On 24 Sep 2005 05:22:15 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2005 03:34:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 24 Sep 2005 02:45:04 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
>> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
>> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
>> >> >> >provided didn't he?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
>> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
>> >> >> terms accurately and clearly.
>> >> >
>> >> >Viz:
>> >> >
>> >> >"According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
>> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
>> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
>> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."
>> >> >
>> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural
>> >> >causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely
>> >> >necessaryn for the existence of meat. Gotcha!
>> >>
>> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what
>> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still
>> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before
>> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered,
>> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same
>> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming
>> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a
>> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that
>> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us;
>> >
>> >No it doesn't. You can theoretically allow the livestock
>> >you farm to die of natural causes before you eat them.
>>
>> Meat from livestock farming is always slaughtered,
>> and as such, the death associated with that meat is
>> per se.
>
>Not according to the definitions you gave.

Yes, according to the definition I gave.

>The slaughtering
>of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the
>production of farmed meat.

Yes, it is. You don't get meat from farmed animals
without first slaughtering those farmed animal.

>> >> that
>> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from
>> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural
>> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional
>> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always
>> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and
>> >> stop wasting our time.
>> >
>> >I have learned the meaning of these terms as you defined
>> >them.
>>
>> No, you clearly haven't understood them at all, else
>> you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. I'm not
>> here to teach you, so I suggest you do some reading
>> of your own on the subject.
>
>It is you who is making the mistake

No, unfortunately for you, it is you who is making
the mistake, and it's because of this mistake that
you'll never get to understand the distinction.

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

I obviously do.

>> >> >> If you still have a problem
>> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
>> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
>> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
>> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'.
>> >>
>> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can.
>> >>
>> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
>> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
>> >> >appropriate for me. That is all.
>> >>
>> >> You dropped it because you were told that it
>> >> was self-contradictory, and if you had any sense
>> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.
>>
>> Your lack of a response here tells I'm right: you
>> dropped the nym AFTER it was shown to be
>> self-contradictory.

Thank you.

Derek wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2005 05:22:15 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:34:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 02:45:04 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
> >> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
> >> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
> >> >> >> >provided didn't he?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
> >> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
> >> >> >> terms accurately and clearly.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Viz:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
> >> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
> >> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
> >> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural
> >> >> >causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely
> >> >> >necessaryn for the existence of meat. Gotcha!
> >> >>
> >> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what
> >> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still
> >> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before
> >> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered,
> >> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same
> >> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming
> >> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a
> >> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that
> >> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us;
> >> >
> >> >No it doesn't. You can theoretically allow the livestock
> >> >you farm to die of natural causes before you eat them.
> >>
> >> Meat from livestock farming is always slaughtered,
> >> and as such, the death associated with that meat is
> >> per se.
> >
> >Not according to the definitions you gave.
>
> Yes, according to the definition I gave.
>
> >The slaughtering
> >of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the
> >production of farmed meat.
>
> Yes, it is. You don't get meat from farmed animals
> without first slaughtering those farmed animal.

But theoretically you could do. Therefore the killing
is not an *absolutely* necessary part of meat production.
>
> >> >> that
> >> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from
> >> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural
> >> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional
> >> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always
> >> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and
> >> >> stop wasting our time.
> >> >
> >> >I have learned the meaning of these terms as you defined
> >> >them.
> >>
> >> No, you clearly haven't understood them at all, else
> >> you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. I'm not
> >> here to teach you, so I suggest you do some reading
> >> of your own on the subject.
> >
> >It is you who is making the mistake
>
> No, unfortunately for you, it is you who is making
> the mistake, and it's because of this mistake that
> you'll never get to understand the distinction.
>
> >> >It's too bad that you haven't!
> >>
> >> I understand the distinction perfectly.
> >
> >You obviously don't.
>
> I obviously do.

Your unannotated snippage of points you would
presumably prefer to ignore has been noted.
>
> >> >> >> If you still have a problem
> >> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
> >> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
> >> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
> >> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'.
> >> >>
> >> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can.
> >> >>
> >> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
> >> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
> >> >> >appropriate for me. That is all.
> >> >>
> >> >> You dropped it because you were told that it
> >> >> was self-contradictory, and if you had any sense
> >> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.
> >>
> >> Your lack of a response here tells I'm right: you
> >> dropped the nym AFTER it was shown to be
> >> self-contradictory.
>
> Thank you.

What for? I forgot to respond to this in my initial reply
so I made another reply to address that issue. The fact
that I see no point in duplicating my repsonse here is
not a concession.

On 24 Sep 2005 05:53:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 24 Sep 2005 05:22:15 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:34:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 02:45:04 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
>> >> >> >Derek wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
>> >> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
>> >> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
>> >> >> >> >provided didn't he?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
>> >> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
>> >> >> >> terms accurately and clearly.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Viz:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
>> >> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
>> >> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
>> >> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural
>> >> >> >causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely
>> >> >> >necessaryn for the existence of meat. Gotcha!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what
>> >> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still
>> >> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before
>> >> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered,
>> >> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same
>> >> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming
>> >> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a
>> >> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that
>> >> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us;
>> >> >
>> >> >No it doesn't. You can theoretically allow the livestock
>> >> >you farm to die of natural causes before you eat them.
>> >>
>> >> Meat from livestock farming is always slaughtered,
>> >> and as such, the death associated with that meat is
>> >> per se.
>> >
>> >Not according to the definitions you gave.
>>
>> Yes, according to the definition I gave.

That's settled then.

