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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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.

  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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?



  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!

  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

> 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!

  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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! ;-)


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> 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.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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




  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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



  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.



  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Sleepyhead
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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!

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.


  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

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

On 24 Sep 2005 05:36:41 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2005 03:39:28 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:01:41 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
>> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
>> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
>> >> >> >provided didn't he?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
>> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
>> >> >> terms accurately and clearly.
>> >> >
>> >> >Viz: "According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
>> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
>> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
>> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."
>> >> >
>> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals who have died of natural
>> >> >causes and therefore the killing of animals is not always
>> >> >absolutely necessary for the existence of meat. Gotcha!
>> >>
>> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what
>> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still
>> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before
>> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered,
>> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same
>> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming
>> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a
>> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that
>> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us; that
>> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from
>> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural
>> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional
>> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always
>> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and
>> >> stop wasting our time.

>>
>> Well, pesco-vegan - cat got your tongue?

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


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

>> >> >> If you still have a problem
>> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
>> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
>> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
>> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >There is stupid about using the nym 'Pesco-vegan'.
>> >>
>> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can.

>>
>> Well, pesco-vegan - nothing to say?

>
>"You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can." is not
>an argument


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

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


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

>> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
>> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
>> >> >appropriate for me. That is all.
>> >>
>> >> You dropped it because you were told that it
>> >> was self-contradictory,
>> >
>> >The term is no more self-contradictory than pesco-vegetarian.

>>
>> Which doesn't get away from the fact that the nym
>> "pesco-vegan" IS self-contradictory, now does it?

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


At last!

>So sue me!


No thank you.

>> >> and if you had any sense
>> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.
>> >
>> >I have no regrets about using the nym.

>>
>> Which is why you've dropped it like a hot potato,
>> yeah right.

>
>I have already explained why I dropped the term.


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

>> >It accurately described my position at the time.

>>
>> Exactly: self-contradictory. You've even admitted
>> it, but when I asked what you find so uneasy
>> about you conflicting, self-contradictory principles
>> you cut and ran for the door without replying.

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


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

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

>> >> [start - me to you]
>> >> His
>> >> comments are valid, and if you had any coherent
>> >> reason for stopping where you do with fish, you
>> >> would put it on the table for discussion instead
>> >> of cutting and running for the door as you did.

>> [you]
>> >I don't think Rudy was talking about fish but I shall
>> >answer your question anyway. Think of it as an
>> >uneasy compromize between conflicting principles

>> [me]
>> Tell me what you find so uneasy about your
>> conflicting principles, pesco-vegan.
>> [end]
>> Derek http://tinyurl.com/chjqc
>>
>> Go to the link and see where you cut and ran, pesco-vegan.

>
>Here are some of the "principles" I was referring to:
>
>Be thrifty concerning land usage.
>Eat a healthy, tasty and balanced diet.
>Respect animal life.
>
>Sometimes there is conflict between these principles but
>they are certainly not self-contradictory.


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

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

You eat fish, yet you also claim that your consumer
habits are influenced by AR principles. That alone
is a massive contradiction.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.



  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dave
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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.

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
dh@.
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So WHY aren't you all over on RFC? lack of conscience General Cooking 0 22-09-2015 11:15 PM
More gay Republican hypocrites to be outed! Ted[_2_] General Cooking 0 06-09-2007 03:48 AM
OT Hypocrites; Doug Perkins General Cooking 13 20-06-2005 03:48 PM
Hypocrites; [email protected] General Cooking 0 20-06-2005 01:33 AM
Health-Hype Hypocrites on PCBs, Mercury, and Lead jeff stier General Cooking 17 05-06-2004 05:56 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"