Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum

Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Suggestion Box => Topic started by: Dorothy on July 29, 2011, 10:13:53 am

Title: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on July 29, 2011, 10:13:53 am
Is there some place where there's a list of what the color of the stars and the labels that are above members names mean?

I'm very sad that I am no longer an egg thief, because that label described me the best. When I get to shaman could I just stop there? I mean, I'm not much of hunter. Forager, egg thief, gatherer or a fisherwoman maybe but keep me away from being a mammoth hunter please - sounds way too scary. But - if I eventually get to shaman could I just stop there? That fits me almost as well as egg thief. I'm not much for being a chief any time in the future either because they are often the first to die or be killed in a skirmish.  :o

Of course this is all great fun - but I do get the sense that those stars and labels are supposed to mean something and tell me who's alpha and beta etc so that I can properly roll over and show how submissive I am so I don't get hurt. If there's no place where all the roles and colors are listed in hierarchial order, would someone like to make such a list so that all us low down on the totem pole can socially negotiate more safely the structure of the tribe?

Deep thanks to the elders and leaders for your guidance. 
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: RawZi on July 29, 2011, 05:26:01 pm
Forager, egg thief, gatherer or a fisherwoman maybe but keep me away from being a mammoth hunter please - sounds way too scary ...

Of course this is all great fun - but I do get the sense that those stars and labels are supposed to mean something and tell me who's alpha and beta etc so that I can properly roll over and show how submissive I am so I don't get hurt ... 

    I apologize if my stars sound scary.  Mostly I think the titles just mean how many posts each member has made here.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 01, 2011, 06:39:50 am
Ohhhhh. Just numbers. Then your stars just stopped being so scary!  :D  Now I know that I don't really have to trap or hunt anything.

Thanks Zi.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: RawZi on August 01, 2011, 06:54:42 am
Ohhhhh. Just numbers. Then your stars just stopped being so scary!  :D  Now I know that I don't really have to trap or hunt anything.

Thanks Zi.

    Nope you don't.  You can buy the meat wherever great quality raw meat is sold.  You could slaughter one of your chickens occasionally in the future, don't have to.  You can trade with neighbors if they slaughter on their own family farm, you give them eggs or herbs or worms or whatever.  No hard and fast rules that I know of like that.  Quite a number here don't set traps in the woods (nor mouse traps) nor do quite a number hunt, I haven't myself yet, so obviously ... Thanks for the respectful question though. :)
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 01, 2011, 08:21:01 am
One of the last remaining rules of the house is that no one eats a species that is a member of the family - so no one gets to eat chickens here. Good thing I don't live on a farm right? As it is we are already an old age home for hens and dogs.

I wish things were easier in terms of trading here. People just don't seem to do it when it comes to food. I had the most amazing raw fermented butter I wanted to trade and could barely give it away. Weird. Now I wish I had kept it. Little did I know that in the summer the fat content of milk goes through the floor.  :'(

But hey - someone told me just today that the store we shop at just started to carry grass-fed. So, I think we'll be ok.  ;)

Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: RawZi on August 01, 2011, 08:31:34 am
One of the last remaining rules of the house is that no one eats a species that is a member of the family - so no one gets to eat chickens here. ...

But hey - someone told me just today that the store we shop at just started to carry grass-fed. So, I think we'll be ok.  ;)

    Yes, fat content varies depending on the sun and weather and age of the calves etc, just like human milk I gather.  Are you sure you need as much fat in summer?  Maybe instead of butter in Summer you can drink the milk straight.

    I've never eaten a pet either, except I guess some chicken from my babysitter when I was a toddler.  You need some hunter neighbors I think!  Hey, maybe I'm not meant to hunt with experienced hunters, as it's never happened yet.  If you ever want to bumble around hunting with someone who has no idea how, let me know. 

    I tried grass fed butter from the store.  I will not do that one myself again, sorry, yeck.  Took me a long time to heal from that one.  Maybe your store has raw or your body is less reactive.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 01, 2011, 08:49:40 am
One of the last remaining rules of the house is that no one eats a species that is a member of the family - so no one gets to eat chickens here.
Interestingly, at least some hunter-gatherer peoples apparently have an opposite sort of view. I have seen some say that they feel closest to the animals they eat and that they believe the animals live on in them. In a way they become those animals. Thus the Lakota are sometimes called the buffalo people and I have seen them refer to the buffalo as relatives. In other words, by eating the animals a lot, the animals become part of their family. There's also the broader Lakota view that "we are all related," meaning all the plants and animals and even the earth.

Another example was a scientist reporting that the zhut-/wasi African Bushmen become one with the animal they hunt and feel the pain when they spear it or shoot it with an arrow. Just yesterday I saw a video of an Inuit man who said his father said that when he killed his first whale he felt that he died with it and then came back to life.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 01, 2011, 11:21:09 am
Zi - raw milk is illegal to sell in stores in Texas. I buy milk once a month and make my own fermented quark cheese, butter and whey. I cannot drink even the great quality milk I get raw. I have to ferment the dairy to make it digestible and healthy for us. The butter I make is nothing like anything you can buy in any store anywhere. It's amazing stuff. My desire for butter flows, but Brian always likes to have pretty much the same and is missing having none right now - as am I.   :(
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 01, 2011, 11:40:31 am
Oh Phil - I am not nearly that flexible. Even if I become closer to family members by killing them and eating them - I am just not capable. I'm far from saying that how I feel is "right" or "good". I'm just never going to be able to kill and eat the animals I feel so connected to and I'm never going to be able to hunt. The only way that I would do it is if my husband or pets were starving. I for myself would not kill or eat a chicken and for myself I would not kill a cow or deer etc. To feed myself I would steal eggs, kill bugs, fish and milk an animal and take honey from bees. That much I know I would do for myself. Killing anything higher up on the food chain than a fish (and that might not be easy) is not for me. I guess I can't honestly say what I would do until I was actually starving, but brain damage for instance (what someone here said that vegetarians get) for me wouldn't be a reason to eat higher up on the food chain. If that sounds crazy - maybe it's because I'm already brain damaged?  l) Preventing brain damage for someone I love though - that's a different thing for me. I'm just incredibly grateful that I don't have to hunt or kill. I consider that one of the gifts of my life.

Again, I would surely not say that others should not hunt for their food and how the real people live with the natural world impresses me. I'm just either out of touch or just different. I seem to fit vegetarianism very well but somehow never got the memo that I was supposed to think everyone else - or anyone else for that matter - should also be one. I'm willing to go out of that comfort zone for those I love, but not for myself.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 01, 2011, 12:19:22 pm
I guess I can't honestly say what I would do until I was actually starving, but brain damage for instance (what someone here said that vegetarians get) for me wouldn't be a reason to eat higher up on the food chain. If that sounds crazy - maybe it's because I'm already brain damaged?  l) Preventing brain damage for someone I love though - that's a different thing for me. I'm just incredibly grateful that I don't have to hunt or kill. I consider that one of the gifts of my life.


Noble and honest - brain damaged yes - but honest :)

Its likely true that when it came down to it many could not kill an animal starring them in the face. Domestic animals being harder for a number of reasons. Such is the way of things I suppose...This is not to say that humans (vegans and carnivores alike) arn't somehow overprivileged from this mundane killing that to a person in nature would be normal - due more to systems of lock-and-key civilization and particularly modern distribution than to any kind of intrinsic empathy or spiritual advancement IMO. DaVinci might have been big on moving up from the savages....but what does this have to do with what is healthy?

as per the brain thing...It reminds me of an anecdote from another forum.

Clearly on many kinds of diets (even blatantly awful ones lacking food) we can sustain some sense of living, but as conscious people we must accept the consequences on our health. I have friends that are vegans and they don't do so thinking they are eating the healthiest diet on the planet, so I think that is fine (provided they don't reproduce). As for having optimal functioning if we accept that we won't have x cause of y..then that is fine..but if we fool ourselves into thinking that z replaces x we are in the realm of self-destruction for the sake of some other (y) ideology and to me that ironically goes against what I believe to be human beings innate spirituality and plan to live our their full expression.

anyway I digress...I got in this 'discussion' with a likely 18 year old (raw) vegan on another forum (these folks are always like 18)
and he said something which I thought was pretty strange..it was like "well I wouldn't eat meat if it made me the healthiest person in the world" and I thought to myself..well how gracious of you..you'd give up superhuman abilities for the welfare of animals...how about if you wern't your over-privileged 18 year old body or your parents had no sense and fed you some wackjob diet..and your body needed animal food or it would shortly cease to exist or you had to live your entire life as some kind of invalid.  ???

of course they don't believe animal food does that shit anyway...


I think its pretty important for people to come to terms with killing and to actually be ok at least with doing so themselves if not doing it regularly...HOWEVER...EVERYONE deserves the right to pursue the foods that will give and restore health. Its too bad that our overpopulation and structure of civilization requires us to pen animals thereby making the process fairly skewed and different degrees of wrong. BTW Just talking around this topic...I certainly respect your considered viewpoint.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: RawZi on August 01, 2011, 12:23:37 pm
- raw milk is illegal to sell in stores in Texas. I buy milk once a month and make my own fermented quark cheese, butter and whey. I cannot drink even the great quality milk I get raw. I have to ferment the dairy to make it digestible and healthy for us.

    The dairy is illegal here too.  We make our own butter, and yes, it too tastes so much better than store bought, depending on the source of the milk.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 01, 2011, 12:41:30 pm
Oh Phil - I am not nearly that flexible.
Yes, I know. It's just interesting how opposite those common modern views are from the traditional and it's fascinating that it's possible to view things in an opposite way--with eating animal being seen as a communion rather than murder (and this concept of communion carried on into modern Roman Catholicism, but bread and wine replaced the traditional lamb or bird--yet the bread and wine are supposed to represent human flesh and blood--which goes back to another ancient practice among some peoples of eating a little of one's departed relatives so that they might live on in you). How much we've changed. Another factor is that men traditionally handled the hunting, killing and initial butchering of large animals, though women might do some of the butchering and cooking of the larger animals. Depending on the habitat and the culture, HG women might also hunt and kill small game like rabbits, so a woman might be expected to kill fowl like chickens (if chickens had been present in Africa or the heart of Eurasia (they apparently come from a tropical South and Southeast Asia--areas foreign to my direct ancestors going all the way back to the dawn of humanity).

In later times, with the advent of farming, farmers wives would probably generally have been expected to be willing to kill and butcher chickens. My grandparents on my mother's side were farmers and they never spoke of anyone, including females, being queasy about killing and butchering animals. It probably wasn't their favorite task but there seemed to be much less squeamishness about it among farmers. I think it's the urbanization of humans and the development of sanitized supermarkets, plus recent "vegetarian" Hindu/Buddhist influence on the West, when it comes to red meats (Tibetan Buddhists are not vegetarian, however), that has separated us from the process and made it seem strange.

