|
On April 14 2013 07:30 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 14 2013 07:11 r.Evo wrote:
The Iowa bill specifically outlaws videotaping (and possessing/distributing) in an animal facility without the owners consent. The Utah bill outlaws applying with the intent to make a record (debatable, sounds reasonable) and recording while being employed and while trespassing.
Actually this is even worse than what I talked about with you earlier. It's not just about covertly going in there and videotaping it. This bill includes someone who works there, witnesses animal cruelty and seeks to make video footage as proof.
Edit: Ctrl+f "without consent" or "without the consent". It helps highlight it! edit: and you can stop harping on the made up laws point, because i have yet to see a law that makes the mere videotaping of animal abuse illegal. they make actions in violation of premise owner's consent unlawful, not the mere act of videotaping of animal abuse. So if I outlaw videotaping children in a private home under any circumstance I'm not outlawing the videotaping of child abuse at the same time? You admittedly talked about an entirely different law, you admittedly had no idea that the laws referred to in the OP even existed (which suggests you completely ignored the article in the OP talking about these specific laws), you then get to see those laws you called "made up" five minutes earlier and your response is "Oh, well, that doesn't change anything". These laws are made to oppress the recording of any sound and any video in animal facilities. That's what's outrageous. These laws are made to specifically protect animal farms from the harm that might be inflicted on them when a consumer of their products might see those videos. If such a law would be reasonable it would be worded similar to the law regarding taking video footage of policemen on duty in Germany. In that case, it's generally outlawed with a specific exception for when the policeman in question is in the process of performing an illegal act. What are those laws that protect someone taking video footage of actual animal abuse that you speak of?
stop focusing on the end and focus on the means. they are breaking the law to videotape. it doesnt outlaw videotaping, it disallows videotaping without consent (e.g., trespass, fraud, etc.).
i didnt talk about a different law. these are all so-called ag-gag laws. each state has its own. i had read the law you referred beforehand. but it doesnt state what you are alleging it states. it states you cant videotape without consent. note how you didnt bold the consent part in your first post, and completely omitted it in following posts. not sure why you keep willfully ignoring the real issue.
yes, these laws oppress the recording where they are done without consent (e.g., trespass, fraud). keep distracting yourself from the consent issue though.
|
On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are federal and state whistleblower laws. they make otherwise illegal activity (e.g., breach of contract) permissible where illegal activity is uncovered.
I asked you for these alleged laws you mention every two sentences. I have personally looked through Wikipedia for the obvious before asking you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_United_States
...and have not found them. I am not an expert on this subject, and you have yet to provide these laws you are so sure pertain to this situation.
If these laws do exist and supercede this law, then why was a contradictory law passed?
On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
trespass laws did not omit agribusiness. why does this get special attention? because big-ag is a powerful lobby.
If trespass laws did not omit agribusiness before this one, you have yet to answer the obvious: why is trespass for documenting animal cruelty so egregiously bad that it deserves extra punishment on top of the laws that already exist for normal trespass?
|
On April 14 2013 07:39 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are federal and state whistleblower laws. they make otherwise illegal activity (e.g., breach of contract) permissible where illegal activity is uncovered. I asked you for these alleged laws you mention every two sentences. I have personally looked through Wikipedia for the obvious before asking you... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_United_States...and have not found them. You have yet to provide these laws you are so sure pertain to this situation. Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:34 dAPhREAk wrote:
trespass laws did not omit agribusiness. why does this get special attention? because big-ag is a powerful lobby. If trespass laws did not omit agribusiness before this one, you have yet to answer the question: why is trespass for documenting animal cruelty so egregiously bad that it deserves extra punishment on top of the laws that already exist for normal trespass?
there are most likely 51 whistleblower laws in the united states. one federal and 50 state. i am not going to find them for you. go find them yourself.
i already told you why this is a special circumstance--big ag has a powerful lobby. i doubt there is anything more to it than that. moreover, i already said in this thread that i dont think extra protection is necessary.
edit: actually, someone made a list.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/labor/state-whistleblower-laws.aspx
http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-whistleblower.htm
|
On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
i already told you why this is a special circumstance--big ag has a powerful lobby. i doubt there is anything more to it than that. moreover, i already said in this thread that i dont think extra protection is necessary.
Do you seriously think "big ag has a powerful lobby" is a justifiable reason why trespass for documenting illegal activities should be punished beyond that for normal trespass?
On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are most likely 51 whistleblower laws in the united states. one federal and 50 state. i am not going to find them for you. go find them yourself.
