# Maharashtra bans beef, 5 years jail, Rs 10,000 fine for possession or sale



## Nanducob (Mar 3, 2015)

Beef lovers in Maharashtra will now have to do without the red meat as President Pranab Mukherjee has given his assent to the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Bill, 1995, nearly 19 years after the Maharashtra Assembly passed the Bill during the BJP-Shiv Sena rule in 1995.
The slaughter of cows was previously prohibited in the state under the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act of 1976. However, the passage of the new Act will ban the slaughter of bulls as well as bullocks, which was previously allowed based on a fit-for-slaughter certificate.
The new Act will, however, allow slaughter of water buffaloes, which provides carabeef — generally seen as an inferior quality meat that makes up only 25 per cent of the total beef market in the state. Beef traders claim the move will not only render thousands jobless, but will also drive up the cost of other meats in the state.
Source:
Maharashtra bans beef, 5 years jail, Rs 10,000 fine for possession or sale | The Indian Express
.
Wow


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 3, 2015)

Thing is, nature made us omnivore. So, this ban is inappropriate. Survival of the fittest or whatever. Why do people forget there is nothing such as a "god" and there is nothing "holy".

Heck if you want to ban all animal meat, ban milk and eggs too. Afterall, you are leaving the calves undernourished by consuming cow's milk. Stupid voter-bank politics. 

I will eat whatever I want to. Why discriminate people on the basis of what they eat? -_-


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 3, 2015)

Thanks modi ?


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 3, 2015)

SaiyanGoku said:


> Thing is, nature made us omnivore. So, this ban is inappropriate. Survival of the fittest or whatever. Why do people forget there is nothing such as a "god" and there is nothing "holy".
> 
> Heck if you want to ban all animal meat, ban milk and eggs too. Afterall, you are leaving the calves undernourished by consuming cow's milk. Stupid voter-bank politics.
> 
> I will eat whatever I want to. Why discriminate people on the basis of what they eat? -_-



you quite well are (still) entitled to your own *opinion*.


----------



## Reloaded (Mar 3, 2015)

Soon we will be eating humans for meat that day is not far.


----------



## Neo (Mar 3, 2015)

meh india 
also, 19 years later? I shouldnt be surprised I guess


----------



## Hrishi (Mar 3, 2015)

Isn't it true that humans were born vegetarian , but then some moved towards eating flesh later on. Bending the rules of nature ?
We descended from apes ( primarily vegetarian ). But since hunting animals was easier and more beneficial so we moved onto it.

I don't support eating/killing of poultry birds the sake of our desires. But there's barely anything much you can do about it.


----------



## Faun (Mar 3, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> Isn't it true that humans were born vegetarian , but then some moved towards eating flesh later on. Bending the rules of nature ?
> We descended from apes ( primarily vegetarian ). But since hunting animals was easier and more beneficial so we moved onto it.
> 
> I don't support eating/killing of poultry birds the sake of our desires. But there's barely anything much you can do about it.



Who put down the rules of nature ? That's one of the lamest reasoning.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 3, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> Isn't it true that humans were born vegetarian , but then some moved towards eating flesh later on. Bending the rules of nature ?
> We descended from apes ( primarily vegetarian ). But since hunting animals was easier and more beneficial so we moved onto it.
> 
> I don't support eating/killing of poultry birds the sake of our desires. But there's barely anything much you can do about it.



that may be debatable, or may not be (but then, debates are almost always futile).  however, some of the special things that Nature did provide us with are  the powers & capacities of conscience, discretion, thoughtfulness.  it (just) matters on an individual's own, personal evolution on how (well) one  uses them (or uses them at all), or comes to use them later on, by taking a balanced approach and understands the essence of 'do that which is *really* *necessary*'.


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 3, 2015)

Leave the evolution theory aside,Humans have Flat molars and sharp front teeth ,both characteristics from herbivores and carnivores,which suggests the possibility of being an Omnivore by fate


----------



## Flash (Mar 3, 2015)

Btw, somewhere on India 

*i.imgur.com/m6q55kG.jpg


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 3, 2015)

Nanducob said:


> Leave the evolution theory aside,Humans have  Flat molars and sharp front teeth ,both characteristics from herbivores  and carnivores,which suggests the possibility of being an Omnivore by  fate



yes, as also the manner of drinking.
though over all such physical attributes, govern the faculties of 'prudence' & 'selection'.

- - - Updated - - -



Flash said:


> Btw, somewhere on India



that was good!


----------



## Hrishi (Mar 3, 2015)

Faun said:


> Who put down the rules of nature ? That's one of the lamest reasoning.


While there are no defined set or rules yet it has given you the capability to determine and do what is best to keep things in balance.

And just because you don't want to accept few things as it has not mentioned somewhere doesn't implies that its lame. 
We are a part of nature , nature which is willing to express its consciousness through us.


----------



## Hrishi (Mar 3, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> that may be debatable, or may not be (but then, debates are almost always futile).  however, some of the special things that Nature did provide us with are  the powers & capacities of conscience, discretion, thoughtfulness.  it (just) matters on an individual's own, personal evolution on how (well) one  uses them (or uses them at all), or comes to use them later on, by taking a balanced approach and understands the essence of 'do that which is *really* *necessary*'.


Completely Agree to it.


----------



## ankush28 (Mar 3, 2015)

My religion says vegetables and other plants are holy creatures. Ban them please.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 3, 2015)

from the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 48 of the Indian Constitution:



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


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 4, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> from the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Article 48 of the Indian Constitution:



Yup and it must be just a coincidence as the initiation and consent of the bill happened both, during BJP rule(z)
We all know what's this really about


----------



## quicky008 (Mar 4, 2015)

Merely banning the possession or sale of beef isn't enough-if they really care about the welfare of animals(which doesn't seem likely),they should put an end to the killing/sacrificing and consumption of all kinds of animals like chickens,pigs,sheep,goats as well as water-buffaloes.If they have no objection to the killing of other animals but are dead against the idea of slaughtering cows,they are nothing more than a bunch of  hypocrites who are only doing this in a bid to promote hindu fundamentalism.

