|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jmbran11
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Location: U.S.
|
Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You guys are really annoying! There are plenty of parents of varying philosophies, religions, mental illnesses, etc. who kill their children through neglect or worse. You shouldn't villify an entire group based on the actions of a non-representative few.
As I said when I posted three pages ago, personal beliefs should not come before the health of your children. But, the fact is, a well-planned vegan diet is still healthier for children than the average western diet, which is literally killing our children. This idea that there is no protein in vegetables is ridiculous. Compare one ounce of broccolli with one ounce of steak or cheese and tell me which is more nutritious.
I referred to studies over the long-term that prove that vegans are actually healthier throughout their lives. You don't have to accept that, or agree personally, but just stop making blanket statements that vegans are sickos or evil. I was a vegan for several years, and I was never sick, thin, or depressed. Neither were the other 40 other educated young adults who lived in our co-op house. They were people who made an informed decision regarding their health and personal morality instead of just swallowing whatever b.s. they had been fed about meat and milk being somehow necessary for health.
Vegetarians could call you all barbarians for eating once-living creatures for mere pleasure. But, we don't come on here and attack you for being backward, ignorant, selfish, and unhealthy just because you don't share our opinion (or ethics). Maybe there have been some cases of people who take veganism to the extreme, where it becomes a mental illness, but so do meat-eaters. How many people are dying from obesity, heart-disease, diabetes, and a host of other ailments directly related to a poor diet? I guarantee you that it's far more than the number of people who are dying from vegan-related deaths.
According to the WHO:
"Overweight and obesity are both serious risk factors for cancer. Diets high in fruit and vegetables may reduce the risk for various types of cancer, while high levels of preserved and/or red meat consumption are associated with increased cancer risk."
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/facts/cancer/en/
Here's some other sites about the dangers of our current diet (including the harms of dairy products) if anyone is actually interested in information:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_2_1x_Were_Killing_Ourselves.asp
http://tuberose.com/Dairy_Products.html
http://www.drfuhrman.com/faq/default.aspx
http://www.goveg.com/contamination_bacterial.asp
http://www.rense.com/general26/milk.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cosmo

Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for the feedback, if you are referring to me.
The information I share and opinions I express are designed to annoy.
If you are not referring to me, I will try harder next time.
I include the following info from one of the links you provided that confirms the most important point I have intended to make.
There are numerous sources that say soy products are contra-indicated for babies.
You make some valid points.
The problem is that you are digressing from the point. The majority of things you talk about refer to adult nutrition.
You may be right about vegans being healthy throughout their lives.
By digressing from the point and focusing on other points you are hijacking the thread.
In my case, I tried feeding my baby soy formula. It was a mistake.
It was not properly digested and caused constipation and other problems.
I would not eat a Big Mac or a Whopper if it was free. I don't eat most animal foods.
I don't want to die from preventable disease.
I think pizza is one of the most cholesterol laden, most unhealthy of foods.
I agree with some aspects of vegetarianism.
The point remains that there are vegan parents who have killed their own babies and caused serious malnutrition and disease in other kids.
The point remains that vegan food was a factor in the deaths and disease.
The point remains that no food other than vegan food was considered by the parents.
The point remains that soy products have been declared harmful for babies by various medical and scientific sources.
The image of veganism as it seen by mainstream society in general is a poor image for valid reasons.
From my experience, I confirm the same thing that others say about vegans.
It seems that too many of them are more than annoying, they are VegaNazis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are Soy Products Healthful?
Lastly, there are some legitimate health concerns from soy-based infant formulas.(4) Why should that be a surprise, since the beneficial health effects from breast milk is not even closely approximated by infant formulas. The fact that soy formulas may be worse than cow�s milk based formulas because of higher aluminum content or high isoflavone content does not criminalize the soy bean.
References
1. Erdman JW. Soy Protein and cardiovascular disease. 2000; Circulation, 102:2555. Soy Protein Shows Little Effect on �Bad� Cholesterol. American Heart Association scientific statement. January 17, 2006. Available at: http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3037031
2. Shu XO, Jin F, Wen W, et al. Soybean intake during adolescence and subsequent risk of breast cancer among Chinese Women. Ca Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 2001; 10:483-488.
3. Hsieh, C., Santell, RC, Hasleam SZ, Helferich WG. Estogenic effects of genistein on the growth of estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer cells in vitro and in vivo.
