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
  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:38 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,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:
"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.


Nonsense. It's *not* obvious to a lot of people when they think about
it. Most people who read Chapter 1 of Peter Singer's "Animal
Liberation" either agree that species membership as such is not morally
relevant, or see that there's a serious question there about how to
defend it. You're saying it needs no defence and it's not legitimate
even to question it. A racist might have said similar things about
discrimination on the basis of race back in the nineteenth century. Of
course it can be legitimately questioned, it needs defending. A lot of
smart people have tried to defend it for the last thirty years and
failed. You are doing no better.

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.


That's discrimination on the basis of individual characteristics which
are held to be morally relevant, not discrimination on the basis of
species. It's not speciesism.


  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:04 AM 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
ups.com...

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.

===================
No, it's not. Tell me the other animals that have the capacity
to be morally aware as a person does.
You can't, plain and simple, just like your mind...


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.

===========================
LOL Morally to whom, fool? All morals are a human concept.
Again, tell me the other animals that will abide, defend or even
recognize these 'morals,' killer.



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.
=====================================

Anything excites you that doesn't fit into your brainwashing,
fool.
Again, tell me the animals that have within them the capacity of
being human.
ALL people have that capacity. It may not exist because of
illness or injury, but it is still there.
A 'cure' could be found, making them a fully aware human. No
such 'cure' for animals to become human is ever going to be
there. The ignorant and stupid I'm arguing with here is you and
karen, fool. You two are the top of the class in both...



  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:22 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
ups.com...

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.

===================
No, it's not. Tell me the other animals that have the capacity
to be morally aware as a person does.


If moral awareness is the relevant characteristic, then not all humans
have it.

You *can't* identify a morally relevant characteristic which all humans
have and all nonhumans lack. If you could you would have done it by
now. "The seed of being human" doesn't mean anything. You didn't mean
moral awareness by it, and you knew that if you said you didn't your
argument wouldn't have had any credibility. You're equivocating.

You can't, plain and simple, just like your mind...


Tee hee. Yes, that's right, Rick, I'm the one with a simple mind.
You've got it all sorted out and all the philosophers who do research
on this issue have simple minds and are ignorant and stupid. Whatever
you say.


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.

===========================
LOL Morally to whom, fool? All morals are a human concept.
Again, tell me the other animals that will abide, defend or even
recognize these 'morals,' killer.


Nonhuman animals have limited capacity for moral agency, as do some
humans. And your point is?




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.
=====================================

Anything excites you that doesn't fit into your brainwashing,
fool.
Again, tell me the animals that have within them the capacity of
being human.


You can't define what you mean by that.

ALL people have that capacity.


Define what you mean and argue the point. You're just asserting that
this mythical capacity exists which all humans have and all nonhumans
have, without identifying what it is. You can't identify it. You're
wasting my time. And you hilariously think you have the right to call
me stupid.

It may not exist because of
illness or injury, but it is still there.


It may not exist, but it is still there. Brilliant.

Incidentally, my argument was about the cases where it never existed
and never will.

A 'cure' could be found, making them a fully aware human.


No, this is not the case, not all forms of radical cognitive impairment
are curable, in fact I don't think any of them are. You are really
grasipng at straws here.

No
such 'cure' for animals to become human is ever going to be
there. The ignorant and stupid I'm arguing with here is you and
karen, fool. You two are the top of the class in both...


Yeah, that's right, Rick, you're smart and we're ignorant and stupid.
You *really* lack credibility when you argue this issue. You really
don't know what you're talking about. You should stick to ranting about
collateral deaths and how wonderful grass-fed beef is.

  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:12 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


[email protected] wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0700, wrote:
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.


In all seriousness, I think that frogs are likely to be essential to
some complex system involving bugs, pond & stream life, vegetation,
etc. Without getting googly-eyed sentimental about it, I meant what I
said - they have as much right to be there as we do, so we are careful
not to do things that would kill them wholesale, like spraying, mowing
brush close to the stream, and so forth.

If you farm rice, I'd be interested in what
you have to say regarding details about the whole thing.


No, we past the age where we could choose to farm. We
feed-the-extended-family gardeners with a lot of different
infinitesimal ecosystems on our 10 acres, brushland, meadow, forest,
stream, and pond. The property is all natural, but it's so varied that
it almost looks as if someone was deliberately putting together a
science project.

