Killer Hippies Convicted of Murder

[Moonbear]

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]

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/

 

[Smurf]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

Sure, you can shove it

 

[JasonRox]

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.

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.

https://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]

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.Earth'save.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...w.amazon.com/dp/0907337279/?tag=pfamazon01-20

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:

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.Earth'save.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]

At the risk of starting another veganism debate...

Done, eh?

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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?

 

[Cyrus]

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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]

Moonbear,

have you noticed that people ignore sensible arguments from the center?

 

[Ratiocinator]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

i guess this section of PF is to blow off the enormous steam people build up over the semester.

 

[russ_watters]

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...