View Full Version : Killer Hippies Convicted of Murder
russ_watters
May10-07, 07:38 AM
At the risk of starting another veganism debate, I had to post this because it may just be the most distubing thing I've read in months: Vegan parents in Georgia were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison after their 6-week-old son died of malnutrition.
The baby, Crown Shakur, weighed only 3.5 pounds. He'd been fed mostly soy milk and apple juice. Vegans typically do not consume animal products.
Defense lawyers say the first-time parents did the best they could for their son while adhering to the strict lifestyle of vegans. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby -- who was born in a bathtub at their home -- was in danger until minutes before he died in April of 2004.
Jurors deliberated about seven hours before convicting the couple last week. Lamont Thomas, 31, and Jade Sanders, 27, were convicted of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children. http://www.nbc10.com/news/13286030/detail.html
The good news (if you can call it that) is that the courts acted appropriately and treated them just like any other murderers.
Mallignamius
May10-07, 07:49 AM
Were they really vegans? I know they profess to be, but that's very ignorant. The vegans I know are much more informed and reasonable than that.
Office_Shredder
May10-07, 07:53 AM
Being a vegan doesn't automatically grant people super intelligence
sara_87
May10-07, 07:55 AM
the parents are crazy they're bringing up their child to be a vegan... i mean what if their kid doesn't want that, let the kid make up it's own choices after it's grown up (like 20) and knows the difference and has taken all the essential nutrients for an average growing human... but i guess it's too late now
Mallignamius
May10-07, 08:01 AM
Being a vegan doesn't automatically grant people super intelligence
I don't think super intelligence is much needed to raise a child in a healthy manner. You don't have to go far to find Vegans who are possibly less educated, yet will make better decisions than those two did.
Being a vegan doesn't automatically grant people super intelligence
Of course if doesn't. On the contrary, it automatically lowers their intelligence.
russ_watters
May10-07, 09:01 AM
I don't think super intelligence is much needed to raise a child in a healthy manner. You don't have to go far to find Vegans who are possibly less educated, yet will make better decisions than those two did. Well that's just it: it does require a significant amount of extra effort to successfully raise a child that way and as such requires quite a bit of intelligence.
Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever. Every other animal does it instinctively.
But stupidity driven by religious belief is not a defense for murder, which is why the decision/punishment is appropriate.
russ_watters
May10-07, 09:14 AM
Legally, the definition of "malice murder" seems a bit contradictory as it talks about both intent to kill and recless disregard for consequences. It certainly fits the reckless disregard criteria, though. Murder or "malice murder" occurs when an individual unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another person. Malice aforethought is defined as an intention to kill another human being. Therefore, in order to be convicted of malice murder, the state must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim. This intent may be found in the defendant’s actions toward the victim (i.e., threats, etc.), in his use of a deadly weapon, or in the defendant’s acts which exhibit a reckless disregard for human life. http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.com/georgia-violent-crimes.html
Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever. Every other animal does it.
Breast feeding would be animal product. Nature's way to feed an infant and they oppose it. Shows the fallacy of their lifestyle.
Mallignamius
May10-07, 09:22 AM
Well that's just it: it does require a significant amount of extra effort to raise a child that way and as such requires quite a bit of intelligence.
Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever. Every other animal does it instinctively.
But stupidity driven by religious belief is not a defense for murder, which is why the decision/punishment is appropriate.
I was responding to the exaggeration of "super intelligence." And, in so many words, this is my attempt at shunning those criminal parents.
As much as I respect vegetarianism, even I, without yet a college education and very ignorant on raising children, wouldn't bring an infant into that lifestyle.
Office_Shredder
May10-07, 09:56 AM
I was responding to the exaggeration of "super intelligence." And, in so many words, this is my attempt at shunning those criminal parents.
As much as I respect vegetarianism, even I, without yet a college education and very ignorant on raising children, wouldn't bring an infant into that lifestyle.
The super intelligence was just to respond to your comment
Were they really vegans? I know they profess to be, but that's very ignorant. The vegans I know are much more informed and reasonable than that.
It sounds like you think if someone is a vegan, it means they're informed and reasonable automatically. I agree, these people are dumb, but that doesn't mean they aren't vegans
russ_watters
May10-07, 09:56 AM
Breast feeding would be animal product. Nature's way to feed an infant and they oppose it. Shows the fallacy of their lifestyle.
Is that seriously their logic? Even if the "animal" is a human? I didn't know that.
JasonRox
May10-07, 09:56 AM
Breast feeding would be animal product. Nature's way to feed an infant and they oppose it. Shows the fallacy of their lifestyle.
Yeah, that's if you're a strict vegetarian. Some vegetarians are just whackos in my opinion. Most don't even have a good reason to be vegetarian although you don't need one.
For example, I don't eat pork or beef. So, that's like almost vegetarian. I do it because I'm not fond of the way they raise pork or beef, environmental reasons and health. I don't like love animals to the point that I can't eat a cow.
russ_watters
May10-07, 10:00 AM
Well, that doesn't appear to be typical of all vegans: The earliest food for a vegan baby is ideally breast milk. http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/kids.htm
JasonRox
May10-07, 10:00 AM
Is that seriously their logic? Even if the "animal" is a human? I didn't know that.
Not for all of them. My one vegetarian friend isn't like that.
But I do have a vegetarian friend who probably thinks that. She doesn't eat anything "living". No milk, eggs, or even cheese.
Mallignamius
May10-07, 10:43 AM
The super intelligence was just to respond to your comment
Well, I know that. But it was an exaggeration.
It sounds like you think if someone is a vegan, it means they're informed and reasonable automatically. I agree, these people are dumb, but that doesn't mean they aren't vegans
I didn't mean it to come across like that. No, I don't think that vegan = automatically informed & reasonable. I mean, it's not fair to call oneself a physicist if they aren't schooled or have the appropriate degree. I doubt it's fair to call oneself a vegan if they aren't following the practice/lifestyle appropriately, misinformed, etc. If they can be called vegans, then I'd call them ignorant, misguided vegans. Do they really represent the vegan population? Is this what vegans do?
I just don't want a few criminals to become a symbol of the vegan ideals. And I'm already seeing some questionable prejudgment assigned to vegans as a whole. I don't think that's fair.
Not for all of them. My one vegetarian friend isn't like that.
But I do have a vegetarian friend who probably thinks that. She doesn't eat anything "living". No milk, eggs, or even cheese.
