View Single Post
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
dh@. dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother > wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ __________
>>>>>>>>> From: diderot >
>>>>>>>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>>>>>>>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>>>>>>>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
>>>>>>>>> Message-ID: >
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>>>>>>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>>>>>> It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>>>>>> met at a bar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>>>>>> yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>>>>>> could be referring to the population of Texas.
>>>>> "the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>>>>> on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>>>>> rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
>>>>>
>>>>> If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
>>>>> farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
>>>>> incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
>>>>> none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
>>>>> dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>>>>>> square FOOT of rice?
>>>>> Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
>>>>> and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>>>>> and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
>>>>> the big picture.
>>>>>
>>>> It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>>>> problem with destroying an egg.
>>> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
>>> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
>>> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
>>> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

>>
>> This is an evasion of the point.
>>
>> Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>> against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>> here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>> in the course of rice production. Some people here think that Diderot's
>> account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
>> responding accordingly.
>>
>> I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
>> sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
>> account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
>> If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
>> justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
>> figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
>>

>
>Hi,
>
>The "5 amphibians per square foot" figure came from Bob Sikes, based on
>his earlier posting of his FAQ:
>
>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...cef828 0ba2a3
>
>http://tinyurl.com/gd2by
>
>
>He stated:
>
>
>"most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
>across the header, it is somewhere between 30K & 50+K per acre
>harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still incredibly
>conservative) number of amphibian and anole (and slow, small furry
>things) deaths through the combine is 35,000 of all species harvested
>per acre, combined average for *two* cuttings. in spite of these
>seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards escape than are
>combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian deaths represents
>less than *10-15% of the total population*, and probably considerably
>less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed
>... until that night and the next day, when they disappear almost
>totally into the gullets of predators. "
>
>He also states that "an acre has 43,264+ square feet"
>
>So total population = 100%/15% x 35 000 = 233 333
>
>Amphibians per square foot = 233 333 / 43 264 = 5.4. (Over a quarter of
>a million frogs on a American football pitch!)
>
>However, I noticed that he's changed his lie to 20%


What is the correct percentage? How do you know?

> in this latest
>revision of his "****ing Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
>total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
>times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!
>
>It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>to it, as if it were their life line.


You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
many are killed, and how you know!