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
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:47:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:59:00 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:19:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><dh@.> 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, dh@?
>> >>
>> >> 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', dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:23:11 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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.



  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

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

>
>dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:47:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:59:00 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:19:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> >> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ><dh@.> 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, dh@?
> >> >>
> >> >> 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', dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 692
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:23:11 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

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

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 20:47:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 21:59:00 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:19:29 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> >> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ><dh@.> 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, dh@?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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', dh@. 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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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.



  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 10 Sep 2006 18:48:29 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. 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?


So far it appears there would be nothing wrong with it, so now
it's up to you to explain what would be.

>> >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?


Is it safe to conclude you have no idea about 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?


LOL! So they could keep eating rice, like they do, and like they
contribute to most things everyone else does that cause death to
animals. Don't forget that the only deaths vegans avoid, are those
to animals who would have no life at all were it not for their consumers.
Any animals who are simply killed but not deliberately provided with
life are okay with vegans, which is one reason I can't respect them.

>> >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.


Okay, in a way I can agree, but probably not the way you mean it.
I can believe that even "pearl" is not too stupid to understand that lots
of frogs die in rice production. She may truly deny it to herself and have
worked out some way of thinking which allows her to feel that she's being
somehow honest by denying things she knows deep down are true, IF
she supresses thinking about it and denies the truth within her brain to her
required extent. That doesn't mean she is *really* honestly too stupid to
understand, it just means that she's worked out some mental dishonesty
that she uses when it's convenient for supporting what she WANTS to
believe or not believe. It doesn't make it a bit better though.

>> >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.


"pearl's" "explanation" of how she thinks frogs she claims don't
exist survive the draining of rice fields is a clear example with no need
of any argument. Her "explanation" of how the frogs she claims don't
exist enter and exit the rice fields is another.

>> >> >> >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,


It's certainly easy to see why she would do that, and certainly appears
that's exactly what she's doing.

>Diderot might be dishonest in order to feel better about eating meat.


May be. How would telling people about frogs etc getting killed in
rice production, make someone who is proud of going to a different
country just to kill wildlife feel any 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.


We have absolutely no reason be believe it's not true...well, I have
no reason to believe it's not true. The fact that dishonesty is such a
big part of "ar" would make you people suspect everyone else of
such dishonesty too I suppose, but I'm not in that position like you are.

>The testimony of one
>stranger on the Internet is not a very strong reason to be convinced.


Then YOU tell us how many frogs are killed, since YOU feel that
diderot was exaggerating. How many do YOU want people to believe
are killed, and why should we believe YOU over diderot? Get "pearl"
to help you, since you both feel you know better than diderot between
the two of you you SHOULD be able to set everybody straight on it.

>> >> >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.


Well if it is, then things less harmful are too.

>> >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.


We raised our own cattle never feeding them grain. They only ate
grass. We got many meals from the death of one animal. If we had
raised soy and made our own tofu instead, it would have resulted in
many more animal deaths per serving of food, even though fewer
animals would have been able to live in the area than when it was
pasture.

>If you
>succeeded, the vegans would be rationally required to concede that the
>consumption of those animal products was permissible as well.


They never would because they're too dishonest. Rick Etter almost
certainly contributes to fewer wildlife deaths than the average veg*n,
but we NEVER see veg*ns even acknowledge that because of the
dishonest nature of such people.

>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.


Goo hates it. Dutchy hates it. And so does every other "ara" I've
discussed it with.

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


LOL!!! Like what? Other than the lies some people pretend
are "reasons", I can really only recall three "reasons" given
why we should not consider the animals' lives as well as their
deaths, all three suck, and they were all presented by Dutchy.
They a

1. he and other "aras" say we should not.
2. he says we should think of raising animals for food and
child prostition in the same way.
3. he says we lose imaginary moral browny points if we do so.

As I said those reasons suck, but so far they are the "best"
you people have been able to come up with. If you think you
can think of better ones, I'd like to see them.
  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 13:04:26 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 9 Sep 2006 16:23:11 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> >> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 22:37:52 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ><dh@.> 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?


I've asked you who consider yourself knowledgeable about the
subject, and you can't provide any so I take that to mean there
are none even though you lie about it. Actions speak louder than
words as they say, and that's especially true in your case. The
fact that you CAN NOT perform the simple act of supplying links
to decent sites, "speaks" much more clearly and honestly than
your apparently dishonest claim of being able to do so. Duh.

>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....


We've seen that there are plenty of frogs in rice fields, and so have
no reason to believe they aren't in rice fields in Texas. We have a first
hand report of them from a Texas rice farmer, and absolutely NO reason
not to believe him. It's about time for YOU to do something other than
just deny it. We have NO reason to believe YOU, so now it's time for
YOU to try to provide one. Explain why you want us to believe there
are frogs in rice fields, but not in Texas. Go:

>> >> 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.


Not yet. Now I'm curious why you think these frogs you claim don't
exist are killed by cars, but not by harvesters and predators after harvest.
Explain:

>> >> >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,


Apparently not...

>but I choose not to.


....LOL, and your lying about it doesn't fool anyone, or even make you
look any better.

>> >> . . .
>> >> >> 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
>> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

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


Because it's not about rice fields, but it is about frogs getting
killed on a highway. Are you now going to claim Lunberg and
the authors of the above are lying about frogs getting killed on
highways too?

>.......
>
>Your turn.


diderot did explain that chemicals kill frogs, and that that is a significant
aspect of the issue:

"- conventional agriculture results in many more, but more 'invisible'
deaths. our conventional plot is across the road from our organic plot,
it started out with the same millions and billions of amphibian eggs.
only a few thousand frogs are harvested on the conventional side - they
were all killed off as eggs or tadpoles by agricultural chemicals.

- we manage the whole area (larger than just the farms) is a pretty
natural fashion and we have a lot of wildlife. the number of deaths is,
at least, partially a function of total area population. we could
reduce the number of visible deaths by flogging the ecology, but we
prefer life and cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture."

and it's easy enough to find evidence of that. Unless pesticides
somehow don't kill frogs in rice fields, the following gives us reason
to believe that they do:

Results 1 - 10 of about 301,000 for pesticides frogs kill.

Corn Pesticides in Combination Kill Frogs & Threaten Public Health
Organic Consumers Association is a consumer advocate for labeling of genetically engineered food. We
promote organic food and sustainable agriculture.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/food...rogs060208.cfm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

Mixtures of pesticides kill tadpoles.
This paper demonstrates that environmentally-relevant exposures to mixtures of pesticides undermine
the immune system of developing leopard frogs, ...
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewSc...hayesetal.html - 35k - Cached - Similar
pages

Our Stolen Futu Frog tadpoles much more vulnerable to carbaryl ...
It is highly likely, therefore, that current regulatory science even in its simplest form (does
a pesticide kill) has dramatically underestimated the ...
http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NewSc...eaandmills.htm - 24k - Cached -
Similar pages

news @ nature.com - Pesticide cocktail kills US frogs ...
Pesticides used by US corn growers are combining to kill off the country's native frogs. Research
shows that commonly used pesticides, fairly harmless by ...
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0602.../060206-4.html - Similar pages

ScienceDaily: Pesticide Combinations Imperil Frogs, Probably ...
The pesticide brew in many ponds bordering Midwestern cornfields is not only affecting ... Some
chytrid species are known to kill frogs in large numbers by ...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0202180830.htm - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Nature Canada • Spring 2005
It could kill developing frogs, slow metamorphosis, and create abnormal sex organs. Formulations of
other brand name glyphosate pesticides were less toxic. ...
www.cnf.ca/magazine/spring05/sentinnels.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Pesticides, Worms May Gang Up on Frogs -- Kaiser 2002 (712): 2 ...
Since 1995, frogs with missing, malformed, or extra limbs have been spotted ... the frog
deformities, suggests that pesticides would also weaken or kill the ...
sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2002/712/2 - Similar pages

[PDF] Pesticide Threats to Endangered Species: Case Studies
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Disruption of Habitat: Minute amounts of many pesticides kill aquatic ... Pesticides Contaminate
Frog Tissues: Even frogs collected from high in the Sierra ...
www.pesticide.org/counterpartflyer.pdf - Similar pages

High Country News -- March 29, 2004: Pesticides are killing frogs
Poppycock" (HCN, 7/7/03: Pesticides killing Frogs? ... affects sexual development and behavior in
frogs, at levels far below those that kill frogs outright. ...
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Arti...ticle_id=14661 - 271k - Cached - Similar pages

Study offers clues to loss of state
Most of the pesticides found in the frogs and their adjacent waters are short-acting and break down
within a week. The pesticides do not necessarily kill ...
http://www.mindfully.org/Heritage/CA...Amphibians.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

"Rupert" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:


[..]
> 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.


That may be, I thought it obvious, but ok I'll connect the dots. It's simple
observation.
1. Aside from expected rare exceptions, all humans hold these
characteristics, but more importantly..
2. Without exception, no non-humans hold or have ever held the
characteristics, therefore one can conclude that if any animal does, humans
alone possess the "essential ability to hold those characteristics".

