Eat Meat Hit the Stree, posted to my group by a member, wanted to share OT

[Guest guest]

This is an article in today's New Bedford, MA Standard

Times...

 

Eat meat? Hit the street!

 

The Associated Press Trendy neighborhood developments

in Bombay are

increasingly shutting out non-vegetarian house-hunters

and renters.

 

BOMBAY, India — Never mind pets, smokers or loud music

at 2 a.m.

House hunters in Bombay increasingly are being asked:

" Do you eat

meat? "

If yes, the deal is off.

As this city of 16 million becomes the cosmopolitan

main nerve of a

booming Indian economy, real estate is increasingly

intersecting

with cuisine. More middle-class Indians are moving in,

more of them

are vegetarian, and the law is on their side.

" Some people are very strict. They won't sell to a

nonvegetarian

even if he offers a higher price than a vegetarian, "

said real

estate broker Norbert Pinto.

Vegetarianism is a centuries-old custom among Hindus,

Jains and

others in India. The government reckons India has some

220 million

vegetarians, more than anywhere else in the world.

" Veg or non-veg? " is heard constantly in restaurants,

at dinner

parties and on airlines. And the question has long

been an unwritten

part of the interrogation house hunters must submit

to.

But it's becoming more open, and the effects more

noticeable, all

the more so in Bombay, which attracts immigrants from

Gujarat and

Rajasthan, strongly vegetarian states, as well as

followers of the

Jain religion.

In constitutionally secular India, there's no bar to

forming a

housing society and making an apartment block

exclusively Catholic

or Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian.

Vegetarians say they too need segregation.

" I live in a cosmopolitan society, " said Jayantilal

Jain, trustee of

a charity group. " But vegetarians should be given the

right to admit

who they want. "

Rejected home-seekers have mounted a slew of court

challenges to the

power of housing societies to discriminate, but last

year India's

highest tribunal ruled the practice legal.

" It's just not fair. It's a monopoly by vegetarians, "

said Kiran

Talwar, 49, a prosthetics engineer who has seen

vegetarianism take

over restaurants and groceries all over his childhood

neighborhood

on posh Nepeansea Road.

" If you step out to eat, there's nothing for miles

because

everything around is veggie, " he said.

Vikramaditya Ugra, a young Bombay banker in search of

an apartment,

said vegetarian colonies were fine in neighboring

Gujarat, a state

dominated by vegetarians. " That's in tune with local

sensitivity, "

he said.

" But to impose this restriction is not right in a

cosmopolitan city

like Bombay. "

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I don't like those restrictions, primarily because my own tastes--I've

always wanted turquoise trim and lawn flamingoes!--probably wouldn't

pass muster with any homeowner's association.

 

But the following:

 

> " If you step out to eat, there's nothing for miles

> because

> everything around is veggie, " he said.

 

made me think, " Welcome to my world, creep! "

 

And of course, can't they have an all-omnivore or omnivore-only policy

if they want, by the same token?

 

Blessed be,

Jayelle

[Guest guest]

ug... i know im gonna get flak for this, but i have to totally

disagree with this.. 100%. i don't see it as anything except bigotry

and prejudiced behaviour, even if i don't like meat eating. think:

how would you feel is the situation was reversed... that they were

banning vegetarians and making rules not allowing the vegetarians?

and then.. how is it any different from banning jews? or banning

muslims? or banning christians? it's bias and prejudiced character

determination based on assumptions about the personal integrity of

the individual or family decided by arbitrary quality rather than

interaction.... and just because it is biased in favour of something

i support, does NOT make it acceptable.

 

secondly.. think about this: thye hippies failed because they

dropped out. they got selfish and started caring more about what

they could do for their own lives and stopped being movers and

shakers in society to make life better for everyone, and focused on

themselves... it's only human, i suppose,. but now apply this: how

did you become a vegetarian? most poeple were born and raised by

tried and true meat eaters, and came to the knowledge and support of

their change in paradigm, by another vegetarian who was wise and

kind enough to associate and befriend meat eaters- not people who

seclude those who are different or live in ways that go against

their own ways- they took part in being an example for others rather

than dropping out and only surrounding themselves with members of

their 'fellow church of dogma'.... truth is.. if you really believe

in the ideals and reasons for vegetarianism, you should be happy to

be the one to introduce new options to meat eaters, because, if our

way is better and theirs isn't, then it is an issue of them not

getting the knowledge, support, and options to see that our way can

work for them too.. and cutting yourself off in a little secluded

community where everyone fits in is anathema to exposure and

promotion of the good things about what you believe.. it leads to

entropy and stagnation. and i apply that principle to all views i

support, not just vegetarianism.. dropping out.. putting up

fences... excluding others... is the wrong way. whether we want to

admit it or not, we are ALL interconnected and interdependant.. we

just have to learn to be wise enough and benevolent enough to teach

and care about each other, even when we have different beliefs.

