"collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]"
4UR...@thanks2diderot.com
From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
>faq: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
>posting frequency: monthly to a.a.e.v., t.p.a., r.f.v. and other
>newsgroups as requested. corrections or additions are solicited
><tam...@wcnet.net>.
>
>a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
>believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
>cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
>
>simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
>applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.
>
>the facts are that modern, large-scale cereal grain production comes at
>a minimum cost of _several deaths per pound_, whereas grass-fed meat
>production, whether from production agriculture or hunting is counted
>_several pounds per death_. it is absolutely inescapable that: from
>death comes life, and agriculture: is, always has been, and always will
>be a bloody, bloody business. anybody who believes that by eating a
>pound of pasta instead of a pound of venison they are 'saving a life' is
>delusional.
>
>evaluating organic production is instructive for several reasons: many
>well-meaning, good-at-heart people believe organic = 'better, healthier'
>(it is not, necessarily), and the number of included collateral deaths -
>while considerably fewer than in 'conventional' production - are much
>more visible; more personal; more illustrative for those who favour
>responsibility and information.
>
>this analysis of collateral included deaths is a refinement and
>extension of an earlier abbreviated case study posted to a.a.e.v. in
>october 1998. additional information and analysis based on further
>interviews and observations is included in this iteration.
>
>---------
>
>although i no longer straddle a tractor or herd a combine, i have driven
>both - literally - thousands of miles. i am still engaged in
>agribusiness, and we have organic as well as conventional farms, organic
>'truck farms' and ranching operations. in production agriculture, i am
>most familiar with: rice, grain sorgham, cotton, sunflowers and
>soybeans. the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
>on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
>rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas, are probably
>more-or-less applicable to other cereal grains grown in other localés.
>
>production on the organic farms is about 3500-4000 pounds/acre for the
>jasmine farm (900 ac) and the shortgrain farm (160 ac), while on the
>'conventional' longrain farm, it is 9000-11000 pounds, annualised. our
>organic operations produce seed rice and none of it goes (directly) from
>our farm to your table (although it does indirectly and we thank you for
>your partonage). because of economics and ability to produce, we will
>be adding an additional 1500-2000 acres of organic rice production
>within the next three years. although organic is considerably more of a
>pain-in-the-ass to grow, the r.o.i. is better than twice that of
>conventional rice.
>
>a very conservative annualised estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic
>rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows). this works out a bit
>less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is *quite*
>conservative. for conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is
>*at least* several times that figure. collateral included deaths from
>'conventional' agriculture are more inferential than from 'organic'
>production (explained later) and, although the number of deaths is fewer
>in organic v. conventional, they are far more visible in organic
>production.
>
>the vertebrate deaths come from: frogs (5+ species), toads (common
>bufo), anole lizards, shrews (3 species), voles, mice, rats, snakes, a
>couple of kinds of turtles, cats, rabbits, skunk, nutria & muskrats,
>raccoons, possums, deer (never less than a pair of fawns harvested per
>50 acres), pheasants, quail, pigeons, cattle egrets, sparrows,
>starlings, waxwings, .... although all of these are not harvested
>*every* time, they are the 'regulars.' occasionally a canvasback, teal,
>heron, mallard, black duck, coot, spoonbill, crow, hawk, kite, eagle,
>buzzard ... is shredded, as is the occasional feral pig or lost calf,
>coyote or dog.
>
>for information, an acre has 43,264+ square feet. the vast majority of
>the deaths are (as one would imagine): frogs, toads and anole lizards;
>rodents and insectivores.
>
>- when cutting the rice, there is a - literal - green waterfall of frogs
>and anoles moving in front of the combine. sometimes the 'rain' is just
>a hard shower (± 10,000 frogs per acre) crossing the header, other times
>it is a deluge (+50,000 acre). never is it a drought; never a mist.
>sometimes, the number of frogs swimming across the cutter-bar is so
>massive, we have to reduce travel speed of the combine - there is just
>too much rice lost by being pressed into the rather thickish 'arroz con
>gracielà paté' which travels across the screens, rather than falling
>into the hopper as good grain should.
>
>these numbers may sound extreme to those who believe there is a wildlife
>de-population crisis, but considering one can easily see 10-20-30+ frogs
>(and several anoles) within the top few inches of a foot stand of rice,
>the numbers making gracielà paté are trivial.
>
>most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
>across the header, it is somewhere between 10K & 50+K per acre
>harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
>number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
>all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings. in
>spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
>escape than are combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
>deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
>far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not
>killed.
>
>most amphibians are harvested during the first cutting in mid-summer.
>during the early fall second cutting, the population is not as great, so
>the body count is lower during the second bite at the apple (so to
>speak), so the 35,000 (conservative annualised average) is front-loaded,
>probably 25,000 + 10,000 deaths.
>
>- rodents and insectivores get hammered pretty much year-round, with all
>the dirt work, cultivation and harvesting activities and, for rice
>specifically, the near-continuious cycle of flooding and drying the
>fields. i have seen responsible estimates of rodent/insectivore
>population of 9-35 square meter, and i think the 35/meter is probably
>more accurate (in this area, anyhow) judging from the 500 yard-long,
>foot-wide windrows of drowned grey and brown on the lee-side levee
>whenever the rice is flooded. very conservatively - since nobody sees
>plowed-up or planed-in mice (whose deaths have to be substantial in
>number) assume 3/4th of one collateral included death per square foot,
>or ±33,000 rodents and insectivores killed per acre of production.
>again, this is a *very* conservative measure and covers a lot of
>activity year-round. the *real* number of rodent/insectivore deaths
>probably well exceeds two/square foot.
>
>- a lot of birds get combined-up, and nutria, and more than one or two
>deer, but another substantial source of death during all operations is
>being crushed & buried. the tires on tractors and combines are 42"
>wide, and there are two on each side. there is no way to tell how many
>frogs, toads, snakes, turtles, ... get blended into the mud, but it is
>not an insignificant number. other than amphibians and
>rodents/insectivores, the numbers of other deaths is difficult to assign
>a competent number, but the number is not small.
>
>the arithmetic: for 3,500 pounds/acre harvested, there is a toll of
>35,000 amphibians and 33,000 rodents and insectivores, or 68,000, plus,
>say, (to make the math easy while still being conservative) 2,000 from
>mud-mixed frogs and snakes + birds + nutria and muskrats and cats and
>coons and possums + ... + ..., or ± 70,000 deaths per acre of harvested,
>production-farmed organic rice. this works out to ~20 deaths per pound
>of rice - conservatively.
>
>---------
>
>for conventional farming, using every _________icide when needed, the
>body count is at least an order of magnitude higher, although the deaths
>are far less visible.
>
>one can stand between the larger organic field and the 1340 any time
>between april and june and hear the difference. in the organic field,
>you cannot discern an individual frog. it is an overgrown, jumbled
>layered cacaphony of croaks, cheeps, grunts and miscellaneous ribbets.
>on the 1340, one can hear and identify individual frogs and toads. the
>difference is that the billions of amphibian eggs that were laid when
>the 1340 was flooded at the same time and in the same fashion as the 900
>didn't make many tadpoles and fewer frogs due to applications of
>pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides.
>
>closer to harvest, after the application of other _________icides, the
>1340 is nearly mute and still.
>
>the rodents and insectivores go the same route. at the end of a row, in
>the 1340, rarely does one see any significant number of small fuzzies
>scurrying over the levee; in the organic fields, the end of the row
>looks like a scene from ~ben~.
>
>one can tell the difference after harvest, also. on the organic field,
>as the combine passes, the wall of birdlife: hawks of several varieties,
>crows, kites, buzzards, egrets, herons, ... descends to glean both
>escapees and paté. on the 1340, there are still quite a number of
>birds, but nowhere near the solid covering of the organic side.
>
>---------
>
>none of these figures include displacement or deaths due to
>transportation or infrastructure, nor any pest control measure during
>storage or transporation.
>
>nor are insect deaths counted, and insects are animals, too, but most
>involved-in-body-count vegetarians prefer to ignore or minimise deaths
>of other than cute or furry critters.
>
>are there ways to reduce collateral included deaths in modern production
>agriculture? not really. reductions can be made with more hand-work in
>smaller fields using 'appropriate technology', but when tractors and
>combines get involved, deaths go up. the overall animal population and
>mix in the area farmed has a lot to do with what kind of deaths are
>seen, too. this case study references a semi-tropical mixed-use area
>with short-grass prarie, woods, row-crop farming and rice cultivation.
>there are more large vertebrates of different species in this ecosystem
>than there will be in an area that is horizon-to-horizon monoculture.
>where we will regularly harvest deer, nutria and wild pigs, etc., all of
>these would not normally be expected in northern california, for
>example.
>
>from death comes life. agriculture: is now, always has been and always
>will be a bloody business.
>
>buon apetité.
>
>cordially,
>diderot
Whining, Crying, Bawl
4URi...@thanks2diderot.com wrote:
> ____________________________________________________________
> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
> Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
>
> >faq: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
> >posting frequency: monthly to a.a.e.v., t.p.a., r.f.v. and other
> >newsgroups as requested. corrections or additions are solicited
> ><tam...@wcnet.net>.
> >
> >a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
> >believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
> >cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
> >
> >simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
> >applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.
LOL!!!
Where's the photographic evidence?
Scented Nectar
And why is my rice never covered in blood and fur?
The cd counting war goes on.....:)
Scented Nectar
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
dh
>
>4URi...@thanks2diderot.com wrote:
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
. . .
>> >a.a.e.v. and t.p.a. are regularly visited by a number of vegetarians who
>> >believe(?) their dietary choice: 'saves animals' or is, somehow, 'less
>> >cruel' than an omnivorous diet.
>> >
>> >simply, this assertion does not pass even the most cursory, minimally
>> >applied logic, not to mention any degree of even the simplest research.
>
>
>
>LOL!!!
>
>Where's the photographic evidence?
To me there's nothing really funny about it, but we see that
the environment goes through this:
http://tinyurl.com/hpq43
http://tinyurl.com/j8v5c
http://tinyurl.com/gplhs
http://tinyurl.com/jom73
http://tinyurl.com/zkw32
http://tinyurl.com/j7lsx
and through this:
http://tinyurl.com/gt56j
http://tinyurl.com/fyh73
and later through this:
http://tinyurl.com/klkfv
http://tinyurl.com/czo32
http://tinyurl.com/fbfcm
and eventually to this:
http://tinyurl.com/epdad
http://tinyurl.com/zupzg
http://tinyurl.com/j5ckj
Even though we don't see photos dedicated to animals
being killed, anyone who knows anything at all about
animals can easily understand how the machinery,
spraying and complete changes of environment kill them.