There are at least half a dozen national laws for different types of whistleblowing under different conditions. I can't comment on state laws. The national and state laws I've looked through pertain to government whistleblowing, appearances before Congress, and national defense industries: not agribusiness.
Please find this law you are so certain exists for agribusiness.
|
On April 14 2013 07:49 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
i already told you why this is a special circumstance--big ag has a powerful lobby. i doubt there is anything more to it than that. moreover, i already said in this thread that i dont think extra protection is necessary. Do you seriously think "big ag has a powerful lobby" is a good reason why trespass for documenting illegal activities should be punished beyond that for normal trespass? Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:42 dAPhREAk wrote:
there are most likely 51 whistleblower laws in the united states. one federal and 50 state. i am not going to find them for you. go find them yourself. There are at least half a dozen national laws for different types of whistleblowing under different conditions. I can't comment on state laws. The national and state laws I've looked through pertain to government whistleblowing and national defense industries: not agribusiness. Please find this law you are so certain exists for agribusiness.
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative.
|
On April 14 2013 07:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative.
According to the article, Iowa's one of the states that passed a variant on this law. Look at Iowa's whistleblower protection, per the link you just posted:
It is unlawful to discharge or take personnel action against a state employee in reprisal for a disclosure of a violation of a law or rule, mismanagement, abuse of fund, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law.
Would you look at that. A specific law forbidding disclosure now exists.
Utah:
Employees of the state or political subdivisions cannot be discharged, threatened, disciplined or discriminated against for reporting to a public body the existence or suspected existence of waste of public funds, property or manpower; or for a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law; or for refusing to comply with a directive the employee reasonably believes to be illegal. Employees are not protected if they fail to give written notice of the violation to the employer, unless they reasonably believe notice to be futile; fail to comply with administrative reporting procedures; or make the report knowing that it is malicious, false or frivolous. Aggrieved employees may file suit within 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action and can seek reinstatement, back-pay, benefits, court costs and attorney fees. Violating employers can be fined up to $500.
Public employees only. Oops.
Missouri:
State agencies cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for disclosing information which the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety. Protections do not apply if the employees know the disclosure to be false or if it was made in reckless disregard for the truth.
Hey, that looks good! Oh wait, it only covers state employees.
Haven't found anything through OSHA yet, though they have a cover program for whistleblowers that don't get caught.
|
I always find these discussions especially interesting.
I grew up in an environment where chicken houses, a lot like the picture in the OP, were common place. I've always had the belief that animals were here for our benefit and their discomfort in life was inconsequential. Also, it was understood that if your dog got out and was chasing the neighbor's live stock, the neighbor was going to shoot it. Tired of a pet dog/cat? The answer was always to take it out and shoot it. Cat/Dog had kittens/puppies that you didn't want? The answer was always to kill them. The logic was that it was better to just kill them rather than waste a day trying to give them away or pass them off on someone else to deal with them. For a lot of people this cold indifference to animals is incomprehensible, but that is how life was growing up.
Because of this, its hard for me to understand why people care so much about the living conditions of live stock and why anyone would care if someone wanted to film it in the first place. I say let them take all the pictures they want. I'm not a big fan of censorship.
|
On April 14 2013 08:01 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative. According to the article, Iowa's one of the states that passed a variant on this law. Look at Iowa's whistleblower protection, per the link you just posted: Show nested quote +It is unlawful to discharge or take personnel action against a state employee in reprisal for a disclosure of a violation of a law or rule, mismanagement, abuse of fund, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law. Would you look at that. A specific law forbidding disclosure now exists, supported by people like you. Utah: Show nested quote +Employees of the state or political subdivisions cannot be discharged, threatened, disciplined or discriminated against for reporting to a public body the existence or suspected existence of waste of public funds, property or manpower; or for a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law; or for refusing to comply with a directive the employee reasonably believes to be illegal. Employees are not protected if they fail to give written notice of the violation to the employer, unless they reasonably believe notice to be futile; fail to comply with administrative reporting procedures; or make the report knowing that it is malicious, false or frivolous. Aggrieved employees may file suit within 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action and can seek reinstatement, back-pay, benefits, court costs and attorney fees. Violating employers can be fined up to $500. Public employees only. Oops. Missouri: Show nested quote +State agencies cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for disclosing information which the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety. Protections do not apply if the employees know the disclosure to be false or if it was made in reckless disregard for the truth. Hey, that looks good! Oh wait, it only covers state employees. Haven't found anything through OSHA yet, though they have a cover program for whistleblowers that don't get caught. Remain safe and secure, dAPhREAk.
we can continue on Monday if i have time. leaving for the weekend.
and, no, i dont support the law, but thanks for repeatedly misstating my position.
|
On April 14 2013 08:08 dAPhREAk wrote:
we can continue on Monday if i have time. leaving for the weekend.
and, no, i dont support the law, but thanks for repeatedly misstating my position.
