On 4 Sep 2006 19:36:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:
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.
"- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." - diderot
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.
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.
You don't want to believe what he has learned from first hand
experience, so you just say it isn't true.
No, I do not say this. I do not know whether it is true or not. Others
who have denied some of the things he said have argued for their
What reason would a
man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
would diderot lie and say there are more?
Someone concerned to undermine the ethical vegetarian position might
deliberately exaggerate the harm involved in rice farming. Or Diderot
might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
sorts of reasons.