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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 02:50 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 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" wrote:

[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.


Even if somehow, incredibly, no animals were killed by harvesters:

http://tinyurl.com/gcpzk

the environment they had depended on for shelter from predators is
removed and predators kill them because they have nowhere left
to hide.

"a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
number of amphibian and anole 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 20% of the total population, and probably
far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed." - diderot

"one can tell the difference after harvest, also. on the organic field,
as the combine passes, the wall of birdlife: hawks of several varieties,
crows, kites, buzzards, egrets, herons, ... descends to glean both
escapees and paté. on the 1340, there are still quite a number of
birds, but nowhere near the solid covering of the organic side." - diderot

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.


Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
rice production. There's reason why I would not want as you so
obviously don't want to, but why would I?

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.


You don't mind people believing there are no cds involved with
rice production, but you object to them understanding that there
are a lot of them.

"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


"- rodents and insectivores get hammered pretty much year-round,
with all the dirt work, cultivation and harvesting activities and, for rice
specifically, the near-continuious cycle of flooding and drying the
fields. i have seen responsible estimates of rodent/insectivore
population of 9-35 square meter, and i think the 35/meter is probably
more accurate (in this area, anyhow) judging from the 500 yard-long,
foot-wide windrows of drowned grey and brown on the lee-side levee
whenever the rice is flooded." - diderot

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 02:56 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 2 Sep 2006 11:54:16 -0700, "pearl" wrote:

[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.


Not long ago you acted like you understood there are
frogs in rice fields, even commenting on them trying to get
people to believe that: "Any there could easily move on as the
fields dry." Back when you understood that there are frogs in
rice fields, can you remember how you thought they got there?

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.


Like what?

You dis-believe without reason.


I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
people in general would have learned about it because research
teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
public like they do with other things of interest.

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!


But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
this week, have you any idea?

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.


Which one?

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..


So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?

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.


As I said, I have seen grasshoppers etc hopping all over the
bush hog I've mowed with. If there were frogs as well they would
be doing the same. Rice harvesters being of different design
would allow for less hopping on the equipmet and make for more
going through it. I have presented pictures of frogs in rice fields:

http://tinyurl.com/z5fky
http://tinyurl.com/gkdzo
http://tinyurl.com/zxf82
http://tinyurl.com/goh3f

This animal is even called a Rice Frog:

http://tinyurl.com/jcr2v

so is this one:

http://tinyurl.com/hzl4v

and this one:

http://tinyurl.com/gh7cn

This one is called a Rice Paddy Frog:

http://tinyurl.com/h49cy

yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
now claim that there are no frogs in rice production. How
could I possibly believe your insane sounding claim that there
are no cds in rice production or it would be well-documented
and presented on web sites, when ALL evidence shows that
you have amazingly somehow recently become totally ignorant
about the existence of frogs in rice fields, or more likely you
are being deliberately and contemptibly dishonest about this
whole thing?
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 02:57 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 11:18:07 -0700, wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
(snip)

There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,


Are you worried about a "decent life" for these unborn, future animals?


No. Is anyone?
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 03:01 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 2 Sep 2006 16:32:07 -0700, "Florida" wrote:


[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.


There's nothing smart about denying cds in crop production, and
especially in rice production. Instead there's only stupidity, ignorance,
and extreme dishonesty.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 03:02 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 2 Sep 2006 16:58:32 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[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.


Here is what made me think he was making reference to eggs, though
maybe not in the context we were discussing it's still a significant aspect
of the difference between organic and conventional methods:

"the difference is that the billions of amphibian eggs that were laid when
the 1340 was flooded at the same time and in the same fashion as the 900
didn't make many tadpoles and fewer frogs due to applications of
pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides." - diderot

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.


"pearl" doesn't mind people believing there are no cds involved with
rice production, but is maniacally opposed to people understanding
that there are a lot of them. Aren't 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.


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, though recently "pearl" is suggesting
that there aren't even any frogs in rice fields.

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.


You pretend to as well, yet you won't tell us how many deaths you
think are involved in rice production. diderot's view if from first hand
experience and certainly seems more than reasonable to me. You
who have never been around it disagree with what he told us from
his own observations, yet you can provide nothing better or even
different for us to take into consideration. What "pearl" wants us
to believe seems completely insane and dishonest, and doesn't
even agree with itself:

"Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
move on as the fields dry." - "pearl"

"I don't think that 'they' are there!" - "pearl"


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 03:33 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,026
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote
On 31 Aug 2006 11:18:07 -0700, wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
(snip)

There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,


Are you worried about a "decent life" for these unborn, future animals?


No. Is anyone?


