NFL:
>Vicki,
>Please post the following to the instinktoid list.
>Thanks again!
>Stephen

Tom:
(I deleted blank lines from the above for readability).
Even before we get NFL's reply, we are treated to an example of their usual
immature bigotry: "instinKtoid" (capitalized by me for emphasis), rather than
the correct spelling: instincto.

In a post several weeks ago, I pointed out that deliberately spelling instincto
as "instinko" was bigotry, no different from calling people of other races,
nasty names. I also pointed out that such behavior is anti-compassion, and
anti-vegan. One counter-argument presented by a vegan (not NFL) was that
such bigotry is not anti-vegan because veganism is founded on animal
liberation rather than compassion. Let me simply point out that such argument
has no basis: without compassion for animals, "animal liberation" has no
more merit (or validity) than "automobile liberation". If you have no
compassion for animals, then you really don't care what happens to them.
So the use of "instinKto" is bigoted and anti-vegan.

NFL:
>I'm not in this to write formal scientific papers.  I'm in this to present
>logical arguments which you will not address because you CANNOT address
>them.  Diet is a life or death issue (for animals and people) and
>humanity's diet is ravaging the planet.  This is a forum for people who are
>seeking the truth of health and natural eating, not reference citations.
>People want answers to the questions raised about your basic assumptions
>(Why there are no common ancestors, no micro-mutations leading to
>macro-mutations, no Darwinian embryological development).  If Darwinism is
>a fact, why can't you or anyone else demonstrate it scientifically?

Tom:
The false information, and the mental poisons you promote: fear/hatred of
cooked food, and cooked food consumers, will not make this world a better
place. Fear and hate will only destroy the world - look at Germany under
the Third Reich for an example of the effects of a cult of fear and hate.
Your diet will not solve the problems of the world; indeed your negative
approach will only make things worse. You are part of the problem, you are
not part of the solution. The divisive rhetoric you (and other vegan
extremists) engage in only makes things worse.

Also, this is a forum for people who respect common courtesy and decency -
and I recall it was your gross lack of such qualities that caused you to be
excluded from this list earlier this year.

>>Stefan wrote:
>>if you think you are doing a thankless job you might be right. At least
>>I thank you a lot for it. I admit that I only skimmed over the material
>>and found my view of NFL confirmed: three boys still in puberty and with
>>lots of hay and anger in their heads. :-(
>>They remind me a bit of those boys in "Clockwork Orange". Did you see
>>it?

NFL:
>"We're singing in the rain!"  <Kubrick, Stanley, "A Clockwork Orange"
>(film), screenplay adapted from "A Clockwork Orange" originally written by
>Anthony Burgess...incomplete reference and plagiarism...I've been immoral,
>sorry!>

Tom:
Consider the case of the film, "A Clockwork Orange". We note that:
1) the original author was cited in the credits, along with the person
who did the screenplay. In the case of a film, this constitutes proper
acknowledgement for the writers.
2) Anthony Burgess (or his estate/heirs) was PAID real money for the use of
his book - his intellectual property, for the film.

Now we ask, did NFL give "proper acknowledgement" to Professor Johnson?
Ward's post shows that the answer is a clear no, on this. Did NFL pay
Professor Johnson for using (and copyrighting) his work? I don't know - but
seriously doubt it.

Indeed, the level of plagiarism in Wolfe's post "Science or science?" is so
substantial, that the word "theft" applies, in my opinion.

>>Tom:
>>It appears that Wolfe/NFL may fear that, if people learn the truth about
>>the real evolutionary diet of humans (omnivore), and ape diets (most
>>are omnivores), then they won't be interested in the extremist dogma
>>that NFL promotes. However, the ends do not justify the means - those who
>>promote idealistic diets using false information, are not helping to make
>>the world a better place, in my view.

NFL:
>"...the real evolutionary diet of humans (omnivore)?"  Still the issue was
>skirted and not addressed.  Why?  Perhaps omnivorists fear to learn the
>truth that the theory of evolution is false?  Hmmmm...

Tom:
Even ignoring the overwhelming evidence of: comparative anatomy, ape diets,
and evolution/fossil record, there is additional evidence that we are
omnivores:
* historical evidence - no vegan/fruitarian societies
* the case of the Inuit, Lapps, Tibetans.

If we assume that we are natural vegans/fruitarians, then we cannot explain
the survival of the Inuit, Lapps, Tibetans, who live where a vegan/fruitarian
diet is impossible. Typically the excuse I hear is that "we are natural
vegans/fruitarians, but we can survive on meat". The excuse, translated,
says: "if we can survive on vegetarian and meat diets, then we are omnivores -
I just don't want to admit it and use the word omnivore".

Some vegans admit that humans are natural omnivores - see the article in
"The Vegan Handbook" for details. The word "denial" describes the NFL attitude.

Side note re: the Inuits. I recall that NFL was excluded from the veg-raw
list this past Summer, for making what many considered to be a hostile,
racist remark about "eskimos".

This is all I have to say, as there is little point on trying to have a
discussion with extremists, and I don't want to pollute the list with
discussion of NFL - a negative, toxic subject (in my opinion).

Regards,
Tom Billings
[log in to unmask]