If any person can't, that necessarily means they have no
understanding at all about how the processes influence
animals, probably because they're afraid to think about
it for some personal reason(s). It undoubtedly shows that
they have no understanding or interest in how humans
influence animals during rice production.
brother
> ____________________________________________________________
> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
> Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
>
This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.
brother
Sikes not Sykes.
dh
>4UR...@thanks2diderot.com wrote:
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
>> Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
>>
>
>This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
pearl
"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
are not the high speed machines described in this article.
At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
eagles resting in our fields.
We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
suggests.
--> Kent Lundberg.
Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
Florida
good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production.
I hope you're making some digicam photos or videos of the birds
you're growing along with all the rice.
pearl
received from Kent Lundberg in response to a query re: collateral
deaths in rice production. You'll find an email address at their site.
"Florida" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1156857103....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
dh
> Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
>good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
>commercial rice production.
It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie, but it's a lie
none the less. There are plenty of cds associated with rice
production, and it's contemptible though common "ar" behavior
to try to present the false impression that there are not. But they
attempt to do it because they only care about promoting veganism
and not about human influence on animals...disgusting but true.
That's why pearl didn't correct you and acknowledge that there
are lots of cds involved in rice production...again disgusting but
unarguably true.
The environment goes through this:
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:vhu6f2p265b6tdame...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother <s...@you.move.com> wrote:
>>
>> >4UR...@thanks2diderot.com wrote:
>> >> ____________________________________________________________
>> >> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
>> >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>> >> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>> >> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
>> >> Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
>> >>
>> >
>> >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>>
>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>
>"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
>thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
>harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
>elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
>writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
>
>The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
>proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
>farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
>are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
>left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
>sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
Those who can't survive the dried environment would already
be dead, 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. If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
deaths caused by rice production. There's no doubt that your
source--and especially YOU yourself--are trying to create the false
impression that thousands of animals are not being killed when
they really are. "ara" dishonesty is undoubtedly the more disgusting
and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish...diderot encourages
people to consider human influence on animals involved in rice
production, while YOU encourage people NOT TO!
brother
It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
met at a bar.
He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
could be referring to the population of Texas.
Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
square FOOT of rice?
It's a joke that you and other fools have fallen for.
There are animal deaths in rice production, but there is no mystical
"green waterfall".
.
>
>
chico chupacabra
> <dh@.> wrote in message
> news:vhu6f2p265b6tdame...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother <s...@you.move.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >4UR...@thanks2diderot.com wrote:
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
> > >> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production
> > >[faq] > NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
> > >> Newsgroups:
> > >alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg >
> > >Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net> >
> > >
> > >This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
> >
> > It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>
> "There is an "article" circulating
Why don't you go watch a harvest yourself, you gullible little sap? Or
is your horse-MARKETING keeping you too busy these days?
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:13:25 +0100, brother <s...@you.move.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 4UR...@thanks2diderot.com wrote:
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> From: diderot <tam...@wcnet.net>
>>>> Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
>>>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 09:21:44 EDT
>>>> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,rec.food.veg
>>>> Message-ID: <379084...@wcnet.net>
>>>>
>>> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay
>>
>> It's first hand observation from a rice farmer.
>
>It's the intellectual equivalent of using the evidence from somebody you
>met at a bar.
>
>He says he's driven a tractor, thousands of miles. - I can believe that!
>
>Then he says "We have organic as well as conventional farms". Ask
>yourself; 'Who is he referring to when he says "we"?'For all I know he
>could be referring to the population of Texas.
"the facts, data, assumptions and conclusions, while developed
on two organic rice farms (900 and 160 acres) and one 'conventional'
rice farm of 1340 acres in colorado county, texas" - diderot
If you think the "population of Texas" only has two organic rice
farms and one conventional rice farm in the whole state, you're
incredibly "naive" to say the very least, but for your sake (though
none of the readers' sake) let's hope you're being deliberately
dishonest about that stupid suggestion.
>Do you REALLY think that there are more than 5 amphibians in every
>square FOOT of rice?
Paste the quote. I believe he was referring to eggs, tadpoles,
and adults. There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
and a hundred tadpoles in another...averaging out to 5 or more in
the big picture.
>It's a joke that you and other fools have fallen for.
He sells organic rice to vegans. Why would he present info like
that to vegans, if he wasn't confident that they would be too stupid
to appreciate the reality of it even if he did? Obviously he was well
aware that they are, almost certainly from his own personal experience
with them. And now from our own personal experience with them in
these ngs we can see that too. Duh.
>There are animal deaths in rice production, but there is no mystical
>"green waterfall".
How many deaths do you think there are, and WHY should anyone
take your estimate over that of a rice farmer???
Rupert
It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
problem with destroying an egg. If he was using that assumption in his
calculations, he should have made it explicit.
pearl
Why would any amphibians that might be in the fields stick around
as the fields dry, and not go with or follow the water when drained?
> 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?
> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> deaths caused by rice production.
diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
> There's no doubt that your
> source--and especially YOU yourself--are trying to create the false
> impression that thousands of animals are not being killed when
> they really are. "ara" dishonesty is undoubtedly the more disgusting
> and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish...diderot encourages
> people to consider human influence on animals involved in rice
> production, while YOU encourage people NOT TO!
WHY should anyone take his 'estimate' over that of a rice farmer?
There's no doubt that your source--and especially YOU yourself--
are trying to create the false impression that thousands of animals
are being killed when they really aren't. Your anti AR dishonesty is
undoubtedly disgusting and contemptible, inconsiderate and selfish.
pearl
[..]
Got a valid explanation for how the WTC collapsed yet, traitor chico?
'The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than
a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield
strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still
support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.'
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
'What's The Truth?: How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?
A Dem Bruce Lee Styles Film
1 hr 26 min 30 sec - Jul 1, 2006
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8076200333701191665&q=truth
pearl
> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
> >commercial rice production.
>
> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,
You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.
dh
LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!
dh
I feel confident the main reason is also a reason why humans
get caught in floods: Because they don't know what's happening.
Also frogs who are on land and tree frogs who are on rice stalks
when the water goes out, obviously can't go with it. Even you
should have been able to figure that one out. Then there are
the creatures who are in deep parts of the water when the
draining occurs, so they are trapped in puddles and pools
afterward. And there're no doubt some who move along with the
water when it begins to recede even though they have no clue
what's going on, but get stopped by rocks, sticks, rice stalks,
mounds of mud etc so they don't go all the way with it. Those
are SOME of the reasons, and undoubtedly there are more.
>> 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,
and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
upstream.
>> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
>> deaths caused by rice production.
>
>diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
>between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
dh
As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.
Rupert
This is an evasion of the point.
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. Some people here think that Diderot's
account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
responding accordingly.
I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
pearl
I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.
"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they are
not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg
That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.
As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.
pearl
That is all really absolute nonsense. Frogs are as mobile as the
next creature. Any there could easily move on as the fields dry.
> >> 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, and an unabashed propagandist.
> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
> upstream.
Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
Why don't you do a little research? And if his claims were true, a
seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> >> deaths caused by rice production.
> >
> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
>
> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.
brother
Hi,
The "5 amphibians per square foot" figure came from Bob Sikes, based on
his earlier posting of his FAQ:
He stated:
"most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 30K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still incredibly
conservative) number of amphibian and anole (and slow, small furry
things) deaths through the combine is 35,000 of all species harvested
per acre, combined average for *two* cuttings. in spite of these
seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards escape than are
combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian deaths represents
less than *10-15% of the total population*, and probably considerably
less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed
... until that night and the next day, when they disappear almost
totally into the gullets of predators. "
He also states that "an acre has 43,264+ square feet"
So total population = 100%/15% x 35 000 = 233 333
Amphibians per square foot = 233 333 / 43 264 = 5.4. (Over a quarter of
a million frogs on a American football pitch!)
However, I noticed that he's changed his lie to 20% in this latest
revision of his "Fucking Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!
It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
to it, as if it were their life line.
frl...@flash.net
>, anyone who knows anything at all about
> animals can easily understand how the machinery,
> spraying and complete changes of environment kill them.
Anyone who knows anything at all about farming knows that these deaths
can be greatly reduced by following simple ecologically sensitive
farming practices. Undisturbed field margins, for instance, give
animals a safe haven when machinery is in the field. Sprial cutting,
inside to outside, patterns during harvest leave animals an avenue of
escape. No-till or low-till crops spare non-mobile young.
Biological control of insect larva and species specific use of IPM
don't impact the reproductive capability of field animals. High
residue combining, manner of irrigation and control of run-off are
other sound practices and I'm sure there are some I've left out.
Not only do these enlightened farming practices save animals, not
something most farmers are concerned about, they slow desertification
of agricultural lands. That's something farmers care about or should
care about very much.
> If any person can't, that necessarily means they have no
> understanding at all about how the processes influence
> animals, probably because they're afraid to think about
> it for some personal reason(s). It undoubtedly shows that
> they have no understanding or interest in how humans
> influence animals during rice production.
It's simple. Only grow rice on natural floodplains where wildlife have
evolved survival strategies to cope with the cycle of flooding and
draining. If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem,
grow something else.
frl...@flash.net
dh@. wrote:
(snip)
> There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
Are you worried about a "decent life" for these unborn, future animals?
The merger is now complete. Ball is Harrison and Harrison is Ball.
dh
That IS my point!
>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.
>Some people here think that Diderot's
>account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
>responding accordingly.
>
>I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
>sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
>account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
eggs too.
>If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
>justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
>figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
How many are killed then? How do you know?
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:1afbf2d3fmemcucob...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:7js8f21cgf4uvg065...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
>> >> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
>> >> >commercial rice production.
>> >>
>> >> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,
>> >
>> >You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.
>>
>> As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
>> who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
>> be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
>> meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.
>
>I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.
>
>"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
>the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
>the road kill on a mile of highway.
That's an obvious lie, and anyone who's aware that animals don't
live on asphalt should be able to understand why.
>Harvesters move slowly,
So did the bush hog I got to run a few times. But there were a lot
of grass hoppers bouncing around on it and getting killed by it the
whole time anyway. If they had been frogs and anoles etc like in
rice fields it would have been them in that position instead, but
rice harvesters would provide less chance of survival because of
the difference in design. I'm sure you won't be able to see why
or how, but I believe most omnivorous people could:
http://tinyurl.com/gkpmo
http://tinyurl.com/pk3ut
>and they are
>not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg
He told you what he knows very well that you want to believe,
because he wants you to keep buying rice. diderot told you "aras"
about cds because he knows from experience your selfishness will
cause you to deny them to yourself and everyone else and you'll
keep buying rice and encouraging everyone else to. In fact now
that we're (meaning me :-) thinking about it after observing your
reaction, he may have learned that you "aras" will buy MORE rice
after denying the deaths involved with it...
>That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.
>
>As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.
"Florida" wrote:
"Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
commercial rice production."
