> > On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>> athletes.
> >>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >> feel they need to put them together?
> > The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >> Any why is the list of *real*
> >> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >> rarely are people of substance.
> > You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> What an interesting opinion you have there.
It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans" are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially, prominent medical doctors.
"veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.
> > On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> > What an interesting opinion you have there.
> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> > What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> prominent medical doctors.
> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> > On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> > What an interesting opinion you have there.
> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet. Quite obviously.
> >>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> > What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> have done nothing of substance.
You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
> Also, my observation that these lists
> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> prominent medical doctors.
To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
mathematician.
> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.
> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>> prominent medical doctors.
>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> > >>>>>>>> the usenet.
> > >>>>>>>> --Tedward
> > >>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> > >>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> > >>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> > >>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> > >>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> > >>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> > >>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> > >>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> > >>>>>> athletes.
> > >>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> > >>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> > >>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> > >>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> > >>>> feel they need to put them together?
> > >>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > >>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> > >> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> > >> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> > >> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> > > What an interesting opinion you have there.
> > It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> > are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> > are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> > position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> > >>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> > >>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> > >>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> > >>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> > >>>> rarely are people of substance.
> > >>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> > >> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> > > What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> > My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> > have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> > of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> > obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> > a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> > prominent medical doctors.
> > "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>> have done nothing of substance.
> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
>> Also, my observation that these lists
>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>> prominent medical doctors.
> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> mathematician.
Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
Mathematics is substantive, while "veganism" is nothing but style, so one would expect little overlap.
> > On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> > As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> > is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> No, it's not.
Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
you think you have for disagreeing.
> >>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >> have done nothing of substance.
> > You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
You might claim that you have examined their achievements and found
that they have done nothing of substance. But that's definitely not
true in the case of Peter Singer, as it happens, and no serious person
would really make that claim. Not really true in the case of Tom
Regan, either.
> >> Also, my observation that these lists
> >> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >> prominent medical doctors.
> > To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > mathematician.
> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
You have absolutely no foundation for that claim. That would require
empirical investigation to back it up, and you haven't done any. You
have absolutely know way of knowing whether it's true or not, you are
just talking through your hat, as is quite common for you.
> Mathematics is substantive, while "veganism" is nothing but style, so
> one would expect little overlap.
> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>>> prominent medical doctors.
>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
>>> - Show quoted text -
>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> > On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> >>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >>> prominent medical doctors.
> >>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
> >>> - Show quoted text -
> >> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
> >> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>> No, it's not.
> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> you think you have for disagreeing.
What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive, desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.
>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>>>> have done nothing of substance.
>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.
>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>>>> prominent medical doctors.
>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>> mathematician.
>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.
> On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>>>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
>>>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
>>>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
>>> That's an absurd statement.
>> It isn't. It's exactly right.
> It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.
No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and observation.
> > On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >>>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> >>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >>>>> prominent medical doctors.
> >>>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
> >>>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> >>> That's an absurd statement.
> >> It isn't. It's exactly right.
> > It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.
> No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and
> observation.
> > On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> >>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >> No, it's not.
> > Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> > you think you have for disagreeing.
> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.
Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
me that you are correct?
> >>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >>>> have done nothing of substance.
> >>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
> >> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> >> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
> > It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.
You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.
Particularly in the case of Peter Singer. No serious person could
claim that Peter Singer's career has been "insubstantial", regardless
of whether or not they agree with the various things he has to say.
That's just absurd.
> >>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> >>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >>>> prominent medical doctors.
> >>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >>> mathematician.
> >> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> >> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
> > You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.
> >>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> > What an interesting opinion you have there.
> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> > What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> prominent medical doctors.
> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
<
<yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
<piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
You means those Goths don't really believe in vampires?!
> On Oct 15, 6:44 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>>>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>>>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>>>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>>>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>>>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>>>>>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
>>>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>>>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>>>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>>>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
>>>>>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
>>>>>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
>>>>> That's an absurd statement.
>>>> It isn't. It's exactly right.
>>> It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.
>> No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and
>> observation.
> On Oct 15, 6:43 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
>>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>> No, it's not.
>>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
>>> you think you have for disagreeing.
>> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
>> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.
> Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> me that you are correct?
The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets and other pop culture buffoons.
>>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>>>>>> have done nothing of substance.
>>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
>>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
>>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
>>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
>> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.
> You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.
I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar" and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.
>>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
>>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>> mathematician.
>>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
>>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
>>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.
>> Of course I have.
> And what would that be?
The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous 'vegans'".
> > On Oct 15, 6:44 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/15/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >>>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >>>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >>>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >>>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >>>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >>>>>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> >>>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >>>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >>>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >>>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
> >>>>>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
> >>>>>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> >>>>> That's an absurd statement.
> >>>> It isn't. It's exactly right.
> >>> It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.
> >> No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and
> >> observation.
> > That's very amusing.
> Not really; your reply was very pointless.
