Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
> It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue
1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their minds because of the Law of Derek > , not a counter-argument, stupid. That, at least, is true. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Sep 2005 07:39:37 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:
>> It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue > >1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their >minds because of the Law of Derek The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth while at the same time criticising those who do promote animal rights genuinely. Over the years, since venturing onto animal-related groups pretending to promote the proposition of animal rights, he's changed his stance on this proposition so many times that it's difficult to know when he's actually telling the truth. All his quotes below come with a date and a link, and I've arranged them in chronological order so you can see his changes in position yourself. He first came here claiming to be a believer in the proposition of animal rights. "I am an animal rights believer." Dutch 12 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4ybt3 and "My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS". They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our own rights are b) to what degree and how we value the animal or species." Dutch 23 Feb 2001 http://tinyurl.com/3ljkh But within just a few months he started writing things like; "They have no rights because the very idea of a world of animals with rights is a laugh." Dutch 7 Aug 2001 http://tinyurl.com/6wffc and "Well, I don't believe in the idea of animal rights, I find it irrational …." Dutch 28 Aug 2002 http://tinyurl.com/47wy4 But then he switched back again, accepting the proposition of animal rights, and claiming to have signed a petition in support for it to the Canadian government. "I recently signed a petition online supporting an 'animal rights' bill in Canadian parliament." Dutch. 18 Sept 2003 http://tinyurl.com/5aaxn and, even more recently; "Rights for animals exist because human rights exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for animals would not exist." Dutch Sun, 18 Apr 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3s6pz and, only a couple of days ago > "sentient" > wrote > No, I believe that animals should have rights. > Currently they have none in the eyes of the law.... [Dutch] That is incorrect. I measure my right to be free from physical assault by looking if laws and sanctions exist against anyone who would assault me. Such laws and sanctions exist to protect domestic animals from abuse, so I must conclude that they hold rights against humans who would abuse them. Dutch Sep 20 2005 http://tinyurl.com/9g3yp And he's still insisting today that he doesn't support the proposition. >> , not a counter-argument, stupid. > >That, at least, is true. Yor damn right it is. |
|
|||
|
|||
Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged
you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess! So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed set of arguments about animal-rights et al. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Sep 2005 08:18:55 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:
>Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged >you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess! > >So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is >confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his >audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for >changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing >with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed >set of arguments about animal-rights et al. Exactly, Simon. That's my only gripe. If he at last rests on one side of the debate instead of changing it when asked to explain his current position, I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about that proposition and would like to argue it honestly. |
|
|||
|
|||
> I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about that proposition and would like to argue it honestly.
Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and goes off to bother someone else. Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a carnivore or an herbivore? |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Sep 2005 09:02:06 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:
>> I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him >> to commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the >> arguer promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's >> very frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about >> that proposition and would like to argue it honestly. > >Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to >philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and >goes off to bother someone else. > >Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a >carnivore or an herbivore? I've been vegan for over dozen years if we overlook the anchovies found in Worcester sauce, which I subsequently dropped since finding out about them a couple of years ago. |
|
|||
|
|||
Cool. I tried being veggie for a while, but lapsed in particularly
spectacular fashion by getting ****ed and rolling home to my strict veggie g/f while eating a kebab! |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Sep 2005 09:39:11 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:
>Cool. I tried being veggie for a while, but lapsed in particularly >spectacular fashion by getting ****ed and rolling home to my strict >veggie g/f while eating a kebab! Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that. |
|
|||
|
|||
> Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that.
Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me) some hysterical laughter! |
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Sep 2005 11:50:41 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote:
>> Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or >> did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that. > >Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me) >some hysterical laughter! Fortunately for her, rather, because if I were in that position I would argue; 1) If Derek was eating a kebab, then there would be evidence of kebabs about him. 2) There is evidence of kebabs about him therefore 3) Derek was eating a kebab. You should have told her she was affirming the consequent! ;-) |
|
|||
|
|||
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: > ... when I say I recognize rights in animals. > > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are > weird. No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal has a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse. Failure to respect these rights will result in sanctions and legal penalties just as if you violated the right of a human. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote > On 23 Sep 2005 07:08:32 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote: > >>> Snipping the evidence of your lies away only makes matters worse for >>> you, liar Ditch. >> >>And what a rational counter-argument you have, Liar Divvy-Derek. > > It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the > issue, not a counter-argument, stupid. No, it sure isn't an argument. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sleepyhead" > wrote > Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged > you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess! You didn't misjudge him, you had him dead to rights. > So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is > confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his > audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for > changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing > with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed > set of arguments about animal-rights et al. Don't be persuaded by Derek's spinology. There is a rational explanation for every quote. I don't bother to refute them any more because everyone who knows Derek and I knows it already. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote in message ... > On 23 Sep 2005 08:18:55 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote: > >>Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged >>you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess! >> >>So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is >>confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his >>audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for >>changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing >>with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed >>set of arguments about animal-rights et al. > > Exactly, Simon. That's my only gripe. If he at last rests > on one side of the debate instead of changing it when > asked to explain his current position, I wouldn't mind > at all, but as things stand I can never get him to commit, > and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer > promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very > frustrating after five years if in fact you're genuine about > that proposition and would like to argue it honestly. You're a dirty liar and a game player Derek, you know exactly where I stand. You deliberately consconstrue and misrepresent people's positions to further your own interests, whatever they are. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sleepyhead" > wrote in message oups.com... >> I wouldn't mind at all, but as things stand I can never get him to >> commit, and all the while while this goes on he attacks the arguer >> promoting that which he can't commit to, and that's very frustrating >> after five years if in fact you're genuine about that proposition and >> would like to argue it honestly. > > Sounds to me like he's going for the "quick-win" approach to > philosophy, and when it doesn't work he switches tack or gives up and > goes off to bother someone else. Not at all. I caution you, do NOT be cajoled by Derek. > Just out of interest - which side of the debate are you on? Are you a > carnivore or an herbivore? He's an Animal Rights Activist |
|
|||
|
|||
"Sleepyhead" > wrote > Hmm. Well if those posts are anything to go by it seems I've misjudged > you ... serves me right for butting-in I guess! > > So basically what you're saying is that at the very least Dutch is > confused, at worst he's deliberately adopting stances to suit his > audience. Well can't say I disapprove terribly - I'm a bugger for > changing my mind too - but I can see why you'd get fed-up conversing > with someone like that if you were after a long-running and detailed > set of arguments about animal-rights et al. Simon, let me just explain one thing and you can take it from there. In my view there are at least two distinct understandings of the phrase "animal rights". Most people I would submit take it to mean the movement to recognize that animals can suffer, that they have needs, and that they are not mere objects. The idea is to address conditions where animals such as livestock are made to endure insufferable pain, abuse and indignity, NOT to end all use of animals. This is also called "AW" or animal welfare, but in common parlance it is called animal rights, and we say for example that 'pets have a right to be protected from abusive owners'. The other meaning is a movement which believes that all use of or domestication of animals is inherently unjust. These people, called "ARAs", also vegans, do not believe in eating meat, using animal products in any way, animal research, in many cases even keeping of companion animals is considered immoral. I refer to this as "Animal Rights", or "AR" with capitals. I place myself in the first group, Derek is in the second group. He undertands this distinction fully, but ignores it deliberately when he produces all these quotes that purport to show that I am inconsistent. Derek is very dishonest, it is apparently the only way he thinks he can win arguments, and in that he may be right. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote > On 23 Sep 2005 11:50:41 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote: > >>> Did she believe you weren't eating that kebab like you told her, or >>> did she believe her lying eyes instead? They have a habit of doing that. >> >>Let's just say there was a long pause. And then (fortunately for me) >>some hysterical laughter! > > Fortunately for her, rather, because if I were in that > position I would argue; > > 1) If Derek was eating a kebab, then there would be > evidence of kebabs about him. > 2) There is evidence of kebabs about him > therefore > 3) Derek was eating a kebab. > > You should have told her she was affirming the > consequent! ;-) In other words try to bullshit your way out of it. Good lesson. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Derek" > wrote > On 23 Sep 2005 07:39:37 -0700, "Sleepyhead" > wrote: > >>> It's a review of his ever-changing stance on the issue >> >>1) Oh sorry, I'd forgotten that people aren't allowed to change their >>minds because of the Law of Derek > > The problem isn't that he's changed his mind, the > problem is that he keeps changing it back and forth > while at the same time criticising those who do > promote animal rights genuinely. That's a lie, and you know it. The problem you have with me is that I have ripped so many of your stupid arguments that you have declared me your mortal enemy. PERIOD |
