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

[seedhi]

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.

There is no fundamental right to your choice of meat. In India even freedom of speech is not absolute.

[Muloghonto]

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.

1. I am arrogant and snobbish. But not ignorant. Ignorance applies to you, since you refuse to even educate yourself on the differences between a democracy and a tyranny of the majority. 2. I am not asking leaders to cater to my whims and wishes, what i am saying is, laws should be based on need, necessity, quantifiable facts and the impact of the said laws. Not what a bunch of people with bakwaas beleif want to enact because of their hocus pocus books.

[FischerTal]

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.

because you consist of a part of society lalloo, not the other way around. Stupidity of the minority is a new phrase I would ascribe to your ilk. Just because society doesnt function in the way you would like to, you crib and cry as to why you arent allowed to act in a manner that those "religious nutbars" supposedly should. Nothing more than a person who believes that his beliefs are right and therefore, should be the basis of all of society. Such a hypocrite you yourself hold anyone who doesnt agree with your idiotic beliefs to be nutbars. ultimate hypocrite. Btw, insanity is something you will see vividly on a daily basis if you purchase a mirror.

[Muloghonto]

There is no fundamental right to your choice of meat. In India even freedom of speech is not absolute.

The supreme court decision against forced vasectomies has established, in India, that I am the ultimate master of my own body. As such, yes, i have complete right to eat whatever i want, provided that the said item is not on a banned list. How the item gets on the banned list is the bone of the issue- not the existence of the banned list. If the list is comprised out of consideration towards logistics, rationale, tangiable impact, etc ( eg: eating of tigers), then it has gone through a due process that is not impinging on anyone's fundamental right. When the list is comprised out of considerations towards hocus pocus beleifs, then i have the fundamental right to not be subjected to such hocus pocus beleifs in the first place.

[hhunaeh]

people should watch whale wars on animal planet and read about the horse meat controversy in europe.

[seedhi]

1. I am arrogant and snobbish. But not ignorant. Ignorance applies to you, since you refuse to even educate yourself on the differences between a democracy and a tyranny of the majority. 2. I am not asking leaders to cater to my whims and wishes, what i am saying is, laws should be based on need, necessity, quantifiable facts and the impact of the said laws. Not what a bunch of people with bakwaas beleif want to enact because of their hocus pocus books.

And how can you say that there is no impact of cow slaughter? When people start slaughtering cows in front of temples, will you descend from your abode to stop the riotous mobs? Similarly, if people start hanging cartoons of Mohammad from their windows, will your highness magically stop the violence? Remember that there is prohibition in Gujarat, and it was not imposed by RSS but according to the wishes of Gandhi, who by the way also wanted to curb cow slaughter.

[seedhi]

The supreme court decision against forced vasectomies has established' date=' in India, that I am the ultimate master of my own body. As such, yes, i have complete right to eat whatever i want, provided that the said item is not on a banned list. How the item gets on the banned list is the bone of the issue- not the existence of the banned list. If the list is comprised out of consideration towards logistics, rationale, tangiable impact, etc ( eg: eating of tigers), then it has gone through a due process that is not impinging on anyone's fundamental right. When the list is comprised out of considerations towards hocus pocus beleifs, then i have the fundamental right to not be subjected to such hocus pocus beleifs in the first place.[/quote']You mean to say that eating tiger is not a fundamental right but eating cow is? Then how did the framers of our Constitution add cow protection in the directive principles of state policy? In any case banning cow slaughter can also be justified as a measure to stop inflaming religious passions, which is why alcohol and pork are also banned in certain places, and the reason why you cannot publish photos of Mohammad.

[FischerTal]

1. I am arrogant and snobbish. But not ignorant. Ignorance applies to you, since you refuse to even educate yourself on the differences between a democracy and a tyranny of the majority. 2. I am not asking leaders to cater to my whims and wishes, what i am saying is, laws should be based on need, necessity, quantifiable facts and the impact of the said laws. Not what a bunch of people with bakwaas beleif want to enact because of their hocus pocus books.

you are ignorant because you believe your set of beliefs rank above others and its simply not true. I told you that if you do not believe in beef being banned, then you have the ability to elect a government that reverses the law. There are no fundamental human rights being violated. Nothing restricts you from engaging in democratic participation. Your inability to comprehend this simple statement is baffling. Just the way that you are not wanting laws to be based on what you believe to be hocus pocus books, I dont want laws to be based on your secular, supposedly rational bakwaas. The end result has been there for all to see in many countries that you love to show as models of your bakwaas. i.e. America and Canada

[seedhi]

Article 48 of Part IV of the Constitution of India:

48. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.- The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

[hhunaeh]

cutting up and eating an animal to which a majority of the population have an emotional connection with is not advisable. This is true in all countries of the world. The countries and animals are different but the reactions you get will be similar. I eat beef in us but stay away from it in india.