You, you equivocating ****. You have been frequently quoted criticizing
vegans for denying farm animals decent lives. If you say you are not
actually worried about it that makes you a liar.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 03:36 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 2 Sep 2006 16:58:32 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[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.


Here is what made me think he was making reference to eggs, though
maybe not in the context we were discussing it's still a significant aspect
of the difference between organic and conventional methods:

"the difference is that the billions of amphibian eggs that were laid when
the 1340 was flooded at the same time and in the same fashion as the 900
didn't make many tadpoles and fewer frogs due to applications of
pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides." - diderot

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.


"pearl" doesn't mind people believing there are no cds involved with
rice production, but is maniacally opposed to people understanding
that there are a lot of them.


pearl thinks that Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth,
so she responds accordingly.

Aren't you?


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.

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.

though recently "pearl" is suggesting
that there aren't even any frogs in rice fields.

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.


You pretend to as well, yet you won't tell us how many deaths you
think are involved in rice production.


I told you that I don't know.

diderot's view if from first hand
experience and certainly seems more than reasonable to me. You
who have never been around it disagree with what he told us


I don't disagree with him. I don't know whether he's right or not. I
have taken issue with you implying that it would be acceptable for him
to include eggs in his calculations, and with you accusing people of
lying.

from
his own observations, yet you can provide nothing better or even
different for us to take into consideration. What "pearl" wants us
to believe seems completely insane and dishonest, and doesn't
even agree with itself:

"Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
move on as the fields dry." - "pearl"

"I don't think that 'they' are there!" - "pearl"


She means they're not there after the fields have dried. It's not
inconsistent. I don't see what's so insane and dishonest about it.

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 01:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" wrote:

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

..
"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.


Even if somehow, incredibly, no animals were killed by harvesters:

http://tinyurl.com/gcpzk

the environment they had depended on for shelter from predators is
removed and predators kill them because they have nowhere left
to hide.


Where are all 'these' frogs coming from, [email protected]?

Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.

diderot fiction snipped.
...
Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
rice production.


To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.

..


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 01:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 2 Sep 2006 11:54:16 -0700, "pearl" wrote:

[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.


Not long ago you acted like you understood there are
frogs in rice fields, even commenting on them trying to get
people to believe that: "Any there could easily move on as the
fields dry." Back when you understood that there are frogs in
rice fields, can you remember how you thought they got there?


A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.

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.


Like what?


I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.

You dis-believe without reason.


I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
people in general would have learned about it because research
teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
public like they do with other things of interest.


That has happened. You and others like you ridicule everything.

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!


But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
this week, have you any idea?


I said that some might be there. Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.

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.


Which one?


How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.

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..


So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?


Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.

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.


As I said, I have seen grasshoppers etc hopping all over the
bush hog I've mowed with. If there were frogs as well they would
be doing the same. Rice harvesters being of different design
would allow for less hopping on the equipmet and make for more
going through it. I have presented pictures of frogs in rice fields:

http://tinyurl.com/z5fky


"rice visitor" - one frog.

http://tinyurl.com/gkdzo


one frog. looks like the field's been cropped..

http://tinyurl.com/zxf82


two frogs - could be anywhere.

http://tinyurl.com/goh3f


"Frog in the Rice". - one frog.

This animal is even called a Rice Frog:

http://tinyurl.com/jcr2v


I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and he's sitting on a low branch.

so is this one:

http://tinyurl.com/hzl4v


I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and that's certainly not a rice field.

and this one:

http://tinyurl.com/gh7cn


I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and he's sitting on a massive rock.

This one is called a Rice Paddy Frog:

http://tinyurl.com/h49cy


I don't see where it's called a "rice paddy frog",
and that's certainly not a rice field either.

yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
now claim that there are no frogs in rice production.


No. You absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
post pictures of individual frogs- most of which are clearly not
in rice fields, in attempted support of # hundreds of thousands.

How
could I possibly believe your insane sounding claim that there
are no cds in rice production or it would be well-documented
and presented on web sites, when ALL evidence shows that
you have amazingly somehow recently become totally ignorant
about the existence of frogs in rice fields, or more likely you
are being deliberately and contemptibly dishonest about this
whole thing?


Post some proper documentation of mass slaughter of frogs
in rice production, or shut the hell up already, you stupid troll.




  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 05:35 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 Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:19:29 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" wrote:

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

..
"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.


Even if somehow, incredibly, no animals were killed by harvesters:

http://tinyurl.com/gcpzk

the environment they had depended on for shelter from predators is
removed and predators kill them because they have nowhere left
to hide.


Where are all 'these' frogs coming from, [email protected]?


Upstream.

Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.

diderot fiction snipped.
..
Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
rice production.


To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.


Since you don't believe there are a significant number of cds involved
with crop production, which deaths do you think you're referring to, have
you any idea?


