Indian School Textbook Says Meat-Eaters Lie and Commit Sex Crimes 409
another random user writes with bad news from the BBC for anybody who enjoys a hamburger now and again:
"Meat-eaters 'easily cheat, lie, forget promises and commit sex crimes,' according to a controversial school textbook available in India. New Healthway, a book on hygiene and health aimed at 11 and 12 year-olds, is printed by one of India's leading publishers. 'This is poisonous for children,' Janaki Rajan of the Faculty of Education at Jamia Millia University in Delhi told the BBC. 'The government has the power to take action, but they are washing their hands of it,' she said. 'The strongest argument that meat is not essential food is the fact that the Creator of this Universe did not include meat in the original diet for Adam and Eve. He gave them fruits, nuts and vegetables,' reads a chapter entitled Do We Need Flesh Food? The chapter details the 'benefits' of a vegetarian diet and goes on to list 'some of the characteristics' found among non-vegetarians. 'They easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes,' it says."
PETA agrees! (Score:5, Insightful)
except for the God and Adam and Eve part.. they don't believe in that shit
Sounds like American textbooks (Score:5, Insightful)
Next time an American school demands their textbooks "teach the controversy" of intelligent design or some other bullshit, we should show them this Indian textbook as an example of how doctoring our textbooks is making us look to the rest of the world.
I can't think of anything either (Score:2, Insightful)
What has ever caused more human suffering than religion?
Re:Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
It all depends. When I was in grad school, my research group would do presentations over research papers once a week, with each of us picking a paper that sounded interesting and presenting it to the others on a round robin basis. Most of the time, we were pretty safe in selecting a pool of maybe 10 candidate papers by pulling ones with interesting titles and abstracts. From there, you'd read the intros and conclusions of each to get a good idea of what sort of material they'd cover, then you'd announce which one you were presenting, read through it completely, and put together your presentation.
But there was this one paper that burned me bad. It had a solid intro and solid conclusion with claims of having had great results, so, since I was a trusting sort, I announced my intention to present the paper. Only then did I see that the methodology they had claimed in their intro and conclusion was not the methodology that they had actually followed in their experiments, nor were their results nearly as impressive as they had led the reader to believe. Their claims in the intro and conclusion were on par with, "and so we have definitively found the cure for leukemia," while their middle consisted of something on par with, "we took a biopsy and determined that cancer does indeed exist." And it was supposedly written by two professors at an Indian university (a PhD and a Masters) and another PhD.
That said, a number of my friends in grad school were Indian students, many of whom put me to shame with their intelligence and talent. I also met my share of Indian students in grad school who made me look like a genius as they clearly struggled to keep up with even the simplest of material. But I could say the same for Chinese students, Korean students, and American students who were in my classes as well, some of whom were smarter than me and some of whom were definitely not.
Long story short, I would agree that India needs to do a better job of improving various standards and expectations as it develops further, but to dismiss them entirely is unfair and uncalled for. As with any major nation, there are plenty of people there, some of whom are wonderful, talented, and a pleasure to work with, while there are others of who really are a shame to their country.
Re:Also men don't have Iron problems (Score:5, Insightful)
You cut out a tonne of junk food. In Vegan's case it's usually fast food. That's literally why I went vegetarian -> It' keeps me away from Fast Food hamburgers, which I can eat and eat and eat.
You know what else keeps you from eating fast food burgers, yet still allows you to eat meat? Not going to fast food restaurants.
Re:India (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh man, where to begin with a post like this...
First of all, it has been my experience that, as ESL speakers, Indians are among the most fluent in the world. It seems to me that they take great care to learn and use English well, unlike the stumbling parody you provided. No doubt a consequence of British colonialism, but perhaps a happy one.
Second, it is my opinion that the English language is very much enriched by hearing it spoken in so many fascinating accents. Let's face it: every one of us has an accent that sounds "funny" to more than one other culture in the world. We can giggle now and then about how weird we sound to each other, but let's keep it at a good-natured level.
Third, learning a second language is difficult. Those who speak something other than English as a second language are all-too-well aware of the challenge. Just imagine how you would sound trying to order a meal in a foreign land. Probably much worse than the example you gave. And yet you just might find that the server is pleased at your effort.
Re:India (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh man, where to begin with a post like this...
