• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When morons breed...

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.


I guess you define your "environmentalist veganism" as a science based concept, not as a political/emotional (faith) based decision? But "it's for the children" of the next generation? Sounds like an emotional/faith basis to me.
 
Reason to eat meat #1

Few edible plants grow in the Canadian arctic.

I know that doesn't really matter any more but availability was likely why we ate meat in the first place. You could wait until your favourite berry bush was bearing fruit or you could eat the carrion on the ground right now. In the interest of survival you better eat what you can.

I also think you need animal fat in your diet but I have no proof of that and I might be just telling myself that.
 
I guess you define your "environmentalist veganism" as a science based concept, not as a political/emotional (faith) based decision? But "it's for the children" of the next generation? Sounds like an emotional/faith basis to me.

What's the scientific reason to eat meat, if I can survive perfectly well without it?

I do believe in the evidence for anthropogenic global warming (and I'd like to have words with you if you don't, or if you think climate change is a "faith based" position), and yes, one of the upsides veganism has over omnivorism is its lower caron footprint. But I'm not a environmentalist vegan, I'm a sceptic who hasn't been given any compelling evidence as to why I should eat meat or dairy.

Do you have any? In other words - why do you eat meat? Is it a reasoned position, or just they way you've always eaten?
 
Last edited:
Reason to eat meat #1

Few edible plants grow in the Canadian arctic.

I know that doesn't really matter any more but availability was likely why we ate meat in the first place. You could wait until your favourite berry bush was bearing fruit or you could eat the carrion on the ground right now. In the interest of survival you better eat what you can.

I also think you need animal fat in your diet but I have no proof of that and I might be just telling myself that.

I agree that if you're living in the Canadin arctic, or the African bush, then veganism is untenable and foolhardy. I'm not an absolutist or a fundamentalist. I'm guessing, though, that you don't hunt and kill your own food, or forage.

You do not need animal fats at all. The ADA and others state categorically that it's possible to get everything yuor body needs from a properly regulated vegan diet.

But if you live in a city and buy your food form a supermarket where the soy milk is right there next to the cow's milk on the shelf, why buy the cow's milk? I just can't see the benefits.
 
Last edited:
"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
:)

A fairly unique day, indeed.

It is sad that such agreement had to occur on such a sad background. Scratch sad...replace with enraging.

This verdict actually enrages me.
 
The prosecution's case was that this wasn't about bad parenting or neglect, it was premeditated murder. The vegan aspect was part of the cover up.
 
The prosecution's case was that this wasn't about bad parenting or neglect, it was premeditated murder. The vegan aspect was part of the cover up.

:jaw-dropp

Well, that's a whole 'nother kettle of tofu! Link?
 
I disagree. They lost their child. Don't you think that is punishment enough?

DR

Absolutely not. They didn't 'lose' their child - they murdered it through their willful ignorance and neglect. Jail time isn't half what they should get.
 
The prosecution's case was that this wasn't about bad parenting or neglect, it was premeditated murder. The vegan aspect was part of the cover up.
So apparently the parents wanted to murder their first born. Any links on the evidence for this?
 
Absolutely not. They didn't 'lose' their child - they murdered it through their willful ignorance and neglect. Jail time isn't half what they should get.
Kindly show evidence for the "willful" in the "willful ignorance" charge and also evidence for the "neglect" charge.

In my opinion, they should serve no jail time at all.
 
Kindly show evidence for the "willful" in the "willful ignorance" charge and also evidence for the "neglect" charge.

In my opinion, they should serve no jail time at all.

With the vast array of available resources for parents out there, their failure to learn how to take care of a baby properly was willful ignorance. There are CONSTANTLY classes of a wide variety for new parents available, at community centers, hospitals, and elsewhere (I took most of them, back when our firstborn came along). They neglected to care properly for the child. They refused to see a doctor even when others advised them to do so.

Was this child born in a hospital or under the care of a midwife? If not, that's more negligence on their part. And a hospital or midwife would shower them with educational resources as new parents.

That they chose to starve this child on a diet of juice and soy milk was nothing but pure willful ignorance and neglect. They should be executed after a lengthy and uncomfortable imprisonment.
 
With the vast array of available resources for parents out there, their failure to learn how to take care of a baby properly was willful ignorance. There are CONSTANTLY classes of a wide variety for new parents available, at community centers, hospitals, and elsewhere (I took most of them, back when our firstborn came along). They neglected to care properly for the child. They refused to see a doctor even when others advised them to do so.

Was this child born in a hospital or under the care of a midwife? If not, that's more negligence on their part. And a hospital or midwife would shower them with educational resources as new parents.

That they chose to starve this child on a diet of juice and soy milk was nothing but pure willful ignorance and neglect. They should be executed after a lengthy and uncomfortable imprisonment.
Z, you may not realize this, but you are working your way to the position that stupid is a punishable offense, even capital offense. I have held that position for years, and would like to use capital punishment on a rather lengthy list of stupid people. Luckily, for the more compassionately minded than me, I am not allowed that latitude. (On the balance, it is a good thing.)

