I wouldn't say the posts are distasteful



but Bryan is correct. dj, your 'arguments' always come from a point of distrust and scarcity, and criticism towards things that don't apply exclusively to your definitions of healthful living.

there are plenty of arguments you could voice about how your non-vegan diet of mostly greens would be 'superior' to a diet of sweet fruits.

the reasons you list..defficiency in minerals, being able to stand, smoke, eating bread etc...cooked food being appealing to our senses...are by and far the worst ones.

it sounds to me. that you have never thought to invest in healing your thoughts themselves. that you are addictied to the negative emotions and ideals (hence you are always asking if people accomplished much before raw vegan... hmm ..huh??) and sensations of a non-vegan non-life-appreciating society/thought process.


my conjecture is that your diet puts you in a state that is healthier by far due to the comparitive lack of antinutrients of a SAD non-vegan. yet your diet has never allowed your body to cleanse. If it had, you certainly wouldn't be tolerant of the substances you speak, such as meat, and process starches...even Norman Walker speaks of this, and certainly Fred Bisci. If you read Norman Walker..he certainly never intended for people to include meat and dairy in their diet...and outlines the extremely damaging effects on the body as the worst of foods to consume...certainly for 'nutrients'. the fact that he included some in his diet, and outlines options for including some (practically with the people he is speaking towards) proves nothing about its merits. People need minimal nutrients...proof enough is that people can be 'healthy' in your definition by eating 0 fresh food. Further proff is that people such as Norman walker or fred, cleansing their body to a point, realise that the clean body is in fact not really defficient in anything.

lately if I am exposed to smoke I go through an almost instant detox the folowing day...am I somehow deficient in minerals? do I lack the 'reserve' of enzymes as you say to combat this scourge? These are false concepts


Now you could argue if the 100% raw diet is the 'ideal' for us in our society or not..as you say..having to eat in isolation (assumption), being more sensative to our enviormental toxins and those of beings around us (say, smoking)...but this isn't the route you go. if you were to speak of how eating predominately sweet fruit is a far too cleansing diet for some, that they can't easily make that 'evolutionary' leap as you say, this is something I might understand as well, yet you don't go that route. Instead you criticise the diet on principles that are completely unsound, in a way that comes across as bitter, defensive and closeminded, and give off a vibe that your 'living foods diet' means the devouring of life..not the understanding of it.

[the consideration, love and compassion shown the animals should at least be extendable to the human being occupying cyber-space with you now. ]

And this includes consideration, love, and compassion extendable to human beings who do not show consideration, love, and compassion for the animals for whatever dubious reasons?

I'd prefer that they participate elsewhere. There is enough cruelty, torture, and murder in the outside world and other "raw" forums. I'd rather not see it practiced here as well.

I don't think rude comments make these forums any more livlier than they need to be. There is a difference in questioning something, and putting something or someone down.

And from what I have read, djatchi has very rarely given scientific reasons for anything. He/She just makes rude negative statements and forces his/her opinion on whomever, with incomplete facts and waits for someone else to fill in the blanks. It is a real downer and I think it is hard for anyone to learn from someone who has a bad attitude.

I mean, why would I want to believe in the same things as someone who doesn't even know how to behave?

"There is enough cruelty, torture, and murder in the outside world and other "raw" forums. I'd rather not see it practiced here as well."

Couldn't have said it better myself.
xxpeisi

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought you are the person hurting, a "litte
> cooked food" does nothing to me.


the reason for that is quite clear. it's not a mystery.

by the way,
how many years ago did you start your transition to high raw?

arugula wrote:

"And this includes consideration, love, and compassion extendable to human beings who do not show consideration, love, and compassion for the animals for whatever dubious reasons?"

Of course.

What value does consideration, love, and compassion have otherwise? That is precisely what is the trouble with the world in its struggles for peace this very day: No one wants to extend consideration, love, and compassion to others who oppose them.

besides, djatchi does not discuss specifics concerning her dietary practices. The discussion required that she divulge more personal information than usual, and I don't ever recall her recommending animal products to anyone here, and she is certainly not the only non-vegan on this forum. Some of us, arugula, actually live with non-vegans. Would you have us all on opposite sides of the globe with no admixture? Vegans take the north, Non-Vegans take the south? (cuz you ain't gonna get the coonasses down here to give up their bbq, so the Vegans have to take the North.)

Besides, there may be one or two people that question your presence here. Afterall, you support by your dietary actions the dreaded "cooked", and have shown no inclination to go 100% raw.

