On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> 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.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >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.
>>
>> 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
>position.
>
>> 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.

People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
but they remain facts none the less. It really says a lot about them
that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.

>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.

There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is. It's most
likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.