[Muloghonto]

because you consist of a part of society lalloo' date=' not the other way around. [/quote'] So what ? A society exists to safeguard the interests of EACH AND EVERY ONE of its members. As i said, you seem to hold the idiotic view that majority vote means you can rape my mother if majority approves of it. Sorry, it doesnt work that way in real democracies. False, since nothing what i said, is subject to 'beleif'. I do not impose my beleifs on others! how are you even comming to that conclusion ? What have i 'imposed' on you and your ilk ? I am not acting in a manner consistent with religious nutbars, since i am not imposing any arbitary morality and views on anyone else. No, i hold those who try to force others to lead their lives on the basis of bullshyte with zero proof as nutbars. True for the Taliban, true for the Jesuits and also true for the VHP/RSS. Common theme: nutbars who seek to impose lifestyles on other individuals on the basis of zero proof. The latter camp is about tangiable evidence and laws based on tangiable benifits, losses and such while respecting the individual rights of all. There is no 'bakwaas' in rational or secular laws, because the fundamental bearing of these laws is based on what we all can scientifically determine to be facts. As such, there is no 'bakwaas' in it, what we have bakwaas in, is stuff like no cow slaughter because some unproven book said so, no free women because some other unproven book said so, etc. If by 'end result' you mean the highest individual freedom, rights, social mobility and lifestyle choices, then yes, the result is there for everyone to see, since every single society that is successful on its own today is a product of the secular processes adopted by society. PS: 'tyranny of the majority' is not a phrase invented by me. As i said, educate yourself further before you spout off nonsense.

[Muloghonto]

And how can you say that there is no impact of cow slaughter? When people start slaughtering cows in front of temples' date=' will you descend from your abode to stop the riotous mobs? [/quote'] No. I have as much right to slaughter a cow in my premises as much as a pig. Dont care whether i have a common wall with a mosque or a temple. The solution is simple- jail each and every one of those guilty of upsetting public order. You have no right to commit illigal acts (rioting, vandalism, murder, rape, etc) just because you are angry. I don't care what got you angry- whether it is a cow being beaten up with a chainsaw or mohammed being made to look like the cheetos tiger. And that is wrong, since it is imposition of a completely arbitary set of beleifs on others.

[Muloghonto]

You mean to say that eating tiger is not a fundamental right but eating cow is? Then how did the framers of our Constitution add cow protection in the directive principles of state policy? In any case banning cow slaughter can also be justified as a measure to stop inflaming religious passions, which is why alcohol and pork are also banned in certain places, and the reason why you cannot publish photos of Mohammad.

banning anything just because a bunch of idiots with their unproven views are offended, is a silly and wrong concept. Maybe we should then ban all Krishna statues because the idea of a blue human being offends me. So by you guys's logic, i just need enough votes to go around smash all the Krishna statues in the country, correct ? And if i were to acuqire such powers via voting, i assume you will have no problem whatsoever, since then it is mandated by the majority ?

[FischerTal]

So what ? A society exists to safeguard the interests of EACH AND EVERY ONE of its members. As i said, you seem to hold the idiotic view that majority vote means you can rape my mother if majority approves of it. Sorry, it doesnt work that way in real democracies. I do not impose my beleifs on others! how are you even comming to that conclusion ? What have i 'imposed' on you and your ilk ? I am not acting in a manner consistent with religious nutbars, since i am not imposing any arbitary morality and views on anyone else. No, i hold those who try to force others to lead their lives on the basis of bullshyte with zero proof as nutbars. True for the Taliban, true for the Jesuits and also true for the VHP/RSS. Common theme: nutbars who seek to impose lifestyles on other individuals on the basis of zero proof.

strawman argument. you seem to divert from the original issue of beef eating. As I have already said, if you want to eat beef, procure the resources to do it yourself. Dont ask for public help in that process. you are acting in a manner where your beliefs have to be upheld by the rest of society because you believe them to be right and devoid of religion. others dont agree with you. you are free to do whatever the hell you want in your private quarters. In the public realm, you are subject to certain rules and regulations. Nobody is talking of your mother being raped, because for that, there is a consequence of going to jail, which the society you abhor so much has already made into a law idiot. Thats the exact basis on which you operate. you go around attacking theists and their beliefs because you have your own set of supremacist ideological beliefs that you feel are right, especially when you tried to show us the virtues of US and Canada over a country like India. Others dont think like you, accept it and you will sleep better at night

[FischerTal]

So what ? A society exists to safeguard the interests of EACH AND EVERY ONE of its members. As i said, you seem to hold the idiotic view that majority vote means you can rape my mother if majority approves of it. Sorry, it doesnt work that way in real democracies. False, since nothing what i said, is subject to 'beleif'. I do not impose my beleifs on others! how are you even comming to that conclusion ? What have i 'imposed' on you and your ilk ? I am not acting in a manner consistent with religious nutbars, since i am not imposing any arbitary morality and views on anyone else. No, i hold those who try to force others to lead their lives on the basis of bullshyte with zero proof as nutbars. True for the Taliban, true for the Jesuits and also true for the VHP/RSS. Common theme: nutbars who seek to impose lifestyles on other individuals on the basis of zero proof. The latter camp is about tangiable evidence and laws based on tangiable benifits, losses and such while respecting the individual rights of all. There is no 'bakwaas' in rational or secular laws, because the fundamental bearing of these laws is based on what we all can scientifically determine to be facts. As such, there is no 'bakwaas' in it, what we have bakwaas in, is stuff like no cow slaughter because some unproven book said so, no free women because some other unproven book said so, etc. If by 'end result' you mean the highest individual freedom, rights, social mobility and lifestyle choices, then yes, the result is there for everyone to see, since every single society that is successful on its own today is a product of the secular processes adopted by society. PS: 'tyranny of the majority' is not a phrase invented by me. As i said, educate yourself further before you spout off nonsense.

lol, supposedly fascist Israel allows gays more rights than America idiot.