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?


Not sure I understand the question, but since we have chosen to live
in the country among real farmers whenever we could for some decades,
let me just say what my opinion is: I *don't* believe that all life
equals all other life, or that city dwellers should be allowed to
decide how many deer countrymen have to deal with. Or for that matter,
how many mice, rats, shrews, racoons, skunks, squirrels, wild dogs,
rabbits or bears.
Livestock, tho, well... now and then over the years, we have seen a
few dairy farmers treat their cows with the same abuse and contempt
that some congressmen use with their constituency. Dairy farmers who
do that stuff usually don't do well; with congressmen it doesn't seem
to matter.

  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 02:48 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 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.


What if the slaves had good lives, and weren't aware of their
situation?

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.


Why?

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

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


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


Same thing.


No.

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


The dishonesty and absurdity is what reflects poorly on them.


I see no evidence of dishonesty. The alleged absurdity is something
that's up to you to argue.

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

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

Nonsense.

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


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


It has flaws.


So you say. You are welcome to argue that point if you want.

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


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


If Pearl might be dishonest in order to feel better about eating rice,
Diderot might be dishonest in order to feel better about eating meat.

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

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

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


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


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


Diderot claims to be a rice farmer and claims to have made certain
observations. It might or might not be true. The testimony of one
stranger on the Internet is not a very strong reason to be convinced.

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

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


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


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


I can't think of a reason to be disturbed by humans raising animals to
eat apart from a concern about human influence on animals. I don't
think too many vegans had an aversion to the taste of meat before they
went vegan. I didn't.

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


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


Well, I seriously doubt that and I'd like to see you argue your case.
But in any case I never said rice was okay.

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


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


It's your job to argue that that is sometimes the case. If you
succeeded, the vegans would be rationally required to concede that the
consumption of those animal products was permissible as well. It
wouldn't in any way change the fact that their motivation for going
vegan is to reduce the impact their diet has on animals.

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


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


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


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

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.


So you say, but I see no reason to think so.



  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:05 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 10 Sep 2006 18:12:00 -0700, "Florida" wrote:


[email protected] wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0700, wrote:
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.


In all seriousness, I think that frogs are likely to be essential to
some complex system involving bugs, pond & stream life, vegetation,
etc. Without getting googly-eyed sentimental about it,


There's no need for all that. It's just basic consideration for other
beings, or not. How much consideration? We're going to kill some,
and we know it...it goes from there....

I meant what I
said - they have as much right to be there as we do, so we are careful
not to do things that would kill them wholesale, like spraying, mowing
brush close to the stream, and so forth.


So there ARE plenty of frogs around for you to worry about. We
have an "ara" from Ireland who can't understand how thousands
of frogs could possibly inhabit rice fields in Texas. Is there any chance
you could help the poor gal get some kind of clue?

If you farm rice, I'd be interested in what
you have to say regarding details about the whole thing.


No, we past the age where we could choose to farm. We
feed-the-extended-family gardeners with a lot of different
infinitesimal ecosystems on our 10 acres, brushland, meadow, forest,
stream, and pond. The property is all natural, but it's so varied that
it almost looks as if someone was deliberately putting together a
science project.


Sadly, the "aras" are still stuck on the concept of frogs in rice fields.
Since that's a thing of interest though, would you say that flooded rice
fields support by far the highest population of vertebrate life...sometimes?

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?


Not sure I understand the question,


Would you agree that:

1. some livestock have lives of positive value *to them*?
2. the lives of livestock should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths?

but since we have chosen to live
in the country among real farmers whenever we could for some decades,
let me just say what my opinion is: I *don't* believe that all life
equals all other life,


That could be taken a number of ways.

or that city dwellers should be allowed to
decide how many deer countrymen have to deal with. Or for that matter,
how many mice, rats, shrews, racoons, skunks, squirrels, wild dogs,
rabbits or bears.


I'd damn sure agree with that. In fact, I think it should be left up
to each idividual. If you want to kill a bear that gets on your property,
then I'd say you should be able to do it. If the wildlife refuge down
the road can't keep up with their own bears, then weed them out by
our new order of survival of the fittest...stay in their area or die. Of
course all of them will have to die sooner or later, so it gets down
to which ones will reproduce and why, and how successful their
offspring will be and why.

