#86: The Dreaded "Friend Zone"

A friend of mine just posted something interesting on Facebook, and I feel like it summed up exactly what I've wanted to tell guys ever since I started liking them. There's this thing that guys call the "Friend Zone." I'm sure everyone has heard of it. It's when a guy wants to date a girl, but she has already decided that he is just going to be her friend and nothing more. Yes, we all know this happens a lot. I feel like it happens a lot for girls who want to date guys too, but we never seem to hear about that - maybe because women, while plagued with drama, aren't the complainers of the world. Generally speaking, those are men. I don't know what it is. Anyway, I've heard countless men and boys in my life complain about girls friend-zoning them. They always love to use that pesky verbage about how they are great guys, but girls never seem to want to date them, and instead, the girls end up running off into the sunset with some jerk who eventually hurts them. I can hear the violins playing in the background as I type. I don't think guys quite understand how annoying it is to hear a guy complain about this - and for many reasons.

First off, it is RAPE CULTURE to feel entitled to a girl's affection. Just because you think you're a good guy doesn't mean a girl is obligated to date you. There are all kinds of factors that make people attracted to each other, that make people want to date each other, and that ultimately give people enough chemistry to make a relationship work. Some of these things have to do with who you are as a person versus who she is, your interests versus hers, your lifestyle versus hers, where you are in your life versus where she is in hers, etc. Believe it or not, when choosing a mate, women look into more than just whether or not the guy is "nice." There are all kinds of qualities we look for! Maybe you're nice, but maybe you work a job that requires you to travel often, and that's just not something she's into. Maybe you're nice, but maybe you associate yourself with really sketchy friends, and that's a turn-off for her. You could be really nice, but if you smell funny, you lack motivation to get your education and a career, you can never pay your bills on time, you aren't healthy and don't take care of your body, then certain women are not going to be attracted to you! Everyone has good and bad qualities. One of your good qualities might be that you're nice and you have the capacity to love another person without bounds. However, there are all kinds of bad qualities that you could have that would be a deal-breaker for some women. And you DO have flaws. Don't pretend like you don't.

Timing is also a huge deal when it comes to dating. Maybe you went after your crush right after she got out of a relationship, and that's why she friend-zoned you - because she wasn't ready for a relationship. Now, say there's a guy she meets 2 months after this happens, and she feels more ready for a relationship. If they click, she might end up dating this guy. So it would be extremely jerky of you to run around telling people something like "Well, when I tried to go out with her, she was 'not ready for another relationship,' but then Prince Charming comes along, and all of a sudden she's ready." Just stop. Timing is a huge thing. Maybe the timing was just wrong for you. And sometimes your female friend just needs a friend. Sometimes she's at a point in her life when she just needs someone to be there for her, listen to her, and be a shoulder for her to cry on. If you can't be a friend to someone of the opposite sex without complaining that she doesn't want something more with you, then maybe you don't have the mental capacity to be a boyfriend to someone either.

I'm going to also throw out there that it has been my experience that guys who complain about being friend-zoned and claim to be the "nice guys" are usually, in fact, the jerks. They claim up and down and all around that they are great, and that they've been done wrong simply because one girl didn't happen to want to date them. That, my friends, is a jerk quality. Feeling entitled is a jerk quality. Feeling like women should bow at your feet is a jerk quality. Being a whiner and complaining all the time about not feeling wanted is a jerk quality, or maybe not a jerk quality, but at the very least, it's not attractive. If you often find yourself complaining about girls not wanting to date you and friend-zoning you, maybe it's time to re-evaluate yourself, because it's possible you are not the "nice guy" you think you are and claim to be.

We are not broken up into "nice" and "not nice" categories. Most people, if not everyone, have good and bad qualities. That guy your crush ran off with, who you say will only hurt her in the end, could be a great guy just like you! Maybe she did end up choosing someone great. Maybe they end up breaking up in the end. Maybe they end up having a fall-out. That doesn't mean he's a jerk, even if she says he is. You have no clue what happened to break them up or how either of them took things in the end. If you heard both sides, you might realize that guy really was a decent guy, and maybe he was good for your crush for awhile, but in the end, it just wasn't a forever deal. By the way, if it didn't work out between your crush and the guy she went for, leaving you in the "Friend Zone," that doesn't mean that she is, again, obligated to turn around and date you! Some people just aren't suited for other people, and some people simply don't prefer other people.

