VHP will declare Gujarat a Hindu state by 2015: Pravin Togadia

[seedhi]

The fact that i cannot eat beef in Karnataka is an imposition on me borne out of hypothetical religious dogma that has no shred of logical thinking or rational evidence towards it. Ie, no different than how Afghans, if you took a poll, would overwhelmingly agree that women who talk to men outside their family should be stoned to death.

Protection of the cow is part of the directive principles of state policy of the Constitution of India which, evidently, was not framed by the RSS. By the way, cow is not the only animal which is protected (in some states). You cannot, for example, kill a tiger in India.

[Muloghonto]

the fact that people in the state of Karnataka exercised democratic process to elect legislators to enact a certain law does have an effect on the citizens of Karnataka. You yourself are not a single individual upon which the state of Karnataka runs upon. You are an Indian' date=' one out of 120 crore people that have different beliefs.[/quote'] But my beleifs are not being imposed on society,neither am i seeking to impose them on society. Tell us please how is imposition of a hypothetical set of beleifs on society, in the form of law, not an evil thing ? On what basis do you hindus have the right to impinge on my freedom to eat cows ? You dont want to eat cows ? THEN DONT EAT THEM! you wanna worship cows ? Go ahead, make a cow deity. I dont give a flying frigg about it. You are free to do so and i will protect your right to do so. But what gives you the right to tell me what i can and cannot eat, based on a set of unproven and unsubstantiated bullshyte ?

[Muloghonto]

Protection of the cow is part of the directive principles of state policy of the Constitution of India which' date=' evidently, was not framed by the RSS. By the way, cow is not the only animal which is protected (in some states). You cannot, for example, kill a tiger in India.[/quote'] Tigers are endangered, cows are not. Tigers are not a sustainance commodity, cows are.

[seedhi]

The thread itself provides evidence for it. To impose a hypothetical beleif on society' date=' without a single shred of proof, is evil. What else is evil, if not being forced to do something because some douchebag thinks this is God's plan but has no proof ?[/quote']Actually, if you think about it there is a logic behind banning cow slaughter. It is the same logic which bans you from drawing a portrait of Mohammad and display it in public.

[FischerTal]

The thread itself provides evidence for it. To impose a hypothetical beleif on society' date=' without a single shred of proof, is evil. What else is evil, if not being forced to do something because some douchebag thinks this is God's plan but has no proof ?[/quote'] Lol, evil is a very broad term that you apply so easily because your own prejudices towards a particular group of people

[seedhi]

Tigers are endangered' date=' cows are not. Tigers are not a sustainance commodity, cows are.[/quote']Really? People cannot live without consuming cows? Let me also add that it is perfectly legal to slaughter buffaloes. So you already have a close substitute for the beef of cows.

[Muloghonto]

no it doesnt. just because you say something over and over again does not make it true. Samjhe' date=' goebbels ke pujari [/quote'] I am not the one imposing arbitary laws on people based on a false/unproven set of beleifs (Nazism/Hinduism). Thus, Goebbels is more analogous to your VHP/RSS thinktanks, not me. False. The society and its constituents have the mandate to make laws that are based on a principle of freedom of the said constituents and their rights. As such, there is a difference between democracy and tyranny of the majority that you are clearly failing to differentiate. A democracy has the right to make laws provided they are not impinging on the human rights that are mandated by the Geneva Convention, to which India is a signatory. A tyranny of majority has no such considerations, they will make laws that forces you to rape your own mother if that is what they want. That is the salient but not so obvious difference between democratic nations and those that are tyranny of the majority. India runs a genuine risk of slipping into the latter camp, thanks to people like you who think it is justifiable to impose anything on society so long as you got a majority.

[Muloghonto]

Really? People cannot live without consuming cows? Let me also add that it is perfectly legal to slaughter buffaloes. So you already have a close substitute for the beef of cows.

I did not say they cannot live without consuming cows. I said that cows are a sustainance commodity. Whether it is through meat or milk, they largely exist to provide for us, which is a function of many thousands of years of human society. Since they are established in that role to society and they are not endangered, one does not have the right to curtail that role of the cow based on arbitary and unsubstantiated theories that constitute religion.

[seedhi]

I am not the one imposing arbitary laws on people based on a false/unproven set of beleifs (Nazism/Hinduism). Thus, Goebbels is more analogous to your VHP/RSS thinktanks, not me. False. The society and its constituents have the mandate to make laws that are based on a principle of freedom of the said constituents and their rights. As such, there is a difference between democracy and tyranny of the majority that you are clearly failing to differentiate. A democracy has the right to make laws provided they are not impinging on the human rights that are mandated by the Geneva Convention, to which India is a signatory. A tyranny of majority has no such considerations, they will make laws that forces you to rape your own mother if that is what they want. That is the salient but not so obvious difference between democratic nations and those that are tyranny of the majority. India runs a genuine risk of slipping into the latter camp, thanks to people like you who think it is justifiable to impose anything on society so long as you got a majority.

