Roy said:
>I don't hate vegans. I just hate anybody who cannot (will not) conduct
>a discussion that is civil, and based on logic and facts. I especially
>despise those losers who take cheap shots at groups with other points
>of view than their own (ex: the "instinko" jabs). I also pity
>people who write books without sufficiently researching them, thereby
>ending up humiliated when any of their "facts" are scrutinized. I
>guess that makes me militant and occasionally hostile. But not zealous
>or bigoted, since I don't have a fixed, inflexible stance, or hold any
>dietary "truths". Actually I welcome diverse points of view, since I'm
>not convinced that anything I'm doing is optimal, or if I will ever
>figure this out in my life time. Can you be more specific about this
>vegan-hating on raw-foods you mention? Pointers to past postings to
>raw-food would be really helpful.
That is right Roy! Tell it like it is. You are a straight-shooter if
there ever was one. :-)
Martha said:
>Not really, sorry, 'cuz I'm not willing to sacrifice the time to go
>digging through the archives.
That its fine but then you should have been a little more hesitant
about jumping to conclusions.
Martha said:
> Anyway, nobody said "I hate vegans," it's just
>an impression I formed.
Assuming your impression is correct the real question is whether this
"hatred" is justified?
> And I never meant to get sucked into this
>argument in the first place. Guess my guard was just down after 3
>days of juice "fasting". So, I'll just bow out, concede all points,
>sorry, sorry, mea culpa, and hope this cop-out doesn't get me booted
>(now that the volume's down, I'd like to stick around).
Booted out? - give me a break. Nobody gets suspended from this list
without first having been given numerous opportunities to change their
ways and/or by ignoring multiple requests from the moderator for
dialogue. In fact it is very difficult to get booted off this list -
with the exception of death pranks of course. :-/
Kirt said:
>> I am soon to pull back from my on-line public participation, in
>>large part because I am weary.
Martha said:
>I can certainly understand this. But this list is getting pretty
>carnivorous. You seem quite in your element here. I, on the other
>hand am feeling like a fish out of water here. As far as I know, I'm
>the only one left with any vegetarian ideals (not the only veg., just
>the only one for reasons other than health).
If our vegan friends had made a minimum of effort to conduct themselves
in a civil manner and tried to abide with list guidelines they would
still be with us. However, at this point I am very pessimistic of the
prospects of anybody with strict, vegetarian ideals joining our list,
and why should they indeed if their whole philosophy is built on denial
of reality? If this were not true they should have no problems
presenting their ideas in a respectful manner.
Martha said:
>And I'm getting weary, too. Not from being blasted, just from
>overload. The volume's too heavy, even when Bodhi's taking a
>powder. The recent death in my family has really driven home to me
>how much better so much of my time would be spent interacting with
>my family,
I am sorry to hear of your loss.
Martha said:
>than trying to sort out which side is more militant, zealous,
>bigoted, hostile: the vegans or those who hate them.
Trying to sort out? I am sorry but anybody with just half a brain who
has followed the debates on this list would be able to tell that there
is a world of difference between the vegan zealots and those who cannot
stomach their message & tactics of intolerance and prejudice. I am
frankly getting sick and trying of beating around the bush on this
issue. Even hating zealotry is a far cry from practicing it, and how
this can be such a difficult thing for such a bright woman like
yourself to understand really boggles the mind.
>>Just when I finally decide this is the day I'm going to unsubscribe
>>from the lists, lo and behold! A light volume! :-)
Yeah, I enjoy the periods of light volume too.
Martha said:
>Where are you from, and how long have you been in CA (just so
>you're sure, I'm asking this friendly-like :-) )?
I am from Denmark and have lived in California for 7 years.
>I live in Santa Barbara, CA, where I have lived most of my life. The
>only other places I've lived were also in CA (Santa Maria & San
>Diego).
If vegan company is what you are looking for, you ought never to be
lonely in Santa Barbara. :-)
Peter:
>> However, when you start to seriously challenge some of their
>>vegan tenets, you will encounter their darker sides like we have seen
>>in this forum.
Martha said:
>I think this is true of most people who believe in something.
Even more why we should try to raise the standards.
Peter said:
>> You are then considered as a threat & part of the problem and
>> treated accordingly with the ends justifying the means.(personal
>> attacks - mockery & ridicule - evading issues - lies - not answering
>> questions - copping to holier-than-thou attitudes - subscribing to
>> extreme political & religious ideas.)
Martha said:
>You've covered a lot of ground here. I think you're overgeneralizing.
>I would guess a lot of vegans, rather than being threatened, simply
>get tired of getting the 3rd degree about nutrition, and of feeling
>like an oddity, and get a little defensive. Maybe like some
>instinctos?
A little defensive? When I hear words like this I can no longer pretend
to respect you. How many lies, how much hypocrisy, how much arrogance &
hatred do you need to witness before you open your eyes and realize
that there are no excuses for such zealotry? What conclusion have you
reached from the literally hundreds of questions posed to the vegans on
this list left unanswered? That they have been too traumatized by a
lifetime of 3rd degree interrogations by cruel SAD-eaters to answer
them or that their vegan purity puts them above everybody else? Do not
worry - I am not expecting an answer.
