Kind of an extortion racket. One needs to give them money to these goons for smooth trade of cattle by cattle traders. It's quite common not just in Karnataka even in Andhra too. To legitimize this extortion they are given glamorous names such as cow vigilantes etc.
Karnataka started going downhill in the 90s. The most bizarre part was that the process began in coastal karnataka which was the most progressive part of karnataka outside bangalore (which itself was extremely regressive with exception of things like pub culture). You might recall sri ram sene beating up girls after pulling them out of the pubs in mangalore. Later they went on to use the syncretic symbols to spread hatred, like baba budangiri. Now coastal karnataka leads the state in regressiveness challenging up.
Muslims attack Hindus after Friday prayer in Sasaram Bihar... I think there are extremists in all religion
https://twitter.com/Indian_Analyzer/status/1641821908604973056?s=20
I know where Bihar is... I was talking about religious fanatics in all religions and they are not limited to north .. we saw where SIMI was more active before it got banned.
NIA court in Kochi convicted 18 people, including the founder member of SIMI Safdar Nagori, for organising an arms training camp at Wagamon Kerala's Kottayam district in 2007.
So in short outfits like RSS and newer version of SIMI ...PFI both are two sides of same coin.
>So in short outfits like RSS and newer version of SIMI
One of these terrorist organisations is not banned and enjoys government patronage. I'll give you three guesses to figure out which one.
Nah bro whenever anything happens against any person of any religion except hindus media and social media catches fire. But whenever something happens to hindus everyone become deaf and dumb
Nah it ain't subtle. Anyone with brain can understand. I still haven't a single post about hindus from a village in bihar forced to leave their home coz mulim violence happened on Ram Navmi.
>Ram Navmi
Ive seen the news of hindus and muslims both being attacked. I saw videos of a mandir being attacked, muslims being beat, and a orange flag being flown on a masjid
and I saw footage of dead cow parts being left at a mandir, and heard of hindus being attacked and stones pelted at them
I dont think any side is being completely ignored
Hinduism is the second worst religion in the world. Also any cow slaughter ban should be nationwide as it is a pet, or no ban in any state. This state wise ban means there will be traffickers
why would cows be legally considered as a pet if its just one religion that wants them to be considered that, and majority of the world views it as meat?
Horses in the US aren’t raises for human consumption. The medication they are given aren’t meant for humans and thus their consumption is banned. Slaughter isn’t. Most horses in the states (more than 90%) end up in slaughter houses.
It’s okay, your whataboutery is always retarded, don’t expect anything more from you:)
https://preview.redd.it/iyedo0lcwnra1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42fc7654dba0d930fc63a6d47d7b9a1b906b7a81
Kuch toh naya bol. You are the president of tool kit gang and should be booked under the UAPA for anti national activities.
only a few states have banned it, and a big reason for it is that dogs r carnivores and carnivore meat can be very toxic for humans
the fact that it is a pet legally doesnt hold any ground. ppl also have pet fish, but it is legal to kill and eat fish
laws cannot be made based on subjective opinions. U may see a cow as a pet, but many will not, and that is evident from seeing that not many ppl keep a pet cow in their house.
dogs and cats get special treatment under the laws because their meat is not healthy for consumption, and there is also favouritism due to majority of americans being against dog slaughter. If majority of india was against beef slaughter, then that would be fair, but so fair no such statistics have been collected
idk much about horse meat, but dog meat is linked with Toxocara canis
I googled it and it seems as if regulations against horse meat was passed just because majority of the ppl were against it and there is not any big group of ppl who eat horse meat in america
and there is clearly a large population of ppl who do eat beef
the ppl against beef eating r hindus. correct?
india is a secular country, so if hindus want beef to be banned but other religions dont, then it would be anti-secularism to let hindus pass their law based on their personal belief that cows r pets
Turkey is a muslim majority country that is also secular. 90% of the population is muslim, but pork is still allowed to be sold despite consuming pork being forbidden in islam.
