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


Yeah... like in Texas flowing streams are swarming with frogs .. Rotfl!

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?


Of course. You haven't? Is there anything at all between your ears?





  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-09-2006, 10:37 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 Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
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?


Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.

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.


I'm not giving it to you again.

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 mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.

There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.

No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.

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.


I know it from your previous abusive non-response.

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.


'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".

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.


I have backed up logical common sense with an email from a bona fide
organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical 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.


I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.

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?


Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs. If such a major thing
as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be 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.


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


I still don't see these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?

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


"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.

If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. That's an ecosystem gone.

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



  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2006, 01:21 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 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 19:36:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of the
matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.

"- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." - diderot

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production.

So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.


What reason?

The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
Duh.


No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
accordingly.

They don't correct him.

They have taken issue with certain things he said.

No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
are actually killed in rice production,

That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says without
coming up with estimates of your own.

You don't want to believe what he has learned from first hand
experience, so you just say it isn't true.


No, I do not say this. I do not know whether it is true or not. Others
who have denied some of the things he said have argued for their
position.

What reason would a
man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
would diderot lie and say there are more?


Someone concerned to undermine the ethical vegetarian position might
deliberately exaggerate the harm involved in rice farming.


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


People make claims, which some ethical vegetarians dispute.

It really says a lot about them
that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.


What does it say about them that they are not convinced?

Or Diderot
might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
sorts of reasons.


There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is.


Nonsense. It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
about the matter.

Diderot clearly has an agenda to push. It's totally irrational to say
that there is some reason to think Pearl would lie to make her position
more plausible, but there is no reason to think Diderot would.

It's most
likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.


How would you know whether it's the case or not? There are some people
posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
about human influence on animals.

  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2006, 04:53 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 Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:08:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[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.


It has no place in promoting "ar", but is certainly a very significant
aspect of human influence on animals none the less.

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?


In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
when it would be and when it wouldn't.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2006, 04:58 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 Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:59:00 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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.


Yeah... like in Texas flowing streams are swarming with frogs .. Rotfl!


Some are. Here's something else you can't comprehend: there are
sometimes tadpoles too. Something else you won't be able to grasp:
there is often still water behind the flood gates where eggs are laid
and tadpoles hatch and live, and when the gate is opened the eggs
and tadpoles are swept along with the water.

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?


Of course.


Which ones?


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2006, 05:12 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 Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
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?


Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.

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.


I'm not giving it to you again.


You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
trying to support your lying.

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 mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.


That's because of a number of people who have reported them,
plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
rice fields. The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
two other "aras".

There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.


No there are not.

No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.


Nope.

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


'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".

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.


I have backed up logical common sense


Maybe, but not about this topic.

with an email from a bona fide
organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.


The email you presented turned out to back up diderot's 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.


I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.


You just can't comprehend the fact that there are still pools in rivers and
creeks, and that they exist behind closed flood gates.

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?


Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs.


Let's see some evidence of that.

If such a major thing
as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.


Let's see some evidence of that too.

I still don't see


You see nothing, and care even less.

these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?

__________________________________________________ _______
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
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2006, 08:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:08:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[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.


It has no place in promoting "ar"


It has no place in promoting the ethical use of animals in agriculture
either. It has no place in the discussion PERIOD.

but is certainly a very significant
aspect of human influence on animals none the less.


It certainly is NOT significant. It is important for AW to realize that
animals are sentient living beings, it of no importance whatsoever that
farming them means they "get to experience life", none.

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?


In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
when it would be and when it wouldn't.


LOL! I enjoy frying you on the spit of your own barbeque.


  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-09-2006, 09:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 2 Sep 2006 16:32:07 -0700, "Florida" wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
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.


Yes, that is true. I'm not making light of your concern over the
deaths of other species, but thought, wrongly, it seems, that you would
realize that I was making an ironic remark at the illogicality of
admitting that amphibians die in organic rice fields, while pretending
they don't die in the much larger commercial fields.
Ok, there it is. That's my third try at a comment on this subject.
If this one doesn't work, I give up. The frogs are on their own.
Well, except for the frogs on our property, where they are treated
as worthy fellow critters who have as much right to be there as we do.

  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2006, 04:00 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 7 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0700, wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 2 Sep 2006 16:32:07 -0700, "Florida" wrote:
[email protected] wrote:
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.


Yes, that is true. I'm not making light of your concern over the
deaths of other species, but thought, wrongly, it seems, that you would
realize that I was making an ironic remark at the illogicality of
admitting that amphibians die in organic rice fields, while pretending
they don't die in the much larger commercial fields.


I've been dealing with the ignorance, absurdity and dishonesty of
"animal rights" idiots for years. So what could very well be a witty
sarcastic remark could also very well be taken as just another example
of "ar" idiocy, if one person doesn't really know where the other
person is coming from. Since most of the people participating in the
ngs I deal with are "ar" freaks, I tend to expect idiocy to be the case
more often then sarcasm. The idiot "pearl" for example has claimed
that the frogs don't exist, explained how she "thinks" the frogs she
doesn't think exist manage to survive when the fields are drained,
riduculed the fact that frogs, eggs and tadpoles can be washed
into rice fields when they are flooded using river or creek water,
and suggested that the frogs she claims don't exist live and
reproduce in the field margines returning to them when the fields
are dried. With ding bats like that around, and others supporting
the idiocy, I tend to expect the worst because that's the norm
when dealing with "aras".

