Derek wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2005 05:22:15 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >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.
>
> Yes, according to the definition I gave.
>
> >The slaughtering
> >of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the
> >production of farmed meat.
>
> Yes, it is. You don't get meat from farmed animals
> without first slaughtering those farmed animal.

But theoretically you could do. Therefore the killing
is not an *absolutely* necessary part of meat production.
>
> >> >> 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
>
> No, unfortunately for you, it is you who is making
> the mistake, and it's because of this mistake that
> you'll never get to understand the distinction.
>
> >> >It's too bad that you haven't!
> >>
> >> I understand the distinction perfectly.
> >
> >You obviously don't.
>
> I obviously do.

Your unannotated snippage of points you would
presumably prefer to ignore has been noted.
>
> >> >> >> 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.
>
> Thank you.

What for? I forgot to respond to this in my initial reply
so I made another reply to address that issue. The fact
that I see no point in duplicating my repsonse here is
not a concession.