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
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 06:54 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...

[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?


The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed, as I have said to you
before, the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.



  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 08:07 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]"


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...

[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?


The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,


It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with. If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics. Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics." Very few defenders of animal
agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If they
want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they hold
that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the relevantly
similar humans, then the characteristics we identified aren't what
count after all, but rather species membership. Someone can advocate
that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but then
they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
literature.

as I have said to you
before, the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.


  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 11:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

"Rupert" wrote

Dutch wrote:


[..]
The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


I have explained this before. Human rights are designed to protect humans
because of what we are by nature, and those rights cover all humans,
including those whose nature is not yet developed or diminished by age or
injury. We always hold by default to the hope that our human potential will
be realized.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,


It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.


That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.

If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics.


No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics that
is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the characteristics. All
humans have the essential ability to hold the characteristics of humanness,
even if they are impaired due to misfortune. No animals of any other species
have the potential to have such abilities, ZERO.

Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics."


You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach the
conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species to the
level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find at least
one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities equal or
similar to humans. Instead you are attempting to drag all humans down to the
level of other animals by pointing to rare humans who's human abilities are
impaired. That is not a logical approach, because impairment of abilities is
ad hoc, arbitrary and meaningless, it can occur by injury, accident, disease
or fluke of genetics, it does not exist by nature. The question is asked,
"What if a race of beings came to the earth with powers equal to or greater
than humans?" They would be accorded rights, just as any animal species
would who demonstrated capacities equivalent to humans.

Very few defenders of animal
agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If they
want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they hold
that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the relevantly
similar humans,


There are no animals relevantly similar to humans.

then the characteristics we identified aren't what
count after all, but rather species membership.


Species membership identifies all beings who either have, have the potential
to have, or have in their essence human abilities, or humaness.

Someone can advocate
that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but then
they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
literature.


There are no valid arguments against speciesism. The human species possesses
special powers or the potential or inherent ability to have those powers,
even if impaired, which humans by default value above all else, it is a fact
of human culture, and of other species.

as I have said to you
before, the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in
agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.




  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 03:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 315
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Rupert" wrote in message
ps.com...



The morally relevant difference lies in the essential
difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop
fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most
humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but
there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from
nonhuman
animals.

=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the
seed of what being human is.
No such seed exists in ANY animal. The person you claim now
doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
achieve those differences. No matter how much hand-waving, and
how many strawmen you prop up, NO animals will ever achive the
difference. Again, your ignorance and stupidity blind you to
reality.


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 08:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

rick wrote:

snip

You can identify some differences which hold between most
humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but
there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from
nonhuman
animals.


=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the
seed of what being human is.


Which is what? How are you defining "human"? And, as
important, why is it morally relevant?

No such seed exists in ANY animal.


Depends on what your definition is.

The person you claim now
doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
achieve those differences.


That is not true for all biological members of the human species.
Pick any characteristic which is morally relevant, and you will
find at least some biological humans who lack it from birth and/or
are completely incapable of developing it. Speciesism is simply
a prejudice, like racism or sexism.

snip


  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 08:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 109
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Well written, Rupert.

Dutch wrote:


[..]


The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


I have explained this before.


You have tap-danced around it before, but never successfully.

Human rights are designed to protect humans


Animal rights are designed to protect animals

because of what we are by nature,


because of what they are by nature -- beings having moral
standing and inherent value.

and those rights cover all humans,
including those whose nature is not yet developed or diminished by age or
injury.


But only if based on arbitrary speciesism, which is a prejudice only,
not a reasonable moral criterion.

We always hold by default to the hope that our human potential will
be realized.


Irrationally, in the case of many humans who are obviously
incapable of realizing it.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,


It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.


That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.


Rupert is correct; it is NOT coming to terms with it. It is
evading the issue.

If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics.


No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics that
is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the characteristics. All
humans have the essential ability to hold the characteristics of humanness,
even if they are impaired due to misfortune. No animals of any other species
have the potential to have such abilities, ZERO.


Species prejudice -- and complete illogic. Because Dr. X has the
ability to do high-level math research, *I* should get a scholarship
to Harvard.... OTOH, if Alex the parrot can identify categories on
an abstract level equivalent to a normal human five-year-old, then
he deserves the same consideration -- if intelligence and awareness
are the relevant characteristics.


Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics."


You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach the
conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species to the
level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find at least
one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities equal or
similar to humans.


True of most abilities of humans. The more we learn, the more it
becomes obvious that some animals show the same qualities as humans
in most situations. The differences are small, and morally
irrelevant.

snip

the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in
agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.


That is clearly not true.


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 09:17 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
rick wrote:

snip

You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the seed of
what being human is.


Which is what? How are you defining "human"?


Member of the human species.

And, as
important, why is it morally relevant?


It's morally relevant because we say it is. Everyone believes it's morally
relevant, including you, questioning it is simply disinformation.

No such seed exists in ANY animal.


Depends on what your definition is.


There is only one definition.

The person you claim now doesn't have the differences from animals has
the potential to achieve those differences.


That is not true for all biological members of the human species.
Pick any characteristic which is morally relevant, and you will
find at least some biological humans who lack it from birth and/or
are completely incapable of developing it.


A few animals lack the inherent abilities of other members of their species,
they are still members of that species. Failure to possess the qualities of
one's species is ad hoc, arbitrary or accidental, not a logical approach.
The proper measure is qualities which members of a species possess by
default, not qualities which rare individuals are missing.

Speciesism is simply
a prejudice, like racism or sexism.


That's a perverse view which nobody actually holds. Even ARAs and vegans
dismiss whole species of animals based on dissimilarity to humans.


  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 09:33 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Well written, Rupert.


Poorly written, he keeps making the exact same mistake.

Dutch wrote:


[..]


The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


I have explained this before.


You have tap-danced around it before, but never successfully.


Because you keep making the same mistake. You don't want to see the real
nature and origin of rights.

Human rights are designed to protect humans


Animal rights are designed to protect animals


Yes, they are. You're learning.

because of what we are by nature,


because of what they are by nature -- beings having moral
standing and inherent value.


Sure.

and those rights cover all humans, including those whose nature is not
yet developed or diminished by age or injury.


But only if based on arbitrary speciesism,


There's nothing arbitrary about it.

which is a prejudice only,
not a reasonable moral criterion.


It is a reasonable moral criterion.

We always hold by default to the hope that our human potential will be
realized.


Irrationally, in the case of many humans who are obviously
incapable of realizing it.


When all hope of humanity is gone we often allow life to end.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use
of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,


It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.


That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.


Rupert is correct; it is NOT coming to terms with it. It is
evading the issue.


No it's not, I have clearly answered the false conundrum that he posed. It
is NOT relevant that accident or infirmity can rob individuals of some of
their human powers, it is relevant that no other species can ever attain
them.

If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics.


No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics
that is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the
characteristics. All humans have the essential ability to hold the
characteristics of humanness, even if they are impaired due to
misfortune. No animals of any other species have the potential to have
such abilities, ZERO.


Species prejudice -- and complete illogic.


It's not species "prejudice", it's species fact.

Because Dr. X has the
ability to do high-level math research, *I* should get a scholarship
to Harvard....


Getting a scholarship is irrelevant, it is a reward earned on an individual
level.

OTOH, if Alex the parrot can identify categories on
an abstract level equivalent to a normal human five-year-old,


Highly speculative

then
he deserves the same consideration -- if intelligence and awareness
are the relevant characteristics.


The relevant consideration would be admission to primary school, but the
parrot would soon fail, because his abilties were only apparent, they did
not make him equivalent to a human infant.


Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics."


You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach
the conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species
to the level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find
at least one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities
equal or similar to humans.


