When morons breed...

[slingblade]

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.

Because I like cow's milk. Soy milk tastes like wet crap with crap crackers, so to speak. That's why.

Seriously, I can't stand the stuff. It tastes nasty. And taste is pretty much why I eat meat, too. It tastes good. Really good. I like it. Yes, I know how to get my own. I usually let others do it for me, though, because I have that option. But I don't have the option to raise and butcher my own beef here in the city, or have a flock of chickens.

Yes, I think butchering could be done more humanely. But I'm comfortable ignoring it, to be honest.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

If the kid were breastfed more, it's unlikely he would have starved. If the kid were fed more period, it's unlikely he would have starved.

It's given that these particular vegans had something seriously wrong going on. Why should speculation on what exactly that was be perceived as "open-season" on all vegans?

 

[Francesca R]

Thank you for confirming that you are speculating. So you have no evidence that vegans actually do eschew breastfeeding because they consider it consumption of animal products. Correct?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

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 "faith"? Science says that animals feel pain and suffer. Vegetarians avoid consuming meat so they don't suffer. What "faith" is involved?

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

"Because it tastes good" sounds emotion/faith-based to me, with hedonism at the forefront. Pleasure is always justified, period. I have yet to hear a good counter argument besides that one.

Not that I'm going to go vegetarian or vegan anytime soon, but I admit, I'm strongly considering the point.

 

[gtc]

I think this article may shed more light on the case.

The child died because it was not fed enough. Even if it had been fed enough, its diet of organic apple juice and soy milk (the parents claimed to have also used breast feeding and soy formula) would have been enough to damage the child. The child was born at home and never taken to a doctor (the parents claimed to be afraid of germs).

The Prosecution argued that the child was deliberately neglected and that veganism was not the issue. The Defence argued that the parents did their best, given their veganism, and that apple juice may have had a diuretic effect.

The bottom line seems to be that veganism can be OK for children, but parents should be very careful.

Fulton prosecutor Chuck Boring said the verdict isn't a condemnation of veganism, a strict form of vegetarianism that doesn't allow the consumption or use of animal products. Instead, jurors believed prosecutors' assertions that the couple intentionally neglected and underfed the child and then tried to use the lifestyle as a shield.

"The vegan diet is fine," Boring said after the verdict in the Georgia case. "These parents lied about what they fed him. He just was not fed enough."
...
At trial, government witness and vegan expert Amy Lanou told jurors the child's health may have been compromised by his diet, but he should still have been alive if fed enough food.

Lanou, a nutritionist who authored the book "Healthy Eating for Life for Children," on raising children as vegans, said all parents should know that babies need adequate amounts of breast milk or formula.

 

[Lonewulf]

Who cares what bull they would push?

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

 

[gtc]

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.

 

[Francesca R]

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.

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

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.

Correct

No. Thankfully.

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.

Of course not. That is their right.

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

Who cares what bull they would push?

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.

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

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

 

[Lonewulf]

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.

What he said. ----^

 

[Architect]

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.

 

[skeptifem]

So apparently the parents wanted to murder their first born. Any links on the evidence for this?

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

 

[volatile]

Because I like cow's milk. Soy milk tastes like wet crap with crap crackers, so to speak. That's why.

Seriously, I can't stand the stuff. It tastes nasty. And taste is pretty much why I eat meat, too. It tastes good. Really good. I like it. Yes, I know how to get my own. I usually let others do it for me, though, because I have that option. But I don't have the option to raise and butcher my own beef here in the city, or have a flock of chickens.

Yes, I think butchering could be done more humanely. But I'm comfortable ignoring it, to be honest.

That's great. I know meat tastes good, but for me, it's not enough of a reason given the quantifiable negatives.

It seems that the conensus here is that the omnivores eat meat principally because of the taste?

 

[volatile]

"Because it tastes good" sounds emotion/faith-based to me, with hedonism at the forefront. Pleasure is always justified, period. I have yet to hear a good counter argument besides that one.

Not that I'm going to go vegetarian or vegan anytime soon, but I admit, I'm strongly considering the point.

My thoughts entirely. In light of the science which suggests that one can be just as healthy on vegan diet, that an omnivorous diet (in a Western, industrialised context) causes more pollution and other damaging environmental effects, that animals do indeed suffer, and that there seem to be problems in consuming things like cholesterol and too muh red meat, from where I'm standing, the evidence seems to suggest veganism.