Vegetarians aren't vegans. There's a distinct difference.
mathwonk
May10-07, 11:06 AM
you people don't live here in georgia do you? that story was just one of a long series of crazy stuff that happens here all the time. a few months back the police lied to get a no knock drug warrant, busted down a frightened and innocent old ladies door, shot her to death when she fought back, and then threatened an informant to lie and say he had bought drugs there.
a couple years ago the previous sheriff gave a couple million of the county's money to a con man to invest and lost it all.
before that, the incumbent sheriff who was turned out of office by an honest subordinate in the election hired a hit man who then murdered the incoming sheriff.
worse, the incoming sheriff had already resigned his county job, in anticipation of being sheriff, so the county denied his widow his death pay.
in clayton cty, the new sheriff there fired all the incumbent officers, and stationed snipers on the roof of the courthouse when they came back to get their severance pay.
you have no doubt heard that the last japanese defender on some pacific island only gave up after 50 years. thats nothing, many people here are still fighting the civil war.
it goes on and on....
Chi Meson
May10-07, 11:08 AM
The fact that these people were vegans is not directly what killed their baby. It is the fact that they were clinging, inflexably, to a rigid dogma. Many babies have died similarly, and their parents were not "hippie vegans."
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/roundups/article_1300471.php/News_Roundup
Prosecutors charged the infant`s death had nothing to do with veganism but instead was the result of intentional neglect and underfeeding.
They accused the couple of trying to use their lifestyle as a shield against prosecution.
A couple of years ago, I believe it was near Providence, a child died due to the parents belief in "laying on of hands." They were quite a conservative family, but no less malicious nor murderous in the end.
mathwonk
May10-07, 11:16 AM
no these were not hippies at all, just very unintelligent and rigid people. i thought this thread was about charles manson or someone.
we have a lot of dumb parents here. there was a whole church brought up a while back for incredibly severe corporal punishment of their children, ordered by the pastor.
others lock them in closets. it is difficult to believe some things that go on.
i myself once took my children to macdonald's.
some people here still use slide rules. (for computation, not punishment)
The fact that these people were vegans is not directly what killed their baby. It is the fact that they were clinging, inflexably, to a rigid dogma. Many babies have died similarly, and their parents were not "hippie vegans."That's absurd, there was no rigid dogma, they were just bloody vegans that, personal intelligence aside, made the mistake of not asking a nutritionist about proper vegan childhood nutrition.
What are you talking about "clinging", "inflexably", I saw no evidence of that in the article. Do you have another source for this story your not sharing with us?
Hey Look! It's the very next paragraph in the article AFTER above quote:
Prosecutors claimed the baby suffered a prolonged and painful death, not because of what he was fed, but because he was fed too little and that his nutritional needs were deliberately ignored by his parents.
oh no! :eek:
Reading the whole article is good.
JasonRox
May10-07, 11:26 AM
i myself once took my children to macdonald's.
Bring them there once a week and that should be considered murder if your kid dies.
mbrmbrg
May10-07, 11:33 AM
Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever.
Ummm... Russ, you ever try it? From what I've heard, there's a reason that serious books have been written on "the art of breast-feeding"
Every other animal does it instinctively.
Every other animal has a hell of a lot more developed instincts that the human does.
But yeah, your basic point stands. How dumb do you have to get to watch your baby starve to death over 6 1/2 weeks and not call somebody's mom to ask what's up? (Benifit of doubt--maybe can't afford a doctor/think doctors chop off rats' heads therefore can't be a good vegan and go to doctor.)
lunarmansion
May10-07, 11:35 AM
The baby died from neglect- in this case malnutrition. Just happened that the parents were vegans.
As for the vegan movement, I think the vegan movement was originally started by and supported by many of those people who are highly lactose intolerant genetically and genetically prone to be also wheat intolerant. So one can pretty much sense who started the nonsense....like much other nonsense. Just because some people are milk intolerant and wheat intolerant, they claim that dairy and wheat products are bad for everyone.
out of whack
May10-07, 11:36 AM
But prosecutors in the US city of Atlanta said the couple had deliberately neglected their child.
"No matter how many times they want to say, 'We're vegans, we're vegetarians,' that's not the issue in this case," Prosecutor Chuck Boring is quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying.
"The child died because he was not fed. Period," he said.
The prosecutor seems to argue that the cause of death was predominantly neglect and that the defense used the vegan lifestyle as a smoke screen.
Ivan Seeking
May10-07, 11:39 AM
no these were not hippies at all, just very unintelligent and rigid people. i thought this thread was about charles manson or someone.
No kidding. I think someone has a highly skewed [absurd] perspective.
I have known a number of vegans, and most were engineers.
No kidding. I think someone has a highly skewed [absurd] perspective.
I have known a number of vegans, and most were engineers.
Well, of Course! Is there anyone you know that isn't an engineer?
But yeah, your basic point stands. How dumb do you have to get to watch your baby starve to death over 6 1/2 weeks and not call somebody's mom to ask what's up? (Benifit of doubt--maybe can't afford a doctor/think doctors chop off rats' heads therefore can't be a good vegan and go to doctor.)
There are vegan doctors, hell, you don't even have to go to a doctor, any nutritionist will do, and there are Vegan nutritionists. These people just didn't try. And that's why their in jail.
mbrmbrg
May10-07, 01:01 PM
Originally Posted by mbrmbrg
But yeah, your basic point stands. How dumb do you have to get to watch your baby starve to death over 6 1/2 weeks and not call somebody's mom to ask what's up? (Benifit of doubt--maybe can't afford a doctor/think doctors chop off rats' heads therefore can't be a good vegan and go to doctor.)
There are vegan doctors, hell, you don't even have to go to a doctor, any nutritionist will do, and there are Vegan nutritionists. These people just didn't try. And that's why their in jail.
Exactly. My doctor line was rather tongue in cheek, and why I suggested a mother. You don't need to be a nutritionist to look at a baby that weighs about 1.5 kg and say "Gee, something wrong here."
Who taught these people how to change a diaper? I'm sure they would have been happy to teach them how to keep a kid alive, also!
JasonRox
May10-07, 01:05 PM
The baby died from neglect- in this case malnutrition. Just happened that the parents were vegans.
As for the vegan movement, I think the vegan movement was originally started by and supported by many of those people who are highly lactose intolerant genetically and genetically prone to be also wheat intolerant. So one can pretty much sense who started the nonsense....like much other nonsense. Just because some people are milk intolerant and wheat intolerant, they claim that dairy and wheat products are bad for everyone.