Livestock, tho, well... now and then over the years, we have seen a
few dairy farmers treat their cows with the same abuse and contempt
that some congressmen use with their constituency. Dairy farmers who
do that stuff usually don't do well; with congressmen it doesn't seem
to matter.


My impression has always been that most dairy cattle have decent
lives, which would be lives of positive value for them. I don't feel the
same way about battery hens. "aras" insist that no animals' lives should
be given consideration, much less should lives of positive value for
livestock be given any appreciation. I believe pretty much the opposite,
and you alluded to it as well: Humans are having more and more control
over which animals live and die, and the conditions of their lives. Since
we are capable of providing the best lives for domestic animals, I believe
people should move toward appreciation of that fact and become more
interested in deliberately providing lives of positive value for all domestic
animals. "aras" are maniacally opposed to that idea, because it works
against their objective to do away with domestic animals.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:39 AM 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]"

ontheroad wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...


rick wrote:


snip
=====================
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.


Yes, we do, if we are to determine if it is a morally
relevant difference from other animals, and if so, why.
What do you think makes a biological member of the
species _homo sapiens_ a "human" in the moral sense?
This is an issue that people argue all the time in
discussions of things like abortion and euthanasia, as
well as animal rights.

snip

Tell me what other animals can ever exhibit human morality.


I would suggest reading, for a start, de Waal's _Good Natured_
and Sapontzis's _Morals, Reason, and Animals_. There has
been a lot of ethological research in the last few decades
about what certainly seems to be a rudimentary moral sense in
some animal species.
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 07:58 AM 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]"


"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.


You're wrong.

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.


No it's not a continuum, it's black and white.

Nonhumans share these characteristics
with us to varying degrees.


No they don't.

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.


Nonsense

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.


I am not at all convinced that a lot of what is reported there is not
projection on the part of over-zealous handlers. Also I am not arguing that
non-humans do not possess intelligence. Having said that, I believe that
great apes possess sufficient human-like qualities that they could rightly
be considered as deserving of basic rights.

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.


That's an unecessary hypothetical, I already have sufficient difficulty
drawing a sharp line between nonhuman great apes and humans that I see no
reason we should not err on the side of the apes.

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.


You're still approaching the question backwards.

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.


The regime of rights attempts with limited success to view the human species
as a family or a tribe. It is not irrational to view one's family favorably.

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.


I think you could if you tried, but you don't want to. The nature of humans
is not to have single-digit IQs, it is to have IQs of 100.

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.


No it's not, it's descriptive. No monkey has in it's essence a poet,
philosopher or musician.

If the
permanently radically cognitively impaired humans have it in their
essence, why not the nonhumans too?


Cognitively impaired humans are exceptional cases usually a result of
accident or misfortune, exceptions to not make a rule.

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.


You raise a valid question in theory but in reality there is no need for an
answer, since no chimpanzee will ever be as intelligent as a functional
human. But the question is unecessary, because chimpanzees are close enough
cousins of humans that in my view they ought to be protected anyway.

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.


There don't need to be, it is the way nature is. You give no thought
whatsoever to other species until they appear all furry tails and big eyes
on some quasi-political bandwagon.

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.


That's your silly quasi-political bandwagon. Nobody treats non-humans as
they treat humans, unless they choose to in some selective way, nor should
they. Humans are special, that's the way of the world, deal with it.

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.



  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 08:11 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Rupert" wrote in message
ups.com...

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


Your reasoning is backwards. That is not the test. There is no animal of
another species that can demonstrate the equivalent of human abilities.

except certain genetic characteristics, which
cannot be plausibly held to be morally relevant.


Sure it can. Genetics, species membership, is an accurate catch-all
categorization that delineates all the attributes of members within it.

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.


I seriously question your word that "everyone agrees" that speciesism cannot
be defended. You don't speak for "everyone" in the ahem philosophical
community, and in fact Cohen defends it quite nicely in "Regan vs Cohen".
"Speciesism", the rational worldview, is not to be confused with terms like
"racism" and "sexism" which carry a pjorative "unfair" connotation. Everyone
is a speciesist, the only question is at what point do you begin to allow
non-human animals into your sphere of consideration and for what reasons.
You dismiss animals too small for your normal perception to distinguish, too
ubiquitous to avoid destroying, too inconvenient to preserve, therefore it
is the default reality, and the onus falls on so-called "non-speciesism
advocates" to argue where that line should be and why there should be only
one place for everyone.




