|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
|
|
|
"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"
dh@. wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "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.
> >>
> >> That IS my point!
> >
> >???
>
> Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
> about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
> to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".
>
That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
lied? Point out an example of someone lying.
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
> >>
> >
> >What reason?
>
> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
> Duh.
>
No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
accordingly.
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
> >> eggs too.
> >>
> >
> >Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.
> >
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> How many are killed then?
> >
> >I have absolutely no idea.
>
> I know, but I'm suprised that you're honest enough to admit it...
> VERY surprised.
>
> >> How do you know?
|