kills millions of life forms, even shampooing will kill millions of life forms...needless to say that our modern advancement is causing many types of pollution and causing death and extinction to many life forms. In fact human beings are quite efficient at killing their own in many ways. Dharmiks too do all these..!
Public display of slaughter and animal carcass is illegal anyway, it should be done in confined space without disturbing others.
Non-vegetarianism is an accepted way of life even in India, hence, animal slaughtering in temples and in Eid should be just fine if the end use of the meat is food.
Hinduism was never defined by vegetarianism, however, vegetarians may differentiate themselves from the non-vegetarian Hindus without disrespecting the later...maybe they can call themselves "Shakahari Hindus", no problem with that.
I was pointing out the fallacy in your implied contention that its dharmic to slaughter animals. (point of view). The value system of our civilization and what we have exported to other civilizations is Dharma.
Everybody is aware of "mother" nature, animals also indulge in incest. Humans don't. That itself is contrary to "mother" nature. So its rather clear that Humans value system has evolved BEYOND mother nature and focuses on responsible living and maintaining balance in nature, unlike other animals who act purely on their own self interest. So this point about imitating "mother" nature can be safely discarded.
Dharma do not condone pollution, wars or killing. Ravana was a Brahmin and a Darmic, but he is still seen as a villain. Not a hero. So this line of argument too can also be safely discarded as not all Dharmic practice what they preach. That however DOES NOT mean what they practice become Dharma. That too is a logical fallacy.
Non vegetarianism is accepted and respected but ugly display of greed and indulgence is not. Unwanted cruelty to animals is NOT accepted or respected. No one has asked for a permanent meat ban for you to make this argument.
The demand was for a temporary ban on slaughter in areas dominated by Jains. Same for Hindus and other dharmics during their holy days. This is because these days are to reinforce Dharmic values in larger society and any act that is contrary to these values is harmful, hurtful and malicious in action and intention.
No one has claimed hinduism is defined by vegetarianism, however vegetarianism is an extension of the
practice of Hindu dharmic values. Ravan was a Hindu too, so was Duryodhana. How or What you "Label" them is irrelevant. Same hold true for labelling them "Shakahari Hindus" or "Asura" or "Rakshasha" or "Liberal" etc. What is relevant is the Values preached, practiced and the protection of the way of life defined by these values.