  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 08:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,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]"


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

Dutch wrote:
"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.


Nonsense. It's *not* obvious to a lot of people when they think about
it. Most people who read Chapter 1 of Peter Singer's "Animal
Liberation" either agree that species membership as such is not morally
relevant, or see that there's a serious question there about how to
defend it. You're saying it needs no defence and it's not legitimate
even to question it. A racist might have said similar things about
discrimination on the basis of race back in the nineteenth century.


Playing the race card in this discussion is on a level with the Hitler card,
or arguing the rights of plants.

Of
course it can be legitimately questioned, it needs defending. A lot of
smart people have tried to defend it for the last thirty years and
failed. You are doing no better.


I am doing relatively fine, the fact that an avowed ARA can't see it is no
measure of success or failure. Your worldview will not allow you to see it.

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.


That's discrimination on the basis of individual characteristics which
are held to be morally relevant, not discrimination on the basis of
species. It's not speciesism.


Bullshit, it's not individual, it can't possibly be, you can't interview
every fly, snail, or cockroach. It is dismissal of entire species based on
the knowledge that NONE of them can possibly possess capabilities beyond a
particular rudimentary level. People who dismiss mosquitos as irrelevant do
so using the exact same kind of speciesist logic as those who dismiss
chickens. We do so because we correctly ascertain that NO CHICKEN can
possibly exist beyond a certain level of "sentience".




  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 12:29 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 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, [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.


That 'significant amount' was hundreds of thousands per hectare.

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


No?

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


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


Evidence?

. . .
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.


No. Even if that happened, it would *not* be ok.

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


They need to go anyway, livestock or not.


'They' being wildlife.

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.


That's 30 million hectares (in the US) that needn't be farmed.



  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 11-09-2006, 01:04 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 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.


Really? What research have you done on the subject?

If your search "grass fed cow milk Inner Earth Beings kill" is
any indication, you really need to work on your search strings.

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.


Helloooooo....

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 one allowed to dry. One supports frogs, the other doesn't.

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.


Frogs migrate - a fact that seems to have escaped you in the past.

Roads have lots of cars speeding along them.. Give it up, david.

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.


diderot probably had his vision of "green waterfalls" in texan rice fields there.

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.


I could, but I choose not to.

. . .
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?


Straight away I can see that this is not from Lundberg's email.
__________________________________________________ _______
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


No mention of rice fields there. Why aren't there?


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.


Nope. Not one link on page 1 is even remotely relevant.

We're looking for "green waterfalls" of frogs in organic Texan
rice fields. So far, you cannot tell us where these alleged frogs
come from, nor can you provide any supporting evidence for
they're presence in the alleged numbers, or of a frog massacre.

Results 1 - 10 of about 829,000 for rice whale kill.
Results 1 - 10 of about 217,000 for vegetables penguin kill.


I see... OK...

Groups Sue EPA to Protect Florida Wildlife from Bird-Killing Pesticide"
Fenthion is one of the most dangerous bird-killing pesticides in use in this
country," ... pesticides available for mosquito control that won't kill birds, ...
www.defenders.org/releases/pr2002/pr102902.html - 11k - Cached -
Similar pages

Hinterland Who's Who - Pesticides and Wild BirdsIn the United States,
where the reporting rate is thought to be better than in Canada, a pesticide
kill is reported, on average, every two weeks for birds ...
www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?id=230 - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

The Audubon Guide to Home Pesticides The first organophosphate and
carbamate pesticides were developed in the 1940s. ... Even if the amount
of poison ingested isn't enough to kill a bird, ...
www.audubon.org/bird/pesticides/ - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

