unfilteredwithniku

[unfilteredwithniku]

What is freedom, if it is freedom to not offend

What is Freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist. - Rushdie

According to the real definition of the right to freedom, the right of freedom says that an individual always has the freedom to express themselves even if it offends someone else’s opinions. This offensive nature is an inalienable part of the expression of freedom. Politically, the right to offense is an inalienable part that can be protested peacefully and not by killing or harming individuals with different opinions. Building upon this thought of freedom of speech which may or may not include the freedom to offense. Offense and controversy are parallel words. When discussing the concepts of offense and controversy side by side, it’s important to understand that "offend" is often associated with robust debates and meaningful discourse. However, these controversial conversations can sometimes have an unintended impact, offending sensitive and vulnerable groups. To fully grasp the concept of offense, it is essential to explore and understand both sides of the coin—those in favor of offense and those against it. This balanced view helps us better understand the offense, seeing it as something that can spark important conversations while also recognizing that it can hurt people. Only by analyzing both viewpoints can we form a well-rounded understanding of its impact.

On a personal note, it’s important to acknowledge that, in our younger years, we are often naïve, which may prevent us from recognizing that conversations around controversial topics don’t necessarily offend people. Engaging in such discussions often reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to learn and grow. Offense, after all, lies in the perception of the beholder, shaped by their experiences, beliefs, sensitivities, and their perspective of life. This thought can be further supported and justified by the book The Satanic Verses written by Salman Rushdie. In the book, Rushdie argued that there exists a freedom to express oneself even if it offends others which illustrates the democratic and open society. He also states that views, perspectives, and different opinions are believed to exist in isolation rather than in social space. This dynamic change keeps a society open, democratic, and capable of change. Often while having open discussions on controversial topics, people around us might get offended by our different views but these are the times when we don’t have to think twice and have to be free while expressing our feelings.

According to my opinion, offending is right to some extent. Offending someone can be perceived in two distinct contexts. The first is offering a reality check, where offense is unintentional but serves as a way to help someone recognize an uncomfortable truth. The second involves responding to arrogance or a superiority complex, where offense may arise as a reaction to someone’s haughty behavior. Offending someone might seem unfitting, but in the situation of regular interactions, it can sometimes be necessary, whether directly or indirectly, to assert one’s boundaries and prevent mistreatment.

Elaborating on the point of never intending to offend someone but ending up offending individuals due to standing up for oneself. This is something that brings forward and highlights the tension between self-expression and societal sensitivity. Even with the best intentions, standing up for oneself can unintentionally offend someone, particularly when beliefs, values, or identities differ significantly. I believe in respectful communication while working. However, people have the right to discuss any topic, including controversial ones, which means some offense may occur in these conversations. With freedom of speech comes the possibility of offending others, and individuals should feel liberated to talk about tough subjects openly. Rushdie in his book states that being offended is not equal to being harmed. Offense is subjective, what one person finds offensive, might be informative for another.

These discussions should occur in a safe environment, with a clear warning that they may be sensitive, to encourage the sharing of different opinions in our society. We also encounter the diverse perspectives that individuals hold onto and carry much later in their journey. The best-fit spaces are those where social science is discussed in a large context, i.e., the places where societal structures, institutions, and human behavior are discussed.

Last but not least, the intention is never to offend but to preserve the values of truth and justice. Standing up for oneself or addressing injustice is a courageous act that may unintentionally challenge others. Yet, it remains essential for cultivating fairness, equality, and a society built on mutual respect and understanding.

[unfilteredwithniku]

I came across beef (meat of cattle) consumption while going to the hostel. This concept of consuming Beef was entirely new to me. I was new to the consumption of red meat by individuals in our country. Below is some of the knowledge that I gathered regarding beef consumption.

Beef contains protein, iron, and vitamin B12. Beef is a good source of protein and other nutrients, but it is also high in cholesterol and saturated fats which can cause fatty deposits to build up in the blood. Beef can be a healthy part of your diet, but should be eaten in moderation. Beef is an excellent source of iron. The iron in beef helps your body produce hemoglobin, a protein that helps your blood carry oxygen from your lungs to the rest of your body. Not consuming enough iron can put you at risk of iron deficiency anemia, meaning your body isn’t getting enough oxygen. You might feel tired, listless, weak, and mentally foggy. Along with other kinds of red meat, high consumption is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and coronary heart disease, especially when processed (basically preservation).

Eight in ten Indians limit meat in their diets, and four in ten consider themselves vegetarian. All of India's most widely practiced religions have dietary laws and traditions. For example, Hindu texts often praise vegetarianism, and Hindus may also avoid eating beef because cattles are traditionally viewed as sacred. Hindus don't eat beef. They worship the animals. The Muslims don't eat pork. The Buddhists are vegetarians and the Jains are strict vegans who won't even touch root vegetables because of the damage it does to the plants.

The lynching of a Muslim man in Uttar Pradesh for allegedly storing and consuming beef a few weeks ago has sparked a heated debate about banning the meat. Predictably, battle lines have also been drawn around religious groups.

According to NSSO data, the biggest chunk of the beef-eating population is Muslim by faith. Around 63.4 million Muslims consume beef, which is 40% of the total Muslim population. For Christians, this figure is around 26.5%. Although less than 2% of Hindus eat beef, they are ranked second in absolute terms. More than 12.5 million Hindus consume it.

How did we arrive at these numbers?