[Muloghonto]

Thats the exact basis on which you operate.

Show me one evidence of a 'BS unsubstantiated beleif' that i have propagated.

you go around attacking theists and their beliefs because you have your own set of supremacist ideological beliefs that you feel are right, especially when you tried to show us the virtues of US and Canada over a country like India. Others dont think like you, accept it and you will sleep better at night

I go around attacking those theists who think that they have the right to tell me how to live my life as a part of society, because their nonsensical and unevidenced books said so. I also happen to defend the right of those idiotic theists who want to believe in such lunatic ideas- just so long as they do not impose them on *ME*. The fact that most of the civilized world thinks like me, is evidenced by the fact that not just US or Canada, but the bulk majority of the civilized world happen to hold the same standards as me when it comes to social determination. Happens to be, that unlike you, most of us are also significantly more educated on the pros and cons of various forms of government. Unlike you hypocrites, who wish to impose your hypothetical beleifs on society, we seek to impose no such impingement and restriction on society.

[Muloghonto]

lol' date=' supposedly fascist Israel allows gays more rights than America idiot.[/quote'] depends on which state in USA. I guess you have no clue how the legal system of the US works and what it actually means when it says United States of America ?

[FischerTal]

So what ? A society exists to safeguard the interests of EACH AND EVERY ONE of its members. As i said, you seem to hold the idiotic view that majority vote means you can rape my mother if majority approves of it. Sorry, it doesnt work that way in real democracies. False, since nothing what i said, is subject to 'beleif'. I do not impose my beleifs on others! how are you even comming to that conclusion ? What have i 'imposed' on you and your ilk ? I am not acting in a manner consistent with religious nutbars, since i am not imposing any arbitary morality and views on anyone else. No, i hold those who try to force others to lead their lives on the basis of bullshyte with zero proof as nutbars. True for the Taliban, true for the Jesuits and also true for the VHP/RSS. Common theme: nutbars who seek to impose lifestyles on other individuals on the basis of zero proof. The latter camp is about tangiable evidence and laws based on tangiable benifits, losses and such while respecting the individual rights of all. There is no 'bakwaas' in rational or secular laws, because the fundamental bearing of these laws is based on what we all can scientifically determine to be facts. As such, there is no 'bakwaas' in it, what we have bakwaas in, is stuff like no cow slaughter because some unproven book said so, no free women because some other unproven book said so, etc. If by 'end result' you mean the highest individual freedom, rights, social mobility and lifestyle choices, then yes, the result is there for everyone to see, since every single society that is successful on its own today is a product of the secular processes adopted by society. PS: 'tyranny of the majority' is not a phrase invented by me. As i said, educate yourself further before you spout off nonsense.

Calling the US a secular society, your idiocy knows no limit. Its a christian nation, ever been into the Bible belt? Heck, go into the Midwest and you will still see strong affiliation to Christian values dumbo

[FischerTal]

depends on which state in USA. I guess you have no clue how the legal system of the US works and what it actually means when it says United States of America ?

two to three states maximum. Remember Proposition 8 in California? Majority of people in secular, rational California, which includes the birthplace of libtards, Berkeley, voted against gay marriage. Your argument is invalid dumbo.

[Muloghonto]

strawman argument. you seem to divert from the original issue of beef eating. As I have already said' date=' if you want to eat beef, procure the resources to do it yourself. Dont ask for public help in that process. [/quote'] I am not asking the public to buy me a steak, i am asking the public to not force ME to throw away my plate of steak because it upsets a bunch of people who think so because of a completely fictitious book. No, i am acting in a manner which puts fundamental human rights above any political process. My thought is the same, whether it comes to eating cows, pigs or raping your mother. They are not a function of 'majority vote', they never should be in the first place. So i can eat stake in my private property in Karnataka ? You are failing to understand the basic argument here. Your point is, 'society decieded that eating cows is wrong by popular majority, so you have to follow the rules.' My counter is simple- if society tomorrow voted and decieded by majority appeal that all women above the age of 50 must be raped daily, will that be correct and justified ? Remember- just like beef eating, this scenario is also 'ratified by popular majority' . You make a claim but provide no evidence. What hypothetical beleif am i arguing towards imposing on society ? You are arguing that it is right for society to impose its hypothetical beleif (no eating cows) because of popular majority. Now show me an example where i said 'this must be so' based on a hypothetical and completely irrational principle.