Given that the meat, organs and fat of animals are beneficial to people's health, those who believe in a creator and think that meat eating is sinful must believe that the Creator made a badly mixed-up universe with nature as inherently sinful and counterproductive. It seems more likely that if there is a Creator, he must have designed for meat to be eaten, and that is what the Bible says. It's only when people have other non-Biblical religious and ethical views like those of Hinduism that meat eating becomes a problem. I take a naturalistic view myself, in which it all makes sense and there's no contradiction, because nature is nature and doesn't have to be molded to fit a human preconception.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 01, 2011, 11:46:27 pm
I think - or at least I hope - KD that I am one of the lucky ones that has the feelings that I do towards animals as I have been one of the healthiest people I know since I changed over to a whole foods diet so many decades ago. Veganism and vegetarianism have seemed to fit me. I never get colds or flus and I usually am stronger and have more vitality than the young people around me. I'm healthier now that I was 35 and more years ago. I get tired of hiring younger people to work for me just to be amazed at how sick, tired and sluggish they are.

As a logical person I know that I cannot say that a diet that I have not tried would not make me feel even better. I cannot say that eating raw animal meat and fat wouldn't make me into a superhero. That, I will find out. I do know that cooked meats would not do that. I'm much better off without them.

I do admit that just recently finally having contact with other raw foodists for the first time in a forum, in the raw vegan community I saw such intense denial that I now am scouring myself for it. I think the big difference is that there are now people evangelizing against fat and protein - which was and still is a marvel to me. Raw foods just used to - don't cook anything - and that's it.

When I seem to feel so much better than everyone else around me, it's difficult to judge the diet that I have been on harshly - but what I would love to do is put myself in the midst of raw paleos and see how I seem to myself then in comparison. I guess that's part of why I am here. On forums of raw vegans I noticed so many that were giving away that they were getting manic, getting sick, their posts got less logical and more aggressive and less balanced over time. Not all of them - but enough that I saw a pattern - and it shocked me - because it didn't seem to match up to my experience - unless of course I also am in denial.  ;)

The good thing about being human and in society is that we DO have the ability to get food without having to go out and find it or kill it........ and it's the bad thing too........ and it is a concern of mine that it might soon be close to impossible to get non-irradiated raw food from the food production system in this country of any quality at all for much longer.

Soon, anyone who wants to eat healthfully of any kind might have to go back into producing or finding their own food - whether they want to or not. Then all us privileged gentle folk would be truly face to face with what we would and would not do.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 02, 2011, 02:39:28 am
I think - or at least I hope - KD that I am one of the lucky ones that has the feelings that I do towards animals as I have been one of the healthiest people I know since I changed over to a whole foods diet so many decades ago. Veganism and vegetarianism have seemed to fit me. I never get colds or flus and I usually am stronger and have more vitality than the young people around me. I'm healthier now that I was 35 and more years ago. I get tired of hiring younger people to work for me just to be amazed at how sick, tired and sluggish they are. [...]


Well perhaps. Even Aajonus says some rare people can do ok on proper vegetarian diets and certainly there are examples of people that can live a normal lifespan doing so and eating cooked foods..often even skirting some health problems common in the west. Its usually difficult to do such diets as you say emphasizing fat and protein for a variety of reasons and there are often believed problems with many of these proteins and fats in plants that might become apparent in viewing this forum. Of course no one knows exactly the formula for health..and in particular what is applicable for a modern person. I agree that one can't by completely by default claim a meat diet is automatically superior even with anthropological evidence. There are people doing such fat/protein veg raw diets and in my assessment they are usually more balanced and healthier than high sugar raw diets but I guess my whole point was this does not mean the logic in choosing that boils down completely to "less good" than something possibly more sound.

Unfortunately - although you are not a 18 year old boy - the logic you are using is still a little skewed in the above way. It really isn't an issue of say picking something that is "less good" but based even in the very study that you have done...is at best avoiding crisis so far or any clearly demarcated problems of such.

When you are talking about noticing a need to be grounded, too 'sattvic' etc..this indeed is some level of mania or some other kind of burning chi/nitro/excitotoxins...take your pick it ain't good. Humans seem to have a huge capacity to function that way...but at a certain point there is some breakdown or extinguishing. Often the mental component - for me - is also the biggest decipherable difference in diet. For me I don't see it merely as I choose to do this or be less grounded/have highs and lows/irritability as a superior option but that the other way really is not a reasonable option that is fair to me and my environment - given the option so to speak. Certainly not one that is worth sacrificing for ideals....That was more or less what i was saying.

I guess to make it more clear...if I could have 'normal' health without eating animal foods..I would certainly snatch that up in a second and eat soy meat over whatever above and beyond I might have on this diet or could obtain in the future over others' approaches..

if that makes more sense
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 02, 2011, 03:24:22 am
Yes, it makes sense KD. To be more clear - as a cooked vegan and vegetarian I had way ABOVE average health with none of the sattvic feelings. It was only being on exclusively raw vegan for half a year or so would those feelings arise - but up to that point where the energy became what I felt to be unbalanced I felt more than above average - I felt truly amazing.

Here's the thing KD, the big problem as I see it is that meat in our society is very difficult to get in a healthy form. For me, it was better to not eat animal foods when the animal foods were cooked and of terrible quality. The meat that I knew about and had available to me was only the feed lot, hormoned, antibioticed. gmo, genetically modified kind.... and never did I even guess that meat COULD be eaten raw. Raw seems to be a key factor for me with any food, which makes me wonder if it is going to be the same thing with meat.

It is the taboos regarding foods in our society that is the problem as far as I see it. The irrational fear. All I could get to (perhaps until now? We will see) is to at least stop the onslaught of damaging foods.

This is the FIRST time I have had good raw eggs, raw grass-fed fermented milk and grass-fed/pastured meats available and the first time I ever heard that these things could and should be eaten raw. I was all on my own eating all raw produce - but it was not taboo. See?

I did the best that I could with the information and resources I had and had superior health because of it. Now, I have new information and new resources to work with and it is going to be extremely interesting for me to see how it pans out. I would not be stepping out of my comfortable healthy peaceful zone for myself though if I didn't need to do figure things out for another - that is the honest truth. The comfort zone for me is plain old cooked whole-food vegan. I feel better than just about anyone I have ever met eating just that. If I wanted to be just really healthy, grounded, flexible, strong and have stamina and never get sick just for me and not try to explore the feelings of outrageous super health or help others -  I would simply eat cooked whole-food vegan.

One of the issues for me to work through, and hence a big part of this discussion, however, is the idea in my mind that one should not eat anything that one is not prepared to kill for oneself. I've been thinking about this. If I were in a natural human tribe - as a woman - I probably would not do the hunting! I would be foraging and preparing. I have been thinking lately that I might have been thinking in a way that is too based on our modern individualistic society framework. If I were eating my species-specific diet, my species procures its food in tribes, not as individuals. My diet perhaps should NOT be based only on what I would do for myself, but on what the tribe would do together. Just because men would be hunting, would that mean that they wouldn't eat the berries that the women picked too - even though they might prefer to hunt, or eat a larger amount of the meat?

What is right for an 18 year old guy - that I have not a clue about. I would assume that it partly would depend on the guy, what's available, their health history and how they perceived things. Same with people in general I suppose.

Anywho - these are where my thoughts are going a bit lately. It's good to talk to you about them. I enjoy your viewpoints and they make me think.

Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 02, 2011, 03:42:18 am
Ah Phil - I just saw your post!

Of course, of course. I am who I am now only because I am living now and in the modern society that I do.

I told you how 20 years ago it was in a very deep meditation that I was instructed that I must stop eating meat. It did me personally a world (or two) of good.

If I were in a traditional society, I might not have any of the traditional roles - if I was allowed to use my abilities and eat in the ways that would support and expand them.

You might find this interesting. After that seared steak and that burger I ate all of the healing energy that normally goes to my hands stopped completely. I no longer could take away hubbie's pain with my hands! That would not do.

This is what I keep on thinking. What if the reason I was told to stop eating meat was because I could not get decent meat - animals that were not tortured and made into non-food and I never even heard of or could imagine eating meat that wasn't cooked at the time.

The meat I ate with hubbie was cooked. I tried to eat prosciutto di parma next and nearly killed myself (or that is the way it felt). My energy field stopped turning clockwise and started spinning counterclockwise. I could not stand and was in terrible  physical pain. But I have no idea how that meat was raised or killed or if it wasn't even irradiated or not.... and all that regular salt - I never eat that.

My next experiment is going to be to find grass-fed compassionately raised and killed animal meat and eat it fresh and raw and see what happens.

I make no claims that eating meat is inferior in any way. I just think that I could not fulfill my own destiny while eating what I had available at the time and perhaps individually - it might not be appropriate for me and my system.

Fish does not affect me. But........ if eating even the best raw meat has the same energetic affects on me I will try to take fish out of my diet as well again and see what it does to me. I need my healing ability to be magnified. If I can do that it might not matter nearly as much what hubbie eats. 

It has been a great thing for me to be able to eat the eggs, dairy and fish to know what was really good for the body and what wasn't before feeding it to my "others". It would be a very good thing if I could do that with meat too.

I have no idea what is "right" "wrong" "natural" "healthy".... all I know is what does what to me. I might not have been able to do what I can do in any other time or place or society. I guess that makes me pretty darn lucky.  :D

Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 02, 2011, 05:14:46 am
Good luck with whatever you do, Dorothy.  :)
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 02, 2011, 06:04:36 am
Thank you Phil!

Right now it's the Dorothy makes herself into a guinea pig show!

I'm totally convinced that hubbie is highly allergic and that if I can get him on the right diet I can get him healed up pronto - no matter what anyone says.

If I can find meats that don't harm me - it is much more likely that they won't harm him. Just like I did with the dairy and eggs.

That's my assumption any way.

What I do after that is anyone's guess - but I am DETERMINED to figure this out!

And hey listen - if I happen to turn into a superbeing in the process that wouldn't be so bad. hee hee.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 02, 2011, 09:41:44 pm
Yes, it makes sense KD. To be more clear - as a cooked vegan and vegetarian I had way ABOVE average health with none of the sattvic feelings. It was only being on exclusively raw vegan for half a year or so would those feelings arise - but up to that point where the energy became what I felt to be unbalanced I felt more than above average - I felt truly amazing.