Martha said:
>A quiz: What do you call someone who is better than one who is
>holier-than-thou? (this is rhetorical - I don't have an answer)
How about "holy" ? :-)
Peter:
>> In order not to be unfair I have gone through all the vegans I know,
>> and I am happy to admit that I in the heat of all these debates have
>> forgotten that I actually do know a few who are very tolerant and
>> non-judgmental people. They are the "true" vegans and have my
>>deepest respect. Vegan zealots on the other hand are the "false"
>>vegans who are just using veganism as a vehicle for their own
>>personal agendas, and I seriously question if they deep down really
>>give a hoot about the (vegan)cause they claim to have embraced.
Martha said:
>Well, maybe, and maybe not. We may never know.
What are you waiting for? A written full confession? I suspect the
truth is that you do not want to know...
Denis said:
>Very clever. You seem to be willing to take advantage of my negativity
>for Burger (and Co) to justify your own negativity for the NFL. And
>you want to take me on board with you by implying that both
>attitudes are to be respected equally ( you even seem to imply that I
>would play the hypocrite by hiding my own negativity while denigrating
>yours ). I won't accept that one ! How can you equate the sexual
>misdeeds of the Montrame clan and the devastating consequences for the
>renommée of the instincto movement in France, with the somehow,
>somewhere enlightening propaganda of the Vegans.>
What are those sexual misdeeds of which you speak so strongly? Sexual
experiments taken a little too far? Whatever Burger did it
was a marketing disaster for sure - but even if he had killed his own
mother - comparing him & his work to the righteous zealotry &
nutritional hara-kiri of most vegans is doing him a great injustice. It
seems to me that you must have had some strong emotional/personal ties
with Burger, and if you invested a lot of hope and dreams into him, it
is very understandable that you have felt let down, but lets not loose
our perspective here and let us not forget that instincto is a vast
improvement over veganism and that the principle of following your
instincts is about as far as you can get from a strict diet with a set
of morally "bad" foods to be avoided.
I on the other hand do not feel let down by Burger and have no history
of identifying with him or his message. On the contrary Burger has been
like a breath of fresh air to the American raw food scene too long
dominated by the dogma of raw vegan philosophy, and I will always be
grateful for the doors he has opened for me.
On the issue of a vegan lifestyle being more gentle to the Earth, do
not forget that it is the agricultural way of life not the hunter and
gatherer instincto type that is the reason for the ecological
destruction & overpopulation of the planet we are experiencing today
and getting rid of all animal farms will not change these facts. Zephyr
is up on all of this, and he points to permaculture being the only
viable solution. I think he might be right.
As for factory farming of animals I think that instinctos by virtue of
their RAF experience feel a deeper sense of connectedness with the
animal kingdom and are lot more sensitive to the plight of these poor
creatures than any vegan ever could hope to be.
Denis said:
>Waiting for your next post with amazement.
You're amazed? May jaw is hitting the floor in astonishment of seeing
an instincto defend veganism. :-)
Denis said:
<It might be true that the case for raw milk isn't as bad as the case
>for heated or otherwise transformed milk, but the absence of symptom
>is no proof of innocuity
Again I beg to differ. As a rule of thumb the less symptoms eating a
certain food causes, the safer I would regard it to be - especially for
instinctos who should be very much in tune with the needs & signals of
their bodies.
>But now I understand better your anti-dogmatism about the instincto
>theory.
Dogmatism means rigidity no matter what it stands for - especially when
it comes to something as fluid and intuitive as instinct. Who knows,
maybe a little raw dairy would do the French instinctos some good?
>Don't take it personally, but the next question which comes up to my
>mind is "Is there One instincto amongst Raw-Food@Bolis subscribers ?"
We are lucky to have at least you & Bruno on board. If you know of any
other instinctos who like yourself own a modem, do not hesitate to
invite them to join us.
Denis:
>>Stop. Are you serious when you say that malaria is a counter example
>>of the beneficial Microbe theory because one unfortunate twenty-four
>>year old girl who had previously eaten cooked foods for eighteen
>>years, and whose parents had been eating cooked foods since
>>Methuselah, has died beacuse a doctor didn't recognize in her the
>>fierce symptoms of a ternary or quaternary fever ?
What I conclude from the above is that unless you are a 3rd generation
instincto, you had better not rely too much on the BMT if you want to
reach a ripe, old age. :-).
Denis said:
>Levelling Burger and the NFL comes down to either "criminalizing" NFL
>or making commonplace of Burger's misconduct. Whatever you choose you
>have it all wrong, Kirt.
I fail to see the connection between Burger's alleged criminal
misconduct and the fact that vegans are spreading dangerous dietary
misinformation often accompanied with messages of bigotry &
intolerance.
Denis said:
>will remind you that they fight animal farming and inhuman treatment
>to animals just like we are supposed to do .... and that they do an
>excellent job to heighten public awareness on the dangers of dairy
>products, just like you should do, if you were, IMHO, entirely
>consistent in your theories.
Vegan philosophy has many valid points - or so I used to think - :-)
which is exactly why it attracts so many fanatic types, who then use it
as a smoke screen for their own personal issues & as a sanctuary for
their self-righteousness.
Denis, you mentioned that Burger's initial experiments with instincto
were with cooked foods and that the taste stops were working fine. I
find that very interesting and hope you can elaborate a bit on it.
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