These people are actually very cunning-they probably don't wish to antagonize their muslim and christian supporters(beef is an integral part of their diets) but are very keen on maintaining a "sanctimonious holier than thou" sort of an image to gain the trust and confidence of the hindus,hence they came up with the idea of implementing this partial ban on the consumption of beef to keep both sides happy and win a decisive victory during the next round of elections.

   [MENTION=142062]Flash[/MENTION]:Sobha de is obviously a very shallow and insensitive human being,hence she proudly proclaims that she's prepared to go so far as spend 5 years in jail in order to "defend the rights of beef eaters"-as if these so-called beef eaters are some of the most finest and upstanding citizens of this country and consumption of beef is their god given right!Go figure!
If she's so overly concerned about defending people's rights,then why doesn't she lend her support to some worthy causes,like prevention of child labour,or ending the exploitation of women etc rather than raising her voice against the ban on beef consumption?!


----------



## Faun (Mar 4, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> While there are no defined set or rules yet it has given you the capability to determine and do what is best to keep things in balance.
> 
> And just because you don't want to accept few things as it has not mentioned somewhere doesn't implies that its lame.
> We are a part of nature , nature which is willing to express its consciousness through us.



Why so much love for consciousness ? We are for a long part dead. And we all are part of universe. Death brings life. It's not something inherently bad.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 4, 2015)

Nanducob said:


> Yup and it must be just a coincidence as the initiation and consent of the bill happened both, during BJP rule(z)
> We all know what's this really about



for whatever worth some 'really know' about it, giving the issue a communal flavour is unsustainable. or for those some, it may be.


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 4, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> for whatever worth some 'really know' about it, giving the issue a communal flavour is unsustainable. or for those some, it may be.



There are enough reasons to think so  Apparently,most leaders are douches allergic to other religions.
BJP's Sadhvi Prachi stirs a new controversy, says asked Hindus to have 4 children, not 40 puppies-PoliticsNews - IBNLive Mobile
India outrage after Hindu leader attacks Mother Teresa motive - BBC News
BJP cracks down on Sakshi for '4 kids' remark
Sadhvi Prachi calls for boycott of Aamir, Shah Rukh and Salman Khan films - The Hindu


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 4, 2015)

yes, i understand. then there are the front porch 'perennial provokers' in the likes of the aiyyars, the digvijays, the chowdharys, the shindes et al of 24, Akbar road (though the address would soon change). their utterings and their parent party's/coalition's decisions can/are also viewed in a verily similar perspective. parties change, faces change, behaviour and antics may not, although with different flavours. potholes are there, but we still drive or walk the path fulminating.


----------



## $hadow (Mar 4, 2015)

This will make a rise of illegal selling of beef.


----------



## lywyre (Mar 4, 2015)

This is not what we(India) voted for


----------



## prateek70007 (Mar 5, 2015)

Nanducob said:


> Leave the evolution theory aside,Humans have Flat molars and sharp front teeth ,both characteristics from herbivores and carnivores,which suggests the possibility of being an Omnivore by fate



I have a excerpt of a Post for you...



> Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. © Stephen Kroninger
> 
> As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore's short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore's intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant).
> 
> Human beings and herbivorous animals have little mouths in relation to their head sizes, unlike carnivores, whose big mouths are all the better for "seizing, killing and dismembering prey," argues nutrition specialist Dr. Milton R. Mills, associate director of preventive medicine for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). People and herbivores extensively chew their food, he says, whereas swallowing food whole is the preferred method of carnivores and omnivores.



Excellent step taken by Government to protect Cows from being brutally killed for taste when we have lots of other vegetarian options available unlike Gulf and Arabs where people have to eat meat for survival.


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 5, 2015)

^ Non-veg food is not only for taste but for making the diet complete/balanced. Weight wise, you get more nutrients in non-veg food.


----------



## Flash (Mar 5, 2015)

prateek70007 said:


> I have a excerpt of a Post for you...


That's refreshing. TFS..


----------



## warfreak (Mar 5, 2015)

I prefer bacon anyways 

But still banning would be a bad thing because this would lead to a black market of beef;cue food poisoning or even deaths due to questionable quality meat. 
Rather than banning, I feel the market should be regulated such that people don't lose jobs and religious sentiments aren't hurt.


----------



## Desmond (Mar 5, 2015)

They should try banning goat slaughter if they had balls.


----------



## bikramjitkar (Mar 5, 2015)

Just ban everything and be done with it.


----------



## $hadow (Mar 5, 2015)

Ban is not a solution for anything.


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 5, 2015)

prateek70007 said:


> I have a excerpt of a Post for you...





> Cardiologist William C. Roberts hails from the famed cattle state of Texas, but he says this without hesitation: Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. "I think the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores versus herbivores, it doesn't take a genius to see where humans line up," says Roberts, editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas. © Stephen Kroninger
> As further evidence, Roberts cites the carnivore's short intestinal tract, which reaches about three times its body length. An herbivore's intestines are 12 times its body length, and humans are closer to herbivores, he says. Roberts rattles off other similarities between human beings and herbivores. Both get vitamin C from their diets (carnivores make it internally). Both sip water, not lap it up with their tongues. Both cool their bodies by perspiring (carnivores pant
> uman beings and herbivorous animals have little mouths in relation to their head sizes, unlike carnivores, whose big mouths are all the better for "seizing, killing and dismembering prey," argues nutrition specialist Dr. Milton R. Mills, associate director of preventive medicine for the Washington, D.C.-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). People and herbivores extensively chew their food, he says, whereas swallowing food whole is the preferred method of carnivores and omnivores


Doesn't prove that humans are herbivores ;,"closer" doesnt make them herbivores.Omnivores exibit characteristics of both herbivores /carnivores,so yeah..they might have some similarities.Hen,a carnivore has a smaller head to mouth ratio.Another obvious reason why humans are not herbivores is that they eat meat 



prateek70007 said:


> Excellent step taken by Government to protect Cows from being brutally killed for taste when we have lots of other vegetarian options available unlike Gulf and Arabs where people have to eat meat for survival.


