Killer Hippies Convicted of Murder

  • Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date
In summary: You don't have to go far to find Vegans who are possibly less educated, yet will make better decisions than those two did.
  • #36
Smurf said:
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:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
cyrusabdollahi said:
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?
 
  • #38
cyrusabdollahi said:
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO. If you don't 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.
 
  • #39
jimmysnyder said:
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".
 
  • #40
jimmysnyder said:
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, that's life.
 
  • #41
mbrmbrg said:
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
There are billions of women. How many such books?
 
  • #42
Chi Meson said:
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? :smile: Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
cyrusabdollahi said:
I am top of the food chain, sucks for the ones on the bottom, that's life.
No question, but what about the implications for global warming?
 
  • #44
Dear god, your right! All those stupid farting cows are warming the ozone. We should kill them all! :smile:


...farting anmials aint warming up the globe. Its the farting animals driving SUVs we got to eliminate.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
mbrmbrg said:
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.
 
  • #46
cyrusabdollahi said:
Its the farting animals driving SUVs we got to 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?
 
  • #47
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.
 
  • #48
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #49
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 a lot 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!:!)
 
Last edited:
  • #50
cyrusabdollahi said:
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.
 
  • #51
Sure you would. Thats a LOT of meat your eliminating. People are going to need to eat something to replace that meat that's 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 won't 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #52
cyrusabdollahi said:
For every 1 cow I eat, I would have to eat much more plant food to fill me up. Eating 10 salads won't fill me up, 1 steak will.
The cow ate more than 10 salads worth of grain to make that 1 steak.
 
  • #53
Does this help?
http://boston.Earth'save.org/GlobalWarming.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Aren't you young cyrus? I hope you're not stubborn already!
 
  • #55
I like eating cows, so sue me. :-p
 
  • #56
jimmysnyder said:
Does this help?
http://boston.Earth'save.org/GlobalWarming.htm

I don't understand how I am supposed to interpret that website. Cows isn't 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57
Does this help?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/article/0,28804,1602354_1603074_1603171,00.html
 
  • #58
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
jimmysnyder said:
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.
 
  • #60
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top