Understood.
Sorry for the snark, that was definitely out of line. I'll delete that.
|
On April 14 2013 08:01 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:50 dAPhREAk wrote:
i didnt say it was a good reason, i said it was the reason. need i repeat that i dont think ag-gag laws are necessary?
i actually found a list of the whistleblower laws. they are above (although not updated through 2013). i am secure in my knowledge that whistleblower laws cover it. if you want to disagree without looking at them that is your prerogative. According to the article, Iowa's one of the states that passed a variant on this law. Look at Iowa's whistleblower protection, per the link you just posted: Show nested quote +It is unlawful to discharge or take personnel action against a state employee in reprisal for a disclosure of a violation of a law or rule, mismanagement, abuse of fund, abuse of authority, or substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, unless such disclosure is specifically prohibited by law. Would you look at that. A specific law forbidding disclosure now exists, supported by people like you. Utah: Show nested quote +Employees of the state or political subdivisions cannot be discharged, threatened, disciplined or discriminated against for reporting to a public body the existence or suspected existence of waste of public funds, property or manpower; or for a violation or suspected violation of state or federal law; or for refusing to comply with a directive the employee reasonably believes to be illegal. Employees are not protected if they fail to give written notice of the violation to the employer, unless they reasonably believe notice to be futile; fail to comply with administrative reporting procedures; or make the report knowing that it is malicious, false or frivolous. Aggrieved employees may file suit within 180 days after the alleged discriminatory action and can seek reinstatement, back-pay, benefits, court costs and attorney fees. Violating employers can be fined up to $500. Public employees only. Oops. Missouri: Show nested quote +State agencies cannot take disciplinary action against an employee for disclosing alleged prohibited activity under investigation or for disclosing information which the employee reasonably believes to be a violation of law or rule, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority or a specific and substantial danger to public health or safety. Protections do not apply if the employees know the disclosure to be false or if it was made in reckless disregard for the truth. Hey, that looks good! Oh wait, it only covers state employees. Haven't found anything through OSHA yet, though they have a cover program for whistleblowers that don't get caught.
You're awesome, thanks for those links. :>
e: Goddamn, I hate not supporting snarky-ness. Edited out as well.
|
Final thoughts, as I'll be busy for a while.
I have few doubts that people who break this law will be able to find a lawyer who can defend them through legalese; lawyers have defended clients against clearer, more egregious breaches of law outside of the nebulous field of whistleblowing. It will certainly be harder and cost more, but I can't comment on how much harder or costlier it will be.
However, that doesn't excuse the passage of laws like this. The best case scenario is that they contradict laws already passed and skew criminal incentives in a manner unfitting the principle of proportionate retribution. The worst case scenario involves shielding criminal behavior by elements of the farm industry.
|
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
|
On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
Yea we're not giving up sex or violence any time soon either so deal with it.
edit: so sick of this quote being used in animal rights discussions by people who have no idea what the man said or did.
|
they should rewrite the text of the american anthem to:
"land of the fee"
or something like that.
American politics have been bought by the co-operations and they also make the laws for them.
Its time for people to awaken and claim their country like their forefathers did and take it back into their hands away from the co-operations that take your money, give you a shitty job and tell you to be grateful for it.
For me this is not an animal rights issue, but a cooperation power issue ...
I hope to yet see the day when wash the filth of money away with blood from everywhere in the world, or the day when these people see their faults and decide to stop leeching on the population its resources and nature.
I'd prefer the second option but its more likely to be the first if the financial crises continues and people start to realize how they have been cheated, used and abused by co-operations, rich people and their minions.
|
On April 14 2013 09:57 Holy_AT wrote:
they should rewrite the text of the american anthem to:
"land of the fee"
or something like that.
American politics have been bought by the co-operations and they also make the laws for them.
Its time for people to awaken and claim their country like their forefathers did and take it back into their hands away from the co-operations that take your money, give you a shitty job and tell you to be grateful for it.
For me this is not an animal rights issue, but a cooperation power issue ...
