View Single Post
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 01:58 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
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.


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.


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.


Yes, well we've discussed this before. The argument that if livestock
have sufficiently good lives, this justifies bringing them into
existence, inflicting painful mutilations on them without anaesthetic,
and killing them for food, is not a "fact" that ethical vegans hate, it
is a highly contentious and disputed argument. An important point to
address is: would it be permissible to do the same thing to humans, and
if not, what's the morally relevant difference? I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans. I
think most people would find this pretty difficult to swallow. You're
entitled to your opinion, but you should be upfront about what your
claims are.

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,


The fact that they are not convinced of Diderot's claims certainly does
not prove that they will eat rice regardless of how much harm they
think it causes. They are not convinced that rice production causes a
lot of harm, and in any case you don't know whether they eat rice or
not. If you think there are good ethical reasons to eat less or no rice
and you want to advocate that, go ahead.

and that they will deny the deaths in order to cling to their belief
that they are the ethical champions of the world.


Any opinion they express is not an attempt to cling to a belief, it is
a sincerely held opinion.

If you present an argument and someone's not convinced, the rational
thing to do is defend the argument, not say that this reflects poorly
on them as a person.

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.


Nonsense.


Then why would anyone selling organic rice lie and say it's worse
than it is?


You said there is not the slightest reason to doubt that his testimony
is the gospel truth. That is nonsense. He is a stranger who made a post
to the internet a few years ago. You have absolutely no way of knowing
whether his estimates are reasonable or not. You don't even know
whether he is a rice farmer. He has a desire to convince people that
the arguments in favour of ethical vegetarianism are flawed. If it is
possible that Pearl might lie in order to persuade people of her
position, then it is possible that Diderot might intentionally or
unintentionally distort the truth in order to persuade people of his
position. As you point out, there is not much danger of a serious
impact on the sales of organic rice.

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?


See above.

It's totally irrational to say
that there is some reason to think Pearl would lie to make her position
more plausible,


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.


To repeat, there is no more reason to think that Pearl would lie than
to think that Diderot would. You're being ridiculous.

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.


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.


I see no reason to think they're not prepared to take the facts into
consideration, just that they have a sincere doubt that they are indeed
facts. If you think they're facts it's your job to argue your case.

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.


They want to promote veganism *because* they care about human influence
on animals. Why else would they do it? Factory-farming causes enormous
suffering, and most animal products have large crop inputs and would
therefore have far more CDs per serving than rice. Vegans want to
reduce the amount of harm caused by agriculture. Maybe some of them
have a blind spot about certain types of agriculture, if so, that's
unfortunate. But it's ridiculous to suggest they don't care about human
influence on animals. Reducing human influence on animals is the whole
point.

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.


The issue of bringing livestock into existence who have tolerably good
lives, if marred by unanaesthetized branding and surgical mutilations,
is a red herring. A transition to veganism would cause more wildlife to
exist. There is no merit in producing animal products that derives from
bringing animals into existence. Your only argument is the comparison
of death rates. It's your job to provide the evidence on that one. The
reason some vegans don't go along with you in encouraging the
consumption of grass-fed beef is because they haven't yet accepted your
case that it causes fewer deaths. It's your job to provide the
evidence. There is no dishonesty involved.