True of most abilities of humans. The more we learn, the more it becomes
obvious that some animals show the same qualities as humans
in most situations. The differences are small, and morally
irrelevant.


The differences are morally relevant, everyone sees them that way in real
life. It's only in intellectualizing the issue that people like you argue
otherwise.

snip

the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.


That is clearly not true.


It's true, I am not referring to "animal charcateristics", I am talking
about higher human abilities like development of abstract consciousness.
Only higher primates have been shown to have anything approaching these
abilities.



  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:02 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 Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:47:29 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[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, d[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..


They might be bumping into each other in Texas. You don't know.

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-.


I'm not clinging to any number like you appear to be. A significant
amount is what I get from diderot's account, and I don't really care
what the actual estimated number are.

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

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


Sometimes to things that float, or get washed loose by current.

.. . .
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;


They should all be provided with decent lives and humane deaths,
and then it would be okay.

the wildlife directly slaughtered as 'predators', 'competitors', and 'pests';


They need to go anyway, livestock or not.

the collateral deaths in 30 million hectares of feed..


If we don't have to worry about deaths in rice fields, we sure don't
have to worry any about that.
  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:16 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 Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:23:11 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[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.


There are no decent sites about the Inner Earth fantasy.

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?


Which harvest would have less frogs? Explain the difference
between the two.

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.


10,000 killed on a road in Florida one night certainly suggests
it's more than likely. In opposition to it, all we have is an "ara" from
a completely different country and environment, who can't imagine
how it could be true.

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


No there are not.


Yes, there are.


They most likely never even left the opium den.

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


Nope.


More than once.


LOL! I mean: Do it "again"...lol...but there is no such thing, so
you can't.

. . .
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?

__________________________________________________ _______
A collection of articles by scientists who are experts in
their field, AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES: STATUS AND CONSERVATION
IN FLORIDA speaks openly of "persecution" and "extirpation,"
of some reptiles, particularly Box Turtles, Gopher Tortoises
and Common Kingsnakes. Scientific abbreviations like "DOR"
stand for "Dead on Road," and mean the myriad squashings of
frogs, lizards, turtles and snakes beneath our chariot wheels.
Some roads, like U.S. 441 across Payne's Prairie in Alachua
County, and the Tamiami Trail that runs across Florida from
Miami to Tampa, are virtual abattoirs, greased with the gory
little bodies of "anurans," as frogs and toads are called
scientifically. "On Aug. 5, 1991 I stopped counting after
10,000," biologist Jim Weimer said in a 1996 interview,
describing a single night on U.S. 441 across Payne's Prairie.
"This was just one night. On May 2, 1991, there were over
5,000 Southern Leopard Frogs killed."

http://www.cnah.org/news.asp
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.


Results 1 - 10 of about 1,260,000 for rice frog kill. Done.

Results 1 - 10 of about 829,000 for rice whale kill.

Results 1 - 10 of about 217,000 for vegetables penguin kill.


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:17 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 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" wrote:


[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?


In the case of most human slavery, humans are aware of their
situation and often suffer mentally as well as physically from the
fact. That's one thing that would make a huge difference in
quality of life for humans instead of animals. Then if the humans
knew they would be killed and eaten that would make another
big difference, since animals have no idea. Also the animals
we generally raise for food are much tougher and able to thrive
naked in environments that would kill most humans eventually.
Then there's the fact that the animals we raise for food have
offspring who are much easier to care for and provide with
lives that are of positive value for them. Those are some
differences which I can't help but take into consideration.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


I hope I asked what the conditions would be. Quality of life
would be what determines that, imo. I saw a documentary on
slavery where men were *trying* to become slaves so they could
better care for their families. They were getting whipped on their
bare backs to prove themselves somehow. So life is of significance
sometimes even when it seems like it should not be, and vice versa.

I think most people would find this pretty difficult to swallow. You're
entitled to your opinion, but you should be upfront about what your
claims are.


