RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"Thomas E. Billings" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 06:50:23 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
Copyright 1998 by Thomas E. Billings, all rights reserved.

great post, Jean-Louis!

On a related note I would add:

A cooked food consumer who teaches that other groups of people are
"mutants" or "inferior", is a bigot. A fruitarian/raw foods advocate who
teaches that cooked food consumers are mutants or inferior, is "passionate".

A cooked food consumer who engages in plagiarism or threatens others with
physical harm, would be considered to be a criminal. A fruitarian/raw foods
advocate who does the same, is "passionate" and "the ends justify the
means".

A cooked food scientist who claims that "fruit is just like Mother's
milk", "humans evolved as strict fruitarians" would be considered
a lunatic or a crackpot. A raw fooder who promotes the same, will
likely consider himself/herself a "scientific genius".

If a cooked fooder suggested that the brains of raw fooders had degenerated,
raw fooders would angrily demand proof. If a raw fooder suggests that
the brains of cooked food scientists are damaged, it is considered
"self-evident" or "fair game" (especially when conventional science
contradicts raw dogma).

Perhaps others have additional analogies? If so, you might consider
posting them.

Tom Billings

ATOM RSS1 RSS2