When morons breed...

[Thanz]

25 cups grated nondairy cheese

Non-dairy cheese? Shouldn't that be spelled with a 'z' or something? It is definitely not cheese. I once had the displeasure of sampling "process cheese food substitute" (as if "process cheese food" wasn't far enough away from real cheese) and it was scary. Put it on a hamburger and it refused to melt.

As far as a "rational" reason for eating meat is concerned, the human body is designed to be omnivorous. Good enough for me.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As far as a "rational" reason for eating meat is concerned, the human body is designed to be omnivorous. Good enough for me.

To quote Doctor Denis Leary:

"Eating meat is an instinct, not eating meat is a choice."

As to chem cheese: I fail to see how it is better for one's health, other than satiating a vegan agenda meme hunger, than cheese made from milk, but I am willing to be informed.

DR

 

[volatile]

Because the question of whether these people didn't breastfeed due to vegan practices is directly relevant to this one.

Except... it isn't. What it might be relevant to is why veganism provokes such ire? This wasn't a case about veganism, it's a case about neglect, but there's something about the vegan "angle" which povoke comments like yours, and earlier ones aout "Darwinism in action".

Vegans don't eschew breastfeedng; in fact, it's very, very heartily reccomended by every vegan organisation you care to mention. Links have already been posted. You don't need to "poll every vegan" to realise that t suggest otherwise is nothing short of disingenuous.

 

[volatile]

I consider vegetarianism to be a religion. After all, it's a decision based on faith, not science. So, like all religions, life style is open to personal interpretations. And like all religions, there are fanatics.

Hmmm, I do wonder if in this case, the mother was 'dry' due to poor nutrition of her own? I guess it would depend on which 'sect' of vegan she is. I guess some claim to eat only low yield vegetables, no starchs,grains, minimal fruit- it could take 20 pounds of broccoli per day just to get a day's calories. Didn't Randi look at this?

What do you mean by "faith" vs. "science" in this context? It's perfectly possible, if you live in the industrialised West, to live just as healthily (if not more so) on an entirely plant-based diet as on an omnivorous one. "According to the American Dietetic Association (ADA), "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence".

If you want to talk science against faith, why not ask the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization; " The typical American diet adds significantly to pollution, water scarcity, land degradation and climate change".

As I said, I'm vegan because no-one's given me a rational reason not to be. I'm open to suggstions, though.

 

[volatile]

To quote Doctor Denis Leary:

"Eating meat is an instinct, not eating meat is a choice."

As to chem cheese: I fail to see how it is better for one's health, other than satiating a vegan agenda meme hunger, than cheese made from milk, but I am willing to be informed.

DR

You're perfectly correct, of course. Vegan doesn't automatically mean healthy, and I know plenty of vegans who live on junk food. But then, I know plenty of omnivores who do, too.

Vegan "cheese" is pretty nasty, but no worse than the processed 3% cheese slices other people put on burgers.

 

[Thanz]

As I said, I'm vegan because no-one's given me a rational reason not to be. I'm open to suggstions, though.

I see these two statements to be in conflict on an attitudinal level. In the latter sentence, you seem to be open minded and willing to listen to arguments about vegan vs. omnivorous diets. In the former sentence, you seem to be implying that not being vegan is, in your view, irrational. In that, there is no rational reason not to be.

I think it would be fairer to say that no one has given you a sufficient reason not to be. I can accept that arguments for a diet that includes animal products may not be sufficient to sway you. But when you imply that all such arguments are irrational, people get their back up a bit. Which I don't think you intend.

 

[Michael Redman]

Except... it isn't. What it might be relevant to is why veganism provokes such ire? This wasn't a case about veganism, it's a case about neglect, but there's something about the vegan "angle" which povoke comments like yours, and earlier ones aout "Darwinism in action".

Vegans don't eschew breastfeedng; in fact, it's very, very heartily reccomended by every vegan organisation you care to mention. Links have already been posted. You don't need to "poll every vegan" to realise that t suggest otherwise is nothing short of disingenuous.

Suggesting that every vegan on earth follows, exactly, the published position of the major vegan organizatins is what is disingenuous. Suggesting that, among a group of millions, there are not at least two who take their beliefs to an extreme, irrational conclusion is disingenuous.

It is clearly implied by the media that the parents' veganism is implicated in the death of this child. Of course it is relevant whether, in fact, veganism did play a role.