YOU, who bitch and carry on claiming diderot was wrong, said
nothing at all to correct that absurd, dishonest idea. That means
YOU want people to believe it.
dh
How would they know what was happening? How would they
know where the water went? How far would they have to travel
in order to get to it? What would keep them from getting killed
by predators IF they hopped along trying to get there? What
would keep them from dehydrating even IF they did know where
to go, tried to get there, and didn't get killed by predators?
>> >> 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.
>and an unabashed propagandist.
>
>> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
>> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
>> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
>> upstream.
>
>Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
>live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
>of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
>Why don't you do a little research?
I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
where do you think they come from?
You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
and sulk away from it.
>And if his claims were true, a
>seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
Who would document it? Why?
>> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
>> >> deaths caused by rice production.
>> >
>> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
>> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
>>
>> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
>> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
>> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
>
>diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.
Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
people to believe otherwise.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem
Who does, and how do you know your rice is grown
without it?
dh
What is the correct percentage? How do you know?
> in this latest
>revision of his "Fucking Awful Quotations (FAQ)", this would give a
>total AMPHIBIAN population of 4 per *every* square foot. This is over 4
>times higher than the maximum you may expect at a *breeding* site!
>
>It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>to it, as if it were their life line.
You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
many are killed, and how you know!
frl...@flash.net
dh@. wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2006 11:00:14 -0700, frl...@flash.net wrote:
>
> >dh@. wrote:
>
> >If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem
>
> Who does,
Rice growers on the natural floodplains of Southeast Asia, Indonesia
and India, for example.
> and how do you know your rice is grown
> without it?
Rice grown in unsuitable environs requires artificial flooding and
draining. For a variety of reasons, flood irrigation is the most
damaging method of applying water to soil.
Rupert
???
> >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?
> >Some people here think that Diderot's
> >account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
> >responding accordingly.
> >
> >I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
> >sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
> >account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
>
> Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
> eggs too.
>
Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.
> >If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
> >justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
> >figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
>
> How many are killed then?
I have absolutely no idea.
> How do you know?
brother
>>
>> It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>> to it, as if it were their life line.
>
> You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
> many are killed, and how you know!
I know enough to recognise that Bob Sikes is lying. - A fabrication with
the clear intent to deceive.
The most enjoyable thing about this is; you, and those of a similar
mind-set are the ones being deceived.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 31 Aug 2006 11:00:14 -0700, frl...@flash.net wrote:
>>
>> >dh@. wrote:
>>
>> >If you can't grow rice without creating ecological mayhem
>>
>> Who does,
>
>Rice growers on the natural floodplains of Southeast Asia, Indonesia
>and India, for example.
>
>> and how do you know your rice is grown
>> without it?
>
>Rice grown in unsuitable environs
So you don't know.
>requires artificial flooding and draining.
Causing plenty of cds...more than even grain fed cattle.
>For a variety of reasons, flood irrigation is the most
>damaging method of applying water to soil.
That too. Thanks.
dh
>dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:29:33 +0100, brother <s...@you.move.com> wrote:
>>
>snip
>>>
>>> It's a lie, and the real telling thing, is that the anti brigade cling
>>> to it, as if it were their life line.
>>
>> You "aras" haven't provided anything better. Just tell us how
>> many are killed, and how you know!
>
>
>I know enough to recognise that Bob Sikes is lying.
You're lying. You can't even pretend to say how you think you
could possibly know--much less explain it--which shows that you're
simply lying.
> - A fabrication with the clear intent to deceive.
There's no evidence of that...only that YOU are lying.
>The most enjoyable thing about this is; you, and those of a similar
>mind-set are the ones being deceived.
You continue to contribute to the many deaths associated with
rice production and lie as you do so.
dh
Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".
>> >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.
>> >Some people here think that Diderot's
>> >account of the matter distorts the truth to some extent and are
>> >responding accordingly.
>> >
>> >I was simply pointing out that eggs are not and never have been
>> >sentient. If it significantly affects the calculation to take eggs into
>> >account, he should make explicit that he's doing so, which he didn't.
>>
>> Then maybe he was only referring to sentient animals and not
>> eggs too.
>>
>
>Maybe. That's not what you were speculating before.
>
>> >If you think that the "5 amphibians per square foot" figure can only be
>> >justified by counting eggs, then you're basically admitting that the
>> >figures are being inflated in a misleading way.
>>
>> How many are killed then?
>
>I have absolutely no idea.
I know, but I'm suprised that you're honest enough to admit it...
VERY surprised.
>> How do you know?
Rupert
That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
lied? Point out an example of someone lying.
> >> >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.
pearl
news:7bref2hhiaikuespm...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:1afbf2d3fmemcucob...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:21:49 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:7js8f21cgf4uvg065...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On 29 Aug 2006 06:11:43 -0700, "Florida" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hey, Kent Lundberg, how are you? We buy your rice. Organic is
> >> >> >good. Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
> >> >> >commercial rice production.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a lie. Obviously pearl wants to promote the lie,
> >> >
> >> >You're the one who obviously wants to promote the lie, liar.
> >>
> >> As I said, OBVIOUSLY you want to promote the lie. Anyone
> >> who thinks there are no cds in rice production would have to
> >> be even stupider than you, meaning that you know there are,
> >> meaning that you're the deliberate liar. Duh.
> >
> >I have not said that there are "no cds in rice production", as you imply.
> >
> >"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
> >the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
> >the road kill on a mile of highway.
>
> That's an obvious lie, and anyone who's aware that animals don't
> live on asphalt should be able to understand why.
Where's the obvious lie? Animals traverse highways, and numerous
vehicles are constantly speeding along them.., but animals can easily
move out of the way of slow machinery making one pass in the field.
> >Harvesters move slowly,
>
> So did the bush hog I got to run a few times. But there were a lot
> of grass hoppers bouncing around on it and getting killed by it the
> whole time anyway. If they had been frogs and anoles etc like in
> rice fields it would have been them in that position instead, but
> rice harvesters would provide less chance of survival because of
> the difference in design. I'm sure you won't be able to see why
> or how, but I believe most omnivorous people could:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/goeyk
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gkpmo
> http://tinyurl.com/pk3ut
>
> >and they are
> >not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg
>
> He told you what he knows very well that you want to believe,
You can go see for yourself. diderot told you what you want to
believe.
> >That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.
> >
> >As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.
>
> "Florida" wrote:
>
> "Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
> commercial rice production."
>
> YOU, who bitch and carry on claiming diderot was wrong, said
> nothing at all to correct that absurd, dishonest idea. That means
> YOU want people to believe it.
I was focussing on letting Florida know that I'm not Kent Lundberg.
I assumed that Florida had read the email, and just worded it wrong.
"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison
to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
pearl
news:cgref21m0htl1a7rh...@4ax.com...
Hypothetical frogs are capable of anything, doncha know.
> >> >> 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. You dis-believe without reason.
> >and an unabashed propagandist.
> >
> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
> >> upstream.
> >
> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
> >Why don't you do a little research?
>
> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
> where do you think they come from?
I don't think that 'they' are there!
> 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.
> >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..
> >> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> >> >> deaths caused by rice production.
> >> >
> >> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
> >> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
> >>
> >> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
> >> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
> >> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
> >
> >diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.
>
> Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
> people to believe otherwise.
You claim they are, and without any evidence to substantiate those
outlandish claims, you disgustingly want people to believe it's fact.
dh
"No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out." - you
>> >> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>> >> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>> >> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>> >> >in the course of rice production.
>> >>
>> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
>> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
>> >>
>> >
>> >What reason?
>>
>> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
>> Duh.
>>
>
>No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
>Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
>accordingly.
They don't correct him. The only one who even pretended to provide
another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same
area.
Florida
> >No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
> >Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
> >accordingly.
>
> They don't correct him. The only one who even pretended to provide
> another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
> suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
> about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same area.
..sigh... Grievous work, attempting to make smart remarks to folks
who don't appear to use their 'smart' setting.
Rupert
This is a change of subject - you were talking about lying about deaths
associated with rice production - and I'm not lying when I say that. It
happens to be my sincerely held opinion. I'm not lying if I express my
opinion. If you think I'm mistaken, then argue the point.
> >> >> >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.
> The only one who even pretended to provide
> another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
> suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
> about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same
> area.
If you disagree with pearl, then argue with her. I see no reason to
think that pearl is opposed to any point of view being expressed, it
just that she has her own point of view which she also wants to express.
dh
Even if somehow, incredibly, no animals were killed by harvesters:
the environment they had depended on for shelter from predators is
removed and predators kill them because they have nowhere left
to hide.
"a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings. in
spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
escape than are combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not killed." - diderot
"one can tell the difference after harvest, also. on the organic field,
as the combine passes, the wall of birdlife: hawks of several varieties,
crows, kites, buzzards, egrets, herons, ... descends to glean both
escapees and paté. on the 1340, there are still quite a number of
birds, but nowhere near the solid covering of the organic side." - diderot
>> >Harvesters move slowly,
>>
>> So did the bush hog I got to run a few times. But there were a lot
>> of grass hoppers bouncing around on it and getting killed by it the
>> whole time anyway. If they had been frogs and anoles etc like in
>> rice fields it would have been them in that position instead, but
>> rice harvesters would provide less chance of survival because of
>> the difference in design. I'm sure you won't be able to see why
>> or how, but I believe most omnivorous people could:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/goeyk
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/gkpmo
>> http://tinyurl.com/pk3ut
>>
>> >and they are
>> >not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg
>>
>> He told you what he knows very well that you want to believe,
>
>You can go see for yourself. diderot told you what you want to
>believe.
Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
rice production. There's reason why I would not want as you so
obviously don't want to, but why would I?
>> >That is from someone *known* to be a GENUINE organic rice farmer.
>> >
>> >As I said, you are a liar, and you OBVIOUSLY want to promote the lie.
>>
>> "Florida" wrote:
>>
>> "Interesting that there are no collateral included deaths in
>> commercial rice production."
>>
>> YOU, who bitch and carry on claiming diderot was wrong, said
>> nothing at all to correct that absurd, dishonest idea. That means
>> YOU want people to believe it.
>
>I was focussing on letting Florida know that I'm not Kent Lundberg.
>I assumed that Florida had read the email, and just worded it wrong.
You don't mind people believing there are no cds involved with
rice production, but you object to them understanding that there
are a lot of them.
>"Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
>the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison
>to
>the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
>are
>not the high speed machines described in this article." - Kent Lundberg
"- rodents and insectivores get hammered pretty much year-round,
with all the dirt work, cultivation and harvesting activities and, for rice
specifically, the near-continuious cycle of flooding and drying the
fields. i have seen responsible estimates of rodent/insectivore
population of 9-35 square meter, and i think the 35/meter is probably
more accurate (in this area, anyhow) judging from the 500 yard-long,
foot-wide windrows of drowned grey and brown on the lee-side levee
whenever the rice is flooded." - diderot
dh
Not long ago you acted like you understood there are
frogs in rice fields, even commenting on them trying to get
people to believe that: "Any there could easily move on as the
fields dry." Back when you understood that there are frogs in
rice fields, can you remember how you thought they got there?
>> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> >> >> along.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
>> >>
>> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
>> >
>> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
>>
>> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
>> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
>> damn funny.
>
>I've plenty of reason to believe that.
Like what?
>You dis-believe without reason.
I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
people in general would have learned about it because research
teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
public like they do with other things of interest.
>> >and an unabashed propagandist.
>> >
>> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
>> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
>> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
>> >> upstream.
>> >
>> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
>> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
>> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
>> >Why don't you do a little research?
>>
>> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
>> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
>> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
>> where do you think they come from?
>
>I don't think that 'they' are there!
But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
this week, have you any idea?
>> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
>> and sulk away from it.
>
>You haven't answered the question.
Which one?
>> >And if his claims were true, a
>> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
>>
>> Who would document it? Why?
>
>Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
>> >> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
>> >> >> deaths caused by rice production.
>> >> >
>> >> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
>> >> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
>> >>
>> >> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
>> >> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
>> >> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
>> >
>> >diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.
>>
>> Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
>> people to believe otherwise.
>
>You claim they are, and without any evidence to substantiate those
>outlandish claims, you disgustingly want people to believe it's fact.
As I said, I have seen grasshoppers etc hopping all over the
bush hog I've mowed with. If there were frogs as well they would
be doing the same. Rice harvesters being of different design
would allow for less hopping on the equipmet and make for more
going through it. I have presented pictures of frogs in rice fields:
http://tinyurl.com/z5fky
http://tinyurl.com/gkdzo
http://tinyurl.com/zxf82
http://tinyurl.com/goh3f
This animal is even called a Rice Frog:
so is this one:
and this one:
This one is called a Rice Paddy Frog:
yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
now claim that there are no frogs in rice production. How
could I possibly believe your insane sounding claim that there
are no cds in rice production or it would be well-documented
and presented on web sites, when ALL evidence shows that
you have amazingly somehow recently become totally ignorant
about the existence of frogs in rice fields, or more likely you
are being deliberately and contemptibly dishonest about this
whole thing?
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>(snip)
>
>> There may be thousands of eggs in one square foot,
>
>Are you worried about a "decent life" for these unborn, future animals?
No. Is anyone?
dh
There's nothing smart about denying cds in crop production, and
especially in rice production. Instead there's only stupidity, ignorance,
and extreme dishonesty.
dh
Here is what made me think he was making reference to eggs, though
maybe not in the context we were discussing it's still a significant aspect
of the difference between organic and conventional methods:
"the difference is that the billions of amphibian eggs that were laid when
the 1340 was flooded at the same time and in the same fashion as the 900
didn't make many tadpoles and fewer frogs due to applications of
pesticides, insecticides, herbicides and fungicides." - diderot
>> >> >> >> >It's a pretty big assumption that ethical vegetarians have an ethical
>> >> >> >> >problem with destroying an egg.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> LOL! As we can see by the replys, supposedly "ethical" vegetarians
>> >> >> >> not only don't have an ethical problem with destroying eggs, tadpoles,
>> >> >> >> frogs, snakes, lizards, and whatever else gets killed in rice production,
>> >> >> >> but they are OPPOSED to anyone even pointing out that they are!
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >This is an evasion of the point.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That IS my point!
>> >> >
>> >> >???
>> >>
>> >> Dishonest veg*ns, claiming dishonestly to be "ethical", lie in public forums
>> >> about the many deaths associated with rice production in a desperate attempt
>> >> to maintain the deception of being ''ethical".
>> >>
>> >
>> >That doesn't address the fact that you were evading my point. Who has
>> >lied? Point out an example of someone lying.
>>
>> "No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out." - you
>>
>
>This is a change of subject - you were talking about lying about deaths
>associated with rice production - and I'm not lying when I say that. It
>happens to be my sincerely held opinion. I'm not lying if I express my
>opinion. If you think I'm mistaken, then argue the point.
"pearl" doesn't mind people believing there are no cds involved with
rice production, but is maniacally opposed to people understanding
that there are a lot of them. Aren't you?
>> >> >> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>> >> >> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>> >> >> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>> >> >> >in the course of rice production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
>> >> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >What reason?
>> >>
>> >> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
>> >> Duh.
>> >>
>> >
>> >No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
>> >Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
>> >accordingly.
>>
>> They don't correct him.
>
>They have taken issue with certain things he said.
No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
are actually killed in rice production, though recently "pearl" is suggesting
that there aren't even any frogs in rice fields.
>> The only one who even pretended to provide
>> another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
>> suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
>> about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same
>> area.
>
>If you disagree with pearl, then argue with her. I see no reason to
>think that pearl is opposed to any point of view being expressed, it
>just that she has her own point of view which she also wants to express.
You pretend to as well, yet you won't tell us how many deaths you
think are involved in rice production. diderot's view if from first hand
experience and certainly seems more than reasonable to me. You
who have never been around it disagree with what he told us from
his own observations, yet you can provide nothing better or even
different for us to take into consideration. What "pearl" wants us
to believe seems completely insane and dishonest, and doesn't
even agree with itself:
"Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
move on as the fields dry." - "pearl"
"I don't think that 'they' are there!" - "pearl"
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
You, you equivocating cunt. You have been frequently quoted criticizing
vegans for denying farm animals decent lives. If you say you are not
actually worried about it that makes you a liar.
Rupert
pearl thinks that Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth,
so she responds accordingly.
> Aren't you?
>
I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of the
matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.
> >> >> >> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
> >> >> >> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
> >> >> >> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
> >> >> >> >in the course of rice production.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
> >> >> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >What reason?
> >> >>
> >> >> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
> >> >> Duh.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
> >> >Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
> >> >accordingly.
> >>
> >> They don't correct him.
> >
> >They have taken issue with certain things he said.
>
> No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
> are actually killed in rice production,
That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says without
coming up with estimates of your own.
> though recently "pearl" is suggesting
> that there aren't even any frogs in rice fields.
>
> >> The only one who even pretended to provide
> >> another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
> >> suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
> >> about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same
> >> area.
> >
> >If you disagree with pearl, then argue with her. I see no reason to
> >think that pearl is opposed to any point of view being expressed, it
> >just that she has her own point of view which she also wants to express.
>
> You pretend to as well, yet you won't tell us how many deaths you
> think are involved in rice production.
I told you that I don't know.
> diderot's view if from first hand
> experience and certainly seems more than reasonable to me. You
> who have never been around it disagree with what he told us
I don't disagree with him. I don't know whether he's right or not. I
have taken issue with you implying that it would be acceptable for him
to include eggs in his calculations, and with you accusing people of
lying.
> from
> his own observations, yet you can provide nothing better or even
> different for us to take into consideration. What "pearl" wants us
> to believe seems completely insane and dishonest, and doesn't
> even agree with itself:
>
> "Frogs are as mobile as the next creature. Any there could easily
> move on as the fields dry." - "pearl"
>
> "I don't think that 'they' are there!" - "pearl"
She means they're not there after the fields have dried. It's not
inconsistent. I don't see what's so insane and dishonest about it.
pearl
> On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> >news:7bref2hhiaikuespm...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> 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@?
Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.
<diderot fiction snipped.>
..
> Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
> rice production.
To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.
<..>
pearl
A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.
> >> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
> >> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
> >> >> >> along.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
> >> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
> >> >>
> >> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
> >> >
> >> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
> >>
> >> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
> >> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
> >> damn funny.
> >
> >I've plenty of reason to believe that.
>
> Like what?
I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.
> >You dis-believe without reason.
>
> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
> people in general would have learned about it because research
> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
> public like they do with other things of interest.
That has happened. You and others like you ridicule everything.
> >> >and an unabashed propagandist.
> >> >
> >> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
> >> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
> >> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
> >> >> upstream.
> >> >
> >> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
> >> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
> >> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
> >> >Why don't you do a little research?
> >>
> >> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
> >> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
> >> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
> >> where do you think they come from?
> >
> >I don't think that 'they' are there!
>
> But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
> this week, have you any idea?
I said that some might be there. Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.
> >> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
> >> and sulk away from it.
> >
> >You haven't answered the question.
>
> Which one?
How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.
> >> >And if his claims were true, a
> >> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
> >>
> >> Who would document it? Why?
> >
> >Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
>
> So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
> and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
> agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
> that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.
> >> >> >> If diderot exagerated, it was to make people aware of the
> >> >> >> deaths caused by rice production.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >diderot told wholesale porkies in order to try to blur the line
> >> >> >between deaths in crop production and in the livestock industry.
> >> >>
> >> >> diderot told people about cds that you "aras" obviously
> >> >> could not care less about, and in fact do NOT want people
> >> >> to be aware of. Disgusting!!!
> >> >
> >> >diderot told people lies about cds. And you swallowed it whole.
> >>
> >> Animals are killed in rice production, and you disgustingly want
> >> people to believe otherwise.
> >
> >You claim they are, and without any evidence to substantiate those
> >outlandish claims, you disgustingly want people to believe it's fact.
>
> As I said, I have seen grasshoppers etc hopping all over the
> bush hog I've mowed with. If there were frogs as well they would
> be doing the same. Rice harvesters being of different design
> would allow for less hopping on the equipmet and make for more
> going through it. I have presented pictures of frogs in rice fields:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/z5fky
"rice visitor" - one frog.
one frog. looks like the field's been cropped..
two frogs - could be anywhere.
"Frog in the Rice". - one frog.
> This animal is even called a Rice Frog:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jcr2v
I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and he's sitting on a low branch.
> so is this one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hzl4v
I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and that's certainly not a rice field.
> and this one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/gh7cn
I don't see where it's called a "rice frog",
and he's sitting on a massive rock.
> This one is called a Rice Paddy Frog:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h49cy
I don't see where it's called a "rice paddy frog",
and that's certainly not a rice field either.
> yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
> now claim that there are no frogs in rice production.
No. You absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
post pictures of individual frogs- most of which are clearly not
in rice fields, in attempted support of # hundreds of thousands.
> How
> could I possibly believe your insane sounding claim that there
> are no cds in rice production or it would be well-documented
> and presented on web sites, when ALL evidence shows that
> you have amazingly somehow recently become totally ignorant
> about the existence of frogs in rice fields, or more likely you
> are being deliberately and contemptibly dishonest about this
> whole thing?
Post some proper documentation of mass slaughter of frogs
in rice production, or shut the hell up already, you stupid troll.
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:fplpf2589roetln8m...@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh@.> wrote in message
>> >news:7bref2hhiaikuespm...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> 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.
>Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.
>
><diderot fiction snipped.>
>..
>> Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
>> rice production.
>
>To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.
Since you don't believe there are a significant number of cds involved
with crop production, which deaths do you think you're referring to, have
you any idea?
dh
>I hope people will make a sincere effort to find out the truth of the
>matter. Diderot's account may or may not be correct.
"- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas." - diderot
>> >> >> >> >Ethical vegetarians usually do think there is some sort of presumption
>> >> >> >> >against killing sentient animals. You have no reason to think anyone
>> >> >> >> >here is opposed to people pointing out that sentient animals are killed
>> >> >> >> >in the course of rice production.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> So far I have reason to believe that veg*ns are opposed to seeing
>> >> >> >> it pointed out. Damn good reason in fact.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >What reason?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The opposition you people have presented to seeing it pointed out.
>> >> >> Duh.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >No-one's opposed to anything being pointed out. Some people believe
>> >> >Diderot's account of the matter distorts the truth, so they respond
>> >> >accordingly.
>> >>
>> >> They don't correct him.
>> >
>> >They have taken issue with certain things he said.
>>
>> No one has even tried to correct him and tell us how many animals
>> are actually killed in rice production,
>
>That's because they don't know. You can criticize what he says without
>coming up with estimates of your own.
You don't want to believe what he has learned from first hand
experience, so you just say it isn't true. What reason would a
man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
would diderot lie and say there are more?
dh
LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
would they get there?
>> >> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> >> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> >> >> >> along.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>> >> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
>> >> >
>> >> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
>> >>
>> >> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
>> >> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
>> >> damn funny.
>> >
>> >I've plenty of reason to believe that.
>>
>> Like what?
>
>I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.
I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.
>> >You dis-believe without reason.
>>
>> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
>> people in general would have learned about it because research
>> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
>> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
>> public like they do with other things of interest.
>
>That has happened.
You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?
>You and others like you ridicule everything.
Not everything, but that's more than you can comprehend
obviously or you wouldn't have made the claim.
>> >> >and an unabashed propagandist.
>> >> >
>> >> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
>> >> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
>> >> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
>> >> >> upstream.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
>> >> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
>> >> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
>> >> >Why don't you do a little research?
>> >>
>> >> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
>> >> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
>> >> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
>> >> where do you think they come from?
>> >
>> >I don't think that 'they' are there!
>>
>> But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
>> this week, have you any idea?
>
>I said that some might be there.
You emphatically stated that you "don't think that 'they' are there!"
Now you're amusingly trying to pretend differently.
>Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.
How many? How could you possibly have any clue? Present some
info from a reliable source to back up your absurd sounding claim.
>> >> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
>> >> and sulk away from it.
>> >
>> >You haven't answered the question.
>>
>> Which one?
>
>How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.
The only thing to suggest that diderot lied is YOU, and you're insane.
YOU need to explain why frogs and tadpoles could not get into rice
fields when they are flooded with water from rives and/or creeks.
>> >> >And if his claims were true, a
>> >> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
>> >>
>> >> Who would document it? Why?
>> >
>> >Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
>>
>> So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
>> and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
>> agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
>> that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
>
>Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
>And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
>crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.
So you're saying that people should give no thought to cds involved
with any type of crop production? How about wood and paper production?
Construction of roads and building? Mining operations? Production of
electricity?
You probably won't be able to see it here either since
you only see and believe what you want to, but it's here
none the less in case more honest people have any
interest in the subject:
http://images.google.com/images?q=rice+frog&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images
>> yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
>> now claim that there are no frogs in rice production.
>
>No. You absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
>post pictures of individual frogs- most of which are clearly not
>in rice fields, in attempted support of # hundreds of thousands.
_________________________________________________________
Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
conjunction with rice are a source of animal protein and essential fatty
acids. In addition, various kinds of livestock are supported by rice-based
systems. Ducks feed on small fish, other aquatic organisms, and weeds
within the paddy fields, while buffaloes, cattle, sheep and goats graze on
rice straw as their main food source in rice-producing areas.
http://www.academon.com/lib/paper/67607.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Thousands of frogs which keep BPH under check were caught from
paddy fields
http://www.indianspices.com/html/prodev_ipm.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
As I type, I am listening to the din of the thousands of frogs that inhabit the
rice field right next to my home
http://www.cosmicbuddha.com/adam/archives/000559.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
at night we were eaten alive by the millions of mosquitoes that bred in the
paddy fields directly opposite and all around the camp. At night too there
was a deafening orchestra of thousands upon thousands of frogs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/26/a4221226.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
when we opened the window at night, we heard thousands of frogs croaking
their spring song from the rice fields nearby.
http://www.webscapades.com/cust-feedback.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
During the late summer, you had to be careful where you stepped. Thousands
of frogs hopped around on the ground, a product of the monsoon season, and
the rice paddies that were everywhere. Patty hated to step on them, but
sometimes it just happened. The corridor and ready room floors were always a
mess due to frog guts from their boots.
http://ed-thelen.org/gatto_40-44.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Rupert
No, I do not say this. I do not know whether it is true or not. Others
who have denied some of the things he said have argued for their
position.
> What reason would a
> man who farms organic rice have for lying and saying there are
> MORE deaths involved than there really are? We know why
> Lunberg and "pearl" would lie and say there are fewer, but why
> would diderot lie and say there are more?
Someone concerned to undermine the ethical vegetarian position might
deliberately exaggerate the harm involved in rice farming. Or Diderot
might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
sorts of reasons.
dh
People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
but they remain facts none the less. It really says a lot about them
that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
>Or Diderot
>might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
>deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
>rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
>be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
>object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
>account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
>is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
>sorts of reasons.
There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is. It's most
likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
Dutch
[..]
> People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
> but they remain facts none the less.
Some people (i.e. you) point out "facts" that have no relevance.
> It really says a lot about them
> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
It says a lot about you that you persist in "pointing out" that meat
consumption leads to animals "getting to experience life" when that fact has
no place whatever in the discussion.
>>Or Diderot
>>might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
>>deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
>>rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
>>be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
>>object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
>>account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
>>is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
>>sorts of reasons.
>
> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is. It's most
> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
Those billions of animals that live and die in rice paddies also "get to
experience life", do you "consider" that to be a "positive aspect" of rice
consumption, eh fuckwit?
pearl
> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:19:29 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
>
> ><dh@.> wrote in message news:fplpf2589roetln8m...@4ax.com...
> >> On 2 Sep 2006 11:47:30 -0700, "pearl" <lil...@esatclear.ie> wrote:
> >>
> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message
> >> >news:7bref2hhiaikuespm...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:50:33 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> 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!
> >Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.
> >
> ><diderot fiction snipped.>
> >..
> >> Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
> >> rice production.
> >
> >To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.
>
> Since you don't believe there are a significant number of cds involved
> with crop production, which deaths do you think you're referring to, have
> you any idea?
Of course. You haven't? Is there anything at all between your ears?
pearl
> >A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.
>
> LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
> would they get there?
Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.
> >> >> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
> >> >> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
> >> >> >> >> along.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
> >> >> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
> >> >>
> >> >> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
> >> >> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
> >> >> damn funny.
> >> >
> >> >I've plenty of reason to believe that.
> >>
> >> Like what?
> >
> >I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.
>
> I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.
I'm not giving it to you again.
> >> >You dis-believe without reason.
> >>
> >> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
> >> people in general would have learned about it because research
> >> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
> >> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
> >> public like they do with other things of interest.
> >
> >That has happened.
>
> You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
> always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
> exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?
You mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.
There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.
No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.
> >You and others like you ridicule everything.
>
> Not everything, but that's more than you can comprehend
> obviously or you wouldn't have made the claim.
I know it from your previous abusive non-response.
> >> >> >and an unabashed propagandist.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> and that was a question I asked him about. He said the water
> >> >> >> they use to flood the fields comes from rivers and/or creeks
> >> >> >> which have frogs etc living in them already. So they come from
> >> >> >> upstream.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why would they move from their established habitat? Some frogs
> >> >> >live near rivers or creeks, but they don't actually live -in- the water
> >> >> >of moving rivers and creeks, nor do they spawn in moving water.
> >> >> >Why don't you do a little research?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll just ask you what you asked me: where do they come from?
> >> >> IF you think they don't get killed when the fields dry, but still think
> >> >> they "easily move on as the fields dry", they're still GONE. So again,
> >> >> where do you think they come from?
> >> >
> >> >I don't think that 'they' are there!
> >>
> >> But you did last week. Why did you think so last week but not
> >> this week, have you any idea?
> >
> >I said that some might be there.
>
> You emphatically stated that you "don't think that 'they' are there!"
> Now you're amusingly trying to pretend differently.
'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".
> >Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.
>
> How many? How could you possibly have any clue? Present some
> info from a reliable source to back up your absurd sounding claim.
I have backed up logical common sense with an email from a bona fide
organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.
> >> >> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
> >> >> and sulk away from it.
> >> >
> >> >You haven't answered the question.
> >>
> >> Which one?
> >
> >How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.
>
> The only thing to suggest that diderot lied is YOU, and you're insane.
> YOU need to explain why frogs and tadpoles could not get into rice
> fields when they are flooded with water from rives and/or creeks.
I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.
> >> >> >And if his claims were true, a
> >> >> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who would document it? Why?
> >> >
> >> >Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
> >>
> >> So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
> >> and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
> >> agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
> >> that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
> >
> >Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
> >And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
> >crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.
>
> So you're saying that people should give no thought to cds involved
> with any type of crop production? How about wood and paper production?
> Construction of roads and building? Mining operations? Production of
> electricity?
Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs. If such a major thing
as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.
I still don't see these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?
> >> yet you absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
> >> now claim that there are no frogs in rice production.
> >
> >No. You absurdly, stupidly and either ignorantly or dishonestly
> >post pictures of individual frogs- most of which are clearly not
> >in rice fields, in attempted support of # hundreds of thousands.
> _________________________________________________________
> Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
> conjunction
"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.
If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. > That's an ecosystem gone.
Rupert
People make claims, which some ethical vegetarians dispute.
> It really says a lot about them
> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
>
What does it say about them that they are not convinced?
> >Or Diderot
> >might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
> >deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
> >rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
> >be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
> >object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
> >account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
> >is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
> >sorts of reasons.
>
> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is.
Nonsense. It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
about the matter.
Diderot clearly has an agenda to push. It's totally irrational to say
that there is some reason to think Pearl would lie to make her position
more plausible, but there is no reason to think Diderot would.
> It's most
> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
How would you know whether it's the case or not? There are some people
posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
about human influence on animals.
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>
>[..]
>> People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
>> but they remain facts none the less.
>
>Some people (i.e. you) point out "facts" that have no relevance.
>
>> It really says a lot about them
>> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
>> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
>> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
>
>It says a lot about you that you persist in "pointing out" that meat
>consumption leads to animals "getting to experience life" when that fact has
>no place whatever in the discussion.
It has no place in promoting "ar", but is certainly a very significant
aspect of human influence on animals none the less.
>>>Or Diderot
>>>might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
>>>deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
>>>rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
>>>be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
>>>object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
>>>account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
>>>is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
>>>sorts of reasons.
