Parents allowed baby to become severely malnourished on vegan diet

realmoonunit wrote: »

Some tolerate it, that does not mean it is designed for us. 75% of the words population is lactose intolerant. When I gave up dairy* The benefits were massive, reduced to 0 digestive discomfort, sinus and respiratory issues disappeared. It is in no way suitable for human consumption.

Incorrect - that is your opinion. Personal anecdotes* do not make for dietary advice. The data shows that dairy products are a good source of nutrition and that moderate dairy consumption may help heart health

https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/moderate-dairy-consumption-may-help-heart-health/

In India there are some 75 million dairy farms - sometimes with just a couple of animals. Those cows and the milk they produce provide both an important source of nutrition and income to some of the poorest people there. It is telling indeed that you would chose to negate the benefits of milk as a healthy and nutritious foodstuff and instead advocate your individual personal dietary choice in the face of those facts.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Fire also interacts and reacts to external stimuli, is fire sentient?

Is fire alive or is it a chemical reaction?

How about reading the actual link?

Plants fight for territory, seek out food, evade predators and trap prey. They are as alive as any animal, and – like animals – they exhibit behaviour.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Life is a chemical reaction (or several of them), so you are not really making the distinction you think you making. I've read the link. And in it relatively simple types of chemical reactions are being interpreted as if they are sentience driven. But you can do this with almost anything:Natural crystallisation can result in two different growing crystals siphoning the same matter from the same pool while making different crystals - are they "seeking out food" and "fighting for territory"? Fire, as I said, reacts to water - as if it was "evading a predator".Soap forms micelles in water, which may trap hydrophobic substances in the centre, while locking onto hydrophilic substances on the outside. Is that "trapping prey"?Are plants more complicated than these examples? Sure, significantly even. Are they anywhere near the scale or category of animals? Not even close. Plants are alive and evolve, so they have complicated reactions to physical stimuli and volatile compounds, but to say they are sentient along the lines of animals is a kind of baseless anthropomorphism.

Is wasn't a 'distinction- it was a simple question. Viz. "Is fire alive or is it a chemical reaction"? You failed to answer that.

If you can pull a sentence like the above - then you clearly either didnt read the article or perhaps dont just understand it as demonstrated by your conclusion. Chemical reactions which occur within living organisms and driven by the power house of cellular biology clearly cannot to be equated with those involving simple inorganic matter in isolation That much is basic science 101. What the article does show is that plants and animals are both clearly sentient. However to say you personaly believe that cant be so - simply because plants are different to animals - is the best case of specism I've seen to date tbh. The article details the result of extensive reseach in this area so unless you are qualified in plant and animal biology then your opinion does not change any of that.

Well done on the walk about though ...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Not really.Life is a chemical reaction (or several), so the question you asked doesn't make sense. Like asking is a ball round or spherical. One is a subset of the other, so either/or doesn't apply.
Why not? It's all chemistry.
Besides, you equated the sentience of animals with the reactions of plants. That is despite the fundamental differences between plant and animal cells and the fundamental differences between their macro biological make up (plants have no brains or nervous system).
Says the person who answered a question with a question : .

The question posed was "Is fire alive or is it a chemical reaction"? 

Your answer to that is "Not really???

So you dont believe fire is a chemical reaction no? Didnt do science in school no? Just so we can straighten that one out ...

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-fire-made-of-607313]

But well done - you just disproved your own argument and then managed to contradict yourself in the same paragraph

You may wish to know that it is scientific reseach which has equated the sentience of plants and animals. Again read the article linked.

And fine so - if "It's all chemistry" then there must be no difference between plants and animals whatsoever.

Btw you asked 'no question' except for a rhetorical one - which you answered yourself.

:rolleyes:

10 out of 10 for dancing around the issue like a prize ballerina. But no matter..

Mark Hamill wrote: »

"Not really" was a response to the statement saying that I failed to answer your question. Your question wasn't logically coherent, so an answer wasn't possible, so I didn't really fail to give one.

The question was a very simple one viz.

"Is fire alive or is it a chemical reaction?"

So you can beat around the bush with metaphysical "logically coherent / dietetically ethical" (sic) responses all you like.

As detailed fire IS a chemical reaction

https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-fire-made-of-607313

And just one other little point ..