Yes, I directed this to men, but the same can be said for women too. I just happen to be a woman writing about my own perspective, and it just so happens that I really don't even think I've ever heard another woman complain about being friend-zoned ever in my life, so I directed this to men. Anyway, here are some things anyone, men and women, can take from this: 1. Stop feeling entitled, 2. Stop whining, 3. You might want to re-evaluate yourself and see if you have some qualities that people of the opposite sex might not be attracted to - hopefully things that you can work on and change if need be, and 4. Don't blame someone for not personally prefering you. I'm sure there are some people you don't personally prefer too. I mean, it's not like you're attracted to every single person of the opposite sex, hands down. So don't expect other people to be like that toward you. Also, I think you guys should know that complaining about being that nice guy who no girl wants and is always put into the "Friend Zone" is a HUGE turn-off for women. I know I roll my eyes at every guy who ever tells me that, and I automatically take him off my list of potential mates, because I deem him an entitled whiner. The bottom line is: Keep your head up, and try not to get yourself down if someone rejects you. It's not the end of the world, and chances are, that rejection will lead you straight to the person who will stick with you for the rest of your life. So really, you should thank the people who reject you, because they're paving your way straight to your future husband or wife.

Credits: Thanks to my friend, Vinny, for posting a Facebook status that encompassed this concept exactly the way I've wanted to explain things to guys my whole life - except in a much more concise version! Also, guys, let me just tell you - the fact that I'm not dating this guy, even though he seems to understand women pretty well, has nothing to do with me friend-zoning him! So don't even throw that one out there.

 That's the problem with guys. Lots of them are just nice to get into a girl's pants. That's not fair. Women are more attracted to guys who are primarily interested in being our friends and are nice to us just because they're nice. THAT is what a real "nice guy" is.

For comic relief.

This is the problem. Yes, that girl doesn't seem pleasant. Obviously, she did some mean, immature things to this guy when he made his efforts for her. But just because you do all these things for someone doesn't obligate that person to date you! If she doesn't like you like that, then she doesn't like you like that! Also, this guy doesn't seem like a hero to me. He seems more like a stalker who is too ridiculous to take a hint.

#85: Will the Real Terrorist Please Stand Up?

I saw a video online that I thought was brilliant, and I want to bring it to light here. Please don't pin me as a terrorist against my own country or call me a traitor for saying this. That is not my intention at all. I'm just trying to bring a few things to light, since Americans like to think we are faultless and kings of the world and can do no wrong. Among these people who believe this, a lot are Christians. And sad to say, a lot of Christians think they are the dominant religion and don't even believe they can live alongside people of other religions. I'm not saying this is, by any means, all Christians or all Americans. But I think far too many of these people exist to just put it on the backburner and not realize what's going on or discuss it.

So here's the video I want to discuss: https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=427180640761529&set=vb.100004087890982&type=2&theater. It's very short, so go ahead and check it out before you continue reading this. It's about how Muslims view Americans and vice versa. Yes, it was wrong for al-Qaeda to attack the United States on September 11, 2001. But that was one terrorist group of people who called themselves Islamics but are, in actuality, an extremist group branched off of Islam. Yes, there are a lot of crazy things that Allah calls for in the holy books of Islam, the Quran and Hadith. However, God calls for a lot of crazy things in the Bible. Just like Christians pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, so do Islamics in their holy books. All 3 books call for murder and other atrocious acts in various chapters. However, that doesn't mean that people follow those parts. For instance, a lot of the craziness in the Bible is found in the Old Testament, which most Christians completely dismiss after the crucifixion and re-birth of Jesus. Furthermore, think about the Westboro Baptist Church. That is definitely an extremist group in the Christian religion, and almost no Christians in the United States believe they are legit. Most people think they're crazy. It was the same with Timothy McVeigh, who bombed an entire building of people in the name of "God." Anyone who commits acts of terrorism for any particular religion is considered an extremist group, or maybe you might feel more comfortable calling it a "cult." And yes, there seem to be a lot of extremist groups/cults in the Middle East. That certainly is true. However, couldn't it be possible that it seems like there are more of them in the Middle East, simply because that has been the buzz of this past decade and a half, since the attacks of 9/11/2001 occurred? This is meant to suggest that there may be a whole lot of other extremist groups/cults in other religions, but we just don't hear about it as much. And that may be true, or it may not be. But here's another possibility. Maybe some of these guys in the Middle East aren't really terrorist groups or extremists. Maybe they're just retaliating against what the United States has done to hurt them previously.