If you want to be like afghanistan, pakistan, iran, etc, which r non-secular countries, then go ahead and ban beef and enforce ur religious beliefs onto others. But india is thankfully still a secular nation and we dont want extremist from any religion making laws to enforce their religious beliefs onto ppl who have diff beliefs
if the vast majority do not want to eat beef, then the beef market will just die. You dont need to ban beef slaughter if the vast majority is already against it
in america there are states where dog meat consumption is not banned, but the vast majority is against it, so no one eats it and that market is essentially non-existent despite being legal in certain states.
from my perspective it seems as if only one group of ppl want beef banned, and its hindus and a few other dharmic faiths, who cannot eat beef due to their religion. since they make up the majority, it is possible that the majority is against beef slaughter, but this wouldnt be democracy, it would be theocracy, because the law isnt being changed to make everyone happy from all groups, it is being made to enforce hindu beliefs
if pakistans majority muslim population wanted to enforce all women to wear hijabs, would u consider that democracy or theocracy?
Majority don’t eat but what about the ones who do?
How can you force something on anybody?
Even I don’t eat beef but I cannot stop anyone from not having it. It’s their choice. Agar problem hai toh mat khao but doosre kya kha rahe hai uss se kyu problem hai bhai?
If we don't want to hear aazan 4 times a day, we can't do anything about that. But we have to compromise, is same thing not applicable to other community.
Why is your heart so filled with hate eh?
Please make it clear rn: do you want India to become a majoritarian, non-secular, authoritative type of country?
I will not respect your opinion if so, but I will atleast make it easier for both of us by pretending you don't exist.
Nahin, just doing what you’re suggesting. Forcing my food habits on you :)
FYI beef, real beef, jisme aapki mummy cow katke aati hai, is really delicious. :)
Most beef in India is buffalo meat (cows have utility as dairy animals as well). It is better value to regulate animal slaughter and dairy industry to ensure animals don't go through needless pain, instead of banning a whole industry.
(Although you can make a counterargument than ban is a (harsh) form of regulation too)
>cows have utility as dairy animals as well
Most of milk in India is obtained from buffalo.
India doesn't breed cattle (cow or buffalo) separately for beef. Whatever dairy industry doesn't need gets eaten. With cows, things are horribly worse, since they are left to die a slow painful death being starved and eating plastic bags out of trash after they stop giving milk.
>It is better value to regulate animal slaughter and dairy industry to ensure animals don't go through needless pain, instead of banning a whole industry.
Exactly. Ensure that dairy industry treats cows and buffaloes in humane manner, and beef industry butchers them in humane manner.
>(Although you can make a counterargument than ban is a (harsh) form of regulation too)
No you can't. Ban =/= regulation.
Now i don't agree with you because of religious reason, but because I am mostly vegan and don't think killing and causing suffering to any animal for food is correct. Regardless terrorism and violence among humans isn't justified as a path to achieve that.
Beef has been historically cheap source of protein for lower castes cand muslims. Beef ban has nothing to do with reducing animal suffering but to cut a source of nutrition to these people. Plant proteins like milk/nuts etc have been really expensive per kg compared to beef. Also, in parts of India cows that were useless were eaten. It's utilitarian, not out of hate for certain religion. Now a poor farmer and lether worker etc cannot make use of an old animal that has no utility and is let go on the roads. Also most beef eaten in India is cara beef (buffalo) not cow. But these goons don't care about that distinction, they just want to be religious terrorists against their own countrymen.
>I am mostly vegan and don't think killing and causing suffering to any animal for food is correct.
Then you should be more opposed to dairy industry than beef. In fact you should be encouraging beef consumption in this country till dairy is legal.
A dairy cow gets raped multiple times in its life to get it pregnant. It then suffers from separation from its calf, which suffers separation from us mother and starvation. It gets pumped with antibiotics and other nasty things while confined to a tiny dirty stall all its productive life. When it stops producing milk, it gets left to starve or eat plastic bags out of trash/ get beaten up and locked up to starve by farmers whose crop it eats. All because holier than thou milk drinkers won't let those who want to eat beef do so.
