"Rupert" wrote in message
[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"
[email protected] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 19:36:31 -0700, "Rupert"
I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of
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
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." -
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
No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they
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
are actually killed in rice production,
That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says
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.
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.
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?
The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
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.
There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,
It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with. If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics. Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics." Very few defenders of animal
agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If they
want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they hold
that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the relevantly
similar humans, then the characteristics we identified aren't what
count after all, but rather species membership. Someone can advocate
that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but then
they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
as I have said to you
before, the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.