To address an expected objection... You will say that the existence of some
humans without those characteristics negates the proposition of a set of
essential human characteristics. Referring to physical abilities, one might
state the rule that humans, as a species, possess the "essential ability" to
walk upright on two legs. This is true despite exceptions to the rule, such
as Spina Bifida sufferers. Just as mosquitoes and chickens have an
"essential set of characteristics". so do humans.

>> >> 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.


We share a lot of similiarlities with bananas on a cellular level also, that
does not make a relevant fact.

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.


What do mean by "arbitrary"? We possess cognitive powers that no other
species possesses, there is nothing arbitrary about it.

>> > Nonhumans share these characteristics
>> > with us to varying degrees.

>>
>> No they don't.
>>

>
> Ridiculous and in blatant contradiction of the evolutionary facts.


Evolution is irrelevant, we evolved from plenaria, should they be granted
human rights?

>You
> agree below that some nonhumans do have enough of the characteristics
> to have some basic moral rights, so you contradict yourself.


I'm not contradicting myself, you are not grasping my position.

> Your
> position is totally untenable anyway.


ROTFL! That is hilarious coming from you. AR is completely untenable in the
real world, the only place that it can exist is in the misanthropic human
imagination.

>
>> > 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.


I have seen this gorilla "Jojo" on several documentaries, one in particular
took a skeptical approach and it was evident that the handlers saw what they
wanted to see on many occasions. In any case I am not disputing the
intelligence of apes, or even of dogs and cats.

[..]

>> > Nonhumans do have similar capabilities to SOME humans.

>>
>> You're still approaching the question backwards.
>>

>
> What's that supposed to mean?


It means that the test of inherent capabilities does not hinge on a few
impaired individuals. Humans have the inherent capability of speech, "humans
can talk" is a true statement, even though a few people are born deaf-mute.

> Do you have any argument with what I say
> below? If not, you'll have to come to terms with the consequences.


You say a number of things below, but I am confident that I have an argument
with it. The person here having difficulty coming to terms with the
consequences of his position is you.
>
>> > 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.


"Exploit" is a charged word, My employer exploits my talents, as do my
personal computer clients. I exploit the great variety of entertainment
options in my area. Maybe you could come up with something less prejudicial
and more descriptive. Do you mean to "treat unfairly"? I say that to say we
treat animals unfairly when we use them for food flies in the face of the
very nature of life. You may as well call a rainstorm unjust.

> The analogy with
> partiality based on family relationships doesn't justify the status
> quo.


I wasn't trying to "justify" it, I was attempting to create a context that
would allow you to understand how I view it.

>> >> 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."


Assuming that NO member of that species has EVER demonstrated significantly
greater capabilities, like mosquitoes.

> That's a statement standing in need of an argument.


Since as I have shown, it is precisely how we all think, YOU need to present
a counter-argument.

> It
> also has some counter-intuitive consequences, as discussed below.


Probably based on a misunderstanding on your part..

>> >> 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 humanness.
>> >
>> > 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.


Idiot savant

> So what?


So everything Rupert. The existence of a few people with no legs does not
change the essential physical nature of the human race. But no snake can
stand up and walk.


>
>> 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?


Because it's impossible and implausible to look at it that way. Show me an
example of ONE individual of any of the species we "exploit" or kill in
agriculture that has ever demonstrated a cognitive functioning set
approaching that of a human? Are you going to administer an intelligence
test every time you decide to swat a mosquito, or are you going to treat
mosquitoes as a species? Are we going to grant rights to cockroaches because
there are humans in comas with no cognitive functions? Talk about an
untenable position.


>> > 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.


The "thought experiment" did not present a real challenge, therefore does
not require a real solution. If ONE chimp ever demonstrated human abilities
in my opinion all chimps should immediately be elevated in moral status, but
that's irrelevant for a number of reasons. 1. I already think chimps ought
to enjoy elevated moral status, 2. If given human status, many chimps would
immediately qualify as murderers, since in an AR world, that's what most
chimps are, they kill young, assault and kill members of other troupes and
hunt baby monkeys for food, and lastly, 3. No chimp will ever demonstrate
such abilities, so the point is meaningless anyway. The real world does not
have to react to hypothetical conundrums that have no chance of occurring.

>> But the question is unnecessary, 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.


No, there don't, period.

> Treating cases differently when a morally relevant
> difference is not apparent requires justification.


Those are just words that have you all tied up in knots. We ALL treat animal
species and humans differently in various ways, according to a whole variety
of largely subjective criteria. There is no other rational way to address
the real world.

>
>> 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
>> > permanently 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.


You are. We already treat them differently, you claim that is wrong because
it is "speciesist", that implies you think they should not be judged based
on species.

> What is being advocated is equal
> consideration. Some people advocate equal consideration and practice
> what they preach.


High-sounding words that mean nothing. Instead of mouthing vague
catch-phrases propose something specific and consistent.



  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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.
>> >> =====================
>> >> 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.


Your reasoning is completely backwards. We have an inherent right and
capability as animals to exploit our environments in order to succeed as all
organisms do. These rights and freedoms are curtailed in specific and
limited ways by an evolved social network that protects us and other
indivduals within that network. Every "right" we introduce into this system
is actually a further limitation on our freedom, so we do so with caution.
There is nothing in the paragraph above that tells me that you remotely
understand this process.

>> > 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?


The species an animal belongs to is an accurate descriptor of the upper
limit of it's cognitive abilities and characteristics.

>> 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.


"everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with defending speciesism".

> Some people think they can do it, such
> as Carl Cohen.


Then he does not agree that there is a serious problem, therefore you were
lying when you said everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with
defending speciesism.

>If you doubt my word, read the philosophical literature
> and form your own conclusions.


Why would I NOT doubt your word after that?

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

>
> Your disparagement of the philosophical community is out of place.


I wasn't disparging the philosophical community, I was disparging your
appeal to authority. You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of
honestly portraying the opinion of the philosophical community.

> 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.


In your highly biased opinion.

> He doesn't address the
> argument from marginal cases.


That is not a valid argument as I have demonstrated. Again, the AR community
turns reality on it's ear then demands that everyone else prove them wrong.

> 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).


An argument which I shattered, not that you could have noticed..

>> "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.


Yes
>
>> 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.


How the hell do you know? By what definition?

> That is not speciesist.


Where is "sentience" whatever you mean by that, implied in the word
"species"? If I dismiss an entire species because I define them all as not
sentient, how am I not being 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.


Who says the human species must survive at the cost of harming others? How
are you defining "survival"? What happened to equal consideration, to
dealing on an individual basis?

> These
> limitations must be formulated in non-speciesist ways.


By holding intelligence tests on an indivdual-by-indivdual basis?

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

>
> No. These considerations are no argument against equal consideration.


"Equal consideration" is a meaningless buzz-phrase.

>> 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.


You have not indicated where you think the line should be drawn,
conveniently avoiding the need to defend it.

> 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.


We don't, ALL individuals of all species we kill in agriculture for example
fall below a threshold of cognitive ability that most humans would find
unacceptable in animals we use for food or harm regularly.

You display the typically arrogant approach of the ARA. You attack and
presume to sit in judgment, but when asked to give real alternatives you
hide behind vague, lofty sounding catch-phrases.


  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


Dutch wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:

>
> [..]
> > 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.

>
> That may be, I thought it obvious, but ok I'll connect the dots. It's simple
> observation.
> 1. Aside from expected rare exceptions, all humans hold these
> characteristics, but more importantly..
> 2. Without exception, no non-humans hold or have ever held the
> characteristics, therefore one can conclude that if any animal does, humans
> alone possess the "essential ability to hold those characteristics".
>
> To address an expected objection... You will say that the existence of some
> humans without those characteristics negates the proposition of a set of
> essential human characteristics. Referring to physical abilities, one might
> state the rule that humans, as a species, possess the "essential ability" to
> walk upright on two legs. This is true despite exceptions to the rule, such
> as Spina Bifida sufferers. Just as mosquitoes and chickens have an
> "essential set of characteristics". so do humans.
>


So you're saying an individual's moral status should be judged on the
basis of what's typical for his or her species. I want you to explain
why this should be, and to address the fact that it has
counter-intuitive consequences for a hypothetical thought-experiment
which I presented.

> >> >> 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.

>
> We share a lot of similiarlities with bananas on a cellular level also, that
> does not make a relevant fact.
>


Irrelevant. You said there is a sharp dividing line between humans and
nonhumans. I was simply pointing out that all species are the product
of a continuous process of development. Given any two species, there
once existed a set of evolutionary intermediaries between them such
that the process of developing from one species into the other via the
intermediaries was gradual and incremental. You may say we can draw a
threshold which distinguishes all existing humans from all existing
nonhumans today. But the question is where do we draw the threshold,
and why? You'll have to answer this if you want to credibly claim that
"it's black and white". You've already admitted that you'd want to draw
the threshold so that a few nonhuman species fall above it.

> 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.

>
> What do mean by "arbitrary"? We possess cognitive powers that no other
> species possesses, there is nothing arbitrary about it.
>


I thought you agreed that some nonhuman species should be allowed into
the protected circle. The way we divide up the animals of the world
into species today is just an artifact of the accidents of evolutionary
history. If all the evolutionary intermediaries had survived, any two
species would form one "ring species" - a group of individuals such
that two individuals within the group sufficiently like one another can
interbreed, two individuals not sufficiently like one another cannot,
and any two individuals in the group can be connected by a series such
that each adjacent pair is a pair that can interbreed.