Yeah, that is IF it originally came from highly lactose intolerant and wheat intolerant people. I doubt this is the case.
It is more important that a vegan breastfeed a baby than a nonvegan because there are no fully nutritional vegan formulas.
The Importance of Breastfeeding Your Vegan Baby (http://www.vegfamily.com/babies-and-toddlers/breastfeeding-vegan-baby.htm)
Most of you probably know how important it is to breastfeed your baby, but it's even more important when you're vegan. As of this writing there are no commercial soy infant formulas on the U.S. market that are 100% vegan. They all contain Vitamin D derived from an animal. And cow's milk formulas are out for obvious reasons. What does that leave you with? Not much choice. If you want your baby to be vegan, you've got to breastfeed or find a milk bank that has collected and stored milk from a vegan mom (difficult at best).
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 01:37 PM
From what I've heard, there's a reason that serious books have been written on "the art of breast-feeding"
That speaks to ignorance, not lack of intelligence. The practice not only predates books, it predates humans.
It never ceases to amaze me that you need a license to drive, a permit to build a shed on your own property, a dog or cat license, but any moron who wants one, or accidently gets pregnant, can have a kid.
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO. If you dont want to eat it for health resons, I can understand. But if you think your saving the animals and all that other BS your an idiot.
Im glad they got sent to prison for their stupidity.
Chi Meson
May10-07, 01:41 PM
That's absurd, there was no rigid dogma, they were just bloody vegans that, personal intelligence aside, made the mistake of not asking a nutritionist about proper vegan childhood nutrition.
What are you talking about "clinging", "inflexably", I saw no evidence of that in the article. Do you have another source for this story your not sharing with us?
Hey Look! It's the very next paragraph in the article AFTER above quote:
oh no! :eek:
Reading the whole article is good.
Hmm... I think you misunderstood me, but then again I was not too clear with my point. Here's my reasoning. My assumption is the following: The parents are idiots yet they really were unaware of the damage they were doing until it was too late. This leads me to believe that they were enveloped in a rigid set of rules (I dunno, they read a book maybe, about the greatness of soy) and if they were following these rules then there must not be any problem because they were following the rules.
I do not think they should even be called vegans for that matter, because that word implies a deeper knowledge of nutritian.
And I usually do read articles to their fullest extent. I'd appreciate being given the benefit of that doubt even if my point is poorly formed in haste:wink:
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 01:49 PM
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO.
I'm a meatatarian myself, but there is a cost for living so high on the food chain. Does anyone here care to work out the implications of meat eating on global warming? All those animals blowing C02 into the atmosphere. Would you cut down on or cut out meat eating to save the environment if it could be shown that there was a connection?
Chi Meson
May10-07, 01:49 PM
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO. If you dont want to eat it for health resons, I can understand. But if you think your saving the animals and all that other BS your an idiot.
Im glad they got sent to prison for their stupidity.
It's the neglect, more than the stupidity, that bothers me. I certain that parents of much lower intelligence can raise a child better than that. This is the "rigidity" that I referred to before: a parent has to willfully ignore dozens of warning signs befroe a child is that foregone. This goes beyond stupidity. If a parent has any love for their child at all, then this willfull neglect has to be fueled by some errant, dogmatic structure.
Again, for the record, I have no beef against veganism (sorry). I maintain that these people subscribed to some fringe crackpot variation of a meatless diet.
mbrmbrg
May10-07, 01:54 PM
That speaks to ignorance, not lack of intelligence. The practice not only predates books, it predates humans.
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
I'm a meatatarian myself, but there is a cost for living so high on the food chain. Does anyone here care to work out the implications of meat eating on global warming? All those animals blowing C02 into the atmosphere. Would you cut down on or cut out meat eating to save the environment if it could be shown that there was a connection?
No. I eat animals because they are tasty I am top of the food chain, sucks for the ones on the bottom, thats life.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 01:56 PM
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
There are billions of women. How many such books?
Again, for the record, I have no beef against veganism (sorry). I maintain that these people subscribed to some fringe crackpot variation of a meatless diet.
I think they are just as foolish as someone that goes to chuch (mosque, synagog, tack your pick) every sunday, and shakes when god talks to them. :bugeye:
Edit: Women now need books on breastfeeding? :rofl: Give me a break.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 02:03 PM
I am top of the food chain, sucks for the ones on the bottom, thats life.
No question, but what about the implications for global warming?
Dear god, your right! All those stupid farting cows are warming the ozone. We should kill them all! :rofl:
...farting anmials aint warming up the globe. Its the farting animals driving SUVs we gotta eliminate.
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".Uhm, yes they do. The books are a scam to make money. I never read a book and I had no trouble. it doesn't take too long to realize which end of the kid to hold to your breast, trust me, the kid takes over instantly.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 02:19 PM
Its the farting animals driving SUVs we gotta eliminate.
You are high on the food chain. That doesn't just mean that you eat things that don't eat you. It also means that the things you eat eat other things. It takes a lot of grain to feed the cattle. The grain is created with tractors. It's not just you and the cow, its an ecosystem. I ask again. Would you give up or cut back on eating meat if it could be shown that there was a connection between meat eating and global warming?
Nope, because there is no connection. Thats really a far stretch. The fact is, we use far more chemicals on growing plants than on animals. All that plant runoff goes right into the water systems.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 02:32 PM
Nope, because there is no connection. Thats really a far stretch. The fact is, we use far more chemicals on growing plants than on animals. All that plant runoff goes right into the water systems.
And the cows eat it. And you eat the cow. If we ate less meat, we would grow less grain. We are high on the food chain.
The vast majority of plantfoods grown around the world go to feeding people and not animals. There are 9 billion people, not 9 billion cows.
Sure, the cows require alot of plant food, but then again you would have to grow that much plant food to replace the lost food by not eating the cow anyways. Either way, you're going to grow lots of grain. Might as well enjoy eating the cows while your at it.
....besides, who could give up steak and eggs!:!!)
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 02:37 PM
you would have to grow that much plant food to replace the lost food by not eating the cow anyways.
No you wouldn't. That's my point.
Sure you would. Thats a LOT of meat your eliminating. People are going to need to eat something to replace that meat thats no longer available. For every 1 cow I eat, I would have to eat much more plant food to fill me up. Eating 10 salads wont fill me up, 1 steak will.