It should be noted that whether this "kindness" towards a specific species is based on religious/factional sentiments.If not you shouldn't be killing a mosquito when it bites you !


----------



## ico (Mar 5, 2015)

prateek70007 said:


> Excellent step taken by Government to protect Cows from being brutally killed for taste when we have lots of other vegetarian options available unlike Gulf and Arabs where people have to eat meat for survival.


Food is food.

No distinction between a chicken, a cow and a spinach plant. All are edible and life forms.

- - - Updated - - -



GhorMaanas said:


> you quite well are (still) entitled to your own *opinion*.


also tell us your opinion.


----------



## Desmond (Mar 5, 2015)

ico said:


> Food is food.
> 
> No distinction between a chicken, a cow and a spinach plant. All are edible and life forms.



Makes sense.

People who eat non-veg food are still human beings, no different than those who eat veg.


----------



## REDHOTIRON2004 (Mar 5, 2015)

I don't see a problem with that. It should have been implemented much before that.

Do you people have the slightest idea from which money most of the terrorist activities in India are sponsored? It is from selling and exporting beef.

This move would surely curb one of the main sources of that.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 5, 2015)

ico said:


> Food is food.
> 
> No distinction between a chicken, a cow and a spinach plant. All are edible and life forms.
> 
> ...



well, and what's a considerable impediment in including 'humans' too in that menu?!

- - - Updated - - -



REDHOTIRON2004 said:


> I don't see a problem with that. It should have been implemented much before that.
> 
> Do you people have the slightest idea from which money most of the terrorist activities in India are sponsored? It is from selling and exporting beef.
> 
> This move would surely curb one of the main sources of that.



its somewhat surprising (and still, not much) to see the reactions of people as if some terrible disaster has struck! the law is not something new, and has been in place since 1976. it has only been extended & made stricter. till atleast 2005, courts here have ruled in favour of such decisions, even on total prohibition.

- - - Updated - - -



$hadow said:


> Ban is not a solution for anything.



may be, may not be. but prohibition is used as a measure to curb use and check proliferation almost everywhere.

though still, this one's not a total ban anyway.


----------



## Desmond (Mar 5, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> well, and what's a considerable impediment in including 'humans' too in that menu?!



That would be homicide/cannibalism.


----------



## ico (Mar 5, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> well, and what's a considerable impediment in including 'humans' too in that menu?!


The reply which I expected. 

Humans are edible too, if you're a lion. Every species wants to survive. They don't want their 'own' to die i.e. their genes to come to an end. So animals eating their own species is actually very rare.

I'm glad you're vegetarian btw (may be not, I don't care). Because reading your post, I think if you were non-vegetarian, you won't find considerable impediment in eating your own species as well! If you believe in God, he has given you "vivek". Utilize it. Infer from it. If not, teach your next generation to utilize it. If not even this, then please don't stop your next generation from utilizing it.

I can think of numerous logical reasons for preferring vegetarian food. For these reasons, I prefer vegetarian food. But sadly most people's logic will be mostly limited to their myopic faith in religion. Time to come out of the stupid "Cow is holy" / "Pork is unclean" bullshit/pigshit. Food habits are personal.

ohh I forgot to mention, it's not as if every vegnazi khud ugaa ke khaa raha hai (is growing his own food). Tons of pesticides/insecticides are being used, insects and pests being killed. Loss of "life" or should I say cells, or may be recycling of atoms (?) is happening everywhere.



GhorMaanas said:


> its somewhat surprising (and still, not much) to see the reactions of people as if some terrible disaster has struck! the law is not something new, and has been in place since 1976. it has only been extended & made stricter. till atleast 2005, courts here have ruled in favour of such decisions, even on total prohibition.


so what? should be removed!


----------



## amjath (Mar 5, 2015)

There are evidence that our Ancestors were omnivores too
PLOS ONE: Earliest Porotic Hyperostosis on a 1.5-Million-Year-Old Hominin, Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania

Like [MENTION=128807]Nanducob[/MENTION] said humans teeth are made/designed to eat meat and also Humans stomach has enzymes to dissolve heavy food like meat. 
Then why Gastric Acid has fraction of hydrochloric acid.

According to a community, Cows are holy creatures so since current government follows that community strictly they banned it. Dont worry Chicken Goat and sea foods are not holy 

7 Evidence-Based Health Reasons to Eat Meat

As a statistical analysis for beef industries in USA, the below link makes me dizzy.
USDA ERS - Cattle & Beef: Statistics & Information

BTW I ate beef only once and I wasnt aware its a beef


----------



## Desmond (Mar 5, 2015)

On counter point, this move makes some sense considering that the desi cow is getting extinct.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 5, 2015)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> That would be homicide/cannibalism.



correct. but from where does the legal point of view about it arise? i think you may be getting the point. anyway....



ico said:


> The reply which I expected.
> 
> Humans are edible too, if you're a lion. Every species wants to survive.  They don't want their 'own' to die i.e. their genes to come to an end.  So animals eating their own species is actually very rare.
> 
> ...



nevermind. i also get to read expected posts and replies most-of-the-times. 

well, animals don't make laws, nor are presumably capable of thinking on 'humane' lines, a property 'special' to us. yes, life indeed goes on with harm to one another. 

since you wrote using 'logic', i extended your line to include another life form. i would also implore you to quit your myopic faith in mere mental gymnastics, and engage in a bit of thoughtfulness. 

my 'logic' or 'ill-logic', whatever you may deem it, is to strive towards least harm required in living. if you have achieved it or are working towards it, that's a good indicator of your evolution as a human, to whom *humaneness* is/should be central. i have no 'beef' with beef-eaters/non-vegetarians, nor have i ranted against them anywhere (THAT would be myopic) but i would applaud & support any step, either taken on an individual-level or on a collective-basis (governmental or otherwise), to work towards achieving and realising lesser violent ways and harm to life, one of the steps towards meaningful evolution.



ico said:


> so what? should be removed!



if you feel it should be removed, then the beef-traders association is already preparing to go to the court on your behalf, then whatever the court decides. else, since it was not that only the forumers had voted the alliance in power (without reading the manifesto, that is), the other method would be to spread your ideas, form an association of like-minded people, try to take all public in confidence, prepare a manifesto, contest elections, win, prepare a bill, get consensus, get it passed in the assembly, make provisions for punishments on protesting slaughters, get it enacted, and then feel good about it.

