Killer Hippies Convicted of Murder

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the conviction of vegan parents in Georgia for the malnutrition-related death of their infant son. Participants explore the implications of their dietary choices, the responsibilities of parenting, and the legal definitions surrounding the case. The conversation touches on themes of veganism, child-rearing practices, and societal perceptions of dietary lifestyles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express disgust at the parents' actions and the implications of their vegan lifestyle on their child's health.
  • Others question the intelligence and awareness of the parents, suggesting that being vegan does not equate to being informed or responsible.
  • There is a debate about whether the parents' dietary choices should be seen as a legitimate lifestyle or as a form of ignorance that led to tragic consequences.
  • Some participants argue that raising a child on a vegan diet requires significant effort and knowledge, while others suggest that basic parenting instincts should suffice.
  • Legal definitions of "malice murder" are discussed, with some participants noting the complexities of intent and recklessness in the context of the case.
  • Participants express concern that the actions of these parents may unfairly tarnish the reputation of the broader vegan community.
  • There are differing views on whether breastfeeding, which involves animal products, can be reconciled with a vegan lifestyle.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the case for veganism or parenting practices. Multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness of the parents' actions and the broader implications for the vegan community.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of veganism and the responsibilities of parents in dietary choices for their children. The discussion reflects a variety of personal experiences and beliefs about nutrition and ethics.

  • #61
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
cyrusabdollahi said:
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, there's no reaosn why you shouldn't 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.
 
  • #63
jimmysnyder said:
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.
 
  • #64
JasonRox said:
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.
 
  • #65
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Humans have plant eating teeth and meat eating teeth. There is no reason why a reasonably heathy diet can't include both.
 
  • #67
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #68
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you had said give up completely. -that I would not be willing to do.
 
  • #69
JasonRox said:
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?
 
  • #70
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.
 
  • #71
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #72
cyrusabdollahi said:
Oh, I'm sorry.
Think nothing of it. My issues are from your post #35

cyrusabdollahi said:
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.

cyrusabdollahi said:
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.

cyrusabdollahi said:
If you don't want to eat it for health resons, I can understand.
 
  • #73
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 there's something special about animals that we can't kill them. Thats the vegarianism/veganism I am 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:
 
  • #74
Artman said:
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!
 
  • #75
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #76
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.
 
  • #77
cyrusabdollahi said:
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 there's something special about animals that we can't kill them. Thats the vegarianism/veganism I am 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.
 
  • #78
What do you mean tolerance? I don't believe in tolerance. There are people I don't tolerate.

Tolerance is a PC bull**** myth.

No, I don't tolerate animal rights nutjobs that firebomb reserach labs that use animals to find cures to diseases.
 
  • #79
Smurf said:
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?
 
  • #80
cyrusabdollahi said:
What do you mean tolerance? I don't believe in tolerance. There are people I don't tolerate.

Tolerance is a PC bull**** myth.

No, I don't 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.
 
  • #81
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #82
I never said they were violent. I said they were stupid. Please pay attention.
 
  • #83
Smurf said:
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 don't have an argument.
 
  • #84
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #85
jimmysnyder said:
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.
 
  • #86
Ok, then let's 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 don't 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. I am sorry, those people are absolute idiots.

We have overpopulation, we can start by getting rid of these idiots.
 
  • #87
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #88
cyrusabdollahi said:
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!
 
  • #89
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.
 
  • #90
mbrmbrg said:
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.