But then, everyones got a high horse they can't resist riding from time to time...and that includes me.


khale

You are making good point but the main issue with veganism is the perpetual notion of cleansing and detoxing. I have been 99 percent raw for about 20 years and you would think that my body did not cleanse itself on a diet of sprouts, greens and fruits.
I would agree with Brian and conceed on that argument about lack of nutrients but the main critical issue is that the commercial fruit and veggies are missing some key essentials nutrients or vitamins such zinc and b12 to name just few.

It is a fact that there is no living organism in nature living on a mono diet, or on a fruitarian diet. A cow eating grass will also absorb some small living organisms. The same for all animals in the wild, there are ants, termites, insects that come with leaves and greens but what do we see on a vegan board. We are told that a diet of exotic durian, or watermelon will sustain us. It is a cleansing diet, a short term cleansing diet. That is why those same vegans cannot tolerate a slice of bread from grandma because the body on a diet of bananas is in perpetual cleansing state and is lacking essentials nutrients such as b12, and zinc.

So let us have the courage to tell the truth. If I had to choose between a meal of exotic durian, bananas, grapes and another meal of green juices, greens salad, sprouts and a slice of meat I would go for the second because it is more complete even though it is not 100 percent raw.

Because the body is in perpetual cleansing state, a single non organic banana would hurt us. A good diet is supposed to build a strong body, resistant to disease even in rough environment. Many of those vegans would not survive after a long lasting natural disaster on the scale of katrina. There would be no organic produce to feed them, the body is too weak.
It is not important how long with have been 100 percent raw or 100 percent vegan but how long and strong we have been healthy.

khale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But then, everyones got a high horse they can't
> resist riding from time to time...and that
> includes me.

Don't be ridiculous. I bite my tongue in the real world.

Here, it is different. Why should I, when the forum rules specifically state that this is a vegan forum?

I don't think it's too much to ask. Especially when the reasons for indulging are wrong. Meat is an optional rather than an essential constituent of human diets. ref: [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Ignorance is curable. I dunno about meanness.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2007 04:38PM by arugula.

djatchi Wrote:

> commercial fruit and
> veggies are missing some key essentials nutrients
> or vitamins such zinc and b12 to name just few.


The below amounts are easy to get based on the amount of zinc reported in the usda database. The usda database is comprised of commercial produce as far as i know.
most of us eat food that is BETTER than the average reported in the database.

ZINC

The lack of specific and sensitive indexes for zinc status limits the possibilities for evaluating zinc requirements from epidemiologic observations. In the FAO/IAEA/WHO 1996 report (32), zinc requirements were estimated by using the factorial technique (i.e., by adding the requirements for tissue growth, maintenance, metabolism, and endogenous losses). Experimental zinc repletion studies with low zinc intakes have clearly shown that the body has a pronounced ability to adapt to different levels of zinc intakes by changing the endogenous zinc losses through the kidneys, intestine, and skin (5-9,33). The normative requirement for absorbed zinc was defined as the obligatory loss during the early phase of zinc depletion before adaptive reductions in excretion take place and was set at 1.4 mg/day for men and 1.0 mg/day for women.

now are you going to send me on a wild goose chase for each and every nutrient you can think of that we are supposedly deficient in?

> It is a fact that there is no living organism in
> nature living on a mono diet, or on a fruitarian
> diet.

that is why many raw vegans supplement with b12

AND eating animal products does not necessarily help with a b12 issue.

> Many of
> those vegans would not survive after a long
> lasting natural disaster on the scale of katrina.
> There would be no organic produce to feed them,
> the body is too weak.

that is absurd.
the times that i have eaten cooked food did not kill me.
it only made me not feel as well.

but i presume you will continue to make this silly statement no matter what anyone says.

and you will continue to make absurd statements about "strong bodies" no matter what anyone says to disprove your belief.

your previous healthy cooked meal mentioned will DECREASE your zinc availability.


later

arugula wrote:

"Don't be ridiculous. I bite my tongue in the real world."

I don't follow the reasoning. Is this not the "real world"?

djatchi is a real human being and cyber-space is as real a world as any. I assure you that I am as real here as I am anywhere else.

Aren't you?