4. Setchell KD, Zimmer-Nechemias L. Exposure of infants to phyto-oestrogens from soy-based infant formula. Lancet 1997; 350(9070):23-7. Miniello VL, Moro GE, Tarantino M, Natile M, Granieri L, Armenio L. Soy based formulas and phyto-oestrogens: a safety profile. Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2003; 91(441): 93-100. Badger TM, Ronis MJ, Hakkak R, Rowlands JC, Korourian S. The Health Consequences of early soy consumption. J. Nutr. 2002; 132(3): 559S-559S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jmbran11
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Location: U.S.
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't say anything about soy or about not feeding your child breastmilk. In fact, I said brocolli is healthier than meat or cheese. So, when you find an article about the dangers of eating too many vegetables, let me know.
There are some infants, like my brother, who are unable to digest dairy products at birth. He had to drink special (non-dairy) formula, which was quite expensive. The doctor ordered it due to his allergy. It was soy-based. It didn't kill him. In fact, it saved his life. The difference was, he was under the supervision of a physician, and my parents were loving and not neglectful (i.e. they didn't starve him).
And, cosmo, I wasn't even referring to you as annoying. You posed articles about crazy people I certainly wouldn't defend. I don't condone psycho parents who put their own beliefs ahead of their childrens' welfare, be they vegans who starve their kids, Seventh Day Adventists who oppose a life-saving blood transfusion, Christian Scientists who refuse proper medical care, or zealous believers who practice gential mutilation. I'm pretty sure I said that in the previous post. And the one before that, actually.
But, let me follow your logic.
More than one child has died in bathtubs. Bathtubs are a significant source of drownings for infants. The fact remains that bathtubs have harmed numerous infants. Therefore, bathtubs must be bad. Parents should not bathe their infants. Bathing should be halted and criminalized immediately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yingwenlaoshi

Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Location: ... location, location!
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| You guys are really annoying! |
I've noticed. Dr. Fuhrman's site is really good ... was it on his site or in one of his books that he complained about the NYT not having a nutrition or health expert on staff to evaluate the results of some new study they're reporting on this week? Well, this fiasco shows how much they need one.
How are the disadvantages of soy formula relevant to a case where an infant wasn't fed soy formula? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cosmo

Joined: 09 Nov 2006
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
How are the disadvantages of soy formula relevant to a case where an infant wasn't fed soy formula? |
As relevant as a bathtub is to a case where an infant wasn't drowned, VEGANAZI.
You further exemplify veganazi with each additional post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jmbran11
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 Location: U.S.
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, yes, when defeated by logic people always resort to name-calling. Some of us grew out of it in elementary school, but other simply move to Korea and post on the internet.
Dr. Furman's site is really good. Just for the record, he doesn't necessarily advocate total veganism for everyone, just the benefits of a healthy diet that is primarily vegetable and whole grain based, with limited (or no) use of animal products. He uses it to cure diabetes and heart disease and believes that it will help to prevent breast and colon cancer. I would never insist that all parents choose a vegan diet for their children, but I do think that a properly supervised and executed vegan diet is healthier for children than the typical American diet, which is extremely detrimental to their welfare. On the flip side, veganism does take a lot of work to do it well, and most people don't have the time/energy/desire to devote to that. It's never an excuse to kill your kids.
One problem is that people are discussing two or three different cases on this thread. The one last month was a vegan couple who basically starved their baby. It's still unclear why they were using formula or why they didn't seek the help of a physician. The other case is about a family with three children who were prosecuted some time ago and tried to use their religious beliefs (which included veganism) as a defense. Then, there's just some random stories about vegans being crazy and evil, which I find unfair and unwarranted.
I have no problem with the couple involved going to jail. They starved their baby. They murdered her (intentionally or not). But I think it's a shame that it's being used to blanketly villify all vegans. That's all. I'll stay out of it now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cangel

Joined: 19 Jun 2003 Location: Jeonju, S. Korea
|
Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The parents should go to jail for stupidity alone... Baby weighted more at birth than it did 6 weeks later. Get a clue! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JongnoGuru

Joined: 25 May 2004 Location: peeing on your doorstep
|
Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
(I wish this were in a different thread, as it's not about the vegan baby-killers. But...)
