Point taken, especially when few folks are trying desperately to derail, and get this thread banned permanently..pradeepe wrote:I guess I can skip archiving this thread.
Folks please dont feed the trolls.
My last post, until the next flame.
I'm shocked that not many other the others supporting the ban have responded on here. Because there are MANY. I'm one. I work with horses for a living, and you would not possibly understand the difference between horses and "other livestock" until you took the time with them. Horses are incredibly beautiful and intelligent creatures. They WORK for us.
Then we want to kill them so we can send their bodies overseas? (by the way, consuming horsemeat is illegal in the US, yet killing them is not, and the Belgians hardly pay any taxes on this. Food for thought, so to speak). Go research it online. It's easy to find a video that shows horse slaughter. You'll change your mind unless you're a sick moron. And I'm glad that someone is FINALLY bringing this to a more public level!
If Willie was a real cowboy, he wouldn't be supporting the bill! I've had horses all my life, and they are my passion. There are two problems with this bill. Number one, there are thousands of horses out there who are unwanted. They are in people's pastures, not getting proper care, and basically living miserable lives. Number two, there are thousands of people out there breeding horses who are conformational incorrect, have no athletic talent, etc. They just think it's a neat idea to raise a colt.
Thus, when these "useless" horses are floating around, plus the horses who are bad off enough that they should go to slaughter, then guess what? Then there is no base line value (the killer horses, ie per pound), so the value of our well-bred registered horses goes to hell. Basically, thanks to idiots like Willie, us cowboys and cowgirls who used to make our living off selling good horses, have to quit being cowboys and go find another job! In fact, AQHA is the largest registered horse association in the world, and they are opposed to this bill! They recently had an article on their website, explaining why this bill was going to hurt horses more than help them.
That being said, I fail to see how cannabis use is unamerican: What's unamerican is the fact that The U.S. government not only banned a substance less dangerous for human consumption than alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, or pretty well any prescription drugs was banned because corporations were scared to compete against hemp and cannabis-based fibres, fuels, medicines, and intoxicants and used both left and right-wing allies to create a moral panic against the drug centred around its association with "lazy" and "inferior" Hispanics, but also launched all sorts of ridiculous campaigns against the drug (which basically consisted of junk science, religious lunacy, draconian censorship, and outright lies to the American people) ande used blackmail and political influence to force other nations to follow suit. If the U.S. refuses to tell truth to its citizens and respect Mr. Nelson's civil liberties, then why the fk should he feel guilty about cheating on his taxes, a legitimate form of civil disobedience centred around his refusal to support a regime centred around lies and outright contempt for human freedom and basic decency?
My comment is directed at all the responses that compare the horse to cattle, pigs, chicken, deer, etc. Let me enlighten you with a bit of information on this subject: the horse has served people throughout time, they've carried soldiers to war. They've made civilization possible, the horse plays such a prominent role in American culture, business, and history. We watch in awe when a horse "wins by a nose," we find it therapeutic to sit atop a horse as it trots through a field, and throughout history, we have relied on these able-bodies creatures to plow our fields and explore our continent. We as Americans, hold the horse in a very high regard - for good reason. Horses do not fall into the category of livestock, they are considered to be recreational & compainion animals. Americans don't eat horse meat, the horse is not raised to be eaten like the cow, pig, chickens, etc. The horse is NOT a wild animal. The Mustangs of America are considered to be descendents of the Domestic horses brought to America by Spanish explorers and are not "wild" in the sense that other animals would be considered wild.
The horse is a large part of AMERICA'S heritage! If Paul Revere were riding a Cow or a Pig on his Midnight ride America might not exist today!
How do we reward the horse for their endless hours of work on our behalf? By sending them to meet the most horrific and painful death possible, suspended head down in abject misery, drowning in their own blood to be served to some overindulged European as a "delicacy." Americas horses should be protected from this unspeakable fate and I will fight for this kind, gentle animal until every Slaughterhouse is closed.
My Cowgirl's Hat is off to one of my favorite Cowboys - Thanks Willie we love you!