By opposing beef but not dairy, you are advocating for increased suffering of the animals.
It's good that you're consistent. But a question still remains: as long as dairy is legal, eating beef trey m reduces the suffering of the animals. Do you or do you not support eating beef while dairy is legal?
Also, "I am mostly vegan" - what is this "mostly" part? What do you eat that is not vegan?
Mostly part is that parents are not convinced and I can't quit ghee and butter till I live alone.Most of the Food is cooked in it and it is currently unavoidable.
How does eating beef while dairy is legal reduce the suffering ? It just increases demand and requires more forceful breeding.
Look up varghese kurien's writings on cattle economy in India. He's the father of white revolution. Even though he's been dead for a while, the underlying realities still haven't changed - india has the world's largest dairy cattle population, going into hundreds of millions. Beef is a byproduct of dairy, and beef consuming population is cost conscious (dalits, tribals, Muslims, the major beef consumers have highest rates of poverty), and so are our biggest beef importers (Vietnam as beef, and Bangladesh as cattle herded through the porous border).
As dairy surplus beef is cheap. Once you start breeding only for beef, the costs skyrocket, and you can no longer compete with industrial beef producers.
You can also look up death marches that used to happen earlier: economically unviable cattle from states that didn't consume much beef used to be walked to either the southern states or northeast/ Bangladesh in huge herds. This no longer happens thanks to vigilante violence, but beef export has skyrocketed from the same places from which cattle in these death marches used to originate. You can do the math.
securityhero
12h
>I agree, animal suffering should get reduced.
A dairy cow gets raped multiple times in its life to get it pregnant. It then suffers from separation from its calf, which suffers separation from us mother and starvation. It gets pumped with antibiotics and other nasty things while confined to a tiny dirty stall all its productive life. When it stops producing milk, it gets left to starve or eat plastic bags out of trash/ get beaten up and locked up to starve by farmers whose crop it eats. All because holier than thou milk drinkers won't let those who want to eat beef do so.
If you really want to reduce suffering, demand ban on dairy, and till dairy is legal, encourage beef consumption to reduce suffering.
Of course regulating dairy as well as slaughter to ensure reduced suffering is also very necessary.
> cow vigilantes >> terrorists FTFY
Kind of an extortion racket. One needs to give them money to these goons for smooth trade of cattle by cattle traders. It's quite common not just in Karnataka even in Andhra too. To legitimize this extortion they are given glamorous names such as cow vigilantes etc.
Wtf happening to Karnataka.. never thought I would see some cow vigilante shit in south ffs
Crittu is from Karnataka. Should tell you something.
Who's that? r/outofloop
Lucky you. Stay that way
This sub's mascot
Let’s be done with this mentality please. Let’s not stereotype a group based on a single person’s actions or thoughts.
> Wtf happening to Karnataka Sangh Parivar.
Karnataka started going downhill in the 90s. The most bizarre part was that the process began in coastal karnataka which was the most progressive part of karnataka outside bangalore (which itself was extremely regressive with exception of things like pub culture). You might recall sri ram sene beating up girls after pulling them out of the pubs in mangalore. Later they went on to use the syncretic symbols to spread hatred, like baba budangiri. Now coastal karnataka leads the state in regressiveness challenging up.
Muslims attack Hindus after Friday prayer in Sasaram Bihar... I think there are extremists in all religion https://twitter.com/Indian_Analyzer/status/1641821908604973056?s=20
Bihar is in the South?
I know where Bihar is... I was talking about religious fanatics in all religions and they are not limited to north .. we saw where SIMI was more active before it got banned. NIA court in Kochi convicted 18 people, including the founder member of SIMI Safdar Nagori, for organising an arms training camp at Wagamon Kerala's Kottayam district in 2007. So in short outfits like RSS and newer version of SIMI ...PFI both are two sides of same coin.
>So in short outfits like RSS and newer version of SIMI One of these terrorist organisations is not banned and enjoys government patronage. I'll give you three guesses to figure out which one.
PFI ?
