When morons breed...

[Kerberos]

And what's the reverse logical consequence?

The reverse logical consequence is to weight what sacrifices you consider worthwhile.

If that is the case, then we can all crawl into a "happiness box", and live out the rest of our short lives as fat fleshbags with no use to the world, fed through tubes while our brains have our every pleasure and fantasy pumped into them constantly, giving us an eternity of pleasure in the few years our bodies have to live before the heart gives out...

I suppose we could, but I never suggested that

(What? It's the same kind of argument you made. I'm just rolling with the punches.)

Can you point me to anywhere where I said that I did not consider the environment or health valid factors at all? No? Then my pointing out the logical consequence of volatile's position trumps you straw man. He has repeatedly rejected the notion that taste is a valid reason for doing anything if you're a skeptic. Futhermore when I pointed out to him that he probably allows convenience and preference to outweigh environmental concerns sometime he replied "You're exactly right, of course. Noone's perfect." my emphasis. I’ve never said that we should not consider our health or the environment, but I strongly reject the notion that perfection for a skeptic involves total selfdenial. Skeptic =/ monk

Oh, and one more thing: Some people really don't live their lives around "It tastes good".

I don't know anyone who does, they undoubtedly exists, but I don't know them

andyandy, see above. Logical consequence of what he says /= straw man.

 

[skeptifem]

Soybeans are a good source of protein, too.

Recently I boiled up some soybeans and ate 'em. They're not too bad. I may consider putting them in some kind of dish, or soup...

Other sources of protein:

PROTEIN IN LEGUMES: Garbanzo beans, Kidney beans, Lentils, Lima beans, Navy beans, Soybeans, Split peas

PROTEIN IN GRAINS: Barley, Brown rice, Buckwheat, Millet, Oatmeal, Rye, Wheat germ, Wheat, hard red, Wild rice

VEGETABLE PROTEIN: Artichokes, Beets, Broccoli, Brussels sprouts, Cabbage, Cauliflower, Cucumbers, Eggplant, Green peas, Green pepper, Kale, Lettuce, Mushrooms, Mustard green, Onions, Potatoes, Spinach, Tomatoes, Turnip greens, Watercress, Yams, Zucchini

PROTEIN IN FRUITS: Apple, Banana, Cantaloupe, Grape, Grapefruit, Honeydew melon, Orange, Papaya, Peach, Pear, Pineapple, Strawberry, Tangerine, Watermelon

PROTEIN IN NUTS AND SEEDS: Almonds, Cashews, Filberts, Hemp Seeds, Peanuts, Pumpkin seeds, Sesame seeds, Sunflower seeds, Walnuts (black)

(from http://www.happycow.net/vegetarian_protein.html)

Shoot, stuff I eat for snacks have good protein. Go fig.

Also:



http://www.happycow.net/health-sf_supergreens.html

i hear ya, but these sources are not nearly as efficient as meat.

any time you are trying to gain a lot of muscle... the amount of eating you have to do is insane. it is A LOT of food. You would have to eat even more if you tried to do it vegan, it just would make it much harder.

 

[g4macdad]

Ok, again I am confused. Why do we care if these people breed?

Their baby is dead.

If they would not have bred in the first place, would the baby be alive?

 

[Lonewulf]

Can you point me to anywhere where I said that I did not consider the environment or health valid factors at all? No?

Then they are points for consideration. You agree?

Then my pointing out the logical consequence of volatile's position trumps you straw man. He has repeatedly rejected the notion that taste is a valid reason for doing anything if you're a skeptic.

Taste, alone, is outweighed (in his opinion) by a multitude of more important (in his opinion) factors. Long-term health (of self and environment, which would include society as we know it, which is reliant upon the environment).

Futhermore when I pointed out to him that he probably allows convenience and preference to outweigh environmental concerns sometime he replied "You're exactly right, of course. Noone's perfect." my emphasis. I’ve never said that we should not consider our health or the environment, but I strongly reject the notion that perfection for a skeptic involves total selfdenial. Skeptic =/ monk

Who is advocating total self denial? That is why I perceived your argument as ludicrous, and why I replied likewise. That is my point. I do not see what's being advocated as extreme as you seem to.