I hope to yet see the day when wash the filth of money away with blood from everywhere in the world, or the day when these people see their faults and decide to stop leeching on the population its resources and nature.
I'd prefer the second option but its more likely to be the first if the financial crises continues and people start to realize how they have been cheated, used and abused by co-operations, rich people and their minions.
This is one of the big reasons that reading about this made me angry. I'm not for mistreatment of animals and I don't like to see them being abused but man the average American doesn't even know how much their country is being ran by big business. This bill is 100% to protect big-ag. It is really sickening that it was able to get through so easily and that when a large firm wants something done, it is very easy for them to get it done.
Americans need to get a little more educated that many important issues aren't being decided by some congressman, but by the corporations who back them.
|
On April 14 2013 09:53 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi Yea we're not giving up sex or violence any time soon either so deal with it. edit: so sick of this quote being used in animal rights discussions by people who have no idea what the man said or did.
Don´t let me die dump. Tell me.
edit: And either i just don´t have a clue about your first sentence. What have sex and violance to do with how i treat animals or food. Enlighten me.
|
On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
But isn't it about giving a fuck, indeed?
The overconsumption of meat is not only an ethical problem, but also an ecological one. We cannot produce enough meat for everyone, and the cost of the current production is huge.
Ag business makes it sound like it's a "vegan problem", so they can dismiss it as a simple matter of diverging, marginal opinions. But the truth is that we can't expect to keep up once demand in countries like China or India rises up. We don't even know how we can feed these countries in the next decades, so how in hell can we provide them with cheap hamburgers for billions and billions of people?
The shift isn't that we need to stop eating meat, it's to realize that there were products that weren't common a century ago, and never were supposed to be common in our everyday lives. Same with cheap cheese or eggs. We simply need to realize that cheap meat is an atrocity. Meat needs to be a small part of our input, and I'm not even questioning daily consumption, I'm questioning those endless barbecues some cultures like to have.
|
Well i´m only saying that the majority of end consumers’ doesn´t give a fuck. If they don´t give a fuck about their food why should you fight a law that doesn´t concern anyone in the end.
You can sell them shit with flavor enhancer, as long as they don´t know, they eat their "fresh yumy cheap" cheeseburgers.
edit: Most even doesn´t wana hear it. Like all those videos and shit. Flesh and meat you buy in the supermarket like they come from tree´s or shit. People nowadays don´t want to hear that meat comes from animals. And that plays into the hands of the industry. If you don´t change the customer you won´t change the industry and it laws. Oh, and that´s only a subjective observation but women have this opinion more than men that women don´t give a fuck where the meat is from.
ez pz
|
On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi
I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden).
|
On April 14 2013 13:28 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 09:19 Nachtwind wrote:
In the end i think all those Jimmys on all those streets don´t give a fuck if his egg or steak is misstreated beforehand.
I remember Jamie Oliver as he killed young hatchlings in tv before a meal and they were so shocked.
Or a project on a neighbor state in scool were pupils could make "friendship" with chickens and they were serverd a few hours later as food. Other parents were really angry. I laugh at this because i was raised with animals.
I know how to drill a chickens neck or how to down of feathers or how to slaughter a cow. But we never treated our animals like in the videos.
That´s the problem of our society now.
Like how many of the youngsters really lived with animals? They don´t give a fuck.
They like a fat cheeseburger and that´s it. And that are thousends of cheeseburgers. Law back and forth they don´t give a fuck.
They think meat is magical on trees or some fuck.
So why should a law against taping something "bad" in the animal food production be "bad"? Since the bigger part of the "civilized" world either don´t give a fuck.
Most "uncivilized" people treat animals better because they know their value. In the end of the day it always comes down to this:
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated.
-Gandhi I'm not sure why you end with that quote. The man was Hindu. By his religious laws, he was forbidden to eat meat. It's hard to take him seriously when he speaks on such a matter since he's speaking from a very biased perspective, and let's not forget that the great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers (since it's a lot more affordable and it's not religiously forbidden).
By his religion.... Aha. Hindu mostly eat vegetables but that doesn´t mean meat is a dogma for them. Gandhi though said for himself that he would not eat any meat of animals because he equals both, human and animals.
But well what ever you people in the internet are telling. First you miss the point. Then you wanna fight about things that wasn´t my point.
Then you talking things like "great nations and morally progressive nations tend to be big meat consumers" while i would say those "great" nations are making the biggest failures right now and are giving right to what that man said.
Well whatever you people say. You´re right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