We might be in that position right now. You don't know...no one does.
We certainly all get killed by something, and often suffer a lot longer
than animals we raise for food. But there are things on the plus side
for us that animals don't get. But thinking on all of humanity, how much
of it would we have wanted to live through? Most of human existence
has been spent without civilization or agriculture as we know it. Would
you rather live however humans managed to survive 20 thousand years
before the development of agricultural society, or would you rather just
pass on that?

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


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


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


The fact that they are not convinced of Diderot's claims certainly does
not prove that they will eat rice regardless of how much harm they
think it causes.


I'm sure they'd just deny it.

They are not convinced that rice production causes a
lot of harm, and in any case you don't know whether they eat rice or
not. If you think there are good ethical reasons to eat less or no rice
and you want to advocate that, go ahead.

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


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


Same thing.

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


The dishonesty and absurdity is what reflects poorly on them.

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

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

Nonsense.


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


You said there is not the slightest reason to doubt that his testimony
is the gospel truth. That is nonsense. He is a stranger who made a post
to the internet a few years ago. You have absolutely no way of knowing
whether his estimates are reasonable or not. You don't even know
whether he is a rice farmer. He has a desire to convince people that
the arguments in favour of ethical vegetarianism are flawed.


It has flaws.

If it is
possible that Pearl might lie in order to persuade people of her
position, then it is possible that Diderot might intentionally or
unintentionally distort the truth in order to persuade people of his
position.


What would be his reason? The only reason would be to point out
a flaw, and the only reason it would bother him would be that it is a
flaw. If it wasn't, then he'd have no reason to point it out. He has no
reason to be dishonest, where "pearl" certainly does if she or her
buddies eat rice.

.. . .
the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.

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


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


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


diderot did it from first hand experience and veg*ns deny it so they
can keep eating rice. Duh.

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


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


They want to promote veganism *because* they care about human influence
on animals. Why else would they do it?


Because they don't like meat, and the thought of humans raising animals
to eat disturbs them personally. That's the only reason.

Factory-farming causes enormous
suffering, and most animal products have large crop inputs and would
therefore have far more CDs per serving than rice.


I believe rice would have by far the most cds the majority of the
time, so if rice is okay everything else is as good or better, including
grain fed animal products.

Vegans want to
reduce the amount of harm caused by agriculture. Maybe some of them
have a blind spot about certain types of agriculture, if so, that's
unfortunate. But it's ridiculous to suggest they don't care about human
influence on animals. Reducing human influence on animals is the whole
point.


Not in cases where animal products cause fewer cds than vegetable
products.

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


The issue of bringing livestock into existence who have tolerably good
lives, if marred by unanaesthetized branding and surgical mutilations,
is a red herring.


It's an aspect "aras" hate because it suggests that decent AW could
be ethically equivalent or superior to "ar".

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.


Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

There is no dishonesty involved.


There usually is too much of it.
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
rick wrote:

snip

You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the seed of
what being human is.


Which is what? How are you defining "human"? And, as
important, why is it morally relevant?
===========================

ROTFLMAO You really need a definition of human. But then, you've already
proven yourself as a hate-filled person
that only likes the fringes of any moral behavior anyway.



No such seed exists in ANY animal.


Depends on what your definition is.
=======================

No, it doesn't. No other animal can EVER become what makes a person human.
maybe if you were even close to being a humane person you'd see the
difference, eh killer?



The person you claim now doesn't have the differences from animals has
the potential to achieve those differences.


That is not true for all biological members of the human species.
Pick any characteristic which is morally relevant, and you will
find at least some biological humans who lack it from birth and/or
are completely incapable of developing it. Speciesism is simply
a prejudice, like racism or sexism.
=============================

LOL And you have porven to be racist already too, eh fool?
Tell me what other animals can ever exhibit human morality, killer.
That YOU cannot exhibit that morality does not count.



snip



  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 10-09-2006, 10:41 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 49
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Well written, Rupert.

