Derek wrote:

> 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,

The term is no more self-contradictory than pesco-vegetarian.

> and if you had any sense
> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.

I have no regrets about using the nym. It accurately
described my position at the time.