Re: Vegetarian Breakfast Sausage (meatless sausage)

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

> > > > > > >> Check this out Its great
> > > > > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> > > > > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> > > > > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> > > > > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>
> > > > > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>
> > > > > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>
> > > > > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
> > > > > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
> > > > > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
> > > > > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
> > > > > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
> > > > > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
> > > > > significant health benefits.
>
> > > > > -----
>
> > > > > I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
> > > > > correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
> > > > > me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
> > > > > and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.
>
> > > > > --Tedward
>
> > > > You're an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > <
> > > <I'd like to see the type of person that's a cradle to grave vegan.
>
> > > The kid would break his hip taking the first step...
>
> > > --Tedward
>
> > Two friends of mine have been bringing up their children as vegan
> > since birth (with the possible exception of breast milk, I am not
> > sure). The children are perfectly well. One of them is about seven
> > years old, I think.
>
> > -----
>
> > "exception of breast milk" indeed. A is A. Not A is not A.
>
> > You got two imaginary friends and Mr. Cho provided an actual picture.
>
> > --Tedward
>
> They are not imaginary friends. The fact that I don't have photos of
> them to hand is irrelevant; photos would prove nothing. An image of an
> anorexic person has no bearing on the issue.
>
> Your opinions are ignorant prejudices; you don't have any idea of what
> you're talking about. If you did you would provide some real evidence.
>
> -----
>
> Now you're resorting to Ad Hominid attacks, a sure sign you've lost
> the argument.
>

It's not an ad hominem argument. I am not basing my counter-argument
on the assertion that your opinions are ignorant prejudices, I have
given you plenty of good evidence to support my claims. The assertion
that your opinions are ignorant prejudices is just a factual
observation which I choose to put in there as well. It is quite
obviously true because you have shown yourself to be incapable of
producing any evidence to support your ill-founded beliefs.

If you insist on remaining ignorant then it's no skin off my nose; I
really couldn't care less.

-----

Evidence? We've provided a ton. You admit backhandedly that
children need milk. We have canines. We've all seen sickly looking
vegans (who BTW overlap with goths heavily).

You sit on an arbitrary line of how much cruelty to animals is acceptable
like some hoighty-toighty professor in an Ivory tower spewing BS that
the real world doesn't care about.

--Tedward

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

On Oct 10, 11:47 am, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com>
wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

maybe I'm shallow, hell I'll admit that I probably am - but you don't
see many (ANY?) decent looking vegans. They all look pasty and
malnourished. Fuck, comparing them to goths is being kind, I'd
compare them to zombies.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote

-----

My impression is that Goths probably have one of the highest
percentage of vegans, all that bloodsucking BS notwithstanding.

--Tedward

[Rupert]

How would you know? Do you have some special faculty whereby whenever
you see someone walking down the street you can instantly tell whether
or not they are vegan?

You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
class athletes, right? Or not?

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

<You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
<class athletes, right? Or not?

Well, now all you have to do is list all the "word class athletes" and
the miniscule percentagae who are vegans. Then you get to list the
comprehensive figures of who is vegan, who is not, and why vegans
are a proper perecentage of "world class athletes".

It's your assertion. Good luck with that.

--Tedward

[Rupert]

On okt. 11, 16:06, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

My assertion was perfectly correct. I don't need to do any kind of
analysis of how vegans are represented among world-class atheletes in
order to justify that assertion.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

> <You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
> <class athletes, right? Or not?
>
> Well, now all you have to do is list all the "word class athletes" and
> the miniscule percentagae who are vegans. Then you get to list the
> comprehensive figures of who is vegan, who is not, and why vegans
> are a proper perecentage of "world class athletes".
>
> It's your assertion. Good luck with that.
<

<My assertion was perfectly correct. I don't need to do any kind of
<analysis of how vegans are represented among world-class atheletes in
<order to justify that assertion.

You are aware of the existence of quite a few unicorns, right?
Or not?

--Tedward

[George Plimpton]

No, and neither are you. The percentage of "vegans" among world class
athletes is even smaller than the already minuscule percentage they
comprise in the general population.

Here's a list by someone purporting to show vegetarian and 'vegan'
"world class" athletes. Note that the majority of them a) are
vegetarian, not 'vegan', and b) are long retired from sports. Note also
that most of the ones who are retired were not vegetarian at all during
their active sports careers.

This is an example of your actively working to be a dope.