Let's take a look at why Osama bin Laden ordered al-Qaeda to unleash an attack on the United States. He claimed that his motives were:
1. U.S. support of Israel.
2. U.S. support for "attacks against Muslims" in Somalia.
3. U.S. support of Russian "atrocities against Muslims" in Chechnya.
4. U.S. support of authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.
5. U.S. support of Indian "oppression against Muslims" in Kashmir.
6. The presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.
7. The sanctions against Iraq.

Isn't this interesting? Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were retaliating against the U.S. for what we had already done to Muslims in the past. The U.S. had already contributed to the oppression, attacks, killings, torture, etc. of Muslims in other countries. It seems like these people were simply pushed to the point where they figured they needed to retaliate, may the reason be simply for revenge, or may it be to stop what was happening and make a change for the betterment of their country, race, religion, and ethnic group. Now, I'm not saying what they did is excusable. I'm not saying it's ok, nor am I saying it wasn't absolutely nuts. I'm just saying they didn't do it simply for fun or in the name of "Allah." They did it, because they had a beef with the United States, and rightly so. Obviously, war is never right, even though it's sometimes necessary, and killing civilians is never right. That being said, let's look at just that.

Do you how many people were killed in the attacks of 9/11/2001? Almost 3,000 people died that day - civilians, firefighters, cops, men, women, and children. In retaliation to those attacks, President George W. Bush initiated a war against Afghanistan on the premise that they were harboring terrorists that were never found. Then Bush changed the game. He changed his mind and said we needed to attack Iraq, because they were harboring weapons of mass destruction. It was silly, since the U.S. harbors more weapons of mass destruction than any other country in the world, and if we're allowed to have them, then why can't anyone else? It was also silly, since we never found such weapons! We went on a wild goose chase for nothing, and then Bush turned it into yet something else, just so he wouldn't look stupid. When we didn't find weapons, he decided we needed to continue on in Iraq in pursuit of the country's dictator, Suddam Hussein, who needed to be murdered, because he was a terrible dictator who was indecent to his civilians. Indeed, he was. But did that give us the right to invade someone else's country and murder someone? No! I mean, come on. They might have thought our president wasn't a good one, but they didn't go on a wild goose chase looking for him, trying to murder him! I mean come on, who gave us the right to deem someone else a terrible leader and worthy of death? I mean, yeah, the guy was crazy, but this is another country's own dynamic. Invading it just caused more craziness, war, and death. Nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11/2001 attacks, but do you know how many people U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan? More than 15,000. Do you know how many people U.S. troops killed in Iraq? More than 500,000. These are civilians we're talking about! Peope just like you and me - men, women, and children. And U.S. troops killed them for no reason, just because they were "trying to destroy the Taliban and Saddam Hussein." Did you know that U.S. troops killed more Iraqi civilians in this one attack than Saddam Hussein killed in his entire 24-year reign over Iraq. So...we were supposedly in Iraq to kill the man who was killing Iraqi civilians. We were supposedly trying to SAVE these Iraqi civilians by doing so, yet we caused more damage than Hussein was causing! What kind of sense does that make? And there's the idea that a lot of people have that Bush's real motive in the Middle East was to recover their oil.

So many Americans believe what we did was not an act of terrorism, but what al-Qaeda did was. However, look at it from the perspective of civilians in the Middle East. They are ashamed of al-Qaeda for what they did to the United States, because they were representing the Islamic religion, and what they did was wrong. However, they also believe that the U.S. invasion of their countries was an act of terrorism - and it was just that. We invaded without being invited, and we bombed innocent civilians, killing way more than we were saving, which was supposed to be our intent. So why do we think we're heroes? Why do we not see ourselves for what we really are? Yes, when we invaded the Middle East, we did it in retaliation to the attacks of 9/11/2001. But let me remind you that those attacks were committed in retaliation to what al-Qaeda believed the U.S. had done against Afghanistan.

