I don't need to provide a definition for what is a nebulous term like "processed" in order to argue that the one provided in the original comment is both ridiculous and not congruent with what most other people would consider processed.
You only do if you want to make that argument successfully.
>> Everything that isn't raw is processed.
> Likewise, this is a circular definition.
No, it is not. A circular definition is that everything that is processed is processed, the one you're carefully avoiding in favor of argument by calling something ridiculous.
> Everything that isn't raw is processed.
Likewise, this is a circular definition.