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

you can make educated guesses - gaunt, pasty-complexion, no muscle
tone, stringy hair, veggie body odor, listless eyes, etc

[George Plimpton]

I think it's obviously possible to make some wrong guesses, just as it's
possible to guess wrong about who's a queer and who isn't, but I think
it's not all that hard to be right more often than not. The reason is
that there are a lot of other "tells" available. All "vegans" are
left-wingers, although not all left-wingers are "vegans"; but if you see
a car plastered with a lot of ecotopian slogans and other left-wing
blabber, there's a pretty good chance that the owner is at least an
extreme vegetarian, if not "vegan". Also, if the driver gets out of the
car and is wearing Birkenstocks, that's another good "tell".

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

> car and is wearing Birkenstocks, that's another good "tell".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think being a vegan takes a tremendous toll on one's appearance, at
least in every single instance I've seen.

[Bryan]

That's all correct George, and I am one of the exceptions. I am a
Lefty who could slaughter an animal and cut a piece out and eat it raw
right on the spot, and I could take joy in watching a Right-winger be
slowly eaten by piranhas while I chose not to throw a lifeline that
was two feet away from my hand.

--Bryan

[George Plimpton]

...thus showing there are other ways to be a shitbag beyond being a food
Nazi.

[Bryan]

What? Being an economic Nazi? Thinking that the government exists to
create a safe climate for corporate exploitation?

--Bryan

[Rupert]

On Oct 11, 7:35 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

Not.

[Rupert]

On Oct 11, 8:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 1:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 5:53 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> > You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
> > class athletes, right?
>
> No, and neither are you.

False.

> The percentage of "vegans" among world class
> athletes is even smaller than the already minuscule percentage they
> comprise in the general population.
>

So what? The claim was that there exist quite a few world-class vegan
athletes. The claim is correct.

> Here's a list by someone purporting to show vegetarian and 'vegan'
> "world class" athletes.  Note that the majority of them a) are
> vegetarian, not 'vegan', and b) are long retired from sports.  Note also
> that most of the ones who are retired were not vegetarian at all during
> their active sports careers.
>

Big deal. I correctly pointed out that there exist quite a few world-
class vegan athletes. This is relevant because it shows that not every
vegan is "sickly". I have already established that their claims that
veganism is unhealthy are unfounded.

> This is an example of your actively working to be a dope.

Wrong.

[Rupert]

But for all you know you might walk past plenty of people in the
street who lack those characteristics and yet are vegan. You don't
know. Also you must encounter people who are obese and you can make an
educated guess that they are not vegan.

[Rupert]

You don't really have any kind of rational foundation for that
opinion.

[Rupert]

You haven't done any scientifically valid investigation of the matter.
You're not in a position to know.

[Whisky-dave]

Of course it would unless you take measures to counter such things, it's a real toll on ones body to live in the artic or in teh hottest plaxces on earth but as humans we can adapt to many enviroments.


I think this person looks pretty ill myslef,

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/vegan_athlete_alexander-dargatz

I also think those with burnt skin aka tans aren't as healthy as they think they are.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/vegan_athlete_amanda-reister-0

she appears quite fit, would throw her out of my kitchen.

>
>
>
> You haven't done any scientifically valid investigation of the matter.
>
> You're not in a position to know.

If he did he'd have a clue and then wouldn;t be the person he is today. ;-0


I'mm not vegan and not even veggie, but have friends that are, I have very few fat friends and most of the fat unhealthy people I know and see tend toi spend their time eating what is called me in large famous burger chains which I no longer eat in, I'd rather end up loking like a vegan than a fat bloated cow in a shell suit.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
the usenet.

--Tedward

[George Plimpton]

On 10/12/2012 1:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 11, 8:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2012 1:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 5:53 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
>>> class athletes, right?
>>
>> No, and neither are you.
>
> False.

No, it's true - you aren't aware of "quite a few 'vegans' who are
world-class athletes." You know you aren't.

>> The percentage of "vegans" among world class
>> athletes is even smaller than the already minuscule percentage they
>> comprise in the general population.
>>
>
> So what? The claim was that there exist quite a few world-class vegan
> athletes. The claim is correct.

False.

>> Here's a list by someone purporting to show vegetarian and 'vegan'
>> "world class" athletes. Note that the majority of them a) are
>> vegetarian, not 'vegan', and b) are long retired from sports. Note also
>> that most of the ones who are retired were not vegetarian at all during
>> their active sports careers.
>>
>
> Big deal. I correctly pointed out that there exist quite a few world-
> class vegan athletes.

No, you did not "correctly point out" any such thing, because the claim
is a lie.