To All:
AMERICANS DON'T EAT HORSE MEAT!
America's Horses are not being slaughtered to feed the poor people in Europe. Far from it the 3 FOREIGN-OWNED Slaughterhouses that slaughter horses for HUMAN consumption sell OUR horses in EUROPE for $15-$20 a pound! A lot of people think that they only get the old, skinny, sick horses, unfortunately this is not true, because horses slaughtered for human consumption can't be sick, and the Slaughterhouses can't make any profit on skinny horses because the EUROPEANS want meat not bones! The Slaughterhouses send out "killer buyers" that answer ads in newspapers, on the internet, and go to Auctions looking for suitable horses for slaughter. The killer buyers find horses that are a bit lower in price and convince the owners that they would love to give this nice horse a "forever" home with their granddaughter, niece,etc. but the price is just a little too high and the unsuspecting owner believing the lie lowers their price sometimes even giving the horse away to them. Thousands of horses are stolen every year and taken to the Slaughterhouses because they have a "no questions asked" policy-they don't care if the horse is stolen - someone's beloved riding partner never to be seen again.
America's horses aren't being eaten in Europe because of MAD COW DISEASE, their meat is being sold as "designer food." We as Americans have a responsiblity to protect the horse and stand up collectively and tell our ELECTED officials to support H.R. 503/S 1915 The American Horse Slaughter Protection Act.
Please before you respond to something this important do some research and find out the facts! Just Google "horse slaughter" and you'll have all the facts you need, you can help end this atrocity!
"If we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing, we make ourselves sharers in the guilt."
Anna Sewell, author of Black Beauty
Hi, everyone.
There is a big issue for horse lovers before the Senate right now. Three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants here in the USA are killing American horses to sell to diners in Belgium, France and Japan. They kill the horses, harvest the meat, and then ship it overseas. There is a bill before the Senate right now to ban this practice in all 50 states.
Me and some friends are asking people to send an email to their senators asking them to push this bill through and vote to end horse slaughtering. The bill has already passed the US House of Representatives and this is the last hurdle before it goes to the President for his signature.
A common misperception is that the horses are old or sick - not true. Many are under 2 years old and healthy, and are sold simply for money.
Here's how you can help - everyone needs to contact their senators and indicate they don't want our horses dying to feed other countries.
Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/ and type in your zip code. Send an email to both of your US senators and tell them to stop this terrible practice. The vote is coming before the Senate next week so please do it NOW! Thanks!!!
And here is a blog that we set up so you can read more information about it:
http://www.horsesarefriendsnotfood.com
that is one simplistic aspect of the deeper issue ...Calvin wrote:Alok, there is an extant discussion focusing specifically on the dharmic, religious and political aspects surrounding this issue of where the threat of "communal violence" will lead us.
quite to the contrary, I hope to learn much more about the centrality of Beef to Christianity ...It is particularly interesting that you have chosen to disrupt this thread when we got to that point. Are you afraid of discovering something?
This is precisely what is known as "majoritarian tyranny". Frankly, this is not a surprise to me that many people on this forum should be supports of this idea.Beef should be banned in India for no other reason than that the majority is against it ...
it is true of private enterprise ... however, I work for the Government ...Calvin wrote:As for the workweek in the US, while there are traditional weekends, this is not legislated by law, as far as I am aware. If it were, how do facilities operate on a 24-hour basis?
No it is not. There are areas in the US, where general businesses such as malls, stores, etc cannot be open on Sundays by regional law.Alok_N wrote:it is true of private enterprise ...Calvin wrote:As for the workweek in the US, while there are traditional weekends, this is not legislated by law, as far as I am aware. If it were, how do facilities operate on a 24-hour basis?
the reason to fall for the "bait" is to extinguish this non-point about the diversity in India ...vsudhir wrote: And then beef about SD's perceived beef with beef gets aired and the thread unravels so fast? Why? One could say the poster in question probably didn't mean to derail the thread/didn't know well SD's diverse positions on beef etc with beef but then we hear the poster carefully selected those words? Even so, why are SDFs falling for the bait?