 

thats just me.. im generally an idiot.

 

-k-

 

 

, Donnalilacflower

<thelilacflower wrote:

>

> This is an article in today's New Bedford, MA Standard

> Times...

>

> Eat meat? Hit the street!

>

> The Associated Press Trendy neighborhood developments

> in Bombay are

> increasingly shutting out non-vegetarian house-hunters

> and renters.

>

> BOMBAY, India — Never mind pets, smokers or loud music

> at 2 a.m.

> House hunters in Bombay increasingly are being asked:

> " Do you eat

> meat? "

> If yes, the deal is off.

> As this city of 16 million becomes the cosmopolitan

> main nerve of a

> booming Indian economy, real estate is increasingly

> intersecting

> with cuisine. More middle-class Indians are moving in,

> more of them

> are vegetarian, and the law is on their side.

> " Some people are very strict. They won't sell to a

> nonvegetarian

> even if he offers a higher price than a vegetarian, "

> said real

> estate broker Norbert Pinto.

> Vegetarianism is a centuries-old custom among Hindus,

> Jains and

> others in India. The government reckons India has some

> 220 million

> vegetarians, more than anywhere else in the world.

> " Veg or non-veg? " is heard constantly in restaurants,

> at dinner

> parties and on airlines. And the question has long

> been an unwritten

> part of the interrogation house hunters must submit

> to.

> But it's becoming more open, and the effects more

> noticeable, all

> the more so in Bombay, which attracts immigrants from

> Gujarat and

> Rajasthan, strongly vegetarian states, as well as

> followers of the

> Jain religion.

> In constitutionally secular India, there's no bar to

> forming a

> housing society and making an apartment block

> exclusively Catholic

> or Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian.

> Vegetarians say they too need segregation.

> " I live in a cosmopolitan society, " said Jayantilal

> Jain, trustee of

> a charity group. " But vegetarians should be given the

> right to admit

> who they want. "

> Rejected home-seekers have mounted a slew of court

> challenges to the

> power of housing societies to discriminate, but last

> year India's

> highest tribunal ruled the practice legal.

> " It's just not fair. It's a monopoly by vegetarians, "

> said Kiran

> Talwar, 49, a prosthetics engineer who has seen

> vegetarianism take

> over restaurants and groceries all over his childhood

> neighborhood

> on posh Nepeansea Road.

> " If you step out to eat, there's nothing for miles

> because

> everything around is veggie, " he said.

> Vikramaditya Ugra, a young Bombay banker in search of

> an apartment,

> said vegetarian colonies were fine in neighboring

> Gujarat, a state

> dominated by vegetarians. " That's in tune with local

> sensitivity, "

> he said.

> " But to impose this restriction is not right in a

> cosmopolitan city

> like Bombay. "

[Guest guest]

Nice post, -k-.

[Guest guest]

loved yer post...I agree! and then I disagree

I do agree that it would yank my crank that any community would ban

vegetarians on the basis of ideology and I cannot speak for any other

group...but the truth is I wouldn't want to live in a community that

was almost entirely comprised of meat eaters ---oops I guess I

already do. }{a }{a

 

Let me take a stab at this: I think that to embrace others

including meateaters is an internal thing. Even if you live among

meateaters you can certainly exclude them by your feelings about

them. However, even if you surround yourself to the best of your

ability with a supportive environment with other vegetarians, perhaps

you will help to grow the security within yourself that you need to

accept others, and the others in this case are the majority of the

people in the world (which are in fact meat eaters to some degree...)

I think the difference here is that vegetarians are in the minority,

most of the time. I don't think that by trying to dig out a trench

among like thinking ppl is a bad idea if you want to to build a

broader bridge. And yes I think you should want to build a broader

bridge!

 

While vegetarians are still few in number and I believe the numbers

are being threatened everywhere even in India, I can understand why

people choose to assert there rights as a group by the use of limited

restrictions. I don't think if India or anywhere (as a nation) were

to outlaw any arbitrary groups that it would be acceptable at all.

I just think we sometimes build a fort around ourself, if necessary.

