Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:19 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:36:17 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:


This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead,

Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?


I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.


That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.


How would they know what was happening? How would they
know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.

Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?


diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,


I bet! - you're a ready sucker,


LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
damn funny.

and an unabashed propagandist.

and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
upstream.


Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
Why don't you do a little research?


I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
where do you think they come from?

You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
and sulk away from it.

And if his claims were true, a
seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.


Who would document it? Why?

If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production.

diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.


diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
to be aware of. Disgusting!!!


diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.


Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
people to believe otherwise.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:19 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 31 Aug 2006 11:00:14 -0700, wrote:

[email protected] wrote:


If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem


Who does, and how do you know your rice is grown
without it?
  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 12:24 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother wrote:

Rupert wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.
"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?
Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.

It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.
LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!


This is an evasion of the point.

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. Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.


Hi,

The "5 amphibians per square foot" figure came from Bob Sikes, based on
his earlier posting of his FAQ:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...cef828 0ba2a3

http://tinyurl.com/gd2by


He stated:


"most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 30K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still incredibly
conservative) number of amphibian and anole (and slow, small furry
things) deaths through the combine is 35,000 of all species harvested
per acre, combined average for *two* cuttings. in spite of these
seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards escape than are
combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian deaths represents
less than *10-15% of the total population*, and probably considerably
less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed
... until that night and the next day, when they disappear almost
totally into the gullets of predators. "

He also states that "an acre has 43,264+ square feet"

So total population = 100%/15% x 35 000 = 233 333

Amphibians per square foot = 233 333 / 43 264 = 5.4. (Over a quarter of
a million frogs on a American football pitch!)

However, I noticed that he's changed his lie to 20%


What is the correct percentage? How do you know?

in this latest
revision of his "****ing Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!

It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
to it, as if it were their life line.


You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
many are killed, and how you know!
  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 06:51 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.

LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!


This is an evasion of the point.


That IS my point!


???

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?

Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.


Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
eggs too.


Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.

If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.


How many are killed then?


I have absolutely no idea.

How do you know?




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-09-2006, 02:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother wrote:

snip

It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
to it, as if it were their life line.


You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
many are killed, and how you know!



I know enough to recognise that Bob Sikes is lying. - A fabrication with
the clear intent to deceive.

The most enjoyable thing about this is; you, and those of a similar
mind-set are the ones being deceived.






  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2006, 01:11 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 14:27:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother wrote:

snip

It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
to it, as if it were their life line.


You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
many are killed, and how you know!



I know enough to recognise that Bob Sikes is lying.


You're lying. You can't even pretend to say how you think you
could possibly know--much less explain it--which shows that you're
simply lying.

- A fabrication with the clear intent to deceive.


There's no evidence of that...only that YOU are lying.

The most enjoyable thing about this is; you, and those of a similar
mind-set are the ones being deceived.


You continue to contribute to the many deaths associated with
rice production and lie as you do so.
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2006, 01:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.

LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

This is an evasion of the point.


That IS my point!


???


Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".

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.

Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.


Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
eggs too.


Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.

If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.


How many are killed then?


I have absolutely no idea.


I know, but I'm suprised that you're honest enough to admit it...
VERY surprised.

How do you know?

  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2006, 05:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.

LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

This is an evasion of the point.

That IS my point!


???


Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".


That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
lied? Point out an example of someone lying.

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.

Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.

I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.

Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
eggs too.


Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.

If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.

How many are killed then?


I have absolutely no idea.


I know, but I'm suprised that you're honest enough to admit it...
VERY surprised.

How do you know?




  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 20
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" wrote:

Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.

It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,

You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.

As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.


I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.

"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway.


That's an obvious lie, and anyone who's aware that animals don't
live on asphalt should be able to understand why.


Where's the obvious lie? Animals traverse highways, and numerous
vehicles are constantly speeding along them.., but animals can easily
move out of the way of slow machinery making one pass in the field.

Harvesters move slowly,


So did the bush hog I got to run a few times. But there were a lot
of grass hoppers bouncing around on it and getting killed by it the
whole time anyway. If they had been frogs and anoles etc like in
rice fields it would have been them in that position instead, but
rice harvesters would provide less chance of survival because of
the difference in design. I'm sure you won't be able to see why
or how, but I believe most omnivorous people could:

http://tinyurl.com/goeyk

http://tinyurl.com/gkpmo
http://tinyurl.com/pk3ut

and they are
not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg


He told you what he knows very well that you want to believe,


You can go see for yourself. diderot told you what you want to
believe.

That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.

As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.


"Florida" wrote:

"Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production."

YOU, who bitch and carry on claiming diderot was wrong, said
nothing at all to correct that absurd, dishonest idea. That means
YOU want people to believe it.


I was focussing on letting Florida know that I'm not Kent Lundberg.
I assumed that Florida had read the email, and just worded it wrong.

"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison
to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
are
not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2006, 07:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 20
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 11:36:17 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:15:56 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:02:46 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:


This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead,

Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?

I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.


That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.


How would they know what was happening? How would they
know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?


Hypothetical frogs are capable of anything, doncha know.

yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
along.

Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
slaughtered year in, year out?

diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,


I bet! - you're a ready sucker,


LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
damn funny.


I've plenty of reason to believe that. You dis-believe without reason.

and an unabashed propagandist.

and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
upstream.


Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
Why don't you do a little research?


I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
where do you think they come from?


I don't think that 'they' are there!

You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
and sulk away from it.


You haven't answered the question.

And if his claims were true, a
seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.


Who would document it? Why?


Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..

If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production.

diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.

diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
to be aware of. Disgusting!!!


diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.


Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
people to believe otherwise.


You claim they are, and without any evidence to substantiate those
outlandish claims, you disgustingly want people to believe it's fact.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-09-2006, 09:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 1 Sep 2006 21:18:40 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.

LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

This is an evasion of the point.

That IS my point!

???


Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".


That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
lied? Point out an example of someone lying.


"No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out." - you

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. The only one who even pretended to provide
another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same
area.
  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-09-2006, 12:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 21:18:40 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

-snip-
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. The only one who even pretended to provide
another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same area.


..sigh... Grievous work, attempting to make smart remarks to folks
who don't appear to use their 'smart' setting.

  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-09-2006, 12:58 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 1 Sep 2006 21:18:40 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 22:51:28 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 16:09:53 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 30 Aug 2006 01:12:03 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:35:02 +0100, brother wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother wrote:

wrote:
__________________________________________________ __________
From: diderot
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animal s,rec.food.veg
Message-ID:

This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay

It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.

It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.

He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!

Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.

"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot

If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.

Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?

Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.


It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg.

LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!

This is an evasion of the point.

That IS my point!

???

Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".


That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
lied? Point out an example of someone lying.


"No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out." - you


This is a change of subject - you were talking about lying about deaths
associated with rice production - and I'm not lying when I say that. It
happens to be my sincerely held opinion. I'm not lying if I express my
opinion. If you think I'm mistaken, then argue the point.

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.

The only one who even pretended to provide
another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same
area.


If you disagree with pearl, then argue with her. I see no reason to
think that pearl is opposed to any point of view being expressed, it
just that she has her own point of view which she also wants to express.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
"dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]" [email protected] Vegan 4 14-09-2006 05:31 PM
rice deaths vs. road kill, attn. "pearl" [email protected] Vegan 3 07-09-2006 05:44 PM
The collateral deaths argument and the 'Perfect Solution Fallacy": a false dilemma. Derek Vegan 196 05-01-2006 02:45 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 12:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017