Well, it was definitely amusing to me, and my reply was no more
pointless than your reply, or any other part of this conversation.
> > On Oct 15, 6:43 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> >>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>> No, it's not.
> >>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> >>> you think you have for disagreeing.
> >> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> >> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.
> > Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> > me that you are correct?
> The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous
> 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets
> and other pop culture buffoons.
> >>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >>>>>> have done nothing of substance.
> >>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
> >>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> >>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
> >>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
> >> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.
> > You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.
> I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar"
> and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.
You have no particular grounds for that statement, and in any case
there's much more to Peter Singer's career than that.
> >>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> >>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
> >>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> >>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> >>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> >>>>> mathematician.
> >>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> >>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
> >>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.
> >> Of course I have.
> > And what would that be?
> The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous
> 'vegans'".
That's not an especially strong ground for the claim you made.
Accomplished mathematicians are a small percentage of the population.
If they were represented among vegans to a similar extent to the
extent to which they are represented in the entire population, the
number of accomplished mathematicians who are vegan would not be
especially large and there would be no particular reason to think that
one of them would have become famous outside academia. I know of three
vegan mathematicians including myself.
> On Oct 15, 8:23 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/15/2012 9:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 6:44 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
>>>>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
>>>>>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
>>>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
>>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
>>>>>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
>>>>>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
>>>>>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
>>>>>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
>>>>>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
>>>>>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
>>>>>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
>>>>>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>>>>>>>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
>>>>>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
>>>>>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
>>>>>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
>>>>>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
>>>>>>>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
>>>>>>>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
>>>>>>> That's an absurd statement.
>>>>>> It isn't. It's exactly right.
>>>>> It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.
>>>> No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and
>>>> observation.
> On Oct 15, 8:26 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > On 10/15/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > On Oct 15, 6:43 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >> On 10/15/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>> On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> > >>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> > >>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> > >>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> > >>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> > >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > >>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> > >>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> > >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> > >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> > >>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> > >>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> > >>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> > >>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> > >>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> > >>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> > >>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> > >>>> No, it's not.
> > >>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> > >>> you think you have for disagreeing.
> > >> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> > >> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.
> > > Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> > > me that you are correct?
> > The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous
> > 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets
> > and other pop culture buffoons.
> Don't see any obvious connection, myself.
> > >>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> > >>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> > >>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> > >>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> > >>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> > >>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> > >>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> > >>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> > >>>>>> have done nothing of substance.
> > >>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
> > >>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> > >>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
> > >>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
> > >> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.
> > > You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.
> > I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar"
> > and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.
> You have no particular grounds for that statement, and in any case
> there's much more to Peter Singer's career than that.
> > >>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> > >>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> > >>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> > >>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> > >>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
> > >>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > >>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > >>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > >>>>> mathematician.
> > >>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> > >>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
> > >>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.
> > >> Of course I have.
> > > And what would that be?
> > The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous
> > 'vegans'".
> That's not an especially strong ground for the claim you made.
> Accomplished mathematicians are a small percentage of the population.
> If they were represented among vegans to a similar extent to the
> extent to which they are represented in the entire population, the
> number of accomplished mathematicians who are vegan would not be
> especially large and there would be no particular reason to think that
> one of them would have become famous outside academia. I know of three
> vegan mathematicians including myself.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
there's been a lot of talk about how the popular television series
Walking Dead is not realistic in its treatment of zombies. This
leads to a key zombie-vegan question. There's been conversations
about cradle-to-grave vegans. If a cradle-to-grave vegan is turned
into a zombie via an unfortunate chain of events,is it more realistic
to think the zombie-vegan would have a taste for meat, or that they'd
retain thier taste for vegan food.
> > On Oct 15, 8:23 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 9:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Oct 15, 6:44 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/15/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 15, 6:40 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/15/2012 9:15 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 6:11 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 12:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> >>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> >>>>>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> >>>>>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> >>>>>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> >>>>>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> >>>>>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> >>>>>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> >>>>>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> >>>>>>>>> have done nothing of substance. Also, my observation that these lists
> >>>>>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> >>>>>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> >>>>>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> >>>>>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
> >>>>>>>>> "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition. It's style, not substance.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>>>>> yes, veganism is a style accesorry to most people, like a nose
> >>>>>>>> piercing or dying hair pink, or wearing a certain brand of clothing.
> >>>>>>> That's an absurd statement.
> >>>>>> It isn't. It's exactly right.
> >>>>> It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.
> >>>> No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and
> >>>> observation.
> >>> That's very amusing.
> >> Not really; your reply was very pointless.
> > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> Because you're off your meds again.
Do you seriously believe that, or are you just saying it because you
get gratification from saying it?