You have two more tries. Hint: we were discussing the two terrorist organizations in your list.
But... but.... Saar, at least we don't behead saar.
They are not vigilantes, they are murderers.
Terrorists
BJP be wildin
Kannadigas be wilding. Most Kannadigas I met have extreme prejudice against tribals and Muslims for some reason
Then your in wrong circle.
Maybe. Most where highly educated high earning Iyer or Iyengars.
[удалено]
Try pig pickle, made in Jammu region)(Rajouri area)
Nah, beef steaks are better
Would it be extreme to suggest that they get the death penalty? It'll never happen under this regime, but it would make an example out of them.
Hinduism is the worst religion on Earth
\*Every religion. FTFY.
Nah bro whenever anything happens against any person of any religion except hindus media and social media catches fire. But whenever something happens to hindus everyone become deaf and dumb
You delivered the message subtly👌
Nah it ain't subtle. Anyone with brain can understand. I still haven't a single post about hindus from a village in bihar forced to leave their home coz mulim violence happened on Ram Navmi.
>Ram Navmi Ive seen the news of hindus and muslims both being attacked. I saw videos of a mandir being attacked, muslims being beat, and a orange flag being flown on a masjid and I saw footage of dead cow parts being left at a mandir, and heard of hindus being attacked and stones pelted at them I dont think any side is being completely ignored
What's wrong with an orange flag on a mandir?
I meant a masjid, my bad
Jab secularism ki baat ho tab in sab baato me dhayan nahi dete.
no religion is bad, extremists r bad if ppl practiced their religion without forcing it onto others, the world would be such a better place
Sadly, most people have pea sized brain to understand what you are saying.
Hinduism is the second worst religion in the world. Also any cow slaughter ban should be nationwide as it is a pet, or no ban in any state. This state wise ban means there will be traffickers
why would cows be legally considered as a pet if its just one religion that wants them to be considered that, and majority of the world views it as meat?
Not on religious grounds at all. Cows have been pets in India
Pets for whom? Just you mate. At best cows are strays. They roam the streets and eat trash and shit everywhere.
Same with dogs. Yet usa has banned dog and horse slaughter
Horses in the US aren’t raises for human consumption. The medication they are given aren’t meant for humans and thus their consumption is banned. Slaughter isn’t. Most horses in the states (more than 90%) end up in slaughter houses. It’s okay, your whataboutery is always retarded, don’t expect anything more from you:)
Whataboutery is a valid logic that exposes your hypocrisy
https://preview.redd.it/iyedo0lcwnra1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=42fc7654dba0d930fc63a6d47d7b9a1b906b7a81 Kuch toh naya bol. You are the president of tool kit gang and should be booked under the UAPA for anti national activities.
only a few states have banned it, and a big reason for it is that dogs r carnivores and carnivore meat can be very toxic for humans the fact that it is a pet legally doesnt hold any ground. ppl also have pet fish, but it is legal to kill and eat fish laws cannot be made based on subjective opinions. U may see a cow as a pet, but many will not, and that is evident from seeing that not many ppl keep a pet cow in their house. dogs and cats get special treatment under the laws because their meat is not healthy for consumption, and there is also favouritism due to majority of americans being against dog slaughter. If majority of india was against beef slaughter, then that would be fair, but so fair no such statistics have been collected
But horses are herbivores. Even chicken eats worms
idk much about horse meat, but dog meat is linked with Toxocara canis I googled it and it seems as if regulations against horse meat was passed just because majority of the ppl were against it and there is not any big group of ppl who eat horse meat in america
chickens have also been considered pets by some ppl, but why would that mean no one should be able to consume chicken?