Stop Louisiana From Using Pesticide Toxic to BirdsCarbofuran has been
estimated to kill 1 to 2 million birds annually in the United States and
application of this pesticide to crops has resulted in as many ...
actionnetwork.org/BIODIVERSITY/alert-description.html?alert_id=3742112
- 13k - Cached - Similar pages
......
Alabama Fish Ponds - Fish Kills in PondsPesticides cause a number of
fish kills in ponds throughout Alabama each year. Convulsive, erratic
swimming and lethargy are symptomatic of pesticide ...
http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishin...onds/kills.cfm - 30k
- Cached - Similar pages

OzEstuaries; Coastal Indicators - Fish Kills Inappropriate use of pesticides
may also lead to local fish kills. Examples include endosulfan runoff from
agricultural areas when this chemical is applied ...
www.ozestuaries.org/indicators/fish_kills.jsp - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

Florida Freshwater Fish Kills--Common Causes Application of pesticides
to control lawn and crop insects can enter a pond during heavy rains and
cause a fish kill. Use of any type of chemical pesticide ...
myfwc.com/fishing/faqs/fish-kill.html - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

The Summer the Rivers Died: Toxic runoff from potato farms is ...
Poisons kill far more than fish. Hot, dry summer weather meant the
plants' leafy canopy was smaller than usual, so more pesticide ended
up on the soil. ...
www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Authorities probe Wareham fish kill: 7/19/01 It is the second fish kill in
approximately a month. Officials from the state Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife said pesticides are suspected in the kill ...
www.s-t.com/daily/07-01/07-19-01/a03lo015.htm - 11k - Cached -
Similar pages
........

Your turn.




  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 12-09-2006, 02:09 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:29:08 +0100, "pearl" wrote:

[email protected] wrote in message ...
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, [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.


That 'significant amount' was hundreds of thousands per hectare.

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


No?


When closed they keep water from entering the fields. When
open they allow it to flow in.

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


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


Evidence?


Personal observation of things washed loose and moved by water
currents.

. . .
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.


No. Even if that happened, it would *not* be ok.


Yes it would, and when it happens now it's okay already.

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


They need to go anyway, livestock or not.


'They' being wildlife.


'predators', 'competitors', and 'pests'

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.


That's 30 million hectares (in the US) that needn't be farmed.


But according to your argument about deaths in rice fields, we
need not worry about it when it is. Good enough.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2006, 10:43 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
ups.com...

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.


You're wrong.


Well, that's as may be. But you've introduced an undefined and
unexplained notion - "essential ability to hold those characteristics"
- and twice asserted without the slightest argument that all humans
have this ability and no nonhumans do. With all respect, I don't think
you're doing a very good job of defending your position.

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.


No it's not a continuum, it's black and white.


This flies in the face of the evolutionary facts. We know that our
cognitive capacities developed incrementally during evolutionary
history, and hence that they are matter of degree. Perhaps you are
claiming that there is some non-arbitrary threshold we can stipulate
that will draw a clear line between humans and some nonhuman species
such as great apes and all the other species. Well, it's your job to
specify that threshold and argue that it's non-arbitrary.

Nonhumans share these characteristics
with us to varying degrees.


No they don't.


Ridiculous and in blatant contradiction of the evolutionary facts. You
agree below that some nonhumans do have enough of the characteristics
to have some basic moral rights, so you contradict yourself. Your
position is totally untenable anyway.

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.


Nonsense

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.


I am not at all convinced that a lot of what is reported there is not
projection on the part of over-zealous handlers.


It's hard to see how it could be. The report almost entirely concerns
itself with objective matters of fact which it would be hard to be
mistaken about.

Also I am not arguing that
non-humans do not possess intelligence. Having said that, I believe that
great apes possess sufficient human-like qualities that they could rightly
be considered as deserving of basic rights.

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.


That's an unecessary hypothetical, I already have sufficient difficulty
drawing a sharp line between nonhuman great apes and humans that I see no
reason we should not err on the side of the apes.

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.


You're still approaching the question backwards.


What's that supposed to mean? Do you have any argument with what I say
below? If not, you'll have to come to terms with the consequences.

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.


The regime of rights attempts with limited success to view the human species
as a family or a tribe. It is not irrational to view one's family favorably.


But most people would see a problem with exploiting people just because
they happen not to be members of your family. The analogy with
partiality based on family relationships doesn't justify the status
quo.

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.


I think you could if you tried, but you don't want to. The nature of humans
is not to have single-digit IQs, it is to have IQs of 100.