Alok_N wrote:btw, Calvin, I hope you caught my post where I argued that Beef should be banned in India for no other reason than that the majority is against it ...
every country bans some products ... India will ban Beef ... Period.
so unlike other folks, I am stating it loud and clear ... Ban beef with extreme prejudice ...
?
I didn't want to push that example, but since you have highlighted it, allow me to air my "beef" ...ShauryaT wrote:No it is not. There are areas in the US, where general businesses such as malls, stores, etc cannot be open on Sundays by regional law.Alok_N wrote: it is true of private enterprise ...
This is most prevalent in areas, which are catholic dominated.
Thats because booze outlets (hard likkers like whisky and vodka) in Pennsylvania are run by the state govt and they take a holiday on sundays? - you could have always bought beer (Which is sold by the pvt outlets onlee)..Alok_N wrote:[
I was p*ssed no end that I could not buy booze on a Sunday in Pennsylvania ... bothered me to a rage ...
I am glad you didn't prescribe him the "right to riot", in accordance with your earlier postCPrakash wrote:Thats because booze in Pennsylvania is run by the state govt and they take a holiday on sundays? - you could have always bought beer..Alok_N wrote:[
I was p*ssed no end that I could not buy booze on a Sunday in Pennsylvania ... bothered me to a rage ...
My point was the imposition on Aloks Liquor rights was administrative in nature and not religious persecution. He can ofcourse either riot or stock up on a saturday if it really that important.Tilak wrote:[
I am glad you didn't prescribe him the "right to riot", in accordance with your earlier post
Srikumar, In PA, its the state run PLCB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvan ... trol_BoardSriKumar wrote:[ Nope. I dont know of many states that have state-run liqour shops (personally know exactly one). THere are many states where liquor is banned on Sundays in private shops. See this link. Search for keyword: Sunday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_store
Right, but my point was that Sunday liqour sale is banned in many states from private shops by the govt., if you check the link. That is the sole point. I was really surprised the first time I ran into it.CPrakash wrote:Srikumar, In PA, its the state run PLCB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvan ... trol_BoardSriKumar wrote:[ Nope. I dont know of many states that have state-run liqour shops (personally know exactly one). THere are many states where liquor is banned on Sundays in private shops. See this link. Search for keyword: Sunday. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor_store
Would be correct if the Indian Government, lets the vendors sell for one day in month/year and let people stock up or) let them switch to chicken ?CPrakash wrote:My point was the imposition on Aloks Liquor rights was administrative in nature and not religious persecution. He can ofcourse either riot or stock up on a saturday if it really that important.Tilak wrote:[
I am glad you didn't prescribe him the "right to riot", in accordance with your earlier post
I had generously offered you that lattitude ... however, now I am arguing that the injunction is based purely on the wishes of the majority without any consideration of subtelities such as "dharma" or "religion" ...Calvin wrote:The question that is being raised is a simple one, is the injunction against cow slaughter a religious one, or one pertaining to dharma.
well, forget that "context" ... here is the new context ... the new injuction is that "you just can't have beef because the majority doesn't give two hoots about your silly need to have beef" ...As to this comparison with various democracies, we can certainly have that discussion, but it appears to be irrelevant in the context of the axiom that "dharma is tolerant" and therefore doesn't need any of the protections needed by the "judeo christian" democracies.
what is this "consensus" that you bring up? ... there never is "consensus" in any society ... it is always the tyranny of the majority ... I pay $3 per pack of cigarettes because 68% of the idiots in my state decided that the 32% could be taxed with prejudice ...If there is consensus that dharma implies tolerance, then we wouldn't even need a constitution, would we? We could just have a democracy, knowing full well that the dharma would assure that the right things would happen.
The difficulty in this argument is there are some of us that do not either understand how dharma implies tolerance, or have observed what appears to be examples of intolerance, and are therefore suggesting that we need institutionalized mechanisms to keep the anti-dharmics in check.
of course, I stocked up ... one learns to live with the oppression ... but occasionally, the party on Saturday ended up consuming the stock intended for Sunday ...CPrakash wrote:My point was the imposition on Aloks Liquor rights was administrative in nature and not religious persecution. He can ofcourse either riot or stock up on a saturday if it really that important.
