Seems there are always "a bunch" of twits who live to spoil the moment for others.

The fat slob bit was only directed at anyone who chooses to sit back and nitpick and not anyone who is simply overweight but upon reflection this was a Very poor choice of words.

My apologies to the non athletes among us.




I

That is some serious leg strength on that kid. He or she is an athlete in training!

Heaviest Japanese bloke in history is a world-class athlete. Says it all about a people's attitude to (somewhat) healthy living, really.

Over here, you'd only hear about someone of similar weight if they were lifted out of their appartment using heavy machinery and, possibly, a demolition crew.

This is somewhat disingenuous. Companies with active sponsorship programs look for two things: marketability and marketability.

If they're saying she couldn't get sponsorship AFTER winning major competitions? Then ya, there's something screwy, but there's two ways to market a human being, through their looks or through their skill. Looks are immediately apparent, skill has to be proven. She proved her skill, she got sponsored.

Companies get 100s if not 1000s of requests for sponsorship. If you can't surf worth shit, at least you can sell the product... I'm more disgusted with that then a skilled athlete having to prove themselves...

There are some totally awesome women in there, along with a couple of little girls.

There was nothing like this when I was a kid. I'm stoked for how women are claiming athletics for themselves.

Athletic French girls in shorts fighting each other?

Uh, I'll be in my bunk . . .

Yeah, like the SEAL said, athletes don't need to be physically prepared for life and death situations 24-hours a day. I mean, that SEAL training ramps up to "hell week" where they basically train 20-hours a day to simulate an extended combat engagement. No athlete needs that level of mental/physical endurance excluding maybe ironman race participants and even then that kind of training is likely overkill.

For me, the interesting question is "does this kind of training actually benefit an athlete?"

I'm obviously not an olympian or a coach, but I'm not sure it does.

As a one-off team building exercise, maybe, but on a regular basis, I doubt that it would be more effective than "normal" training. Basically, if this was actually beneficial to an athletes performance, people would be doing it.

You're right, I assumed (bad newt), but I must say that now that I have googled it, I'm 100% correct, there WAS only ONE vegan Olympian listed, Murray Rose, a swimmer from the 50's. (I must say that's the earliest I've ever heard of a vegan existing and calling themselves 'vegan', apparently the word began in 44).
All the others mentioned are not vegan, they are vegetarian....and I was talking about TODAY's Olympians, who are head and shoulders above 1950's athletes. Today's swimmers eat over 7000 calories a day, almost impossible as a vegetarian, and even harder as a vegan. Vegetarians aren't the same as vegans.

The only recent top notch (but still not Olympic) athlete listed was Rhonda Rousey, who had to give up on veganism to train for fights.

So my statement stands you WILL never see a vegan Olympic athlete (not you HAVE never seen one), because the level of training and competition in today's Olympics makes it near impossible, at least in active sports as I indicated originally (and in fact, vegans don't seem to be represented in the less active sports either).

I think we've just about reached the "agree to disagree" point. Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the other person keeps any of the truth the other said in their mind and mull it over. Thanks for the chat.

I agree that inhumane is a silly word. "Inhumane" acts are often acts only perpetrated by humans.

I dislike the argument about the fact that farm animals would go extinct if we didn't keep systematically breeding and killing them. So what? Then let them go extinct. I personally think it's morally accetable to let an animal go extinct naturally -- especially if the alternative is to perpetually keep them un-extinct just to, essentially, torture them for our pleasure. I do, however, agree with your later comment that it would be a clusterfuck to figure out what to do with the ones that do currently exist. Easiest solution: keep eating them but don't breed them. Unfortunate human consequence: meat would become expensive. Also, during the time that we eat off the rest of them, those workers could train for another (hopefully) less miserable job. I can't believe many, regardless of how they rationalize it, can enjoy killing something before its time.

I'm fully aware of how the slave comparison is a bit off the edge (I even said so), but it's a hyperbole for the purpose of making a point: it is immoral to treat any animal to pain and suffering -- regardless of how you treat any other one of them. One mercy killing does not absolve you of another horrific one.

I am not saying that animals are not always treated poorly and without thought for their comfort. I am just saying that they are not allowed into the safe moral haven that handicapped humans are let into. If we mercy killed even one handicapped person, there would be an uproar that deafened the world. A mercy killing. Imagine if they did any of the (even "humane") things they do to animals to a handicapped person. It would be morally disallowed to an extreme degree. I don't know why animals don't get the same treatment.

Again, when you bring anything up about "evolution", I roll my eyes. We're humans with supposed free will. We're supposed to be above that, right?

If every vegan food you ate was inedible and made you sick than either your cook does not know how to cook, it was gluten-free, or there was something horribly wrong with the food. Fresh fruit? Beans? Peanut butter? Nuts? Berries? Greens? Carrots? B12 supplements? They made you sick? Something you ate was horribly wrong.