>>
>> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
>> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
>> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is. It's most
>> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
>> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
>> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
>> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
>
>Those billions of animals that live and die in rice paddies also "get to
>experience life", do you "consider" that to be a "positive aspect" of rice
>consumption, eh fuckwit?
In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
when it would be and when it wouldn't.
dh
Some are. Here's something else you can't comprehend: there are
sometimes tadpoles too. Something else you won't be able to grasp:
there is often still water behind the flood gates where eggs are laid
and tadpoles hatch and live, and when the gate is opened the eggs
and tadpoles are swept along with the water.
>> >Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.
>> >
>> ><diderot fiction snipped.>
>> >..
>> >> Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
>> >> rice production.
>> >
>> >To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.
>>
>> Since you don't believe there are a significant number of cds involved
>> with crop production, which deaths do you think you're referring to, have
>> you any idea?
>
>Of course.
Which ones?
dh
><dh@.> wrote in message news:mq9rf2t0m8ri552d8...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:54:22 +0100, "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote:
><..>
>> >A few might hop in from the field margins.. same as they can hop out.
>>
>> LOL. I mean: Why would they be in "the field margins", and how
>> would they get there?
>
>Why wouldn't they? They like humid areas with still shallow pools.
>Margins left untouched would provide permanent habitat for frogs.
>
>> >> >> >> >> yes, but diderot led me to believe that most of them were
>> >> >> >> >> tree frogs who could survive in the stalks until the harverster came
>> >> >> >> >> along.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Where did all these frogs come from, after supposedly being
>> >> >> >> >slaughtered year in, year out?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> diderot was nice enough to exchange some emails with me,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I bet! - you're a ready sucker,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> LOL! That coming from someone who believes there are
>> >> >> superior beings living in the center of the Earth is pretty
>> >> >> damn funny.
>> >> >
>> >> >I've plenty of reason to believe that.
>> >>
>> >> Like what?
>> >
>> >I've posted a link to a well-researched site before, just for you.
>>
>> I don't believe you, but would like to see you try.
>
>I'm not giving it to you again.
You lied to begin with, and are now desperately though pathetically
trying to support your lying.
>> >> >You dis-believe without reason.
>> >>
>> >> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
>> >> people in general would have learned about it because research
>> >> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
>> >> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
>> >> public like they do with other things of interest.
>> >
>> >That has happened.
>>
>> You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
>> always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
>> exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?
>
>You mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.
That's because of a number of people who have reported them,
plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
rice fields. The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
two other "aras".
>There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.
No there are not.
>No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.
Nope.
. . .
>> You emphatically stated that you "don't think that 'they' are there!"
>> Now you're amusingly trying to pretend differently.
>
>'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".
>
>> >Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.
>>
>> How many? How could you possibly have any clue? Present some
>> info from a reliable source to back up your absurd sounding claim.
>
>I have backed up logical common sense
Maybe, but not about this topic.
>with an email from a bona fide
>organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.
The email you presented turned out to back up diderot's claim.
>> >> >> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
>> >> >> and sulk away from it.
>> >> >
>> >> >You haven't answered the question.
>> >>
>> >> Which one?
>> >
>> >How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.
>>
>> The only thing to suggest that diderot lied is YOU, and you're insane.
>> YOU need to explain why frogs and tadpoles could not get into rice
>> fields when they are flooded with water from rives and/or creeks.
>
>I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
>teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.
You just can't comprehend the fact that there are still pools in rivers and
creeks, and that they exist behind closed flood gates.
>> >> >> >And if his claims were true, a
>> >> >> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who would document it? Why?
>> >> >
>> >> >Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
>> >>
>> >> So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
>> >> and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
>> >> agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
>> >> that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
>> >
>> >Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
>> >And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
>> >crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.
>>
>> So you're saying that people should give no thought to cds involved
>> with any type of crop production? How about wood and paper production?
>> Construction of roads and building? Mining operations? Production of
>> electricity?
>
>Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs.
Let's see some evidence of that.
>If such a major thing
>as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.
Let's see some evidence of that too.
>I still don't see
You see nothing, and care even less.
>these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?
_________________________________________________________
Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
conjunction with rice are a source of animal protein and essential fatty
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote in message news:sjf0g2p7smn2vlerp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:08:17 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>[..]
>>> People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
>>> but they remain facts none the less.
>>
>>Some people (i.e. you) point out "facts" that have no relevance.
>>
>>> It really says a lot about them
>>> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
>>> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
>>> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
>>
>>It says a lot about you that you persist in "pointing out" that meat
>>consumption leads to animals "getting to experience life" when that fact
>>has
>>no place whatever in the discussion.
>
> It has no place in promoting "ar"
It has no place in promoting the ethical use of animals in agriculture
either. It has no place in the discussion PERIOD.
> but is certainly a very significant
> aspect of human influence on animals none the less.
It certainly is NOT significant. It is important for AW to realize that
animals are sentient living beings, it of no importance whatsoever that
farming them means they "get to experience life", none.
>>>>Or Diderot
>>>>might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
>>>>deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
>>>>rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
>>>>be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
>>>>object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
>>>>account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
>>>>is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
>>>>sorts of reasons.
>>>
>>> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
>>> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
>>> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is. It's most
>>> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
>>> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
>>> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
>>> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
>>
>>Those billions of animals that live and die in rice paddies also "get to
>>experience life", do you "consider" that to be a "positive aspect" of rice
>>consumption, eh fuckwit?
>
> In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
> necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
> when it would be and when it wouldn't.
LOL! I enjoy frying you on the spit of your own barbeque.
demeter...@yahoo.com
Yes, that is true. I'm not making light of your concern over the
deaths of other species, but thought, wrongly, it seems, that you would
realize that I was making an ironic remark at the illogicality of
admitting that amphibians die in organic rice fields, while pretending
they don't die in the much larger commercial fields.
Ok, there it is. That's my third try at a comment on this subject.
If this one doesn't work, I give up. The frogs are on their own.
Well, except for the frogs on our property, where they are treated
as worthy fellow critters who have as much right to be there as we do.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 2 Sep 2006 16:32:07 -0700, "Florida" <demeter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> They don't correct him. The only one who even pretended to provide
>> >> another impression was pearl who didn't object to "Florida's" insane
>> >> suggestion that there ae no cds, but pasted the Lindburg garbage
>> >> about the number of cds being no worse than road kill in the same area.
>> >
>> > ..sigh... Grievous work, attempting to make smart remarks to folks
>> >who don't appear to use their 'smart' setting.
>>
>> There's nothing smart about denying cds in crop production, and
>> especially in rice production. Instead there's only stupidity, ignorance,
>> and extreme dishonesty.
>
> Yes, that is true. I'm not making light of your concern over the
>deaths of other species, but thought, wrongly, it seems, that you would
>realize that I was making an ironic remark at the illogicality of
>admitting that amphibians die in organic rice fields, while pretending
>they don't die in the much larger commercial fields.
I've been dealing with the ignorance, absurdity and dishonesty of
"animal rights" idiots for years. So what could very well be a witty
sarcastic remark could also very well be taken as just another example
of "ar" idiocy, if one person doesn't really know where the other
person is coming from. Since most of the people participating in the
ngs I deal with are "ar" freaks, I tend to expect idiocy to be the case
more often then sarcasm. The idiot "pearl" for example has claimed
that the frogs don't exist, explained how she "thinks" the frogs she
doesn't think exist manage to survive when the fields are drained,
riduculed the fact that frogs, eggs and tadpoles can be washed
into rice fields when they are flooded using river or creek water,
and suggested that the frogs she claims don't exist live and
reproduce in the field margines returning to them when the fields
are dried. With ding bats like that around, and others supporting
the idiocy, I tend to expect the worst because that's the norm
when dealing with "aras".
> Ok, there it is. That's my third try at a comment on this subject.
>If this one doesn't work, I give up. The frogs are on their own.
> Well, except for the frogs on our property, where they are treated
>as worthy fellow critters who have as much right to be there as we do.
So far I don't really know where you're coming from or what
your position is on this. If you farm rice, I'd be interested in what
you have to say regarding details about the whole thing. Also if
you're a farmer, would you agree that some livestock have lives
of positive value and some don't, and that their lives should be
given as much consideration as their deaths?
dh
>
><dh@.> wrote in message news:sjf0g2p7smn2vlerp...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006 12:08:17 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>> People point out facts that "ethical" vegetarians hate and deny,
>>>> but they remain facts none the less.
>>>
>>>Some people (i.e. you) point out "facts" that have no relevance.
>>>
>>>> It really says a lot about them
>>>> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
>>>> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
>>>> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
>>>
>>>It says a lot about you that you persist in "pointing out" that meat
>>>consumption leads to animals "getting to experience life" when that fact
>>>has
>>>no place whatever in the discussion.
>>
>> It has no place in promoting "ar"
>
>It has no place in promoting the ethical use of animals in agriculture
>either.
Yes it does.
>It has no place in the discussion PERIOD.
You've had about five years to think of a good reason why we
should not give the animals' lives as much consideration as their
deaths, and so far the only reasons you've been able to provide
have been shit. They are:
1. "aras" don't want us to.
2. YOU don't want us to (but you're an "ara").
3. you claim we should think of it in the same way we think
of child prostition.
>> but is certainly a very significant
>> aspect of human influence on animals none the less.
>
>It certainly is NOT significant.
It is for billions of animals.
>It is important for AW to realize that
>animals are sentient living beings, it of no importance whatsoever that
>farming them means they "get to experience life", none.
It is for billions of animals.
> >>>>Or Diderot
>>>>>might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
>>>>>deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
>>>>>rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
>>>>>be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
>>>>>object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
>>>>>account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
>>>>>is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
>>>>>sorts of reasons.
>>>>
>>>> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
>>>> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
>>>> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is. It's most
>>>> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
>>>> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
>>>> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
>>>> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
>>>
>>>Those billions of animals that live and die in rice paddies also "get to
>>>experience life", do you "consider" that to be a "positive aspect" of rice
>>>consumption, eh fuckwit?
>>
>> In some cases, douche. In others not. Since it never is iyo, you
>> necessarily are incapable of comprehending any distinction between
>> when it would be and when it wouldn't.
>
>LOL! I enjoy frying you on the spit of your own barbeque.
You could have no clue since you could never come close to
doing anything like that, you poor moron.
dh
Here's another fact that "ethical" veg*ns hate: Some livestock
have lives of positive value. Here's another: The lives of animals
raised for food should be given as much or more consideration
than their deaths.
>> It really says a lot about them
>> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
>> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
>> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
>>
>
>What does it say about them that they are not convinced?
That they will eat rice regardless of the deaths involved with it,
and that they will deny the deaths in order to cling to their belief
that they are the ethical champions of the world.
>> >Or Diderot
>> >might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
>> >deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
>> >rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
>> >be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
>> >object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
>> >account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
>> >is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
>> >sorts of reasons.
>>
>> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
>> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
>> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is.
>
>Nonsense.