I did read it. You do know the difference between a news article and a peer reviewed published scientific research, right? It references very little peer reviewed material, the opening references are a presentation and a book.

Lol. You do know you need to read the whole article and not just skim the opening paragraph? It is quite clear you have not read it or chosen to ignore it. The fact is the article details the findings of numerous respected scientists regarding their work in the fields of plant biology and physiology etc and provides links to nearly a dozen relevant peer reviewed articles. Here it again in case you genuinely missed any of that.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

That you would attempt to dance around and prevaricate clearly shows that at best your comments as above - are largely waffle. I'll leave you at it.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So is life, in a literal way. So asking is a fire a chemical reaction or asking is it alive is like asking is a ball round or spherical.
This might seem pedantic, but I'm trying to get across to you that in real science, such distinctions are important. Fire is obviously not alive. But it does satisfy the superficial criteria of sentience that your article proposes plants do. (Of course, that this implies that fire can be sentient but not alive just shows the flaw in the argument in your article - clearly the criteria for sentience presented in your article are incomplete).I did read it all. I even clicked the links and read the articles. The scientific peer reviewed articles discuss the novel (to science) biological pathways that plants do things like reaction to light and sounds, or even hold their shape. The books and other non-peer reviewed articles referenced claimed that because those such biological pathways are similar in outcome to biological pathways in animals, that plants are therefore similarly sentient to animals. Can you see the leap?The reason the specific claim of sentience isn't in the peer reviewed articles is because is because it is a simplistic emotive argument which makes too many leaps and ignores too much evidence.To repeat my final point, which you ignored:Plants are alive. They have DNA and they reproduce. It is not surprising that they would react to external stimuli, particular those stimuli that can be dangerous to them, in ways analogous to us. But that is not the same thing as being aware of them. They don't have a nervous system or brain to be aware on any level.

It was a simple question which you still choose to frame as if it was dangerous. The answer is simple. It does not require caveats or analogies with 'balls' etc, which funnily enough you have provided in abundance

And no as detailed previously - I do not agree the something like fire which is purely a chemical reaction in anyway satisfies any 'superficial criteria' of sentience or that such is even suggested in the article.

As for the peer reviewed papers detailed in the article - it is clear you had not read them as this is what you claimed in your last comment

Mark Hamill wrote:

It references very little peer reviewed material

When it was pointed out that the article contained nearly a dozen different papers supporting this idea - this magially changes to

Mark Hamill wrote:

I did read it all. I even clicked the links and read the articles.

And again I see no emotive content to which you allude. Yes plants are very much alive. However in contradiction to your various claims of overt
anthropomorphisation - the article details that:

While it is useful to describe plants in anthropomorphic terms to communicate ideas, there are limits. The danger is that we end up viewing plants as inferior versions of animals, which completely misses the point.

This is perhaps is best summed up by a comment from Oliver Hamant - a plant scientist at the University of Lyon, France.

"The danger for the plant people is that if we keep comparing [plants] with animals we might miss the value of plants,"

Just because plants do not have 'nervous system or brains' analogous to ours does not mean they cannot be sentient in a way that is different to us. This is clearly evident where such sentience refers to the ability to have positive and negative experiences caused by external affectations to an organism or to sensations within that organism - then plants as with animals can clearly be defined as sentient.

To attempt to deny that one whole branch of evolution lacks the attributes of sentience (despite the wealth of reseach which details otherwise) simply because they are different is the best example of 'specism' I have encountered to date. Of note this stance which denies even the possibility of plant sentience, now seems to be used to primarily push the ideas of 'dietetical ethics' as promoted by a some.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why are you being so defensive? I framed your question as flawed, not dangerous. You were making a distinction that doesn't exist. You still are. Life is purely chemical reactions too.

Lol as we now seem to be in the realms of amatuer psychology - how does that make you feel? ? It was a simple question. There is no 'distiction' nor 'defensive'. So please stop with that rubbish..Doing so does the credability of your comments no favours whatsoever.

