Armchair politics, ethical soapbox and current affairs. Place to discuss vegan ethics and general ethics and politics. Be nice.
Moderators: hardcore iv, bronco, fredrikw, JP, Rochellita
It wasn't a pro-vegan article.
However, it also was a leap in terms that it didn't say that being a vegan athlete was foolish or harmful or detrimental to success. That's a big leap.
"The worker has the right to leave his boss, but can she do it? And if she does quit him, is it in order to lead a free life; where she will have no master but herself? No, she leaves to sell herself to another employer. She's driven by the same hunger. Thus the worker's liberty is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means of realization; an utter falsehood."
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3579
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
Sounds like it is much better than their last article which was a panel/editoral about how livable and practical a vegan diet is. While the panel did include Rip Esselystyn, it did not include one regiestered dietitian at all and did include Nina Planck and the dude from Let Them Eat Meat ( professional vegan haters ).
Basically, it was set up to sell advertising by baiting vegans.
"The plural of anecdote is not data." (Roger Brinner)
- Active Member
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:33 am
They always focus in these type things on the myth that getting enough protein is hard in a vegan diet. Seriously, I doubt as a woman that I need 60-90 grams of protein a day as they say in the article.
- Active Member
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:48 am
Return to Ethics, Politics and Current Affairs
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests