On 24 Sep 2005 03:39:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>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.

Well, pesco-vegan - cat got your tongue?

>> >> 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.

Well, pesco-vegan - nothing to say?

>> >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.

Which doesn't get away from the fact that the nym
"pesco-vegan" IS self-contradictory, now does it?

>> 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.

Which is why you've dropped it like a hot potato,
yeah right.

>It accurately described my position at the time.

Exactly: self-contradictory. You've even admitted
it, but when I asked what you find so uneasy
about you conflicting, self-contradictory principles
you cut and ran for the door without replying.

[start - me to you]
>> His
>> comments are valid, and if you had any coherent
>> reason for stopping where you do with fish, you
>> would put it on the table for discussion instead
>> of cutting and running for the door as you did.
[you]
>I don't think Rudy was talking about fish but I shall
>answer your question anyway. Think of it as an
>uneasy compromize between conflicting principles
[me]
Tell me what you find so uneasy about your
conflicting principles, pesco-vegan.
[end]
Derek http://tinyurl.com/chjqc

Go to the link and see where you cut and ran, pesco-vegan.