[joslicx]

Originally Posted by k_ajay

Sure, I agree that venting out opinions against noise and air pollution ins't hypocritical, but doing so (with much gusto) only when it is Diwali time, is definitely being hypocritical, in my opinion.

For one its during Diwali only most people burst crackers.

Another problem is those noisy bombs are far cheaper than the light emitting colorful crackers. And there are always some idiots who would save some to burst them in odd hours (for example at 2 am!)

Why don't we see such voices constantly berating using of so many vehicles that release so much CO2 throughout the year. And factories that pollute the air throughout the year. These don't matter or we don't make noise because they're too large scale for us to take on??? Let's not even go to the topic of noise pollution created by constant honking on Indian roads.

There are voices against all that too. Didnt Diesel get banned in Delhi in public vehicles? I wish same was implemented all over India.

Theres only so much one can do. Its upto our conscience what kind of legacy we leave for our children. I think every bit counts when it comes to saving the environment (just like every paise saved counts in the bank balance.) There are avoidable things and unavoidable things. Its upto us to decide for ourselves. I think Diwali crackers are definitely an avoidable nuisance. By name Diwali is festival of lights rather than fireworks.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by k_ajay

Sure, I agree that venting out opinions against noise and air pollution ins't hypocritical, but doing so (with much gusto) only when it is Diwali time, is definitely being hypocritical, in my opinion..

Imagine I know a guy who likes to sit in his garage and rev the engine for 30 minutes.
When I told him, it causes pollution, he told me that many people drive for 6 hours causing pollution, so his 30 minutes revving being condemned is being hypocritical.
you are sounding as logical

[pratyush6]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

If it was named Bombali, I would understand the Bang Bang.

Bombali -- Good one Buddy.

We can always try and say why point fingers at only a single event, as to ask, why only Diwali? The real answer is why not start with it?

In honesty, I hate Diwali for what it is now. We have a beautiful tradition; and the tradition was to light lamps not to bomb the hell out of a city. People may not agree - but to each his own.

We all can say innumerable things we can do to make the society more livable and they all make sense - but atleast begin with the small things. This is that 'small' thing.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by pratyush6

Bombali -- Good one Buddy.

We can always try and say why point fingers at only a single event, as to ask, why only Diwali? The real answer is why not start with it?

In honesty, I hate Diwali for what it is now. We have a beautiful tradition; and the tradition was to light lamps not to bomb the hell out of a city. People may not agree - but to each his own.

We all can say innumerable things we can do to make the society more livable and they all make sense - but atleast begin with the small things. This is that 'small' thing.

The root cause of the problem is that people often take any action or suggestion as a personal affront, if that action or suggestion is against what they have been doing for years and enjoying.
For example, I know somebody, who only buys crackers after his neighbors do because he wants to buy more. So if they spend 50K, he spends 60K. And trust me, its impossible to tell him he is wasting money.

When people take affront, they often turn into cultural justifications.
But then again, the fact of the matter is that the literal meaning of Diwali is "row of lamps/lights".

Its just like the guy who dumps a made in china plastic idol in the river, and cries religious freedom and culture when you try to stop in.
What he does not know, that his ancestors, the ones who made this tradition put clay idols in river coated with colors made from plants and mud. They did not use made in china lead based colors or plastic for their idols.

Now same thing has come to Diwali.
Our culture celebrated diwali in different ways. For example Jains did it for Mahaveera, and Hindus did it for Ram.
But... nobody burst crackers made in china coated with colored plastic containing lead based paints.
Diwali night did not cause the SPM and NOX levels of cities to go to 2X of their normal limits.

Nor were there "atom bombs" at 2 am in the night to wake up the entire country.
I would say, not bursting crackers is not an attack on culture, however bursting crackers is definitely an attack on heritage and culture as a centuries old tradition is being destroyed.

If you are really a "culture loving" "traditional loving" guy, then stop being lazy, give away your chinese lights, buy some clay diyas, put mustard oil, roll some wicks and then light up your entire house. It will take you a hour, if not more, and you would have been true to your culture.

[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Imagine I know a guy who likes to sit in his garage and rev the engine for 30 minutes.
When I told him, it causes pollution, he told me that many people drive for 6 hours causing pollution, so his 30 minutes revving being condemned is being hypocritical.
you are sounding as logical

Good one, but that's not the logic i'm advocating (in fact I'm not advocating any logic). And yeah each side will bring their own justification, but we all can understand what is right, what is wrong and what is immature or hypocritical. And for myself, I'm not sure it is entirely right to be relating revving of engine unnecessarily to lighting of firecrackers. It's not the same.

Lighting firecrackers is avoidable and if you re-read my post, you'll note it's what I've already established (for whatever reason helps one sleep the night). But if you're going to tell me that guys who continue to pollute the environment in all other possible ways but will condemn lighting fireworks because it causes large scale pollution and find that only this needs curbing, then I can only say continue those efforts and may god bless such logic and the ones making it.

To me, its simple. It's like non-vegetarians championing animal rights. Isn't that funny?