Then why would anyone selling organic rice lie and say it's worse
than it is?
>It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
>rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
>the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
>about the matter.
>
>Diderot clearly has an agenda to push.
What is it then, and why would he push it?
>It's totally irrational to say
>that there is some reason to think Pearl would lie to make her position
>more plausible,
LOL!!! There are ONLY reasons to think that "pearl" would lie,
and absolutely NO reasons not to.
>but there is no reason to think Diderot would.
There's no reason to think that diderot would lie...at least no good
reason why that any of us have been able to come up with so far.
>> It's most
>> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
>> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
>> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
>> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
>
>How would you know whether it's the case or not?
Because of the absurd reactions by veg*ns--and ONLY by veg*ns--to
wildlife deaths associated with rice production.
>There are some people
>posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
>entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
>on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
>about human influence on animals.
I have ONLY reason to believe that no veg*n I've ever encountered
online cares anywhere near as much about human influence on animals
as they do about promoting veg*nism. Even when animal products
contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products AND provide decent
lives for livestock veg*ns still promote the vegetable products over the
animal products....and usually if not always they do it dishonestly....in fact
I can't recall a veg*n EVER being honest about doing so.
pearl
Unlike you, I don't lie.
> >> >> >You dis-believe without reason.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
> >> >> people in general would have learned about it because research
> >> >> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
> >> >> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
> >> >> public like they do with other things of interest.
> >> >
> >> >That has happened.
> >>
> >> You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
> >> always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
> >> exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?
> >
> >You mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.
>
> That's because of a number of people who have reported them,
In Texas? Show us.
> plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
> rice fields.
Areas that are allowed to dry, and harvested twice a year?
> The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
> is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
> two other "aras".
Let's see your documentation of hundreds of thousands in Texas rice fields.
> >There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.
>
> No there are not.
Yes, there are.
> >No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.
>
> Nope.
More than once.
> . . .
> >> You emphatically stated that you "don't think that 'they' are there!"
> >> Now you're amusingly trying to pretend differently.
> >
> >'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".
> >
> >> >Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.
> >>
> >> How many? How could you possibly have any clue? Present some
> >> info from a reliable source to back up your absurd sounding claim.
> >
> >I have backed up logical common sense
>
> Maybe, but not about this topic.
About this topic.
> >with an email from a bona fide
> >organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.
>
> The email you presented turned out to back up diderot's claim.
Quote?
> >> >> >> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
> >> >> >> and sulk away from it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You haven't answered the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which one?
> >> >
> >> >How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.
> >>
> >> The only thing to suggest that diderot lied is YOU, and you're insane.
> >> YOU need to explain why frogs and tadpoles could not get into rice
> >> fields when they are flooded with water from rives and/or creeks.
> >
> >I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
> >teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.
>
> You just can't comprehend the fact that there are still pools in rivers and
> creeks, and that they exist behind closed flood gates.
And just there, there are hundreds of thousands of frogs, spawn and tadpoles?
Ridiculous. What happened to your claim that they come from "upstream"?
> >> >> >> >And if his claims were true, a
> >> >> >> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who would document it? Why?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
> >> >>
> >> >> So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
> >> >> and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
> >> >> agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
> >> >> that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
> >> >
> >> >Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
> >> >And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
> >> >crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that people should give no thought to cds involved
> >> with any type of crop production? How about wood and paper production?
> >> Construction of roads and building? Mining operations? Production of
> >> electricity?
> >
> >Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs.
>
> Let's see some evidence of that.
Results 1 - 10 of about 819,000 for pesticides bird kill.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for pesticides fish kill.
> >If such a major thing
> >as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.
>
> Let's see some evidence of that too.
See above.
> >I still don't see
>
> You see nothing, and care even less.
Baseless insults and lies will get you nowhere.
> >these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?
> _________________________________________________________
> Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
> conjunction
"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.
If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. > That's an ecosystem gone.
> with rice are a source of animal protein and essential fatty
pearl
There may be quite a few along the banks, and in stiller, shallow water..
> Here's something else you can't comprehend: there are
> sometimes tadpoles too. Something else you won't be able to grasp:
> there is often still water behind the flood gates where eggs are laid
> and tadpoles hatch and live, and when the gate is opened the eggs
> and tadpoles are swept along with the water.
Sure.. there are hundreds of thousands of eggs and tadpoles -right there-.
(Describe these 'flood gates', dh@. How do they operate exactly?)
And, sadly for you, frogspawn and young tadpoles cling to plants:
'.. the spawn was floating in the middle of the pond, attached to a
marginal plant whose top leaves were just breaking the surface of
the water. ' [image of frogspawn attached to plant]
http://www.turning-earth.co.uk/frogspawn.php
'A female spawns the frogspawn in small portions, in the form of
small clusters attached to shoots of water plants. There are
approximately from 20 to 150 eggs in such a cluster. An egg is light
- brown on side and light - yellow on the other side.
The development cycle for the larva lasts for approximately 3 months.
At first, tadpoles attach themselves to water plants with the use of the
pad while more mature forms of these swim freely. Before transformation,
they usually reach the length ranging from 46 to 49 millimetres. After the
transformation, young tree frogs leave their water reservoir.
..'
http://www.wigry.win.pl/plazy2/rzet_en.htm
> >> >Show us some other documentation of this alleged mass slaughter.
Waiting....
> >> ><diderot fiction snipped.>
> >> >..
> >> >> Why would I "want to believe" that so many animals are killed in
> >> >> rice production.
> >> >
> >> >To feel better about the billions of deaths caused by the livestock industry.
> >>
> >> Since you don't believe there are a significant number of cds involved
> >> with crop production, which deaths do you think you're referring to, have
> >> you any idea?
> >
> >Of course.
>
> Which ones?
The billions of livestock killed; the wildlife directly slaughtered as 'predators',
'competitors', and 'pests'; the collateral deaths in 30 million hectares of feed..
pearl
Unlike you, I don't lie.
> >> >> >You dis-believe without reason.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have good reason. If it were true, I have good reason to believe
> >> >> people in general would have learned about it because research
> >> >> teams would have found the entrances, gone in, studied it, made
> >> >> videos, and made money by presenting what they learned to the
> >> >> public like they do with other things of interest.
> >> >
> >> >That has happened.
> >>
> >> You're the only person I've ever known of to think so. Do you
> >> always believe that btw, or do you sometimes think they don't
> >> exist like you sometimes think there are no frogs in rice fields?
> >
> >You mean, like you believe in a biblical plague of frogs in rice fields.
>
> That's because of a number of people who have reported them,
In Texas? Show us.
> plus having seen many frogs in different environments similar to
> rice fields.
Areas that are allowed to dry and then harvested twice a year?
> The only thing I've seen trying to oppose the occurrence
> is you who have no clue wtf you're trying to talk about, and one or
> two other "aras".
Let's see your documentation of hundreds of thousands in Texas rice fields.
> >There are many written accounts by explorers, researchers and others.
>
> No there are not.
Yes, there are.
> >No video that I'm aware of, sorry, but I did link to an unusual photo.
>
> Nope.
More than once.
> . . .
> >> You emphatically stated that you "don't think that 'they' are there!"
> >> Now you're amusingly trying to pretend differently.
> >
> >'they', as in the hundreds of thousands alleged - "the green waterfall".
> >
> >> >Not the hundreds of thousands you claim.
> >>
> >> How many? How could you possibly have any clue? Present some
> >> info from a reliable source to back up your absurd sounding claim.
> >
> >I have backed up logical common sense
>
> Maybe, but not about this topic.
About this topic.
> >with an email from a bona fide
> >organic rice-farmer. -You- have yet to support your fantastical claim.
>
> The email you presented turned out to back up diderot's claim.
Quote?
> >> >> >> You can't answer that one. At "best" all you can do is hurl insults
> >> >> >> and sulk away from it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You haven't answered the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which one?
> >> >
> >> >How all 'these' frogs got there in the first place. diderot lied to you.
> >>
> >> The only thing to suggest that diderot lied is YOU, and you're insane.
> >> YOU need to explain why frogs and tadpoles could not get into rice
> >> fields when they are flooded with water from rives and/or creeks.
> >
> >I have explained. Rivers and creeks - deep moving bodies of water - aren't
> >teeming with frogs! Not even in Texas. Frogs live in still, shallow pools.
>
> You just can't comprehend the fact that there are still pools in rivers and
> creeks, and that they exist behind closed flood gates.
And right there, there are hundreds of thousands of frogs, spawn and tadpoles?
> >> >> >> >And if his claims were true, a
> >> >> >> >seasonal wholesale slaughter of frogs would be well-documented.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Who would document it? Why?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Amphibian watchers, .. agricultural sites, .. ecological sites..
> >> >>
> >> >> So you're saying there are no cds involved with any crop production,
> >> >> and if there were it would be well documented and posted on
> >> >> agricultural and ecological sites? Or are you trying to get us to believe
> >> >> that's only true in the case of rice for some reason(s)?
> >> >
> >> >Amphibians are in serious trouble, so it would be well-documented.
> >> >And yes, - if the mass carnage you'd like us to believe happens in
> >> >crop production was a fact, that too would be well-documented.
> >>
> >> So you're saying that people should give no thought to cds involved
> >> with any type of crop production? How about wood and paper production?
> >> Construction of roads and building? Mining operations? Production of
> >> electricity?
> >
> >Yes, it is documented, where or when it occurs.
>
> Let's see some evidence of that.
Results 1 - 10 of about 819,000 for pesticides bird kill.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for pesticides fish kill.
> >If such a major thing
> >as you are claiming happens, it would most certainly be documented.
>
> Let's see some evidence of that too.
See above.
> >I still don't see
>
> You see nothing, and care even less.
Baseless insults and lies will get you nowhere.
> >these alleged hundreds of thousands. Do you?
> _________________________________________________________
> Fish, frogs, snails, insects, and other aquatic organisms that thrive in
> conjunction
--restore--
"in conjuction" means 'joined to'. In the areas described below,
harvesting is manual, and therefore the wildlife can thrive as the
fields and surrounding areas will serve as an established habitat.
If you went in there with a mechanic harvester, yes, you'd likely
get your "green waterfall" - once. > That's an ecosystem gone.
--end restore--
Why did you snip that, dh@? I think you need to address it.
Rupert
Yes, well we've discussed this before. The argument that if livestock
have sufficiently good lives, this justifies bringing them into
existence, inflicting painful mutilations on them without anaesthetic,
and killing them for food, is not a "fact" that ethical vegans hate, it
is a highly contentious and disputed argument. An important point to
address is: would it be permissible to do the same thing to humans, and
if not, what's the morally relevant difference? I really had a tough
time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans. I
think most people would find this pretty difficult to swallow. You're
entitled to your opinion, but you should be upfront about what your
claims are.
