Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>:
>raw diet and instinctive (raw) diet, it would have been better if instead
>of simply writing raw diets, you would
>have  clearly stated "non-instinctive raw diet"...

Tom:
Point noted. In an upcoming post, I try to use the terms "raw (vegan) diet"
to avoid ambiguity; in that post I use "100% raw" or "raw diet"- alone,
without the word vegan - when such clarification is not necessary.

Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>:
>If you think a handful of activists are dangerous for those who may listen
>to them, why don't you focus your vituperation on the leaders , instead of
>seemingly denigrating all the people in the raw food movement, on account
>of their supposedly low mental health ?

Tom:
Some of the leaders are long dead, some are still around and are in the
categories 1,2 from previous post (hostile, threatening, neo-racist).
Those folks specialize in personal attacks, and I don't want to lower
myself to their level. Making direct personal attacks on them is to give
them publicity (which they don't deserve), and to make them look legitimate
in the eyes of their followers. Instead, it is better to criticize their
false dogma and general behavior patterns.

After all, the worst person (even a neo-racist) can change their behavior
and become nice; they can also change their dogma. I have tried (but not
always succeeded) to make it clear that one can be 100% raw and be mentally
healthy.  I'm not trying to denigrate everyone in the movement...

Denis
>Of course. A hygienically  cooked diet with some instinct is million times
>superior to an all raw diet  without any instinct ...When I talk about RAW,
>the epithet "instinctive" is always implicit in my mind.

Tom:
Thanks for your insights and comments!

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]