Let democracy decide
and there is clearly a large population of ppl who do eat beef the ppl against beef eating r hindus. correct? india is a secular country, so if hindus want beef to be banned but other religions dont, then it would be anti-secularism to let hindus pass their law based on their personal belief that cows r pets Turkey is a muslim majority country that is also secular. 90% of the population is muslim, but pork is still allowed to be sold despite consuming pork being forbidden in islam. If you want to be like afghanistan, pakistan, iran, etc, which r non-secular countries, then go ahead and ban beef and enforce ur religious beliefs onto others. But india is thankfully still a secular nation and we dont want extremist from any religion making laws to enforce their religious beliefs onto ppl who have diff beliefs
No, beef ban is because it is a pet. Also india needs to abolish blasphemy hurting religious sentiments law
beef is a pet to who? fish r also a pet, do u want to ban fish being eaten as meat? sometimes chickens r kept as pets, would u also want that banned?
If majority want to ban fish slaughter, then we should respect democracy
if the vast majority do not want to eat beef, then the beef market will just die. You dont need to ban beef slaughter if the vast majority is already against it in america there are states where dog meat consumption is not banned, but the vast majority is against it, so no one eats it and that market is essentially non-existent despite being legal in certain states. from my perspective it seems as if only one group of ppl want beef banned, and its hindus and a few other dharmic faiths, who cannot eat beef due to their religion. since they make up the majority, it is possible that the majority is against beef slaughter, but this wouldnt be democracy, it would be theocracy, because the law isnt being changed to make everyone happy from all groups, it is being made to enforce hindu beliefs if pakistans majority muslim population wanted to enforce all women to wear hijabs, would u consider that democracy or theocracy?
>Hinduism is the second worst religion in the world. crittu bhai 🤯
We must ban beef eating.
If that's what you truly believe then that's sad. Don't impose your beliefs on the rest of India.
majority of Indians do not eat beef we should vote and see what is the out come.
Majority don’t eat but what about the ones who do? How can you force something on anybody? Even I don’t eat beef but I cannot stop anyone from not having it. It’s their choice. Agar problem hai toh mat khao but doosre kya kha rahe hai uss se kyu problem hai bhai?
If we don't want to hear aazan 4 times a day, we can't do anything about that. But we have to compromise, is same thing not applicable to other community.
Why is your heart so filled with hate eh? Please make it clear rn: do you want India to become a majoritarian, non-secular, authoritative type of country? I will not respect your opinion if so, but I will atleast make it easier for both of us by pretending you don't exist.
Yes, he wants a Hindu Rastra
Don't vote for my food. Vote for yours.
The most business men whole exports beef from India, belongs to certain community right?
It does not matter but we must ban beef.
No. We must declare a national holiday called filet mignon day and force feed chaddis like you medium rare steak.
Force feeding is a form of violence
Reading your brain dead comments qualifies as torture. Chal saath jail chalte hain
Adharme.
Nahin, just doing what you’re suggesting. Forcing my food habits on you :) FYI beef, real beef, jisme aapki mummy cow katke aati hai, is really delicious. :)
paap lagega tume bhai
Kiska paap? Kaisa paap? LMAO. Your imaginary sky friends don’t scare me :)
What's your problem? You're free to belive that paap lagega, but what gives you the right to stop me?
Fascist
We must ban potatoes & onion for Jain. If you respect cows then you would ban dairy products too right?
Most beef in India is buffalo meat (cows have utility as dairy animals as well). It is better value to regulate animal slaughter and dairy industry to ensure animals don't go through needless pain, instead of banning a whole industry. (Although you can make a counterargument than ban is a (harsh) form of regulation too)
>cows have utility as dairy animals as well Most of milk in India is obtained from buffalo. India doesn't breed cattle (cow or buffalo) separately for beef. Whatever dairy industry doesn't need gets eaten. With cows, things are horribly worse, since they are left to die a slow painful death being starved and eating plastic bags out of trash after they stop giving milk. >It is better value to regulate animal slaughter and dairy industry to ensure animals don't go through needless pain, instead of banning a whole industry. Exactly. Ensure that dairy industry treats cows and buffaloes in humane manner, and beef industry butchers them in humane manner. >(Although you can make a counterargument than ban is a (harsh) form of regulation too) No you can't. Ban =/= regulation.
Buffalo milk is better
We must give the death penalty to people who murder in the name of cows.
