Derek wrote:

> 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?

Not at all. I have responded to this point elswhere in the
thread and do not see the point of doing so twice.
>
> >> >> 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?

"You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can." is not
an argument and as such does not require a response.
You should know that.

> >> >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?

It is an easily interpreted term that gave a clear indication
of what I ate and what I didn't. It is oxymoronic. So sue me!

> >> 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.

I have already explained why I dropped the term.

> >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.

My principles aren't and never were self-contradictory.
>
> [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.

Here are some of the "principles" I was referring to:

Be thrifty concerning land usage.
Eat a healthy, tasty and balanced diet.
Respect animal life.

Sometimes there is conflict between these principles but
they are certainly not self-contradictory. The first
two principles suggest eating fish is a good idea. The
third does not although I don't place nearly as much value
on the life of a fish as I do on the life of a mammal or
bird. In any case, the way most vegetables are grown
is not exactly respectful of animal life.