On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:
[email protected] 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.
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.
People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
but they remain facts none the less.
People make claims, which some ethical vegetarians dispute.
Here's another fact that "ethical" veg*ns hate: Some livestock
have lives of positive value. Here's another: The lives of animals
raised for food should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
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.
What does it say about them that they are not convinced?
That they will eat rice regardless of the deaths involved with it,
and that they will deny the deaths in order to cling to their belief
that they are the ethical champions of the world.
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.
Then why would anyone selling organic rice lie and say it's worse
than it is?
It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
about the matter.
Diderot clearly has an agenda to push.
What is it then, and why would he push it?
It's totally irrational to say
that there is some reason to think Pearl would lie to make her position
LOL!!! There are ONLY reasons to think that "pearl" would lie,
and absolutely NO reasons not to.
but there is no reason to think Diderot would.
There's no reason to think that diderot would lie...at least no good
reason why that any of us have been able to come up with so far.
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.
How would you know whether it's the case or not?
Because of the absurd reactions by veg*ns--and ONLY by veg*ns--to
wildlife deaths associated with rice production.
There are some people
posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
about human influence on animals.
I have ONLY reason to believe that no veg*n I've ever encountered
online cares anywhere near as much about human influence on animals
as they do about promoting veg*nism. Even when animal products
contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products AND provide decent
lives for livestock veg*ns still promote the vegetable products over the
animal products....and usually if not always they do it dishonestly....in fact
I can't recall a veg*n EVER being honest about doing so.