View Single Post
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2006, 04:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
[email protected] dh@. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:28:00 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:08:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote

[..]
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.


It has no place in promoting "ar"


It has no place in promoting the ethical use of animals in agriculture
either.


Yes it does.

It has no place in the discussion PERIOD.


You've had about five years to think of a good reason why we
should not give the animals' lives as much consideration as their
deaths, and so far the only reasons you've been able to provide
have been shit. They a

1. "aras" don't want us to.
2. YOU don't want us to (but you're an "ara").
3. you claim we should think of it in the same way we think
of child prostition.

but is certainly a very significant
aspect of human influence on animals none the less.


It certainly is NOT significant.


It is for billions of animals.

It is important for AW to realize that
animals are sentient living beings, it of no importance whatsoever that
farming them means they "get to experience life", none.


It is for billions of animals.

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.

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?


In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
when it would be and when it wouldn't.


LOL! I enjoy frying you on the spit of your own barbeque.


You could have no clue since you could never come close to
doing anything like that, you poor moron.