On Oct 15, 5:04*pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> "Mr. N.A.Cho" > 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?
>
> > > 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
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ****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.
>
> > > 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.
>
> -----
>
> Are you a moron? *The answer is obvious -- vegans who become
> Zombies would only eat vegans.
>
> --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.