If you have misunderstood anything I've said thus far, please don't misunderstand this. I"m not pardoning what bin Laden or al-Qaeda did. There is no excuse for blatant attacks or murder. I'm just trying to bring to light that the United States as a whole is pretty hypocritical. We are allowed to do things that other countries are not allowed to do, but we aren't considered terrorists. Instead, we regard ourselves as heroes, even though we are doing the exact same thing as our enemies. So my point here is, sometimes it's the white superpowers who are the real terrorists. And sometimes things aren't what they seem, so don't listen to what all the news channels tell you. And you can question your president. You don't have to follow everything he tells you like you're his pet. Just look at things for what they are. The rest of the world sees us as crazy terrorists, so why do we see ourselves as super heroes? Killing is wrong, so why is it ok for us to do it? War is wrong, so why is it ok when we initiate it? Take things for face value. Most people just think al-Qaeda bombed the United States, but they have no idea why. There is always a reason! This reason was not an excuse for them to do what they did, but we are not guiltless here! We have done some very wrong things, and every time we do something wrong, we cause more issues with other countries around us. Someone has to stop. Retaliation is wrong. If no one ever makes that strive to stop, then it will never end, and more people will die. Don't we want to live in a happy world where everyone is allies with everyone? I mean that is probably impossible, and you may view us stopping the war with the Middle East as impossile too, simply because if we stop, then we're sitting ducks, but maybe that's why we should've never started this in the first place. I'm very on edge with what I believe is the right approach here, or what we should've done to begin with, but what I do know is that we are not faultless, and we need to stop pretending we are and preaching to our school children that we are the good guys.

Here's what you can take from this: 1. Don't meddle in other people's countries. My mom always taught me to mind my own business, and I have found that she was right. 2. Don't penalyze other people for doing something that you consider yourself a hero for doing. That's just hypocritical and wrong. 3. Teach what is really going on here. Don't just teach people your one-sided opinion, and that's it. 4. We, as a country, could use a whole lot more humility nationally. 5. What Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda did was wrong, but what we have done is wrong too. So who are the real terrorists, if bin Laden and al-Qaeda were only trying to fight against what the U.S. was doing to them? Maybe the answer is still them, since they ultimately bombed a bunch of civilians. Maybe the answer is the United States, because ultimately, we started a lot of crap against Muslims in the first place, which led to the 9/11/2001 attacks. Or maybe it's both al-Qaeda and the United States, since we have both committed the same heinous acts. I don't care what you're outlook is, as long as you realize the United States is not faultless. White superpowers are some of the most dangerous terrorists. And we need to leave other people's countries alone.

Everyone always seems to point fault at Muslims for everything. And when they do something that white people have previously done, there's a huge stink about Muslims doing it, while white people get off free for the same offense.

#84: The "New Skinny" is Healthy, Not Fat

A friend posted an article on Facebook the other day, which I thought was actually really good. Here it is if you want to check it out: http://thoughtcatalog.com/carolyn-hall/2014/04/6-things-i-dont-understand-about-the-fat-acceptance-movement/. It is about the "Fat Acceptance Movement," as the author so beautifully puts it. So apparently there are some misunderstandings about what's going on in society today when it comes to accepting heavier, "healthier" body types. And I think this article did a great job of illuminating that, although I think the author doesn't exactly realize the point I'm going to make here, so I hope this makes everyone understand, including the people who agree with this article, and the people who believe that it's totally fine to be obese and happy, because you should be happy being who you are.

The article explains that the movement that's been going around lately about accepting and loving who you are, no matter what, is a "Fat Acceptance Movement." Here are the 6 things that the article highlights as making no sense: 1. America is extremely accepting of fat, 2. "Body positivity" should include health, 3. "Health at every size" seems physically impossible, 4. People are allowed to not be attracted to certain body types, 5. Food addiction is a real medical problem, and 6. Childhood obesity is something we shouldn't be accepting of. I think this article perfectly highlights how people should not be spreading around that it's ok to be obese, in the sense that people shouldn't worry about it and eat whatever they want and be lazy. I mean child obesity is at an all-time high, and it is never a good thing, because you're setting your kid up for an unhealthy lifestyle. Growing up, I was never taught to eat healthy or exercise daily, and look where I am. I've had weight issues my whole life and have tried (and often failed) at a healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, the truth is you can't really be healthy past a certain weight or below a certain weight. That's one thing I don't think this article mentions. Just like there is a stigma against people being obese, there is also a stigma against people who are so underweight that they are malnourished. Neither is healthy, and therefore, neither should be pushed and widely accepted in the sense that we teach our kids that it's perfectly ok, and that health doesn't matter. And, of course, I must agree that people should be allowed to not be attracted to certain body types. That is definitely true. Lots of people say thick is beautiful, and that thin is not, which is apart of this "Fat Acceptance Movement," but I think it's just as wrong to say thin is not beautiful as it is to say thick is not beautiful.

So even though I thoroughly agree with this article, I must throw out there the REAL agenda here, which I think many people are completely missing, including the author of the article. Lots of people, whether you agree with it or not, think its a "Fat Acceptance Movement." However, I don't think that's the real intent of the people who started this. First off, I think people are just trying to say that, if you see an obese person, still be friends with that person and love that person and treat that person nicely. Don't discriminate against him/her, just because he/she is obese. That's just wrong. I think a lot of kids in school are discriminated against based on weight, and that's definitely not ok. But the real meaning of this "movement" is something quite a bit different than how people are taking it. I believe the people who started all of this are just trying to explain that healthy does not equal skinny as a bone. Remember, up until recently, that has been the standard. That's how a lot of our super models of today look. This standard has caused girls and women to starve themselves, make themselves throw up their food, have dangerous operations to change the natural way they look, and hate themselves for naturally being a little thicker, having more curves or hips, and being a little more "disproportionate" than the standard. So I think this "movement" is just an attempt to reverse this. I don't think the originators of this "movement" were trying to say we should all be fat, or that it's ok to be obese. I think they're just trying to say you should love yourself for the way you were born, and for the things you can't change about yourself. If you have a larger butt than most people, love those curves! You can't change it, and you shouldn't feel compelled to do so. Yes, "body positivity" should definitely include health. That is for SURE. But you can be healthy and still be a little thicker or have bigger hips than most of your peers. You don't have to be stick thin to be healthy. As a matter of fact, that is generally a less healthy body type than someone who has a little meat on their bones. However, as long as both body types are healthy, they should be considered acceptable. That brings me to the point that, no, every body type is not necessarily healthy. There is a point where you have gotten too skinny or too fat to be healthy. That's why people die every day from Anorexia and from being too overweight.

Number 3 in the article is really good too. Yes, you are most definitely allowed to be attracted to whatever body type you prefer. If you like thinner girls, go for thinner girls! If you like big boobs, by all means, find yourself a curvier girlfriend. But I think what the creators of this "movement" are trying to say is that there shouldn't be one single body image that everyone likes, and that you shouldn't like any of the others. You see, when I was growing up in middle school and early high school, all the skinny girls had boyfriends, and the thicker girls with curves (not necessarily fat girls, just curvier ones) were left untouched. Why is that? Because young boys have, or at least had when I was growing up, this idea that they should have skinny girlfriends. And you know how kids are. They are worried about their reputations and want to be seen as one of the "cool kids" at school, so they won't do anything to tarnish that. So if they have the idea that curvy is bad, and that super thin is good, then they won't even come close to that curvier girl in school, who may even be healthier than the skinny girls, and who may be a really great person. So I think the point of the "movement" about loving all body types is that you shouldn't dismiss a person as being a potential mate just because she is a little heavier than other girls, and that body types other than "stick thin" are worth a shot at being investigated and tried out just as much as the "stick thin" body type is, and that people should try it out and not worry about the petty stuff, aka girls who are not perfectly thin. I think a major part of this "movement" is trying to get young boys to stop discriminating against girls who might not be bone thin like a lot of the "popular girls" in school, thus hopefully eliminating cliques in school based on weight. Also, the idea is to encourage young girls to love themselves for the way they look and the things they can't change about themselves.

Lastly, food addiction is definitely a medical problem, and child obesity is as well. Neither of these is healthy and should definitely not be acceptable when it comes to teaching people about it. It's definitely something we should fight against in order to raise a healthier America.

So here's the point I'm trying to get at. Don't take this "movement" to mean that you can eat whatever you want and be lazy and not have a care in the world about your health, and that that's totally ok. Health is something people worry about, and rightfully so. So try to maintain a healthy lifestyle as best as you can. However, on the flip side, how you live your life is no one else's business. So do what you want to do, as long as you understand and accept the risks involved. Furthermore, don't discriminate against people who are thicker than you, overweight, obese, underweight, or whatever. Treat them as other human beings just like yourself, and let them do what they do. Stay out of other people's business, and just make friends with whoever, no matter what size anyone is. And young boys should realize that thicker girls are worth a shot. They're healthy and can be attractive as well as thinner girls. And young girls need to accept themselves for who they are and the things they can't change. But if you want to change something about yourself and it's within the realm of possibility, like losing a few pounds (as long as you have some pounds to lose,) go for it! Just make sure you're doing it in a healthy way, and that it is a healthy change for yourself (like don't try to lose weight if you're already underweight.) Let's stop calling this the "Fat Acceptance Agenda" and start calling it the "Accept the Things You Can't Change About Yourself, Feel Free to Change the Things You Can Change About Yourself in a Healthy Way, and Keep Your Nose in Your Own Business Movement." That sounds much better to me.