> >> > Nonhumans share these characteristics
> >> > with us to varying degrees.
> >>
> >> No they don't.
> >>

> >
> > Ridiculous and in blatant contradiction of the evolutionary facts.

>
> Evolution is irrelevant, we evolved from plenaria, should they be granted
> human rights?
>


Straw man. You claimed that nonhumans do not share our cognitive
characteristics with us in the slightest degree. That is totally
untenable. And you contradicted it when you agreed that nonhuman great
apes should be granted basic rights.

> >You
> > agree below that some nonhumans do have enough of the characteristics
> > to have some basic moral rights, so you contradict yourself.

>
> I'm not contradicting myself, you are not grasping my position.
>


So, you maintain they should have the rights despite the fact that they
don't have the characteristics in the slightest degree? Why should they
have the rights, then?

> > Your
> > position is totally untenable anyway.

>
> ROTFL! That is hilarious coming from you. AR is completely untenable in the
> real world, the only place that it can exist is in the misanthropic human
> imagination.
>


There is nothing misanthropic or untenable about it.

> >
> >> > 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.

>
> I have seen this gorilla "Jojo"


Koko.

> on several documentaries, one in particular
> took a skeptical approach and it was evident that the handlers saw what they
> wanted to see on many occasions. In any case I am not disputing the
> intelligence of apes, or even of dogs and cats.
>


I thought no nonhuman shared our cognitive characteristics in the
slightest degree. So how do we go about deciding which species have
moral status, then?

> [..]
>
> >> > Nonhumans do have similar capabilities to SOME humans.
> >>
> >> You're still approaching the question backwards.
> >>

> >
> > What's that supposed to mean?

>
> It means that the test of inherent capabilities does not hinge on a few
> impaired individuals. Humans have the inherent capability of speech, "humans
> can talk" is a true statement, even though a few people are born deaf-mute.
>


Yes, well you're assuming that an individual's moral status should be
judged on the basis of what's typical for his or her species, I want
you to defend that, and address my thought-experiment.

> > Do you have any argument with what I say
> > below? If not, you'll have to come to terms with the consequences.

>
> You say a number of things below, but I am confident that I have an argument
> with it. The person here having difficulty coming to terms with the
> consequences of his position is you.
> >
> >> > 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.

>
> "Exploit" is a charged word, My employer exploits my talents, as do my
> personal computer clients. I exploit the great variety of entertainment
> options in my area. Maybe you could come up with something less prejudicial
> and more descriptive. Do you mean to "treat unfairly"? I say that to say we
> treat animals unfairly when we use them for food flies in the face of the
> very nature of life. You may as well call a rainstorm unjust.
>


How about "inflict serious harm in order to serve your own purposes"?

> > The analogy with
> > partiality based on family relationships doesn't justify the status
> > quo.

>
> I wasn't trying to "justify" it, I was attempting to create a context that
> would allow you to understand how I view it.
>
> >> >> 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."

>
> Assuming that NO member of that species has EVER demonstrated significantly
> greater capabilities, like mosquitoes.
>


Then each individual should be granted the moral status appropriate for
his or her characteristics.

> > That's a statement standing in need of an argument.

>
> Since as I have shown, it is precisely how we all think, YOU need to present
> a counter-argument.
>


No, it's not how we all think. Most people haven't thought about it to
that extent. Moral philosophers have tried to come up with a way of
defending our intuitions about how we should treat other species
against the argument from marginal cases, and this is the best we have
come up with so far. It's a principle that's being invoked to justify a
set of intuitions. But when it comes to our intuitions about
principles, many people find it more plausible that individuals should
be judged on their own characteristics rather than what's typical for
their species. The fact that the latter approach yields results more in
harmony with our intuitions about particular cases is not enough. The
principle needs more defence. We need to have it explained why that
should be so. A moral theory needs to do more than just yield the
correct results, it needs to have explanatory power.

Furthermore I have presented a counter-argument, which you have not
addressed.


> > It
> > also has some counter-intuitive consequences, as discussed below.

>
> Probably based on a misunderstanding on your part..
>


Argue the point.

> >> >> 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 humanness.
> >> >
> >> > 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.

>
> Idiot savant
>


That's not what I mean by "radically cognitively impaired human".

> > So what?

>
> So everything Rupert. The existence of a few people with no legs does not
> change the essential physical nature of the human race. But no snake can
> stand up and walk.
>


But the principle that an individual should be judged on the basis of
what's typical for his or her species needs defending. I've also
presented a counter-argument which you haven't addressed.


>
> >
> >> 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?

>
> Because it's impossible and implausible to look at it that way. Show me an
> example of ONE individual of any of the species we "exploit" or kill in
> agriculture that has ever demonstrated a cognitive functioning set
> approaching that of a human?


They do have cognitive functions similar to some humans whom we think
should have some moral status. We have to revise either our beliefs
about the livestock or about the humans.

> Are you going to administer an intelligence
> test every time you decide to swat a mosquito, or are you going to treat
> mosquitoes as a species?


I will treat each individual mosquito on the basis of what I reasonably
believe about his or her mental characteristics.

> Are we going to grant rights to cockroaches because
> there are humans in comas with no cognitive functions?


If a human has permanently lost all capacity for consciousness, then
the only things relevant are his or her past wishes and the wishes of
those close to him or her.

> Talk about an
> untenable position.
>
>
> >> > 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.

>
> The "thought experiment" did not present a real challenge, therefore does
> not require a real solution. If ONE chimp ever demonstrated human abilities
> in my opinion all chimps should immediately be elevated in moral status,


Thank you. I finally got a response.

So now it's no longer that an individual should be judged on the basis
of what's typical for his or her species, but he or she should be
judged on the basis of the most cognitively sophisticated member of his
or her species. *Why?* The species boundaries that exist today are just
an arbitrary product of evolutionary history. If all the evolutionary
intermediaries existed there would be no sharply defined species
boundaries. You can't just say "This position is what everyone thinks".
It's a position you tailor-made to produce results in harmony with your
beliefs about other species and so as to give an acceptable answer to
my thought-experiment. It's hardly an intuitively obvious moral
principle. You need to justify it.

> but
> that's irrelevant for a number of reasons. 1. I already think chimps ought
> to enjoy elevated moral status, 2. If given human status, many chimps would
> immediately qualify as murderers, since in an AR world, that's what most
> chimps are, they kill young, assault and kill members of other troupes and
> hunt baby monkeys for food, and lastly, 3. No chimp will ever demonstrate
> such abilities, so the point is meaningless anyway. The real world does not
> have to react to hypothetical conundrums that have no chance of occurring.
>
> >> But the question is unnecessary, 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.

>
> No, there don't, period.
>
> > Treating cases differently when a morally relevant
> > difference is not apparent requires justification.

>
> Those are just words that have you all tied up in knots. We ALL treat animal
> species and humans differently in various ways,


Because there are relevant differences. But we should treat nonhumans
in the same way we would treat relevantly similar humans.

> according to a whole variety
> of largely subjective criteria. There is no other rational way to address
> the real world.
>
> >
> >> 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
> >> > permanently 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.

>
> You are. We already treat them differently, you claim that is wrong because
> it is "speciesist", that implies you think they should not be judged based
> on species.
>


I claim a moral theory which implies it is morally permissible to
inflict a certain harm on a nonhuman for a certain purpose, but not on
a relevantly similar human for the same purpose, cannot be acceptable.

> > What is being advocated is equal
> > consideration. Some people advocate equal consideration and practice
> > what they preach.

>
> High-sounding words that mean nothing. Instead of mouthing vague
> catch-phrases propose something specific and consistent.


"Equal consideration" does mean something. It doesn't resolve every
question that can be raised about animal ethics. I'm not going to set
forth for you a complete theory that resolves every difficult question
that can be asked. You know what changes the animal movement wants. If
you want to argue against them, either argue that they are not required
by equal consideration, or come up with a decent argument against equal
consideration.



  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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.
> >> >> =====================
> >> >> 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.

>
> Your reasoning is completely backwards. We have an inherent right and
> capability as animals to exploit our environments in order to succeed as all
> organisms do. These rights and freedoms are curtailed in specific and
> limited ways by an evolved social network that protects us and other
> indivduals within that network.


On what basis do we decide which individuals are in the network?

> Every "right" we introduce into this system
> is actually a further limitation on our freedom, so we do so with caution.


Whose freedom are we interested in protecting, and why?

> There is nothing in the paragraph above that tells me that you remotely
> understand this process.
>


Cases that are similar in morally relevant ways should be treated
similarly. That goes back to Aristotle. I don't think you've made a
decent case against it.

> >> > 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?

>
> The species an animal belongs to is an accurate descriptor of the upper
> limit of it's cognitive abilities and characteristics.
>


No, it's not. It just has the cognitive abilities that it has. Whether
or not there might be an animal wandering around somewhere who can
interbreed with it who's a bit smarter is irrelevant. That's a
characteristic of the ecosystem to which the animal belongs, not the
animal itself.

> >> 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.

>
> "everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with defending speciesism".
>


Uh-huh.

