On Oct 15, 6:43*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/15/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/15/2012 9:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 15, 6:07 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/14/2012 1:45 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 14, 1:51 am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/13/2012 9:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 13, 5:47 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 9:49 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 6:10 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 7:48 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 12, 4:17 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > 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-famou...n-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 ****ing 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 ****ing 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
> >>>>>>>> ****ing ****witted 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?