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?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
BillMcKay1 wrote: »Don't most countries in the developed world already have "failure to thrive" laws in place? Why single out vegans?
It would be helpful if someone familiar with Italian law, with the cases that prompted this, and with the actual text of the law we are talking about to weigh in, but I don't think the proposed law does single out vegans.
I am not in favor of it still -- it seems to me the child welfare system should be able to handle it. But I know nothing about Italian law.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm childfree, have made my comments in this thread (some agree and others disagree... that is normal with most topics). Here's how I feel about "non-parents giving parenting advice" - I may not be a pilot, but when I see a helicopter in a tree, I know somebody screwed up.
With vegan diets, my point has been that it is fine as long as the kid is not suffering medical problems (such as malnutrition) as a result (same with any diet). Still, I see parents (who are apparently the experts) leaving their kids in hot cars, overdosing them on painkillers, and letting them play in murky water known to contain alligators. I don't have to be a parent, a meteorologist, a physician, or a wildlife biologist to know that these parents screwed up.
So are you for or against helicopter parenting kids that you aren't parenting? I can't follow.
I know it is really difficult to understand, but I'll repeat: It is fine as long as the kid is not suffering medical problems (such as malnutrition) as a result (same with any diet).
To expand on this in case it still isn't clear: Since children are considered to be vulnerable and unable to make sound decisions on their own, it is considered to be the parent / guardian's responsibility to make safe decisions for children. Sometimes, parents / guardians fail in that role. I support laws to protect children by punishing parents / guardians who fail their responsibilities.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm childfree, have made my comments in this thread (some agree and others disagree... that is normal with most topics). Here's how I feel about "non-parents giving parenting advice" - I may not be a pilot, but when I see a helicopter in a tree, I know somebody screwed up.
With vegan diets, my point has been that it is fine as long as the kid is not suffering medical problems (such as malnutrition) as a result (same with any diet). Still, I see parents (who are apparently the experts) leaving their kids in hot cars, overdosing them on painkillers, and letting them play in murky water known to contain alligators. I don't have to be a parent, a meteorologist, a physician, or a wildlife biologist to know that these parents screwed up.
So are you for or against helicopter parenting kids that you aren't parenting? I can't follow.
I know it is really difficult to understand, but I'll repeat: It is fine as long as the kid is not suffering medical problems (such as malnutrition) as a result (same with any diet).
To expand on this in case it still isn't clear: Since children are considered to be vulnerable and unable to make sound decisions on their own, it is considered to be the parent / guardian's responsibility to make safe decisions for children. Sometimes, parents / guardians fail in that role. I support laws to protect children by punishing parents / guardians who fail their responsibilities.
So they should do helicopter parenting, but only for medical issues? I'm still not clear.
Parents / guardians are fully responsible for the children in their care. Did I say "only for medical issues" somewhere?!
ETA: Since you are understanding something from my comment that I didn't say, then it is your fault for being unclear and not mine. I can do nothing to help you better understand aside from pointing out that you just made something up that wasn't in my comment and ask you to reflect on that fact before asking another question about something you make up.0 -
I am not vegan but remain very uncomfortable with the government stepping in to outlaw the way parents feed their kids EXCEPT when kids are clearly being neglected.
And it's strange that vegan diets are so vilified in this age of a rampant obesity epidemic among both adults and children. I'm not saying outlaw obesity, but it just seems hypocritical and heavy-handed.
2 -
I don't understand where you're getting at. Apparently it's gotten serious enough in Italy where they felt something needed to be done. It's not forcing parents to feed their children meat or anything at all, and it isn't helicopter parenting someone elses kids by including obvious malnutrition or emergency visits because of malnutrition as red flags that require visits by authorities.BreezeDoveal wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm childfree, have made my comments in this thread (some agree and others disagree... that is normal with most topics). Here's how I feel about "non-parents giving parenting advice" - I may not be a pilot, but when I see a helicopter in a tree, I know somebody screwed up.
With vegan diets, my point has been that it is fine as long as the kid is not suffering medical problems (such as malnutrition) as a result (same with any diet). Still, I see parents (who are apparently the experts) leaving their kids in hot cars, overdosing them on painkillers, and letting them play in murky water known to contain alligators. I don't have to be a parent, a meteorologist, a physician, or a wildlife biologist to know that these parents screwed up.
So are you for or against helicopter parenting kids that you aren't parenting? I can't follow.
I know it is really difficult to understand, but I'll repeat: It is fine as long as the kid is not suffering medical problems (such as malnutrition) as a result (same with any diet).
To expand on this in case it still isn't clear: Since children are considered to be vulnerable and unable to make sound decisions on their own, it is considered to be the parent / guardian's responsibility to make safe decisions for children. Sometimes, parents / guardians fail in that role. I support laws to protect children by punishing parents / guardians who fail their responsibilities.
So they should do helicopter parenting, but only for medical issues? I'm still not clear.
You're utterly exhausting to read.