It is not a case of removing all taste, it is a matter of compromising taste with more important factors, while attempting to retain as much of the taste as possible. This is not the same as total self denial. Surely you can see this?

Would you only be satisfied if we had the power to craft (meat-free, of course) steaks and other "pseudo meat" products to 100% taste perfection before you think that veganism is not "total self denial"? Because that's just saying that if you don't reach one extreme, then you must be reaching the other. I just can't agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I long for the day we can craft meat-free products with 100% efficiency of taste, retaining everything we have with none of the guilt. That is the future I am pushing for.

 

[Kerberos]

Then they are points for consideration. You agree?

Of cause. I do make decisions based on those criteria such as my decision to use my bicycle a lot even when I have a car available, and I do consider both my health and the environment when bying food.

Taste, alone, is outweighed (in his opinion) by a multitude of more important (in his opinion) factors. Long-term health (of self and environment, which would include society as we know it, which is reliant upon the environment).

Who is advocating total self denial? That is why I perceived your argument as ludicrous, and why I replied likewise. That is my point. I do not see what's being advocated as extreme as you seem to.

It is not a case of removing all taste, it is a matter of compromising taste with more important factors, while attempting to retain as much of the taste as possible. This is not the same as total self denial. Surely you can see this?

Would you only be satisfied if we had the power to craft (meat-free, of course) steaks and other "pseudo meat" products to 100% taste perfection before you think that veganism is not "total self denial"? Because that's just saying that if you don't reach one extreme, then you must be reaching the other. I just can't agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I long for the day we can craft meat-free products with 100% efficiency of taste, retaining everything we have with none of the guilt. That is the future I am pushing for.

I don't think veganism equates to total self denial automatically, some might not feel it's a big loss or otherwise feel that it's worth the price. However I think that volatile has made several comments that imply that he in particular, rather than vegans in general, doesn't regard enjoyment as a legitimate motive. The no one is perfect seems to imply that it would be perfection to do this.

He also equates using preference to decide what to eat with using preference to decide what to believe. Can you tell me how that is anything other than trying to delegitimize preference as rational basis for choice?

Also: "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."

Does that not imply or even flat out state that enjoyment is not a coherent argument?

I really think that these and other examples imply that preference is not a valid reason, so I call him to confirm or deny that this is what he is saying. He can then either confirm that he thinks so, or explain that he does agree that preference and convenience are valid reasons for a skeptic to do something. It is possible that the impression I got that he's saying otherwise, is a product of either him phrasing his position badly, my overactive imagination or a combination of those.

 

[volatile]

Maybe I haven't made myself clear enough, Kerberos. On the taste issue, I'm not sitting here eating gruel! In fact, veganism has opened me to all kinds of new tastes that I wouldn't have had otherwise. It's not "denial" in the sense that you're using the word...

It's compromise, just as Lonewolf has pointed out - I don't lose any pleasure at all, really because I'm not sitting around ruing or regretting or pining for pork chops, and, in my opinion, I and the world are better for it.

"I want steak, to hell with everything else" just seems a little blunt, that's all.

 

[volatile]

I really think that these and other examples imply that preference is not a valid reason, so I call him to confirm or deny that this is what he is saying. He can then either confirm that he thinks so, or explain that he does agree that preference and convenience are valid reasons for a skeptic to do something. It is possible that the impression I got that he's saying otherwise, is a product of either him phrasing his position badly, my overactive imagination or a combination of those.

Preference and convenience are of course perfectly valid choices, but only up to a point. I wonder where you draw the line, because we all do somewhere. I don't litter, for example. It'd be easier for me to drop stuff on the ground but I don't, because I think it's better for society if I make a small sacrifice of walking to the nearest bin.

Veganism doesn't cost you anything - it's just as healthy, just as "pleasurable" (unless you really can't live without steak, i.e can't live without dropping that wrapper on the floor), just as convenient, and has benefits all round.

I'm not advocating personal sacrifice - what I'm getting at is that there is no sacrifice at all.

 

[Kerberos]

Preference and convenience are of course perfectly valid choices, but only up to a point. I wonder where you draw the line, because we all do somewhere. I don't litter, for example. It'd be easier for me to drop stuff on the ground but I don't, because I think it's better for society if I make a small sacrifice of walking to the nearest bin.

