John Mayson wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>
>> John Mayson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, K wrote:
>>>
>>> For starters, Jackson was not a vegetarian.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> The burden of proof lies with the person who made the original claim he
> was a vegetarian.

You're the one claiming he wasn't a vegetarian. I already posted a link
at the beginning of the thread to the source that claims he wasn't one.

You're the one making the unsupported claim: "Jackson was not a
vegetarian". Support your claim, or admit you can't support it.


>>>> Meanwhile, I've had the good fortune to be acquainted with over half
>>>> a dozen people over the last several years who have lived into their
>>>> 90s and are or were /extremely/ healthy and vibrant. All of them
>>>> are omnivores. They ate meat, and everything else, in moderation.
>>>>
>>>> Moderate amounts of meat, coupled with abstinence from vices like
>>>> alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, will help you live a long and
>>>> healthy life.
>>>
>>> I know people who ate meat, who lived a long time, but the last two
>>> decades of their lives absolutely sucked thanks to cancer, heart
>>> disease, diabetes, and such. Sorry, but that's not living.
>>
>> None of that can be blamed on meat consumption /per/ /se/, and I think
>> you know it. You just commited the /post/ /hoc/ fallacy, big time.
>
> If I "knew it" I wouldn't have posted anything to the contrary. I
> posted it because it's true.

You don't have any support for it. You cannot substantiate your
implicit claim that meat consumption /caused/ those ailments. You
believe it, but only for ideological reasons.