First of all, it has been my experience that, as ESL speakers, Indians are among the most fluent in the world. It seems to me that they take great care to learn and use English well, unlike the stumbling parody you provided
Sure, most Indians can speak English pretty well. But if you've never encountered the sort of post the GP was parodying, you must not have been on many programming forums. For instance, here's a fine example of the form:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rubyonrails-talk/PlZOm0qlYMI/discussion
The original author literally *pasted* an interview question and just said "help me in finding solution" in the subject. When a couple people call him on it, he breaks into a semi-coherent string of posts laden with Kannada invective.
Beyond that, if I had a nickel for every "pls give me the codes" post I'd seen, I'd be able to retire...
Re:Sounds like American textbooks (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't understand is how anyone can call this an opportunity.
Starting with "in these districts, these social groups are underprivileged and score lower on test results", instead of offering academic aid or special schooling to improve standards and actually give kids some actual education, instead the bar is lowered. Minorities are not gaining anything by this, they're still losing out on an education. You don't claim an athlete has improved in ability because you sunk the high jump 10 feet into the ground.
The fact that the standards are lower is public knowledge to employers, so they do not even benefit from obtaining a passing grade. Basically, it's just a sop to keep the uneducated happy so they don't even realise that they're being kept uneducated.
Re:Sounds like American textbooks (Score:5, Insightful)
How did he intentionally misinterpret anything? How does disagreeing with affirmative action make one racist?
Does not affirmative action demand preference towards a lower qualified minority over a better qualified caucasian person?
I understand that the argument to do so is to counteract the racism that had been present in people responsible for hiring decisions. At the time it may have been a necessary evil. Make no mistake, it was not, and still is not, a good thing to do.
Affirmative action, at its heart, is racist. It bases decisions based upon a person's race. That is wrong, and many of the same resentment and negative reactions that African Americans felt, are now being felt by caucasians. This is not an accident, and those feelings are not unreasonable. Trying to convince a person that it is required to offset transgressions that he/she never had anything to do with personally, is not only fruitless, but abhorrent.
What he mentions about test scores is absurd and equally abhorrent. Lowering the standards that are expected of a person simply due to their race is deeply insulting. We might as well go back to the days when "science" said the negro brain was substandard and we needed to make decisions accordingly.
Re:It's a typesetting error. (Score:5, Insightful)
'They easily cheat, tell lies, forget promises, they are dishonest and tell bad words, steal, fight and turn to violence and commit sex crimes,' it says.
That was supposed to go in the section on politicians.
But seriously, this "textbook" must have been written by a meat eater - or else how can it be filled with such vicious lies?
Re:Sounds like American textbooks (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Yes it does.
First off, there is no majority. It's "minorities" and "white" people, regardless of actual demographics. Affirmative action is not designed the protect the civil rights of caucasian people, but to abridge them. Ostensibly for the common good of all people, with the fundamental premise being that "white" people, specifically "white" males have more opportunity due to entrenched behaviors in society.
It must be a huge morale booster to a minority to know that they got there not based on their merits, but based on their skin color or gender. Likewise, it certainly creates a sense of entitlement. I deserve such and such because I am such and such, not I deserve this because I worked hard.
When push comes to shove, and there is only one position available, then the merits of the caucasian person (the only ones disadvantaged by AA), become irrelevant, and the only thing left that matters is skin color and gender.
It's racism, plain and simple. Not reverse racism, or any other play on words. It is making a decision based on one's race and gender, and will always, always be wrong in society.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Any arguments can't change that.
That being said, I do understand why it was a necessary evil at the time it was created. Genuinely racist people needed to be forced to act against their ideals to hire minorities.
This is 2012, not the early 1970s. I don't know a single racist person that is not over 70 years old and retired. Those men don't make decisions anymore anyways, and their ideals are marginalized. Everybody else I know is actually quite progressive to use that ridiculous term, and does not make decisions like that. I operate in diverse environments, where in fact, I am the only person that does not speak multiple languages.
You may have some different arguments about AA, but you damn well know that arguing about it being racist, does not make one racist. You owe that poster an apology, or at the very least some cogent arguments supporting AA, without accusations of racism.
Re:Sounds like American textbooks (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. Yes it does.
First off, there is no majority. It's "minorities" and "white" people, regardless of actual demographics. Affirmative action is not designed the protect the civil rights of caucasian people, but to abridge them. Ostensibly for the common good of all people, with the fundamental premise being that "white" people, specifically "white" males have more opportunity due to entrenched behaviors in society.