...and who is being mean?


khale

sure, If you don't see a 100% cleansing diet is sustainable for those reasons and want to promote your diet for those reasons, nothing wrong with that.

to me, I'm skeptical whether these are your motivations. To me, you seem less interested/motivated in spreading this truth/gospel to others then in defending your health choices for your own benefit and satisfaction. If it wasn't for the latter..I doubt you would even post here at all. your desire is clearly 'to be right' to be secure and not to be productive.

a 'complete meal' is a concept
'damage' from a non-organic or hybridized fruit is a concept

IMO false concepts

and yes, you could be 100% raw for 40 years and never cleanse, theres no system you can stick to that will ensure health if one doesn't do the work, the conscious work, eating is simply the element we have the most control over, and a vegan lifestyle usually opens up the possibility of the conscious work. just my experience.

anaken Wrote:

>
> a 'complete meal' is a concept
> 'damage' from a non-organic or hybridized fruit is
> a concept
>
> IMO false concepts
>

I've enjoyed your posts of late.

but i can't comprehend the above.

you seem to be saying that non-organically grown food cannot damage a human body?

assuming this is the case, then tell me if you think that

- non-organically grown foods contain pesticides
- pesticides can damage living things that eat the food containing them
- humans are living things
- non-organically grown foods can damage humans.

am i misunderstanding something?

for me chosing organic is just refining the diet. Theres tons of factors involved. like which is more optimal..an in season commercial melon, or an out of season organic strawberry, or a rotting organic pineapple, or an un-ripe organic banana, or a dried organic fig. There could be a right answer here or not..but to me its just one of the factors,,ripe, whole, fresh etc...and doesn't necessarily carry more weight then another. Its my opinion that it carries the least weight of the group both for providing adequate health, and social productivity (buying exclusively commercial fruit is better then organic products IMO)

I don't buy into the lies that eating commercial fruit is one of the 'failures of frutarianism' or whatever. To me, health is very much about what you leave out..so if all you have left is commercial fruit, thats still a comparitively optimal place to be. I try to avoid pesticides, and certainly my choice to buy organic is dictated by avaliability and not by price (except grapes which I refuse to pay 3x the ammount).

but being against commercial fruit or hybridized fruit or whatever..is almost the same argument as those arguing against 'cultivated fruits' instead of wild fruits blah blah, just a lesser extreme...that somehow, what we have access to, isn't good enough. I can't support those ideas.

> - non-organically grown foods can damage humans.

if I had to answer this, I'd say that the pesticides are kind of a rider on the fruit, the fruit (non-gmo) therefore still counts as fruit to the body and won't be treated like a disease. If one is clean, they might be more suceptible to the chemicals, or they might be cleansing so much that the pesticides don't stick around. But really this is just an idea. I don't think comparatively pesticides or the lack of nutriton carry much weight when you think about past consumptions of toxins, genetic toxins, and current enviornmental toxins.

Peisinoe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think rude comments make these forums any
> more livlier than they need to be. There is a
> difference in questioning something, and putting
> something or someone down.
>
> And from what I have read, djatchi has very rarely
> given scientific reasons for anything. He/She just
> makes rude negative statements and forces his/her
> opinion on whomever, with incomplete facts and
> waits for someone else to fill in the blanks. It
> is a real downer and I think it is hard for anyone
> to learn from someone who has a bad attitude.
>
> I mean, why would I want to believe in the same
> things as someone who doesn't even know how to
> behave?
>
> "There is enough cruelty, torture, and murder in
> the outside world and other "raw" forums. I'd
> rather not see it practiced here as well."
>
> Couldn't have said it better myself.
> xxpeisi
Just because I disagree with you does not imply that I write rude comments. I have the right to questions some of the remarks from vegans. I am not interested in the is-such-a-nice-guy comments from other board members who agree with my views.
For example I mostly eat greens and sprouts and I am more interested in posts on these issues dealing with possible problems eating greens. But on this board there are comments from vegans that need to be examined.
If a single non organic banana make me sick then there is a problem with my health, I cannot hide behind the detoxing and cleansing.
Adding living and raw food to the diet is a great and important step in our health but we need to have the attitute that would invite new comers, people who are not ready to be 100 percent raw, 100 percent vegans. It seems that some get insulted because of my suggestion that you do not have to be 100 percent raw to be healthy.
What we read from some vegans is that this or that make them sick. My question is were you that healthy to begin with?

Here are my main points.

1.It is not necessary to be 100 percent raw to be healthy.

2. If I were 100 percent raw and my body could not tolerate an occasional slice of bread from grandma, then I would conclude that it is not the bread but rather that I am not as healthy as I thought. I cannot be detoxing perpetually.

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 2. If I were 100 percent raw and my body could not
> tolerate an occasional slice of bread from
> grandma, then I would conclude that it is not the
> bread but rather that I am not as healthy as I
> thought. I cannot be detoxing perpetually.


the reaction has nothing to do with detoxing.

fresh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the reaction has nothing to do with detoxing.