How would you replace that lost food?
Even if you stopped eating meat, that would not be a very healthy decision. There are lots of stuff you need from meat. I just like the taste of it. Personally, I'd never give up that delicious taste. Steaks, fajitas, sushi, kabobs, yummy.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 02:48 PM
For every 1 cow I eat, I would have to eat much more plant food to fill me up. Eating 10 salads wont fill me up, 1 steak will.
The cow ate more than 10 salads worth of grain to make that 1 steak.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 02:50 PM
Does this help?
http://boston.earthsave.org/GlobalWarming.htm
JasonRox
May10-07, 02:55 PM
Aren't you young cyrus? I hope you're not stubborn already!
I like eating cows, so sue me. :tongue2:
Does this help?
http://boston.earthsave.org/GlobalWarming.htm
I dont understand how I am supposed to interpret that website. Cows isnt even listed on there.
For ****s and giggles, compare the energy used in raising cattle to some industrial process and see if its even a drop in the global bucket of warming. I'm willing to bet its not.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 03:00 PM
Does this help?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1602354_1603074_1603171,00.html
JasonRox
May10-07, 03:02 PM
http://www.physorg.com/news4998.html
http://www.zenzibar.com/Articles/15_reasons.asp
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/12/would_you_stop.html
http://www.all-creatures.org/adow/cam-meat.html
MANY reasons to stop eating red meat and pork in particular.
Cyrus, you often also complain about SUV drivers. That attitude you're doing right now is no different than those driving SUVs and Hummers. I like my Hummer and I like big car... yadda yadda... you I like meat... yadda yadda.
Seriously, don't be so hard headed.
JasonRox
May10-07, 03:02 PM
Does this help?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1602354_1603074_1603171,00.html
That's a smack in the face.
There is nothing unhealthy about eating meat Jason. Its about the quantity of meat we eat. We eat TONS and TONS of meat in our diet, too much of it.
Just cut back on the meat and eat a resonable proportion of it. Unless you have a medical condition, theres no reaosn why you shouldnt be eating meat.
Also, if you want to cut back pollution, tell India and China and other largely populated countries to stop having kids. There are far too many people in the world to begin with. That in and of itself is a major problem.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 03:10 PM
Just cut back on the meat and eat a resonable proportion of it.
In posts #40 and #47 you said you would not cut back on meat. Now you are telling us to do just that. You could have saved us all a lot of trouble you know.
JasonRox
May10-07, 03:10 PM
There is nothing unhealthy about eating meat Jason. Its about the quantity of meat we eat. We eat TONS and TONS of meat in our diet, too much of it.
Just cut back on the meat and eat a resonable proportion of it. Unless you have a medical condition, theres no reaosn why you shouldnt be eating meat.
Also, if you want to cut back pollution, tell India and China and other largely populated countries to stop having kids. There are far too many people in the world to begin with. That in and of itself is a major problem.
I guess what you're saying is...
Ignorance is Bliss.
The sad part is now you're running out and pointing fingers at developping countries and telling them to start over in an environmentally friendly way meanwhile you can sit there and continue your own good easy life. Oh, how nice.
In posts #40 and #47 you said you would not cut back on meat. Now you are telling us to do just that. You could have saved us all a lot of trouble you know.
Careful! I said I would not give up meat.
I guess what you're saying is...
Ignorance is Bliss.
The sad part is now you're running out and pointing fingers at developping countries and telling them to start over in an environmentally friendly way meanwhile you can sit there and continue your own good easy life. Oh, how nice.
Jason, if the world cannot support 9 billion people, it cannot support 9 bilion people. How hards that to comprehend? We need to control our population size.
Chi Meson
May10-07, 03:52 PM
Regarding breastfeeding, just a note to the youngsters out there:
I dare you to walk up to my wife and tell her that breastfeeding comes natually. Step back and protect your face.
Here is the article regarding that subject whe wrote for our local paper. I just uploaded it to her blogsite; if you want to read more about us, be my guest. Pam is an excellent writer.
http://mamaetc.blogspot.com/2004/03/breastfeeding.html
Humans have plant eating teeth and meat eating teeth. There is no reason why a reasonably heathy diet can't include both.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 04:40 PM
Careful! I said I would not give up meat.
No you did not. I asked if you would give up or cut back. In #40 you quoted my question and answered "no". In 47 you answered the same question "nope". You never qualified that you were answering a different question from the one I asked.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had said give up completely. -that I would not be willing to do.
russ_watters
May10-07, 05:00 PM
That's a smack in the face. That doesn't compute - unless there are as many farm animals in the world as all other animals combined, how can they possibly produce 18% of the world's greenhouse gases?
Chi Meson
May10-07, 05:06 PM
The article implies all cattle, buffalo, sheep, and goats. I know that in both New Zealand and Scotland, the sheep outnumber the humans.
Without a doubt we can assume that 18% is the high end of the estimate, but it doesn't seem that absurd to me.
JasonRox
May10-07, 05:10 PM
Jason, if the world cannot support 9 billion people, it cannot support 9 bilion people. How hards that to comprehend? We need to control our population size.
We can manage 9 billion people and they are trying to control population in China so don't bring that up against them.
Of course we can't manage 9 billion people when like half of it live like morons.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 05:16 PM
Oh, I'm sorry.
Think nothing of it. My issues are from your post #35
Im glad they got sent to prison for their stupidity.
You didn't read the news story carefully either. They were not sent to prison for their stupidity and not for their veganism. It was for murder.
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO.
In my opinion, this is uncalled for and is the main reason I pursued this matter. Especially as you contradicted it yourself in the next sentence.
If you dont want to eat it for health resons, I can understand.
But vegatraianism/veganism is not for the health reasons I am thinking about. I am saying if your doctor tells you, no more meat. I can understand that. However, I am talking about those that think killing and eating animals is wrong because theres something special about animals that we cant kill them. Thats the vegarianism/veganism im calling stupid.
You didn't read the news story carefully either. They were not sent to prison for their stupidity and not for their veganism. It was for murder.
Oh, I know that. I was just calling them stupid. :smile:
Humans have plant eating teeth and meat eating teeth. There is no reason why a reasonably heathy diet can't include both.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Evolution is sloooooooooowww.
Just because we've been doing something for billions of years doesn't mean it's healthy for us. A billion years ago the average human lifespan was... what? 35 tops? Wouldn't be surprised if it was 25.