Preference and to a lesser extend convinience are inherently non-quentifiable things. I could give examples of things I do and don't but there is no clear line to draw

Veganism doesn't cost you anything - it's just as healthy

yes,

just as "pleasurable"

I'm sorry, hold a moment here. Are you seriously claiming to be able to speak, with any authority whatsoever, on what anyone but you find pleasurable?

(unless you really can't live without steak, i.e can't live without dropping that wrapper on the floor),

You realize that pleasure is almost by definition something you can live without right?

just as convenient,

Other vegans on this thread has disagreed with you on that.

I'm not advocating personal sacrifice - what I'm getting at is that there is no sacrifice at all.

:???: How is this statement in any way consistent with your claim that you for example loves bacon thingies (can't be bothered to go back and check). Giving up something you like is a by any normal definition a sacrifice. Not necessarilly a large one but nonetheless.

 

[volatile]

Preference and to a lesser extend convinience are inherently non-quentifiable things. I could give examples of things I do and don't but there is no clear line to draw


yes,


I'm sorry, hold a moment here. Are you seriously claiming to be able to speak, with any authority whatsoever, on what anyone but you find pleasurable?


You realize that pleasure is almost by definition something you can live without right?


Other vegans on this thread has disagreed with you on that.




:???: How is this statement in any way consistent with your claim that you for example loves bacon thingies (can't be bothered to go back and check). Giving up something you like is a by any normal definition a sacrifice. Not necessarilly a large one but nonetheless.

Well, I guess we differ on the meaning of the word sacrifice. I love(d) bacon, but it's certainly not a "sacrifice". You were throwing out words like "monk" to describe my position, but really what I'm getting at is that a vegan diet is tasty and "pleasurable" as an omnivorous one. Being vegan isn't a chore or inherently horrid or anything. Vegan food is great and, in a lot of cases, there are analogues which are (virtually) indistinguishable from the alternatives. Not to mention that lots of products vary in their animal content between brands - ketchup, bread, pasta sauces and a myriad of other things are vegan from some places and non-vegan elsewhere!

As I said, we all draw lines between pleasure and convenience versus what might in generic terms be called "a greater good". For me personally, my hedonistic desire for chicken wings is in the same category as my dropping litter. Carrying a coke can home in my bag might be a "sacrifice" in the way you're using the term, but its one that, given some thought, one that's worth making.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Are you ****ing serious? You think that doctors do not give legitimate medical advice?

I think most would. But it isn't relevant as it was a home birth.

 

[DanishDynamite]

To add a postscript, the soy milk containers in their apartment said that soy milk was not to be used instead of baby formula.

I think that is why they weren't able to claim ignorance.

Is the ability to read a requirement for having a child? Should it even be a requiremement?

 

[DanishDynamite]

However, not being able to care for a baby and not seeking help results in a crime of wilful neglect.

At what point did the couple become aware that there was something wrong with their pride and joy?

The law does not spoon-feed you with requirements to honour so that you will get it right—the legal presumption is that adult parents have the competence to make decisions unless the contrary is proven. Here it seems that the contrary was proven. Tragically it was not proven until the child died.

Yes, it was shown that the parents didn't know enough to rear their child. I fail to see any malice of any kind.

Correct

So what is your problem?

This seems to be a statement that public or private medical care and advice is detrimental. I don't see how you can be "thankful" in this case since the outcome was a dead newborn.

I'm thankful that people can still live free in certain pockets around the world.

Correct, but it is not their right to wilfully neglect or ignore the welfare of their child.

Of course not. Anmd they didn't.

Again a statement rubbishing the medical profession. This topic does not exactly furninsh you with evidence of that so you would need to come forth with it.

I refered to it as bull as it wasn't relevant to their case.

Ignorance that it was their responsibility to correct, punishable since they did not.

It was ignorance, but I fail to see where it was "willfull".

Perhaps you can enlighten me on this point?

 

[DanishDynamite]

the baby was extremely small (3.5 lbs) and the expert testimony said they simply didnt feed the child enough food.

No. They didn't feed the baby things that the baby could use as food. Due to their ignorance.

also they gave birth to it in a bathtub and never took it to the doctor. im not sure if that counts for evidence of wanting to murder, but certainly if you wanted a baby to live you wouldnt do any of those things.

