Peter:
>If anything I have found vegans to be a lot more intolerant and bigoted
>than the average meateater. Blaming the problems of humanity on the
>consumption of animal foods is ludicrous.(except for modern factory
>farming & fishing, of course)

Tom:
Very well said; I agree wholeheartedly. Similarly, blaming the problems of
humanity on cooked foods is also ludicrous, as well as intellectually DIShonest.
At times, I wonder whether vegans (whether raw fooders or not) are fully aware
of how much damage zealots do to the vegan/raw foods movement.

Peter:
>I am growing very weary of seeing these same old, vegan arguments being
>repeated ad nauseum without any nuance. No matter how many on this list
>have bent themselves backwards to try to explain their position in
>favor of some RAF consumption, counter arguments have more often than
>not been met with a roaring silence.(Rene, I doubt that you have any
>intention whatsoever to respond to Kirt's well-thought response to this
>post) This list is for dialogue not one-sided manifestos, and if this
>style of opportunistic posting continues I will start moderating on it.
>I respect veganism very much but this self-righteous misrepresentation
>of it has to stop. Many of my responses to this post have been without
>content and quite disrespectful I realize that, but I refuse to sit
>down any longer and spend a lot of my precious time giving well-thought
>and deep felt responses to people who will not even pay me the courtesy
>to respond in a similar fashion or even respond at all.

Tom:
Moderation sounds like a good idea to me. Let me say that, as a spectator
in the recent debate here, instincto vs. fruitarian, I was very impressed
with the scientific content of the instincto position, and the courteous way
in which it was presented. The fruitarian side seemed to be lacking in science,
and courtesy was often non-existant. The scientific, courteous approach of
the instinctos here, along with the recent interview of Ward Nicholson in
"Health & Beyond", has opened my eyes and helped me see that many of the so-
called scientific arguments in favor of veganism are dubious at best. One can
still be a vegan or vegetarian, of course (I am still a veggie), but the
best reasons seem to be philosophical (incl. spiritual) or ethical, not
scientific. So, to get back to my earlier comment: if vegans (or fruitarians)
want to impress others, they must present their case courteously, with a
scientific basis - if they want to claim to be scientific - or avoid
science entirely and make another argument (spiritual, ethical, etc.)

Needless to say, those zealots who use personal insults or stupid slogans
as debate tools, only make their position weaker in the long run. Also, I
would encourage posters to (when possible) try to respond to all legitimate
questions asked of them here. In the recent debate, the instinctos answered
the questions from the fruitarian side (and answered very well, with science
and courtesy), while those few questions the fruitarian side answered were
often delivered with insults or hate (that reflects not only on the individuals
involved, but on the low factual content of their side of the debate).


Let me take this opportunity to again thank Peter for doing the difficult job
of moderating this group.  Raising the level of discussion here sounds like
a great idea to me - it is much more fun to read the group when it has real
information content, and is not full of anger/insults.

Tom Billings