Ok, how many people are OVER 35 on this forum? And how many of those people live like we did a billion years ago? I'll bet the answers to those questions are, respectively; a lot, and none.
I thought you guys were scientists. Isn't it part of your religion to change your opinion when you see new evidence, and NOT just doing what we've done for billions of years? Your inherently progressive. Get with it!
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 05:25 PM
That doesn't compute - unless there are as many farm animals in the world as all other animals combined, how can they possibly produce 18% of the world's greenhouse gases?
Perhaps all the other animals provide another 18%. But I doubt it. There are no modern farm methods feeding, processing, and transporting all the other animals.
What are you talking about smurf? :confused:
Yes, people lived to 35, what does that have to do with eating meat? Our diets are the same as in the 1700's and people live longer because of modern medicine.
But vegatraianism/veganism is not for the health reasons I am thinking about. I am saying if your doctor tells you, no more meat. I can understand that. However, I am talking about those that think killing and eating animals is wrong because theres something special about animals that we cant kill them. Thats the vegarianism/veganism im calling stupid.So you're attacking the reasons and not the tradition? that seems kind of odd to me. Why do you care why someone does something, it's their actions that matter not why they did it or what they believe. Your basically saying anyone who believes in Animal Rights is an idiot. What ever happened to tolerance for others beliefs?
P.S. I'm pretty sure only a minority of people are vegetarian/vegan for those kind of reasons.
What do you mean tolerance? I dont belive in tolerance. There are people I dont tolerate.
Tolerance is a PC bull**** myth.
No, I dont tolerate animal rights nutjobs that firebomb reserach labs that use animals to find cures to diseases.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 05:30 PM
Ok, how many people are OVER 35 on this forum? And how many of those people live like we did a billion years ago? I'll bet the answers to those questions are, respectively; a lot, and none.
I'm over 35 and I don't live like I did a billion years ago (I'm way over 35). I eat more meat now than I did then. Conclusion?
What do you mean tolerance? I dont belive in tolerance. There are people I dont tolerate.
Tolerance is a PC bull**** myth.
No, I dont tolerate animal rights nutjobs that firebomb reserach labs that use animals to find cures to diseases.
So if someone's a vegan they're violent too now?
See, this is why we invented tolerance.
Our diets are the same as in the 1700's and people live longer because of modern medicine.
That's just bollocks. Go to College.
I never said they were violent. I said they were stupid. Please pay attention.
That's just bollocks. Go to College.
People actually ate less meat back then than they do today and they lived shorter lives.
Spare me the personal insults because you dont have an argument.
I never said they were violent. I said they were stupid. Please pay attention.
Well now I'm just confused. I said that you didn't tolerate Vegans just because they believed in Animal Rights and then YOU said that No, you don't tolerate animal rights nutjobs that firebomb research labs. You were CLEARLY drawing a link between believing in Animal Rights/Being a vegan, and using firebombs to destroy medical research.
I'm over 35 and I don't live like I did a billion years ago (I'm way over 35). I eat more meat now than I did then. Conclusion?
My point was to show that "we've always done it" doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
Ok, then lets be clear.
I said that you didn't tolerate Vegans just because they believed in Animal Rights
1-no. I believe in animal rights. Animals should be treated humanely. BUT, animals ARE for food, and YES people SHOULD eat them as part of their diet. Just because they are furry and cute is not a reason not to eat them. In some countries, they eat dogs and cats. Thats their right. Just because a dog or cate is 'cute' and a cow is 'ugly' does not mean its any better or worse to eat one and not the other. In india, the fact that we eat cows would be 10x worse than someone here eating their cat. Its all relative to the culture and arbirtary.
No, you don't tolerate animal rights nutjobs that firebomb research labs.
Yes, I said nutjobs. Those are animal rights nutjobs, the same ones that are vegan nutjobs. (A subset of even stupider vegans).
You were CLEARLY drawing a link between believing in Animal Rights/Being a vegan, and using firebombs to destroy medical research.
Because if you're a vegan, you dont do ANYTHING that involves animals. That included medical research. Therefore, those people have to be considered a subset of nutjob vegans.
These people (vegans) are so stupid, they think that something like milk or chease from a cow is harming the cow and bad. Im sorry, those people are absolute idiots.
We have overpopulation, we can start by getting rid of these idiots.
My point was to show that "we've always done it" doesn't mean we should keep doing it.
What exactly is that supposed to mean? Whats wrong with what we have been doing by eating meat. So far, nothing.
What exactly is that supposed to mean? Whats wrong with what we have been doing by eating meat. So far, nothing.
It has nothing to do with meat. It's a logical thing. Meat was just the context. Just because we've always been doing something doesn't mean that it's necessarily a good thing to keep doing. That's the ENTIRE argument I was trying to make. I thought I did it well, actually, why is it so difficult to understand? Not ALL my posts are saying the same thing, please take them each as individual posts with different messages!
But then what is the relevance of your statement outside of the context of eating meat? It becomes a vauge statement that has no meaning to the context of our discussion.
From our discussion, (i.e. meat), we have been doing it, and will continue to do it, and there is nothing wrong with it.
HELLOKAR28
May10-07, 06:08 PM
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
You must be a man. Of course women know how to feed their own babies by instict.
I'm glad they got life in prison and I hope they are treated like every other baby killer. You don't have to be a doctor or a mother to look at a 3lb baby a know sometime is wrong.
Moonbear
May10-07, 06:08 PM
The cow ate more than 10 salads worth of grain to make that 1 steak.
When you take into account the quality of the plant matter that cattle can eat and convert into meat, it's far more efficient to eat steak than the plants. Cattle can consume parts of plants that we can't digest at all, so without the cattle, all that plant material would just wind up in the trash (or a very large, methane-producing compost heap). It wouldn't make sense if cattle were fed the same plants people are, but they aren't, they are fed the parts we don't eat...the stalks, corn cobs, stems and grasses, etc. They can also eat the plants that will grow on land that won't support crops for human food, either due to the quality of the soil or the terrain. This is the factor that's usually missing from all the calculations the vegans/vegetarians push, that cattle aren't sitting down to a plate of green beans and corn, they're being fed the leaves and stems after our crops have been harvested, or fed the corn that was no good for human food (stunted growth, damaged by drought or bugs, too tough, etc.)
