Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Do Vegan diets for children really need to be outlawed?

Options
1…67891012»

Replies

  • siraphine
    siraphine Posts: 185 Member
    Options
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    edited October 2016
    Options
    siraphine wrote: »
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

    If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    siraphine wrote: »
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

    If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

    I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm just intrigued that "shitstorm" gets past the kitten filter... I wanted to see "kittenstorm" and then all the images that would come to mind...
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    siraphine wrote: »
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

    If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

    @janejellyroll I don't actually condone regulating groups out of spite. That was a rather inept formulation on my part arising from a rather uncomfortable situation I'm living through at work right now and I do apologize if it upset anyone. I often forget that you can't really convey tone that well over the internet and will take that as a reminder to be more careful in my formulations. It was meant as a joke and not a serious statement of my beliefs.

    My basic philosophy is and remains "live and let live". I'm actually against the over-regulation running rampant as it assumes that we, as human beings with a modicum of reasoning ability, are incapable of taking a decision ourselves and judging the consequences of such decisions and of assuming such consequences.

  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    I think that the government should protect against harm against children from neglect from their caregivers (be they parents or otherwise). I think lack of proper nutrition leading to malnutrition and health issues falls under that.

    That said I think thats already in affect. Meaning if child protective services gets word that a child is only fed hotdogs and that child is severely vitamin deficient and is having severe medical issues as a result they can step in and do something about that. If veganism causes malnutrition in a similar way then again child protective services should already be able to step in.

    If instead you personally decide that all vegan diets consitute malnourishment and therefore even calling a diet you are giving your child vegan is enough to call in CPS I don't think that is appropriate. The test should be whether or not the child is suffering from malnourishment...not what the diet happens to be or what it happens to be called.

    I'm not vegan, I'm not pro-vegan, I don't really get veganism however I still think its wrong to paint it with such a broad stroke and claim that eating vegan is akin to abuse. Malnourishment is akin to abuse and if the particular vegan diet being given is malnourishing then sure, but I don't think you can claim that ALL are malnourishing to the point where intervention is required. If you did what about all the kids who subside on nothing but ham sandwiches and Kraft instant-mac.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Just to be clear, no one was calling for laws against veganism. The discussion was prompted by (inaccurate or exaggerated) reports of a law in Italy proposed by one politician prompted by some child neglect cases. While the proposed law was motivated by this, it would not have outlawed veganism for kids, but only diets that lacked essential elements (i.e., were not supplemented or were inadequate on their face) or, of course, diets that led to malnourishment (which was already a matter for child protective services in Italy, as in the US).

    I don't think the proposal was taken seriously or had a risk of passing in Italy, but it was one of those things that got picked up by foreign media as "isn't this outrageous!"

    It was never a proposal in the US.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    siraphine wrote: »
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

    If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

    I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm just intrigued that "shitstorm" gets past the kitten filter... I wanted to see "kittenstorm" and then all the images that would come to mind...

    I have noticed that compound words that include filtered words seem to make it past the filter.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    ladyreva78 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    siraphine wrote: »
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

    If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

    @janejellyroll I don't actually condone regulating groups out of spite. That was a rather inept formulation on my part arising from a rather uncomfortable situation I'm living through at work right now and I do apologize if it upset anyone. I often forget that you can't really convey tone that well over the internet and will take that as a reminder to be more careful in my formulations. It was meant as a joke and not a serious statement of my beliefs.

    My basic philosophy is and remains "live and let live". I'm actually against the over-regulation running rampant as it assumes that we, as human beings with a modicum of reasoning ability, are incapable of taking a decision ourselves and judging the consequences of such decisions and of assuming such consequences.

    Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were joking, which is why I asked. I'm sorry you have run into vegans who made such a negative impression on you. If I was in your area, I'd buy you a cup of coffee and try to make up for it. :)
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Just to be clear, no one was calling for laws against veganism. The discussion was prompted by (inaccurate or exaggerated) reports of a law in Italy proposed by one politician prompted by some child neglect cases. While the proposed law was motivated by this, it would not have outlawed veganism for kids, but only diets that lacked essential elements (i.e., were not supplemented or were inadequate on their face) or, of course, diets that led to malnourishment (which was already a matter for child protective services in Italy, as in the US).

    I don't think the proposal was taken seriously or had a risk of passing in Italy, but it was one of those things that got picked up by foreign media as "isn't this outrageous!"

    It was never a proposal in the US.

    I did a quick search on the case in question (too lazy to translate so I'll summarize):

    A 1 year old boy in Milano was brought to a check up at the hospital by his grandparents. He was severely under nourished (weighing about as much as a 3 month old) and with calcium levels which were barely survivable. The parents were advised, but refused all help (possibly instruction, not sure on the terminology used) and took the boy home. Child services were advised and the prefect ordered the boy removed from the home and placed into state custody.

    Source article

    And yes. It wasn't taken too seriously as I've found no follow up articles on any of this. It was a bit of a 'storm in a water glass' (urg, languages interfering in thought processes... doesn't help)
  • ladyreva78
    ladyreva78 Posts: 4,080 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    ladyreva78 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    siraphine wrote: »
    Did you ask this with genuine curiosity, or are you just feeling in the mood for a shitstorm?

    If this question was directed at me, I was genuinely curious to know if vegans are the only group that she supports regulating for spite, yes. Given that this is a debate thread, I see no reason why it should cause a "shitstorm" to ask clarifying questions about someone's position.

    @janejellyroll I don't actually condone regulating groups out of spite. That was a rather inept formulation on my part arising from a rather uncomfortable situation I'm living through at work right now and I do apologize if it upset anyone. I often forget that you can't really convey tone that well over the internet and will take that as a reminder to be more careful in my formulations. It was meant as a joke and not a serious statement of my beliefs.

    My basic philosophy is and remains "live and let live". I'm actually against the over-regulation running rampant as it assumes that we, as human beings with a modicum of reasoning ability, are incapable of taking a decision ourselves and judging the consequences of such decisions and of assuming such consequences.

    Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure if you were joking, which is why I asked. I'm sorry you have run into vegans who made such a negative impression on you. If I was in your area, I'd buy you a cup of coffee and try to make up for it. :)

    I have no doubt about that and I would take you up on that in a flash! Just for the chance of having a sensible conversation with someone knowledgeable about the subject. I'm a bit fascinated by that which is other than me (not sure how else to explain it without making it sounds weirder than it already is). It opens up completely new worlds of thought that can be explored and I always find that amazing (reason why I'm working on languages number 8 and 9 right now...) and I'm left baffled by people's insistence on 'one right way'.

Categories