> On Oct 15, 2:50 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 15, 8:26 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > On 10/15/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > > On Oct 15, 6:43 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >> On 10/15/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > >>> On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the usenet.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Tedward
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> class vegan athletes if you wished to. Google is your friend.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! It would be very easy for *you* simply to list the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> names of 50-100 of them, if there really were "quite a few" such who are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> *currently* "world-class" athletes who are also "vegan". I *did*
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to Google such a list, and as I already posted, a) most of them
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> are not "vegan" but rather some degree of vegetarian, and b) most of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> them weren't even vegetarian during their years as active "world-class"
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> athletes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Scott (six-time winner
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> holder for the 24-hour triathlon),
> > > >>>>>>>>>> These lists are just stupid. Why are "vegans" so fucking insecure they
> > > >>>>>>>>>> feel they need to put them together?
> > > >>>>>>>>> The point of the list is to demonstrate that it is perfectly possible
> > > >>>>>>>>> to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> > > >>>>>>>> No, that's *not* the point of the list, and you fucking well know it.
> > > >>>>>>>> The point of the list is to try to attach some of the prestige of
> > > >>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes to "veganism".
> > > >>>>>>> What an interesting opinion you have there.
> > > >>>>>> It's a statement of fact. That's what *all* those lists are. "vegans"
> > > >>>>>> are very acutely aware of their lunatic-fringe status, and these lists
> > > >>>>>> are a desperate, plaintive effort to try to attach prestige to their
> > > >>>>>> position. It's a form of appeal to authority - a logical fallacy.
> > > >>>>> As I correctly pointed out, the purpose of the list is to show that it
> > > >>>>> is possible to get peak nutrition on a vegan diet.
> > > >>>> No, it's not.
> > > >>> Seems like the obvious truth to me; I don't really know what grounds
> > > >>> you think you have for disagreeing.
> > > >> What's obvious - excruciatingly so - is that it is a plaintive,
> > > >> desperate attempt at attaching prestige to the goofy "lifestyle" choice.
> > > > Well, you seem to find it obvious. How would you go about convincing
> > > > me that you are correct?
> > > The very clear and obvious connection to all the other lists of "famous
> > > 'vegans'" that are disproportionately populated by Hollywood starlets
> > > and other pop culture buffoons.
> > Don't see any obvious connection, myself.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Any why is the list of *real*
> > > >>>>>>>>>> "world-class" athletes who are "vegan" so short, while the list of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> fucking fuckwitted showbiz celebrity "vegans" so long?
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it: "vegans" very
> > > >>>>>>>>>> rarely are people of substance.
> > > >>>>>>>>> You have no particular rational grounds for saying that.
> > > >>>>>>>> I have every rational grounds for saying it. It's a fact.
> > > >>>>>>> What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?
> > > >>>>>> My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
> > > >>>>>> have done nothing of substance.
> > > >>>>> You include Peter Singer and Tom Regan in that category?
> > > >>>> By *all* means. Those two sophists by *definition* have done nothing of
> > > >>>> substance. Sophistry is the epitome of elevating style over substance.
> > > >>> It is not true that by definition they have done nothing of substance.
> > > >> Their careers have been dedicated to sophistry. That's insubstantial.
> > > > You've made no serious study of their work so you wouldn't know.
> > > I know that they are most renowned for their efforts in support of "ar"
> > > and/or "al". Those are, of course, pure sophistry.
> > You have no particular grounds for that statement, and in any case
> > there's much more to Peter Singer's career than that.
> > > >>>>>> Also, my observation that these lists
> > > >>>>>> of "famous 'vegans'" *ALWAYS* are disproportionately populated by
> > > >>>>>> obviously flaky people in show business and pop culture, while there is
> > > >>>>>> a huge and glaring lack of engineers, scientists and, especially,
> > > >>>>>> prominent medical doctors.
> > > >>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
> > > >>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
> > > >>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
> > > >>>>> mathematician.
> > > >>>> Accomplished mathematicians are a considerably smaller percentage of all
> > > >>>> "vegans" than their percentage in the general population.
> > > >>> You have absolutely no foundation for that claim.
> > > >> Of course I have.
> > > > And what would that be?
> > > The fact that not one has ever been identified on a list of "famous
> > > 'vegans'".
> > That's not an especially strong ground for the claim you made.
> > Accomplished mathematicians are a small percentage of the population.
> > If they were represented among vegans to a similar extent to the
> > extent to which they are represented in the entire population, the
> > number of accomplished mathematicians who are vegan would not be
> > especially large and there would be no particular reason to think that
> > one of them would have become famous outside academia. I know of three
> > vegan mathematicians including myself.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> there's been a lot of talk about how the popular television series
> Walking Dead is not realistic in its treatment of zombies. This
> leads to a key zombie-vegan question. There's been conversations
> about cradle-to-grave vegans. If a cradle-to-grave vegan is turned
> into a zombie via an unfortunate chain of events,is it more realistic
> to think the zombie-vegan would have a taste for meat, or that they'd
> retain thier taste for vegan food.
I regret that based on my limited knowledge about zombies I am not in
a position to answer that question.
[George Plimpton, geo...@si.not]
[Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
: > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
: : Because you're off your meds again.
If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> :
> : Because you're off your meds again.
> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
