On 24 Sep 2005 05:53:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>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.

That's settled then.

>> >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 animals.
>
>But theoretically you could do.

No, you cannot source meat from farmed animals
without first slaughtering those farmed animals.
How many times must I repeat this until it finally
sinks in?

>Therefore the killing
>is not an *absolutely* necessary part of meat production.

It is if you source your meat from farmed animals
because they are always slaughtered intentionally.
Meat sourced from animals that have died from
natural causes or from road kill isn't supplied by
livestock farming.

>> >> >> 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.

I'm glad to see that you finally agree, though tacitly.

>> >> >It's too bad that you haven't!
>> >>
>> >> I understand the distinction perfectly.
>> >
>> >You obviously don't.
>>
>> I obviously do.

If you understood the terms you would not be
making the same mistake.

>> >> >> >> 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

One lack of a response might be seen as forgetful,
but two in a row, especially after being told that
you had failed to respond the first time is a tacit
admission.