- - - Updated - - -



DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> On counter point, this move makes some sense considering that the desi cow is getting extinct.



yes, i had read a similar piece of info, but i reckon it was from decades back (after the time when cross-breeding between desi and firang breeds was taken as an initiative).


----------



## ico (Mar 5, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> well, animals don't make laws, nor are presumably capable of thinking on 'humane' lines, a property 'special' to us. yes, life indeed goes on with harm to one another.


Surely we are more evolved scientifically, but animals do have emotions/thinking of their own.

*i.imgur.com/tFOzS1B.gif

Monkey saves dying friend at Indian train station - video | World news | The Guardian


> A monkey at Kanpur train station in India saves the life of another monkey who had fallen unconscious on the tracks after being electrocuted by walking on wires above. The first monkey rubs, hits and bites him, then dips him in water. After more than 20 minutes the electrocuted monkey shows signs of life



*pbs.twimg.com/media/B_K9s8HUQAA0Hg7.png:large


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 5, 2015)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> On counter point, this move makes some sense considering that the desi cow is getting extinct.



I think that has more to do with milkmen wanting more milk yield from cows and so they're adopting hybridisation methods.
Also, milk should be considered as a non-veg item and banned from consumption as it most of it comes from cattle. If you aren't allowed to consume animal protein in the form of beef, then you shouldn't be allowed to take it in the form of milk either.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 5, 2015)

ico said:


> Surely we are more evolved scientifically, but animals do have emotions/thinking of their own.



good pics there! yes, scientific evolution counts, but viewing it as something separate from a holisitic human evolution is not quite proper IMO. 
BTW, do you know about the case of a lioness who nurtured an offspring of an impala as a foster-mother? (the Kanpur monkeys case was also a terrific one!)


----------



## ico (Mar 5, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> good pics there! yes, scientific evolution counts, but viewing it as something separate from a holisitic human evolution is not quite proper IMO.
> BTW, do you know about the case of a lioness who nurtured an offspring of an impala as a foster-mother?


yes..!

I apologise for being rude.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 5, 2015)

ico said:


> yes..!
> 
> I apologise for being rude.



aah! hehe. no problemo! accept my apologies too if i was hurtful in any way. since the forum and the interweb are places where we converse without being present physically in front of each other, somehow the finer aspects of a conversation usually tend to take a backseat on their own.


----------



## amjath (Mar 5, 2015)

SaiyanGoku said:


> I think that has more to do with milkmen wanting more milk yield from cows and so they're adopting hybridisation methods.
> Also, milk should be considered as a non-veg item and banned from consumption as it most of it comes from cattle. If you aren't allowed to consume animal protein in the form of beef, then you shouldn't be allowed to take it in the form of milk either.



Exactly


> Most cow's milk has measurable quantities of herbicides, pesticides, dioxins (up to 200 times the safe levels), up to 52 powerful antibiotics (perhaps 53, with LS-50), blood, pus, feces, bacteria and viruses. (Cow's milk can have traces of anything the cow ate... including such things as radioactive fallout from nuke testing ... (the 50's strontium-90 problem).



The Truth About Milk - Read

We are literally eating cow in the name of milk.


----------



## ico (Mar 5, 2015)

amjath said:


> Exactly
> 
> 
> The Truth About Milk - Read
> ...


nope. the cow is alive.

but surely not eating/drinking something vegetarian.

PETA wants Soya milk to be the substitute.


----------



## amjath (Mar 5, 2015)

ico said:


> nope. the cow is alive.
> 
> but surely not eating something vegetarian.
> 
> PETA wants Soya milk to be the substitute.



How will you balance the food web. Will you kill all the snakes since it is poisonous then what happens to growth of rats and other animals related to snakes in food chain

It has more calories than cows milk and less very less calcium content than cows milk.
*www.google.co.in/search?q=soy+milk...rome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 5, 2015)

ico said:


> nope. the cow is alive.
> 
> but surely not eating/drinking something vegetarian.
> 
> PETA wants Soya milk to be the substitute.



Then people at PETA should drink it. Why force it on others? 
And Soya-Paneer tastes really bad compared to the original Paneer. Soya milk can never be a substitute. It can't be used to make curd, cheese, sweets, cakes, ice creams, etc as they will taste yuck.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 5, 2015)

^^ PETA is pushing ahead for it. 
BTW, have you had 'soyamee', or flavoured soya milk? tastes good! 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what the tradition had been here in villages to get milk from  cow/buffalo, was to first let it tend to its calf, and then when the  calf had its full, get the milk from the cow, which it would give  easily. if anyone of you have noticed it or not IDK, the cow at times  would start oozing the milk from its udders on the sight of the calf  (something like what was shown in the movie 'Julie', if anyone of you  might've seen it). i had come to know that this was not the case with  the firang cows (though have no first-hand info). so the basis here of  getting milk from the cow was, love, not violence, even though technically milk may not be vegetarian (ie, not obtained directly from plant-sources, but indirectly, yes). 

come the  industrialisation and need to supply urbaniites with milk, and factories  had been set up. but here its still better than the west where the cows  and buffaloes are fed with ground meat and what-not, except if you  could source your milk from a farm there. here you have dairies  everywhere, where you can go and check the running, though admittedly,  medicines and oxytocins (though banned now i think) are used to an  extent, more or less. factories too,  though am not sure, get milk from local dairies, against how its in the  west, and then process that. indiscriminate cross-breeding of cattle to  improve productivity had had its toll. now the related departments and  governments are gradually coming to their senses. industrialisation has  had its way, and these ways of cattle-keep also come under  not-so-loving-care, but it could be said to be one of the ways of paying  a price for development.


----------



## $hadow (Mar 5, 2015)

[MENTION=120775]GhorMaanas[/MENTION] I don't agree on that point. People since the early human era eat meat and we are made in order to eat meat. Eating is a preference but one should not be abolished from a valid option.