Of course, there's an ethical dimension (as with everything), but for me, and many sceptics, it's science which is at the foundation of our ethical beliefs. Ethics or morals are not the same thing as "faith". To give one example, science shows animals suffer. My ethics tell me its wrong to torture an animal for fun, for example, and indeed there are laws against animal cruelty, and so when science shows that if I have the alternative to eat a healthy vegan diet I won't suffer any detrimental effects, the killing of the animal, for me, seems to start wandering into the realm of the unnecessary.

What I'm trying to get at here is that, aside from taste, there's no good reason i can see not to be vegan. I'm sure things like dog fighting and bear baiting make some people feel good, but we ban them because the animal's suffering is more important than an individual's right to have fun.

This argument, of course, doesn't apply if we need to hunt and kill our food to survive, but how many of us on this forum, and in th Western world generally, do that 100% of the time?

 

[slingblade]

That's great. I know meat tastes good, but for me, it's not enough of a reason given the quantifiable negatives.

Okey dokey.

It seems that the conensus here is that the omnivores eat meat principally because of the taste?

I don't know. It's my reason.

 

[volatile]

I don't know. It's my reason.

Vegan food tastes great, too!

 

[slingblade]

 

[Francesca R]

What he said. ----^

(Sigh . . .) She

 

[Kerberos]

I've seen plenty of sceptics disparage the religious for using arguments analagous to those.

No you haven't because religious people don't use arguments analogous to that. The argument that I do something because I enjoy it is not analogous to the statement that something is true because I'd like it to be. The later is a fallacy because it involves making a factual claim based on preference, the former is not because it doesn't.

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'm not convinced that it's automatically healthier to eat a vegetarian diet than an omnivorous one, as long as you don't eat to much or to fat meat. As for the ethical dimension that is a matter of opinion whether killing animals for food is unethical. I don't have a problem with it. As for the environmental impact I'll grant you that vegetarianism probably strain the environment less.
So the central question really is whether preference and convenience is a valid reason for damaging the environment. It is for me, it is for the rest of the omnivores on the thread, and it almost certainly is for you too. Not when it comes to eating meat perhaps, but on other matters. If you look at you life carefully you will almost certainly find that there are things you do or buy because you want to or it's easy which strain the environment. Almost any human activity does to a greater or lesser extend, so if you totally rejected enjoyment or convenience as a reason for this you would be barred from almost any conceivable sauce of enjoyment other than sitting and looking at nature. I don’t know you, but I doubt that’s all you do.

 

[volatile]

I'm not convinced that it's automatically healthier to eat a vegetarian diet than an omnivorous one, as long as you don't eat to much or to fat meat.

It's as healthy, not necessarily more healthy. As I said, I haven't been presented with any reasons to eat meat. Why should I NOT be vegan? That's the question that turned me vegan - I had no good reason not to be.

As for the ethical dimension that is a matter of opinion whether killing animals for food is unethical. I don't have a problem with it.

Killing animals for food isn't unethical. I'm not gonna suggest a subsistance farmer go vegan, but killing animals for food when you have easily available alternatives that are as tasty and nutritious and cheap is unethical, in my opinion. In my opinion, killing an animal for fun is unethical, and when you're killing one for food just because you prefer that taste to some other food source, the line starts blurring. For me.

As for the environmental impact I'll grant you that vegetarianism probably strain the environment less.
So the central question really is whether preference and convenience is a valid reason for damaging the environment. It is for me, it is for the rest of the omnivores on the thread, and it almost certainly is for you too. Not when it comes to eating meat perhaps, but on other matters. If you look at you life carefully you will almost certainly find that there are things you do or buy because you want to or it's easy which strain the environment. Almost any human activity does to a greater or lesser extend, so if you totally rejected enjoyment or convenience as a reason for this you would be barred from almost any conceivable sauce of enjoyment other than sitting and looking at nature. I don’t know you, but I doubt that’s all you do.

You're exactly right, of course. Noone's perfect. But the thing is, veganism is easy. It takes me no more effort to pick up a block of tofu from the supermarket than it does a pork chop. When I thought about my diet in a critical way, I realised that the only reason I was omnivorous was because I was raised that way. So I stopped, and, as I said, I haven't been give a critically-thought-out reason since as to why I should choose that pork chop.

It does taste good, I love(d) steak, but so does a beancurd stirfry or a lentil curry or a baked squash. Veganism has no downsides at all for me, as far as I can tell.