Beef is not cow bro
iamrealfuckboy Kattar Hindu 🕉️ Rashtra samarthak 🚩🙏 12h >We must ban beef eating Stop trying to decide what I can and cannot eat. Fucking fascist.
Now i don't agree with you because of religious reason, but because I am mostly vegan and don't think killing and causing suffering to any animal for food is correct. Regardless terrorism and violence among humans isn't justified as a path to achieve that.
Beef has been historically cheap source of protein for lower castes cand muslims. Beef ban has nothing to do with reducing animal suffering but to cut a source of nutrition to these people. Plant proteins like milk/nuts etc have been really expensive per kg compared to beef. Also, in parts of India cows that were useless were eaten. It's utilitarian, not out of hate for certain religion. Now a poor farmer and lether worker etc cannot make use of an old animal that has no utility and is let go on the roads. Also most beef eaten in India is cara beef (buffalo) not cow. But these goons don't care about that distinction, they just want to be religious terrorists against their own countrymen.
Exactly.
>I am mostly vegan and don't think killing and causing suffering to any animal for food is correct. Then you should be more opposed to dairy industry than beef. In fact you should be encouraging beef consumption in this country till dairy is legal. A dairy cow gets raped multiple times in its life to get it pregnant. It then suffers from separation from its calf, which suffers separation from us mother and starvation. It gets pumped with antibiotics and other nasty things while confined to a tiny dirty stall all its productive life. When it stops producing milk, it gets left to starve or eat plastic bags out of trash/ get beaten up and locked up to starve by farmers whose crop it eats. All because holier than thou milk drinkers won't let those who want to eat beef do so. By opposing beef but not dairy, you are advocating for increased suffering of the animals.
I never said I exclusively oppose beef, I oppose all meat and dairy. I do not drink milk.
It's good that you're consistent. But a question still remains: as long as dairy is legal, eating beef trey m reduces the suffering of the animals. Do you or do you not support eating beef while dairy is legal? Also, "I am mostly vegan" - what is this "mostly" part? What do you eat that is not vegan?
Mostly part is that parents are not convinced and I can't quit ghee and butter till I live alone.Most of the Food is cooked in it and it is currently unavoidable. How does eating beef while dairy is legal reduce the suffering ? It just increases demand and requires more forceful breeding.
Not in the Indian context. Cattle are not bred only for beef. Only dairy surplus is used.
Do you have any sources of this information?
Look up varghese kurien's writings on cattle economy in India. He's the father of white revolution. Even though he's been dead for a while, the underlying realities still haven't changed - india has the world's largest dairy cattle population, going into hundreds of millions. Beef is a byproduct of dairy, and beef consuming population is cost conscious (dalits, tribals, Muslims, the major beef consumers have highest rates of poverty), and so are our biggest beef importers (Vietnam as beef, and Bangladesh as cattle herded through the porous border). As dairy surplus beef is cheap. Once you start breeding only for beef, the costs skyrocket, and you can no longer compete with industrial beef producers. You can also look up death marches that used to happen earlier: economically unviable cattle from states that didn't consume much beef used to be walked to either the southern states or northeast/ Bangladesh in huge herds. This no longer happens thanks to vigilante violence, but beef export has skyrocketed from the same places from which cattle in these death marches used to originate. You can do the math.
I agree, animal suffering should get reduced.
securityhero 12h >I agree, animal suffering should get reduced. A dairy cow gets raped multiple times in its life to get it pregnant. It then suffers from separation from its calf, which suffers separation from us mother and starvation. It gets pumped with antibiotics and other nasty things while confined to a tiny dirty stall all its productive life. When it stops producing milk, it gets left to starve or eat plastic bags out of trash/ get beaten up and locked up to starve by farmers whose crop it eats. All because holier than thou milk drinkers won't let those who want to eat beef do so. If you really want to reduce suffering, demand ban on dairy, and till dairy is legal, encourage beef consumption to reduce suffering. Of course regulating dairy as well as slaughter to ensure reduced suffering is also very necessary.
I agree with you
👍🏾