If it is just another diet..like many paleo diets here it should be treated as such. The problem is that other diets don't make the same outrageous claims that eating for pleasure ALWAYS trumps eating according to 'modern' constructions of diets. Those that you regularly criticize often purely for being 'diets' having restrictions or additions different to what you believe handed down by some ideas. These diets might make other claims seemingly more outrageous to you but
you and basically few others sharing your philosophy are the only people making that particular claim. Suggesting a process is so close to nature (and criticizing
anything and everything that is outside this definition of 'nature')
of course is going to have to be
more accountable for showing it has
more sucess. Without those claims, no other less natural diets (which is assumed of course) are needing to live up to the same percentages of success as natures perfection. Sounds unfair but isn't as extreme claims need extreme successes or at least consise clear evidences of others' failures, not just citing the same ideological principles which is actually under question about what
should be good. It just happens to be ironic that other diets do have more success particulary for healing specific conditions. With just plain unknowns to the less common or relevant: diets useful or sufficient for raising perfectly healthy people from birth in a perfect and wild environment. The idea that people have specifically left instinco to at least try these approaches (if not have more success) which you continually and disingenuously leave out, is also an important issue.
Obviously the reason people go off RPD AND instincto diets would include not having absolutely the best health one would expect. Far more so and before people addressed social or other concerns. No one goes off a diet that makes them feel like the absolute healthiest person that has existed before man mastered fire (when people were truly healthy?)..or whatever opinions you have about the current human race or how harmful cooking is. Its very important with such
drastic claims to show how drastically or poorly this type of 'purity'
can stack up to people employing the things one is so critical of.
If people have had far more success with other approaches (even after leaving instincto to other approaches) obviously it is false that one can automatically criticize things as harmful just by the very nature of them crossing instincto ideology, which is
absolutely the basis of which you criticize things and NOT
actual material assessments and measurements. Its OK to not need or agree with these for
personal choices, but as with my comments above to the other member the reverse is NOT OK - that is neglecting outright proof (postive in others, negative in oneself) in favor of
how things should be.
Having basic evidence of people being
alive with no other evidence as I already suggested...this is stuff one would expect on a raw vegan site which can produce equal or greater 'evidence', grasping at straws to show bare minimums and then citing a diet is perfect for all people and all conditions. What you present is still a combination of 'things appear ok' + we have a
failproof idea of what is healthy or natural, nothing more. Raw-veganism fits that bill perfectly
for many , particularly with anthropology always in dispute.
Overall still the same 'it may be or it may not be', but a sincere thanks for trying I suppose. Basically here is one last question which should infom whether there is an untruth or that you truly
don't(??) tell people "this is wrong "or place judgement of one diet (instinctotherapy) over another without comparing objective real life evidence.
How about taking two identical twins at birth. If one ate an instincto diet are you saying that you
do think its possible that another that ate an entirely differnt diet (still raw, more or less) could easily have better health? That you are only making a claim that an instincto diet should yield reasonable health for most but possibly not better than diets that have other methods?
I said none because I can’t prove anything to you since you wrote me:
---
You have still provided none (most of this is just avoiding the quesitons asked), since this doesn't include actual documentation like teeth and skin as mentioned are needed. These are easy to take and acquire, particulary if there are plenty of people and such a large percentage succeeding on this approach. Candid photos from the 80's doesn't cut it. Quite simply you quoted a
PM from when you harassed me personally after giving up arguing on the forum, I don't see that coming across well. .Also in this thread is a clear "i could have banned you" threat. Isn't a liar simply someone who consistently shares mistruths? and isn't it a mistruth when you claim you do not make comments about what is right or wrong? (even in situations you have 0 experience with) when clearly this makes up most of your posts? These mis-truths include the ones that incited my claim to your email threat. I pointed out that you lied similarly when you were
actually saying you haven't criticized people
EVER for discussing not drinking water, dairy eating, or a 'ZC' diet or any other thing that goes against instincto in some form. These naysayings are also in totally 'paleo' subjects and diets (those making up the bulk of the forum) to be clear. Still the claim of which I called 'lie' was
that - That you claimed there is only ever 'suggesting' or 'pointing out' "which things are neolithic" (this is exact quote). Obviously this is untrue. Since that was brought up its been untrue and even since this new thread has been active this continues.