Dutch wrote:


[..]


The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


I have explained this before.


You have tap-danced around it before, but never successfully.

Human rights are designed to protect humans


Animal rights are designed to protect animals

================
And, NO other animal defends, observes or puts forth these rights, fool...



because of what we are by nature,


because of what they are by nature -- beings having moral
standing and inherent value.

and those rights cover all humans, including those whose nature is not
yet developed or diminished by age or injury.


But only if based on arbitrary speciesism, which is a prejudice only,
not a reasonable moral criterion.

=======================
LOL As the most immoral person I've seen on usenet, you're hardly a beacon
of ligth when it comes to preaching about morals, killer.



We always hold by default to the hope that our human potential will be
realized.


Irrationally, in the case of many humans who are obviously
incapable of realizing it.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.


There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use
of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,


It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.


That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.


Rupert is correct; it is NOT coming to terms with it. It is
evading the issue.

If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics.


No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics
that is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the
characteristics. All humans have the essential ability to hold the
characteristics of humanness, even if they are impaired due to
misfortune. No animals of any other species have the potential to have
such abilities, ZERO.


Species prejudice -- and complete illogic. Because Dr. X has the
ability to do high-level math research, *I* should get a scholarship
to Harvard.... OTOH, if Alex the parrot can identify categories on
an abstract level equivalent to a normal human five-year-old, then
he deserves the same consideration -- if intelligence and awareness
are the relevant characteristics.


Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics."


You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach
the conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species
to the level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find
at least one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities
equal or similar to humans.


True of most abilities of humans. The more we learn, the more it becomes
obvious that some animals show the same qualities as humans
in most situations. The differences are small, and morally
irrelevant.

snip

the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.


That is clearly not true.




  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:26 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]"


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Dutch wrote:


[..]
The morally relevant difference lies in the essential difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.


I have explained this before. Human rights are designed to protect humans
because of what we are by nature, and those rights cover all humans,
including those whose nature is not yet developed or diminished by age or
injury. We always hold by default to the hope that our human potential will
be realized.

I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.

There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
little intelligence (like ****wit) can be dismissed,


It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.


That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.

If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics.


No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics that
is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the characteristics. All
humans have the essential ability to hold the characteristics of humanness,


I disagree.

even if they are impaired due to misfortune. No animals of any other species
have the potential to have such abilities, ZERO.


The reality is it is a continuum. Nonhumans share these characteristics
with us to varying degrees. You can, if you want, pick a certain
threshold and say "most humans are above this threshold, all nonhumans
are below it." But you'll have to set the threshold pretty high.
Consider the following individual:

"She communicates in sign language, using a vocabulary of over 1000
words. She also understands spoken English, and often carries on
'bilingual' conversations, responding in sign to questions asked in
English. She is learning the letters of the alphabet, and can read some
printed words, including her own name. She has achieved scored between
85 and 95 on the Standford-Binet Intelligence Test. She demonstrates a
clear self-awareness by engaging in self-directed behaviours in front
of a mirror, such as making faces or examining her teeth, and by her
appropriate use of self-descriptive language. She lies to avoid the
consequences of her own misbehaviour, and anticipates others' resopnses
to her actions. She engages in imaginary play, both alone and with
others. She has produced paintings and drawings which are
representational. She remembers and can talk about past events in her
life. She understands and has used appropriately time-related words
like 'before', 'after', 'later' and 'yesterday'. She laughs at her own
jokes and those of others. She cries when hurt or left alone, screams
when frightened or angered. She talks about her feelings, using words
like 'happy', 'sad', 'afraid', 'enjoy', 'eager', 'frustrate', 'made'
and, quite frequently, 'love'. She grieves for those she has lost - a
favourite cat who has died, a friend who has gone away. She can talk
about what happens when one dies, but she becomes fidgety and
uncomfortable when asked to discuss her own death or the death of her
companions. She displays a wonderful gentleness with kittens and other
small animals. She has even expressed empathy for others seen only in
pictures."