|
|||
|
|||
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! > 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'. 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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! > 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'. It's just that, when I decided that rules like "avoid all meat and dairy produce" were a little too simplistic, Pesco-vegan" no longer seemed a particulaly appropriate nym for me. BTW, I still hold that pesco-veganism makes more sense than lacto-vegetarianism. |
|
|||
|
|||
Well it seems I've blundered right into the middle of a family feud
here ... So I guess it's my turn to nail my colours to the mast! 1) I eat meat. Personally I would prefer to eat less meat than I do, but both me & my partner work full-time and in our experience cooking vegetarian food can take considerable time and effort - more so than, say, bunging a couple of chicken kievs & a load of fries in the oven. 2) In terms of argumentative strategies I'm on the Animal Welfare side of things (as characterised above). 3) I don't consider either side of the debate to be necessarily more dishonest than the other, but the Animal Rights side of things reminds me of Jainism, and I have difficulty with the kind of slippery slope that Jainism is stuck on - brushing the ground in front of you to remove insects is just as likely to kill those insects as protect them, for instance. To put it another way: I think the idea that one can somehow divorce oneself from one's environment is deeply mistaken, but anyone who believes that kind of thing is only as dishonest as their beliefs (if you see what I'm driving at). Just one word on the family feud stuff - if any of this ongoing argument's going to lead to threats of blood and death then I'm not interested, because I think that if you believe in animal rights, then you also believe in rights for humans because humans are animals. In other words: I think cruelty to humans is as bad as cruelty to animals. Other than that ... .... En guarde! |
|
|||
|
|||
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; 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. >> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. >> 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. >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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dutch wrote: > > Really? so you'd lock a cat in jail for eating a mouse? man you are > > weird. > > No, that's not what I mean. I mean, for example, that a domestic animal has > a right to be fed and sheltered and protected from abuse. Oh really, so where do you draw the line? Surely *death* is the ultimate *abuse*!! eg Framer Brown raises cattle, sheep, poultry, fish for the purpose of human consumption? ie for humans to eat. What happens to your so called *rights of animals* when it comes time for the farmer to sell his stock to be slaughtered? ie I am asking you to define the difference between your *animal rights* and the rights of humans? why not let humans be killed for other humans to eat as well? Michael Gordge |
|
|||
|
|||
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. > 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. It's too bad that you haven'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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > >> 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. > > >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. > 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. It accurately described my position at the time. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. >> 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's too bad that you haven't! I understand the distinction perfectly. >> >> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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? >> >> 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? >> >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? >> 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. >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. [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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. >> >> 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. >> >> >> 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > 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. Whatever. > >> >> >> 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. I have nothing to explain. Pesco-vegan was a perfectly valid nym to use. > >> >> >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. I always knew the name was oxymoronic but that didn't matter and still doesn't. I have already explained the real reasons why I dropped the nym. It was no longer appropriate once I decided that the rule "don't eat meat or dairy" was too simplistic. > >> >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. No it isn't. I said my consumer habits were influenced by AR principles - not dictated by them. > 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. Do you live up to your AR principles. If you ever eat vegetables that have been sprayed with insecticides or consumed drugs that were developed using animal testing, then a simple "no" will suffice. > >> >> [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. My consumer habits are influenced by AR ideas, not dictated by them. The way most vegetables are grown is not respectful of animal rights. |
|
|||
|
|||
Derek wrote: > 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. "Yes, according to the definition I gave" is not an argument and therefore does not require a reply. > > >> >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. Of course you can. Simply wait for the farm animal to die from natural causes. > How many times must I repeat this until it finally > sinks in? The claim will remain false no matter how many times you repeat yourself. > >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. Irrelevant. it is possible to obtain meat from farmed animals without killing them. > Meat sourced from animals that have died from > natural causes or from road kill isn't supplied by > livestock farming. Livestock animals can die of natural causes or become road kill. > >> >> >> 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. You weren't putting forward an argument. Therefore a reply wasn't necessary. > >> >> >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. This is not an argument and therefore doesn't require a response. > >> >> >> >> 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. I have already responded to this exact point. If you want to delude yourself that my failure to repeat myself here is a tacit admission, go ahead. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Sep 2005 06:44:45 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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. > >Whatever. That's a lazy non-response and shows that you haven't even tried to understand the distinction at all. As I've said all along; you're a time-waster. >> >> >> >> 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. > >I have nothing to explain. Pesco-vegan was a perfectly >valid nym to use. You've already conceded that "It is oxymoronic.", yet now you're trying to claim that it's a perfectly VALID nym to use. You're all over the place. >> >> >> >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. > >I always knew the name was oxymoronic but that >didn't matter and still doesn't. It did matter, and that's why you've dropped it. >> >> >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. > >No it isn't. I said my consumer habits were influenced >by AR principles Yet you eat fish: animals. >- not dictated by them. Not if you don't live by your stated principles, and that's what I'm taking you to task over. Your principles are as contradictory as the nym you dropped, and that wont do while you continue to insist that your principles aren't contradictory. You need to sort yourself out and decide what principles you're going to stick with if you want to avoid being seen as a hypocrite. >> 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. > >Do you live up to your AR principles. You don't get to dodge your contradictory position by referring to my principles. Try something else. >> >> >> [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. > >My consumer habits are influenced by AR ideas "principles" is what you wrote, not "ideas", and you aren't living by your stated principles which you've hitherto insisted influence your consumer habits. |
|
|||
|
|||
On 24 Sep 2005 07:03:21 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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. > >"Yes, according to the definition I gave" No, according to the definition I gave and which you clearly don't understand. >> >> >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. > >Of course you can. Simply wait for the farm animal >to die from natural causes. Meat from animals that have died from natural causes isn't supplied by livestock farmers. > > >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. > >Irrelevant. No, it is not irrelevant. You cannot source farmed meat from farmed animals that have died from natural causes; they are slaughtered intentionally for their meat. >> Meat sourced from animals that have died from >> natural causes or from road kill isn't supplied by >> livestock farming. > >Livestock animals can die of natural causes or become >road kill. Yes, but those animals are not sold onto consumers. All farmed meat is sourced from slaughtered farm animals. >> >> >> >> 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. > >You weren't putting forward an argument. Being that I used the term "because", my statement was indeed an argument, and while you fail to respond to that argument I can only take that as tacit agreement with it. >> >> >> >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. > >This is not an argument and therefore doesn't require >a response. Are you going to try this little dodge with every statement I make, time-waster? >> >> >> >> >> 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. > >I have already responded to this exact point. You failed to respond twice in a row, even after being reminded that you had failed to respond, so for you to now say that you did respond is an obvious lie. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 14:17:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:04:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote >> >>>> · Since the animals we raise would not be alive if we >>>> didn't raise them, it's a distortion of reality not to take that >>>> fact into consideration whenever we think about the fact >>>> that the animals are going to be killed. The animals are not >>>> being cheated out of any part of their life by being raised >>>> and dying, but instead they are experiencing whatever life >>>> they get as a result of it. · >>> >>>That's the Logic of the Larder again. Once the animals are born we keep >>>them >>>in captivity then take away a significant part of their natural lifespan. >> >> They gain life from it. Remember? Or did you unlearn that too? > >We are disqualified from using that as an argument because we breed them to >use as food. > >> They gain life from it, and you want very badly to PREVENT people >> from considering that aspect. Remember? That's the main reason >> for the hundreds or thousands of posts you've made to me, in your >> attempts to make the lives of billions of animals appear to be >> insignificant to me. Remember? > >No, I am not concerned with preventing anyone except you from using The >Logic of the Larder, since in case you hadn't noticed virtually nobody but >you is using the argument, nor will they ever. It's An aspect that you "arFs" hate and detest, but true none the less. [...] >>How do *you* think people could deliberately contribute >> to decent lives for farm animals, without consuming selectively? > >That's what I said, idiot. Simply consuming does NOT "contribute to decent >lives for farm animals". Your false choice is presented as I just trashed your damn lie. Here are the choices: a) we can decide to deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals b) we can decide not to deliberately contribute to decent lives for food animals That's it. I encourage a). You discourage it. All you're left with is b), while I'm left with potentially decent lives for billions of animals. >> I am very curious to see how. > >The paragraph right above explained it. No it didn't. And you can't explain it. All you did was lie, again, like you always do, and I provided the truth, like I always do.... >>>>>You are >>>>>pushing a fallacy, just like vegans push the fallacy that one can >>>>>automatically eliminate animal deaths by abstaining from meat. Why don't >>>>>you >>>>>stop lying ****wit? >>>> >>>> I don't lie. In fact, what you hate about me is the truth that I >>>> point >>>> out. >>> >>>You don't "point out truth" >> >> If I were going to lie, I wouldn't say the things I do you stupid >> moron. I'd say things that I thought would make people like me >> better. You dumbass. > >Would you? I think you have so much of your pride invested in the LoL now >that you can't let it go. There's still that one fact you "arFs" can't appreciate, but I find to be extremely significant. That fact is that there are billions of animals who live only because we raise them for food. There lives are still just as significant you selfish asshole, even though you can't be considerate enough to think about them. All you can think of is YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU. YOU don't get any brownie points. YOU don't get a gold star. YOU don't get to double dip. YOU feel no significance for the life of a chicken in a barn somewhere. YOU don't get any positive value for decent lives for animals. But what about what the animals get? YOU can't even think about that, and don't want anyone else to. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? | General Cooking | |||
More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! | General Cooking | |||
OT Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
Hypocrites; | General Cooking | |||
Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead | General Cooking |