In Bad Faith--Dishonest Information/Debate Tactics in Raw Foods

(Assessing Claims and Credibility in Raw and Alternative Diets--continued, Part F)

Raw vegan extremist behavior patterns:
the darker side of rawism (cont.)

Note: If you've just surfed in and jumped directly to this segment, please be aware of the notice provided to readers in the first two paragraphs of the previous page regarding this section (that it involves discussion of some unfortunate realities in the raw vegan movement, which some may find unpleasant or unwelcome).

In Bad Faith: dishonest information and debate tactics in raw foods--personal experiences.

Let's now consider a raw diet promoter who decides to attack some writings that he/she disagrees with, let's say, for instance, some of the writings on this site, which such individuals almost certainly will be likely to dispute. If an "expert" challenges statements made here via the debate tactic of repeatedly demanding "proof" (implicitly meaning published scientific evidence) for specific claims for which only anecdotal evidence is available, then one must question the credibility of said "expert." After all, a real expert would have knowledge of at least part of the scientific evidence relevant to raw diets, and should recognize that for many issues in raw, only anecdotal evidence is available.

Like it or not, the reality is that anecdotal evidence is all that is available for some questions, and those who are credible acknowledge reality. A chronic lack of such acknowledgment, therefore, suggests that the alleged "expert" is using (whether deliberately or more unconsciously) deceptive tactics as a debate strategy, hence may be intellectually dishonest. But this is only one tactic among several others. As it happens, these sorts of tactics have already become familiar to a couple of contributors to this website from direct experience.

Extremist debate tactic: Quote out of context, then misrepresent the material. The tactic mentioned in the above two paragraphs can be illustrated with examples from this writer's personal experience. On a few occasions in the past, certain of my articles have been republished--without permission (copyright infringement)--and were angrily attacked by a fruitarian "expert." In such republications (on an email forum), the articles were interspersed with numerous angry demands for "proof" from the alleged "expert." The articles were also misrepresented and misinterpreted, as well--by the exclusion of other specifically relevant parts of the article that would have revealed the distortions this individual engaged in, of course.
Relevant comments on these attacks are as follows.
- One such article (Vegan Attitudes Toward Instinctive Eating, available on this site in since-updated form) was (and still is) labeled explicitly as personal opinion--needless to say, no one is obligated to "prove" their opinions to an angry, irrational extremist.
- Hostile attacks may result from underlying eating-disorder behavior. One angry attack included brief quotes from the article, Health Food Junkie, by Stephen Bratman, available on this site. Inasmuch as the "Health Food Junkie" article describes how obsession with diet can become something akin to a mental illness (i.e., an eating disorder), in this instance it can be rather humorously observed (in my opinion) that the angry attack merely provided an excellent example of the type of unbalanced behavior typical of those with such eating disorders.
- Extremist debate tactic: demand proof NOW even when an article has been explicitly presented as a summary only, with further evidence scheduled for future publication. Another article (Selected Myths of Raw Foods, also available on this site) was specifically labeled as an introductory "capsule presentation" only. Made explicit in the very first paragraph of the article was a statement that a more detailed treatment with supporting evidence would be provided in other articles, to be available later.
  When the "expert" republished extensive parts of the article that they proceeded to dispute, they conveniently left out the above notice regarding evidence to follow at a later date, and repeatedly demanded "proof" from the article. At yet another point in their sliced-and-diced republication of the article, the "expert" deleted still another explicit statement that evidence for the specific issue being discussed in that passage would be provided in a scheduled future article, while inserting their own demand for (immediate) "proof" of the statement. Consider: Are such actions fair and honest, or are they unfair, deceptive, and intellectually dishonest?
  (Note: The examples mentioned in the three above bullet points occurred some time ago in 1997-1998.)
- Harassment via spamming. Besides the above unauthorized republications, the fruitarian "expert" also involuntarily subscribed this writer for a short period to their email list (in my opinion, a crank science nutrition forum) demonstrating (in my opinion) their disabled emotional state by repeatedly attacking this writer in a vituperative, insulting manner. Needless to say, such behavior constitutes spamming and deliberate harassment.
  To put such behavior in perspective: Would you consider it reasonable if someone were to take three articles from a popular health magazine (at least one article of which is identified as editorial opinion), and republish them on Internet (in violation of copyright), interspersed with numerous angry, egocentric demands for "proof," and including insults and denunciations of the magazine article authors?
  Consider: Would that be the action of a rational, sane person--or would it be more accurate to describe such behavior as irrational, insane, and hateful? Is this the behavior one would expect from a serious, "scientific" critic (which the fruitarian "expert" here appears to pretend to be)? Or is such behavior what one would expect, rather, from a raving lunatic or crank? Finally, would that be the act of an honest, credible individual? What credibility does a raw/fruitarian "expert" have who (frequently) engages in such irrational and unfair behavior regarding the writings of others?
- Extremist often cannot/does not meet the standard of proof they demand from others. To make matters worse, such behavior is also hypocritical, as the alleged "expert" habitually does not provide--and has not provided (to date)--published scientific studies on fruitarians (i.e., "proof," by their own standards) for ANY of their claims about fruitarianism. (There are almost no published research studies done on fruitarians.) This illustrates a hypocritical double standard: the extremist demands "scientific" proof of common anecdotal observations that fruitarianism does not work, while they have not yet presented any published scientific evidence that it does work.
  It also neatly reverses the burden of proof--a logically invalid step by accepted standards of evidence. That is, the efficacy of fruitarianism has never been proven, hence the logical burden is on the advocates of fruitarianism to provide credible proof, not on others to prove it doesn't. To date, no proof--other than crank science theories, of course--has ever been presented. Meanwhile, extensive anecdotal evidence, combined with extensive indirect scientific evidence, suggests that 100% raw vegan fruitarian diets are nutritionally deficient and highly unlikely to be successful in the long run.
Example of raw/fruitarian debater relying on plagiarized source material. In another incident by a different raw/fruitarian proponent, one "diet guru" challenged a different writer on this site to debate evolution. The challenge was made in a long article, posted to a raw listgroup, that criticized evolution for allegedly being unscientific. However, it turned out that over half of the material in the posting the raw/fruitarian writer claimed authorship of (and put a copyright notice on, no less) was in fact plagiarized from the creationist book, Darwin on Trial, by Phillip Johnson. Detailed side-by-side comparisons of passages of the raw/fruitarian advocate's post with those from the book that were made in a reply to the fruitarian's post left no doubt about the extensive plagiarism. Is there any reason to debate a known plagiarist?