As for the original post, that's just disgusting, and obviously has nothing to do with them being vegan, but as others have already pointed out, with them being completely neglectful of that child...on many levels.
The baby was born at home, probably received no prenatal care, obviously hadn't gone for any regular checkups after being born or else a doctor would have alerted authorities sooner with an infant losing rather than gaining weight, and was being starved by the parents. You cannot look at an infant that small and not know something is severely wrong. And, as Evo (and others) pointed out, breast feeding is not rocket science. Women all over the world figure this out without the aid of books. The problem is they were neither feeding the infant breast milk nor any sort of infant formula. Indeed, not even feeding the infant enough of whatever they were giving it. There have been misinformed parents who have fed their children poor substitutes for breast milk or formula (one common one found on internet sites is raw goat milk...i.e., unpasteurized), and the children get ill, or wind up with nutrient deficiencies, but these usually get picked up quickly enough during regular checkups, unless the kid winds up in the hospital with a bacterial infection. But with those, it's not so blatantly obvious to the uninformed parent that something is wrong until the kid runs a fever or starts to get listless, because they are still gaining weight, and then they promptly take them to a doctor to find out what they've done wrong. Even women who breastfeed can inadvertantly leave a child malnourished if they don't produce enough milk or don't notice they aren't feeding enough...BUT...they do notice if the baby isn't gaining weight and that gets them to a doctor quickly to find out they need to supplement more food. You certainly notice this before you have a 6 month old who is too small even for a newborn. 3.5 lbs is TINY.
More shocking is that NOBODY ELSE noticed or intervened. Maybe they never took the baby out anywhere, otherwise you'd think (hope) somebody would have noticed and reported this.
Jimmy Snyder
May10-07, 06:21 PM
It wouldn't make sense if cattle were fed the same plants people are, but they aren't, they are fed the parts we don't eat...the stalks, corn cobs, stems and grasses, etc. They can also eat the plants that will grow on land that won't support crops for human food, either due to the quality of the soil or the terrain.
The issue is not whether they eat the same plants we eat, but rather the greenhouse gas contribution from the cultivation of their diet. For instance, the plants grown on poor soil is still planted, harvested, fertilized, transported, etc. using modern techniques.
Here is another opinion. I don't know if it supports your side or not.
http://www.dairyfarmingtoday.org/DairyFarmingToday/Learn-More/FAQ/
But then what is the relevance of your statement outside of the context of eating meat? It becomes a vauge statement that has no meaning to the context of our discussion.
From our discussion, (i.e. meat), we have been doing it, and will continue to do it, and there is nothing wrong with it.
You're right, it has no meaning in the context of our discussion. You know why, cause I was talking to ARTMAN. Which is WHY I keep trying to shove the issue aside. Can you let me do that this time? Can we shove it aside? Please?
Sure, you can shove it :tongue2:
JasonRox
May10-07, 06:38 PM
People actually ate less meat back then than they do today and they lived shorter lives.
Spare me the personal insults because you dont have an argument.
You DON'T have an argument either, so spare me your assumptions. He is right. They are vastly different!
Fast food restaurants didn't exist then. Neither did sodas, and neither did a lot of our processed foods that we eat everyday.
And, here are some other comments...
Our diet since the early 1900's has evolved
into an abundance of progressively more unhealthy, life-threatening
foodstuffs filled with harmful vegetable fats which is also devoid of many
vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids as well.
http://www.bikescor.com/American%20diet.htm
The Department of Agriculture began to keep track of food "disappearance"
data around 1900 and noted a change in the consumption in the kind of fats
Americans were eating.
http://www.bikescor.com/American%20diet.htm
In 1800, 95% of all Americans consumed minimally processed foods produced chiefly on their own small farms, but by 1900, only 60% of the population remained on farms (Hampe and Wittenberg, 1964). In less than 175 years, nearly all Americans have become dependent on others to produce and distribute food to supermarkets where their ability to obtain items they desire is determined largely by their financial resources.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1222&page=41
In fact, think back to any day as long as it was before the 1800's or 1900's. Where did people get their food from? Either they grew it themselves, they traded with neighbors, or they bought their food at a local market. When shopping at the market, its probable that the person they bought the produce from is the very farmer who grew it (or someone in that farmer's family). Basically people ate locally grown food and they had a fairly good sense of what kind of conditions that food was grown in (and what kind of conditions the farmer and his hired hands worked in). Granted, there were probably some items that weren't grown locally: tea, cane sugar, chocolate and coffee come to mind. But those items were also very expensive and therefore less commonly used than we are used to today.
http://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1328020
Before the late 1800's most of the world didn't eat a lot of meat, or dairy, as there just wasn't that much available for ordinary people.
http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/articles/protein-veg-diet.php
Looking for more too. I had some good links awhile back, but I guess I lost them.
Ratiocinator
May10-07, 06:49 PM
My god there is a lot of ignorance being displayed in this thread. Some of you people really should stick with your paradigmatic mathematics, and stay quiet about everything else.
I thought this forum is supposed to be a science-based forum with facts, not hearsay, being the order of the day?
The thread starter should be ashamed for selecting such an odious thread title. To generalize, use derogatory slurs, pigeonhole, falsely categorize, and play on preconceived notions, is nothing less than obscurantist, offensive, unscientific, puerile, ignorant, and pathetic.
I do not know the details about this Atlanta case, but I will tell you this, it is not due to veganism. It is due to poor diet / nutritional negligence.
The plant-based diet is the natural diet for humans. Humans are anatomically and physiologically herbivorous:
http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/comparative.html
If you want to see the science on this then I recommend you get hold of a copy of this book:
http://www.vegansociety.com/catalog/images/PBNws.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Plant-Based-Nutrition-Health-Stephen/dp/0907337279/ref=sr_1_1/002-1241725-1536018?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178836892&sr=8-1
http://www.vegansociety.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=153
The findings of that book clearly state the optimum diet to be plant based and completely devoid of fauna derivatives. Conduct your own research, it is very simply done. Just go to your local hospital and quiz the coronary, osteoporosis, and cancer patients (amongst others) on their life choices concerning diet.
I could type here for days on end about this topic, but I would urge anyone receptive enough to learn to go look at the studies for themselves. Not a single nutrient is unavailable to the vegan.
The list of champion athletes who chose the vegan diet is a very long one indeed. Have you heard of Carl Lewis, per chance?