----------



## Hrishi (Mar 5, 2015)

Just a quick but wierd question : According to you is it okay to eat dog meat ?
Let's say , if its tasty and healthy , would you eat it ? If not , then why so ?

[ ps : I am sort of vegeterian. ]


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 5, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> Just a quick but wierd question : According to you is it okay to eat dog meat ?
> 
> [ ps : I am sort of vegeterian. ]



No, unless it comes to a life or death situation (I'm talking about *man vs wild* standards here). We have regular meat from Birds, Cattle, Pigs, Goat, Sheep, Fishes and other marine animals. Why bother killing a dog which doesn't yields better meat than the aforementioned species?


----------



## Hrishi (Mar 5, 2015)

SaiyanGoku said:


> No, unless it comes to a life or death situation (I'm talking about *man vs wild* standards here). We have regular meat from Birds, Cattle, Pigs, Goat, Sheep, Fishes and other marine animals. Why bother killing a dog which doesn't yields better meat than the aforementioned species?


In case , if it had enough yeild ? Would you love to kill a dog and eat it ?
Just like how it is done with cows .


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 5, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> In case , if it had enough yeild ? Would you love to kill a dog and eat it ?
> Just like how it is done with cows .



Its not about the quantity but the quality. But I wouldn't take effort to kill a dog and eat it instead of chicken/mutton.

Worldwide, it is a different story though (Dog meat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


----------



## amjath (Mar 5, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> In case , if it had enough yeild ? Would you love to kill a dog and eat it ?
> Just like how it is done with cows .



Its because cows, goats are herbivores and if you look at my religious perspective We should avoid animals with sharp teeth.


----------



## Flash (Mar 5, 2015)

*i.imgur.com/F3VouSh.jpg


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 6, 2015)

$hadow said:


> @GhorMaanas  I don't agree on that point. People since the early human era eat meat and we are made in order to eat meat. Eating is a preference but one should not be abolished from a valid option.



yes, you may not agree. am not advocating or rejecting the idea of meat-eating here. it may be necessary for some, and not so much for others. but i would rather say that we are made in order to understand and reflect back at some point or the other, and not just remain thoughtless thralls to our two boneless upper and lower organs for our whole lives. IMO necessity should be the prime mover, not _want_ as much. you do what is necessary....and eating has not been prohibited, but killing. 
sorry if i am not able to elucidate properly, but if you glance over my sig, that could explain a bit the point am trying to put across. at some juncture, since man has the capacity to pause, think, & understand, s/he could/would be able to self-identify with other beings, and restrict/regulate himself (to that which is really necessary). 

BTW, since people are discussing about dogs, dog-slaughter is banned in Australia, as dogs are held dear to the cultural values there. 

*and a Happy Holi to everyone!*


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 6, 2015)

^ Beef eating in Maharashtra can send you to jail for 5 years. Its all over the news/newspapers 
Imagine getting accused of eating beef while eating mutton and then getting sent to prison just because somebody had a grudge on you and reported the police or cops wanted to make some quick bribe


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 6, 2015)

i was taking a dig. 
but the notification of the amendment and the new bill and law are yet to come in print and online i guess, and we don't yet know the clauses and terms with absolute surety. media-reports still somewhat differ. AFAIK, the terms for the 1976 bill and the new amended one are still against 'slaughter', and now inclusion of punishment for possession. yes, risk of false implication is there. will get to know if appropriate steps to prevent such an occurrence have been taken or not when we can read it online. the picture would be clear better about other aspects too then.


----------



## vkl (Mar 6, 2015)

SaiyanGoku said:


> Thing is, nature made us omnivore. So, this ban is inappropriate. Survival of the fittest or whatever. Why do people forget there is nothing such as a "god" and there is nothing "holy".
> 
> Heck if you want to ban all animal meat, ban milk and eggs too. Afterall, you are leaving the calves undernourished by consuming cow's milk. Stupid voter-bank politics.
> 
> I will eat whatever I want to. Why discriminate people on the basis of what they eat? -_-



How does humans consuming cow's milk leave calves undernourished ? Granted there would be some cruel people who will underfed calves to sell more milk.
Domestic cows produce more milk than calf can drink,plus excess milk can cause diarrhea to it.Rest can be utilized. 
Chicken,fish,goat-meat,lamb are consumed some magnitudes higher than beef and are unlikely to be banned.





GhorMaanas said:


> its somewhat surprising (and still, not much) to see the reactions of people as if some terrible disaster has struck! the law is not something new, and has been in place since 1976. it has only been extended & made stricter. till atleast 2005, courts here have ruled in favour of such decisions, even on total prohibition.


Absolutely.Many such decisions have gone in favor of protection of *cow* in the past,from agricultural,economical and ecological aspects.In fact 2005 decision in a way showed that an alive cow was far more beneficial than a dead one in the context then.Lot of cows are illegally stolen and traded to Bangladesh from India.It's an economic loss, holiness,religious nonsense be kept aside.


Here's a somewhat sensible article: Misdirected outrage over #BeefBan: Calm down, you weren't eating it anyway - Firstpost


----------



## Faun (Mar 6, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> ^^ PETA is pushing ahead for it.
> BTW, have you had 'soyamee', or flavoured soya milk? tastes good!



PETA is killing animals. Some weird reasoning. Looks like church of scientology.


----------



## amjath (Mar 6, 2015)

vkl said:


> How does humans consuming cow's milk leave calves undernourished ? Granted there would be some cruel people who will underfed calves to sell more milk.
> Domestic cows produce more milk than calf can drink,plus excess milk can cause diarrhea to it.Rest can be utilized.
> Chicken,fish,goat-meat,lamb are consumed some magnitudes higher than beef and are unlikely to be banned.
> 
> ...



