View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 03:36 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,,talk.politics.animals
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote:
On 2 Sep 2006 16:58:32 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 21:18:40 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother 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,

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.

Here is what made me think he was making reference to eggs, though
maybe not in the context we were discussing it's still a significant aspect
of the difference between organic and conventional methods:

"the difference is that the billions of amphibian eggs that were laid when
the 1340 was flooded at the same time and in the same fashion as the 900
didn't make many tadpoles and fewer frogs due to applications of
pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides." - diderot

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.

"No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out." - you

This is a change of subject - you were talking about lying about deaths
associated with rice production - and I'm not lying when I say that. It
happens to be my sincerely held opinion. I'm not lying if I express my
opinion. If you think I'm mistaken, then argue the point.

"pearl" doesn't mind people believing there are no cds involved with
rice production, but is maniacally opposed to people understanding
that there are a lot of them.

pearl thinks that Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth,
so she responds accordingly.

Aren't you?

I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of the
matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.

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.

No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond

They don't correct him.

They have taken issue with certain things he said.

No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
are actually killed in rice production,

That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says without
coming up with estimates of your own.

though recently "pearl" is suggesting
that there aren't even any frogs in rice fields.

The only one who even pretended to provide
another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same

If you disagree with pearl, then argue with her. I see no reason to
think that pearl is opposed to any point of view being expressed, it
just that she has her own point of view which she also wants to express.

You pretend to as well, yet you won't tell us how many deaths you
think are involved in rice production.

I told you that I don't know.

diderot's view if from first hand
experience and certainly seems more than reasonable to me. You
who have never been around it disagree with what he told us

I don't disagree with him. I don't know whether he's right or not. I
have taken issue with you implying that it would be acceptable for him
to include eggs in his calculations, and with you accusing people of

his own observations, yet you can provide nothing better or even
different for us to take into consideration. What "pearl" wants us
to believe seems completely insane and dishonest, and doesn't
even agree with itself:

"Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
move on as the fields dry." - "pearl"

"I don't think that 'they' are there!" - "pearl"

She means they're not there after the fields have dried. It's not
inconsistent. I don't see what's so insane and dishonest about it.