I explained this when I pointed out the difference in content and claims between the few peer reviewed studies linked in your article and the non peer reviewed material linked (books, presentations, opinion pieces and letters). Your article references no peer reviewed articles saying plants are sentient. It is emotive to take the peer-reviewed evidence and jump to an outlandish claim like sentience. It's not surprising that you can't see your own emotive argument, even when you lay it out so clearly below:Given that plant biology is chemically fundamentally different to animal biology, their reactions cannot be presumed to be underpinned by the positive and negative notions that animals do. In other words, because they don't have the same sensory and brain-related equipment animals do, we can't assume that they experience pleasure or discomfort just because they react in some analogous way to how animals react to damaging or sustaining stimuli. More emotive-based floundering. Saying it is "simply because they are different" willfully ignores what that difference entails. You have no quality peer reviewed research that says plants are sentient. And appealing to "whole branch of evolution" implies that you are equating being alive with sentience.
Science is objective and it is not objective to assume a subjective desire behind a biological reaction.

The peer reviewed reseach of nearly a dozen different articles (which you initially and mostly denied existed / describe as 'few' etc) is provided to show how current research strongly supports the case for plant sentience. Dont agree with that? Well that's tough.

You explained nothing - just gave your opinion which is clearly flawed. And yet again ever more waffle in an attempt to hide the 'floundering'. You so strenuously deny that any other lifeforms can possibly exhibit sentience but cannot do so without using false comparisons - your argument does not have a leg to stand upon and is clearly biased. As for 'emotive' arguments I see just one - that you yourself introduced by way of 'dietetical ethics' - something that is so completely outside the realms of scientific thought to be ringing the bell at the top of bell tower.

Again arguing that plants and animals are different does not mean that plants do not exhibit sentience. And that is the crux of the matter and what you fundamentally fail to understand. Indeed Science is objective something you clearly missed in a refusal to acknowledge the basics of that discipline - that fire is a chemical reaction and cannot be equated with life or indeed any form of sentience whatsoever.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I said you were wrong (and explained why I think you are), pretending that I framed your comments as "dangerous" does your comments no favours.
Again, no need to make this so personal and defensive, I'm not. Again, this just shows that you do not understand the difference between peer reviewed scientific papers and non-peer reviewed books and opinion pieces.
The peer reviewed articles do give evidence that plants react to light, specific sounds and even themselves (they release chemicals that trigger reactions in neighbours). I never contradicted that. The bbc article, based on the presentations, books, opinion pieces and letters linked therein, makes claims that these reactions imply sentience. These claims, however, I dispute because they are not peer reviewed. I have explained my position, given arguments to support everything I said. I did not merely deny any point you made, I contradicted them with counter arguments, evidence and logic. I have questioned the implications of your claims with applications of your "logic" which invariably arrive at disagreeable outcomes to show how your "logic" is unreasonable.
All the while you just reassert your claim and dismiss everything I say without logical justification or explanation. Who is doing the emotive arguing?You keep circling this without actually explaining your position, so lets try and get a direct answer to a simple question: Do you agree that life is also just chemical reactions?

Firstly let's clarify that I detailed specifically "It was a simple question which you still choose to frame as if it was dangerous" and not "my comments" as you suggest. And 'dangerous' - as in too hot to handle. Which from your replies - it evidently was.

So let's just put this baby to bed. Leaving aside the introduced ad hominem of 'defensive' 'personal' which are creeping into your comments etc etc - You and I are clearly on very different tracks and we have already visited your rabbit hole of life "just being a chemical reaction".

I might have had some respect for your various counter arguments and even telling me I was personally 'wrong' lol (even where there was little or no apparent evidence and logic in what you proposed) if you had not engaged in various duplicitous argument.

What the article does very well is to bring together different strands of reseach by scientists who all variously support the case for plant sentience and even plant 'intelligence'

Bizarrely you initially suggested that the article "references very little peer reviewed material"

When it was shown that there were nearly a dozen different peer reviews papers linked to support the case of plant sentience as detailed in the article - you then chose to referred to them as a 'few'

And when that was pointed out that was incorrect - you then tried to rubbish those papers collectively by claiming that each of them didnt explicitly prove that plants were sentient.

As for the various metaphysical ramblings on life and dietary ethics etc - rather than sticking to science and admit fire is a chemical reaction - you danced around that simple question and subsequently offered a trite reply that "It's all chemistry". Wherewithal evidently there is no difference between plants and animals! As I said well done on contradicting your own argument

Look I appreciate that as a plant food advocate - you are unlikely to accept any research or position which shows that not only are plants indeed very different to us - but that they individually and even in some instances collectively exhibit sentient behaviour. If you wont accept that - theres not much more to be said tbh.