Are you familiar with Robert Heinlein's take on the matter? :D

It goes something like this: There is no sin (crime??) in the universe but stupidity, which is punishable by death.

Taking that a step further, into the realm of the politically possible, substitute the word "clinically insane" for "stupid" and you find some chilling ways to put people away, once you so judge them "stupid/of wrong mental outlook or capacity."

They lost their child. Note that they did not abort their child, they had it. They wanted it. Yes, it was from being dumb enough to buy into all of the wrong ideas about being vegan, as our friend volatile has so eloquently pointed out. For that error in mental capacity, they lost their child. They don't belong in jail. Jail is for criminals.

Are you a parent? Do you understand the pain involved?

DR
 
Last edited:
Z, you may not realize this, but you are working your way to the position that stupid is a punishable offense, even capital offense. I have held that position for years, and would like to use capital punishment on a rather lengthy list of stupid people. Luckily, for the more compassionately minded than me, I am not allowed that latitude. (On the balance, it is a good thing.)

I do think stupidity should be a capital offense, absolutely. Especially when stupidity leads to loss of life.

Are you familiar with Robert Heinlein's take on the matter? :D

I've read a little Heinlein... too much incest for my tastes.

Taking that a step further, into the realm of the politically possible, substitute the word "clinically insane" for "stupid" and you find some chilling ways to put people away, once you so judge them "stupid/of wrong mental outlook or capacity."

I don't see that as 'chilling' - more like 'hope-inspiring'.

They lost their child. Note that they did not abort their child, they had it. They wanted it. Yes, it was from being dumb enough to buy into all of the wrong ideas about being vegan, as our friend volatile has so eloquently pointed out. For that error in mental capacity, they lost their child. They don't belong in jail. Jail is for criminals.

They did abort their child - post-partum. If they had wanted their child, they'd have done everything imaginable for that child. They didn't even try.

Are you a parent? Do you understand the pain involved?

I have six children, and two step-children. Two of those suffered briefly from 'failure to thrive'. One of those two is allergic to animal proteins. Today, they're both right on track, healthy, and in great shape. My wife and I have done everything in our power for our children - even changing our own lifestyles to accomodate the needs of our children.

So don't preach to me, Rotor. I could probably write the definitive book on parenting... and that's because I chose, for the best interests of my children, to learn everything I could.

These two are neglectful and willfully ignorant, and apparently the court agreed. It's just too bad they only got a life sentence.
 
With the vast array of available resources for parents out there, their failure to learn how to take care of a baby properly was willful ignorance.
No. There is no law which requires people becoming parents to ever read a book, see news on the TV or in any way educate themselves beyond their mandatory attendence in school.
There are CONSTANTLY classes of a wide variety for new parents available, at community centers, hospitals, and elsewhere (I took most of them, back when our firstborn came along). They neglected to care properly for the child. They refused to see a doctor even when others advised them to do so.
There was no lawing saying they had to see a doctor or anyone else for that matter. They were living free, which is still allowed in some corners of the world.
Was this child born in a hospital or under the care of a midwife?
No. Thankfully.
If not, that's more negligence on their part.
Of course not. That is their right. Bonehead.
And a hospital or midwife would shower them with educational resources as new parents.
Who cares what bull they would push?
That they chose to starve this child on a diet of juice and soy milk was nothing but pure willful ignorance and neglect.
Obviously not. It was ignorance of how a new born functions.
 
No. There is no law which requires people becoming parents to ever read a book, see news on the TV or in any way educate themselves beyond their mandatory attendence in school.

There was no lawing saying they had to see a doctor or anyone else for that matter. They were living free, which is still allowed in some corners of the world.

No. Thankfully.

Of course not. That is their right. Bonehead.

Who cares what bull they would push?

Obviously not. It was ignorance of how a new born functions.

Heh heh - your silly responses made me snicker. Are all Danes as funny as you? :D
 
I didn't say this couple didn't breastfeed because of their vegan beliefs, I only said it was conceivable that some vegans might equate breast milk with other animal products and shun it.

Also it's reasonable to assume that someone ignorant enough to starve their baby to death could also be ignorant in other ways too.

I'm sure most vegans favor breastfeeding, but it's entirely concievable that some ignorant ones shun the practice because it's too much like consuming animal product.
 
I'm sure most vegans favor breastfeeding, but it's entirely concievable that some ignorant ones shun the practice because it's too much like consuming animal product.
It's entirely conceivable that an ignorant mother may shun breastfeeding because she thinks that her baby seeing her topless is indecent at such a young age and that her (ignorant) husband would fly into a jealous rage.

So what? Lots of things are conceivable. In the OP case is there any indication that breastfeeding was shunned because it was "animal product"? Or is it simply too irresistible for the topic to be open-season against vegans?
 

Back
Top Bottom