I'm not saying it did, I'm just saying there's a question. Asking the question does not demonstrate ire. I made no comment about veganism that wasn't directly relevant to the question, and I demonstrated no judgment for or against vegans. Your criticism is wholly unfounded.

Refusing to accept the legitimacy of the question, however, demonstrates blind adherence to dogma. That, I have no problem declaring wrong.

 

[volatile]

I see these two statements to be in conflict on an attitudinal level. In the latter sentence, you seem to be open minded and willing to listen to arguments about vegan vs. omnivorous diets. In the former sentence, you seem to be implying that not being vegan is, in your view, irrational. In that, there is no rational reason not to be.

I think it would be fairer to say that no one has given you a sufficient reason not to be. I can accept that arguments for a diet that includes animal products may not be sufficient to sway you. But when you imply that all such arguments are irrational, people get their back up a bit. Which I don't think you intend.

No, I really am open to suggstions. I'm a good sceptic like that. What I meant by rational was evience-based, rather than something like "meat tastes better" or "I haven't got time to think about what I eat in that detail".

Look, I was omnivorous, and asked people all the time why they were vegetarian or vegan. I was curious, but at the same time I'd never conisdered my own diet in any rational way. I was brought up omnivorous, and took it for granted that I was. I was unquestioning.

As soon as I started thinking abut why I ate animal products, I couldn't find a reason beyond the fact that I like the taste. Given I shop at a supermarket anyway (I don't have the resources or time to grow my own veg, or raise and kill my own meat), given that I can eat just as healthily and perhaps more healthily as a vegan, given that there seems to be a detrimenal environmental impact of a meat and dairy based diet, and given that there really seems to be no need for me to consume animals, I stopped.

If you can tell me why I rationally should eat meat and dairy, by all means do. I haven't heard a convincing and coherent argument yet.

Thus, I ask, and not in an accusatory way, "Why are you omnivorous?". Have you ever even thought about it?

 

[Katana]

Except... it isn't. What it might be relevant to is why veganism provokes such ire? This wasn't a case about veganism, it's a case about neglect, but there's something about the vegan "angle" which povoke comments like yours, and earlier ones aout "Darwinism in action".

It was about veganism in as much as the defendants' attorneys invoked it as part of their defense.

The reality, as you pointed out, is that it was an issue of neglect. Plain and simple.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're perfectly correct, of course. Vegan doesn't automatically mean healthy, and I know plenty of vegans who live on junk food. But then, I know plenty of omnivores who do, too.

Vegan "cheese" is pretty nasty, but no worse than the processed 3% cheese slices other people put on burgers.

" The typical American diet adds significantly to pollution, water scarcity, land degradation and climate change".

So, which takes more energy to create: vegan chem cheese, and the entire process from start to finish to create it and get that not so nice stuff to the table, or cheese from a goat or cow?

I agree with your take on the 3% cheese processed muck, yuck, I prefer real cheese that contributes to global warming by being stored in refrigerated spaces, or old school, in cool caves.

DR

 

[Kerberos]

Thus, I ask, and not in an accusatory way, "Why are you omnivorous?". Have you ever even thought about it?

Yes, I'm omnivorous because I think it tastes better and because it's easier. Enjoyment and convenience are perfectly good reasons to do something. Of cause if you feel that whatever benefits you think there are to vegetarianism outweighs the inconvenience and loss of enjoyment then that is of cause up to you.

 

[volatile]

So, which takes more energy to create: vegan chem cheese, and the entire process from start to finish to create it and get that not so nice stuff to the table, or cheese from a goat or cow?

Good question. If you have your own goat or cow, then that's an obvious question, and one of the best reasons not to be dogmatic about veganism.

But if you're buying cheese from a huge cheese-manufactuer from the supermarket, it becomes trickier to work out. Agribusiness cattle are often fed on soya beans - if, rather than harvesting, shipping, processing, feeding them to cows, which we then raise, milk, process that and then transport, we harvest and process it into "cheezly", I'd guess it comes out ahead.

Though I'm not sure.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Good question. If you have your own goat or cow, then that's an obvious question, and one of the best reasons not to be dogmatic about veganism.

But if you're buying cheese from a huge cheese-manufactuer from the supermarket, it becomes trickier to work out. Agribusiness cattle are often fed on soya beans - if, rather than harvesting, shipping, processing, feeding them to cows, which we then raise, milk, process that and then transport, we harvest and process it into "cheezly", I'd guess it comes out ahead.