[Thad E Ginathom]

Oh! thanks for the correction on that.

Maybe the Bang Bang dates back to the Big Bang!

[devilwearsprada]

Its just plain hypo critic to criticize the others when you yourself enjoy them. Half of us dont even think before throwing that waste and the litter around. I do, I keep it in my bag or in my car. However, I believe that yes its our culture. My dad is pissed off when he sees kids curbing crackers as they are "a waste of money and create pollution" when he sees the same kids getting wasted and buying expensive phones. Its a debatable topic.
Lets just leave everybody to their opinions and celebrate this beautiful festival.

For me, Skyshots are beautiful and amazing, at the same time we should curb noisy and harmful crackers. And your fun should not be somebody else's danger. We should advance with precaution and be aware of people who only have fun in creating problems for others!

And Thad E Ginathom - For you lighting a diya should be the end of the world at this diwali, but crackers are the way to celebrate, atleast in North India. South might be boring with Diya's but crackers are what make it beautiful.
The New york without the crackers would not be that beautiful on the new year.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by k_ajay

To me, its simple. It's like non-vegetarians championing animal rights. Isn't that funny?

No its not. I am a non-vegetarian. I eat animals specifically reared for meat, just like you eat plants.
Yet I champion rights of endangered species because they are part of our ecosystem and uncontrolled hunting and destruction should not be allowed.

So its as funny as a vegetarian protesting against deforestation and killing of trees when they themselves cause so many plants to die

[ashokrajagopal]

The harms done by Diwali crackers to environment is just one part of the problem. Our cities are many times more densely populated than say 20 years back. The sheer noise disturbance it creates to children, elderly, sick and pets is a very good reason to stop burning noisy crackers. It would be great if everybody tries to find open grounds/parks ( not roads) to play with noisy crackers. Most people in cities live in Apartments which include 50s of families. There is a great chance a few of them have pets, children, elderly or sick. It is just a consideration for fellow beings. People may have had childhoods in 80s and 90s where they had great fun with crackers in their backyard. But we are not in 80s and 90s anymore, there are too many people around you and more often than not you make a child cry and shiver all night and a sick person have a sleepless nightmare of a night with the crackers.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by devilwearsprada

The New york without the crackers would not be that beautiful on the new year.

I do not think this happens on Diwali. the equivalent of this happens on Dusshera, when the entire locality or area goes to a central place to witness the spectacle.

If Diwali cracker bursting is replaced by a centralized one hour fireworks show in the outskirts, there would be far less advocacy. I mean how many people ask for no Dusshera Ravana burning.

[AbhishekB86]

Originally Posted by devilwearsprada

And Thad E Ginathom - For you lighting a diya should be the end of the world at this diwali, but crackers are the way to celebrate, atleast in North India. South might be boring with Diya's but crackers are what make it beautiful.
The New york without the crackers would not be that beautiful on the new year.

^ I find this offensive. Not that your opinion differs from Thad's but this north-south comparison being brought into a thread. First of its kind I've seen here.

I've been on both ends. Crackers and no crackers. One of the street dogs in my previous locality about a decade ago died because of being trapped into a hole where he hid because he was scared. As a dog lover about a decade ago while I was still in School I decided against crackers.

Also having spent 4 years in the south I actually enjoyed the diwali there. We dressed our best and made rangolis, lit diyas and had the best meals ever. Although that meal experience wasn't as good as Onam

It is a typical stance to defend Delhi Diwali but you have to see its effects on people who suffer from conditions, animals who suffer and other accidents which are a direct consequence because of the fire crackers involved.

Pointing out to one wrong does not justify other wrongs. Just like if people break rules on the road it is not okay for the person behind me to break rules

If you go back to our books no one was lighting atom bombs at that time.

[torquecurve]

Stopped burning crackers in 7th standard. The sound scares animals, birds, children, et all. The after effects of pollution ( extremely high particulates) is worse. For cars and even most factories now they have particulate filters and CAT converters ( reduce pollution) but that is not in the case of firecrackers. A couple of tera ago during Diwali it was cold and humid in pune. The firecracker smoke created heavy Smog leading to cancellation of flights and also multiple accidents. Instead we can all contribute the money we would otherwise spend on firecrackers to the community to help those who are not as lucky as we are.

[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

No its not. I am a non-vegetarian. I eat animals specifically reared for meat, just like you eat plants.
Yet I champion rights of endangered species because they are part of our ecosystem and uncontrolled hunting and destruction should not be allowed.

So its as funny as a vegetarian protesting against deforestation and killing of trees when they themselves cause so many plants to die

Off-topic, but I'll respond as my last on this. Animal rights are not just for engandgered species. Every animal has a right to live, irrespective of what you think their life is worth. If you're justifying eating meat because the animal is reared for your consumption, I then feel for you. Go try telling the goat, rabbit or sheep that is going to end up on your plate that it's fine for it to not live anymore because some non-vegetarians decided to have their internals for a meal.. And what gives any one individual the right to decide only engangered species are worth saving? Other animals asked they be reared to be eaten? I'm a little taken aback that a well educated and knowledgeable person such as yourself has this view.

