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
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