Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1.
a)Provisions, contained in Part IV of the Constitution of India, are
not enforceable by any court. Hence it is understood that they are
not in the same category as the fundamental rights.
b) They do form an integral injunctions being fundamental in the
governance of the state/country and must be kept in mind by the
law makers while framing policies.
c) So, cow slaughter does find its mentions with respect to Gandhian
principles in DPSP and hence has constitutional legality.
d) Yet. Was fundamental right to property (as mentioned in article
31 of the original constitution) not constitutionally legal? Is the
debated article 370 not constitutionally legal? Why then are and
were they challenged and repealed? Also the very amendments
made to constitutions till date should be considered then as
violation of the constitutional sanctity? Article 32 hence proclaimed
the father of the constitution as the soul of the constitution, which
will allow and appreciate the fluid nature of national growth and
changing needs. Thus if a light is thrown on the fact that cow
slaughter ban is not a necessity, is purely an appeasement and
contradictory to the very essence of pluralism and diversity an
alternative model has to be adopted and such articles be amended.
Constitution is not above the people and not above truth and
justice.
b. Ban on beef is not purely on religious sentiments. It is based on
religious sentiments that have complete scientific justification.
Forget about India. WHO is recommending discouragement of beef
across globe to eradicate hunger and pollution. So should it not be
our duty to act proactively on this when it is foundation of our
culture as well?
c. Those who claim to love potato are those who are claiming so for
sake of argument alone. Let there be genuine case of potato-lovers.
And if there is merit in their demands, of course, there would be
ban. Just as there has been ban on use of plastic bags and gutka in
many places. After all why should there be reluctance in accepting a
better path? And why should there is reluctance in accepting a
better path just because there are hurdles in accepting a better path
in some other domain?
They could feed at least 10 times more people using the same efforts
and energy
What could be a greater form of charity than simply avoiding meat!
There is no meat-product for which a healthier vegetarian alternative
does not exist.
I am deemed a murderer because I snatched the most precious gift of
life. There are significant differences in plants and animals, and that is
why even science of biology clearly differentiates study of botany and
zoology.
Then even domestication of animals and drinking milk should be crime?
Well, these are ambiguous topics then killing of animals is bound to be a
crime of much much higher magnitude
http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/factoryfarming/cows/dairy-industry/Cows, like humans, only give milk after theyve
had a baby
Thus, if indeed humans want to be natural, they should protect and not
torture animals.
(http://agniveer.com/why-i-dont-eat-meat/)
(http://agniveer.com/why-beef-lovers-are-completely-wrong/)
Cows produce milk for the same reason that humans do: to nourish their
young. In order to force the animals to continue giving milk, factory
farm operators typically impregnate them using artificial insemination every
year. Calves are generally taken from their mothers within a day of being bor
environmental issue
cruelty
fossil fuels, nuclear, chemical and biological weaponries created by
science, spent on poor mars explorations in individual survival and
suffering health effects of red meat agriculture and forest depletion
Forest depletion is not just depletion of green cover but a whole lot
of ecosystem species associated.
eating fossil fuel (green revolution and use of fossil fuels)
meat animal feed vegan and
To take the point home vegans dont even drink dairy produced milk
vegeterianism vs
why just be a vegeteraian and not a vegan for if your concern is
cruelty towards animals? and anything derived from animal Do you
think that is sustainable? Vegans in rich states can afford
sceintifically produced supplements but what about third world poor
countries and their people? the basic argument is not about what to
eat or what not to eat but about how to eat process or acquire what
to that is sustainable. Typed by user Shuja in Google Chrome on
Wednesday, 22 April 2015 6:34 am is animal protein supplelement
sustainable
But what if you care about your health and the environment, and prefer to include
some protein from animal sources in your diet?
To help you make more informed choices at the store,Delicious Living took a
close look at the eco-impact of common protein sourcesboth plant and animal
and chose our favorite recipes to match. The bottom line: The simplest way to
reduce environmental impact is to eat less resource-intensive meat,
especially beef. And when you do eat meat, be choosy about where it comes from
and how its raised. Buying organic, pastured, locally raised meat whenever
possible makes a big differenceand sends a message about consumer priorities
to factory-farm producers.
that all those animals in nature, who are grass eaters, the animals which are thriving on
leaves they have got bovine teeth, they do not have canine teeth. All those animals
which are eating flesh, meat eaters, they have got canine teeth what we call Rakshi.