Here's the thing KD, the big problem as I see it is that meat in our society is very difficult to get in a healthy form. For me, it was better to not eat animal foods when the animal foods were cooked and of terrible quality. The meat that I knew about and had available to me was only the feed lot, hormoned, antibioticed. gmo, genetically modified kind.... and never did I even guess that meat COULD be eaten raw. Raw seems to be a key factor for me with any food, which makes me wonder if it is going to be the same thing with meat.

[...]
What is right for an 18 year old guy - that I have not a clue about. I would assume that it partly would depend on the guy, what's available, their health history and how they perceived things. Same with people in general I suppose.


haha, well I mean that since you actually have years of actual practice and satisfaction with what you are doing it becomes a little more challenging to argue a position that you are playing with fire with your particular raw approach. From my point of view there does seem to be statistics which point to certain inevitabilities and I was basically saying that some issues (like brain stuff) aren't exactly things one really picks a 'runner up' of two options.

As for the quality issue or 'natural' stuff like with beef...I think I had some of these very concerns myself. I didn't even eat red meat for awhile when I first started on the diet for some of these reasons..eating mostly fish/ more fruits etc.. and that ended up being a big mistake.

Now - for better or worse - I have a way different list of importance when it comes to foods for health.

This is over the long range and not a meal to meal assessment. Particularity if it comes to cooked foods like in Tylers recent thread it would be somewhat different. For instance, a bunch of celery (particularly if I spit out he pulp) would make me feel fine at an outing and a grainfed burger would leave me somewhat sluggish-and/or gross. but a diet of all celery obviously is less sustainable than a diet that includes some cooked poor quality meat. By that same token obviously a piece of fruit is healthier than a bowl of rice or scrambled eggs(depends on who you talk to here)...but at this point i'd choose a bowl of rice or runny scrambled eggs at a diner over 10 fuji apples or something.

I have yet another kind of analogy/way of thinking about it. If you met with god and he conferred on you information that the ideal diet is 80% fatty meat/bones/bugs etc... 15% fruits and tubers seasonally and 5% herbs and other forage....at what point would the perversions from these wild foods that we have today form an unnatural diet that would rationalize eating completely differently? I think Daniel Vitalis gave awesome points in the recent debates reading these issues. What many people are talking about in terms of natural foods is just a mish mash of supermarket ready foods or at the higher tiers of quality - foods that still have been engineered or bred in some way by humans over millennia. This is prior to the more specific GMO mutations but mutations that have been used selectively to change food or even create basically whole new animals (cows) bread for consumption. Of course there really isn't any known ideal diet so that makes it more difficult in seeing which option is more perverted and we can only go on which things seem to be the most effective in the short and long term when we look honestly at these results..

What is it comes down to is prior to the major changes recently...we have a good idea that short of seal blubber that the eating of cows and some of these other distorted things provides for a reasonable diet and forms a fine basis for healing for modern people. I think that is fair to say. We can't be focused too much on some sense of perfection.

Its still wise to probably include foods in their most wild and natural state but thing thing to remember or take notice is the actual results people are getting on particular programs - to highlight which factors are most important and which are not. At this point you probably agree that the most raw a diet is....isn't going to correspond with the most natural diet or healthy person..particularity if there is some kind of ideology enforcing what is ok to eat and what isn't divorced of those results.

Sometimes I do think perhaps that Aajonus and rawpaleos alike might be a little too indifferent to the remarks of some vegan theorists and such that contemporary meat might additionally contain dioxin and types of radiation because its higher up on the food chain. But if we are indeed ruminant eaters....does this justify not eating meat and replacing it with something else?..or perhaps does it involve some kind of just added consciousness to our needs as modern people and to this issue where much more minor tweaks (perhaps eating less PROTEIN, Eating more vegetables [not embraced by Aajonus/paleos] and more fat than we could in nature or various 'cleanses 'etc'...I do not know) rather than what really are radical departures fretting over [perhaps] the wrong variables.

In a nutshell I would say that eating a diet that is rich in foods that perhaps do not represent our natural diet as a whole (but are perhaps  more free of poisons) - is not logical in constructing the best possible diet given the options in our current climate and state of health.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 03, 2011, 02:03:39 am
Truly KD the whole issue is skewed by the recent abominations that have happened to the food supply when it comes down to making practical decisions on what is healthiest to feed oneself or ones family. You make some excellent points.

Here's a perspective. When I very first learned that food could change one's life it was because I was put on a cleansing diet. There was a long list of things I shouldn't eat for three weeks. I had to try to figure how on earth to do it and for the first time walked into one of the rare health food stores at that time. It changed my life.

Now, that gave me the perspective that cutting things OUT of ones diet could be magical. I didn't go on a diet to lose weight, or choose a particular diet that I thought INCLUDED anything particularly healthful.

I had a hard time continuing with cutting out almost everything, so as I moved forward I continued to cut out things - but what I thought might be the worst things first. For instance, cutting out soda/pop improved how I felt. But when I cut out all sugar  and fake foods like twinkies and Spam it made a DRAMATIC difference for me. One by one I tried cutting out things that weren't natural or what many said were not healthy foods and adding something that was natural and felt better and better until there was a baseline at which I was simply really darn healthy and happy pretty much all the time. It wasn't until I tried eating raw foods that I realized that I never really understood what the word "healthy" meant.

The furthest that I ever got to looking backward before relatively recently to what people would have eaten a long time ago and what a really natural diet was to thinking that we didn't always have fire and no other animal cooks their food. I just got on the internet in the last couple of years btw. Until then - I had only read a couple books 30 years earlier.

So today, with all these different gurus and diet plans and philosophies and inquiries into what the "true" diet of humans is what I have noticed is that different people feel good or great eating a very wide variety of regimes and some make regimes into religions and then there's no telling if they actually feel better or just are fundamentalists who are too unwilling to admit to anything that doesn't fit. That has to be watched out for fer sure when trying to sift through ideas and data.

Sometimes I can't help to wonder if which diet someone ends up feeling the best from is the one that cuts out the most of what is really BAD for that person and fits with how they live - or that they just don't realize that there might be 5 other diets that also cut out what was making them feel so bad....... or maybe they just were lucky enough to find the right one - but that just because it was just right for them means that it's going to be just right for everyone.

I have thought many times that allergies and food sensitivities or inability to digest a particular food are the primary factor in having someone stop at a diet and say THIS is the best one for everyone.

When I met Ann Wigmore decades ago and she had just started putting everyone on this mush of a soup I couldn't help but to think - well - that's because she had part of her intestines cut out from cancer a long time ago - everyone else calls it "cement soup". Because it worked for her (oh - and it sure did!) then that's what she fed everyone no matter how consistently they got sick from it at her center or how much they complained. She abandoned her earlier stance of eating whole raw foods because it was no longer the best diet for HER.

So much of what is available as food today is simply not food. It's amazing that humans can survive on them at all. How can any one of us really say what is ideal for us living in this modern world when there are so few choices of real foods left and finding real food is so darn hard! What was ideal before - even for millions of years - might not be ideal now living in the world the way it is today or in cities or when typing in front of a machine pouring EMFs at me.

I think this way of approaching diet by going back and getting a baseline by seeing what has worked well for eons is a great idea - as long as it doesn't become another box to lock oneself into and as long as we remember that we AREN'T living in that way any more. Our planet is not the same planet, our societies and lives are not what they were, we don't do the same things and maybe even our brains are different and even we as individuals are now so different because we no longer live all pretty much the same way out in the wild. Different people have radically different exposures to toxins, different allergies, different diseases and histories even living right next to one another let alone around the globe. Never before were we raised so far away from nature or exposed to so many truly new substances. Now we have to figure out what's worse at this board meeting - to chew only on this irradiated celery or eat this cooked hormone-pumped burger - and how on earth to find a burger or celery worth eating at all generally! I am the LAST person that will ever say THE perfect diet for all humans is such and such and I highly doubt that even God could do it these day.  ;)
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 03, 2011, 03:35:34 am
I tried to eat prosciutto di parma next and nearly killed myself (or that is the way it felt). My energy field stopped turning clockwise and started spinning counterclockwise. I could not stand and was in terrible  physical pain.



This is a very ungrounded reaction, typical of someone who has eaten a carb-rich vegetarian diet for many years.  Raw animal foods make you, generally speaking, much calmer, more grounded, and generally more emotionally/energetically stable.  It's one thing to be sensitive...it's another thing to have your mind/emotions disrupted and disturbed by what you're sensing.  In other words, carb-rich veggie diets make you spacey, flighty, easily-disrupted, and less able to function.  The stresses and strains of life are much easier to take if you're eating good-quality animals foods regularly. 

I think that some people on a vegan/vegetarian diet get so flighty/spacey that they never come back, and their minds sort just gradually dissolve, and they fall into early dementia.  I think this is happening or will happen to Doug Graham, and I know at least one longtime vegan who it is already happening to.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 03, 2011, 05:00:48 am
This is a very ungrounded reaction, typical of someone who has eaten a carb-rich vegetarian diet for many years.  Raw animal foods make you, generally speaking, much calmer, more grounded, and generally more emotionally/energetically stable.  It's one thing to be sensitive...it's another thing to have your mind/emotions disrupted and disturbed by what you're sensing.  In other words, carb-rich veggie diets make you spacey, flighty, easily-disrupted, and less able to function.  The stresses and strains of life are much easier to take if you're eating good-quality animals foods regularly. 

I think that some people on a vegan/vegetarian diet get so flighty/spacey that they never come back, and their minds sort just gradually dissolve, and they fall into early dementia.  I think this is happening or will happen to Doug Graham, and I know at least one longtime vegan who it is already happening to.

Oh my Cherimoya. Do you think that the physical pain from eating the prosciutto was ungrounded or the fact that I could perceive my energy body? I could always perceive energy even as a child eating a great deal of meat. 

By the way, I am quite able to function and I am not flighty or demented. Most people I meet consider me well-grounded. They might be wrong perhaps - but I would trust them more than I would trust your opinions that my mind is dissolving -considering that we've never even met.

By the way - just because you said something I consider to be quite rude, doesn't mean that I will assume that eating raw meat makes everyone aggressive.  ;) 
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: RawZi on August 03, 2011, 09:37:44 am
The meat I ate with hubbie was cooked. I tried to eat prosciutto di parma next and nearly killed myself (or that is the way it felt). My energy field stopped turning clockwise and started spinning counterclockwise. I could not stand and was in terrible  physical pain. But I have no idea how that meat was raised or killed or if it wasn't even irradiated or not.... and all that regular salt - I never eat that.
Do you think that the physical pain from eating the prosciutto was ungrounded or the fact that I could perceive my energy body?

    Prosciutto is so dry, it's nothing like soothing raw meat, even if it hasn't been pasteurized.  AV says salt swells thereby causing pressure on nerves, so- pain!  I know it's tempting to be led by your tongue's taste buds, but it might be better to think things out first, and stick to a plan, IMHO.  You know, that meat is so dry, I would call it cooked.  AV says cooked meat can never be eaten by certain people.  Judging by you having been vegetarian so long, I'd say you might be one of them, or close to it if that is possible.  He also of course says salt is not on the diet, except perhaps a few grains of salt a week in certain rare circumstances, and that salt is more commonly consumed on grain diets.  By my observation in this forum, some of the ZC'ers feel better with a little salt, especially if drinking no celery juice or no blood or eating no celery or seaweed, as those three have salts in them and make the animal a whole food.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 03, 2011, 10:03:19 am
Yes Zi - I do agree that the prosciutto di parma was not a prudent choice and not part of a well-enough laid-out plan. My thinking was that I am used to whole salt and dry foods - those never bother me - and having the cured meat would irradiate the variable of different parasites or bacteria affecting me adversely. But there were other variables. One of the driving force to the experiment was that I simply had it available and did not know how long it would be before I found some fresh raw meats to try. Since I'm alive and there will be enough time between it and my next experiment to re-group and recover fully I would say that all-in-all I think it was a good learning experience. The next experiment I have is a package of organic grass-fed ground beef. I doubt that it was unfrozen during delivery and I wouldn't be surprised if it is a little old and it is wrapped in plastic. These are all potentially powerful negatives so this experiment I will not consider at all conclusive either if I should not feel well or if it affects my energy body adversely. I do however want to continue to experiment as I try to "hunt down" some decent raw meat in this city.

Here's an example of why I am doing this. When I learned about the Budwig cure it did seem that many Americans would get positive results from using cottage cheese, but when I tried it and tried the way it was originally made by the designer of the cure with raw milk before giving it others I could tell that the original was well-worth any amount of extra work because it was radically different.

Having these experiences with cooked meat and cured meat might end up being the same. It might make all the work that I will have to go through to procure the best meat seem so logical and right that it will change how I feel about all the work. I know that expense and the work on the milk that I devote is well worth the effort. I wouldn't have felt the same way if I didn't start off with the cottage cheese from the store and feel sick from it first. We'll see though! I might not be able to eat any meat raw or not or I might end up feeling really good from the best raw version like I did with the milk. I hope that I can eat some form of raw meat though because then I wouldn't be shooting so in the dark with these foods for my pack.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 03, 2011, 11:45:17 am
Oh my Cherimoya. Do you think that the physical pain from eating the prosciutto was ungrounded or the fact that I could perceive my energy body? I could always perceive energy even as a child eating a great deal of meat.  

By the way, I am quite able to function and I am not flighty or demented. Most people I meet consider me well-grounded. They might be wrong perhaps - but I would trust them more than I would trust your opinions that my mind is dissolving -considering that we've never even met.

By the way - just because you said something I consider to be quite rude, doesn't mean that I will assume that eating raw meat makes everyone aggressive.  ;)  

I'm not trying to be insulting, but...

your post is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.  Energy body?  Really?  Raw paleo people don't have "energy body" problems.  That stuff generally takes care of itself, when the diet is right. OTOH, after 20+ years of veganism, it's very common to have all sorts of bizarre problems of this type. I've been vegan, I've been vegetarian, and I've known plenty of longtime vegans whose minds have been seriously harmed by that diet...plenty of them have serious problems functioning normally. They're excessively "sensitive", easily frightened and anxious, and just generally shadows of their former selves.

Granted, you have no way of knowing that the raw paleo diet tends to fix that sort of thing, as do mineral supplements like bone meal and healing clay.  However, speaking from experience, both my own and that of others, I can say that it definitely does, in most cases.

Quit talking about your energy body and just eat raw paleo. It's not hard.  If you have a problem with that, maybe you'd like to get banned.

I'm not interested in making friends with you.  If you want to post here, in a way that will avoid banning, feel free. However, be aware that several of the mods, including me, tend to ban first, and ask questions later.  If all you have to offer is stories about trolling vegan forums, and musings on your energy body, then you better keep it respectful, or you may just get banned.

Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: TylerDurden on August 03, 2011, 03:53:34 pm
I don't think there was any promotion of vegan diets, as such, in past posts?

Anyway, what is this "energy body" stuff? Never heard of it, even when I was a vegan, all those years ago.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 03, 2011, 07:22:15 pm
I don't think there was any promotion of vegan diets, as such, in past posts?
Yeah, I didn't notice Dorothy promoting veganism either and I'm not getting why the very harsh response. Seems like overkill. I thought Dorothy was already eating raw eggs and fish and the only technically non-Paleo thing I'm aware of her eating is raw dairy, which multiple people here eat and qualifies as "Primal". I too have witnessed that vegan and vegetarian diets tend to promote anxiety and raw animal foods tend to promote calmness and confidence, but nobody likes being called flighty, anxious, and so on, whether or not the tendency is real. If raw Paleo is calming, which it does seem to be, then one just has to wait for it to have its calming effect.

Cherimoya, I know you had bad experiences with vegan/vegetarian diets and with vegan/vegetarian trolls, so your suspicion and low tolerance for such is understandable, but Dorothy talked positively about eggs and fish at the Giveittomeraw forum and was attacked for it there, so she's not a vegan/vegetarian troll.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 03, 2011, 11:32:27 pm
hmm. The original comment I just saw as VERY direct and perhaps agressive and sort of like talking around an issue as if there was no real person there.

I know I have a similar posting style sometimes.

This energy thing is I think one of those hotbutton issues that many ex-veg and current veg folks get particularly passioniate about because it deals with unknowns.

I think in particular this whole idea of rationalizing physical reactions or dismissal of physical evidence through spiritual constructs does not seem to be very RPF to put it lightly. This is very common in veganism and seems to rub 'non or ex-believers' the wrong way. Part of this probably has to do with some kind of empathy or just plain empirical backlash to what is believed to be misplaced or incorrect ideas. Also part of it might be some anxieties over what really IS right. I know its some percentage of both for me when my long term vegan friends even acknowledge that I am healthier than I was. Yet in order to believe that they have to think i'm robbing the souls of animals or else it makes no sense. But worse still [for them]..that I'm doing something they COULD'NT POSSIBLY do themselves..despite the obvious [to me] shortcomming in the physical world [for them].


http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/infonews-items/grumpy-vegan-excessive-health-of-raw-paleo-dieters-bad-karma/msg55330/#msg55330


Alot of vegans truly believe that they have the right biological program going..but for people who have some skepticism to that and believe the decision in more spiritually motivated I highly suggest they would read an article like mentioned here above (which is pro vegan). To me anyone with a critical mind should understand the transparency here that many of these beliefs really have nothing to do with physical health but at best theories of human spirituality that are incredibly biased and were distorted through time.


http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/spirituality/raw-veganism-mainstream-how-to-popularize-raw-meat-raw-fat-eating/msg53554/#msg53554


---

so yeah I saw it as saying that this feeling/experience that YOU have is not right...that is a hard sell and inevitably results in harsh discussion...but it would be good to talk about these issues openly...just perhaps without disrespecting peoples viewpoints about things ultimately no one knows. I don't think we should be like other forums in pretending we have the exact solution to the point where certain aspects of things cannot be questioned...no matter how much evidence is there. This forum does seem to be [rightly] focused on like...facts through..so I can see ck (not knowing dorothy from others forums as someone who asks good questions) being a bit off the cuff about what amounts to hypothesis or subjective stuff... after the other recent potential troublemaker who I think I may have located searching for these other topics.  :-*

http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/fruitarianismvegan-is-closer-to-a-paleo-diet-than-'zero-carb'/msg13977/#msg13977
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 04, 2011, 03:37:41 am
When someone repeatedly brings up the fact that they were a vegan for 20+ years, that puts me on my guard.  Dorothy even started a thread called something like "I just ate meat for the first time in 20 years.  What should I expect?"

To me, that is bordering on an intentional effort to point out her own veganism. 

By itself, I was going to let it go.  However, the stuff about healing energy from her hands and energy bodies crossed the line.  Those are favorite topics of the spaced-out longtime vegan crowd, and that kind of talk makes me very suspicious. It's not that I'm against it, it's just...that's what those people talk and care about.

I left this forum for 8 months because I got sick of the DurianRider nonsense.  Even when he wasn't trolling, people would talk about his Youtube videos as if he had something intelligent to say. 


Really, I shouldn't even have to explain why I'm tired of all the vegan trolling and nonsense here. Yeah, I'm probably oversensitive to it, but...

Let's ask ourselves....what do we want to encourage here?  Longtime vegans asking us to hold their hands through every bite of meat/fish as they struggle back from vegan extremism?  I think I'd rather encourage people who already either

1. Are experts at this diet.  I'm love to have some more members with my, Tyler Durden's, or Good Samaritan's level of knowledge.  Those are the most valuable members we have.

2. Don't know everything yet, but have been learning about the diet for a while, and are committed to giving it a serious try.

Making a thread every time you eat a bite of meat is a bit much. That, in and of itself, isn't the problem, though (although I'd argue, now that I've been through this situation, that it should be a big red flag).  The problem is vegan obsessions taking over this board. 

I'm not saying anything bannable has yet occurred, just that I'm getting uncomfortable with all the vegan references, etc..

----------Let me make this VERY clear...if anyone doesn't understand why I am hyper-vigilant re: vegan topics here, then they may want to consider leaving this board. -----------
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 04, 2011, 04:29:42 am
Cherimoya - what you are doing here feels no different to me than DurianRider's guerillas coming after me for eating raw eggs, dairy and fish.

I am indeed inexperienced and perhaps this is not the right place for me to come to learn. I guess I did post too much for a forum that was not very active.

If the people at places like gitmr are driven out for eating even eggs and dairy (and especially the likes of me eating fish) and people are driven out of here for saying that they have been raw vegan/vegetarian or saying anything that other vegetarians have said ........ not many places to explore this RAF for those in transition from other raw diets then is there?

What a bummer. I made some big strides today.

The moderator wants me gone so I go. 

I did raw up to this point all on my own, I guess doing raw meat on my own won't be that much different. All these different groups - and I fit into none of them!

Oh well, Phil has my email address if anyone wants it.


 


Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 04, 2011, 05:13:50 am
I shouldn't leave without addressing Tyler who wrote: Anyway, what is this "energy body" stuff? Never heard of it, even when I was a vegan, all those years ago.

What I was referring to had nothing to do with being a vegan or a vegetarian per se. I didn't know that vegans talked about it either. Since I was a child I have perceived things that others haven't. Because of it I am often able to see and take pain from another's body with my hands. I should have never brought it up because I actually rarely speak about it. Few understand but when someone is pain they seem to find me quickly enough and want to try. I have helped a great many people with it. I use this skill now to help my husband with his pain when nothing else will so it is important to me atm.

When I tried the cooked meats and the prosciutto it stopped the energy to my hands. That's a very personal thing and I wasn't trying to make any generalized deductions or claims. It was an individual experience.

To leave on a more finished note, I was able to find some fresh, raw, organic, grass-fed ground beef. Today I ate some of it raw and I felt no pain, no digestive upset and no negative affects to the energy to my hands or my overall energy. So far - if anything - I think it might have increased the energy. I will find out later for sure when I do some healing work and I get another person's feedback.

So, the energy stuff only related to me as an individual and my own diet - nothing general. To interpret such things generally, to me, makes no logical sense.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 04, 2011, 06:37:53 am
Those are favorite topics of the spaced-out longtime vegan crowd, and that kind of talk makes me very suspicious. It's not that I'm against it, it's just...that's what those people talk and care about.
Isn't it somewhat natural for newbies who are longterm vegans to carry over some of their topics to here early on? If they're not obvious trolls I try to give them a chance and only sour on them when they persist in negative behavior.

Quote
Let's ask ourselves....what do we want to encourage here?  Longtime vegans asking us to hold their hands through every bite of meat/fish as they struggle back from vegan extremism?  I think I'd rather encourage people who already either

1. Are experts at this diet.  I'm love to have some more members with my, Tyler Durden's, or Good Samaritan's level of knowledge.  Those are the most valuable members we have.

2. Don't know everything yet, but have been learning about the diet for a while, and are committed to giving it a serious try.
Isn't that a bit of a catch 22 though, kind of like when people need experience to get a job, but how do they get the experience before they get the job? Someone has to cut them a break to get them started.

Quote
The problem is vegan obsessions taking over this board.
I'm fairly carnivore-oriented myself, and from the beginning it seemed like any time I reported less than thrilling results from eating fruit I got criticized for it, so this board has always been more plant oriented than fits my personal needs, but I balance that out by checking out the Dirty Carnivore forum and some LC blogs too. I get lots of useful info at both the plant-oriented and meat-oriented forums and I find it useful at times to get different perspectives, otherwise it becomes a circle jerk, as someone here once wisely wrote.

Quote
----------Let me make this VERY clear...if anyone doesn't understand why I am hyper-vigilant re: vegan topics here, then they may want to consider leaving this board. -----------
I think I understand it. Don't agree with it, but I think I understand it.

Dorothy has made great strides from her vegan days and now eats raw eggs, dairy and fish, so that's sufficient for me. Heck, several people have said that just eating eggs and fish is sufficient animal foods to be considered Paleo, even if one regularly eats refined sugar like Wai diet folks tend to! ???
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 04, 2011, 12:07:13 pm
Cherimoya - what you are doing here feels no different to me than DurianRider's guerillas coming after me for eating raw eggs, dairy and fish.


 I think you might fit in better after you've eaten this way for at least several months. I'm not against you posting, but...I have a very low opinion of the spaced-out types who are "sensitives" and "perceive energies", and generally find that they are very drama-heavy. Not that you are drama-heavy, you might not be. I don't know you well enough to say, yet.

This really is nothing against you. I don't think ill of you.  I just like to keep the forum on-track.

I think it's best to avoid talk of energies, etc., because

1. It's not relevant

2. It repels skeptics and atheists

3. It makes us seem unscientific

and I want this board to have plenty of scientific credibility. I also want it to be a place where those of all belief systems can feel comfortable, as long as they are truly interested in rawpaleo diets.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 04, 2011, 12:13:07 pm
Isn't it somewhat natural for newbies who are longterm vegans to carry over some of their topics to here early on? If they're not obvious trolls I try to give them a chance and only sour on them when they persist in negative behavior.
Isn't that a bit of a catch 22 though, kind of like when people need experience to get a job, but how do they get the experience before they get the job? Someone has to cut them a break to get them started.
I'm fairly carnivore-oriented myself, and from the beginning it seemed like any time I reported less than thrilling results from eating fruit I got criticized for it, so this board has always been more plant oriented than fits my personal needs, but I balance that out by checking out the Dirty Carnivore forum and some LC blogs too. I get lots of useful info at both the plant-oriented and meat-oriented forums and I find it useful at times to get different perspectives, otherwise it becomes a circle jerk, as someone here once wisely wrote.
I think I understand it. Don't agree with it, but I think I understand it.

Dorothy has made great strides from her vegan days and now eats raw eggs, dairy and fish, so that's sufficient for me. Heck, several people have said that just eating eggs and fish is sufficient animal foods to be considered Paleo, even if one regularly eats refined sugar like Wai diet folks tend to! ???

Agreed on the newbies part, but sometimes they get off-topic, and start saying things that could turn off potential members.  Remember the guy who said black people have big butts because they eat chitlins?  He wasn't a jerk, but I had no choice but to put the brakes on him, wouldn't you agree?. It's better if newbies just post a little in the beginning, mainly reading existing threads, and then increase from there.

Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 04, 2011, 07:14:05 pm
It's better if newbies just post a little in the beginning, mainly reading existing threads, and then increase from there.
That's true.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 05, 2011, 02:51:34 am
The problem with forums is that stereotyping, mis-understandings and rudeness are too easy to slip into because of the anonymity and distance.

I don't think that Cherimoya would have said to me to my face that I have irreversible brain damage from what I ate in the past and especially not have yelled it in a crowded room. I also doubt that he would have told me to just listen and be quiet or he'd throw me out. Nor would he equate talking about having not eaten steak in 20 years or energy perception with being a racist. No one I have ever met has talked to me like that in actual life.

In person to person society there are more cues to pick up on and repercussions to take into account. I or one of the other people present (especially my mate) might have attacked physically. Saying insulting things is not done lightly in person.

I saw that the board was very quiet but in the world of forums that does not necessarily mean the same thing as a room filled with actual people in which I would have known that only the elders were to speak. I understand now that I spoke out of line and was not in tune with the group dynamic. It would have been much better in such a place never to have mentioned my eating history and in such a quiet place to not make comments.

A suggestion (since this is the suggestion section) I would make is that if a new member is communicating in a way that a moderator would like to change, that instead of doing it in public, to use a private, more gentle approach. An example would be perhaps a pm such as "this is a raw animal foods forum and as the moderator I prefer that vegetarianism and veganism and subjects common in those circles to not be mentioned or discussed so I am going to delete your post. I also prefer that new members take a few months reading over previous posts before commenting" would have been appreciated by me.

I will do as you have instructed Cherimoya and be quiet and just read. I've been eating raw eggs, fish and dairy for years (and now understand that you do not consider that paleo) so it is not my place to make comments without enough experience. I will gain a good deal of experience before commenting again. Clearly no particular diet creates good manners. My manners will improve no matter what my diet ends up being. I will use the forum more appropriately. I apologize.

 
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 05, 2011, 04:12:16 am

I or one of the other people present (especially my mate) might have attacked physically.
 


And you're banned, for threatening a mod.  Please do not re-register.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Projectile Vomit on August 05, 2011, 04:45:43 am
If you seriously ban her, then you probably shouldn't be a moderator. You blew this way out of proportion...
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: miles on August 05, 2011, 05:26:32 am
And you're banned, for threatening a mod.  Please do not re-register.

Haha Chermimoya such a kid.

I think you should check if your water-board has started adding oestrogen or something.

I also think you should allow Dorothy to choose a champion and you should meet him for a fight. If Dorothy's champion wins you lay down your moderator status, if you win Dorothy will leave the forum. That's paleo conflict resolution.

By the way... I understand the problem. Because the forum is generally quiet, if one person starts posting a lot, their opinions are heard over everyone else, so if one person keeps talking about mystic energy fields and spirit bombs it could easily be viewed as the style of the forum by outsiders. This was mildly unsettling to me too. However I think you greatly over-reacted, and what Dorothy said in her last post was excellent. I think you should apologise to her and follow from what she said in her last post.

I don't really care though tbh it's just a forum people can still do paleo diet without it, I just woke up too late today so I'm awake at night with nothing else to do.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 05, 2011, 08:24:43 am
In person to person society there are more cues to pick up on and repercussions to take into account. I or one of the other people present (especially my mate) might have attacked physically.
And you're banned, for threatening a mod.  Please do not re-register.
LOL I'm a mod too and if I ever ban a pussycat of a lady like Dorothy for saying she or someone "might have attacked physically" if they had theoretically been in my presence and I insulted them, then I hope someone will slap me senseless with a dainty pink glove. ;)

Quote from: Dorothy
I've been eating raw eggs, fish and dairy for years (and now understand that you do not consider that paleo)
If you read this forum enough you'll see that there are some fervent defenders of raw dairy here. I've been on the receiving end of criticism from dairy promoters for being skeptical of claims that dairy is optimal food, but I don't mind raw dairy eaters being in the forum. If they started claiming that raw dairy is truly Paleo in every sense of the word and an optimal food category for everyone, then I would disagree with them and ask them to produce evidence. I do value civility and substance. If they didn't act trollish and kept their pro-dairy posts in the dairy sections of the forum, then I doubt I would ban them.

Heck, Don Matesz of the Primal Wisdom blog is now even claiming that most grains and legumes are Primal, so the definitions of Paleo and Primal vary quite a bit, though I try to be respectful of what the official forum definition of raw Paleo is here (http://www.rawpaleodiet.com/what-exactly-is-a-raw-palaeolithic-diet/), even though I don't agree with it 100%, and I can understand the moderators wanting that.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Iguana on August 05, 2011, 03:45:47 pm
However I think you greatly over-reacted, and what Dorothy said in her last post was excellent.
Yes, indeed it was. I concur.

Unfortunately I didn’t follow the whole story. Some posters here have a great talent to write more and faster than normal people can or are willing to read. There’s so much on the web that we have to select what we read, otherwise we spend all our time front of the computer screen reading irrelevant stories. Thus, generally, the longest a post is, the less it is read – unless the writer has some really interesting things to explain and is doing that as shortly as possible, with a minimum of words.

But if we start to ban people for writing too many lengthy posts, then there is another one who should have been banned long ago…
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 06, 2011, 01:29:02 pm
Number one, I am absolutely not required to defend my ban of Dorothy.  I am a mod, and this forum is not a democracy.  If we turned it into one, we'd be overrun with vegan trolls. I've had to ban the same person 6 or 8 times in a row, in several cases, both spammers and trolls.  

I'm not automatically in favor of harsh moderation, but the vegans have forced me into this stance.

The fact is, I'd be happy if this forum only had about 15 members with unrestricted posting, and everybody else had to have each post approved manually by a mod.

Why?  Because we only have about 15 members who have much to teach.  The rest are just asking the same questions over and over, 80% of the time.

Not only that, the useful info gets lost when there are too many posts, especially long ones, and ones that drift off topic.  


Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Projectile Vomit on August 06, 2011, 07:28:41 pm
I think it's time for Phil to whip out his dainty pink glove and get to work then.

When I first arrived at this site I probably acted much like Dorothy, albeit without such an emphasis on veganism simply because that hadn't been such a large part of my past. Over time I've matured, and my posts are usually few, short and meaningful (or at least I like to think so, perhaps others will disagree).

The point I'm trying to make is that if you ban everyone who isn't 100% mature in their raw paleo development initially, this forum will become a pretty sparse place. And when there are moderators who are obviously using their status for power tripping, that doesn't help either.

I hope that Dorothy is re-instated, and that she gets a well-deserved apology from cherimoya_kid
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 07, 2011, 01:25:57 am

When I first arrived at this site I probably acted much like Dorothy, albeit without such an emphasis on veganism simply because that hadn't been such a large part of my past. And when there are moderators who are obviously using their status for power tripping, that doesn't help either.

I hope that Dorothy is re-instated, and that she gets a well-deserved apology from cherimoya_kid

Several points--you average about half a post a day or less.  Dorothy averages more than 10 TIMES that amount.  So, no, not even remotely comparable.

Veganism is a creeping cancer in the raw foods community, precisely because of the slow, gradual, and hard-to-reverse effects of the neurological prolems it causes.  It's a vicious cycle.  You are flakey, so you start eating vegan, and then veganism damages your brain so you can't make good decisions, so you continue to be vegan, and so on.  

Eric, I want to make you aware that I have several friends who are suffering severe neurological problems because of long-term veganism.  They know it, but can't think clearly enough to change, and so the problems get worse and worse.  

Power-tripping?  Ban 500 spammers and 200 trolls here, like I have, and then talk to me about power-tripping.  How many forums have you moderated?  How many forums have you seen ruined by trolls and spammers? I've seen a LOT of excellent forums overrun by trolls. Hatrack.com is an excellent example.  It used to get 10 times the posts it does now, but because of 2 or 3 persistent trolls, it's a shadow of its former self. They had an unfortunate banning back in 2003 (the mod was a fool, and was immediately replaced), and haven't banned anyone since, and that was a terrible overreaction to an overreaction.  It had very sad consequences, because that forum was a model of politeness and civility, and was full of well-reasoned, intelligent discussions.  Now it's 50% flame wars.
 

As far as apologies, Dorothy would have to have at least 5 or 6 months of on-topic, non-rambling, substantive, concise posting, before I would consider apologizing for the ban.  It's not about whether she's a worthy person...it's about what she brings to the forum.  This isn't a social club.  It's much closer to being a classroom.  

Classrooms have rules, and for good reasons, Eric.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: PaleoPhil on August 07, 2011, 03:01:23 am
I don't want to argue it forever and Dorothy has accepted the banning anyway, as she didn't feel made welcome. After a break period during which she learns more on her own and elsewhere, maybe she could be given another chance, given that Eric, Miles, KD and Tyler seem to agree with me that she deserves one.

Even SuperInfinity/Padraig seemed slightly calmer and more reasonable in his latest incarnation, so anything's possible.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Projectile Vomit on August 07, 2011, 04:10:59 am
...you average about half a post a day or less.  Dorothy averages more than 10 TIMES that amount.  So, no, not even remotely comparable.

Exactly my point. If you traced back to my earlier incarnation (user Sitting Coyote) and had the ability to see my average per-day post count when I started and average length, I'd bet it was very similar to Dorothy's. I was probably even more of a loudmouth than she was, and my posts probably more infantile. But of course I learned a lot, including a lot of humility, and things changed.


Quote
As far as apologies, Dorothy would have to have at least 5 or 6 months of on-topic, non-rambling, substantive, concise posting, before I would consider apologizing for the ban.  It's not about whether she's a worthy person...it's about what she brings to the forum.  This isn't a social club.  It's much closer to being a classroom.  

And how's she going to demonstrate that when you've chased her away?

Thought experiment: If I were a raw vegan who knew my health was failing because of a nutritional void in my diet and happened to find this board, and found a kindred spirit in Dorothy's (or someone similar) initial posts because we shared a common history of raw veganism, and then saw how she was attacked and booted from the board for merely talking about her acknowledged failure to make a raw vegan diet work for her, would I feel welcome?

Would I even feel inclined to take the idea of eating raw animal foods to fill the nutritional void in my diet seriously?

One of the stereotypes created for those who consume raw animal foods is that of extreme aggression. That stereotype fits your reaction to Dorothy's posts (and to other things) like a glove. Is that the image you want to convey in this public forum? Is that the image the forum more generally wants to convey when they give aggressive people moderator status?



Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Iguana on August 07, 2011, 05:34:53 am
I don't want to argue it forever and Dorothy has accepted the banning anyway, as she didn't feel made welcome. After a break period during which she learns more on her own and elsewhere, maybe she could be given another chance, given that Eric, Miles, KD and Tyler * seem to agree with me that she deserves one.
* me too.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 07, 2011, 12:24:40 pm
I'm OK with bringing her back after a cooling-off period, at least in theory.  I have serious doubts that she will come back truly reformed, i.e., staying on topic, keeping posts short, and avoiding overposting...which is why an unbanning seems problematic.  I could be wrong about her, though...and if I'm proven right, it will give me more credibility with this group, so I'm open to it. If I'm proven wrong, then it's a learning experience for me, and potentially everybody.

To PaleoPhil--re: SuperInfinity....yeah, I'm shocked that he is actually sounding pretty sane in this incarnation. I banned him so many times I lost COUNT. He just wouldn't quit.  I half-expected to still be banning him when we were little old men.  He's a perfect example of someone who couldn't take a hint...and I still don't think he took a hint.  I think he just studied the issues more, and has grown in his dietary knowledge.  In other words, I don't think he's any more likely to respond to moderation now, he just happens to be more knowledgeable now, so he's not conflicting with us as much.

To Eric--we don't really appreciate people acting crazy under one username, then coming back later under another.  That's pretty trolly, there, dude. No wonder you're giving me such guff about this.  You couldn't fit in here at first, either.

To be fair, I did plenty of fucking up on forums before I started here, much like some of you have done here.  It's not entirely realistic to compare how a lot of you behave here with how I post here.  I know how to keep it simple, keep it factual, and keep it short and relevant.  Those aren't skills you learn overnight. 

In addition, few of you have probably closely watched a good forum destroyed by trolls over a period of years. Few of you have also probably seen a forum get good and stay good by banning trolls quickly. I have done both of those, and it gives me a unique perspective on people who "don't fit in" on a forum.  Not only that, I am easily irritated by others' ignorance, and I hate everything to do with veganism, the vegan subculture, vegan beliefs, attitudes, etc.. This is because of what veganism did to me and people I care about. 

But, we must all realize that these facts are unique to me.  Please forgive me for my extremes, at the same time you give thanks for the good things I do here, like banning spammers quickly, and offering lots of useful knowledge for free, in an easily-understood way. Well, I hope it's easy to understand.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: TylerDurden on August 07, 2011, 04:51:21 pm
Eric's original username was his full real name, which is why he wanted it changed. Some people are worried that their job might be affected if their employer knows about their "strange" diet etc..
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Inger on August 07, 2011, 06:07:28 pm
I hate when people come back with changed usernames. It is so childish. -v
You get no connection at all and everything is only more confusing. I would not allow such if it was my forum. OK, come back, but on the same name, thanks. Period. Of course, I know this is impossible to follow in practise, as how can you control that, people change emailaccounts easy today. But I very much dislike such a practice. Weakness.

When it comes about Dorothy, I understand CK very well. Dorothy also was fast to point out that raw veganism worked wonderful for her (what it did clearly NOT, read further). No problems. She just changed because of her husbands, she never had any problems all these years. Such statements are dangerous if you look at how many raw vegans have gotten ill. Also died. Dorothy could also not eat raw for long in a row and then she "had" to eat cooked food - because she was feeling too good - ???! Ha. I bet it was she got truly unbalanced in her body cause her diet was not optimal THAT is the truth IMHO.
So, it is easy to spread lies without recognising it at all yourself.

Inger
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Iguana on August 07, 2011, 06:53:00 pm
If I understood well, she was vegetarian, not vegan. It's not the same :
What is the Difference Between a Vegan and a Vegetarian? (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-a-vegan-and-a-vegetarian.htm)

Ok, veganism is dangerous, it's a fact and we all agree on that. Vegetarianism is not as bad since it includes fish, eggs and dairy;  some people can remain in a relative good health while being vegetarians.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 08, 2011, 10:47:00 am
Thank you for inviting me back. 

I do type extremely fast, which can be a liability in some situations. I apologize.

Although some of what I said about my past diet has been misunderstood, it is clear that it is not pertinent to the diet being discussed here and the diet that I am eating now so I will not speak of it again unless I am asked to. It was a terrible faux pas mentioning it in the first place. I'm glad to be able to move forward.

I have not known well many vegans or vegetarians so I might not know what subjects are considered to be "their" subjects, so I apologize in advance if I should mention one. Please, anyone who notices, pm me and I will erase it.

Because my familiarity is limited except for my own experience, I can appreciate anger over what seem to be horrific experiences of members here and the desire to prevent others from going through similar ones.

I can fully understand wanting the forum to be informative rather than social and that important information can get lost in-between chatter. I ask you Cherimoya to please go back and erase any of my posts that you find to be distracting or that you feel do not add to the forum... even if it ends up being every single one of them.

See y'all around campus.



 
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 09, 2011, 12:03:47 am
Glad Dorothy is back. I also agree that these things might be done a bit more privately in states of less obvious trolling or spam. I do think however that the conversation around these things is good and important of how we function in comparison to other forums. To me, my beef with the forum is the exact more permeated problem with other forums which is the constant jabbering of theories of what should work in some ideal setting vs what is working. Often this comes from the same un-reflective perceptions of what is healthy divorced and inconsiderate of what tools and methods people are employing every day here or elsewhere to get healthier. How people can constantly spam the same garbage that X is unnecessary or that Y is automatically good based on some totally naive understanding of nature and not be moderated equally I do not know - particularly when they don't share actual self evidence of superiority or inferiority - even over standard diets. To me Dorothy was sharing what she was doing and where she was at...and actually in a far less 'mammas meatballs is the best' subjectivity than in some older members in the tribal hierarchy.

If people have some far out conception of what is good and it actually works and their health is clearly increasing...it doesn't really phase me much. Its when people deny various symptomology while saying that X is best because of some hypothesis of how people ate in nature that we then have no actual usueable yardstick and can point to any 30+ year vegetarian, vegan and junk foodists to prove their diets success on the same exact terms. Often being free of physical symptoms cannot be seen clearly as an assessment of health particularly while other even more "superficial" or less self-observable qualities like mood and brain stuff obviously are in the negative.

The big difference between 'successful' and non successful veg oriented diets throughout history is dairy foods. This is essentially a fact at this point that people would not survive through generations in a place like India without the necessary animal fat analogs in dairy foods. Trying to eat diets that lack these foods with and gearing towards vegetarianism in terms of even bulk of calories represents at this point an undocumented diet to our knowledge by homo sapien sapiens onward- and an experiment that routinely fails for modern human beings. This not just because it has problems nutritionally - as far less nutrient dense diets of junk can be far more 'safe' - but because it can't compensate for actually reversing problems caused by civilization and particularly the modern permutations and pollutions and often exacerbates these problems more than on a standard diet or even cooked vegetarian diet.


Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 09, 2011, 03:18:31 am
OK, let me be very clear here.  The trigger for me with Dorothy was two-fold.  She was talking about losing the healing energy in her hands, and also talking about some terrible, unspecified pain she got as soon as she ate prosciutto.

I have a problem with "energy healing" because, even when it works (and I think it can), it's like a band-aid.  It's like taking an aspirin for a blood sugar headache.  The better solution is to change one's diet and lifestyle, and/or use other methods like movement education, NCR, etc. .  Why? Because the bad diet is probably causing hidden problems that will eventually manifest as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, etc..  

Fixing one's diet is a major step to both obvious good health, in the short term, and less-obvious good health in less obvious ways, which pays off decades in the future.  

Also, when someone has a weird, immediate reaction to a food, like she did with the prosciutto, that is a giant telltale sign of ungroundedness/spaciness.  Even if someone has been a "sensitive" their whole life, a vegan/vegetarian diet makes that "sensitivity" so intense and extreme that the person becomes ungrounded, and has trouble weathering the storms and stresses of life.

That's one of my favorite things about eating good-quality animal products...it calms, stabilizes, and gives confidence.  You become less of a scared little mouse of a person, freaking out at every little thing, full of anxiety.  You instead start having the emotional makeup of an apex predator.  You know you're dominant, and fearand anxiety are much less likely.

That's just how it is.  It saddens me to see people become frightened, dread-filled, anxious little shadows of their former calm, confident selves.  It happened to me, and I came BACK from it, thanks to raw animal foods, bone meal and clay, and vitamin D.  

Why would I want to see anyone else go through that?  How could I NOT make a gigantic stink every time someone starts acting like that excessive sensitivity is NORMAL?  It's not.  

I'm not playing around with you people.  I take this stuff very seriously.  The excessive sensitivity that veganism/vegetarianism causes is NOT, in ANY way, normal.

Anybody who has a problem with that statement DOESN'T BELONG here.   
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Iguana on August 09, 2011, 04:37:42 am
Anybody who has a problem with that statement DOESN'T BELONG here.  

With all due respect, CK, I do have a problem with your statement. Who knows? Everyone is different: some raw fooders have no reactions at all when occasionally eating cooked food while some others have strong and unpleasant reactions. A good friend of mine belongs to the second category. He’s 24, has eaten raw paleo (instincto style) ever since birth with massive amounts of meat. (I just went today to his place to take half of a mutton he slaughtered yesterday). He can’t eat anything cooked nor any commercial (grain and garbage fed) meat without having strong and nasty reactions. It’s the same for GCB, and it's precisely this phenomenon which allowed the development and fine-tuning of the instincto theory and practice, 45 years ago, by indicating which foods seemed to be ok and which ones were not.

So, according to our several decades long experience with hundreds of people in Switzerland first and then in France, it’s definitively possible that Dorothy had an awful reaction with prosciuto.

Cheers
François
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 09, 2011, 05:37:01 am
Hi Folks. I do have almost instant reactions to foods. I am however not anxious, ungrounded or a shadow of my former self and if anything I get a bit over-confident - but you cannot know that unless you know me personally. I have gotten no feedback from others that I know in real life to indicate that I am so. I can appreciate fully that others have had this experience and I understand the indignation at any diet that created that for them and for others they know. I appreciate efforts to protect others. I have only spoken of myself and I make no generalizations.

The instincto diet that I have been reading about here does appeal to me greatly because it speaks to the way I tend to choose what to eat.

I'd like to repeat what I said before to round out this discussion - I have been having similar instant and powerful reactions to completely raw organic grass-fed meats - but all good. I'd be happy to elaborate if any one wants to know what they are.

My body reacts swiftly to weight-lifting, to exercise and to other things as well.

Cherimoya - I hope that we can get to know one another better over time. I can see that you only have the best in mind for those you care about, the forum and other people in general. Moderating a forum can't be easy. I understand why you banned me, I honor your motives, I am glad that I am being guided to speak more appropriately in this particular setting and I hope to learn from your experiences.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Projectile Vomit on August 09, 2011, 08:23:51 am
...Anybody who has a problem with that statement DOESN'T BELONG here.   

I'm curious how you acquired so much power as to make such bold assertions and then hold everyone else accountable to them? Is this a standard that all moderators agreed on?

If Phil (for instance) mentioned he had food sensitivities and lost the "healing energy" in his dainty pink glove would you ban him?
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 09, 2011, 11:41:05 am
I'm curious how you acquired so much power as to make such bold assertions and then hold everyone else accountable to them? Is this a standard that all moderators agreed on?

If Phil (for instance) mentioned he had food sensitivities and lost the "healing energy" in his dainty pink glove would you ban him?

Eric, this is coming pretty close to trolling, don't you think?


Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 09, 2011, 11:46:35 am
With all due respect, CK, I do have a problem with your statement. Who knows? Everyone is different: some raw fooders have no reactions at all when occasionally eating cooked food while some others have strong and unpleasant reactions. A good friend of mine belongs to the second category. He’s 24, has eaten raw paleo (instincto style) ever since birth with massive amounts of meat. (I just went today to his place to take half of a mutton he slaughtered yesterday). He can’t eat anything cooked nor any commercial (grain and garbage fed) meat without having strong and nasty reactions. It’s the same for GCB, and it's precisely this phenomenon which allowed the development and fine-tuning of the instincto theory and practice, 45 years ago, by indicating which foods seemed to be ok and which ones were not.

So, according to our several decades long experience with hundreds of people in Switzerland first and then in France, it’s definitively possible that Dorothy had an awful reaction with prosciuto.

Cheers
François


You're pretty close to being a vegan compared to me, and so is/was Guy-Claude Burger.  I eat a much higher percentage of animal fat and protein than you and he do, and the reason is that I feel ungrounded and spacey and less calm when I don't.

Seriously, you need to read some of AV's work.  He talks about how the fruitarian diet spaced him out, and created extreme emotional highs and lows.  It made him very emotionally unstable.

Veganism does the same thing, just more slowly.  It makes you more and more "sensitive"...until you just can't handle the stresses and strains of everyday life.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 09, 2011, 12:52:23 pm
right. what it comes down to is that these aren't issues of lacking foods per se.
Many or most - like people on this board, aajonus and other former instinctos up and change their philosophy (after experience) even to less enjoyable or nuisance 'diets' because just like pure veganism what is actually hypothesis and not real research doesn't line up with the reality. If one then needs to rationalize things based on a theory or living in line with a theory as some tautological proof rather than what is actually giving practical real life health to others then this just adds to the problem above.

(cooked) veganism is an extreme and a deficiency that should inevitably lead to deficiencies and problems at least long term but diets high in raw sugar whether they include meat or not seem to also all uniformly create the same or worse problems which require the same excuses. We already know people can live for over 40 years on raw vegan diets so we as a community need to actually address the minutiae of which programs are best at actually repairing problems AND for creating optimal performance or if they are even better or safer than standard diets. Most importantly not assuming that any non vegan version of a "natural" diet is good or assuming that diets that are 'extreme' or 'unnatural' are less good or less safe than diets that include foods and methods that may be way more problematic despite being part of our (modern) nature and control of such. To me we can look to all kinds of cooked paleo diets and vegan diets and figure out some common denominators as to which aspects are important and which things are largely insignificant.

A huge sampling examined objectively will show that people (like even chimps that are arguably more naturally suited to such) that eat high volumes of raw sugar and not enough fatty acids and proteins do not have it together to function mentally and often rationalize other clearly poor health through defensive excuses and redefining health away from something robust to something that is light and fragile. Its pure tautology.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 09, 2011, 12:53:59 pm
Its incorrect to assume that the healthiest person has an 'iron gut' that can handle pizzas and fried chicken and feel fantastic, but lets face it people didn't originally get ill when they started to use fire otherwise they wouldn't have kept doing it. Unless someone is to literally prove to me that they are far more cellularly pure than the uncivilized people now or just 100's of years ago and more robust to the point where their physical body could survive out in nature without illness or other rapid deterioration then it is unlikely that such sensitivities to basic food is a sign of health by default. Since some automatically deem cooking to be bad it could very well be a sign of something to avoid but then again it may not as even raw foods may indeed cause symptoms where the food (to others) is not at all bad or they might be facilitating something good that feels bad.

often high sugar diets which strive to remove all toxins cannot facilitate as much healing and repair as often even diets which include mediocre foods - even other veg or mostly veg diets. So that is one of many reasons for also removing natural sugars whether they were health forming or not for our ancestors. Based on the known science and practice, eating excess sugar by default makes difficult the other advantage to burn/replace toxic fat that regularly gets dumped when things are stirred up by fruits or just through the practice of being 100% (or around) raw. So this is another reason eating well avoids these sensitivities and erratic thoughts/behavior brought on intrinsically by higher carb and exacerbated by 'excitoxins' and other things being awakened internally on such approaches that arn't being facilitated properly. This isn't as important in cooked diets which are more homeostasis.

Also when people point to immediate reactions to foods as some signal that something is bad they ignore that their body is not necessarily in some idealized terrain to make such an experiment.