> > Some people think they can do it, such
> > as Carl Cohen.

>
> Then he does not agree that there is a serious problem,


False.

> therefore you were
> lying when you said everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with
> defending speciesism.
>


No, I am not.

> >If you doubt my word, read the philosophical literature
> > and form your own conclusions.

>
> Why would I NOT doubt your word after that?
>
> >> You don't speak for "everyone" in the <ahem> philosophical
> >> community,

> >
> > Your disparagement of the philosophical community is out of place.

>
> I wasn't disparging the philosophical community, I was disparging your
> appeal to authority.


There's no appeal to authority since it was not meant to have any
argumentative force. The point of the exercise was to make fun of Rick
when he said that anyone who couldn't see the truth of his position was
"ignorant and stupid". His argument is very weak, and I don't think he
can plausibly claim the entire philosophical community is more
"ignorant and stupid" than him.

> You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of
> honestly portraying the opinion of the philosophical community.
>


False.

> > 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.

>
> In your highly biased opinion.
>


My opinion is not biased. I am good at assessing the strength of an
argument. If I came across a good defence of speciesism I would
acknowledge it. For example, I acknowledge that Neil Levy's elaboration
of the argument is an improvement.

> > He doesn't address the
> > argument from marginal cases.

>
> That is not a valid argument as I have demonstrated.


Whether or not *you* have come up with a good response to it, Cohen
still has to address it. Your response is essentially the same as
Levy's "natural kinds" argument, except that you have modified it in
response to my thought-experiment. The underlying principle is one that
needs defending.

> Again, the AR community
> turns reality on it's ear then demands that everyone else prove them wrong.
>
> > 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).

>
> An argument which I shattered, not that you could have noticed..
>


You modified your underlying principle in response to it. The question
is why anyone should think that this principle has the least
plausibility.

> >> "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.

>
> Yes
> >
> >> 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.

>
> How the hell do you know? By what definition?
>


Sentience is the capacity for conscious experience. An animal without a
nervous system can reasonably be assumed to be insentient.

> > That is not speciesist.

>
> Where is "sentience" whatever you mean by that, implied in the word
> "species"? If I dismiss an entire species because I define them all as not
> sentient, how am I not being speciesist?
>


If you observe that all members of a certain species have
characteristics such that you can reasonably presume them not to be
sentient, and treat them accordingly, you are treating individuals on
the basis of their individual characteristics, not what is typical for
their species or on the basis of the best representative of their
species. You are not being speciesist if you do that.

> >> too
> >> ubiquitous to avoid destroying,

> >
> > That is justified by limitations on the presumption against causing
> > harm, which are necessary for human civilization to survive.

>
> Who says the human species must survive at the cost of harming others?


You and I. When we find someone who disagrees, we can argue the point.

> How
> are you defining "survival"? What happened to equal consideration, to
> dealing on an individual basis?
>


It's still there. The limitations on the presumption against causing
harm, if they take into account any characteristics of the affected
beings at all, must only take into account their individual
characteristics, not the characteristics that are typical for their
species or displayed by the best representative of their species.

> > These
> > limitations must be formulated in non-speciesist ways.

>
> By holding intelligence tests on an indivdual-by-indivdual basis?
>


On the basis of what we reasonably know about the individuals.

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

> >
> > No. These considerations are no argument against equal consideration.

>
> "Equal consideration" is a meaningless buzz-phrase.
>


No, it is not. You have read a detailed discussion of what it means.

> >> 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.

>
> You have not indicated where you think the line should be drawn,
> conveniently avoiding the need to defend it.
>


I have given just as many details about where the line should be drawn
as you have about where you think it should be drawn.

> > 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.

>
> We don't, ALL individuals of all species we kill in agriculture for example
> fall below a threshold of cognitive ability that most humans would find
> unacceptable in animals we use for food or harm regularly.
>


Most humans would not be prepared to inflict similar harms on humans
with similar characteristics. If you want to revise that judgement,
fine. If you want to keep the judgement *and* you want to keep the
judgement about the animals harmed by agriculture, you're being
speciesist and you have to come up with a good argument against equal
consideration.

> You display the typically arrogant approach of the ARA. You attack and
> presume to sit in judgment, but when asked to give real alternatives you
> hide behind vague, lofty sounding catch-phrases.


I have explained my position in at least as much detail as you have
explained yours.

  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


dh@. wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 18:48:29 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >dh@. 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?

>
> So far it appears there would be nothing wrong with it, so now
> it's up to you to explain what would be.
>


Well, if that's your position, fine, as long as you're upfront about
what you're committed to. Most people would find that contention
absolutely appalling. They would believe that it would be wrong because
the rights of the slaves were violated.

> >> >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?

>
> Is it safe to conclude you have no idea about that?
>


I really don't understand what the relevance of this is supposed to be.
Obviously, life 20 thousand years ago would be pretty hard. So what?

> >> >> >> 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?

>
> LOL! So they could keep eating rice, like they do, and like they
> contribute to most things everyone else does that cause death to
> animals. Don't forget that the only deaths vegans avoid, are those
> to animals who would have no life at all were it not for their consumers.
> Any animals who are simply killed but not deliberately provided with
> life are okay with vegans, which is one reason I can't respect them.
>


What makes you think vegans would not be prepared to sacrifice eating
rice if they genuinely thought it significantly contributed to
unnecessary harm? They've already shown willingness to modify their
diet to a fair extent in order to avoid unnecessary harm, why wouldn't
they avoid rice as well if they thought there were a reasonable case
for doing so?

> >> >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.

>
> Okay, in a way I can agree, but probably not the way you mean it.
> I can believe that even "pearl" is not too stupid to understand that lots
> of frogs die in rice production. She may truly deny it to herself and have
> worked out some way of thinking which allows her to feel that she's being
> somehow honest by denying things she knows deep down are true, IF
> she supresses thinking about it and denies the truth within her brain to her
> required extent. That doesn't mean she is *really* honestly too stupid to
> understand, it just means that she's worked out some mental dishonesty
> that she uses when it's convenient for supporting what she WANTS to
> believe or not believe. It doesn't make it a bit better though.
>


Well, this is all speculation on your part. Whatever. That's your
argument with Pearl. I suggest you argue the point with her, rather
than indulge in speculations that she's being dishonest with herself
which you can't confirm.

> >> >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.

>
> "pearl's" "explanation" of how she thinks frogs she claims don't
> exist survive the draining of rice fields is a clear example with no need
> of any argument. Her "explanation" of how the frogs she claims don't
> exist enter and exit the rice fields is another.
>


Doesn't seem so absurd to me. It may or may not be true. It's up to you
to argue the point.

> >> >> >> >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,

>
> It's certainly easy to see why she would do that, and certainly appears
> that's exactly what she's doing.
>
> >Diderot might be dishonest in order to feel better about eating meat.

>
> May be. How would telling people about frogs etc getting killed in
> rice production, make someone who is proud of going to a different
> country just to kill wildlife feel any better about eating meat?
>


He wants to discredit the ethical vegetarian position, just as Pearl
wants to defend it. There is no reason to think Pearl would have any
more motive to be dishonest in order to defend it than Diderot would in
order to discredit it.


> >> . . .
> >> >> >> 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.

>
> We have absolutely no reason be believe it's not true...well, I have
> no reason to believe it's not true. The fact that dishonesty is such a
> big part of "ar" would make you people suspect everyone else of
> such dishonesty too I suppose, but I'm not in that position like you are.
>


I never accused anyone of dishonesty. I simply pointed out the obvious:
it might or might not be true. Neither you nor I have any idea. I am
not dishonest, thank you, and I won't continue conversing with you if
you continue to make unfounded accusations of dishonesty.

> >The testimony of one
> >stranger on the Internet is not a very strong reason to be convinced.

>
> Then YOU tell us how many frogs are killed, since YOU feel that
> diderot was exaggerating.


I have not claimed that.

> How many do YOU want people to believe
> are killed, and why should we believe YOU over diderot? Get "pearl"
> to help you, since you both feel you know better than diderot between
> the two of you you SHOULD be able to set everybody straight on it.
>
> >> >> >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.

>
> Well if it is, then things less harmful are too.
>
> >> >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.

>
> We raised our own cattle never feeding them grain. They only ate
> grass. We got many meals from the death of one animal. If we had
> raised soy and made our own tofu instead, it would have resulted in
> many more animal deaths per serving of food, even though fewer
> animals would have been able to live in the area than when it was
> pasture.
>


If you say so. What about the forage? Have you worked out the CDs that
arose from that?

> >If you
> >succeeded, the vegans would be rationally required to concede that the
> >consumption of those animal products was permissible as well.

>
> They never would because they're too dishonest. Rick Etter almost
> certainly contributes to fewer wildlife deaths than the average veg*n,
> but we NEVER see veg*ns even acknowledge that because of the
> dishonest nature of such people.
>


Well, I wouldn't know, I don't know what Rick Etter eats. I would
imagine the reason we don't see vegans acknowledge it is because it
hasn't been established. It may be the case.

> >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.

>
> Goo hates it. Dutchy hates it. And so does every other "ara" I've
> discussed it with.
>


Not me. I doubt Leif or Dutch hate it either. It's just not a very good
argument.