Come on bro, if you even trade all cattles from west Bengal to bangladesh for a month then also some cattle's will be left for next month. Also this ban is only for Maharashtra, we all know what community based political parties are there, it's clear that there is only one motive for this which cow is a holi animal


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 6, 2015)

vkl said:


> How does humans consuming cow's milk leave calves undernourished ? Granted there would be some cruel people who will underfed calves to sell more milk.
> Domestic cows produce more milk than calf can drink,plus excess milk can cause diarrhea to it.Rest can be utilized.
> Chicken,fish,goat-meat,lamb are consumed some magnitudes higher than beef and are unlikely to be banned.
> 
> ...



yes, that court ruling was quite detailed on it. and the religious and cultural reasons were also attributed to the animal in guise for economic & household-utility reasons ('kaamdhenu'). one thread in this section here has a direct-indirect relationship to the present bill and what the govt.'s hinting at. 
more on the dirty-o-nomics of the issue are presented in the following article. though i don't entirely agree on a point or two of it, but its worth a read for the info it puts across; its a very short article, won't consume much time (and written by a beef-eater):

Beefonomics India 101 - TOI Blogs



Faun said:


> PETA is killing animals. Some weird reasoning. Looks like church of scientology.



sorry, didn't quite get you. i checked about it. am not aware much about PETA and its doings, but have my reservations against atleast some of its calls. seems more like a radical marketing agency, and that looks the other way around when its celebrities don't do what they preach. but hiding behind & seeking refuge in others' antics to find excuses would be a still unpleasant & abnormal justification to keep continuing with (the) savagery.


----------



## vkl (Mar 6, 2015)

amjath said:


> Come on bro, if you even trade all cattles from west Bengal to bangladesh for a month then also some cattle's will be left for next month. Also this ban is only for Maharashtra, we all know what community based political parties are there, it's clear that there is only one motive for this which cow is a holi animal


Mate,it's not only West Bengal other states like Odisha, are also involved.And if all cattle stocks of a state are traded legally or illegally it would be a loss from many aspects.Is the only role they have is being served as beef? Not only milk,ghee and other milk products they also are assisting in medicine,manure,bio-gas,bio-pesticides,etc.
2005 SC judgement was good on the grounds of economic,ecological reasons..that's enough..religious stuff comes secondary.

Anyway it is a ban only in Maharashtra(that's what the article in my previous post also focuses on and we have misdirected comments like 'all forms of meat be banned' and other stuffs,please see not all forms of beaf is banned and nothing new has taken place in this recent ban wrt to "*cow*"..the concerns from both sides(animal right activists and the one in favor of eating beef) are raised in that article).

 [MENTION=120775]GhorMaanas[/MENTION] it's a good article,highlights some of the aspects that many people are either unaware or overlook.


----------



## $hadow (Mar 6, 2015)

^^You made a good point there. Now what exactly has govt made the provision for checking it out if it is mutton or beef.


----------



## mohit9206 (Mar 12, 2015)

I have never consumed beef but even i completely oppose this new law. India is supposed to be a progressive nation but such laws blinded by blind faith and stemming from religious beliefs is utterly regrettable. 
Such backwards thinking is not going to help anyone.There are FAR more important laws that our country needs to make rather than focusing on these trivial things.


----------



## REDHOTIRON2004 (Mar 12, 2015)

mohit9206 said:


> I have never consumed beef but even i completely oppose this new law. India is supposed to be a progressive nation but such laws blinded by blind faith and stemming from religious beliefs is utterly regrettable.
> Such backwards thinking is not going to help anyone.There are FAR more important laws that our country needs to make rather than focusing on these trivial things.



So according to you killing animals for there beef and all is a sign of being progressive(sic)?

Faith or not. Killing of animals should be avoided at all cost. You have a bigger brain and have power and means to kill innocent animals doesn't make you progressive. Feelings like empathy, sympathy etc are the main pillars on which a progressive society should be based on and that includes plants and animals as well. 

But, with your limited thinking killing of animals unnecessarily is the sign of an advanced society. I completely disagree to your point of view.

Have you ever heard about ecological balance? Do you know that in coastal regions in the past farmers used to fish only the quality they needed. They also used to feed them and make sure that there future generations have enough sustenance opportunity. Also, nothing used to lay to waste. Even the bones and skin of the animals that were killed were used in one way or the other. 

But, now, people like your kind of mantality kill mindlessly for profit. So many species have been made extinct because you think they are not worth the time and effort. 

Atleast here one of the main sources of wastage would be kept out. Preservation is extremely important. Because human thirst knows no boundaries.

If government won't have made it illegal to cut trees in the cities. Then there won't have been a single tree left. And your kind of people were behind the bad situation of the environment and ecology.


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 12, 2015)

REDHOTIRON2004 said:


> So according to you killing animals for there beef and all is a sign of being progressive(sic)?
> 
> Faith or not. Killing of animals should be avoided at all cost. You have a bigger brain and have power and means to kill innocent animals doesn't make you progressive. Feelings like empathy, sympathy etc are the main pillars on which a progressive society should be based on and that includes plants and animals as well.
> 
> ...


wow ! so cows were going to extinct from the face of earth if beef was not banned in Maharashtra?People have been consuming meat for centuries ,why there are still cattle around?
What about the people employed in the business?Who will give them jobs?
what about leather products? 
what does a farmer do whe the cow/bull is not productive?should he let them wait to die or sell it buy another one?
How do you justify killing of herbivores by carnivores or can we ask them to stop killing?
How many progressive societies are there that you know that doesn't eat meat?
If none ,what is "being progressive"?


----------



## Minion (Mar 12, 2015)

Hrishi said:


> Just a quick but wierd question : According to you is it okay to eat dog meat ?
> Let's say , if its tasty and healthy , would you eat it ? If not , then why so ?
> 
> [ ps : I am sort of vegeterian. ]



Meat is meat be it from Cow,goat,sheep or fish.

- - - Updated - - -



Hrishi said:


> In case , if it had enough yeild ? Would you love to kill a dog and eat it ?
> Just like how it is done with cows .



People have different preference even people from different part of world take dog meat.

I think this whole law thing is targeted towards particular community which is bad no law should be made like this It will surely affect unity of country.


----------



## bssunilreddy (Mar 12, 2015)

Minion said:


> Meat is meat be it form Cow,goat,sheep or fish.
> People have different preference even people from different part of world take dog meat.