| Satori wrote: |
| All of the vegans and vegetarians I've known have been pale, pasty, overly thin, and also lethargic and depressive. They also seem to be emotionally unstable and highly sensitive. |
Just one man's observation. Mind you, my own would have been quite similar were we discussing this 10 years or so ago. But not anymore. Not w/respect to vegetarians anyway. As for vegans, the only ones of those I know are a couple who used to be vegetarian, but word has it they've gone hardcore loopy vegan on all fours. Haven't seen them in years, so I don't know. It's possible they've become high-strung, pastey-faced, and thin as broom-handles in the interim.
| Quote: |
| I went vego for 6 months, and did it properly too, but lost energy and lost weight, and most of all, was less happy. I love meat, and love feeling vigorous and robust and happy, so I intend to party on in my usual way. |
Again, our experiences differ. Dramatically. Cutting out almost all meat from my diet has done for me what you say eating meat does for you: made me feel more vigorous, robust and happy. And also stronger, lighter and "cleaner". I don't dislike the taste of meat at all, though I like the feeling of not having eaten much of it a lot more.
Just guessing, but I suspect you're like me in having no particular agenda behind wanting to eat less (or no) meat. It's not because a god or a prophet told us not to, or because our furry-little-animal-loving heart told us not to, or because our doctor told us not to, or because our wallet told us not to. We're not attempting to save the planet from extinction, nor do we feel a special kinship with a chicken or a tuna. So assuming that I'm right, you might want to try simply reducing your consumption of meat down to the bare minimum and just see how that feels.
Here's how it's gone for me...
Pre-Asia: 100 (arbitrary basis level)
Hong Kong: 70
Japan: 40-50 (fish being most of that)
Korea, Phase I: 140!! (just a result of going out w/different groups of Koreans several nights a week and gorging on galbi, tweji-gogi, chicken, samgyopsal, etc.)
Korea, Phase II: 10? 8? 5?? (Not sure what the level would be. I had red meat maybe 10 times last year. I don't eat in a year the amount of meat I used to consume in an average month, this I know.)
I don't care that I eat some things that real vegetarians won't. My only operating principle here is full-on hedonism. If it didn't make me feel this much better, then I wouldn't be doing it. Conversely, if dog stew made me feel this good, I'd eat that. Well... maybe not dog stew specifically. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This was copied and pasted to another forum, and I thought I'd share it here. Finally.
| Quote: |
The Public Editor: The Danger of the One-Sided Debate
by CLARK HOYT
Quote:
THE op-ed page of The New York Times is perhaps the nation�s most important forum for airing opinions on the most contentious issues of the day � the war in Iraq, abortion, global warming and more.
�We look for opinions that are provocative,� said Andrew Rosenthal, the editor of the editorial page. �Opinions that confirm what you already thought aren�t that interesting.�
But some opinions provoke more than others. Two very different columns by guest contributors, one last week and one last month, caused enormous reader outcries and raised important questions. Are there groups or causes so odious they should be ruled off the page? If The Times publishes a controversial opinion, does it owe readers another point of view immediately? And what is the obligation of editors to make sure that op-ed writers are not playing fast and loose with the facts?
The most recent column was by Ahmed Yousef, a spokesman for Hamas, the party elected to lead the Palestinian government and a group dedicated to the destruction of Israel. He wrote Wednesday about �What Hamas Wants.�
Many readers were outraged, complaining that The Times had provided a platform for a terrorist. One, Jon Pensak of Sherborn, Mass., said that allowing Yousef space in The Times �isn�t balanced journalism, it is more the dissemination of propaganda in the spirit of advocacy journalism.�
Well, yes. The point of the op-ed page is advocacy. And, Rosenthal said, �we do not feel the obligation to provide the kind of balance you find in news coverage, because it is opinion.�
David Shipley, one of Rosenthal�s deputies and the man in charge of the op-ed page, said: �The news of the Hamas takeover of Gaza was one of the most important stories of the week. ... This was our opportunity to hear what Hamas had to say.�
I agree that Yousef�s piece should have run, even though his version of reality is at odds with the one I understand from news coverage. He wrote blandly, for example, about creating �an atmosphere of calm in which we resolve our differences� with Israel without mentioning that Hamas is officially dedicated to raising �the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine,� which would mean no more Israel.
Op-ed pages should be open especially to controversial ideas, because that�s the way a free society decides what�s right and what�s wrong for itself. Good ideas prosper in the sunshine of healthy debate, and the bad ones wither. Left hidden out of sight and unchallenged, the bad ones can grow like poisonous mushrooms.
