On 24 Sep 2005 03:34:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2005 02:45:04 -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 that have died of natural
>> >causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely
>> >necessaryn 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;
>
>No it doesn't. You can theoretically allow the livestock
>you farm to die of natural causes before you eat them.

Meat from livestock farming is always slaughtered,
and as such, the death associated with that meat is
per se.

>> 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.
>
>I have learned the meaning of these terms as you defined
>them.

No, you clearly haven't understood them at all, else
you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. I'm not
here to teach you, so I suggest you do some reading
of your own on the subject.

>It's too bad that you haven't!

I understand the distinction perfectly.

>> >> 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 nothing stupid about 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.

Your lack of a response here tells I'm right: you
dropped the nym AFTER it was shown to be
self-contradictory.