Human being is the one specie, which has got both bovine teeth, as well as canine teeth. It
is very likely, that nature wanted this specie to survive Nature considered that this
species human beings, are the most important specie which should be there in this
world. They should try to contribute they should try to carry My message, and take it
further. So they wanted the nature probably wanted this specie to survive under all
circumstances. Nobody can deny that the early Homo Sapiens or Homo erectus they
were all flesh eaters at that time there was no agriculture if you look at the evolution
as we now learn from science. It is only the advance advance. of civilization, that people
started taking to agriculture. When they started taking to agriculture and started growing
Corns some of them became Vegetarians, some of them remained Non-Vegetarian,
some of them became the mixture of both they also took Vegetarian as well as NonVegetarian and most of the Non-Vegetarian people today, also eat Vegetarian food as a
part of the diet.
If I prove that an Apple is better than a Mango that does not mean Mango, is
prohibited.
A person who does not have Vegetarian food it does not mean, a person who does not
have vegetable and fruits. Let it be very clear to all of you. A more technical and a
scientific word is, an Omnivorous diet.
exaggeration of benefits of Vegetarianism
Let us analyze the geographical reasons and the surrounding environment and as we
know, it influences is the persons food habit like people living in the coastal region
the Kookiness, they have more fish People living in South India, they have more Rice
People living in the desert, where there is scarcity of vegetation, and people mainly
survive on the flesh of animals. The Eskimo in the Arctic region, where there is scarcity of
edible vegetation, they survive more on sea food. And Mr. Zaveri said that he knows
that vegetable is not available in certain parts of the world, but today, due to
advancement of transportation, we can supply them with vegetables. I would request the
Indian Vegetarian Congress to supply, at least give the transportation cost that is all
to supply to the Eskimos, to supply to Saudi Arabia. You get vegetables in Saudi Arabia, it
is more expensive Why? because the cost of transportation that makes if more
expensive. It is illogical and unscientific to spend more money, to buy a food which is less
nutritious. Let us analyze the Humane reason, the Ethical reasons And the pure
Vegetarians, they say that All life is sacred and no living creature should be killed.
They fail to realize that today, it is a universal fact, that even plants have got life So the
main argument on killing living creature, does not hold good today. Previously may be a
couple of centuries ago, it may have held some weight, but today it carries no weight.
Then they further argue today, and they say Yes we know that plants have got life, but
they cannot feel pain therefore killing a plant, is a lesser crime and lesser sin, as
compared to killing an animal. Today, science has further advanced, and we have come
to know that even the plants can feel pain, they can even cry But the cry of the plant
cannot be heard by the human ear, because the audible frequency range of the human
ear, is from 20 cycles per second, to 20,000 cycles per second Anything below and
above this, the human ear cannot hear.
But the cry of the animal can be heard by the human being but the cry of the plant
cannot be heard by the human being Just because you cannot hear the cry of the plant,
that does not justify you to inflict pain or kill the plant
a) We have teeth that are omnivorous. The human beings have an Omnivorous set of
teeth, for eating Veg. as well as Non-Veg.
b) If you analyze the digestive system of the human being, it can digest both Veg. as well
as Non-Veg.There are certain enzymes like Lipase, Trapezes, Kino Trapezes, which are
mainly meant for digesting Non-Vegetarian food.
1) the animals graze on land which is unsuitable for growing crops. They eat the plants
which is inedible for the human beings like husk and stocks corn stocks. They do not
eat plants which are edible for the human being Yes! they can eat But when they enter
the fields, the farmer, but natural, takes them out of the field
2) If the Non-Vegetarians stop slaughtering the cattle do you know, that there will be
over population of cattle. If we kill Lion, Tiger, they will become extinct
3) There is not a single statement in any authentic medical book which says Non-Veg.
food in general, should be banned.There is not a single government on the face of the
earth, which has banned all Non-Veg. food, as a general rule.
4)The American Council on Science and Health has said thatFor a healthy diet, being
a pure Vegetarian is not required.
The question is not whether veganism or non vergeterianism is a healthy preposition?
Eating in excess
Banned is justified in the absence of prevention
Non vegetarian does not mean not eating veg.
environmental issue
fossil fuels, nuclear, chemical and biological weaponries created
by science,
spent on poor
mars explorations in india
cruelty and suffering
survival
Social impacts of
agricultural expansion
There are also concerns about the social impacts of
agricultural expansion. For example, in the expanding soy
plantations of Brazil, poor people are lured from villages and
deprived neighbourhoods to remote soy estates where they
are put to work in barbaric conditions, sometimes at gunpoint,
with no chance of escape.Worker abuse is especially
prevalent where there is strong agricultural expansion, such as
in the Amazon states of Par and Mato Grosso. Although this
abuse happens in remote farms, the landowners who
are responsible are closely connected with the rest of the
world through their soy trading activities.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oi
l.html
http://matadornetwork.com/bnt/why-vegetarianism-will-notsave-the-world/