Nothing wrong with having a home birth or not calling the doctor.

Billions of babies have been born this way and survived.

 

[DanishDynamite]

The verdict is a travesty of justice. In all senses of the term "justice".

Unbelievable.

 

[Architect]

Danish

You seem to have overlooked this.

Stupidity may not be a crime, but lets be quite clear on a basic aspect of Western law; where by your unreasonable action, inaction, or omission you place others at risk then you will be legally liable.

You may not like this, but that's how it goes. Albeit that I've grossly over simplified.

The key is the test of reasonableness.

Is it reasonable to believe that Soya Milk is a suitable alternative to breastfeeding or formula millk when there is a specific warning on the product? Clearly not.

Is it reasonable not to take a small child to the doctor in the face or rapid weight loss, ill-health, and specific advice from friends/colleagues/family? Clearly not.

Is it reasonable to argue that hospitals are to be avoided because of the risk of cross-infection? Possibly, but under those circumstances can the defendant show that they made attempts to secure medical assistance by alternative means? It would appear not.

In this particular case, of which we know comparatively little and hence should be cautious about speculation, the law is intended not to protect the rights of the parents but rather those of the affected party - i.e. the child.

There may be no law against stupidty. But there are laws against culpable negligence.

Now let me be quite clear on this. This is not just the British or the American legal position, broadly speaking, but a fundamental tenant of the Western legal system. You may not like it but the courts, lgislators, and juries have all (on the whole) taken a consistent line on it.

So what, from a legal perspective, do you base your "travesty of justice" theory from?

 

[DanishDynamite]

A complete mess. Let me try again....

 

[DanishDynamite]

Stupidity may not be a crime, but lets be quite clear on a basic aspect of Western law; where by your unreasonable action, inaction, or omission you place others at risk then you will be legally liable.

You may not like this, but that's how it goes. Albeit that I've grossly over simplified.

The key is the test of reasonableness.

Is it reasonable to believe that Soya Milk is a suitable alternative to breastfeeding or formula millk when there is a specific warning on the product? Clearly not.

Yes, it is reasonable to suppose so if one is unable to read.

Is it reasonable not to take a small child to the doctor in the face or rapid weight loss, ill-health, and specific advice from friends/colleagues/family? Clearly not.

Yes, it is reasonable not to do anything untill such time as you are sure the situation is serious.

Is it reasonable to argue that hospitals are to be avoided because of the risk of cross-infection? Possibly, but under those circumstances can the defendant show that they made attempts to secure medical assistance by alternative means? It would appear not.

Yes, it is reasonable not to run to what, in your own mind, are "alternative" healers of dubious skills.

Now let me be quite clear on this. This is not just the British or the American legal position, broadly speaking, but a fundamental tenant of the Western legal system. You may not like it but the courts, lgislators, and juries have all (on the whole) taken a consistent line on it.

So what, from a legal perspective, do you base your "travesty of justice" theory from?

From the points I made above, lawyer.

 

[Architect]

From the points I made above.

With respect, that's not an argument. It barely qualifies as a glib remark.

The legal position is quite clear; the couple failed to exercise proper care, based on a test of reasonableness, and were culpable in the death of the child. The same principles would apply in Denmark, in Scotland, in France, or in America.

Remind me what your view was on the American radio station that had the girl drink so much that she died.

 

[DanishDynamite]

With respect, that's not an argument. It barely qualifies as a glib remark.

It is an argument and an excellent one, as you have no counter to it.

The legal position is quite clear; the couple failed to exercise proper care, based on a test of reasonableness, and were culpable in the death of the child. The same principles would apply in Denmark, in Scotland, in France, or in America.

Your legal position is of little relevance. Kindly show in what way this couple "willfully" did their first child harm.

Remind me what your view was on the American radio station that had the girl drink so much that she died.

Remind me again of my view. Then kindly tell us all how it is of relevance to this story of a travesty of justice.

A travesty, not just in the US, but for every one with a modicum of understanding of right and wrong.

 

[WildCat]

And hell, vegan recipes for good taste aren't impossible to make; in fact, they're quite easy if you know what you're doing.

Evidence?