Or do you have a mysterious blind spot when the control-freak propaganda cranks up from people with whom you agree?

Apparently so. Thanks for setting me straight.

Would that be the same childbirth thread where all these people were getting up in arms about how some judgmental, brainwashed, pro-patriarchy women made them feel bad about their home birth so everyone who has an opinion other than “If an OB comes within 10′ of a pregnant woman he should be shot on sigh” should STFU?

Or do you have a mysterious blind spot when the control-freak propaganda cranks up from people with whom you agree?

re the book, it is interesting how much it sounds like a Christianist tract, isn’t it? Women are bad and need to control themselves; fat and illness are god/nature’s way of making you better and preparing you for suffering, which is a sign of virtue.

I had not even heard of this book until this thread. It sounds like a stupid book. But I don’t think you can compare a philosophy and lifestyle touted by a tiny minority - even if some of them are assholes - to a force like the Christian right that so dominates our political and cultural discourse that we find ourselves defending things that should be a given like sexual pleasure and contraception.

I’m really shocked that soy formula isn’t vegan (I googled it to make sure). Who do they think they’re selling it to, if not vegans?

It’s not unusual for very young babies to be allergic to cow’s milk and even cow’s milk-based formulas (these same children, when older, might tolerate cow’s milk just fine). Also, families with a strong history of food allergies will try to avoid the introduction of allergenic foods (of which dairy is a big one) until after a certain age. It has nothing to do with veganism. There aren’t enough vegans in the world for Enfamil to make a product for them.

Vegetarian and vegan propaganda aside, humans are not designed to live without meat. I could get into the whole physiology, but a doctor could explain it better. But think about our teeth for a moment-we do not have the teeth of herbivores, we have the teeth of omnivores. Your canine teeth were designed to shred meat. Unless you believe, like those crazy creationist museum people, that there were T Rexes in the garden of Eden, and they did not eat other animals-the sharp teeth were for cracking coconuts!

I am not denying the existence of such unfortunate and damaging propaganda, often from vegans who hold lots of other irrational and new-agey beliefs. The crowning irony is that not only is it factually wrong, it’s yet another form of the Naturalistic Fallacy. *sigh*

I just want to point out that it’s certainly not coming from the majority of us, and respectable information sources like Vegan Outreach do not perpetuate such nonense.

On iron deficiency, it’s flat-out not true that your choices are “pills or meat”. If you have an actual medical condition, no responsible doctor is going to tell you not to bother with iron pills because you can have steak instead. And they’ll certainly recommend foods other than ‘meat’ to boost your iron levels. (Chicken is meat. You’re better off eating raisins.)

So you are admitting that humans are different than other animals? I haven’t encountered that very often.

I’ll pretend that’s genuine surprise and not just your emotional attachment to your strawman.

I said it over twenty posts ago. Are you reading what I’m saying with an open mind that can listen? If you make me say it three times, Gary Francione will appear in my mirror tonight.

My stance is that I have a greater responsibility to my fellow humans than I do to other animals.

Fine, fine. And this would come up as an actual choice to be made, an actual weighing of responsibilities, when you actually have to choose between the life of a human and the life of a nonhuman. How often has that happened to you? Never? Once?

It is also that, because it’s quite common in nature for animals to eat other animals, it is not intrinsically morally wrong for humans — who are animals — to eat other animals. … This may not be what you believe, but it’s what I believe.

That’s nice, but you’re wrong. The Naturalistic Fallacy really is a fallacy; that’s why it’s called that. If there are reasons why it is acceptable to kill and eat animals, “might makes right” is not one of those reasons, despite your protests.

“Because it was quite common in nature, and prehistoric societies, for men to rape women, it is not intrinsically morally wrong for modern men to rape women.”

There, now do you see the fallacy in that form of argument?

Neither do terrorists who do not recognize the Bill of Rights or the Geneva Conventions. Do they not deserve habeas corpus under the state you finance with your taxes?

Terrorists are human beings and have all of the rights of other human beings.

Way to miss the point. I was demonstrating that morality is not dependant upon reciprocity (as you were previously claiming and are now disavowing), and I said so several times. Did you fail to address that because it was inconvenient, or did you really miss it?

Are you arguing that all animals have the same rights as human beings?

Ridiculous, of course. It’s nonsensical to say that animals have the right to freedom of religion, for instance.

I am saying that animals do have the most basic right: to live, unmolested and unharmed by humans who ought to know better.

Of course I do, because severely mentally handicapped humans are human beings (it’s right there in the name).

Tautology. You’ve dodged the question. Why do humans have the right to not be killed?

You keep trying to claim that human beings and other animals are morally equivalent.

I already said that “I already said I do not make that claim.” I am going to email this discussion to your fourth grade English teacher, and she is going to be very disappointed.

Pretending that because I don’t think that all animals have moral claims on us means that I’m in favor of killing the mentally handicapped is a strawman.

