View Single Post
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Derek wrote:

> 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.


Not according to the definitions you gave. The slaughtering
of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the
production of farmed meat.
>
> >> 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 is you who is making the mistake, Derek. Using the
definitions you give for per-accidens and per-se, I have
established that the killing of animals is per-accidens
for veggies and meat, and per-se for some medicinal drugs.

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

>
> I understand the distinction perfectly.


You obviously don't.

> >> >> 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.