+100 to this.
I sort of eat only Chicken occasionally Mutton Kheema...


----------



## ico (Mar 12, 2015)

REDHOTIRON2004 said:


> So according to you killing animals for there beef and all is a sign of being progressive(sic)?
> 
> Faith or not. Killing of animals should be avoided at all cost. You have a bigger brain and have power and means to kill innocent animals doesn't make you progressive. Feelings like empathy, sympathy etc are the main pillars on which a progressive society should be based on and that includes plants and animals as well.
> 
> ...


I'd listen to you if you are growing and consuming your own grain and vegetables.

If you are going out and buying fruits, vegetables and grain...then I guess you very well know how they are produced. Insecticides and pesticides. Preserve?

The 21st century vegetarians of India are also in the same boat no matter how you put it up.

If you come up with one proper reason for preferring vegetarian food, (oh I know many and I prefer veg food), I will fully support you.


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 12, 2015)

I know this will sound childish, but people should follow this irrespective of the type of food barring cannibalism of course. 



> If I don't want to eat it, I will not kill it. If I kill it, I will eat it! That's my rule! - *Toriko*



Government shouldn't interfere in the eating habits of people unless an endangered species is involved. 

Lets say, for example, you are a vegetarian and have a bundle of spinach, which is the last ever green plant and vegetarian food left on the Earth. The government, actually the world government, will try to secure it before the last source of oxygen is consumed and clone it on a ginormous scale. What would you do in the meanwhile? Die starving or eat non-veg to survive?


----------



## Nerevarine (Mar 13, 2015)

> Lets say, for example, you are a vegetarian and have a bundle of spinach, which is the last ever green plant and vegetarian food left on the Earth. The government, actually the world government, will try to secure it before the last source of oxygen is consumed and clone it on a ginormous scale. What would you do in the meanwhile?* Die starving or eat non-veg to survive?*



Although I agree with the general idea of what you just said, but that example is absolutely ridiculous.. Consider being locked in a room with a dead human being and you have nothing to eat.. What would you do ? Go cannibal or die starving ? Where do we draw the line ?

Anyway, Im a vegetarian and I disapprove of the decision to ban beef.. Why ban beef and not chicken and goat ? Is one animal life > another animal life ?


----------



## Faun (Mar 13, 2015)

Nerevarine said:


> Although I agree with the general idea of what you just said, but that example is absolutely ridiculous.. Consider being locked in a room with a dead human being and you have nothing to eat.. What would you do ? Go cannibal or die starving ? Where do we draw the line ?



That's a hypothetical question not many will encounter in reality. It's plausible that one will resort to cannibalism. Once you are deprived of food, the brain shuts down higher cognitive functions. Ultimately, it becomes a survival situation.


----------



## mitraark (Mar 13, 2015)

vkl said:


> How does humans consuming cow's milk leave calves undernourished ? Granted there would be some cruel people who will underfed calves to sell more milk.
> Domestic cows produce more milk than calf can drink,plus excess milk can cause diarrhea to it.Rest can be utilized.
> Chicken,fish,goat-meat,lamb are consumed some magnitudes higher than beef and are unlikely to be banned.
> 
> ...




I have spent a considerable amount of time living in suburban/rural regions. I have seen how cows and buffaloes are treated by the milkmen. There are many dairy farm/concentration camps for cattle nearby where i lived, the plight of those poor creatures is unknown to those who consume milk.

Cows are transported via Lorry, like rag toys, pushed and stuffed as much as possible inside the enclosure. That procedure itself is gruesome, some 3-4 people push a cow up a inclined piece of wood, hitting it with sticks and lashes. Some of them, mostly die due to suffocation from all the gas emissions from dung inside the truck. They are whipped to the point blood comes out of their body to keep in line while being walked to the farm. Calves are tied to a stick and carried inverted if their legs are too weak to walk. And I haven't even come to the milking part. Calves get absoultely no access to cow milk, they are fed with dry hay and grass. Cows are milked to the last drop, fiesty cows are tied down and hit if needed. You'd need to see for yourself how bony a cow can get to believe how miserable their lives are.

Similar arguments can be used for animal use in agriculture.

There is no such thing as absolute morality. We cannot be ethically right all the time. The world doesn't work that way.


----------



## furious_gamer (Mar 13, 2015)

A ban after 17 years.. I don't know whether I should laugh at this rule or the time it took to impose this! 

One of the major problem by banning something is, we are creating high demand for the item. If beef available legally price will be stable, but once it goes from regular item to novelty/rare item, price will go off the roof.

I don't eat beef, but this is height of lameness!


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 13, 2015)

some updates and more info on the matter:

My govtâ€™s decisions are not driven by religion: Devendra Fadnavis | The Indian Express

more here - â€˜Ban on cattle slaughter has nothing to do with Muslims or Hindusâ€™ | The Indian Express

Muslim chamber welcomes cow slaughter ban

last year - Muslim business chamber demands ban on beef export - IBNLive


----------



## vkl (Mar 13, 2015)

mitraark said:


> I have spent a considerable amount of time living in suburban/rural regions. I have seen how cows and buffaloes are treated by the milkmen. There are many dairy farm/concentration camps for cattle nearby where i lived, the plight of those poor creatures is unknown to those who consume milk.
> 
> Cows are transported via Lorry, like rag toys, pushed and stuffed as much as possible inside the enclosure. That procedure itself is gruesome, some 3-4 people push a cow up a inclined piece of wood, hitting it with sticks and lashes. Some of them, mostly die due to suffocation from all the gas emissions from dung inside the truck. They are whipped to the point blood comes out of their body to keep in line while being walked to the farm. Calves are tied to a stick and carried inverted if their legs are too weak to walk. And I haven't even come to the milking part. Calves get absoultely no access to cow milk, they are fed with dry hay and grass. Cows are milked to the last drop, fiesty cows are tied down and hit if needed. You'd need to see for yourself how bony a cow can get to believe how miserable their lives are.
> 
> ...