Though I'm not sure.

Well said, even if I may not agree with your position in general.

I choose not to lose sleep worrying over cheese and global warming. My cheese concerns tend to be that I eat considerably less of it these days, since as I get older I keep a sharper eye on my cholesterol count.

DR

 

[volatile]

Yes, I'm omnivorous because I think it tastes better and because it's easier. Enjoyment and convenience are perfectly good reasons to do something. Of cause if you feel that whatever benefits you think there are to vegetarianism outweighs the inconvenience and loss of enjoyment then that is of cause up to you.

I've seen plenty of sceptics disparage the religious for using arguments analagous to those. But, as I said, I'm not evangalistic about my dietary habits. If you've thought it through (and before I went vegan I honestly hadn't - I was omnivorous only because that was how I was raised; I'd never asked myself why I ate animal products) and cast a sceptical eye over your own diet, that's cool with me.

As far as I can tell, there are no upsides apart from "It tastes good", and there seem to be convincing arguments that omnivorism in an industrialised context has several downsides, including but not limited to the environmental impacts, the increased risks of things like colon cancers, and the ethical considerations in killing sentient animals.

I don't even necessarily agree with all the supposed problems with omnivorism (as I said, I certainly don't hold a absolutist postion on the killing of animas for food) but seeing as the tofu is right there next to the chicken on the shelf, what good reason do I have to pick the chicken? Why should I eat animals?

 

[volatile]

Well said, even if I may not agree with your position in general.

I choose not to lose sleep worrying over cheese and global warming. My cheese concerns tend to be that I eat considerably less of it these days, since as I get older I keep a sharper eye on my cholesterol count.

DR

Thanks. As I hope I'm trying to convey, I don't lose sleep over these things either. I make occasional mistakes when shopping, I drink microbrewed real ale (filtered through fish guts) over industrially produced "vegan" beer and I'm not gonna firebomb McDonald's. It's just that, when I thought about it, I couldn't justify picking up the chicken any more. It just wasn't sensible for me.

I'd conferred scepticism to other facets of my life, and when I did to what I ate, I became vegan. It's not a huge effort, it's not a massive problem, it doesn't dominate my life. I just thought about it, I guess in the same way you have about reducing your cheese intake. Not enough people do that, at all.

 

[Lonewulf]

Wow. Really? That's ridiculous.

I shall humbly eat my (non-animal) hat.

To be fair, your challenge was almost all too easy to meet. You asked to find one insane individual out of a significantly large group (not relatively, but still large on it's own).

Such a challenge is way too easy to meet, no matter what group you're dealing with.

 

[skeptifem]

I agree that this case has nothing to do with veganism and more to do with the incompetence of these specific individuals vegans or not. The baby didn't die because they were vegans but because they were incompetent. Millions of vegans raise happy and healthy babies.

I am however perplexed by the verdict. Apparently they were found guilty of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. Firstly, How could they be guilty of murder if they never intended their baby to actually die? What does "malice murder" even mean? I've never heard that term used in U.S. courts before. Secondly, How could they be charged with all of these separate things on one single crime?

I dont know for sure. I guess it seems like its impossible for this to be an 'oops' death when they saw their baby suffer for so long, thats my first thought. Or maybe there is more evidence in this case that we havent seen, the whole veganism thing is why this is all over the news so maybe there are details that were left out.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Jesus. Talk about a punishment being out of proportion to the "crime".

The couple were vegans. Nothing wrong with that. My understanding is that 100s of millions of Hindus are vegans as well. They seem to have no problem procreating succesfully.

This couple, as I understand it, were just too ignorant in their knowledge of how to rear a family as vegans. And for their ignorance, not of the law, but of how babies cannot survive on pure "vegan" milk, they are sentenced to life imprisonment?

Jesus.

 

[LawnOven]

Yeah, how old was the kid? 6 weeks? They should get 6 months.

Now if this was the third or 4th time it's happened...

 

[Darth Rotor]

Talk about a punishment being out of proportion to the "crime".

This couple, as I understand it, were just too ignorant in their knowledge of how to rear a family as vegans. And for their ignorance, not of the law, but of how babies cannot survive on pure "vegan" milk, they are sentenced to life imprisonment?

Jesus.

"Jesus wept" seems slightly more on point, but that's a matter of style.

I am marking this date on my calendar, you are I are in complete agreement on this point.

*dons party hat, tosses confetti*

DR