I find it interesting that for all of the distinction drawing between religion and dharma, that distinction is gone now, once we start getting into the details. Interesting... Is there a distinction at all? If so, what is it in the context under discussion?I had generously offered you that lattitude ... however, now I am arguing that the injunction is based purely on the wishes of the majority without any consideration of subtelities such as "dharma" or "religion" ...
Ah.. Alon ji.. We really are kindred souls..All wine shops are closed in NYC on Sundays as well.. That bothered me into a rage as well. We are not talking of hard liquor .. but just wine like say a cabernet or a shiraz. Except for beer which is sold in the supermarkets and dont need liquor license, any other kind of liquor is not sold.. And no they are not govt owned, but private outlets onlee.CPrakash wrote:Thats because booze outlets (hard likkers like whisky and vodka) in Pennsylvania are run by the state govt and they take a holiday on sundays? :P - you could have always bought beer (Which is sold by the pvt outlets onlee)..Alok_N wrote:[
I was p*ssed no end that I could not buy booze on a Sunday in Pennsylvania ... bothered me to a rage ...
:lol:
Tilak wrote:Would be correct if the Indian Government, lets the vendors sell for one day in month/year and let people stock up or) let them switch to chicken ?CPrakash wrote: My point was the imposition on Aloks Liquor rights was administrative in nature and not religious persecution. He can ofcourse either riot or stock up on a saturday if it really that important.
ok, good ... we now know something concrete ... "beef is not central" ...Calvin wrote:There are many laws like the liquor laws that are a direct result of the opinion of the majority taking effect. Liquor is not the end of it, there are speed limits on the highways, laws against prostitution, laws against narcotic drugs trafficking and consumption, taxes on cigarrettes, age limits on alcohol consumption and so on.
There are probably two questions here:
(a) do the majority have the right to take away all rights from the minority?
(b) (if the majority do not have the right to take away all rights), what are the minimum rights that are deserving of protection from the majority?
(Alok, I have repeatedly noted that I am not asserting that beef is "central" to Christianity. Please desist from propagating falsehoods)
The point is not how many states...the point is that it is there. Why should the govt. ban liquor sales in pvt. stores at all? (I agree this is way OT. My last post on Sunday liquor sales).CPrakash wrote:Srikumar - at the risk of going OT, from the link you posted, I can count only eight (or nine states) with restriction on selling hard liquor on sundays. even among these eight or nine, most allow consumption of alcohol in a restaurant (acompanied by food). So the religous oppression if any is negligible.
And how many weeks are there in a year ??CPrakash wrote:Tilak wrote: Would be correct if the Indian Government, lets the vendors sell for one day in month/year and let people stock up or) let them switch to chicken ?
tilak whats your point? the govts in US close thier shops *one day* in a week. whats that got to do with closing beef shops 364 days in an year?
Speaking of cows - part of my public health training in medical college was to visit an abbatoir where we were given a demonstration of how cows were killed so that people could get comfort from the time gap between death and plate and call it meat rather than carrion.Sajan wrote:It is not a "cow thingy", it is a question of individual rights.
Shiv made a comment that people can eat a dead cow instead of resorting to cow-slaughter. I showed an example of what happened to dalits who skinned a dead cow and how the perpetrators have escaped the consequences. In this forum itself, example of raping a woman is being put up as a justification for mob violence in the event of cow-slaughter.
No.. No.. Dont ban it.. I love a good steak (medium) and a nice burger (not the McDonald's rubbish) .. I dont eat it in India becuase I paranoid about the hygiene factor in any meat product in India..Allow import of premium cuts please...Alok_N wrote:I am not inserting any weasel words ... it is fair and simple ... just ban what people don't want ...
Beef is just one out of a myriad of products ...
every country bans some products ... India will ban Beef ... Period.
so unlike other folks, I am stating it loud and clear ... Ban beef with extreme prejudice ...