And if you live happily within it...maybe people will want to join

you there. Most of the time when you are exposed to the masses

you'll find they just want to change YOU to their way of thinking.

 

And in the final analysis perhaps no brick and mortor can supply the

fort...perhaps it must be built of something stronger, something

internal --as your essay suggests. But I cannot find any fault with

anyone's attempt to perserve a way of life which they feel is

important, by non-violent means. It may be the best they can do!

 

 

What dya think??

 

 

, " Mr.Graves "

<sleepingtao wrote:

>

> ug... i know im gonna get flak for this, but i have to totally

> disagree with this.. 100%. i don't see it as anything except

bigotry

> and prejudiced behaviour, even if i don't like meat eating. think:

> how would you feel is the situation was reversed... that they were

> banning vegetarians and making rules not allowing the vegetarians?

> and then.. how is it any different from banning jews? or banning

> muslims? or banning christians? it's bias and prejudiced character

> determination based on assumptions about the personal integrity of

> the individual or family decided by arbitrary quality rather than

> interaction.... and just because it is biased in favour of

something

> i support, does NOT make it acceptable.

>

> secondly.. think about this: thye hippies failed because they

> dropped out. they got selfish and started caring more about what

> they could do for their own lives and stopped being movers and

> shakers in society to make life better for everyone, and focused on

> themselves... it's only human, i suppose,. but now apply this: how

> did you become a vegetarian? most poeple were born and raised by

> tried and true meat eaters, and came to the knowledge and support

of

> their change in paradigm, by another vegetarian who was wise and

> kind enough to associate and befriend meat eaters- not people who

> seclude those who are different or live in ways that go against

> their own ways- they took part in being an example for others

rather

> than dropping out and only surrounding themselves with members of

> their 'fellow church of dogma'.... truth is.. if you really believe

> in the ideals and reasons for vegetarianism, you should be happy to

> be the one to introduce new options to meat eaters, because, if our

> way is better and theirs isn't, then it is an issue of them not

> getting the knowledge, support, and options to see that our way can

> work for them too.. and cutting yourself off in a little secluded

> community where everyone fits in is anathema to exposure and

> promotion of the good things about what you believe.. it leads to

> entropy and stagnation. and i apply that principle to all views i

> support, not just vegetarianism.. dropping out.. putting up

> fences... excluding others... is the wrong way. whether we want to

> admit it or not, we are ALL interconnected and interdependant.. we

> just have to learn to be wise enough and benevolent enough to teach

> and care about each other, even when we have different beliefs.

>

> thats just me.. im generally an idiot.

>

> -k-

>

>

> , Donnalilacflower

> <thelilacflower@> wrote:

> >

> > This is an article in today's New Bedford, MA Standard

> > Times...

> >

> > Eat meat? Hit the street!

> >

> > The Associated Press Trendy neighborhood developments

> > in Bombay are

> > increasingly shutting out non-vegetarian house-hunters

> > and renters.

> >

> > BOMBAY, India — Never mind pets, smokers or loud music

> > at 2 a.m.

> > House hunters in Bombay increasingly are being asked:

> > " Do you eat

> > meat? "

> > If yes, the deal is off.

> > As this city of 16 million becomes the cosmopolitan

> > main nerve of a

> > booming Indian economy, real estate is increasingly

> > intersecting

> > with cuisine. More middle-class Indians are moving in,

> > more of them

> > are vegetarian, and the law is on their side.

> > " Some people are very strict. They won't sell to a

> > nonvegetarian

> > even if he offers a higher price than a vegetarian, "

> > said real

> > estate broker Norbert Pinto.

> > Vegetarianism is a centuries-old custom among Hindus,

> > Jains and

> > others in India. The government reckons India has some

> > 220 million

> > vegetarians, more than anywhere else in the world.

> > " Veg or non-veg? " is heard constantly in restaurants,

> > at dinner

> > parties and on airlines. And the question has long

> > been an unwritten

> > part of the interrogation house hunters must submit

> > to.

> > But it's becoming more open, and the effects more

> > noticeable, all

> > the more so in Bombay, which attracts immigrants from

> > Gujarat and

> > Rajasthan, strongly vegetarian states, as well as

> > followers of the

> > Jain religion.

> > In constitutionally secular India, there's no bar to

> > forming a

> > housing society and making an apartment block

> > exclusively Catholic

> > or Muslim, Hindu or Zoroastrian.

> > Vegetarians say they too need segregation.

