Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>:
>***I don't know how to interpret this  nonsense in the light of your
>private experience,  but one thing is almost
>certain, Tom :  You have never raised children on raw diet. Cause if you
>did, you would know that
>100% raw diet  is harmless for the development of sound mental health.

Tom:
I have known only a few couples raising children on 100% raw. The couple I knew
best lived in Florida, and tried to raise their children on 100% raw vegan
(a fruitarian diet).  The result was that their youngest child (daughter) was
hospitalized for a B-vitamin deficiency. Their oldest child (a son, they had
2 children) was not affected. However the son was cared for in the afternoon,
(for years) by a couple who gave the child milk (without the parent's
knowledge/permission). That may be a reason the son did not get a deficiency.
I realize that instinctos (and others) will have a hard time thinking that
the consumption of a "cooked" (pasteurized), "unnatural, un-original" food
like cow's milk can help someone, but it appears likely here. This case
deals with physical health (not mental health, the point of your comment),
but illustrates the limits of "100% raw", "100% vegan" dogma.

It appears that you might not fully realize that my writings are aimed
at raw vegans, primarily. I have repeatedly stated tht my writings are not
aimed at instinctos. The few instinctos I have personally met are all mentally
healthy.  However, I am told by experienced instinctos that zealotry &
craziness can also be found in the instincto camp as well.

Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>:
>You cannot even say that the raw diet attracts the mentally unbalanced.
>...snipped...
>The question of whether these people are normal or not normal, ie judging
>their behaviour from god knows what
>superior standpoint, is none of your concern.

Tom:
It becomes my concern when any of the following occur:
1) I am attacked by hostile zealots. One group went so far as to make what,
in my opinion, was an implicit death threat against me. Vegan "compassion" -
such hypocrisy!
2) I see hostile zealots promoting rawism in a neo-racist manner.
3) I see idealists spreading false information; information that can lead
other people to harm. (As I was led to harm, in the past.)
4) I see people caught up in serious eating disorders, under the guise of
rawism.
5) I see people with fecal obsessions, and people abandoning their family
because they want to follow the "raw path" (imagine that - abandoning your
family for a different "lunch"!).

The above is not motivated by "superiority", but by my concern to help others,
and to prevent them from being harmed as I was. I feel it is my duty to
speak up, when I see such nonsense. Sanity and how you treat others are
far more important in life, and to this world, than the idealism of 100% raw.
My concerns here are not nonsense, but blindly following an ideal like
100% raw, is definitely nonsense!

Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>:
>***Fruitarianism is not a balanced diet, so I would not be surprised that
>in the long run people would have
>difficulties to justify their  health problems .

Tom:
And fruitarianism is usually 100% raw. It seems you agree that 100% raw can
be problematic.

Denis PEYRAT <[log in to unmask]>:
>*** If you are refering to the philosophy of life enshrined in the
>instinctive ethics , I   find it the  most liberal, beneficent, generous,
>open, tolerant, humanitarian, radical, reformist  theory which has ever
>been coined by human beings. But of course, you are free not to share  my
>point of view.

Tom:
Again, I am not writing about instincto, but raw veganism. There have been
lengthy discussions on this list, in the past (check archives), on the
instincto model of nature and the strengths and weaknesses thereof. People
interested in that subject should check the archives.

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]