1 -
I think BreezeDoveal is either a super troll or doesn't read anything...1
-
I don't think any diet should be outlawed. It actually seems like it would be a form of discrimination to outlaw any diet. As mentioned earlier, it would be impossible to enforce. They would need to make a food police. Ha! Good luck with that one.
There is 0% proof that a vegan diet is unhealthy to kids.1 -
I think BreezeDoveal is either a super troll or doesn't read anything...
But that guy said "helicopter" and the only possible use of the word helicopter is in reference to a parenting style. There's just no way that it was being used metaphorically for something else entirely. If he'd referenced a train off its tracks instead of a helicopter in a tree, no doubt we'd be discussing how parents railroad their children into dietary choices or some such right now.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
enterdanger wrote: »I wouldn't feed my kids 100% Vegan, but I'm against anyone telling me what I can and can't eat and how to feed my kids. Stop trying to over govern me.
The US gov't in particular is ridiculous. They think I'm too dumb to make good choices here in Philly and have a tax on sweet beverages (I say sweet since diet stuff is taxed too). However, I'm apparently smart enough to be able to go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle. How does that make sense?
No. You can't go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle unless you're doing so illegally. You can buy something that looks like an assault rifle but isn't. I hope you don't think ar15 stands for anything having to do with assault. The AR is a nod to the original manufacturer. I hope you don't listen to what ignorant people on TV say when they're spewing lies, ignorance, and misinformation...if so, the smart enough thing comes into play.2 -
enterdanger wrote: »I wouldn't feed my kids 100% Vegan, but I'm against anyone telling me what I can and can't eat and how to feed my kids. Stop trying to over govern me.
The US gov't in particular is ridiculous. They think I'm too dumb to make good choices here in Philly and have a tax on sweet beverages (I say sweet since diet stuff is taxed too). However, I'm apparently smart enough to be able to go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle. How does that make sense?
No. You can't go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle unless you're doing so illegally. You can buy something that looks like an assault rifle but isn't. I hope you don't think ar15 stands for anything having to do with assault. The AR is a nod to the original manufacturer. I hope you don't listen to what ignorant people on TV say when they're spewing lies, ignorance, and misinformation...if so, the smart enough thing comes into play.
Consider this: in casual usage, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are commonly used interchangeably. You can bring up your concerns with this casual usage without going full Fox News on the person making the statement.
Honestly, if someone is shooting at me I am not too concerned with whether or not it is a semi-automatic or a fully automatic weapon.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »I wouldn't feed my kids 100% Vegan, but I'm against anyone telling me what I can and can't eat and how to feed my kids. Stop trying to over govern me.
The US gov't in particular is ridiculous. They think I'm too dumb to make good choices here in Philly and have a tax on sweet beverages (I say sweet since diet stuff is taxed too). However, I'm apparently smart enough to be able to go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle. How does that make sense?
No. You can't go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle unless you're doing so illegally. You can buy something that looks like an assault rifle but isn't. I hope you don't think ar15 stands for anything having to do with assault. The AR is a nod to the original manufacturer. I hope you don't listen to what ignorant people on TV say when they're spewing lies, ignorance, and misinformation...if so, the smart enough thing comes into play.
Consider this: in casual usage, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are commonly used interchangeably. You can bring up your concerns with this casual usage without going full Fox News on the person making the statement.
Honestly, if someone is shooting at me I am not too concerned with whether or not it is a semi-automatic or a fully automatic weapon.
Ehhh if we want to act like educated adults we should have a clue what the terminology means. As far as the Fox News comment, not a fan of any talking head morons. I form my opinions on life experience and education. And honestly if someone is shooting at you you're not going to be too concerned whether it is a musket, an 1870s lever action, or a bazooka...but as adults we should have a clue what we're talking about so we don't sound like mindless drones.3 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »I don't think any diet should be outlawed. It actually seems like it would be a form of discrimination to outlaw any diet. As mentioned earlier, it would be impossible to enforce. They would need to make a food police. Ha! Good luck with that one.
There is 0% proof that a vegan diet is unhealthy to kids.
I think the traditional diet of Papua New Guinea should be partially illegal, it leads to kuku disease of the brain.
Stay away from the prions.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »enterdanger wrote: »I wouldn't feed my kids 100% Vegan, but I'm against anyone telling me what I can and can't eat and how to feed my kids. Stop trying to over govern me.
The US gov't in particular is ridiculous. They think I'm too dumb to make good choices here in Philly and have a tax on sweet beverages (I say sweet since diet stuff is taxed too). However, I'm apparently smart enough to be able to go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle. How does that make sense?
No. You can't go out tomorrow and buy an assault rifle unless you're doing so illegally. You can buy something that looks like an assault rifle but isn't. I hope you don't think ar15 stands for anything having to do with assault. The AR is a nod to the original manufacturer. I hope you don't listen to what ignorant people on TV say when they're spewing lies, ignorance, and misinformation...if so, the smart enough thing comes into play.