> > " I live in a cosmopolitan society, " said Jayantilal

> > Jain, trustee of

> > a charity group. " But vegetarians should be given the

> > right to admit

> > who they want. "

> > Rejected home-seekers have mounted a slew of court

> > challenges to the

> > power of housing societies to discriminate, but last

> > year India's

> > highest tribunal ruled the practice legal.

> > " It's just not fair. It's a monopoly by vegetarians, "

> > said Kiran

> > Talwar, 49, a prosthetics engineer who has seen

> > vegetarianism take

> > over restaurants and groceries all over his childhood

> > neighborhood

> > on posh Nepeansea Road.

> > " If you step out to eat, there's nothing for miles

> > because

> > everything around is veggie, " he said.

> > Vikramaditya Ugra, a young Bombay banker in search of

> > an apartment,

> > said vegetarian colonies were fine in neighboring

> > Gujarat, a state

> > dominated by vegetarians. " That's in tune with local

> > sensitivity, "

> > he said.

> > " But to impose this restriction is not right in a

> > cosmopolitan city

> > like Bombay. "

>

[Guest guest]

I guess I can agree with a modicum of comprimise- i agree

wholeheartedly with playing smart and defending your value system if

it is under threat- but ive yet to have an angry mob of meat eaters

pounding on my door and tossing bacon at my windows

 

i can see organizing and instituting some neighbourhood policies to

protect your value system if you feel it is under threat....

 

.... but reading the article it seemed to have no mention of the poor

veggies being harassed and abused, only the desire to shut out those

who are not of the same ideology. so the defense reaction.. doesnt

seem to apply much to this situation... it doesnt seem to be as much

a reactive action based on protection, as it does on being poractive

about limiting the freedoms of those who are different from the

ideology they see as the proper way... thats just my view

 

i agree having a strong support base of likeminded people will give

you the confidence and security in your beliefs that will make you

more open to sharing and promoting them to others who are new or

open to learning them...

 

i guess what i see and fear most, is the establishment

of 'ideological compounds' where all those within adhere to the same

party line- essentially, cults do that. i believe integration is far

better for society than isolation- think along the lines of racial

segregation- it didnt 'promote' anmything except the festering

ignorance of racism... when desgregation occured... it was followed

by the wave of rejection of racism as people began mingling with

those who were different.

 

oh, and as for the hippies- i do believe they failed- if theb test

was to change society into a place that wasnt owned and controlled

by corporations, greedy warmongers, and lying politicians....

 

but, being that out of all my friends, im the one that get scalled

the 'optimistic environmentalist hippy' i know they succeeded in

shiny a light in the darkness that hid away the ideas and options we

have now that can be implemented to make our own lives better.

 

 

-k- (Tao)

 

 

 

 

, " cuppa_2u " <cuppa_2u

wrote:

>

> loved yer post...I agree! and then I disagree

> I do agree that it would yank my crank that any community would

ban

> vegetarians on the basis of ideology and I cannot speak for any

other

> group...but the truth is I wouldn't want to live in a community

that

> was almost entirely comprised of meat eaters ---oops I guess I

> already do. }{a }{a

>

> Let me take a stab at this: I think that to embrace others

> including meateaters is an internal thing. Even if you live among

> meateaters you can certainly exclude them by your feelings about

> them. However, even if you surround yourself to the best of your

> ability with a supportive environment with other vegetarians,

perhaps

> you will help to grow the security within yourself that you need

to

> accept others, and the others in this case are the majority of the

> people in the world (which are in fact meat eaters to some

degree...)

> I think the difference here is that vegetarians are in the

minority,

> most of the time. I don't think that by trying to dig out a

trench

> among like thinking ppl is a bad idea if you want to to build a

> broader bridge. And yes I think you should want to build a broader

> bridge!

>

> While vegetarians are still few in number and I believe the

numbers

> are being threatened everywhere even in India, I can understand

why

> people choose to assert there rights as a group by the use of

limited

> restrictions. I don't think if India or anywhere (as a nation)

were

> to outlaw any arbitrary groups that it would be acceptable at all.

> I just think we sometimes build a fort around ourself, if

necessary.

> And if you live happily within it...maybe people will want to join

> you there. Most of the time when you are exposed to the masses

> you'll find they just want to change YOU to their way of thinking.

>

> And in the final analysis perhaps no brick and mortor can supply

the

> fort...perhaps it must be built of something stronger, something

> internal --as your essay suggests. But I cannot find any fault

with

> anyone's attempt to perserve a way of life which they feel is

> important, by non-violent means. It may be the best they can do!

>

>

> What dya think??

>