It must be a huge morale booster to a minority to know that they got there not based on their merits, but based on their skin color or gender. Likewise, it certainly creates a sense of entitlement. I deserve such and such because I am such and such, not I deserve this because I worked hard.
When push comes to shove, and there is only one position available, then the merits of the caucasian person (the only ones disadvantaged by AA), become irrelevant, and the only thing left that matters is skin color and gender.
It's racism, plain and simple. Not reverse racism, or any other play on words. It is making a decision based on one's race and gender, and will always, always be wrong in society.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Any arguments can't change that.
That being said, I do understand why it was a necessary evil at the time it was created. Genuinely racist people needed to be forced to act against their ideals to hire minorities.
This is 2012, not the early 1970s. I don't know a single racist person that is not over 70 years old and retired. Those men don't make decisions anymore anyways, and their ideals are marginalized. Everybody else I know is actually quite progressive to use that ridiculous term, and does not make decisions like that. I operate in diverse environments, where in fact, I am the only person that does not speak multiple languages.
You may have some different arguments about AA, but you damn well know that arguing about it being racist, does not make one racist. You owe that poster an apology, or at the very least some cogent arguments supporting AA, without accusations of racism.
So all those racists on twitter after the election are all 70 year old and retired. Damn, they've done some amazing photoshopping on their profiles!
Re:PETA agrees! (Score:4, Insightful)
All three religions belong to the family of Abrahamic religions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions [wikipedia.org] ) and very high similarities in beliefs, traditions etc.
Re:Sounds like American textbooks (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaud your choice of acquaintances if you don't know a racist individual under the age of 70. As a black male, I have not been so lucky. Rather than recount tales from my own life, consider a relatively recent event as an example of how racist attitudes persist. After hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, people were desperate for supplies. Two photos were shown: one, a white couple leaving an abandoned store with items apparently taken from it; the other a black couple in a similar situation. The caption for the white couple read something like "People getting provisions." The caption for the black couple "Looters leave a store." Attitudes like that continue to exist, including in hiring circles. There are even recent studies that find that resumes which hint at an applicant being black get a lower response rate than those who don't (the first few links in a quick search: http://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/w9873.html [National Bureau of Economic Research]; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html (and links within); http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/weekinreview/06Luo.html [NYTimes]).
As far as affirmative action, each program must be judged individually. The idea of such programs is that if people are judged equally competent, a preference should be given to the minority candidate. This is an attempt to help the broader minority community which for years was denied even being considered for certain jobs, regardless of qualifications. It is not ideal. It has been abused. But it should not be understood as designed to give jobs to the under qualified.
Re:PETA agrees! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Jains would likely agree. Beliefs in the 'sanctity of life', for lack of a better term, typically have a level of life they respect. For a lot of religions, its a fetus. For a lot of PETA followers its animal life. The problem is you usually end up having to defend where you decide to draw the line and there don't seem to be any scientific arguments for a particular view, it comes down to whatever your faith or your gut or your conditioning tells you. Unless you refuse to draw the line...and then you get a virus with a right to life. One way off of a slippery slope is to slide all the way to the bottom. On a toboggan. With bells on.
I know one PETA representative who keeps trying to convince me that I should only feed my cat vegetables, despite the pretty strong evidence that cats don't naturally eat vegetables. By observing this particular cat, you can see that left to her own devices she mostly eats bugs and squeaky things, although she will attempt to eat anything small enough to jump on top of (say, around the size of a small dog) and too slow to get out of the way - albeit with a fairly variable degree of success. If cats don't eat meat they develop all kinds of horrible problems and die a pretty unpleasant death. You can get vegetable-based cat foods that contain these supplements, but it would be like you trying to live off Cheetos and ramen - it's not a healthy or balanced diet and it will make you ill, even if it theoretically has all the stuff you need.
I've long been of the opinion that PETA just don't care about animal welfare at all.
Re:PETA agrees! (Score:5, Insightful)
Christians don't see it that way. Jesus ate fish (not sure if there are accounts of him eating other meat) and fish totally doesn't count. Ask any Catholic during lent. Fish is like a get out of jail free card.
Darn it, I have to undo mod points, but it's totally worth it.