Vegan bodybuilder Kenneth Williams:
http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/45/kwilliams2gc2.jpg
His website:
http://veganmusclepower.org/
Champion Iron Man, Brendon Brazier:
http://www.brendanbrazier.com/images/sidepic_bio.png
His website:
http://www.brendanbrazier.com/
Take a look at some healthy vegan families with children raised on the vegan diet since before they were even born:
http://www.veganfamily.co.uk/
http://www.vegfamily.com/
http://www.thegardendiet.com/
In a world dominated by industries that are based on systematic exploitation of animals, it can be very hard for a neophyte to correctly embrace veganism. After all, the majority of new vegan converts become vegan purely for ethical reasons (the killing and cruelty disturbs them, as it should anybody), and these people often know very little of nutrition, just as most people know very little on the topic of nutrition. If a person ignorant on matters of nutrition suddenly gives up certain nutrient sources, then these sources must be replaced. A person lacking sound knowledge on nutrition is in danger of becoming malnourished. It is as simple as that.
The vast majority of malnutrition cases are with non-vegans, i.e. meat eaters. And I mean pro rata in comparison. Most B12 deficiencies are with meat eaters, due in part to digestive atrophy.
I am a life-long vegetarian and vegan of 14 years. By the logic of many here, should I not be dead or seriously ill? And how was it that the founder of the Vegan Society and originator of the very word ‘vegan’ lived until he was 95-years old? Not only did he live so long following 60-years as a vegan (80-years as a vegetarian), but he rejected prescription drugs on ethical grounds and maintained his interest in hill walking well into his later years.
Donald Watson:
http://www.foodsforlife.org.uk/people/Donald-Watson-Vegan/Donald-Watson-vegan-founder.jpg
As Prof. Gary Francione wrote: “We cannot justify our domination of animals except by appeal to religious superstition.”
His website:
http://animal-law.org/
An essay he wrote for New Scientist:
http://www.animal-law.org/newscientist.pdf
I wonder how many have considered the environmental consequences of meat production? How many are aware that ~90% of the worlds entire crop of soy and grain is fed to farm animals? And that it requires around 2,500 gallons of water to produce a single pound of meat from a cow? I consider that criminal waste. Just think how much land would be freed, how many starving people fed, how much water saved, and how much more efficient (not to mention healthy) food production would be if the primitive, unenlightened, and barbaric meat and milk industries were to end and all embraced a natural plant based diet. It is a no-brainer.
More alarming facts here:
http://boston.earthsave.org/realities.htm
I am going to conclude this post with a quote by the scholar Michael Tsarion. I think it very apt:
"Men are morally dead, and the stench of morally dead people, walking around performing as if they were alive, contaminates the world. Most people are graveyards. They consume dead animals making their stomachs into graveyards every day, and their blood stream into sewers. Their minds are numb with repressed content and their hearts sodden with immoral acts."
-- Michael Tsarion.
Chi Meson
May10-07, 06:58 PM
At the risk of starting another veganism debate...
Done, eh?:devil:
And Ratiocinator, a good post up until the final quote. I think you prove your point that veganism can be quite healthy, and the perjorative use of the word "hippies" by the OP was intentionally baiting. Unfortunately, your scholar Tsarion dips into the same language style that you (correctly, I think) criticise. And the 2500 gallons of water per pound of meat is about as correct as Eskimos "200 words for snow"; everytime someone quotes this fact, the number seems to multiply.
Yet it does not follow that since some vegans are healthy and live long lives, therefore eating meat is bad. Brendan Brazier is a fine triathlete; so is Mark Allen, who switched from vegitarianism to omnivorism and then became the greatest triathlete ever.
Fast food restaurants didn't exist then. Neither did sodas, and neither did a lot of our processed foods that we eat everyday.
And what do these things have to do with not eating meat?
Your talking about an organic diet. Whats that have to do with not eating meat?
After all, the majority of new vegan converts become vegan purely for ethical reasons (the killing and cruelty disturbs them, as it should anybody), and these people often know very little of nutrition, just as most people know very little on the topic of nutrition.
There is nothing unethical about killing animals for food.
and barbaric meat and milk industries were to end and all embraced a natural plant based diet. It is a no-brainer.
They are not "barbaric
I am a life-long vegetarian and vegan of 14 years.
I already made my thoughts on your choice of life clear. Sorry if you find it offensive, but its what I think.
Chi Meson
May10-07, 07:32 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Evolution is sloooooooooowww.
Just because we've been doing something for billions of years doesn't mean it's healthy for us. A billion years ago the average human lifespan was... what? 35 tops? Wouldn't be surprised if it was 25.
Ok, how many people are OVER 35 on this forum? And how many of those people live like we did a billion years ago? I'll bet the answers to those questions are, respectively; a lot, and none.
I thought you guys were scientists. Isn't it part of your religion to change your opinion when you see new evidence, and NOT just doing what we've done for billions of years? Your inherently progressive. Get with it!
As a scientist, I feel it is my duty to tell you that only one quarter of a billion years has passed since the end of the Jurassic era. Evolution is slow, but not that slow. Modern man is about 40,000 years old, and yes, for about 39,500 years the average life span was around 30-40 years. Today, it's what, 72?
My great-grandad, a meat and potatoes kind of guy died of diabetes complications at the age of 92. My grandad, meat-potatoesand liquor and a smoker, kicked at 88. My brother, however, died at 24, of cancer (he liked recreational drugs). There is no point to this other than to say that health has many facets. Furthermore, even though there does exist excess cruelty (for profit) in some methods of raising livestock, an omnivorous lifestyle itself is not inherently moraly wrong.
Ratiocinator
May10-07, 07:48 PM
There is nothing unethical about killing animals for food.
That depends on the moral system in question. A psychopath’s ethical code would allow such killing without question.
You did not specify the circumstances. In the Western World, where I am located and I expect most here are, unless we are lost at sea, lost in the mountains, or in some other sort of 'survival' situation, then there is no justification for killing anything for food (anything sentient and with a central nervous system, that is). And even in a survival situation, would it not be the kindest act, an act of utmost altruism and selflessness to just fade away instead of causing great pain and death to others, and most likely many others?
My code of ethics is very straightforward. Simply put it is to cause least harm.
They are not "barbaric
They are very barbaric. In fact I doubt very much that they could be any more barbaric than they are now (any more barbarity and production could be threatened).
Perhaps you wrote that because you know very little about what actually goes on in animal agriculture? Or maybe you are guilty of indifference toward our fellow earthlings and you have commodified them, in which case it would be hard to consider anything done to a truck full of limestone as barbaric.