Explain to us, what is the reaction due to?
I have lived in the wild forest of africa for years, we would capture wild animals and bring them home with us and feed them cooked and processed foods, these animals who were completely raw would be fine for years. Are we to say that we human are less resistant to the point where a cup of coffee, a slice of bread make us sick?
What it is is that there is something very essential missing in a diet of exotic durian, watermelon that need to be addressed and most on this board are not willing to talk about it.

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Explain to us, what is the reaction due to?

it's a defensive reaction to something that has entered the body that is not good for that body. could be for various reasons.

> I have lived in the wild forest of africa for
> years, we would capture wild animals and bring
> them home with us and feed them cooked and
> processed foods, these animals who were completely
> raw would be fine for years.

my dog was "completely fine for years" on commercial pet food.

or was it? couldn't walk when it got older.
how did it feel? i don't know - i am not my dog.

djatchi Wrote:

> What it is is that there is something very
> essential missing in a diet of exotic durian,
> watermelon that need to be addressed and most on
> this board are not willing to talk about it.


yes it's b12. could it be other things as you say? yes of course.
but i don't think so. you are entitled to think otherwise.

scientists have put a lot of time and effort into this and have not found anything else that definitely presents a problem for humans from a nutrient standpoint other than b12.

So if b12 is important then where do you get it from on a diet of exotic durian and watermelon? Because what we read on this board as suggestions for meals are watermelons, 10 bananas, 16 tangerines. Could it be that b12 deficiency explain why some vegan cannot tolerate a slice of bread?

I don't think anyone is getting insulted because of your suggestion that you do not have to be 100 percent raw to be healthy. If I was insulted, it would be because you keep trying to hide behind this and by saying things like "we have to be more open to those not 100% raw and vegan' which are true statements, as if this is your agenda, when to me, it doesn't seem that way at all. You seem far more interested in disproving that one can live off of predominately (or completely) on fruit or without animal products. and even if they were sucessful that their concept of sucess is your definition of weakness.

you also make blanket statements which might be beyond the scope of intelectual discussion, and use them as some kind of hyperbolic proof, even though there is no way to prove your statement..for instance:

why can't you be detoxing perpetually?

the other thing that could be considered insulting, is you make the same arguments over and over, even when people have made inteligent rebutals over the past months or years or whatever..always the same statements. IMO that is really the sign of close mindedness, not the kind of 'open-discussion' you speak of as important.

I already answered before that humans are phisiologically different than wild animals in many ways. we are also capable of things that they are not, and they are physically capable (digestively speaking) of operating in ways that we are not. It's certainly possible for a human being to intentionaly alter its phyisiological needs and capabilities..I don't think animals have much a need or desire to function in that way.

I agree, we can't all be cheerleaders, and there certainly are concepts we have to discuss on an individual basis, but doing so based on the desire to be right..will always be transparent.

if you really believe there is any correlation between b12, and being able to digest bread...then you truly operate in a world of fear, doubt, and speculation.

What I see is you take offense when someone posts a meal of tangerines, not because of your concern for them, but because of the questions it poses to your system of belief.

You make good points but the question that remain unanswered is this.
Why can't those on 100 percent raw diet survive in les than optimal environment without the things that make them operate. Why is that sometimes hearing from them a single non organic banana causes problem? What we read from them is statements like: coffee or team make me sick, non organic make me sick. The question remain, were they healthy in the first place or do they always need clean waters, clean air, organic this organic that? In constrast with that, on a non 100 percent raw, with greens, sprouts and some meat once a week I do not get these problems. I can operate in less than optimal environment. I am not saying they should follow my diet but the point needs to be made. What is the benefit of beeing completely raw if we can live in less than optimal environments



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2007 09:02PM by djatchi.

I don't want to get into the argument about who is right, but I just want to say that I am in support of djatchi continuing to be on this list, because I believe we are only as strong as our ability to have a civil conversation with someone who doesn't happen to agree with our particular philosophy.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

djatchi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why can't those on 100 percent raw diet survive
> in les than optimal environment without the things
> that make them operate.

>Why is that sometimes
> hearing from them a single non organic banana
> causes problem?

I understand now.

You're not really looking for an answer.

When you say "Why.." you aren't really asking for a logical explanation. What you're saying is

"Why won't you agree with me? "

and

"No matter what you say, I'm still going to ask "but Why..?"

whew... that saves me a lot of typing..

fresh, what is the answer. I will be waiting....

It appears like djatchi is saying that sensitivity is a weakness, and the fact that a person eating 100% raw can tell the difference between an organic banana and a commercial banana by the way it tastes is a problem. Or another weakness is that a person eating 100% raw will not be able to enjoy a piece of bread like djatchi can because djatchi is less than 100% raw.

