View Single Post
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 24 Sep 2005 05:36:41 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>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.


Being that your other response failed to demonstrate
that you understand this distinction, I can understand
why you wouldn't to demonstrate that same failure
again.

>> >> >> 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


It wasn't intended as one; it's an observation.

>and as such does not require a response.
>You should know that.


If you've nothing to explain your self-contradictory
nym away, then it's easy to see why you wouldn't
want to comment on my observation.

>> >> >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.


At last!

>So sue me!


No thank you.

>> >> 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.


You have now; "It is oxymoronic.", but you needed
that explained to you first before dropping the nym.

>> >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.


You've admitted that they are below this line. Also,
you're on record stating;
"My consumer habits are influenced by AR principles
if that's what you mean."
Pesco-vegan (Dave) Sep 3 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bnbsd

Yet you eat fish, and that on it's own is a massive
contradiction to what you've stated in that quote
above. Fish are animals, and if your consumer
habits are influenced by AR principles, then you
aren't living up to your stated principles. You're
contradicting yourself.

>> >> [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.


They are if you're eating animals which you claim
hold rights against you;

"My consumer habits are influenced by AR principles
if that's what you mean."
Pesco-vegan (Dave) Sep 3 2005 http://tinyurl.com/bnbsd

You eat fish, yet you also claim that your consumer
habits are influenced by AR principles. That alone
is a massive contradiction.