Your Olympic athlete statement is just factually incorrect. I would think you'd google that before stating something as fact.

And agaiun. "Evolution". Yeah, that happened already. Let's move on.

Stop making me feel bad about my cats! I already confessed guilt! :-P I actually do spend a ridiculous amount of money so that the food is better than just crap. I'm lucky enough to be wealthy enough to do it and I am extremely thankful for that. And! The amount of wealth that cat videos have garnered for advertisers is hardly unproductive.

And my partner and I are also on board about not having kids. She and I both think they're the worst thing you could ever do to the planet, animals, or people. Utopia got it right.

It's not inhumane ('humane' being another oxymoron, because it's meaning, and acting like a normal human, are opposites) because 1)they have a life at all, which they would not if not given the opportunity by my family 2) they have a place to live that life, which they would not if not given the use of the land and 3) nature also creates barriers to movement, so it's not unnatural for an animal to live it's entire lifespan in one place...perhaps for cattle, but not the rest. Farm animals are not humans, and those that have an aversion to being stationary have no place on a farm. You could say that not being nomadic is 'inhumane', as our natural state is not sedentary, but few would argue it's 'cruel'.
'Animals' are not humans, so are not slaves. That idea makes you sound ridiculous. See the South Park episode for a good example.
Stopping suffering is not within our scope.
There are many reasons why stopping meat eating is not reasonable, but the one you should be the most interested in is, if humans didn't eat cattle, they might be extinct. The same goes for many animals we eat, and if we didn't eat things like pork, the ecological disaster feral pigs create would be almost as bad as what humans do.
It would be easier and cheaper to change the conditions in the slums of India and elsewhere than it would be to eradicate the meat production (edit:and consumption) of the entire planet. What do the people do now that no longer have jobs? What do you do with all the animals that no longer have a 'use' and don't own property to move onto? How do you control their numbers so they don't destroy what's left of the planet?
Technically, yes, all humans are animals. Mentally handicapped humans are not TREATED 'like animals', by which you MEAN treated poorly and without thought for their comfort and well being, which in fact is NOT how most animals are treated in our first world society, no matter how much you think so. Factory farms are a different matter.
When dolphins take control, they can treat mentally handicapped dolphins better than average humans. It's not arbitrary to treat your own species as the most important, it's an evolutionary trait almost all species likely possess.
No, I can't eat an entire vegan diet. I've tried many vegan foods, and found them ALL inedible, some made me sick.

You made blanket statements about how ALL animals are treated, and how ALL meat is produced and then defended that blanket statement. I'm glad you now admit your mistake, I hope you can see it through and stop blanket blaming ALL meat eaters.

What other people eat is farther outside your influence than how they treat their children.

Without the calorie dense food that is 'meat', we would still be nomadic gatherers, if we could exist at all. Eating meat is one of the things that gave us the energy to evolve those 'higher brains' that can choose our actions and determine what's 'rational'.
You will never see a vegan Olympic athlete. (Edit: well, maybe in Olympic curling...)

Daesh has brought about change...a change that THEY see as positive. That's not a good argument.

Yes, you are a monster for supporting such unabashed, unproductive carnivores ;-)...and I would hazard a guess that you don't feed them only free range, gmo free turkey carcasses, so you sound worse than me, the unashamed meat eater that pays the extra money for proper animal treatment....not just for them but because it's healthier meat too.

I did my part for the animals and the planet by not having children. ;-) Too bad I'm such a minority that it won't make a whit of difference.

As the Professor says it's not terribly useful as a medicine, but it does have a long history as a performance enhancing drug:

http://io9.com/why-strychnine-was-an-early-performance-enhancing-drug-512532345

Preferably used carefully, more isn't better (as some athletes have discovered the hard way).

Congratulations! Your comment on Hey! Stupid Sexist Questions are asked of Male Athletes too! has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

From the video description :

"Disclaimer: These are not the actual responses of the athletes featured in these clips. These are comments or questions asked of female athletes that we’ve adapted to fit these news clips, in order to show how ridiculous it is that female athletes are asked these questions."

I'm confused. It really would have been nice to put the disclaimer stating this pretty important distinction in the video BEFORE it started.

I'm honestly trying to understand the point being made via the selective editing and not actually showing real world like-for-like comparisons. It muddles the message for those who do recognize that and almost lies by omission to those who don't.

Is this hashtag movement honestly trying to suggest that male athletes (especially those who embody some of the more rock-star aspects of professional athletic stardom, which is after all an entertainment industry first and foremost) don't get asked inappropriate, shallow, or prurient questions all the fricking time?

The ominous music is telling me I should be concerned though, so I'll just go with it and not ask questions.