The Geneva conventions are about the treatment of prisoners of war and ethical use of weapons etc. It has nothing to do with human rights in general.

[Muloghonto]

Lol' date=' evil is a very broad term that you apply so easily because your own prejudices towards a particular group of people[/quote'] Not because of my prejudices towards a group but because of this group's tyrannical and evil behaviour to impose its unsubstantiated bakwaas beleifs on society. As i said, i am not forcing you to lead your life in what way you choose fit. But the institution you are backing, is forcing me to conform to completely arbitary standards that are borne not out of reason ro logic, but out of religious dogma, which is 100% unsubstantiated fairy tale. The moment you can show me evidence on what makes the Gita more 'real' than Snow White and the seven dwarves, you can start building a case. Till then, you have no case, it is just a bunch of guys who believe in hocus pocus who wants others to live by the same hocus pocus.

[Muloghonto]

The Geneva conventions are about the treatment of prisoners of war and ethical use of weapons etc. It has nothing to do with human rights in general.

Semantics. India is signatory to the Universal declaration of Human rights. India is treaty bound to respect the tenets of this page: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml Seems like someone needs to start a class action lawsuit against the government of India and the state government of Karnataka for violating the abovementioned declaration that India is a signatory to.

[FischerTal]

But my beleifs are not being imposed on society,neither am i seeking to impose them on society. Tell us please how is imposition of a hypothetical set of beleifs on society, in the form of law, not an evil thing ? On what basis do you hindus have the right to impinge on my freedom to eat cows ? You dont want to eat cows ? THEN DONT EAT THEM! you wanna worship cows ? Go ahead, make a cow deity. I dont give a flying frigg about it. You are free to do so and i will protect your right to do so. But what gives you the right to tell me what i can and cannot eat, based on a set of unproven and unsubstantiated bullshyte ?

YOU WANT TO EAT COWS. be my guest. go grow them and butcher them as much you want, but dont expect the state to think like you, Goebbels. The state is directed by the mandate of the constituents of the society to perform in a particular manner. You dont like it, then do whatever the hell you want to do, outside of the society,which has already defined its norms. If you cant accept it, its not upto us to make you agree to these norms. you believe in eating cows, go ahead and do it, but if a society has already decided what is best for its welfare, then who the hell are you to tell us what beliefs are evil and which ones are not. You are an individual that is part of indian nation. it is not upto the nation to make sure your whims are adhered to.

[seedhi]

I did not say they cannot live without consuming cows. I said that cows are a sustainance commodity. Whether it is through meat or milk' date=' they largely exist to provide for us, which is a function of many thousands of years of human society. Since they are established in that role to society and they are not endangered, [b']one does not have the right to curtail that role of the cow based on arbitary and unsubstantiated theories that constitute religion.

Sure the government has the right. Cow protection is part of directive principles of state policy of the Constitution. As I said earlier, the reason why cow slaughter is banned is the same as why you cannot draw a painting of Mohammad and hang it in public. It is the same reason pork and liquor are banned in J&K.

[Muloghonto]

again' date=' you are diverting from my argument that if he wants to eat beef, he should help elect a government that lets him do that. he, just like me and you, comprises of society not the other way around. that same society enacts laws that provide regulations and rules. if you dont like the rules and regulations, simply elect representatives that will change them. This is not rocket science[/quote'] As i said, you fail to differentiate between the very basic theories of what constitutes a democratic government and what constitutes a tyranny of the majority. I suspect you, as is usual with 99% of humanity, speak/type before you think or posess the knowledge on the matter. I would recommend you start reading some Thomas Jefferson where he outlines the basics of this very debate- how to differentiate between a democracy and a tyranny of the majority where all it takes for you to die is for a charismatic leader to convince enough people that all people with names starting with 'c' should be killed and passes on the vote.

[FischerTal]

Not because of my prejudices towards a group but because of this group's tyrannical and evil behaviour to impose its unsubstantiated bakwaas beleifs on society. As i said' date=' i am not forcing you to lead your life in what way you choose fit. But the institution you are backing, is [b']forcing me to conform to completely arbitary standards that are borne not out of reason ro logic, but out of religious dogma, which is 100% unsubstantiated fairy tale. The moment you can show me evidence on what makes the Gita more 'real' than Snow White and the seven dwarves, you can start building a case. Till then, you have no case, it is just a bunch of guys who believe in hocus pocus who wants others to live by the same hocus pocus.

lol you decide its bakwaas for you. others dont. You think you are the person on the basis of which the rest of us should also conduct our lives because of supposed rational beliefs. others wish to lead their lives in a different manner and that skeeves you. however, if you dont like hinduism, you already are able to live as an agnost. who the hell is stopping you from doing that? Your belief in eating beef is not shared by others in the society that YOU ARE A PART OFF. you are not an individual whose beliefs have to be adhered to by other people. We are free to conduct our lives free of your secular bakwaas. If you feel forced, then you back an institution and set of beliefs to your own liking and make sure that it is in a position to create rules and regulations to your likings. If you dont like the current institution, then go cry me a river. All you do is crib that society doesnt conduct itself the way that you would like it to, which amounts to you wanting your sets of beliefs to be followed by the rest of us so called "religious nutbars".

[hhunaeh]

eating beef in india is like eating dog or cat meat in usa. I believe eating dog meat is prohibited in usa.

[Muloghonto]

YOU WANT TO EAT COWS. be my guest. go grow them and butcher them as much you want' date=' but dont expect the state to think like you, Goebbels. [/quote'] What right has the state to infringe on my right to eat cows ? Because the concept of 'tyranny of majority' is the direct extrapolation of your insanity- that society can do whatever it wants provided it has enough popular support- this is the basis on which the Taliban execute women for smiling, the Nazis executed jews, etc. As i said, there are limits to the extent which society can dictate in our lives, the limits are set by fundamental human rights. You do not get to impinge on them just because you got enough nutbars to agree. I still get the right of habeus corpus, not because your society voted to keep it in place but because your society signed a treaty which dictates the right of habeus corpus to be above the right of democratic determination. It is most definitely up to the nation to protect my basic rights and what i choose to eat/not eat, outside of medical or ecological reasons, is my fundamental right which state has no right to dictate on. You seem to think that democracy meeans anything with majority gets enacted. You are incorrect on that one.

[seedhi]

Semantics. India is signatory to the Universal declaration of Human rights. India is treaty bound to respect the tenets of this page: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Where does this say anything about the right to eat the meat of your choice ?

Seems like someone needs to start a class action lawsuit against the government of India and the state government of Karnataka for violating the abovementioned declaration that India is a signatory to.

Are you serious? UN treaties are not worth the paper they are written in an Indian court of law.

[FischerTal]

As i said' date=' you fail to differentiate between the very basic theories of what constitutes a democratic government and what constitutes a tyranny of the majority. I suspect you, a[b']s is usual with 99% of humanity, speak/type before you think or posess the knowledge on the matter. I would recommend you start reading some Thomas Jefferson where he outlines the basics of this very debate- how to differentiate between a democracy and a tyranny of the majority where all it takes for you to die is for a charismatic leader to convince enough people that all people with names starting with 'c' should be killed and passes on the vote.

SachinLara the mahaan showing us again that he is the only reasonable person and the rest of society are idiots. Any relation to Justice Katju? Thy name is arrogance, ignorance, and plain snobbery. You fail to understand that your anarchist beliefs are the reason democracy is preferred. If society were to be based on your beliefs, we would be throwing out elected leaders every single day because even if that leader were to not comply to the wishes of SachinLara and his ilk, he/she would be deemed unfit because of the whims of one idiot.

[Muloghonto]

lol you decide its bakwaas for you. others dont.

I know others don't. But it doesnt change the fact that what you believe in, is unsubstantiated and with 0% evidence, which in other words,is bakwaas.

You think you are the person on the basis of which the rest of us should also conduct our lives because of supposed rational beliefs. others wish to lead their lives in a different manner and that skeeves you. however, if you dont like hinduism, you already are able to live as an agnost. who the hell is stopping you from doing that? Your belief in eating beef is not shared by others in the society that YOU ARE A PART OFF. you are not an individual whose beliefs have to be adhered to by other people. We are free to conduct our lives free of your secular bakwaas.

False. As i said, there are fundamental human rights that a society MUST respect. They supercede democratic process. You cannot deny people the right to fair trial by simply putting it up to vote, it is a fundamental right dictated in our constitution that cannot be modified. Ever. If majority of the society beleives they dont wanna eat beef, nobody is forcing them to. But if i want to enjoy a delicious steak, you have zero right, as an individual or a representative of a society, to stop me.

If you dont like the current institution, then go cry me a river. All you do is crib that society doesnt conduct itself the way that you would like it to, which amounts to you wanting your sets of beliefs to be followed by the rest of us so called "religious nutbars".

Since i do not propose any laws that cannot be upheld by rational factfinding, i am not imposing any beleifs. Nothing i have said on this thread or in any thread on how society should be, can be categorized as beleif- they all are based on existential reality and parameters that are quantifiable, which is essentially the basis of scientific process.