Does eating meat make you a violent person because you get used to blood and killing of creatures?
According to Ayurveda, eating meat makes you more violent. But it is not because you get used to killing of animals.Here is the logic: A very basic tenet of Ayurveda is that food has a very strong impact on our mind and thoughts. Sometimes it is evident (eg. when one consumes alcohol) and it's effects are visible. But, a lot of times it is subtle and requires keener observation. For example, if you eat food with a lot of spice, it makes you excited.Accordingly, based on the impact food has on the mind, Ayurveda has divided food into 3 categories - Sattvic (brings peace of mind), Rajasic (makes the mind excited), and Tamasic (makes one dull/angry).Based on this classification, non-veg is classified as Tamasic food which creates violent thoughts and is unhealthy for the mind.This is the logic of why non-veg is not recommended in spiritual discipline which requires calmness of the mind. Also why many religions abstain from non-veg. For some who find it difficult to stop non-veg altogether because of temptation or the context they live in, they are asked not to eat non-veg at least for one day a week and/or on important religious days. Unfortunately, we have lost touch with the logical aspect of it and made ita just a ritual.PS: Allopathy has not done too much research into the effect of food on mind because it treats every problem as separate from other problems. Ayurveda is based on holistic principles, and hence the relationship between food and mind has been much better explored.
How should domestic violence against men be recognized?
When a man is the victim of domestic violence, it's treated more as a joke or an item of great humor, kind of like when a male gets kicked in the testicles. Have something similar happen to a woman and there would be an uproar. I blame men for not pressing charges, putting up with it and not taking legal action. Also for treating it like a joke themselves. Hey...if they don't mind or are afraid to look weak by having been under attack, why would others care? You can see a living example here... itsalltrue12 ....where men are shamed and verbally abused ....as being a pathetic excuse as a man if they get attacked by a woman, so men fall for this manipulation that women use on their egos and keep quiet about it as women hope they will....Men don't talk! The above attitude is typical, as would be found with a woman who abuses her husband with physical violence. We have been so pushed at with "men don't put a hand to women", that men won't defend themselves or put a hand to a woman. The only ones who do are themselves perpetrators of domestic violence, or will be accused as such if they attempt to defend. You can't restrain a woman indefinately...they can be kind of persistent as well when scorn is the agenda. Hahaha! There are huge varriation in strength from one man to another, as also from one woman to another. Some women are very physically strong. There is much pressure on dealing with"violence against women". The focal point needs to be "violence".... and not women. Where violence exists, there will always be violence against women, and men and children. Violence is no respecter of plumbing. Me! :- )
Aren't people that are against SJWs SJWs themselves? They are warriors for justice of the social kind, aren't they?
I created and ran a group for 2 years. It was called Anti-SJW. I am an old-hand at this subject and have seen it asked more than once.The short answer is… no.The longer answer is… fuck no.“Social Justice Warrior” is a play on “Keyboard Warrior”. The problem isn’t the keyboard (or social justice); the problem is how the person uses it. An SJW will take a non-issue and make it an issue. They will exagerrate truth, turning it into fiction. They portray themselves as “activists”, and everyone who disagrees with them as the enemy… including other SJWs, if their model of reality doesn’t perfectly match their own.I am anti-SJW because I am an egalitarian. A hardcore, lefty-liberal egalitarian. Third wave (intersectional) feminism is at the core of the “social justice” that SJWs want to champion. They treat people differently because of how they were born. They use a ladder of privilege (using invented systemic “problems” and “systemic rights”) to paint everyone as a collective.We are not a collective. We are individuals. And that simple statement will have SJWs throwing hate at me.Always judge people for *who* they are and never *what* they are. We have a name for people like that, but SJWs are so dogmatically wedded to their belief-system, that they attempt to redefine what words mean, so as to pretend that they aren’t sexist, racist and ageist. If you are a straight white old man, you are essentially Satan on the ladder of privilege.Imagine that. Judging people because of how they were born.Being anti-SJW is the position of liberalism, humanism, egalitarianism… and sanity.
In the wake of what amounts to a terrorist attack in Charlottesville, should the KKK and other white supremacist gangs be declared terrorist organizations?
A quick international perspective. In the UK there are two sides to terrorism offences.An act of terrorism is criminal, even if the terror organisation or affiliation is unknown or is not …A proscribed organisation. Membership, support, funding etc of an organisation that appears on the list of Proscribed Terrorist Organisations is a terrorist offence. Proscribed terrorist groups or organisationsEffectively you can be a lone wolf (1) and carry out a terrorist act or (2)and/or(1). Either way, you can be prosecuted for terror.Please correct me if I’m wrong. In the US, you still have the equivalent of (1) above but only the listing of foreign terrorist organisations, not domestic organisations. Here you have a problem as you are looking at the person and not their affiliations for consideration of Domestic Terrorism. Some of these groups are watched as hate groups by non-government organisation and possibly under watch by government bodies. However, membership is not illegal. If a law was passed and went through all constitutional loops then you still need to have a fair process that allows for the specific terror organisation to be “declared”. Make this an onerous process and the group would disband under one name and reappear under another.