Also, if you want more of an idea of why this is a healthy movement, rather than a "Fat Acceptance Movement," check out this new song that is all over the radio that I really like. It's about accepting your body as it is, the way you were born, even if you're naturally curvier, because men generally like more curves anyway. And check out the girl who sings it. She's not fat at all! She is a little curvy and absolutely beautiful and appears healthy. Here's the link to her music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PCkvCPvDXk.

THIS is what the "movement" is: Healthy is the new skinny. Notice this doesn't say "Fat is the new skinny." And also notice that there are several different body types depicted as "beautiful" in this picture.

Check out these 3 different body types. They range from thinner to heavier, but they are all beautiful, and they all appear healthy to me!

I think we can all agree this woman is beautiful and definitely appears to be healthy. She has been my idol for years.

For some comic relief.

#83: That Cow Could Be My Uncle

 So I just read this article called "The Cultural Ecology of India's Sacred Cattle" by Marvin Harris. I found it mildly interesting, so I'm going to relay some information about here. However, all I know about this matter is what I read in this article, and that triggered a response from me, so I figured I'd write down my thoughts on it here. However, I don't wish to research the topic further, so I just want you guys to know to take this note with a grain of salt. I am not particularly read up on this topic, but based on what I read in this article, a few critiques of it, and a response to the critiques from the author, I have an opinion...of course!

Ahimsa is a tradition in India that means "not to injure." In this case, it pertains to laws prohibiting the harming, killing, and consuming of cows, based on the premise that cows are sacred and could potentially be the reincarnated version of humans. While this is a great practice in theory, it could be causing a lot of problems, and even accomplishing the exact opposite of the intent. For instance, refraining from eating cows has been known to cause protein deficiencies in lower class citizens in India, which is bad enough. Also, the author mentions the "mismanagement" of animals in India. Indians use cows and buffalo for hard labor, and Harris suggests it would be more productive for the economy if they were to utilize machinery such as tractors for their farming purposes, rather than animals. However, one critic disputed this with previous personal experience. She spent time in India, and said she met a middle class farmer who decided to use a tractor rather than animals, but he reverted back to using his animals, because he contended that they were more reliable than the tractor. So who knows if Harris has a point in that respect. But he definitely has a point when he says that India's economy would benefit from utilizing cows for more than what they use them for, which is mainly milk and hard labor. They could definitely use them for a lot more, and thus, boost their economy.

But here's the real kicker. My main concern here is the mistreatment of cattle and buffalo, which is a direct result of this tradition of Ahimsa as it relates to sacred cows in India. First, farmers give more food to their animals that yield them more profit, and thus, are more valuable to them. This means the “less valuable” animals receive less nourishment and are neglected. Second, when their animals become too old to be of any use, farmers have no need for them anymore. Because of laws requiring that cattle be kept alive and not harmed or eaten, farmers keep them around and essentially starve them to death. Why would they waste money on food for them when they yield no profit for the farmers? If the farmers do not do that, then some of them set the old cattle loose to die. Since animals who have been kept in captivity their whole lives usually can not survive in the wild, they are bound to die. As an environmentalist, I must say this was the most disturbing part of this article. It seems as if the tradition of Ahimsa is great in theory, but it seems to be accomplishing the exact opposite of its intent, thus showing a backfire rather than an accomplishment.

I am not one to judge another culture’s traditions, beliefs, or values. However, I believe if the people of India realized exactly what is happening, it is my prediction that they would probably agree the tradition of Ahimsa in respect to sacred cows should be modified. Not only could it save their sacred cows from being essentially tortured, but it is possible that their economy could see a rise if they were to “properly manage,” as Harris might say, their animals. They might, then, see a change in the health of their citizens, and they may even see a higher efficiency of their economy. And, of course, we would see fewer cases of cows being tortured.

This is just my opinion based on this one article I read, its critiques, and a response to the critiques by the author. I don't know enough about it to make a really formulated opinion on the matter, but I really just wanted to inform everyone on this, because I thought it was moderately interesting and very disturbing. If anyone has more information on the matter, you're very welcome to comment and tell me about it.

Sacred cow of India all dressed up. Poor little guy doesn't even know what's going on.