JasonRox
May10-07, 07:59 PM
And what do these things have to do with not eating meat?
Your talking about an organic diet. Whats that have to do with not eating meat?
Did you read the last quote? No, you did not.
Can you back up your claim? I'm still waiting.
There is nothing unethical about killing animals for food. /QUOTE]
That depends on the moral system in question. A psychopath’s ethical code would allow such killing without question.
You did not specify the circumstances. In the Western World, where I am located and I expect most here are, unless we are lost at sea, lost in the mountains, or in some other sort of 'survival' situation, then there is no justification for killing anything for food (anything sentient and with a central nervous system, that is). And even in a survival situation, would it not be the kindest act, an act of utmost altruism and selflessness to just fade away instead of causing great pain and death to others, and most likely many others?
My code of ethics is very straightforward. Simply put it is to cause least harm.
I find your code of ethics highly questionable. There is nothing wrong with killing animals for consumption. Absolutely nothing.
Perhaps you wrote that because you know very little about what actually goes on in animal agriculture? Or maybe you are guilty of indifference toward our fellow earthlings and you have commodified them, in which case it would be hard to consider anything done to a truck full of limestone as barbaric.
They should be killed as humanely as possible, but killed none-the-less.
Chi Meson
May10-07, 08:11 PM
Moonbear,
have you noticed that people ignore sensible arguments from the center?
Ratiocinator
May10-07, 08:30 PM
and the perjorative use of the word "hippies" by the OP was intentionally baiting. Unfortunately, your scholar Tsarion dips into the same language style that you (correctly, I think) criticise. And the 2500 gallons of water per pound of meat is about as correct as Eskimos "200 words for snow"; everytime someone quotes this fact, the number seems to multiply.
Yet it does not follow that since some vegans are healthy and live long lives, therefore eating meat is bad. Brendan Brazier is a fine triathlete; so is Mark Allen, who switched from vegitarianism to omnivorism and then became the greatest triathlete ever.
That Tsarion quote is somewhat esoteric and needs to be taken in context. I extracted it from his blog, which he unfortunately has since discontinued and replaced with a forum, so I am unable to link to what he wrote in its entirety. I disagree that it is on a par with the thread title.
Michael Tsarion is a researcher of history, politics, our origins, and religions. He has a wealth of free material on his website, including many videos and radio interviews with him.
Website of Michael Tsarion:
http://www.michaeltsarion.com/
The figure of 2,500 gallons used to produce a pound of meat originally came from the New York Times (14 November, 1974), as referenced at the bottom of this link:
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/health/Earth/Earth.htm
I guess the amount of water used depends on the location (more used in California than in Scotland, for example) and the species of animal being farmed. So it is not surprising that the figures vary.
According to the National Agriculture Land Study 1980/US Department of Agriculture Misc.
Publications no 1065 Nov. 1979, half of all drinking water in the USA is used in animal agriculture.
The fact that some vegan people lived long, had active lives, and./or were champion athletes, does not alone indicate that it is the optimum diet. What it does do, however, is provide empiric proof that such things, longevity, athletic success, is feasible on the vegan diet. People are often different, in how they respond to diet and other things. Some people can live to be 115-years old smoking cigars and drinking whisky everyday, not to mention the lousy diet they ate, while others end up in the hospital or dead following exactly the same lifestyle but after less than a third of the time! Perhaps that 115-year old would have made it to 150 with a healthier lifestyle, or had greater health and vitality in his later years? Maybe he would have died quickly rather than slowly with much pain and discomfort?
What is clear is that the majority of people are vulnerable to the ill effects of carcinogens, saturated animal fats, cholesterol, and other miscellaneous chemicals (including the concentrated pesticides and herbicides that the animals ate, and the very many medications the farmer gave them just to keep them alive on the factory farm), all of which are found in animal derived ‘foods’. The vast majority of nutritionists and dieticians agree that animal products are bad for health and the optimum diet is to be found through eating only plant based foods.
The science and evidence certainly, and very strongly, maintains that the healthiest diet for humans to adopt is the 100% plant based diet. Not only plant based, but raw plant based (majority of foods raw, at least).
Mallignamius
May10-07, 08:31 PM
I find your code of ethics highly questionable. There is nothing wrong with killing animals for consumption. Absolutely nothing.
They should be killed as humanely as possible, but killed none-the-less.
Should be killed? Why?
Office_Shredder
May10-07, 08:34 PM
Chi Meson, it's because neither side likes arguments from the center.
When people pick sides in a debate like this, they have no intention of actually gaining knowledge, or giving meaningful debate. Rather, it's simply a competition to see who can come up with the wittiest comebacks and the most extensive list of websites off google that will support them. When somebody actually produces a logical argument that draws from the best of both worlds, it feels like that person is attacking everyone at once
Ratiocinator
May10-07, 08:50 PM
I find your code of ethics highly questionable. There is nothing wrong with killing animals for consumption. Absolutely nothing.
How can you be taken seriously in this discussion when you make comments such as the one above?
They should be killed as humanely as possible, but killed none-the-less.
There is no such thing as 'humane killing' (euthanasia, etc., arguments aside). What you wrote is an antilogy.
Would it be OK for me to kill you, your family or friends, so long as I did it 'humanely'? I doubt it.
Again, I suggest you look into what actually happens in animal agriculture, including the factory farms and slaughterhouses, because you appear very ignorant on the matter.
Start with this pdf book, which the author has made freely available online:
http://cyrusfirst.com/guests/mcbooks/large_illustration/Vegan.CVR.jpg
Download link:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=36E71JQM
Factory farming:
http://www.factoryfarming.com/
Meet Your Meat (video 13 minutes):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-513747926833909134&q=meet+your+meat
Earthlings (documentary video, 1 hour 38 minutes):
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967&q=earthlings
Diet for a New America (TV documentary based on the book, 59-minutes)
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6799801929001936259&q=diet+for+a+new+america
mathwonk
May10-07, 08:55 PM
i guess this section of PF is to blow off the enormous steam people build up over the semester.
russ_watters
May10-07, 08:57 PM
Okie dokie, that's enough of that. I created this monster and I'm going to kill it....
...and then I'm going to eat it, probably with some barbecue sauce, or perhaps just some grilled vegetables.....hmmm, do I have any garlic...? i love garlic...
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.