The last consumer expenditure survey by NSSO was conducted in 2011-12. For the beef/buffalo category, the data was collected in two schedules, type I (based on a 30-day recall period), and type II (based on a 7-day recall period).

We have taken the type I schedule to ensure better capture of actual consumption given the longevity of the recall period. Conversely, it might lead to under-reporting the actual quantity consumed.

Among the 101,000 surveyed households, 9,711 reported having consumed beef. Using population weights given by NSSO to arrive at total population estimates, 83.5 million people out of 1.1 billion people consumed this meat variety, which is around 7.35% of the total population.

Among religious groups, there are considerable variations across caste groups. Apart from Muslims, schedule castes and schedule tribes (SC/ST) comprise the majority of the beef-eating population. Among Hindus, more than 70% of the beef-eating population is SC/ST, 21% is other backward castes and only 7% is upper caste (others category).

Consumption patterns vary across states as well. The largest beef-consuming state is not the Muslim majority in Jammu and Kashmir but Meghalaya, where more than 80% of the population consumes this meat. Among larger states, Jammu and Kashmir, Kerala, Assam, and West Bengal show a relatively higher share of beef-consuming population.

In any case, it is clear from the NSSO data that beef eating cannot be attributed solely to any one particular religious group in the country. In many regions of the country, a large number of non-Muslims eat beef.

[unfilteredwithniku]

the essential element in this matter is consent. consent is mandatory even in the smallest things. While we are talking about a serious issue like getting sexually involved, we need to be sure of serious stuff like consent because I think you need to understand and accept individual decisions of their agreement over getting ready to be sexually involved with a person. you can't force someone to put feelings even if you are the spouse. people should have their individuality even after entering any new relationship and their smallest decisions and choices should matter.

this basic understanding of letting your spouse have their individuality was and is still misunderstood by a lot of couples around the world. it has always been like after marrying they think that they gain dominance over their wives and so can do anything anytime, at this moment they forget that their wives have their individuality and their choices even after tying a bond

Indian Penal Code 1980 does talk about sexual violence but marital rape doesn't not come under IPC. Marital rape is not considered a crime in India, it is an act of violence but still, the decision awaits whether to criminalize it or not. It is an exceptional case under the IPC section of 1980. This exception clause violates women’s fundamental right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and most of all the right to life and personal liberty.

It also denies the agency over their bodies to women.

The Supreme Court of India will decide if the exception to the crime of rape if it is committed by a man against his wife, is unconstitutional. This exception is popularly known as the marital rape exception. Whoever has sexual intercourse with his wife, who is living separately, whether under a decree of separation or otherwise, without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine?

The reluctance to define non-consensual sex between married couples as a crime and to prosecute has been attributed to traditional views of marriage, interpretations of religious doctrines, ideas about male and female sexuality, and cultural expectations of subordination of a wife to her husband — views which continue to be common in many parts of the world.

Under the impact of the second wave of feminism in the seventies, Australia became the first common law country to pass reforms in 1976 and after it, many Scandinavian and European countries made rape in marriage a criminal offense.

These views of marriage and sexuality started to be challenged in most Western countries leading to an acknowledgment of the woman's right to self-determination of all matters relating to her body, and the withdrawal of the exemption or defense of marital rape.

Marital rape is more widely experienced by women, though not exclusively. Marital rape is often a chronic form of violence for the victim which takes place within abusive relations. It exists in a complex web of state governments, cultural practices, and societal ideologies that combine to influence each distinct instance and situation in varying ways.

[unfilteredwithniku]

A heavy word abortion which I didn't come across very often. I think it's still taboo in society to talk about it but there's a growing awareness and effort to understand it better.

Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus. There are two primary types: spontaneous abortion, commonly known as miscarriage, which occurs without intervention, and induced abortion, which is a deliberate procedure.

An induced abortion is the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the 20th week. This process is also called “Abortion pill” a process of abortion that can be self-managed at home by using two different medicines to end a pregnancy. It can be done through medical means, particularly within the first 12 weeks, using a combination of medications like mifepristone and misoprostol. This requires that the woman has access to accurate information, quality medicines, and support from a trained health worker. This medicine causes cramping and bleeding to empty your uterus. It’s kind of like having a hefty, crampy period, and the process is very similar to an early miscarriage.

it might seem straightforward medically to not care about people who are being self-managed during the initial months of the pregnancy but the mental and psychological effects can be quite significant. You come across a range of emotions including relief, guilt, and grief, and in situations like these, it becomes necessary to have your loved ones' support. Having support makes it easy to process the grief and the guilt and helps you to move forward with your decision.

After even coming across the concept of abortion, I got to know about the term pro-life which states the opposition state of view against abortion. Labels like pro-life and pro-choice may be some of the outdated labels but they are still used in current times with the belief in minds that people have the right to control their bodies, and everyone should be able to decide when and whether to have children.

Pro-choice and pro-life are terms of self-identification used by the two sides of the abortion debate: those who support access to abortion, and those who seek to restrict it, respectively. They are generally considered loaded language since they frame the corresponding position in terms of inherently positive qualities.

When you say you’re pro-choice you’re telling people that you believe it’s OK for them to have the ability to choose abortion as an option for an unplanned pregnancy — even if you wouldn’t choose abortion for yourself.

The pro-life and pro-choice sides of abortion represent deeply held beliefs about the value of life and personal autonomy. Both sides have valid arguments, and it’s essential to approach this topic with empathy and understanding.