Not all humans. Ultimately all you can say to justify your conclusion
is "a being's moral status should be based on what's typical for his or
her species." That's a statement standing in need of an argument. It
also has some counter-intuitive consequences, as discussed below.

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.


No it's not, it's descriptive. No monkey has in it's essence a poet,
philosopher or musician.


No radically cognitively impaired human has either. So what?

If the
permanently radically cognitively impaired humans have it in their
essence, why not the nonhumans too?


Cognitively impaired humans are exceptional cases usually a result of
accident or misfortune, exceptions to not make a rule.


But why should the rule be based on what's typical for the species,
rather than on individual characteristics?

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.


You raise a valid question in theory but in reality there is no need for an
answer, since no chimpanzee will ever be as intelligent as a functional
human.


The thought-experiment is meant to bring attention to the
counter-intuitive consequences of maintaining that beings should be
granted a moral status based on what's typical for their species. If
this is what you are maintaining, you need to indicate how you will
deal with the challenge posed by this thought-experiment.

But the question is unecessary, because chimpanzees are close enough
cousins of humans that in my view they ought to be protected anyway.

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.


There don't need to be,


Yes, there do. Treating cases differently when a morally relevant
difference is not apparent requires justification.

it is the way nature is. You give no thought
whatsoever to other species until they appear all furry tails and big eyes
on some quasi-political bandwagon.

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.


That's your silly quasi-political bandwagon. Nobody treats non-humans as
they treat humans,


Nobody is suggesting they should. What is being advocated is equal
consideration. Some people advocate equal consideration and practice
what they preach.

unless they choose to in some selective way, nor should
they. Humans are special, that's the way of the world, deal with it.

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.


  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 14-09-2006, 10:50 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
ups.com...

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


Your reasoning is backwards. That is not the test. There is no animal of
another species that can demonstrate the equivalent of human abilities.


If that is a sufficient reasno to exploit animals in the way we do, it
should also be a sufficient reason to exploit radically cognitively
impaired humans. If you're not comfortable with doing this, but you
still want to defend exploiting nonhumans, you've got to identify a
morally relevant difference and argue that it is morally relevant.

except certain genetic characteristics, which
cannot be plausibly held to be morally relevant.


Sure it can.


In what way is it morally relevant, and why?

Genetics, species membership, is an accurate catch-all
categorization that delineates all the attributes of members within it.

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.


I seriously question your word that "everyone agrees" that speciesism cannot
be defended.


I did not say this. I said everyone acknowledges that there is a
serious problem with doing it. Some people think they can do it, such
as Carl Cohen. If you doubt my word, read the philosophical literature
and form your own conclusions.

You don't speak for "everyone" in the ahem philosophical
community,


Your disparagement of the philosophical community is out of place.
You're not familiar with the philosophical literature, and if you were
you could learn something about how to construct a good argument.

and in fact Cohen defends it quite nicely in "Regan vs Cohen".


No, that's a very poor defence of speciesism. He doesn't address the
argument from marginal cases. Neil Levy has kindly helped him out by
elaborating his argument into the "natural kinds" argument, which has
some credibility, but there are still important challenges to it, one
of which I have mentioned on this thread (the thought-experiment of the
nonhuman with abnormally good cognitive abilities).

"Speciesism", the rational worldview, is not to be confused with terms like
"racism" and "sexism" which carry a pjorative "unfair" connotation. Everyone
is a speciesist,


No.

the only question is at what point do you begin to allow
non-human animals into your sphere of consideration and for what reasons.
You dismiss animals too small for your normal perception to distinguish,


Because they are not sentient. That is not speciesist.

too
ubiquitous to avoid destroying,


That is justified by limitations on the presumption against causing
harm, which are necessary for human civilization to survive. These
limitations must be formulated in non-speciesist ways.

too inconvenient to preserve, therefore it
is the default reality,


No. These considerations are no argument against equal consideration.

and the onus falls on so-called "non-speciesism
advocates" to argue where that line should be and why there should be only
one place for everyone.


Everyone has to draw a line somewhere and argue for why that is the
place the line should be drawn. You have indicated where you draw the
line, now it is your job to defend that. My criticism of it is that
there is no good reason to judge a being's moral status on the basis of
what is typical for his or her species.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 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