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Yawn.

Feeling tired david? Couod be a sign of a vitamin B12 deficiency.

Good guide here

gozunda wrote: »

Firstly let's clarify that I detailed specifically "It was a simple question which you still choose to frame as if it was dangerous" and not "my comments" as you suggest. And 'dangerous' - as in too hot to handle. Which from your replies - it evidently was.

Whether it was your comments or your question my point stands. Nothing about what you said is dangerous, just wrong.

gozunda wrote: »

So let's just put this baby to bed. Leaving aside the introduced ad hominem of 'defensive' 'personal' which are creeping into your comments etc etc - You and I are clearly on very different tracks and we have already visited your rabbit hole of life "just being a chemical reaction".

I might have had some respect for your various counter arguments and even telling me I was personally 'wrong' lol (even where there was little or no apparent evidence and logic in what you proposed) if you had not engaged in various duplicitous argument.

What the article does very well is to bring together different strands of reseach by scientists who all variously support the case for plant sentience and even plant 'intelligence'

Bizarrely you initially suggested that the article "references very little peer reviewed material"

When it was shown that there were nearly a dozen different peer reviews papers linked to support the case of plant sentience as detailed in the article - you then chose to referred to them as a 'few'

And when that was pointed out that was incorrect - you then tried to rubbish those papers collectively by claiming that each of them didnt explicitly prove that plants were sentient.

You spend a lot of time saying nothing at all.
All of this just brushes aside my explanations for why news articles about science =/= science, based, seemingly, on no argument except your disbelieve that I would say such a thing. You, repeatedly, repeating my own explanations back to me doesn't make them any less reasonable.

gozunda wrote: »

As for the various metaphysical ramblings on life and dietary ethics etc - rather than sticking to science and admit fire is a chemical reaction - you danced around that simple question and subsequently offered a trite reply that "It's all chemistry". Wherewithal evidently there is no difference between plants and animals! As I said well done on contradicting your own argument

Look I appreciate that as a plant food advocate - you are unlikely to accept any research or position which shows that not only are plants indeed very different to us - but that they individually and even in some instances collectively exhibit sentient behaviour. If you wont accept that - theres not much more to be said tbh.

Nothing of what I said is metaphysical, it is all simple science, which you don't seem to understand. You, for instance, don't seem to understand that by saying life and fire are both chemical reactions, that this means I am saying that fire is a chemical reaction. You are missing the rather obvious (I would have thought) point that "just" being a chemical reaction/s, doesn't necessary preclude something from also being alive.

It is also a bit rich to accuse me of close-mindedness in this case when it is you who have attached yourself to a news article which supports your ethical position on food, declaring it to be equal to peer-reviewed science whilst just ignoring criticisms of that equivalence. You still have not shown any evidence that you understand the difference between peer-reviewed and non peer-reviewed articles and why that difference doesn't matter here.

You won't even answer a simple explicitly asked question. Would you like to try to answer it this time, so that we can maybe get somewhere?:
Do you agree that life is also just chemical reactions?

gozunda wrote: »

Nope not going to engage with such daft logical fallacies. Again you've said nothing new except repeat what has been said already. As was detailed you have refused to answer a basic question without brining in metaphysical / non science dietetical ethics etc etc. Then bizarrely you throw in a (loaded) question to deflect from what was asked. Answer what was asked first in a honest manner and without caveats and we can continue this discussion like adults. Otherwise as per Tars post - bye and thanks.

Answer what? What are you talking about? I've answered all of your questions. The denial in your post is frankly astounding.
It is you who has engaged in the false equivalence (you still have yet to explain why you think non peer-reviewed article = peer-reviewed article despite multiple opportunities to do so).
It is you who has failed to add any new arguments to justify your position (just repeating my points back at me).
It is you who will not even attempt to answer a simple direct question. (It's clear that Tar was speaking to you and davidjtaylor, not you and me, so you can't just pretend to martyr yourself out of the conversation).

realmoonunit wrote: »

Exactly, I have 3 healthy vegan children at home. Doctors are always impressed with their status if they need to visit.

LOL