Of course, I’m not pretending that, because I immediately said “you’ll say ‘yes, I do have an obligation to not take the lives of mentally handicapped humans.’”

I mean, to lie about what I said, when it’s right there in front of everyone’s eyes, takes real guts. Your characteristic dishonesty is unmarred by caution or tact. I gaze upon your works in shock and wonder.

Because human beings have moral responsibilities towards one another that we do not have towards other animals. Why is this so hard to understand?

It isn’t, but you won’t explain why recognizing one’s right to one’s own life is not one of those responsibilities that humans have toward nonhumans.

You just keep saying “humans are humans!” Tautology, again. Stonewalling does not make your case. Yes, humans are humans, and A equals A. Turn right at this sign and you’re on the road to Randtopia.

So when my cat was dying in the end stages of kidney disease, unable to eat or drink, barely able to stand on his own, I should have let him die “naturally” instead of doing what we did, which was take him to the vet and have them give him a shot that would stop his heart and end his suffering?

No, but I guess this wouldn’t be any fun for you if you couldn’t keep shoving hyperbole in my mouth. Everyone, human and nonhuman, has the right to euthanasia. The cat is better off dead than slowly dying of kidney failure. I’ve done the same. There is no reason at all to suppose that the cat would rather have continued to suffer, and there is nothing wrong with trying to intuit a human’s or an animal’s best possible future and then bringing that future into realization.

Again, saying that death is preferable to ceaseless, terminal suffering is not equivalent to saying that death is an acceptable imposition upon a healthy animal. That’s why I emphasized it already: “healthy life is preferable to premature death.” Can you address this? Why do you think a healthy cat has the right to not be tortured, but not the right to not be killed?

How am I scare-mongering? You think a vegan diet is more ethical than an omnivorous one. I disagree. I think that it’s easier to get nutrients from a balanced omnivorous diet, and most of the science backs me up on that. Not that it’s impossible to have a healthy vegan diet, but that it’s more difficult to keep balanced than an omnivorous one because you are limiting your food sources.

How are you scare-mongering? You keep bringing up that dead baby, for one. The one who would have been just as dead had its parents fed it only cow’s milk instead of infant formula. And presenting this as the natural result of not being well-informed about nutrition or about being vegan instead of simply child abuse. Why should this one extreme case be used against the very idea of veganism? Especially when vegans who are not completely insane like these parents are fine with breast-feeding.

But it’s interesting that you’re claiming that I think that a vegan diet is “more ethical” than an omnivorous one. I’ve never mentioned ethics at all. In fact, I have no philosophical objections to eating meat whatsoever. I just decided for myself that it would be healthier not to.

And I find the “limiting food sources” argument specious. If anything, my food choices became broader and more varied after I stopped eating meat and dairy. And they only rarely involve any expensive fancy soy products.

If only I had said that, instead of saying that a vegan diet is comparable in cost to a healthy omnivorous diet, both of which are more expensive than a fast-food diet. Beat that strawman harder!

So, do you try to discourage people from eating a healthy omnivorous diet *because it’s expensive*? Do you gasp when you see someone reach for a head of lettuce and warn them that eating vegetables just costs too much, so they’re better off eating fast food?

No, you don’t, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. We’ve had people on this thread jabbering on about how very, very expensive being a vegan is because of all the *special products* and *pricey produce* you “have” to buy, and because you suddenly are barred from every grocery store except for Whole Paycheck. But with one exception, nobody who has issued this dire warning has actually tried to eat a vegan diet. Yet the person who said she ate a vegan diet for less than 7 dollars a day was ignored.

Really, what is it with you and vegans? Did your mother get a “Meat is Murder” pamphlet pressed into her hand while she was pregnant with you? Every time the subject comes up, you personalize it.

Vegetarian and vegan propaganda aside, humans are not designed to live without meat. I could get into the whole physiology, but a doctor could explain it better. But think about our teeth for a moment-we do not have the teeth of herbivores, we have the teeth of omnivores. Your canine teeth were designed to shred meat. Unless you believe, like those crazy creationist museum people, that there were T Rexes in the garden of Eden, and they did not eat other animals-the sharp teeth were for cracking coconuts!

I should mention-I’m vegetarian.

That’s exactly what i said right above you: “apple juice and soy milk.” There is no such thing as vegan baby formula — even soy formula has lanolin and other animal products in it. You can get vegan formula for 12 months and up but not for infants. They wanted to stay with a strict vegan diet, there is no vegan baby formula, so they fed it apple juice and soy milk instead.

Huh. They knew that but they didn’t know that babies need formula? I’m also surprised that she homebirthed but didn’t breastfed.

Hey, if I find a story about a baby who died drinking regular milk instead of formula, does that cancel this out and we can agree that some people are just stupid, not just vegans?

I’m really shocked that soy formula isn’t vegan (I googled it to make sure). Who do they think they’re selling it to, if not vegans?