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

>
> LOL!!! Like what?


There may be some merit in bringing an animal into existence that has a
good life. That does not entitle you to inflict painful mutilations on
the animal without anaesthetic, or to kill it prematurely.

> Other than the lies some people pretend
> are "reasons", I can really only recall three "reasons" given
> why we should not consider the animals' lives as well as their
> deaths, all three suck, and they were all presented by Dutchy.
> They a
>
> 1. he and other "aras" say we should not.
> 2. he says we should think of raising animals for food and
> child prostition in the same way.
> 3. he says we lose imaginary moral browny points if we do so.
>
> As I said those reasons suck, but so far they are the "best"
> you people have been able to come up with. If you think you
> can think of better ones, I'd like to see them.


  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


Dutch wrote:
> "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.
>


There was nothing wrong with the analogy I drew.

> 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,


You are not. You can't even make up your mind what your position is.
First you said we should judge individuals on the basis of what's
typical for their species, then you said we should judge individuals on
the basis of the best representative of their species. *You need to
argue this point*.


> 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.
>


Instead of coming up with an argument, you impugn my ability to
rationally assess arguments. It's not going to convince any rational
person.

> >> >> 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".


It is on the basis of individual characteristics, rather than on the
basis of what is typical for their species or the characteristics the
best representative of their species has.

  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:

>>
>> [..]
>> > 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.

>>
>> That may be, I thought it obvious, but ok I'll connect the dots. It's
>> simple
>> observation.
>> 1. Aside from expected rare exceptions, all humans hold these
>> characteristics, but more importantly..
>> 2. Without exception, no non-humans hold or have ever held the
>> characteristics, therefore one can conclude that if any animal does,
>> humans
>> alone possess the "essential ability to hold those characteristics".
>>
>> To address an expected objection... You will say that the existence of
>> some
>> humans without those characteristics negates the proposition of a set of
>> essential human characteristics. Referring to physical abilities, one
>> might
>> state the rule that humans, as a species, possess the "essential ability"
>> to
>> walk upright on two legs. This is true despite exceptions to the rule,
>> such
>> as Spina Bifida sufferers. Just as mosquitoes and chickens have an
>> "essential set of characteristics". so do humans.
>>

>
> So you're saying an individual's moral status should be judged on the
> basis of what's typical for his or her species.


No, a species' moral status should be judged on the basis of the high-water
mark of capabilities for indivduals of that species. It's implausible to to
suggest that we should or could judge every single individual of every
species.

> I want you to explain
> why this should be,


Show me a better way, that would work, and no buzz-phrases.

> and to address the fact that it has
> counter-intuitive consequences for a hypothetical thought-experiment
> which I presented.


Bloody hell you're dense, we can't base our actions on hypothetical
thought-experiments. What if we discovered a talking plant?

>> >> >> 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.

>>
>> We share a lot of similiarlities with bananas on a cellular level also,
>> that
>> does not make a relevant fact.
>>

>
> Irrelevant.


Correct, and so is "our evolutionary history". We are living in the world
NOW, not 10's of thousands of years ago.

> You said there is a sharp dividing line between humans and
> nonhumans.


There is, on some levels, on others there is very little.

> I was simply pointing out that all species are the product
> of a continuous process of development. Given any two species, there
> once existed a set of evolutionary intermediaries between them such
> that the process of developing from one species into the other via the
> intermediaries was gradual and incremental. You may say we can draw a
> threshold which distinguishes all existing humans from all existing
> nonhumans today. But the question is where do we draw the threshold,
> and why?


I have already told you what I think, when are you going to present an
opinion?

>You'll have to answer this if you want to credibly claim that
> "it's black and white".


I have already supported that claim. No non-human species possesses or ever
have possessed the attributes which I am saying make humans special.

> You've already admitted that you'd want to draw
> the threshold so that a few nonhuman species fall above it.


There is no one threshold, every species is different, every circumstance
warrants consideration. Great apes are not humans, but they are near enough
relatives to us that they deserve "special status" in my opinion.

>> 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.

>>
>> What do mean by "arbitrary"? We possess cognitive powers that no other
>> species possesses, there is nothing arbitrary about it.
>>

>
> I thought you agreed that some nonhuman species should be allowed into
> the protected circle.


Yes, so? That doesn't make them human, or mean they possess the
characteristics of humans. Pets are in a protected circle also, for
different reasons.

> The way we divide up the animals of the world
> into species today is just an artifact of the accidents of evolutionary
> history.


Our very existence as a species is a result of a series of accidents of
evolutionary history. so what?

> If all the evolutionary intermediaries had survived, any two
> species would form one "ring species" - a group of individuals such
> that two individuals within the group sufficiently like one another can
> interbreed, two individuals not sufficiently like one another cannot,
> and any two individuals in the group can be connected by a series such
> that each adjacent pair is a pair that can interbreed.


So you're saying that if history had been radically different and there were
these other sub-species now that don't exist that we would view the world
differently? OK, probably. Why can't you argue your position based on the
real world instead of talking chimps and non-existent missing links?

>
>> >> > Nonhumans share these characteristics
>> >> > with us to varying degrees.
>> >>
>> >> No they don't.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ridiculous and in blatant contradiction of the evolutionary facts.

>>
>> Evolution is irrelevant, we evolved from plenaria, should they be granted
>> human rights?
>>

>
> Straw man.


No it's not.

> You claimed that nonhumans do not share our cognitive
> characteristics with us in the slightest degree.


There's a strawman.

> That is totally
> untenable.


Except I didn't say it.

> And you contradicted it when you agreed that nonhuman great
> apes should be granted basic rights.


Even if I had said it, saying that great apes should granted rights would
not have contradicted it.


>> >You
>> > agree below that some nonhumans do have enough of the characteristics
>> > to have some basic moral rights, so you contradict yourself.

>>
>> I'm not contradicting myself, you are not grasping my position.
>>

>
> So, you maintain they should have the rights despite the fact that they
> don't have the characteristics in the slightest degree?


There's that strawman again, why are you introducing phrases like "the
slightest degree" to characterise my position?

> Why should they
> have the rights, then?


Because they are highly intelligent mammals, closely related to humans, and
are threatened.

>> > Your
>> > position is totally untenable anyway.

>>
>> ROTFL! That is hilarious coming from you. AR is completely untenable in
>> the
>> real world, the only place that it can exist is in the misanthropic human
>> imagination.
>>

>
> There is nothing misanthropic or untenable about it.


Yes on both counts. It's a rhetorical club used to attack "normal" people
who you feel rejected by, and it is completely irrational, evidenced by the
fact that it never takes actual form, it remains as catchy buzz-phrases.

>> >> > 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.

>>
>> I have seen this gorilla "Jojo"

>
> Koko.


Right, sorry.

>> on several documentaries, one in particular
>> took a skeptical approach and it was evident that the handlers saw what
>> they
>> wanted to see on many occasions. In any case I am not disputing the
>> intelligence of apes, or even of dogs and cats.
>>

>
> I thought no nonhuman shared our cognitive characteristics in the
> slightest degree.


You thought wrong, many cognitive characteristics are common to all animals,
a certain set are unique to humans.

> So how do we go about deciding which species have
> moral status, then?


Using a set of clear and reasonable criteria.

>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > Nonhumans do have similar capabilities to SOME humans.
>> >>
>> >> You're still approaching the question backwards.
>> >>
>> >
>> > What's that supposed to mean?

>>
>> It means that the test of inherent capabilities does not hinge on a few
>> impaired individuals. Humans have the inherent capability of speech,
>> "humans
>> can talk" is a true statement, even though a few people are born
>> deaf-mute.
>>

>
> Yes, well you're assuming that an individual's moral status should be
> judged on the basis of what's typical for his or her species, I want
> you to defend that, and address my thought-experiment.


I have done so.

>
>> > Do you have any argument with what I say
>> > below? If not, you'll have to come to terms with the consequences.

>>
>> You say a number of things below, but I am confident that I have an
>> argument
>> with it. The person here having difficulty coming to terms with the
>> consequences of his position is you.
>> >
>> >> > 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.

>>
>> "Exploit" is a charged word, My employer exploits my talents, as do my
>> personal computer clients. I exploit the great variety of entertainment
>> options in my area. Maybe you could come up with something less
>> prejudicial
>> and more descriptive. Do you mean to "treat unfairly"? I say that to say
>> we
>> treat animals unfairly when we use them for food flies in the face of the
>> very nature of life. You may as well call a rainstorm unjust.
>>

>
> How about "inflict serious harm in order to serve your own purposes"?


That's clearer, now show why we should not do so, and how. Every other
living organism does it. It is almost a definitive description of the
biosphere in which we live.

>> > The analogy with
>> > partiality based on family relationships doesn't justify the status
>> > quo.

>>
>> I wasn't trying to "justify" it, I was attempting to create a context
>> that
>> would allow you to understand how I view it.
>>
>> >> >> 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."

>>
>> Assuming that NO member of that species has EVER demonstrated
>> significantly
>> greater capabilities, like mosquitoes.
>>

>
> Then each individual should be granted the moral status appropriate for
> his or her characteristics.


It's impossible and unecessary, since no non-human has ever, or can ever
exhibit the extrordinary capabilities of a human.

>> > That's a statement standing in need of an argument.

>>
>> Since as I have shown, it is precisely how we all think, YOU need to
>> present
>> a counter-argument.
>>

>
> No, it's not how we all think.


Yes it is. As I said in a previous post, the person who dismisses mosquitoes
as less than important is using the same kind of "speciesist" rationale as
the person who dismisses chickens, except they have a different threshold.

> Most people haven't thought about it to
> that extent.


They don't have to consciously think about it, their beliefs and actions are
evidence.

> Moral philosophers have tried to come up with a way of
> defending our intuitions about how we should treat other species
> against the argument from marginal cases, and this is the best we have
> come up with so far.


The argument from marginal cases is phony, I already explained why.

> It's a principle that's being invoked to justify a
> set of intuitions. But when it comes to our intuitions about
> principles, many people find it more plausible that individuals should
> be judged on their own characteristics rather than what's typical for
> their species. The fact that the latter approach yields results more in
> harmony with our intuitions about particular cases is not enough. The
> principle needs more defence. We need to have it explained why that
> should be so. A moral theory needs to do more than just yield the
> correct results, it needs to have explanatory power.


A moral theory needs to exist within a real framework, a context, not just
rely on intuitive-sounding buzz-phrases. You create pjorative sounding words
like "speciesist" and extrapolate social principles which we hold dear then
announce that we must automatically apply them to animals, you are setting
yourself up as requiring to support such actions.

> Furthermore I have presented a counter-argument, which you have not
> addressed.


I didn't notice.
>
>
>> > It
>> > also has some counter-intuitive consequences, as discussed below.

>>
>> Probably based on a misunderstanding on your part..
>>

>
> Argue the point.


What point?

>> >> >> 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 humanness.
>> >> >
>> >> > 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.

>>
>> Idiot savant
>>

>
> That's not what I mean by "radically cognitively impaired human".


It's an invalid and ad hoc argument. Humans are defined by what humans are,
not by what they are after a car crash.

>> > So what?

>>
>> So everything Rupert. The existence of a few people with no legs does not
>> change the essential physical nature of the human race. But no snake can
>> stand up and walk.
>>

>
> But the principle that an individual should be judged on the basis of
> what's typical for his or her species needs defending.


That's a strawman, the wording is yours and reveals a misunderstanding of
rights.

I've also
> presented a counter-argument which you haven't addressed.


I don't know what youre talking about.


>> >> 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?

>>
>> Because it's impossible and implausible to look at it that way. Show me
>> an
>> example of ONE individual of any of the species we "exploit" or kill in
>> agriculture that has ever demonstrated a cognitive functioning set
>> approaching that of a human?

>
> They do have cognitive functions similar to some humans whom we think
> should have some moral status. We have to revise either our beliefs
> about the livestock or about the humans.


Wrong, we have to do neither, the rights the humans enjoy they enjoy
*despite* their impairment.

>> Are you going to administer an intelligence
>> test every time you decide to swat a mosquito, or are you going to treat
>> mosquitoes as a species?

>
> I will treat each individual mosquito on the basis of what I reasonably
> believe about his or her mental characteristics.


How do know what that is? Species.

>> Are we going to grant rights to cockroaches because
>> there are humans in comas with no cognitive functions?

>
> If a human has permanently lost all capacity for consciousness, then
> the only things relevant are his or her past wishes and the wishes of
> those close to him or her.


Yes, but that wasn't my question. The existence a brain damaged person who's
humanity we respect despite his handicap has nothing to do with cockroaches.


>> Talk about an
>> untenable position.
>>
>>
>> >> > 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.

>>
>> The "thought experiment" did not present a real challenge, therefore does
>> not require a real solution. If ONE chimp ever demonstrated human
>> abilities
>> in my opinion all chimps should immediately be elevated in moral status,

>
> Thank you. I finally got a response.
>
> So now it's no longer that an individual should be judged on the basis
> of what's typical for his or her species, but he or she should be
> judged on the basis of the most cognitively sophisticated member of his
> or her species.


Species can be defined by the most cognitively sophisticated member of that
species.

>*Why?*


For lack of a better way.

> The species boundaries that exist today are just
> an arbitrary product of evolutionary history. If all the evolutionary
> intermediaries existed there would be no sharply defined species
> boundaries.


That's a different world than the one we live in.

> You can't just say "This position is what everyone thinks".


I didn't say that, stop putting quotes on sentences you make up.

> It's a position you tailor-made to produce results in harmony with your
> beliefs about other species


Your position is tailor-made to remain in harmony with your beliefs about
other species.

> and so as to give an acceptable answer to
> my thought-experiment.


I'm glad you found it acceptable, so did I.

> It's hardly an intuitively obvious moral
> principle.


It is to me, but I perceive moral principles as existing within the context
of the actual world, you see them as existing in arcane philosophy books.

> You need to justify it.


I have done.

>> but
>> that's irrelevant for a number of reasons. 1. I already think chimps
>> ought
>> to enjoy elevated moral status, 2. If given human status, many chimps
>> would
>> immediately qualify as murderers, since in an AR world, that's what most
>> chimps are, they kill young, assault and kill members of other troupes
>> and
>> hunt baby monkeys for food, and lastly, 3. No chimp will ever demonstrate
>> such abilities, so the point is meaningless anyway. The real world does
>> not
>> have to react to hypothetical conundrums that have no chance of
>> occurring.


There's the answer to your hypothetical scenario.

>> >> But the question is unnecessary, 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.

>>
>> No, there don't, period.
>>
>> > Treating cases differently when a morally relevant
>> > difference is not apparent requires justification.

>>
>> Those are just words that have you all tied up in knots. We ALL treat
>> animal
>> species and humans differently in various ways,

>
> Because there are relevant differences.


Animals all have a drive to survive, thrive and participate in their species
communities, regardless of whether or not we call them "sentient".

> But we should treat nonhumans
> in the same way we would treat relevantly similar humans.


There's that buzz-phrase again. That really hooked you didn't it?

>> according to a whole variety
>> of largely subjective criteria. There is no other rational way to address
>> the real world.
>>
>> >
>> >> 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
>> >> > permanently 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.

>>
>> You are. We already treat them differently, you claim that is wrong
>> because
>> it is "speciesist", that implies you think they should not be judged
>> based
>> on species.
>>

>
> I claim a moral theory which implies it is morally permissible to
> inflict a certain harm on a nonhuman for a certain purpose, but not on
> a relevantly similar human for the same purpose, cannot be acceptable.


"Relevantly similar" is meaningless.

>> > What is being advocated is equal
>> > consideration. Some people advocate equal consideration and practice
>> > what they preach.

>>
>> High-sounding words that mean nothing. Instead of mouthing vague
>> catch-phrases propose something specific and consistent.

>
> "Equal consideration" does mean something.


Then define it without using more buzz-phrases.

> It doesn't resolve every
> question that can be raised about animal ethics.


No, it creates imaginary ones.

> I'm not going to set
> forth for you a complete theory that resolves every difficult question
> that can be asked.


I know you're not.

>You know what changes the animal movement wants


I sure do, and they're irrational.

> If
> you want to argue against them, either argue that they are not required
> by equal consideration,


Define it without more buzz-phrases.

or come up with a decent argument against equal
> consideration.


That would be like trapping a wisp of smoke. "Equal consideration" can't be
argued against, it's an undefined feelgood buzz-phrase.


  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
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.
>> >> >> =====================
>> >> >> 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.

>>
>> Your reasoning is completely backwards. We have an inherent right and
>> capability as animals to exploit our environments in order to succeed as
>> all
>> organisms do. These rights and freedoms are curtailed in specific and
>> limited ways by an evolved social network that protects us and other
>> indivduals within that network.

>
> On what basis do we decide which individuals are in the network?


You know what the bases are.

>> Every "right" we introduce into this system
>> is actually a further limitation on our freedom, so we do so with
>> caution.

>
> Whose freedom are we interested in protecting, and why?


We are protecting those we wish to protect, because we want to protect them.

>> There is nothing in the paragraph above that tells me that you remotely
>> understand this process.
>>

>
> Cases that are similar in morally relevant ways should be treated
> similarly. That goes back to Aristotle. I don't think you've made a
> decent case against it.


You haven't expressed that idea in a coherent way, it's just talk.

>> >> > 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?

>>
>> The species an animal belongs to is an accurate descriptor of the upper
>> limit of it's cognitive abilities and characteristics.
>>

>
> No, it's not.


Of course it is. There is absolutely no doubt about the cognitive abilities
of a specific animal within a narrow range once you know for example that it
is a chicken, a frog, or a mosquito.

> It just has the cognitive abilities that it has.


And you know what they are within a narrow range by it's species.

> Whether
> or not there might be an animal wandering around somewhere who can
> interbreed with it who's a bit smarter is irrelevant. That's a
> characteristic of the ecosystem to which the animal belongs, not the
> animal itself.


We are all components of an ecosystem with specific characteristics defined
by our species.

>> >> 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.

>>
>> "everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with defending
>> speciesism".
>>

>
> Uh-huh.


Cohen doesn't agree, and I guarantee he's not the only one.

>> > Some people think they can do it, such
>> > as Carl Cohen.

>>
>> Then he does not agree that there is a serious problem,

>
> False.


True

>> therefore you were
>> lying when you said everyone agrees that there is a serious problem with
>> defending speciesism.
>>

>
> No, I am not.


Where does Cohen say that there is a serious problem defending speciesism?

>> >If you doubt my word, read the philosophical literature
>> > and form your own conclusions.

>>
>> Why would I NOT doubt your word after that?
>>
>> >> You don't speak for "everyone" in the <ahem> philosophical
>> >> community,
>> >
>> > Your disparagement of the philosophical community is out of place.

>>
>> I wasn't disparging the philosophical community, I was disparging your
>> appeal to authority.

>
> There's no appeal to authority since it was not meant to have any
> argumentative force. The point of the exercise was to make fun of Rick
> when he said that anyone who couldn't see the truth of his position was
> "ignorant and stupid". His argument is very weak, and I don't think he
> can plausibly claim the entire philosophical community is more
> "ignorant and stupid" than him.
>
>> You have already demonstrated that you are incapable of
>> honestly portraying the opinion of the philosophical community.
>>

>
> False.
>
>> > 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.

>>
>> In your highly biased opinion.
>>

>
> My opinion is not biased.


Oh come off it!

> I am good at assessing the strength of an
> argument.


No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them back
to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my aguments.

> If I came across a good defence of speciesism I would
> acknowledge it.


How do you know that you are capable of judging a good defense? I would
recognize a rational critique of it if I saw it, I have not heard one yet.

> For example, I acknowledge that Neil Levy's elaboration
> of the argument is an improvement.
>
>> > He doesn't address the
>> > argument from marginal cases.

>>
>> That is not a valid argument as I have demonstrated.

>
> Whether or not *you* have come up with a good response to it, Cohen
> still has to address it. Your response is essentially the same as
> Levy's "natural kinds" argument, except that you have modified it in
> response to my thought-experiment. The underlying principle is one that
> needs defending.


The underlying principle that we all use when viewing animals is essentially
the same. The difference is that ARAs have this poorly contructed slant on
it that they insist is morally more evolved but they have yet to clearly
formulate why others views are wrong, and they fail to recognize how theirs
are essentially the same.

>> Again, the AR community
>> turns reality on it's ear then demands that everyone else prove them
>> wrong.
>>
>> > 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).

>>
>> An argument which I shattered, not that you could have noticed..
>>

>
> You modified your underlying principle in response to it. The question
> is why anyone should think that this principle has the least
> plausibility.


What do you think my response was?

>> >> "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.

>>
>> Yes
>> >
>> >> 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.

>>
>> How the hell do you know? By what definition?
>>

>
> Sentience is the capacity for conscious experience. An animal without a
> nervous system can reasonably be assumed to be insentient.


By human standards, but just applying that standard to non-human animals is
speciesist.

>> > That is not speciesist.

>>
>> Where is "sentience" whatever you mean by that, implied in the word
>> "species"? If I dismiss an entire species because I define them all as
>> not
>> sentient, how am I not being speciesist?
>>

>
> If you observe that all members of a certain species have
> characteristics such that you can reasonably presume them not to be
> sentient, and treat them accordingly, you are treating individuals on
> the basis of their individual characteristics, not what is typical for
> their species or on the basis of the best representative of their
> species. You are not being speciesist if you do that.


You can never observe "all members" of a species, you can only observe a
relatively very small number of them, then extrapolate that onservation to
the whole species. Species offers a simple and accurate means to determine
the characteristics of the members of that species. That is what you call
speciesism, and it's a rational approach to animals that we all use.

>> >> too
>> >> ubiquitous to avoid destroying,
>> >
>> > That is justified by limitations on the presumption against causing
>> > harm, which are necessary for human civilization to survive.

>>
>> Who says the human species must survive at the cost of harming others?

>
> You and I. When we find someone who disagrees, we can argue the point.


That's speciesist too.

>> How
>> are you defining "survival"? What happened to equal consideration, to
>> dealing on an individual basis?
>>

>
> It's still there. The limitations on the presumption against causing
> harm, if they take into account any characteristics of the affected
> beings at all, must only take into account their individual
> characteristics, not the characteristics that are typical for their
> species or displayed by the best representative of their species.


It's impractical (impossible actually) and unecessary. A series of
observations of a few indivduals over time gives an accurate picture of all
the indivduals of a species.

>> > These
>> > limitations must be formulated in non-speciesist ways.

>>
>> By holding intelligence tests on an indivdual-by-indivdual basis?
>>

>
> On the basis of what we reasonably know about the individuals.


By observing theespecies to which they belong.

>
>> >> too inconvenient to preserve, therefore it
>> >> is the default reality,
>> >
>> > No. These considerations are no argument against equal consideration.

>>
>> "Equal consideration" is a meaningless buzz-phrase.
>>

>
> No, it is not. You have read a detailed discussion of what it means.


I read a bunch of circular rhetoric that relied on more buzz-phrases.

>> >> 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.

>>
>> You have not indicated where you think the line should be drawn,
>> conveniently avoiding the need to defend it.
>>

>
> I have given just as many details about where the line should be drawn
> as you have about where you think it should be drawn.
>
>> > 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.

>>
>> We don't, ALL individuals of all species we kill in agriculture for
>> example
>> fall below a threshold of cognitive ability that most humans would find
>> unacceptable in animals we use for food or harm regularly.
>>

>
> Most humans would not be prepared to inflict similar harms on humans
> with similar characteristics.


There you go with the backwards reasoning again.

> If you want to revise that judgement,
> fine.


There's no need to revise it, there is no problem with it.

> If you want to keep the judgement *and* you want to keep the
> judgement about the animals harmed by agriculture, you're being
> speciesist


There's nothing wrong with being speciesist.

> and you have to come up with a good argument against equal
> consideration.


Why? It has no rational definition.

>> You display the typically arrogant approach of the ARA. You attack and
>> presume to sit in judgment, but when asked to give real alternatives you
>> hide behind vague, lofty sounding catch-phrases.

>
> I have explained my position in at least as much detail as you have
> explained yours.


Your position completely lacks details, it is comprised of misbegotten
ideals and poorly defined buzz-phrases. I have absolutely no idea how this
so-called moral evolution could possibly work.




  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Rupert" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:


>> > 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".

>
> It is on the basis of individual characteristics, rather than on the
> basis of what is typical for their species or the characteristics the
> best representative of their species has.


Have you ever examined an individual of any of the above animal species to
determine what it's *individual capacities* are? Of course not, there is no
possible means or ability to do it to one, much less all. The only way, and
it is a very accurate one, is to determine the species and attribute the
characteristics generally of that species to each individual.


  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
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:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> That may be, I thought it obvious, but ok I'll connect the dots. It's
> >> simple
> >> observation.
> >> 1. Aside from expected rare exceptions, all humans hold these
> >> characteristics, but more importantly..
> >> 2. Without exception, no non-humans hold or have ever held the
> >> characteristics, therefore one can conclude that if any animal does,
> >> humans
> >> alone possess the "essential ability to hold those characteristics".
> >>
> >> To address an expected objection... You will say that the existence of
> >> some
> >> humans without those characteristics negates the proposition of a set of
> >> essential human characteristics. Referring to physical abilities, one
> >> might
> >> state the rule that humans, as a species, possess the "essential ability"
> >> to
> >> walk upright on two legs. This is true despite exceptions to the rule,
> >> such
> >> as Spina Bifida sufferers. Just as mosquitoes and chickens have an
> >> "essential set of characteristics". so do humans.
> >>

> >
> > So you're saying an individual's moral status should be judged on the
> > basis of what's typical for his or her species.

>
> No, a species' moral status should be judged on the basis of the high-water
> mark of capabilities for indivduals of that species. It's implausible to to
> suggest that we should or could judge every single individual of every
> species.
>


Why?

> > I want you to explain
> > why this should be,

>
> Show me a better way, that would work, and no buzz-phrases.
>


"Equal consideration" is not a buzz-phrase. You have read a detailed
discussion of what it means and doesn't mean. A number of different
theories are consistent with equal consideration. I believe that if you
want to deny equal consideration, you have a burden of proof to meet,
which you haven't met. You haven't given me a reason to think your
position is rationally preferable to accepting equal consideration.

> > and to address the fact that it has
> > counter-intuitive consequences for a hypothetical thought-experiment
> > which I presented.

>
> Bloody hell you're dense, we can't base our actions on hypothetical
> thought-experiments. What if we discovered a talking plant?
>


Then we'd have to consider giving it some moral status. Hypothetical
thought-experiments are relevant in moral philosophy, there was nothing
objectionable about the use to which I put this one.

I'm not dense. I don't think I can be bothered talking to you if that's
going to be your level of courtesy.

