View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2006 16:58:32 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 1 Sep 2006 21:18:40 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >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.

>
> 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.
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> 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
> >> area.

> >
> >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
lying.

> from
> 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.