Rosenthal and Shipley said that, over time, they try to publish a variety of voices on the most important issues. Regular op-ed readers have seen a wide range of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have a lot of other information to help judge Yousef�s statements.
This wasn�t the case, however, with a May 21 op-ed by Nina Planck, an author who writes about food and nutrition. Sensationally headlined �Death by Veganism,� Planck�s piece hit much closer to home than Yousef�s. It said in no uncertain terms that vegans � vegetarians who shun even eggs and dairy products � were endangering the health and even the lives of their children. A former vegan herself, Planck said she had concluded �a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.�
Her Exhibit A was a trial in Atlanta in which a vegan couple were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty in the death of their 6-week-old son, who was fed mainly soy milk and apple juice and weighed only 3.5 pounds. The column set off a torrent of reader e-mail that is still coming in � much of it from vegans who send photos of their healthy children or complain bitterly of being harassed by friends and relatives using Planck�s column as proof that their diet is dangerous.
If there was another side, a legitimate argument that veganism isn�t harmful, Planck didn�t tell you � not her obligation, Rosenthal and Shipley say. But unlike the Middle East, The Times has not presented another view, or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for 16 years. There has been scant news coverage in the past five years.
There is another side.
Rachelle Leesen, a clinical nutritionist at the Children�s Hospital of Philadelphia, told me that Planck�s article �was extremely inflammatory and full of misinformation.� She and her colleague Brenda Waber pointed me to a 2003 paper by the American Dietetic Association, the nation�s largest organization for food and nutrition professionals. After reviewing the current science, the A.D.A., together with the Dietitians of Canada, declared, �Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.�
Planck said she was aware of the A.D.A.�s position but regarded it as �pandering� to a politically active vegan community.
I won�t rehash the scientific dispute in a case in which Planck has her experts and the A.D.A. paper cited more than 250 studies, but I think The Times owes its readers the other side, published on the op-ed page, not just in five letters to the editor that briefly took issue with her.
I even question Planck�s Exhibit A, poor little Crown Shakur, who was so shriveled at his death that doctors could see the bones in his body. His death, she wrote, �may be largely due to ignorance. But it should prompt frank discussion about nutrition.�
Maybe, if by nutrition you mean a discussion about whether you feed a baby anything at all.
The prosecutor argued � and the jury believed � that Crown�s parents intentionally starved him to death. News coverage at the time said that the medical examiner, doctors at the hospital to which Crown�s body was taken and an expert nutritionist testified that the baby was not given enough food to survive, regardless of what the food was.
Charles Boring, the Fulton County prosecutor who handled the case, told me it was �absolutely not� about veganism. Planck and Shipley said they were aware of the prosecutor�s contention. Shipley said, �We were also aware, though, that the convicted couple continues to insist that they were trying to raise their infant on a vegan diet.�
But the jury didn�t believe them, and leaving that out put Planck�s whole column on a shaky foundation.
Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get only one side, that�s not debate. And that�s not healthy.
The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own. His column appears at least twice monthly in this section.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me it is pretty simple. We didn't evolve to be the most intelligent species on earth by eating only fruits and nuts. Everything we are now is a product of thousands of years of evolution. That evolution included a quite substantial meat and protein diet from certain foods. How the heck can it be healthy to all of a sudden stop eating those foods. Stop attributing all the unhealthy effects of a high meat diet to the meat itself..get off your lazyboy and starting hunting large mammals again (get some exercise) and you'll be fine.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
For me it is pretty simple. We didn't evolve to be the most intelligent species on earth by eating only fruits and nuts. Everything we are now is a product of thousands of years of evolution. That evolution included a quite substantial meat and protein diet from certain foods. How the heck can it be healthy to all of a sudden stop eating those foods. Stop attributing all the unhealthy effects of a high meat diet to the meat itself..get off your lazyboy and starting hunting large mammals again (get some exercise) and you'll be fine.  |
Yawn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble vs a meat eating Neanderthal in a cage match. That's what I would like to see. He might even teach you some manners while he's whooping your veggie eating as#. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble

Joined: 26 Jan 2007 Location: National treasures need homes
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 6:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
| Bramble vs a meat eating Neanderthal in a cage match. That's what I would like to see. He might even teach you some manners while he's whooping your veggie eating as#. |
Manners? You didn't thank me for the update, did you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|