Ok, there it is. That's my third try at a comment on this subject.
If this one doesn't work, I give up. The frogs are on their own.
Well, except for the frogs on our property, where they are treated
as worthy fellow critters who have as much right to be there as we do.


So far I don't really know where you're coming from or what
your position is on this. If you farm rice, I'd be interested in what
you have to say regarding details about the whole thing. Also if
you're a farmer, would you agree that some livestock have lives
of positive value and some don't, and that their lives should be
given as much consideration as their deaths?
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-09-2006, 04:00 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 Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:28:00 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:08:17 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

[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.


It has no place in promoting "ar"


It has no place in promoting the ethical use of animals in agriculture
either.


Yes it does.

It has no place in the discussion PERIOD.


You've had about five years to think of a good reason why we
should not give the animals' lives as much consideration as their
deaths, and so far the only reasons you've been able to provide
have been shit. They a

1. "aras" don't want us to.
2. YOU don't want us to (but you're an "ara").
3. you claim we should think of it in the same way we think
of child prostition.

but is certainly a very significant
aspect of human influence on animals none the less.


It certainly is NOT significant.


It is for billions of animals.

It is important for AW to realize that
animals are sentient living beings, it of no importance whatsoever that
farming them means they "get to experience life", none.


It is for billions of animals.

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?


In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
when it would be and when it wouldn't.


LOL! I enjoy frying you on the spit of your own barbeque.


You could have no clue since you could never come close to
doing anything like that, you poor moron.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2006, 04:23 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 Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
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?


Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.

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.


I'm not giving it to you again.


You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
trying to support your lying.


Unlike you, I don't lie.

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 mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.


That's because of a number of people who have reported them,


In Texas? Show us.

plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
rice fields.


Areas that are allowed to dry, and harvested twice a year?

The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
two other "aras".


Let's see your documentation of hundreds of thousands in Texas rice fields.

There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.


No there are not.


Yes, there are.

No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.


Nope.


More than once.

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


'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".

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.


I have backed up logical common sense


Maybe, but not about this topic.


About this topic.

with an email from a bona fide
organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.


The email you presented turned out to back up diderot's claim.


Quote?

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.


I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.


You just can't comprehend the fact that there are still pools in rivers and
creeks, and that they exist behind closed flood gates.


And just there, there are hundreds of thousands of frogs, spawn and tadpoles?
Ridiculous. What happened to your claim that they come from "upstream"?

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?


Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs.


Let's see some evidence of that.


Results 1 - 10 of about 819,000 for pesticides bird kill.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for pesticides fish kill.

If such a major thing
as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.


Let's see some evidence of that too.


See above.

I still don't see


You see nothing, and care even less.


Baseless insults and lies will get you nowhere.

these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?

__________________________________________________ _______
Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
conjunction


"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.

If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. That's an ecosystem gone.

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



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2006, 05:34 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 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 19:36:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of the
matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.

"- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." - diderot

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production.

So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.


What reason?

The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
Duh.


No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
accordingly.

They don't correct him.

They have taken issue with certain things he said.

No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
are actually killed in rice production,

That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says without
coming up with estimates of your own.

You don't want to believe what he has learned from first hand
experience, so you just say it isn't true.

No, I do not say this. I do not know whether it is true or not. Others
who have denied some of the things he said have argued for their
position.

What reason would a
man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
would diderot lie and say there are more?

Someone concerned to undermine the ethical vegetarian position might
deliberately exaggerate the harm involved in rice farming.


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


People make claims, which some ethical vegetarians dispute.


Here's another fact that "ethical" veg*ns hate: Some livestock
have lives of positive value. Here's another: The lives of animals
raised for food should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.

It really says a lot about them
that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.


What does it say about them that they are not convinced?


That they will eat rice regardless of the deaths involved with it,
and that they will deny the deaths in order to cling to their belief
that they are the ethical champions of the world.

Or Diderot
might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
sorts of reasons.


There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is.


Nonsense.


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

It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
about the matter.

Diderot clearly has an agenda to push.


What is it then, and why would he push it?

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


LOL!!! There are ONLY reasons to think that "pearl" would lie,
and absolutely NO reasons not to.

but there is no reason to think Diderot would.


There's no reason to think that diderot would lie...at least no good
reason why that any of us have been able to come up with so far.

It's most
likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.


How would you know whether it's the case or not?


Because of the absurd reactions by veg*ns--and ONLY by veg*ns--to
wildlife deaths associated with rice production.

There are some people
posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
about human influence on animals.


I have ONLY reason to believe that no veg*n I've ever encountered
online cares anywhere near as much about human influence on animals
as they do about promoting veg*nism. Even when animal products
contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products AND provide decent
lives for livestock veg*ns still promote the vegetable products over the
animal products....and usually if not always they do it dishonestly....in fact
I can't recall a veg*n EVER being honest about doing so.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2006, 08:47 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 Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:59:00 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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.