Yes,that happens in number of cases and its even worse when they are taken for butchering(the way they are killed),everything is not ideal like in places of Gujarat where they are taken proper care off with routine medical check ups as well(including dental check up,many common cattle diseases have been eradicated there) but that's not the basis to ban cow milk,neither am I technically against 'beef eating' due to some ethics/morals.From welfare point of view,Gujarat is perhaps the only state to implement cow protection act well enough.
You are right that we are not having everything ethically right but that's not the point here.Wasn't referring to ethics/morals neither the news article in my that post talks of ethics.If ethics/morals are brought here this can go a long way.


----------



## Anorion (Mar 13, 2015)

GhorMaanas said:


> more here - â€˜Ban on cattle slaughter has nothing to do with Muslims or Hindusâ€™ | The Indian Express


Ah that clears it up a bit. Otherwise this seemed like a senseless move.


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 13, 2015)

To make things more believable they should also issue a public notice citing the overly religious remarks made by Bjp leaders were disposed when they were drunk


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 13, 2015)

Anorion said:


> Ah that clears it up a bit. Otherwise this seemed like a senseless move.



the govt. a few weeks back had hinted that it aims & plans to make cattle-rearing & (up)keeping (productive as well as unyielding) profitable & beneficial for their owners, and, as i had indicated in an earlier post of mine, one thread in this section here is related & aligned to that purpose (the 'Gaunyle' one).


----------



## Desmond (Mar 14, 2015)

GG Kerala

What Beef Ban? Hindu-Muslim Union Over Feasting On Beef Is The Cool New Form Of Protest In Kerala


----------



## Ronnie11 (Mar 14, 2015)

REDHOTIRON2004 said:


> So according to you killing animals for there beef and all is a sign of being progressive(sic)?
> 
> Faith or not. Killing of animals should be avoided at all cost. You have a bigger brain and have power and means to kill innocent animals doesn't make you progressive. Feelings like empathy, sympathy etc are the main pillars on which a progressive society should be based on and that includes plants and animals as well.
> 
> ...



I am sorry but this is a bizarre defense. Where did progressiveness come in all of this.You make meat consumers sound as if they are cruel people who can't feel sympathy. What advanced society? We have too many important issues already to deal with here than beef. Poverty, unemployment etc.
Well the farmer's family is growing and self sustainable quantity never works. How will he make money. Send his kids for education. 

Corporate greed is a different topic altogether. Beef sector in India is mostly an unorganised sector.So many species have gone extinct due to poaching, leather etc, again how is this relevant here.

Lol, so you are comparing cutting trees to beef. The last line makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## GhorMaanas (Mar 14, 2015)

DeSmOnD dAvId said:


> GG Kerala
> 
> What Beef Ban? Hindu-Muslim Union Over Feasting On Beef Is The Cool New Form Of Protest In Kerala



had read about it 1-2 days back. hand-choppers and commie-marauders making merry in their backyard. attempting a similar stunt at Harayana and Maharashtra would attract some better-deserved 'warmth'.
if only they had showed such a display of 'unity' and 'je suis charle' at Shirin Dalvi's sacking and arrest, or against the 1L INR and 'gift of islamic sword' fatwa for the head of Mufti Mohammad Iliyaas!


----------



## REDHOTIRON2004 (Mar 14, 2015)

Ronnie11 said:


> I am sorry but this is a bizarre defense. Where did progressiveness come in all of this.You make meat consumers sound as if they are cruel people who can't feel sympathy. What advanced society? We have too many important issues already to deal with here than beef. Poverty, unemployment etc.
> Well the farmer's family is growing and self sustainable quantity never works. How will he make money. Send his kids for education.
> 
> Corporate greed is a different topic altogether. Beef sector in India is mostly an unorganised sector.So many species have gone extinct due to poaching, leather etc, again how is this relevant here.
> ...



The progressive part was in response to mohit9206 where he mentioned how progressive nation should be. Do read my reply fully before commenting.

Now, comming on to your more practical aspect. Yes, farmers have to send there children to the most reputed school and also need to have cars and a good big house. Agreed!
But, doesn't everybody want all of that? There are limited resources with multiple uses, and in the not so prefect world everybody doesn't get everything. We have to accept that as human needs have no bound. 

My point is that. A farmer or any other person who don't have much money to spare should send his children to public school or colleges. Or private schools or colleges according to his paying capacity. Similarly he can own a maruti instead of a mercedes or a small house instead of a bungalow. 

Everbody can not have the same thing. And there are similar things available at various price points. So, saying that sustainability cannot be afforded is not true. 

We need to understand our responsibility to our future generations. And just because we are greedy doesn't mean that we use all the resources available at our disposal at once. That's not the way our future generations could survive. Dont have such a skewed/narrow view.

Well beef as with all other kind of meat including fish, also need to be used in a certain limit. A lot of fish species have too gone extinct because of there meat. At that time too people used to think they are unlimited just like the trees. And now some that are left is because the government have banned there catching. Some more examples of human greed are tigers, lions, dolphins etc-2 list is endless. 

Just like cutting trees people have killed them in such huge numbers that there whole habitat was destroyed forever. And banning is one way to stop that.

Its not only about the beef. You must make sure that you should never waste meat or anything of any animal who was killed because of your needs. And please atleast leave sufficient resources for the future generations. You are just a tenant on earth and not its owner. Like a guard its everbody responsibility to save much for our future generations. And if you or the government or lawmakers dont have time to think about the future then we already are a doomed species.


----------



## Nanducob (Mar 17, 2015)

Haryana makes sale of beef a non-bailable offence - The Times of India
thanks modi


----------



## REDHOTIRON2004 (Mar 17, 2015)

Way to go... Another source of wastage banned.


----------



## SaiyanGoku (Mar 17, 2015)

Nanducob said:


> Haryana makes sale of beef a non-bailable offence - The Times of India
> thanks modi



*fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11061268_737801333001547_1818250643750870293_n.jpg?oh=6e765e469d362689dcd4c5494b5cc8a6&oe=55B07047&__gda__=1438163313_ea3dff3895661086bfed7c23a09187ab


----------



## Nerevarine (Mar 17, 2015)

bans oxygen lol


----------

