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
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:03 AM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:23 AM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:25 AM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:30 AM
 
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:34 AM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:39 AM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 11:50 AM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 12:14 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 01:22 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 01:32 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 01:36 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 01:53 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 02:08 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 02:20 PM
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  
Old 24-09-2005, 02:44 PM
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.



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 04:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017