[George Plimpton]

Of course I have.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/12/2012 7:17 AM, The Undead Edward M. Kennedy wrote:
> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> the usenet.

Good one!

[Rupert]

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.

[Rupert]

On Oct 12, 4:44 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 1:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Oct 11, 8:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> >> On 10/11/2012 1:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 10, 5:53 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>> You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
> >>> class athletes, right?
>
> >> No, and neither are you.
>
> > False.
>
> No, it's true - you aren't aware of "quite a few 'vegans' who are
> world-class athletes."  You know you aren't.
>

How did you come to this conclusion?

> >> The percentage of "vegans" among world class
> >> athletes is even smaller than the already minuscule percentage they
> >> comprise in the general population.
>
> > So what? The claim was that there exist quite a few world-class vegan
> > athletes. The claim is correct.
>
> False.
>

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/

> >> Here's a list by someone purporting to show vegetarian and 'vegan'
> >> "world class" athletes.  Note that the majority of them a) are
> >> vegetarian, not 'vegan', and b) are long retired from sports.  Note also
> >> that most of the ones who are retired were not vegetarian at all during
> >> their active sports careers.
>
> > Big deal. I correctly pointed out that there exist quite a few world-
> > class vegan athletes.
>
> No, you did not "correctly point out" any such thing, because the claim
> is a lie.

Wrong.

[Rupert]

What is it?

[Rupert]

Seemed pretty lame to me.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

> None of them, unfortunately, will actually admit to their existence on
> the usenet.
<

<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.

It would be very easy for you to verify the existence of many world-

class vegan athletes if you wished to. But, Google is not your friend,
because you are doucebag liar.

--Tedward

[Rupert]

On Oct 12, 5:35 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

Groundless accusations of lying are unethical.

[George Plimpton]

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.

Your claim is bullshit.

[George Plimpton]

On 10/12/2012 7:50 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 12, 4:44 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 1:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 8:03 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/2012 1:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 10, 5:53 pm, "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You are aware of the existence of quite a few vegans who are world-
>>>>> class athletes, right?
>>
>>>> No, and neither are you.
>>
>>> False.
>>
>> No, it's true - you aren't aware of "quite a few 'vegans' who are
>> world-class athletes." You know you aren't.
>>
>
> How did you come to this conclusion?
>
>>>> The percentage of "vegans" among world class
>>>> athletes is even smaller than the already minuscule percentage they
>>>> comprise in the general population.
>>
>>> So what? The claim was that there exist quite a few world-class vegan
>>> athletes. The claim is correct.
>>
>> False.
>>
>
> http://www.greatveganathletes.com/

Ha ha ha ha ha! I went through four pages of that shit before quitting
in disgust. There was exactly *ONE* person, Carl Lewis, who ever had a
claim to being a "world class" athlete, and I do not believe he was
"vegan" when he was competing; that came after he hung up his cleats.

As for others on the list, there are a lot of body builders - they're
not athletes - as well as a billiards or snooker player and a race car
driver, who also aren't athletes.

That list is shit.

>>>> Here's a list by someone purporting to show vegetarian and 'vegan'
>>>> "world class" athletes. Note that the majority of them a) are
>>>> vegetarian, not 'vegan', and b) are long retired from sports. Note also
>>>> that most of the ones who are retired were not vegetarian at all during
>>>> their active sports careers.
>>
>>> Big deal. I correctly pointed out that there exist quite a few world-
>>> class vegan athletes.
>>
>> No, you did not "correctly point out" any such thing, because the claim
>> is a lie.
>
> Wrong.

No, right - your list is shit.

[George Plimpton]

It was a good one. You have a cardboard palate.

[Rupert]

From the Wikipedia article: "Lewis is vegan. Lewis credits his
outstanding 1991 results in part to the vegan diet he adopted in 1990,
aged thirty. He has claimed it is better suited to him because he can
eat a larger quantity without affecting his athleticism[86][87] and he
believes that switching to a vegan diet can lead to improved athletic
performance."

Then we have Weia Reibound: "Weia Reibound is a Dutch veteran athlete
who has set ten world records".

http://boldvegan.com/world-class-vegan-athletes-who-would-have-thunk-it-eh/

[Rupert]

http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famous-vegetarian-vegan-bodybuilders

"Dave Scott (six-time winner
of Hawaii's Ironman Triathlon), Sixto Linares (world record
holder for the 24-hour triathlon), Edwin Moses (400 meter hurdler
undefeated in international competition for eight straight years),
Paavo Nurmi (twenty world records and nine Olympic medals),
Andreas Cahling (1980 Mr. International title in body building), and
Ridgely Abele (U.S. Karate Association World Champion)." But
admittedly I'm not sure how many of these are vegan. They are
vegetarian.

You're just quibbling. You know that there have been plenty of world-
class vegan athletes. I've certainly named at least two.

[Rupert]

What's a cardboard palate?

[Rupert]

http://www.adaptt.org/athletes.html

[Antonio Veranos]

[Rupert, rupertm...@yahoo.com]
[Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:46:19 -0700 (PDT)]

: Groundless accusations of lying are unethical.

...and easily dealt with, presumably. Why have you chosen otherwise?

--
Antonio Veranos

<insert witty comment here>

[Rupert]

On Oct 12, 6:49 pm, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The point of course is that Mr N. A. Cho's stereotype "They all look
pasty and malnourished" is bullshit. As you well know.

[Rupert]

On Oct 12, 6:56 pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
> [Rupert, rupertmccal...@yahoo.com]

> [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:46:19 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : Groundless accusations of lying are unethical.
>
> ...and easily dealt with, presumably.  Why have you chosen otherwise?
>

I have presented information about vegan athletes. It's very easy to
find.

Jonathan Ball, aka George Plimpton, is quibbling about how many of
them are world-class. At least two of them are. The point is that Mr N
A Cho's stereotype of vegans as "pasty and malnourished" is nonsense.

[Antonio Veranos]

[Rupert, rupertm...@yahoo.com]
[Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : Groundless accusations of lying are unethical.
: >
: > ...and easily dealt with, presumably.  Why have you chosen otherwise?
: >
:
: I have presented information about vegan athletes. It's very easy to
: find.
:
: Jonathan Ball, aka George Plimpton, is quibbling about how many of
: them are world-class. At least two of them are. The point is that Mr N
: A Cho's stereotype of vegans as "pasty and malnourished" is nonsense.

Two is not "many".

In any case, veganism is well-understood by the medical profession to be
an inherently unhealthy lifestyle, adherence to which is quite dangerous
for many segments of the population. This isn't even in question. How
is veganism relevant to world-class athleticism, anyway? Performance at
peak levels requires peak nutrition, and it's well-known that a vegan
lifestyle is detrimental to such achievement. For those who are able to
be vegan, overriding their essential nature for whatever reason, more
power to them as far as I'm concerned... but let's don't pretend that
such people are as healthy as they could be otherwise.

[Rupert]

Brendan Brazier is another one. "During his six year career, Brazier
was regarded as one of the top endurance athletes in the world." He
was vegan during this time.

It's moving the goalposts to say "currently". My claim was not
specific to the present tense.

My claim was based on a memory of reading something about world-class
athletes, but I now realize that that was vegetarian, not vegan.
However I have found you three world-class vegan athletes. No doubt
more could be found. This is boring. Don't you have anything better to
do with your time?

[Rupert]

And Scott Jurek.

[Rupert]

On Oct 12, 7:11 pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
> [Rupert, rupertmccal...@yahoo.com]

> [Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:01:00 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : > : Groundless accusations of lying are unethical.
> : >
> : > ...and easily dealt with, presumably. Why have you chosen otherwise?
> : >
> :
> : I have presented information about vegan athletes. It's very easy to
> : find.
> :
> : Jonathan Ball, aka George Plimpton, is quibbling about how many of
> : them are world-class. At least two of them are. The point is that Mr N
> : A Cho's stereotype of vegans as "pasty and malnourished" is nonsense.
>
> Two is not "many".
>

It's up to four now. It's harder than I thought to find athletes who
are both world-class and vegan. It's a lot easier if you relax it to
"vegetarian".

> In any case, veganism is well-understood by the medical profession to be
> an inherently unhealthy lifestyle, adherence to which is quite dangerous
> for many segments of the population.  This isn't even in question.

Actually, it's complete nonsense. The position of the American
Dietetic Association is that vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at
all stages of life and have many significant health benefits. Two
doctors have told me that it is good for my health that I am vegan.
There are many studies indicating that vegan diets can have
significant benefits for reducing the risk of heart disease and
cancer. There is no evidence at all that a vegan diet is inherently
unhealthy.

> How
> is veganism relevant to world-class athleticism, anyway?  Performance at
> peak levels requires peak nutrition, and it's well-known that a vegan
> lifestyle is detrimental to such achievement.  For those who are able to
> be vegan, overriding their essential nature for whatever reason, more
> power to them as far as I'm concerned... but let's don't pretend that
> such people are as healthy as they could be otherwise.
>

They are more healthy than they would be otherwise.

