View Single Post
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Sep 2005 03:01:41 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>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!


Far from it, and you've shown once again what
I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still
don't understand these terms. As I said before
when road-kill and natural deaths were considered,
the meat from these animals doesn't have the same
property that meat sourced from livestock farming
does. The meat from livestock farming carries a
property that is always absolutely necessary for that
meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us; that
property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from
road kill, or animals that have died from natural
causes doesn't carry that property of intentional
slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always
classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and
stop wasting our time.

>> 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'.


You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can.

>When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
>simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
>appropriate for me. That is all.


You dropped it because you were told that it
was self-contradictory, and if you had any sense
at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.