Consider this: in casual usage, "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are commonly used interchangeably. You can bring up your concerns with this casual usage without going full Fox News on the person making the statement.
Honestly, if someone is shooting at me I am not too concerned with whether or not it is a semi-automatic or a fully automatic weapon.
Ehhh if we want to act like educated adults we should have a clue what the terminology means. As far as the Fox News comment, not a fan of any talking head morons. I form my opinions on life experience and education. And honestly if someone is shooting at you you're not going to be too concerned whether it is a musket, an 1870s lever action, or a bazooka...but as adults we should have a clue what we're talking about so we don't sound like mindless drones.
As an educated adult, I understand that people commonly use "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" interchangeably and that them doing so has little to do with them being "smart enough."
You seem more interested in insulting those who don't refer to them the same way you do ("ignorant people," "mindless drones," etc). Do you think this is the most productive way to get your point across? There might have been an opportunity here to explain the difference between the two and how you disagree with the casual usage. The issue here isn't that people aren't as smart as you are.
I think there is a big difference at being shot at with certain types of weapons. Someone using a musket to shoot at me, for example, is going to have significant differences in terms of reloading speed, firing rate, and aiming from someone using a modern semi-automatic weapon. If I had to choose between the two situations, assuming I couldn't get out of being shot at, I would choose the musket for sure.
2 -
Tis true. I can't buy an assault rifle tomorrow....
I can, however, by an AR-15 tomorrow and convert it to auto in what? 20 minutes? Or I can buy all the parts for an AK tomorrow and put it together...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OceanicMelody73 wrote: »Do omnivorous diets need to be banned for children? Is it right to enforce your beliefs on your children? Deciding where they live, what they wear, what toys they can own, what religion they practice, who they can be around and when, where they go? Sounds like part of parenting to make the decisions you decide are best for your child and your family. Go ahead and make it illegal to give kids too much fruit, just make sure it's illegal to give them fast food as well.
Thread has been on for a few days so I was still reading through and was wondering why nobody had said this!
You know? How dare you impose on your children to be omnivorous? I am sure lots of vegan decided for themselves instead of growing up that way - so their parents imposed on them a way of eating that they wouldn't have chosen for themselves. That's Parenting!0 -
OceanicMelody73 wrote: »Do omnivorous diets need to be banned for children? Is it right to enforce your beliefs on your children? Deciding where they live, what they wear, what toys they can own, what religion they practice, who they can be around and when, where they go? Sounds like part of parenting to make the decisions you decide are best for your child and your family. Go ahead and make it illegal to give kids too much fruit, just make sure it's illegal to give them fast food as well.
Thread has been on for a few days so I was still reading through and was wondering why nobody had said this!
You know? How dare you impose on your children to be omnivorous? I am sure lots of vegan decided for themselves instead of growing up that way - so their parents imposed on them a way of eating that they wouldn't have chosen for themselves. That's Parenting!
I don't know why people keep responding as if someone here were arguing for outlawing vegan diets. I don't even think the proposed Italian law actually does that* (which apparently no one in Italy -- other than the rightwing politician who proposed it, I guess -- is taking all that seriously).
*Can't find the text of the proposed law translated anywhere.0 -
I don't think any diet should be outlawed. It actually seems like it would be a form of discrimination to outlaw any diet. As mentioned earlier, it would be impossible to enforce. They would need to make a food police. Ha! Good luck with that one.
There is 0% proof that a vegan diet is unhealthy to kids.
This whole bunch of shenanigans is only because there was a rash of vegan parents who were not feeding their children enough to provide adequate nutrition.
Veganism is a great eating style IF you know how to get all your nutrients from it, which some people are not educated enough and so suffer for it.0 -
Vegetarian is ok. Vegan is not ok for health reasons0
-
12Sarah2015 wrote: »Vegetarian is ok. Vegan is not ok for health reasons
How come?0 -
12Sarah2015 wrote: »Vegetarian is ok. Vegan is not ok for health reasons
How come?
This. Also, what do you mean by "not okay"?0 -
12Sarah2015 wrote: »Vegetarian is ok. Vegan is not ok for health reasons
Hi -- just so you know, major medical and nutritional organizations have been clear that vegan diets are appropriate for people at all stages of life, including children. Veganism is perfectly okay.2 -
-
Although I think its likely true that a vegan diet is not optimal for health I am uncomfortable with the precedent that would be set for government intervention on the basis of childrens diets. Flat out malnutrition to the point of disease or accute health harm sure, but I'm pretty sure child-protective services already has that right. Its not appropriate to try to label a type of diet and then just assume that diet is in and of itself malnourishment.
There is a difference between not providing a child nourishment and not selecting dietary choices that society deems best at this particular point in time. One I think should be a reason to intervene and the other not.1 -
NewGemini130 wrote: »
Its a bit extreme and a fine choice for adults (who have a choice) but I am made somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of it being the only option given to a child. That said I agree with others its not the goverments place to intervene there.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions