Derek wrote:

> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
> >
> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
> >provided didn't he?
>
> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
> terms accurately and clearly.

Viz: "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."

Meat can be sourced from animals who have died of natural
causes and therefore the killing of animals is not always
absolutely necessary for the existence of meat. Gotcha!

> If you still have a problem
> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?

There is stupid about using the nym 'Pesco-vegan'. It's
just that, when I decided that rules like "avoid all
meat and dairy produce" were a little too simplistic,
Pesco-vegan" no longer seemed a particulaly appropriate
nym for me. BTW, I still hold that pesco-veganism makes
more sense than lacto-vegetarianism.