This can be seen in a vegan eating some meat, or a paleo eating dairy or perhaps a 'ZC' eater eating a piece of fruit. We know on one level alot of this has to do with bacteria in place to digest particular things but it is also how food is interacting with the rest of a wacked out system as a whole. To me this is why its important to understand traditions. Often discussions downplay the differences between needs of modern (sick) and ancient peoples as well as the obvious that many types of things were not creating illness. It may be very true that this is more the reason for sick people to avoid 'problematic' foods but in no way can one claim that its automatically their excellent health that is the explanation as to why people feel bad from such food. believing such rationalizes much of the vegan mindset. A huge part is also the power of the mind and how ideology effects everything. This was brought up most recently in the recent Kurt Harris talk where he as a physician and diet guru got all sorts of people complaining about symptoms from butter or something before it was even possible to be digested, assimilated and have such physical responses.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: TylerDurden on August 09, 2011, 01:09:56 pm
You're pretty close to being a vegan compared to me, and so is/was Guy-Claude Burger.  I eat a much higher percentage of animal fat and protein than you and he do, and the reason is that I feel ungrounded and spacey and less calm when I don't.

Seriously, you need to read some of AV's work.  He talks about how the fruitarian diet spaced him out, and created extreme emotional highs and lows.  It made him very emotionally unstable.

Veganism does the same thing, just more slowly.  It makes you more and more "sensitive"...until you just can't handle the stresses and strains of everyday life.
Iguana eats a lot of raw meats. He's even regularly posted photos of raw wild game dinners in the "what are you eating" thread. So, while a lot of Instinctos do eat more raw plant food than raw animal food(German Instinctos particularly, it seems), some Instinctos do eat plenty of raw animal foods.

Personally, I reckon that a diet high in raw plant foods can be OK, provided there is a minimum of raw animal foods to provide all the complete nutrients needed by the body, such as vitamin B12 etc., which raw plant foods can't provide. Say, at the very least 10 percent raw animal foods in the diet? People who have additional, specific issues such as diabetes and the like definitely need much higher percentages of raw animal foods in their diet.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 09, 2011, 01:27:40 pm

Personally, I reckon that a diet high in raw plant foods can be OK, provided there is a minimum of raw animal foods to provide all the complete nutrients needed by the body, such as vitamin B12 etc., which raw plant foods can't provide. Say, at the very least 10 percent raw animal foods in the diet? People who have additional, specific issues such as diabetes and the like definitely need much higher percentages of raw animal foods in their diet.

for the record..I agree in theory. If one looks at the Kitavans one can see that such a (cooked) diet is arguably just as healthy or more so to any other traditional diet. The problem is that people aren't eating an actual diet that is tested in nature and essentially making the argument that since raw seems to be better than cooked that one can just replace cooked foods with raw foods. This just isn't scientific as to how food functions even in a perfect vacuum and leaves out alot of variables with such in viewing the whole picture for traditional or modern people. The other problem is when re-creating that diet they arn't actually compensating for what additional materials, tools (diets) and processes they need to just get to that baseline that allowed those people to be healthy. Just looking at the bare minimums such a diet would meet basic requirements (put out by the FDA and WHO) but its not compensating for that and also not looking at the detriments of the excesses needed to form the rest of a diet. In other words its ignorant or dismissive of the acquired wisdom of what actually often happens on such raw diets and often just talking about how on paper they should work.

Perhaps its true that the healthier one is to begin with this also wouldn't materialize as poor health but this even more would be less proof that the diet is sound in general or was fit to actually be medicinal for people that all inevitably have underlying issues.

So my take is I'm not in favor of saying such diets CAN'T be healthy based in some notion that people have to eat tons of fats or animal foods or something but more that often enough people believe they are automatically doing the right thing (based on some fairly recent ideas) despite clear signs to the opposite...that seems to be more the argument.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: cherimoya_kid on August 09, 2011, 01:43:37 pm


Personally, I reckon that a diet high in raw plant foods can be OK, provided there is a minimum of raw animal foods to provide all the complete nutrients needed by the body, such as vitamin B12 etc., which raw plant foods can't provide. Say, at the very least 10 percent raw animal foods in the diet? People who have additional, specific issues such as diabetes and the like definitely need much higher percentages of raw animal foods in their diet.

The problem with high-fruit diets (and vegan/vegetarian diets), especially low-fat, is that you become so "sensitive" (which REALLY means "unstable and crazy")  that you start making decisions (life decisions AND food decisions) based entirely on your feelings, intuition, ESP, what-the-heck-ever.  You stop basing decisions on objective facts and common sense.

Guess what happens next?  You realize that the lowfat fruity diet is making you more "sensitive", and you decide stupid things like "my intuition is saving me from terrible things" and you eat even LESS fat and animal foods, which makes things even WORSE.

There's just all kinds of crazy shit vegans come up with, everything from "electromagnetic fields are hurting my aura" to "the mercury in fish is so high that even one piece of fish a year will give me mercury poisoning". 

The "sensitivity" just leads to crazier and crazier shit.

It's a vicious cycle. Also an embarrassing one, if you ever manage to come back from it, and look back on your previous behavior.

I've been there, and don't want anybody else to be. 
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: TylerDurden on August 09, 2011, 02:01:33 pm
Well, the absurd mercury-in-fish notions are sometimes even spouted by raw, zero-carbers as well. william, for one. And I've had some primal dieters complain about electric fields on the other forums.


Anyway, there does seem to be a very definite bias towards raw, low-carb on this site. The few who are high-carb at the start usually end up eating more raw animal foods, not less, after immersing themselves in the site for a while.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: miles on August 09, 2011, 08:31:19 pm
Cherimoya, kid... Someone has health problems constantly e.g. joint pains, flatulence, stomach pains/IBS, constipation, acne, weakness, tiredness, hay fever etc... This person is not sensitive to foods, because they are always eating bad foods and always feeling bad. The same person then discovers paleo-lifestyle, they begin to feel better because they're eating good foods, and their health improves, but the underlying problems which made them so ill before still remain - long-term problems, but now from eating good foods they feel good. This person is now sensitive to eating bad foods, because they now know what it is to feel good.

The paleo-lifestyle did not make them more vulnerable to these bad foods, just more sensitive, it's very different... Though this person has become more sensitive to bad foods, they are probably in fact less vulnerable to their bad effects, as their health is generally greater.

There is long-term health and short-term health. If someone had poor health during their development, and/or generally for a large part of their life, they will have poor long-term heath. What you are eating/experiencing right now will affect your short-term health, and what you have eaten/experienced throughout your life will affect your long-term health. People with a bad long-term health but a good short-term health will be the most sensitive. By maintaining a good short-term health, some aspects of your long-term health can gradually improve as well, and you can become gradually less vulnerable to bad foods/experiences.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 09, 2011, 11:41:32 pm
Cherimoya, kid... Someone has health problems constantly e.g. joint pains, flatulence, stomach pains/IBS, constipation, acne, weakness, tiredness, hay fever etc... This person is not sensitive to foods, because they are always eating bad foods and always feeling bad. The same person then discovers paleo-lifestyle, they begin to feel better because they're eating good foods, and their health improves, but the underlying problems which made them so ill before still remain - long-term problems, but now from eating good foods they feel good. This person is now sensitive to eating bad foods, because they now know what it is to feel good.




Theres truth to this but the distinction is - is that people arn't saying that per se but actually saying that their 'purity' is an indicator of health and in some cases: being free of disease. When asked how they know they have the right diet vegans or non vegans will actually point to this as an assessment of what foods are good or bad based on how they feel without seeing the surrounding context or this above definition that is made up..which is not ok and can rationalize anything.

veg or not, these are also the same people that claim that by following whatever diet they deem is closest to nature that they can absolve just about ALL of such ailments and are less realistic then you present. These people are talking about some kind of health that no one has experienced in hundreds of thousands of years..and often showing that they are suffering problems even standard dieters today do not have. Part of this may be coming from poor health backgrounds..but certain diets and factors are also known to accelerate disease or prevent the kind of deep healing that is possible in recovering from IBS -> some cancers. Also anecdotally one sees that the people doing the best on such diets presented as IDEAL and INFALLIBLE tend to have the least history of such problems while on other approaches (raw or not) people do indeed come back form severe ailments and also can diverge from whatever diet is currently seen to be optimal by people today by individuals who can't possibly know the entire picture.

To me the issue is that this is a discussion forum..and if things were as simple as just eating natural food without the all the tools discussed here like LC/VLC, or whipworms, or clays, or other possibly strange specifics that work for individuals then all people regardless of health background would all be achieving the same amazing and progressive results. Its turns out this is not true and that often these ideologies corner people out of possibilities in diet and health tools. Veganism is just one obvious such thing in that it removes whole categories of food often based on spiritual reasons..but also on interpretations of biology. You see these same interpretations of biology all the time to even amongst not vegans to create the same kind of categories and remove tools and resources and these are often clearly removed from what is actually working for people.

I think what ck objected to is this idea that people will present totally subjective and 'un-questionable' information to validate a point of view even when there is physical evidence suggesting the problems of such.
Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: Dorothy on August 10, 2011, 12:00:49 am
What can happen is if a conclusion has been come to that is combined with an emotional charge because of deeply negative or positive experience, when conflicting data is presented it can be ignored, dismissed or ridiculed. It is part of the human tendency to compartmentalize. It is related to our advanced language abilities.

I agree with KD entirely that letting intellectual theories cloud one's perception is a danger. When real world results do not correspond to a belief system people do tend to adapt their perceptions to fit into their theories.

I imagine that raw paleo could be a purely positive paradigm that does not necessitate condemnation of other diets to be successful. If it is what I think it might be, it could stand on it's own long history and positive results as it is not a theory.







Title: Re: Tribal hierachy
Post by: KD on August 10, 2011, 12:23:32 am
What can happen is if a conclusion has been come to that is combined with an emotional charge because of deeply negative or positive experience, when conflicting data is presented it can be ignored, dismissed or ridiculed. It is part of the human tendency to compartmentalize.

I have been able to withstand stresses that I did not think were humanly possible and the people around me in the last year have marveled at my stamina. That is a data point that can be incorporated if allowed.  


Well said. Personally I think its definitely allowed as a data point. That was where I sort of was bothered personally. Really the issue with veganism or some of this other stuff is pretending to know all the answers and changing the very standards to fit ideological purposes so I would go as far to also say that if people present by default (without criticism) that X certain diet (even raw paleo on a 'raw paleo' forum) is necessarily better than a Tibetan yak butter soup diet that is not ok in my opinion unless we are literally comparing both quality of life and tissue samples and other physical assessments. Makes us just as bad as other forums.

Its when people are so personally wrapped up and defined in what they are doing that they often can't to see the forest for the trees...often even when presented with overwhelming statistics and evidence. Some people might too just be amazingly lucky and special (or just stubborn) and stick with things that seem less stable but then in my opinion should they have more empathy and understanding when others need greater strategies to restore health...not the insistence like on other forums that others are 'doing it wrong' and not meeting that ideal etc...

again..just speaking generally