[George Plimpton]

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.
>>
>> Your claim is bullshit.
>
> http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famous-vegetarian-vegan-bodybuilders
>
> "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? 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. "veganism" is the victory of style over
substance, and that's always a bad thing - always.

[Rupert]

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.
>
> >> Your claim is bullshit.
>
> >http://kaleuniversity.org/3888-famous-vegetarian-vegan-bodybuilders
>
> > "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.

> 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.

Do you suppose that you are a person of substance?

[Antonio Veranos]

[Rupert, rupertm...@yahoo.com]
[Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:48:04 -0700 (PDT)]

: > 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.
:
: Do you suppose that you are a person of substance?

Here's one: all vegans are hypocrites.

[Rupert]

On Oct 13, 6:49 pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
> [Rupert, rupertmccal...@yahoo.com]

> [Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:48:04 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : > 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.
> :
> : Do you suppose that you are a person of substance?
>
> Here's one: all vegans are hypocrites.
>

And why exactly do you think that?

[Antonio Veranos]

[Rupert, rupertm...@yahoo.com]
[Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT)]

: > Here's one: all vegans are hypocrites.

: >
:
: And why exactly do you think that?

Plankton.

[George Plimpton]

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".

>> 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.

[Rupert]

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.
>

What, precisely, would those rational grounds be?

[George Plimpton]

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.

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

> "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.

[Rupert]

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.

You don't have anything on which to base that.

[George Plimpton]

Exactly right.

[Rupert]

That's an absurd statement.

[George Plimpton]

No, it's not.

>>>>>> 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.

[Rupert]

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.

You're a fool.

[George Plimpton]

It isn't. It's exactly right.

[Rupert]

It's an absurd statement grounded in ignorance.

[George Plimpton]

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.

Of course I have.

[George Plimpton]

No, it isn't. It's an insightful statement grounded in logic and
observation.

[Rupert]

That's very amusing.

[Rupert]

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.
>
> Of course I have.

And what would that be?

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote

<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?!

--Tedward

[George Plimpton]

Not really; your reply was very pointless.

[George Plimpton]

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'".

[Rupert]

Well, it was definitely amusing to me, and my reply was no more
pointless than your reply, or any other part of this conversation.

[Rupert]

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.

[George Plimpton]

Because you're off your meds again.

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

> 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.

[Rupert]

Do you seriously believe that, or are you just saying it because you
get gratification from saying it?

[Rupert]

I regret that based on my limited knowledge about zombies I am not in
a position to answer that question.

[Antonio Veranos]

[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.

[Rupert]

On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
> [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.
>

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.

[Antonio Veranos]

[Rupert, rupertm...@yahoo.com]
[Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:15:00 -0700 (PDT)]

:

Are weasels capable of suffering?

[George Plimpton]

You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.

[Michael Press]

In article
<cc3d37b1-0b15-498d...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Rupert <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

Dr Rupert McCallum
University of Sydney
Casual External Casuals?

The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
did not have a link to a list of
publications.

--
Michael Press

[Brooklyn1]

WTF is an Athletic Support Vegan... are yoose sayin' vegans is
stinkin' jockstraps?

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote

-----

Are you a moron? The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
Zombies would only eat vegans.

--Tedward

[George Plimpton]

Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote

> WTF is an Athletic Support Vegan... are yoose sayin' vegans is
> stinkin' jockstraps?

For many of them, you couldn't have said it better.

--Tedward

[Rupert]

On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <cc3d37b1-0b15-498d-bb5b-276e6b8e6...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

>
>  Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Dr Rupert McCallum
> University of Sydney
> Casual External Casuals?
>
> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> did not have a link to a list of
> publications.
>

Try searching on arxiv.org.

[Rupert]

True.

[Rupert]

On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 1:53 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article

> > <cc3d37b1-0b15-498d-bb5b-276e6b8e6...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

> >   Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Dr Rupert McCallum
> > University of Sydney
> > Casual External Casuals?
>
> > The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> > did not have a link to a list of
> > publications.
>
> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.

I am doing a post-doc at the University of Münster.

