On 10 Sep 2006 18:48:29 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. 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?
>>
>> In the case of most human slavery, humans are aware of their
>> situation and often suffer mentally as well as physically from the
>> fact. That's one thing that would make a huge difference in
>> quality of life for humans instead of animals. Then if the humans
>> knew they would be killed and eaten that would make another
>> big difference, since animals have no idea. Also the animals
>> we generally raise for food are much tougher and able to thrive
>> naked in environments that would kill most humans eventually.
>> Then there's the fact that the animals we raise for food have
>> offspring who are much easier to care for and provide with
>> lives that are of positive value for them. Those are some
>> differences which I can't help but take into consideration.
>>
>
>What if the slaves had good lives, and weren't aware of their
>situation?

So far it appears there would be nothing wrong with it, so now
it's up to you to explain what would be.

>> >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 hope I asked what the conditions would be. Quality of life
>> would be what determines that, imo. I saw a documentary on
>> slavery where men were *trying* to become slaves so they could
>> better care for their families. They were getting whipped on their
>> bare backs to prove themselves somehow. So life is of significance
>> sometimes even when it seems like it should not be, and vice versa.
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> We might be in that position right now. You don't know...no one does.
>> We certainly all get killed by something, and often suffer a lot longer
>> than animals we raise for food. But there are things on the plus side
>> for us that animals don't get. But thinking on all of humanity, how much
>> of it would we have wanted to live through? Most of human existence
>> has been spent without civilization or agriculture as we know it. Would
>> you rather live however humans managed to survive 20 thousand years
>> before the development of agricultural society, or would you rather just
>> pass on that?

Is it safe to conclude you have no idea about that?

>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> I'm sure they'd just deny it.
>>
>
>Why?

LOL! So they could keep eating rice, like they do, and like they
contribute to most things everyone else does that cause death to
animals. Don't forget that the only deaths vegans avoid, are those
to animals who would have no life at all were it not for their consumers.
Any animals who are simply killed but not deliberately provided with
life are okay with vegans, which is one reason I can't respect them.

>> >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.
>>
>> Same thing.
>
>No.

Okay, in a way I can agree, but probably not the way you mean it.
I can believe that even "pearl" is not too stupid to understand that lots
of frogs die in rice production. She may truly deny it to herself and have
worked out some way of thinking which allows her to feel that she's being
somehow honest by denying things she knows deep down are true, IF
she supresses thinking about it and denies the truth within her brain to her
required extent. That doesn't mean she is *really* honestly too stupid to
understand, it just means that she's worked out some mental dishonesty
that she uses when it's convenient for supporting what she WANTS to
believe or not believe. It doesn't make it a bit better though.

>> >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.
>>
>> The dishonesty and absurdity is what reflects poorly on them.
>>
>
>I see no evidence of dishonesty. The alleged absurdity is something
>that's up to you to argue.

"pearl's" "explanation" of how she thinks frogs she claims don't
exist survive the draining of rice fields is a clear example with no need
of any argument. Her "explanation" of how the frogs she claims don't
exist enter and exit the rice fields is another.

>> >> >> >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.
>>
>> It has flaws.
>>
>
>So you say. You are welcome to argue that point if you want.
>
>> >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.
>>
>> What would be his reason? The only reason would be to point out
>> a flaw, and the only reason it would bother him would be that it is a
>> flaw. If it wasn't, then he'd have no reason to point it out. He has no
>> reason to be dishonest, where "pearl" certainly does if she or her
>> buddies eat rice.
>>
>
>If Pearl might be dishonest in order to feel better about eating rice,

It's certainly easy to see why she would do that, and certainly appears
that's exactly what she's doing.

>Diderot might be dishonest in order to feel better about eating meat.

May be. How would telling people about frogs etc getting killed in
rice production, make someone who is proud of going to a different
country just to kill wildlife feel any better about eating meat?

>> . . .
>> >> >> 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.
>>
>> diderot did it from first hand experience and veg*ns deny it so they
>> can keep eating rice. Duh.
>>
>
>Diderot claims to be a rice farmer and claims to have made certain
>observations. It might or might not be true.

We have absolutely no reason be believe it's not true...well, I have
no reason to believe it's not true. The fact that dishonesty is such a
big part of "ar" would make you people suspect everyone else of
such dishonesty too I suppose, but I'm not in that position like you are.

>The testimony of one
>stranger on the Internet is not a very strong reason to be convinced.

Then YOU tell us how many frogs are killed, since YOU feel that
diderot was exaggerating. How many do YOU want people to believe
are killed, and why should we believe YOU over diderot? Get "pearl"
to help you, since you both feel you know better than diderot between
the two of you you SHOULD be able to set everybody straight on it.

>> >> >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?
>>
>> Because they don't like meat, and the thought of humans raising animals
>> to eat disturbs them personally. That's the only reason.
>>
>
>I can't think of a reason to be disturbed by humans raising animals to
>eat apart from a concern about human influence on animals. I don't
>think too many vegans had an aversion to the taste of meat before they
>went vegan. I didn't.
>
>> >Factory-farming causes enormous
>> >suffering, and most animal products have large crop inputs and would
>> >therefore have far more CDs per serving than rice.
>>
>> I believe rice would have by far the most cds the majority of the
>> time, so if rice is okay everything else is as good or better, including
>> grain fed animal products.
>>
>
>Well, I seriously doubt that and I'd like to see you argue your case.
>But in any case I never said rice was okay.

Well if it is, then things less harmful are too.

>> >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.
>>
>> Not in cases where animal products cause fewer cds than vegetable
>> products.
>>
>
>It's your job to argue that that is sometimes the case.

We raised our own cattle never feeding them grain. They only ate
grass. We got many meals from the death of one animal. If we had
raised soy and made our own tofu instead, it would have resulted in
many more animal deaths per serving of food, even though fewer
animals would have been able to live in the area than when it was
pasture.

>If you
>succeeded, the vegans would be rationally required to concede that the
>consumption of those animal products was permissible as well.

They never would because they're too dishonest. Rick Etter almost
certainly contributes to fewer wildlife deaths than the average veg*n,
but we NEVER see veg*ns even acknowledge that because of the
dishonest nature of such people.

>It wouldn't in any way change the fact that their motivation for going
>vegan is to reduce the impact their diet has on animals.
>
>> >> 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.
>>
>> It's an aspect "aras" hate because it suggests that decent AW could
>> be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar".
>>
>
>No-one hates it.

Goo hates it. Dutchy hates it. And so does every other "ara" I've
discussed it with.

>No-one finds the argument plausible. It's flawed, for
>reasons that have been pointed out to you countless times.

LOL!!! Like what? Other than the lies some people pretend
are "reasons", I can really only recall three "reasons" given
why we should not consider the animals' lives as well as their
deaths, all three suck, and they were all presented by Dutchy.
They a

1. he and other "aras" say we should not.
2. he says we should think of raising animals for food and
child prostition in the same way.
3. he says we lose imaginary moral browny points if we do so.

As I said those reasons suck, but so far they are the "best"
you people have been able to come up with. If you think you
can think of better ones, I'd like to see them.