Next, I don't eat plants. I eat dishes made using grains, dairy products, fruits and vegetables. And sir, it's interesting truly that you bought the 'plants are living beings' into the arguement (intellectual sophistry?). I've been there before so I'll discuss that too. Animals, like human beings are sentient. It means, they can feel pain, they can suffer, they have a desire to live and can also express some degree of emotion. Scientifically, plants are not conscious beings capable of feeling pain and suffering. Study has also proven that plants do not have a nervous system, and, therefore, is not even designed to process the sensation of pain (no nerve endings, no brain, etc.) Plants are thus not even designed to process the sensation of pain.

Really, do we believe there is really no difference between animal life and plant life??

You see where this is going? You also got it wrong that vegetarians kill plants. They don't. Taking an egg plant, tomato or banana from a tree doesn't kill the whole plant. One can say a plant is killed only when it is completely pillaged, leaving it with no means of regrowth. Is it the same with an animal, when you take its liver?? Secondary school kids know plants bear fruits meant to be consumed by animals, so that the seeds so when they poop elsewhere, it spread its seeds far and wide and plants are created again.

Some may say plants do react if you cut part of them off. They think it's how they show pain, but that isn't true. It's simply reacting to stimulous, the way sunflowers move towards light. Because plants only have the sensory of 'feel' (they lack other 4 senses). Still not convinced?


Lastly, you're also wrong if you think vegetarians cause most plants to die (again remember, plants don't die when their fruits and veggies are taken, unless the entire plant is a fruit or a veg). Read this online when I last had this debate elsewhere and I'll re-quote: "Eating meat kills more plants than eating plants alone. If you're worried about killing plants, eating veg is the way to minimize it"..

Another one from a blog I read way back, which makes a lot of sense, quoted verbatim.

"Now, after all of this plants-are-living-things stuff, if you’re still on a mission to save as many plants as possible from the ravages of the dinner table and feel that eating dead animals is somehow serving that end, remember: we are currently feeding about 80-plus% of many of the crops we grow in the world to farm animals. So by eating animal products, you are actually causing the “death” of even more plants (to say nothing of animals), since we feed a disproportionate amount of plant foods to animals, relative to what they yield to humans in the form of food."

The irony here is that, by trying to use this killing plants argument as a case against vegetarianism, it’s actually making more of a case for it.


Let me ask. How much and for how long would you continue to eat meat, if you had to maim and kill the related animal yourself, everytime you had to eat it?

It obviously won't relate to non-vegetarians but Peta/Meat.org had a statement on their site which read "If slaughter houses had glass walls everyone would be vegetarian". I don't believe it would have made everyone vegetarian, but at least it would have at least contributed to much lesser rearing and killing of animals for gastronomical consumption.


Our habits and the lengths we go to justify it....

I am very wary this is severely off-topic so I won't indulge in this debate anymore. But I'm definitely up for it if this post must be moved to a more appropriate place where it can be continued, if need be. But kindly don't delete it as the response has a meaning to the post I'm responding to.

[ashokrajagopal]

@ k_ajay, I dont think anybody attacked vegetarianism here and said eating animals will reduce deforestation.
I can think of this "no pain for plants" as a good argument, but come on, there are whole plants eaten, some plants are uprooted to be eaten. Being a vegetarian kills some plants anyway. Yes non vegetarians kill more plants may be.
But then, animals( humans included here) eating animals is part of nature's law, and I for one do believe that rearing animals specifically for food is not cruelty.

My point being, the argument was not that vegetarians are more responsible than non vegetarians. The comment about non vegetarians commenting about animal cruelty is slightly point less in a discussion about crackers during diwali.
Eating meat is not exactly comparable to having noisy fun during a festival.

[k_ajay]

Originally Posted by ashokrajagopal

@ k_ajay, I dont think anybody attacked vegetarianism here and said eating animals will reduce deforestation.
I can think of this "no pain for plants" as a good argument, but come on, there are whole plants eaten, some plants are uprooted to be eaten. Being a vegetarian kills some plants anyway. Yes non vegetarians kill more plants may be.
But then, animals( humans included here) eating animals is part of nature's law, and I for one do believe that rearing animals specifically for food is not cruelty.

My point being, the argument was not that vegetarians are more responsible than non vegetarians. The comment about non vegetarians commenting about animal cruelty is slightly point less in a discussion about crackers during diwali.
Eating meat is not exactly comparable to having noisy fun during a festival.

Keeping aside your justification or belief about eating animals, i'll only say that I only offered non-vegetarians championing animal rights as an analogy to that of individuals polluting the cities throughout the year [and caring less for other human's rights elsewhere] but are advocating for curbing lighting only firecrackers. I didn't ask for this discussion. I was lead into it.

Maybe I touched a raw nerve here, I don't know? But I really request my earlier posts on the topic is read sufficiently before this is discussed again. It's not difficult to misread someone, I can understand.