[Rupert]

On Oct 15, 10:53 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <cc3d37b1-0b15-498d-bb5b-276e6b8e6...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>

>  Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Dr Rupert McCallum
> University of Sydney
> Casual External Casuals?
>
> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
> did not have a link to a list of
> publications.
>
> --
> Michael Press

http://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~cap/files/ccdmemc_final.pdf
http://uni-muenster.academia.edu/RupertMcCallum

[Rupert]

As I say, this is indeed true, and if it were within my power to
reduce my contribution to this suffering by some means that did not
involve sacrificing other opportunities to prevent suffering from
taking place, then I would be somewhat motivated to adopt that means.

[Whisky-dave]

On Monday, October 15, 2012 5:13:34 PM UTC+1, Rupert wrote:

> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>
> > On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>


>

> > >>>> Here's the basic truth - a truth with real meat in it:  "vegans" very
>
> > >>>> rarely are people of substance.

What of Steve Jobs former CEO of Apple
CEO of one of the largest and most profitable busnesses ever.

>
> > My observation that publicly visible "vegans" usually are people who
>
> > have done nothing of substance.

Then perhaps you should stop observing your arse hole and look at the real world occasionally.

>
>
> > "veganism" simply is not a serious proposition.  It's style, not substance.
>
>
>

> You don't have anything on which to base that.

I wonder what he means by substance ?

[George Plimpton]

So your hypocrisy is established.

[George Plimpton]

In other words, being "vegan" is purely a "lifestyle" issue, not any
issue of abiding by principle - exactly what was claimed.

[Rupert]

No, it's not. I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
truths. In this thread I have not expressed any moral views or made
any suggestion that anyone ought to follow my example. So the issue of
hypocrisy simply doesn't arise.

It would also be quite possible for someone to claim that there is a
moral obligation to make some effort to reduce one's contribution to
suffering, without having to claim that one has to make every possible
effort. In any event, producing all my own food would not be the most
efficient means of alleviating suffering because I would thereby
forego opportunities to reduce suffering in other ways.

If I maintained that all conscious nonhuman animals were rightsholders
in some extremely strong sense, then the hypocrisy charge could be
established. But you know that's not the case.

[Rupert]

I wouldn't really call it a lifestyle issue. In my case, it's a
pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
thread.

Anyway, who made that claim? I didn't see anyone make it.

[Rupert]

On Oct 15, 9:30 pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
> [Rupert, rupertmccal...@yahoo.com]

Yes, of course.

[Mr. N.A.Cho]

On Oct 15, 5:04 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> "Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpaceForR...@mail.com> wrote

> --Tedward- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

that's a limited food supply then - I can't imagine there's enough
vegans to maintain a zombie-vegan population for that long.

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Mr. N.A.Cho" <ThisSpac...@mail.com> wrote

<that's a limited food supply then - I can't imagine there's enough
<vegans to maintain a zombie-vegan population for that long.

Dude, they're *zombies*. They don't die unless you kill the
brain. It's not like there are enough humans on The Walking
Dead to feed all the zombies, but they don't die.

They are just perpetually hungry, not unlike teenage boys.

--Tedward

[The Undead Edward M. Kennedy]

"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote

<I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
<truths.

Cool. If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
kind with impunity.

--Tedward

[George Plimpton]

On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos <nos...@thanksverymuch.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [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.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>>
>>> True.
>>
>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>
> No, it's not.

Yes, it is. You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.

[George Plimpton]

That's exactly what it is.

> In my case, it's a
> pattern of behaviour motivated by a desire to reduce my contribution
> to suffering. I haven't advocated any moral principles in this
> thread.

You fuckwit: presumably your desire to reduce your contribution to
animal suffering is motivated by some moral principle. It has been very
well demonstrated to you that "veganism" may well not be, and most
likely *is* not*, the best means to reduce your contribution to animal
suffering. You /could/ pursue some other "lifestyle" that would yield a
greater reduction.

The bigger problem, of course, is you can't coherently explain why you
even ought to try to reduce your contribution to animal suffering; nor,
if we accept without further examination the proposition that one ought
to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering, can you say why you
should be allowed to let your other "lifestyle" wishes - e.g. to be a
telemarketer or maths professor - in any way lessen your reduction
efforts. You are not doing all you can. Saying that you're doing all
you can subject to the constraint that you don't stop pursuing
mathematics indicates there is no meaningful principle behind it.

[Rupert]

I didn't make any such claim in this thread. In this thread I just
said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to

[Rupert]

On Oct 16, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" <e...@o.com> wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote

>
> <I'm currently fairly skeptical that there are any moral
> <truths.
>
> Cool.  If the right to life isn't self-evident, then we kill your
> kind with impunity.
>

Actually, you will find that there are legal penalties for murder.