That's a description of a nonhuman. You can set the threshold higher
than that if you want, but many would like to see some kind of
justification for doing so.

You may have no trouble drawing a sharp line between nonhuman great
apes and humans now. But this is just an accident of evolutionary
history. If all the evolutionary intermediaries were still living
today, you might have more trouble knowing exactly where to draw the
line.

Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics."


You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach the
conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species to the
level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find at least
one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities equal or
similar to humans.


Nonhumans do have similar capabilities to SOME humans. Whatever we
decide about these beings, they should be treated the same way. It's
not true that these humans have the "essential ability" or the
"potential" to have these characteristics you're so excited about. It's
irrational to treat beings on the basis of what is typical for their
species, rather than their individual characteristics.


Instead you are attempting to drag all humans down to the
level of other animals by pointing to rare humans who's human abilities are
impaired. That is not a logical approach, because impairment of abilities is
ad hoc, arbitrary and meaningless, it can occur by injury, accident, disease
or fluke of genetics, it does not exist by nature.


I can't distinguish between the condition of being born a permanently
radically cognitively impaired human and being born a nonhuman. They
both seem to be "by nature" to me.

The question is asked,
"What if a race of beings came to the earth with powers equal to or greater
than humans?" They would be accorded rights, just as any animal species
would who demonstrated capacities equivalent to humans.

Very few defenders of animal
agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If they
want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they hold
that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the relevantly
similar humans,


There are no animals relevantly similar to humans.

then the characteristics we identified aren't what
count after all, but rather species membership.


Species membership identifies all beings who either have, have the potential
to have, or have in their essence human abilities, or humaness.


Don't agree with "have in their essence". It's hand-waving. If the
permanently radically cognitively impaired humans have it in their
essence, why not the nonhumans too?

Suppose we encountered a chimpanzee who had the same level of
intelligence as a highly intelligent human adult. What would we say
about this chimpanzee? Would we say that "in essence" he has the same
characteristics as ordinary chimpanzees and should be treated
accordingly, or would we say that all the chimpanzees have his
characteristics "in essence" and should be raised to his level? It's
irrational to judge on the basis of what's typical for an individual's
species. The individual characteristics should be what count.


Someone can advocate
that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but then
they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
literature.


There are no valid arguments against speciesism.


There are no valid arguments *for* speciesism. Philosophers have been
trying to find one for a long time, and have failed. We should treat
individuals on the basis of their individual characteristics, not what
is typical for their species. If you are uncomfortable with treating
permamently radically cognitively impaired humans in a certain way, you
shouldn't treat nonhumans in that way, either.

The human species possesses
special powers or the potential or inherent ability to have those powers,
even if impaired, which humans by default value above all else, it is a fact
of human culture, and of other species.


  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:30 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]"


rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
ps.com...



The morally relevant difference lies in the essential
difference between
humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop
fields, or
what-have-you.


You can identify some differences which hold between most
humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but
there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from
nonhuman
animals.

=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the
seed of what being human is.
No such seed exists in ANY animal.


I don't know what "the seed of being human" is. It's just empty
hand-waving. There is no property which all humans have in common and
all nonhumans lack, except certain genetic characteristics, which
cannot be plausibly held to be morally relevant.

The person you claim now
doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
achieve those differences. No matter how much hand-waving, and
how many strawmen you prop up, NO animals will ever achive the
difference. Again, your ignorance and stupidity blind you to
reality.


It's quite funny to see you talking about "ignorance and stupidity".
The philosophical community has been debating this issue for the last
thirty years and everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with
defending speciesism. I really don't think you are competent to judge
all these professional philosophers to be ignorant and stupid. Why
don't you try and publish the argument you just came up with, see how
you go. If you really think you can defend speciesism I'm sure everyone
would be very excited to hear about it.



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 09:02 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