|
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 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
 Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| wannago wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| wannago wrote: |
| freethought wrote: |
| a better angle/point to make is the number of obese children eating meat. Not just babies, but children of all ages. |
An even better angle/point to make is the number of obese children that eat boatloads of sugar. Not just children eating meat.
sheez, you veggies just don't quit, do you? |
But it's still mostly meat-eating parents feeding their kids boatloads of sugar, refined flour, white rice, fried s*it, etc. Isn't it? |
Is it? Or is that what you vegan friends have brainwashed you to believe? My vegetarian friends (not militant vegans like you) eat white rice, sugar, and refined flour. I guess they're just not as morally superior as you.  |
I eat plenty of crap, but I don't have kids. Most vegan parents are far better educated about nutrition than the average meat eater and know enough not to subject their kids to a steady diet of garbage. And in infancy, obviously they'd breastfeed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| freethought wrote: |
| a better angle/point to make is the number of obese children eating meat. Not just babies, but children of all ages. |
I think the point of the OP was to point out how irrelevant the 'vegan parents' headline was in another instance. |
Yes, exactly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Vegan diets are no good for babies and young kids, but I think PETA should adopt some of the tactics of Korean unions and start flinging cow dung around the meat sections of major supermarket chains ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enns
Joined: 02 May 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand how this article can be used to attack meat eaters. Where does it mention that the couple ate meat? It's confusing and some clarification is needed.
All I've ever read on this issue is that vegan diets are harmful to children. I have yet to see any non-partisan evidence to the contrary.
Here's an excerpt from an article on bbc.co.uk:
| Quote: |
There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently."
"If you're talking about feeding young children, pregnant women and lactating women, I would go as far as to say it is unethical to withhold these foods [animal source foods] during that period of life."
She was especially critical of parents who imposed a vegan lifestyle on their children, denying them milk, cheese, butter and meat.
"There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans," she told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4282257.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pak Yu Man
Joined: 02 Jun 2005
Location: The Ida galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enns wrote: |
| I don't understand how this article can be used to attack meat eaters. Where does it mention that the couple ate meat? It's confusing and some clarification is needed. |
Duh...don't you know? Only meat eaters play videogames.
Is that what Bramble is getting at? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pak Yu Man wrote: |
| enns wrote: |
| I don't understand how this article can be used to attack meat eaters. Where does it mention that the couple ate meat? It's confusing and some clarification is needed. |
Duh...don't you know? Only meat eaters play videogames.
Is that what Bramble is getting at? |
For those not in the know, try looking here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
This really should be a sticky, shouldn't it?
http://www.animalconcerns.org/external.html?www=http%3A//writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20070529.html&itemid=200705290731080.665508
http://eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article5.aspx
http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary070611.html
http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/ncbs_vegan_study_print.htm
| 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 Jul 16, 2007 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
This gets my vote for most misleading thread title ever, leading to most useless already been hashed out discussion ever, leading to least productive time ever spent reading a thread, leading to longest run on sentence ever.  
p.s possibly leading me to study up some more on punctuation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This gets my vote for most misleading thread title ever, leading to most useless already been hashed out discussion ever, leading to least productive time ever spent reading a thread, leading to longest run on sentence ever. |
The most misleading thread title ever?
Well, i wanted people to discuss this article in contrast to the earlier report of the vegan couple.
I personally wouldn't call it misleading but rather, "leading" as it, for the most part, accomplished exactly what i wanted it to.
True or not; that's of no concequence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Whoa. Just had a thought. The article doesn't say a thing about their dietary habits ... What if we find out later that the video game addicts were ALSO vegans? Wouldn't THAT be a mind-blower?
Last edited by The Bobster on Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This gets my vote for most misleading thread title ever, leading to most useless already been hashed out discussion ever, leading to least productive time ever spent reading a thread, leading to longest run on sentence ever. |
The most misleading thread title ever?
Well, i wanted people to discuss this article in contrast to the earlier report of the vegan couple.
I personally wouldn't call it misleading but rather, "leading" as it, for the most part, accomplished exactly what i wanted it to.
True or not; that's of no concequence. |
Some people just don't read carefully, do they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| khyber wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This gets my vote for most misleading thread title ever, leading to most useless already been hashed out discussion ever, leading to least productive time ever spent reading a thread, leading to longest run on sentence ever. |
The most misleading thread title ever?
Well, i wanted people to discuss this article in contrast to the earlier report of the vegan couple.
I personally wouldn't call it misleading but rather, "leading" as it, for the most part, accomplished exactly what i wanted it to.
True or not; that's of no concequence. |
Some people just don't read carefully, do they? |
Some people are unnecessarily rude, and some people (while being rude) rudely ask the mods to censor opinions of other people simply because they'd rather not hear them, and thay'd rather no one else does either. Some people DO that.
From a previous post from Bramble :
| Quote: |
�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? |
I'm sort of guessing that, according to this poster, there ARE some opinions that should be "ruled off the page," mostly because the person in question has stated it in so many words elsewhere ...
Thing is, who decides what is "odious?" Why Bramble, of course. How lucky for us all that we have such a wise person to protect us from hearing things that might cause discomfort ...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What an idiot you are. Why don't you read the links and then come back and tell us what you've learned? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HighTreason
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| This really should be a sticky, shouldn't it? |
uh... no.
Why would you even think that this discussion is worthy of a sticky?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uhm...no, this shouldn't be a sticky.
In fact, I wouldn't get yer ginch all knotted up either. |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