> >> It really says a lot about them
> >> that "ethical" vegetarians appear to be the only people who are
> >> opposed to seeing such aspects of human influence on animals
> >> being pointed out, even though everyone is involved with them.
> >>
> >
> >What does it say about them that they are not convinced?
>
> That they will eat rice regardless of the deaths involved with it,
The fact that they are not convinced of Diderot's claims certainly does
not prove that they will eat rice regardless of how much harm they
think it causes. They are not convinced that rice production causes a
lot of harm, and in any case you don't know whether they eat rice or
not. If you think there are good ethical reasons to eat less or no rice
and you want to advocate that, go ahead.
> and that they will deny the deaths in order to cling to their belief
> that they are the ethical champions of the world.
>
Any opinion they express is not an attempt to cling to a belief, it is
a sincerely held opinion.
If you present an argument and someone's not convinced, the rational
thing to do is defend the argument, not say that this reflects poorly
on them as a person.
> >> >Or Diderot
> >> >might have presented an exaggerated, distorted, picture without
> >> >deliberately intending to. Just because Diderot claims he is an organic
> >> >rice former is no reason why this single individual's testimony should
> >> >be taken as the final word on the matter, and cannot rationally be the
> >> >object of skepticism or criticism. I do not know whether Diderot's
> >> >account of the matter is correct or not. It is quite possible that it
> >> >is, but there is also plenty of room for reasonable doubt, for all
> >> >sorts of reasons.
> >>
> >> There are none. There is much reason to believe he's correct,
> >> no reason to believe he's not, and no apparent reason why anyone
> >> selling organic rice would lie and say it's worse than it is.
> >
> >Nonsense.
>
> Then why would anyone selling organic rice lie and say it's worse
> than it is?
>
You said there is not the slightest reason to doubt that his testimony
is the gospel truth. That is nonsense. He is a stranger who made a post
to the internet a few years ago. You have absolutely no way of knowing
whether his estimates are reasonable or not. You don't even know
whether he is a rice farmer. He has a desire to convince people that
the arguments in favour of ethical vegetarianism are flawed. If it is
possible that Pearl might lie in order to persuade people of her
position, then it is possible that Diderot might intentionally or
unintentionally distort the truth in order to persuade people of his
position. As you point out, there is not much danger of a serious
impact on the sales of organic rice.
> >It's the anecdotal testimony of one person who claims to be a
> >rice farmer. What we need is some sort of scientific investigation of
> >the issue. Only then will it be possible to have well-founded beliefs
> >about the matter.
> >
> >Diderot clearly has an agenda to push.
>
> What is it then, and why would he push it?
>
See above.
> >It's totally irrational to say
> >that there is some reason to think Pearl would lie to make her position
> >more plausible,
>
> LOL!!! There are ONLY reasons to think that "pearl" would lie,
> and absolutely NO reasons not to.
>
> >but there is no reason to think Diderot would.
>
> There's no reason to think that diderot would lie...at least no good
> reason why that any of us have been able to come up with so far.
>
To repeat, there is no more reason to think that Pearl would lie than
to think that Diderot would. You're being ridiculous.
> >> It's most
> >> likely the reason he felt safe in doing so is because he's aware that
> >> the majority of organic rice consumers don't care enough about
> >> human influence on animals to even take such facts into consideration,
> >> and this ng experience has certainly suggested that is the case.
> >
> >How would you know whether it's the case or not?
>
> Because of the absurd reactions by veg*ns--and ONLY by veg*ns--to
> wildlife deaths associated with rice production.
>
I see no reason to think they're not prepared to take the facts into
consideration, just that they have a sincere doubt that they are indeed
facts. If you think they're facts it's your job to argue your case.
> >There are some people
> >posting here who are not yet convinced that what Diderot says is
> >entirely true. That doesn't mean they don't care about human influence
> >on animals. You have no reason for thinking anyone here lacks concern
> >about human influence on animals.
>
> I have ONLY reason to believe that no veg*n I've ever encountered
> online cares anywhere near as much about human influence on animals
> as they do about promoting veg*nism.
They want to promote veganism *because* they care about human influence
on animals. Why else would they do it? Factory-farming causes enormous
suffering, and most animal products have large crop inputs and would
therefore have far more CDs per serving than rice. Vegans want to
reduce the amount of harm caused by agriculture. Maybe some of them
have a blind spot about certain types of agriculture, if so, that's
unfortunate. But it's ridiculous to suggest they don't care about human
influence on animals. Reducing human influence on animals is the whole
point.
> Even when animal products
> contribute to fewer deaths than vegetable products AND provide decent
> lives for livestock veg*ns still promote the vegetable products over the
> animal products....and usually if not always they do it dishonestly....in fact
> I can't recall a veg*n EVER being honest about doing so.
The issue of bringing livestock into existence who have tolerably good
lives, if marred by unanaesthetized branding and surgical mutilations,
is a red herring. A transition to veganism would cause more wildlife to
exist. There is no merit in producing animal products that derives from
bringing animals into existence. Your only argument is the comparison
of death rates. It's your job to provide the evidence on that one. The
reason some vegans don't go along with you in encouraging the
consumption of grass-fed beef is because they haven't yet accepted your
case that it causes fewer deaths. It's your job to provide the
evidence. There is no dishonesty involved.
Dutch
"Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157849917.8...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.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.
> 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 fuckwit) can be dismissed, as I have said to you
before, the issue is that no animals we use as food or kill in agriculture
have anything remotely like human characteristics.
Rupert
You can identify some differences which hold between most humans and
most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but there will
always be some humans who don't have these differences from nonhuman
animals.
> > I really had a tough
> > time getting an answer out of you on this one, but at one point you
> > seemed to say it would be permissible to do the same thing to humans.
>
> There's no reason to say that because we accept the killing and/or use of
> animals in agriculture that we must implicitly approve of the killing of
> humans. There are relevant differences between animal species, in their
> intelligence and level of awareness. The argument that a few humans have
> little intelligence (like fuckwit) can be dismissed,
It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with. If we hold that
it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
characteristics. Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
humans who lack the characteristics." Very few defenders of animal
agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If they
want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they hold
that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the relevantly
similar humans, then the characteristics we identified aren't what
count after all, but rather species membership. Someone can advocate
that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but then
they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
literature.
Dutch
>
> 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 fuckwit) can be dismissed,
>
> It can't be dismissed. It has to be come to terms with.
That is coming to terms with it, it is the rational conclusion.
> If we hold that
> it is permissible to do these things to nonhuman animals because they
> lack certain characteristics, then we must also hold that it would be
> permissible to do the same things to humans who lack the
> characteristics.
No, because it is the essential ability to hold these characteristics that
is the deciding factor, not actual possession of the characteristics. All
humans have the essential ability to hold the characteristics of humanness,
even if they are impaired due to misfortune. No animals of any other species
have the potential to have such abilities, ZERO.
> Most people would find this counter-intuitive. The
> position may be right, but someone who wants to advocate it should be
> upfront about it, and say "I hold that it is permissible to do these
> things to nonhuman animals because they lack these characteristics -
> and I also hold that it would be permissible to do these things to
> humans who lack the characteristics."
You're approaching the problem backwards in order to artificially reach the
conclusion you wish to reach. In order to raise other animal species to the
level of humans, which is what you are trying to do, you must find at least
one example of a member of a non-human species with capabilities equal or
similar to humans. Instead you are attempting to drag all humans down to the
level of other animals by pointing to rare humans who's human abilities are
impaired. That is not a logical approach, because impairment of abilities is
ad hoc, arbitrary and meaningless, it can occur by injury, accident, disease
or fluke of genetics, it does not exist by nature. The question is asked,
"What if a race of beings came to the earth with powers equal to or greater
than humans?" They would be accorded rights, just as any animal species
would who demonstrated capacities equivalent to humans.
> Very few defenders of animal
> agriculture are actually prepared to come out and say that. If they
> want to say it, fine, then the matter can be debated. But if they hold
> that it's permissible to do it to the nonhumans, but not the relevantly
> similar humans,
There are no animals relevantly similar to humans.
> then the characteristics we identified aren't what
> count after all, but rather species membership.
Species membership identifies all beings who either have, have the potential
to have, or have in their essence human abilities, or humaness.
> Someone can advocate
> that species membership is the crucial characteristic too, but then
> they have to confront the arguments against speciesism in the
> literature.
There are no valid arguments against speciesism. The human species possesses
special powers or the potential or inherent ability to have those powers,
even if impaired, which humans by default value above all else, it is a fact
of human culture, and of other species.
rick
>>
>> The morally relevant difference lies in the essential
>> difference between
>> humans and the animal species we use as food, or kill in crop
>> fields, or
>> what-have-you.
>>
>
> You can identify some differences which hold between most
> humans and
> most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but
> there will
> always be some humans who don't have these differences from
> nonhuman
> animals.
=====================
But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the
seed of what being human is.
No such seed exists in ANY animal. The person you claim now
doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
achieve those differences. No matter how much hand-waving, and
how many strawmen you prop up, NO animals will ever achive the
difference. Again, your ignorance and stupidity blind you to
reality.
Glorfindel
<snip>
>>You can identify some differences which hold between most
>>humans and
>>most nonhumans and claim that they are morally relevant, but
>>there will
>>always be some humans who don't have these differences from
>>nonhuman
>>animals.
> =====================
> But the main difference still remains. Within each person is the
> seed of what being human is.
Which is what? How are you defining "human"? And, as
important, why is it morally relevant?
> No such seed exists in ANY animal.
Depends on what your definition is.
> The person you claim now
> doesn't have the differences from animals has the potential to
> achieve those differences.
That is not true for all biological members of the human species.
Pick any characteristic which is morally relevant, and you will
find at least some biological humans who lack it from birth and/or
are completely incapable of developing it. Speciesism is simply
a prejudice, like racism or sexism.
<snip>
Glorfindel
> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> 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 fuckwit) 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.
Dutch
"Glorfindel" <notg...@all.com> wrote in message
news:ee1oih$c1h$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
> 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.
Dutch
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 fuckwit) 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.
dh
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.
dh
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
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
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.
dh
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.
ontheroad
> 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>
ontheroad
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> 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.
Rupert
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.
Rupert
rick wrote:
> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1157872038....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.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.
Rupert
Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" <notg...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:ee1oih$c1h$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
> > 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.
rick
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157872038....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.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...
Rupert
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?
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.
Florida
dh@. wrote:
> On 7 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0700, demeter...@yahoo.com 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.
Rupert
What if the slaves had good lives, and weren't aware of their
situation?
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.
So you say, but I see no reason to think so.
dh
>
>dh@. wrote:
>> On 7 Sep 2006 13:42:44 -0700, demeter...@yahoo.com 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.
Glorfindel
> "Glorfindel" <notg...@all.com> wrote in message
> news:ee1oih$c1h$1...@reader2.nmix.net...
>>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.
Dutch
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
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.
Dutch
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Rupert" <rupertm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157872038....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.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.
Dutch
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".