People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
but they remain facts none the less.
Some people (i.e. you) point out "facts" that have no relevance.
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.
It says a lot about you that you persist in "pointing out" that meat
consumption leads to animals "getting to experience life" when that fact has
no place whatever in the discussion.
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.
Those billions of animals that live and die in rice paddies also "get to
experience life", do you "consider" that to be a "positive aspect" of rice
consumption, eh ****wit?