Yeah... like in Texas flowing streams are swarming with frogs .. Rotfl!


Some are.


There may be quite a few along the banks, and in stiller, shallow water..

Here's something else you can't comprehend: there are
sometimes tadpoles too. Something else you won't be able to grasp:
there is often still water behind the flood gates where eggs are laid
and tadpoles hatch and live, and when the gate is opened the eggs
and tadpoles are swept along with the water.


Sure.. there are hundreds of thousands of eggs and tadpoles -right there-.

(Describe these 'flood gates', [email protected] How do they operate exactly?)

And, sadly for you, frogspawn and young tadpoles cling to plants:

'.. the spawn was floating in the middle of the pond, attached to a
marginal plant whose top leaves were just breaking the surface of
the water. ' [image of frogspawn attached to plant]
http://www.turning-earth.co.uk/frogspawn.php

'A female spawns the frogspawn in small portions, in the form of
small clusters attached to shoots of water plants. There are
approximately from 20 to 150 eggs in such a cluster. An egg is light
- brown on side and light - yellow on the other side.

The development cycle for the larva lasts for approximately 3 months.
At first, tadpoles attach themselves to water plants with the use of the
pad while more mature forms of these swim freely. Before transformation,
they usually reach the length ranging from 46 to 49 millimetres. After the
transformation, young tree frogs leave their water reservoir.
...'
http://www.wigry.win.pl/plazy2/rzet_en.htm

Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.


Waiting....

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?


Of course.


Which ones?


The billions of livestock killed; the wildlife directly slaughtered as 'predators',
'competitors', and 'pests'; the collateral deaths in 30 million hectares of feed..


  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 09-09-2006, 08:50 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 Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

..
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?


Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.

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.


I'm not giving it to you again.


You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
trying to support your lying.


Unlike you, I don't lie.

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 mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.


That's because of a number of people who have reported them,


In Texas? Show us.

plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
rice fields.


Areas that are allowed to dry and then harvested twice a year?

The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
two other "aras".


Let's see your documentation of hundreds of thousands in Texas rice fields.

There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.


No there are not.


Yes, there are.

No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.


Nope.


More than once.

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


'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".

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.


I have backed up logical common sense


Maybe, but not about this topic.


About this topic.

with an email from a bona fide
organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.


The email you presented turned out to back up diderot's claim.


Quote?

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.


I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.


You just can't comprehend the fact that there are still pools in rivers and
creeks, and that they exist behind closed flood gates.


And right there, there are hundreds of thousands of frogs, spawn and tadpoles?

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?


Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs.


Let's see some evidence of that.


Results 1 - 10 of about 819,000 for pesticides bird kill.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for pesticides fish kill.

If such a major thing
as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.


Let's see some evidence of that too.


See above.

I still don't see


You see nothing, and care even less.


Baseless insults and lies will get you nowhere.

these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?

__________________________________________________ _______
Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
conjunction


--restore--

"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.

If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. That's an ecosystem gone.

--end restore--

Why did you snip that, [email protected]? I think you need to address it.

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





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


[email protected] wrote:
On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 19:36:31 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:

I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of the
matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.

"- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." - diderot

Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
in the course of rice production.

So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.


What reason?

The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
Duh.


No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
accordingly.

They don't correct him.

They have taken issue with certain things he said.

No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
are actually killed in rice production,

That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says without
coming up with estimates of your own.

You don't want to believe what he has learned from first hand
experience, so you just say it isn't true.

No, I do not say this. I do not know whether it is true or not. Others
who have denied some of the things he said have argued for their
position.

What reason would a
man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
would diderot lie and say there are more?

Someone concerned to undermine the ethical vegetarian position might
deliberately exaggerate the harm involved in rice farming.

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


People make claims, which some ethical vegetarians dispute.


Here's another fact that "ethical" veg*ns hate: Some livestock
have lives of positive value. Here's another: The lives of animals
raised for food should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.


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

It really says a lot about them
that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.


What does it say about them that they are not convinced?


That they will eat rice regardless of the deaths involved with it,


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

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


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

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

Or Diderot
might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
sorts of reasons.

There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is.


Nonsense.


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


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

It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
about the matter.

Diderot clearly has an agenda to push.


What is it then, and why would he push it?


See above.

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


LOL!!! There are ONLY reasons to think that "pearl" would lie,
and absolutely NO reasons not to.

but there is no reason to think Diderot would.


There's no reason to think that diderot would lie...at least no good
reason why that any of us have been able to come up with so far.


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

It's most
likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.


How would you know whether it's the case or not?


Because of the absurd reactions by veg*ns--and ONLY by veg*ns--to
wildlife deaths associated with rice production.


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

There are some people
posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
about human influence on animals.


I have ONLY reason to believe that no veg*n I've ever encountered
online cares anywhere near as much about human influence on animals
as they do about promoting veg*nism.


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

Even when animal products
contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products AND provide decent
lives for livestock veg*ns still promote the vegetable products over the
animal products....and usually if not always they do it dishonestly....in fact
I can't recall a veg*n EVER being honest about doing so.


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



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 06:04 AM.

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