That such dietary extremists are willing to stoop to such tactics in defense of the dogma they promote merely underscores that they are not interested in reality or decency. Instead, they have the "one true religion and science of the 100% raw fruit/vegan lunch" to promote; and dishonest debate tactics, hostility, and blatant hypocrisy are standard operating procedure for certain of these so-called raw/fruitarian "experts." What credibility can they be given on other issues, when they so blatantly disregard any standard of truthful disclosure in instances such as this? The obvious answer for any thinking person is that such "experts" forfeit any claim to credibility they might otherwise have had.

Rationalizations of extremist behavior.

No doubt some will try to rationalize their negative behavior via the tired, old excuse that they are merely "passionate" (about their lunch, no less). Ask yourself whether disagreements over lunch philosophy can justify the above aggressive, dishonest acts. The extremists call it "passion"; however, most other people would regard such behavior as reflecting intense hatred and mental toxicity.

Note the emphasis here on emotional and mental balance/health. There is a reason for such emphasis--the inability to function in a civil manner when one's dietary dogma is challenged is a common condition among such individuals, and is a sign they may be mentally UNhealthy, and hence have little credibility.

Mainstream rawists are usually not extremists.

Implicit in the usage of the word "extreme" is that it denotes unusual, not-so-common circumstances. Here this means that although the raw and veg*n movements are infested with extremists, especially the fruitarian wing, it is not the case that every rawist is an extremist. Although it may be redundant, the preceding should be stated explicitly, as follows.

Most rawists are not extremists.

Most veg*ns are not extremists.

Many fruitarians are not extremists.

Having asserted that most rawists are not extremists, it should be noted that in my opinion, at least some of the self-appointed "experts" or "diet gurus" are, and the raw and veg*n movements suffer from the burden of their negative influence. While extremists themselves may not be common in raw, unfortunately they do tend to comprise its most visible element--and the extremist attitudes, myths, and misconceptions they promote have filtered out into the movement and are very commonly reflected in various rawist beliefs, myths, etc. Do such factors help the raw community to grow, or do such fanatical attitudes and behavior patterns simply relegate raw diets to the "lunatic fringe" of the alternative health world?

Extremist behavior: humor.

Finally, readers might find the site article (a humor piece) The Raw Vegan Pledge of Extremism, Ignorance and Denial to be relevant and of interest, as it provides a brief (albeit very sarcastic) summary of actual attitudes and behavior patterns that can be observed among raw vegan extremists.

GO TO NEXT PART OF ARTICLE

(Skepticism in Raw Foods vs. the "Golden Cage" of Dietary Dogma)

Back to Frank Talk by Long-Time Insiders
Back to Psychology of Idealistic Diets

Beyond Veg home | Feedback | Links