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 05:36 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 Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On 2 Sep 2006 11:54:16 -0700, "pearl" wrote:

[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.


Not long ago you acted like you understood there are
frogs in rice fields, even commenting on them trying to get
people to believe that: "Any there could easily move on as the
fields dry." Back when you understood that there are frogs in
rice fields, can you remember how you thought they got there?


A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.


LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
would they get there?

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.


Like what?


I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.


I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.

You dis-believe without reason.


I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
people in general would have learned about it because research
teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
public like they do with other things of interest.


That has happened.


You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?

You and others like you ridicule everything.


Not everything, but that's more than you can comprehend
obviously or you wouldn't have made the claim.

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!


But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
this week, have you any idea?


I said that some might be there.


You emphatically stated that you "don't think that 'they' are there!"
Now you're amusingly trying to pretend differently.

Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.


How many? How could you possibly have any clue? Present some
info from a reliable source to back up your absurd sounding claim.

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.


Which one?


How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.


The only thing to suggest that diderot lied is YOU, and you're insane.
YOU need to explain why frogs and tadpoles could not get into rice
fields when they are flooded with water from rives and/or creeks.

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..


So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?


Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.


So you're saying that people should give no thought to cds involved
with any type of crop production? How about wood and paper production?
Construction of roads and building? Mining operations? Production of
electricity?

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.


As I said, I have seen grasshoppers etc hopping all over the
bush hog I've mowed with. If there were frogs as well they would
be doing the same. Rice harvesters being of different design
would allow for less hopping on the equipmet and make for more
going through it. I have presented pictures of frogs in rice fields:

http://tinyurl.com/z5fky


"rice visitor" - one frog.

http://tinyurl.com/gkdzo


one frog. looks like the field's been cropped..

http://tinyurl.com/zxf82


two frogs - could be anywhere.

http://tinyurl.com/goh3f


"Frog in the Rice". - one frog.

This animal is even called a Rice Frog:

http://tinyurl.com/jcr2v


I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and he's sitting on a low branch.

so is this one:

http://tinyurl.com/hzl4v


I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and that's certainly not a rice field.

and this one:

http://tinyurl.com/gh7cn


I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and he's sitting on a massive rock.

This one is called a Rice Paddy Frog:

http://tinyurl.com/h49cy


I don't see where it's called a "rice paddy frog",
and that's certainly not a rice field either.


You probably won't be able to see it here either since
you only see and believe what you want to, but it's here
none the less in case more honest people have any
interest in the subject:

http://images.google.com/images?q=ri...=Search+Images

yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
now claim that there are no frogs in rice production.


No. You absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
post pictures of individual frogs- most of which are clearly not
in rice fields, in attempted support of # hundreds of thousands.

__________________________________________________ _______
Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
conjunction with rice are a source of animal protein and essential fatty
acids. In addition, various kinds of livestock are supported by rice-based
systems. Ducks feed on small fish, other aquatic organisms, and weeds
within the paddy fields, while buffaloes, cattle, sheep and goats graze on
rice straw as their main food source in rice-producing areas.

http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/67607.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Thousands of frogs which keep BPH under check were caught from
paddy fields

http://www.indianspices.com/html/prodev_ipm.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
As I type, I am listening to the din of the thousands of frogs that inhabit the
rice field right next to my home

http://www.cosmicbuddha.com/adam/archives/000559.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
at night we were eaten alive by the millions of mosquitoes that bred in the
paddy fields directly opposite and all around the camp. At night too there
was a deafening orchestra of thousands upon thousands of frogs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/s...a4221226.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
when we opened the window at night, we heard thousands of frogs croaking
their spring song from the rice fields nearby.

http://www.webscapades.com/cust-feedback.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
During the late summer, you had to be careful where you stepped. Thousands
of frogs hopped around on the ground, a product of the monsoon season, and
the rice paddies that were everywhere. Patty hated to step on them, but
sometimes it just happened. The corridor and ready room floors were always a
mess due to frog guts from their boots.

http://ed-thelen.org/gatto_40-44.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 05:36 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 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. 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?

  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-09-2006, 11:49 PM 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 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. 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.

  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2006, 04:16 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 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. 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.

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. 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.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2006, 08:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,026
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

[email protected] wrote

[..]
People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
but they remain facts none the less.


Some people (i.e. you) point out "facts" that have no relevance.

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.


It says a lot about you that you persist in "pointing out" that meat
consumption leads to animals "getting to experience life" when that fact has
no place whatever in the discussion.

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. 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.


Those billions of animals that live and die in rice paddies also "get to
experience life", do you "consider" that to be a "positive aspect" of rice
consumption, eh ****wit?





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 05:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017