To me, sensitivity is not a weakness but a strength. I don't see the benefit of not being able to tell when a food or air is polluted or poisoned. I don't see the benefit of not being able to tell if your water is pure or not. If somehow there was some gasoline in your water, wouldn't you want your senses to tell you this?

A piece of bread is loaded with anti nutrients. I haven't tried this is over 5 years, but I suspect if I ate of piece of bread right now, my body would let me know it wasn't happy. However, if I persisted eating bread, at some point it would give up trying to tell me that it didn't like the bread. How do I know this? Because at some point I conditioned my body to eat bread, and if I did it before, I am pretty sure I could do it again.

The question I have to ask is "Is it worth it, to have this ability to eat bread? Am I missing something by getting carbohydrates from fruit rather than wheat?"

For me, the answer is no. Because while I might gain the ability to eat bread if I retrain myself, I also might find myself getting into the old body and old health I had when I could enjoy bread. For me, its not a worthwhile trade.

yes there is a point to living a lifestyle that you think is appropriate for your environment

if you feel that a 100% diet, excluding things like sprouted grains and legumes and dairy/meat could make it less suitable to live a comfortable life, both socially and healthfully in a non-optimal enviorment, i can only agree. Certainly everyone should make these types of decisions inteligently and honestly as best they can as decisions for a lifetime.

as Bryan points out, sensitivity is a strength. that doesn't mean it manifests as a social comfort or physical comfort or immunity to pain or enviornmental ills, likely it manifests as the opposite. to me this ability to feel, and to think and act as consciously as I can outweighs the fears I might have about this sensitivity in relation to the world

how does this sensitivity happen? through the body cleansing itself of the ability to process unhealthful foods, the current state of the body dictating what constitutes unhealthful at that moment. A smoker might pound 2 packs a cigarettes in a matter of hours and feel fantastic. an alcholic can down a bottle of Jack Daniels...same thing....favorite Dini quote: "what's a moderate ammount of a bullet in the head" you can only have healthful things in moderation, being able to have un-healthful things in moderation would then be - by definition - not healthy. if one wants to get techincal, but certainly its still a valid point/desire to function in the way you speak

djatchi-
you present yourself like you are intelligent, yet you keep misunderstanding why people have a problem with you.

It isn't because you don't agree with them.

It is because you are RUDE. You don't just disagree with people. You are condescending and look down your nose at everyone who doesn't agree with you.
That is why people say you have a huge ego.
That is why instead of thanking you for your input, people ask for you to be banned.

Most people don't care if others disagree with them or their beliefs, but they DO care if people treat them as though they are stupid. This is what you do. And I don't think that it should be tolerated.

xxpeisi

Peisinoe,
Who are these people saying that I am rude?
What I see on this board is that there are many open minded people ready to question their views on things and there are some just like you for whom it is very difficult to accept an opposing view. I am not interested in being in the I-like-you-beacuse-you-confirm-my-view club. It may hurt some to read that a 100 percent raw diet plan is not necessary to be healthy but it is the truth. It may hurt to read that a diet of durian, watermelon may be missing some key nutrients but it is the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2007 04:11PM by djatchi.

djatchi-

you are not reading what I am writing.

I never claimed to be 100% raw or said that it was necessary.
I never said I had a problem accepting another point of view.
In fact, you would have understood all this by now if you only read what I wrote.
You can read, can't you?

This is what I have a problem with: people being condescending jerks.
I applaud people questioning their diets. I do not see you as an intellectual questioning a diet, but rather an elitist shooting down what other people choose for themselves.

Do you understand now?

and are you serious? You haven't read all the comments about people having a problem with your snarky holier-than-thou responses to some people's messages? You haven't read the descriptions various people here have of you as being "negative", "mean", and having an "ego"?

Are you really in this much denial?

Also, for the record, I have never even eaten a durian before, and the only thing I eat that is close to a watermelon is cucumber.

I am not interested in you conforming. I am interested to see if you have the capacity to be more polite and understanding of other people than just shooting down everything you disagree with. But it is apparently very difficult for you see how you are coming across (as a condescending jerk- just to be extremely clear). Instead, you make a bunch of odd claims about me being a 100% raw foodist durian eater, as though this justifies your bad behavior...

Anyway, talking to you is like banging my head into a brick wall, so I am not gonna do it anymore. Enjoy your steaks and cooked foods.

I'm putting you on my ignore now,
xxpeisi

"Cos I believe in peace, ______"- tori amos

Peisinoe,
This is what you write:

Quote

you are coming across (as a condescending jerk- just to be extremely clear)....
------------------------
this justifies your bad behavior...
------------------------
Enjoy your steaks and cooked foods....

And yet your are the good person and I am the bad person ????????