  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,028
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"


"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [..]
>> >> > 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.
>> >>
>> >> That may be, I thought it obvious, but ok I'll connect the dots. It's
>> >> simple
>> >> observation.
>> >> 1. Aside from expected rare exceptions, all humans hold these
>> >> characteristics, but more importantly..
>> >> 2. Without exception, no non-humans hold or have ever held the
>> >> characteristics, therefore one can conclude that if any animal does,
>> >> humans
>> >> alone possess the "essential ability to hold those characteristics".
>> >>
>> >> To address an expected objection... You will say that the existence of
>> >> some
>> >> humans without those characteristics negates the proposition of a set
>> >> of
>> >> essential human characteristics. Referring to physical abilities, one
>> >> might
>> >> state the rule that humans, as a species, possess the "essential
>> >> ability"
>> >> to
>> >> walk upright on two legs. This is true despite exceptions to the rule,
>> >> such
>> >> as Spina Bifida sufferers. Just as mosquitoes and chickens have an
>> >> "essential set of characteristics". so do humans.
>> >>
>> >
>> > So you're saying an individual's moral status should be judged on the
>> > basis of what's typical for his or her species.

>>
>> No, a species' moral status should be judged on the basis of the
>> high-water
>> mark of capabilities for indivduals of that species. It's implausible to
>> suggest that we should or could judge every single individual of every
>> species.
>>

>
> Why?


First of all, it would be physically impossible, second, it would be
pointless, history tells us that no matter how many chickens we interview,
the outcome will be exactly the same.

>> > I want you to explain
>> > why this should be,

>>
>> Show me a better way, that would work, and no buzz-phrases.
>>

>
> "Equal consideration" is not a buzz-phrase. You have read a detailed
> discussion of what it means and doesn't mean.


That detailed discussion ended with an admission that even he, the person
who coined the phrase, really had no idea what it means. In other words it's
a phrase that has a nice ring to it but has no solid meaning.

> A number of different
> theories are consistent with equal consideration. I believe that if you
> want to deny equal consideration, you have a burden of proof to meet,
> which you haven't met. You haven't given me a reason to think your
> position is rationally preferable to accepting equal consideration.


I have no burden of proof to refute vague concepts that other people dream
up. The burden is on people who advocate them to flesh them out and support
them.

>> > and to address the fact that it has
>> > counter-intuitive consequences for a hypothetical thought-experiment
>> > which I presented.

>>
>> Bloody hell you're dense, we can't base our actions on hypothetical
>> thought-experiments. What if we discovered a talking plant?
>>

>
> Then we'd have to consider giving it some moral status.


Right, but until then we don't really need to give it much thought, I mean
what are the chances?

> Hypothetical
> thought-experiments are relevant in moral philosophy, there was nothing
> objectionable about the use to which I put this one.


If you mean the talking chimp, it has roughly the same value as the talking
plant. If the world were a different place than it is then we might think
and act differently, I agree.

> I'm not dense. I don't think I can be bothered talking to you if that's
> going to be your level of courtesy.


Don't be so thin-skinned, we can all be dense at given times, and can also
lose patience.



  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On 14 Sep 2006 17:13:11 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:

>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 10 Sep 2006 18:48:29 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 9 Sep 2006 17:58:37 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On 6 Sep 2006 17:21:31 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 5 Sep 2006 15:49:49 -0700, "Rupert" > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >dh@. 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?

>>
>> So far it appears there would be nothing wrong with it, so now
>> it's up to you to explain what would be.
>>

>
>Well, if that's your position, fine, as long as you're upfront about
>what you're committed to.


Nothing yet. You need to explain what would be wrong with it, but
so far there doesn't appear to be anything.

>Most people would find that contention
>absolutely appalling. They would believe that it would be wrong because
>the rights of the slaves were violated.


You have yet to explain how. Just do 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.
>> >>
>> >> 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?

>>
>> Is it safe to conclude you have no idea about that?
>>

>
>I really don't understand what the relevance of this is supposed to be.
>Obviously, life 20 thousand years ago would be pretty hard. So what?


So even though human life is something that most of us would not want
to experience for most of human existence, humans still went on through
it and didn't all kill themselves off, or refuse to bring children into it. It was
worse than many slave situations were, but still people apparently wanted
to live anyway because that's all they knew. Things like that *should* be
taken into consideration when we consider the "big picture", since they are
all part of it.

>> >> >> >> 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?

>>
>> LOL! So they could keep eating rice, like they do, and like they
>> contribute to most things everyone else does that cause death to
>> animals. Don't forget that the only deaths vegans avoid, are those
>> to animals who would have no life at all were it not for their consumers.
>> Any animals who are simply killed but not deliberately provided with
>> life are okay with vegans, which is one reason I can't respect them.
>>

>
>What makes you think vegans would not be prepared to sacrifice eating
>rice if they genuinely thought it significantly contributed to
>unnecessary harm?


If they wanted to eat rice--which apparently they do--they would
lie about the cds involved with it--which apparently they do.

>They've already shown willingness to modify their
>diet to a fair extent in order to avoid unnecessary harm,


They contribute to all the wildlife deaths that most people contribute
to by their use of roads and buildings, wood and paper products,
electricity, their own diets, products which have been mined, etc.
All that vegans try to avoid, are products which deliberately provide
life for some of the animals who are killed in their production.

.. . .
>> How would telling people about frogs etc getting killed in
>> rice production, make someone who is proud of going to a different
>> country just to kill wildlife feel any better about eating meat?

>
>He wants to discredit the ethical vegetarian position,


No, that wouldn't do it. There's no reason it would have any influence
on how he feels about eating meat.

>just as Pearl
>wants to defend it. There is no reason to think Pearl would have any
>more motive to be dishonest in order to defend it than Diderot would in
>order to discredit it.


Yes there is. "pearl" obviously wants to maintain the idea that there's
nothing wrong with eating rice regardless of how many animals are killed
in its production. diderot obviously wants people to be aware of the
deaths involved with it because he feels they are significant. Duh!!!
.. . .
>> How many do YOU want people to believe
>> are killed, and why should we believe YOU over diderot? Get "pearl"
>> to help you, since you both feel you know better than diderot between
>> the two of you you SHOULD be able to set everybody straight on it.


I really wish you "aras" would work out what you want everyone to think,
and let us know what it is.

.. . .
>> We raised our own cattle never feeding them grain. They only ate
>> grass. We got many meals from the death of one animal. If we had
>> raised soy and made our own tofu instead, it would have resulted in
>> many more animal deaths per serving of food, even though fewer
>> animals would have been able to live in the area than when it was
>> pasture.
>>

>
>If you say so. What about the forage? Have you worked out the CDs that
>arose from that?


Like what? How many flies they happened to kill with their tails?

>> >If you
>> >succeeded, the vegans would be rationally required to concede that the
>> >consumption of those animal products was permissible as well.

>>
>> They never would because they're too dishonest. Rick Etter almost
>> certainly contributes to fewer wildlife deaths than the average veg*n,
>> but we NEVER see veg*ns even acknowledge that because of the
>> dishonest nature of such people.
>>

>
>Well, I wouldn't know, I don't know what Rick Etter eats. I would
>imagine the reason we don't see vegans acknowledge it is because it
>hasn't been established. It may be the case.


I believe it is the case, and that vegans will never even acknowledge
it much less show him the appreciation he deserves. Vegans just aren't
that way.

>> >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.

>>
>> Goo hates it. Dutchy hates it. And so does every other "ara" I've
>> discussed it with.
>>

>
>Not me. I doubt Leif or Dutch hate it either. It's just not a very good
>argument.


It's an aspect of human influence on animals. It's quite obviously an
aspect that you "aras" hate, or you wouldn't be OPPOSED to seeing
it taken into consideration. DUH!!!!

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

>>
>> LOL!!! Like what?

>
>There may be some merit in bringing an animal into existence that has a
>good life. That does not entitle you to inflict painful mutilations on
>the animal without anaesthetic,


I am in favor of apply anaesthetic before performing otherwise
very painful acts on animals.

>or to kill it prematurely.


Animals raised to be killed are not killed prematurely when the
length of their life was decided in advance, and they are raised
for the predetermined period of time. They are not cheated out
of what would have been a longer life if they hadn't been raised
for food, but instead experience whatever life they do only
because they are.
In contrast to that, the wildlife who die so we can eat crops,
use wood and paper, live and work in buidlings etc ARE killed
prematurely since the length of their lives was not predetermined
before their birth, and they would live longer lives if humans didn't
happen to kill them when we take their homes and food.

>> Other than the lies some people pretend
>> are "reasons", I can really only recall three "reasons" given
>> why we should not consider the animals' lives as well as their
>> deaths, all three suck, and they were all presented by Dutchy.
>> They a
>>
>> 1. he and other "aras" say we should not.
>> 2. he says we should think of raising animals for food and
>> child prostition in the same way.
>> 3. he says we lose imaginary moral browny points if we do so.
>>
>> As I said those reasons suck, but so far they are the "best"
>> you people have been able to come up with. If you think you
>> can think of better ones, I'd like to see them.


So far the list remains in the same pitiful and worthless condition
it has been in for years and years.
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default "collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:08:01 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> I am good at assessing the strength of an
>> argument.

>
>No you aren't, you don't even listen to my arguments, you repeat them back
>to me in terms that reveal your bias, discarding the essence of my aguments.


Have you "explained" to him why you believe we should think of child
prostitution and raising animals for food in the same way yet?
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 03:45 AM
Rick Etter's denial of the collateral deaths accrued during the production of grass fed beef Ipse dixit Vegan 6 15-11-2003 01:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"