>> >The slaughtering
>> >of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the
>> >production of farmed meat.
>>
>> Yes, it is. You don't get meat from farmed animals
>> without first slaughtering those farmed animals.
>
>But theoretically you could do.

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

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

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

>> >> >> that
>> >> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from
>> >> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural
>> >> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional
>> >> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always
>> >> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and
>> >> >> stop wasting our time.
>> >> >
>> >> >I have learned the meaning of these terms as you defined
>> >> >them.
>> >>
>> >> No, you clearly haven't understood them at all, else
>> >> you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. I'm not
>> >> here to teach you, so I suggest you do some reading
>> >> of your own on the subject.
>> >
>> >It is you who is making the mistake
>>
>> No, unfortunately for you, it is you who is making
>> the mistake, and it's because of this mistake that
>> you'll never get to understand the distinction.

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

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

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

>> >> >> >> If you still have a problem
>> >> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
>> >> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
>> >> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
>> >> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
>> >> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
>> >> >> >appropriate for me. That is all.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You dropped it because you were told that it
>> >> >> was self-contradictory, and if you had any sense
>> >> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.
>> >>
>> >> Your lack of a response here tells I'm right: you
>> >> dropped the nym AFTER it was shown to be
>> >> self-contradictory.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>What for? I forgot to respond

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

Derek wrote:

> On 24 Sep 2005 05:53:27 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >> On 24 Sep 2005 05:22:15 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 03:34:54 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> On 24 Sep 2005 02:45:04 -0700, "Dave" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >Derek wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On 23 Sep 2005 06:20:47 -0700, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian you wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >I was just wondering the same question. Derek did go very quiet on
> >> >> >> >> >us when we demonstrated that the animal deaths associated with
> >> >> >> >> >meat production were per accidens using the definitions he
> >> >> >> >> >provided didn't he?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> If I remember correctly, you argued that they weren't
> >> >> >> >> per accidens, dummy. I made my case by defining the
> >> >> >> >> terms accurately and clearly.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Viz:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >"According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
> >> >> >> >(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
> >> >> >> >is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
> >> >> >> >always absolutely necessary for that object's existence."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Meat can be sourced from animals that have died of natural
> >> >> >> >causes. Therefore the killing of animals is not absolutely
> >> >> >> >necessaryn for the existence of meat. Gotcha!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Far from it, and you've shown once again what
> >> >> >> I've been trying to tell you all along, that you still
> >> >> >> don't understand these terms. As I said before
> >> >> >> when road-kill and natural deaths were considered,
> >> >> >> the meat from these animals doesn't have the same
> >> >> >> property that meat sourced from livestock farming
> >> >> >> does. The meat from livestock farming carries a
> >> >> >> property that is always absolutely necessary for that
> >> >> >> meat's existence: intentional slaughter by us;
> >> >> >
> >> >> >No it doesn't. You can theoretically allow the livestock
> >> >> >you farm to die of natural causes before you eat them.
> >> >>
> >> >> Meat from livestock farming is always slaughtered,
> >> >> and as such, the death associated with that meat is
> >> >> per se.
> >> >
> >> >Not according to the definitions you gave.
> >>
> >> Yes, according to the definition I gave.
>
> That's settled then.

"Yes, according to the definition I gave" is not an argument
and therefore does not require a reply.
>
> >> >The slaughtering
> >> >of animals is not always absolutely necessary for the
> >> >production of farmed meat.
> >>
> >> Yes, it is. You don't get meat from farmed animals
> >> without first slaughtering those farmed animals.
> >
> >But theoretically you could do.
>
> No, you cannot source meat from farmed animals
> without first slaughtering those farmed animals.

Of course you can. Simply wait for the farm animal
to die from natural causes.

> How many times must I repeat this until it finally
> sinks in?

The claim will remain false no matter how many times
you repeat yourself.

> >Therefore the killing
> >is not an *absolutely* necessary part of meat production.
>
> It is if you source your meat from farmed animals
> because they are always slaughtered intentionally.

Irrelevant. it is possible to obtain meat from farmed animals
without killing them.

> Meat sourced from animals that have died from
> natural causes or from road kill isn't supplied by
> livestock farming.

Livestock animals can die of natural causes or become
road kill.

> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> property is classified as per se. Meat sourced from
> >> >> >> road kill, or animals that have died from natural
> >> >> >> causes doesn't carry that property of intentional
> >> >> >> slaughter, and so the property of that meat is always
> >> >> >> classified as per accidens. Learn these terms and
> >> >> >> stop wasting our time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I have learned the meaning of these terms as you defined
> >> >> >them.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, you clearly haven't understood them at all, else
> >> >> you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. I'm not
> >> >> here to teach you, so I suggest you do some reading
> >> >> of your own on the subject.
> >> >
> >> >It is you who is making the mistake
> >>
> >> No, unfortunately for you, it is you who is making
> >> the mistake, and it's because of this mistake that
> >> you'll never get to understand the distinction.
>
> I'm glad to see that you finally agree, though tacitly.

You weren't putting forward an argument. Therefore a reply
wasn't necessary.

> >> >> >It's too bad that you haven't!
> >> >>
> >> >> I understand the distinction perfectly.
> >> >
> >> >You obviously don't.
> >>
> >> I obviously do.
>
> If you understood the terms you would not be
> making the same mistake.

This is not an argument and therefore doesn't require
a response.

> >> >> >> >> If you still have a problem
> >> >> >> >> understanding the distinction between them I suggest you
> >> >> >> >> go back to my original post and review it, time-waster.
> >> >> >> >> Why have you dropped the stupid nym 'pesco-vegan',
> >> >> >> >> dummy? Couldn't carry it, eh?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >There is nothing stupid about the nym 'Pesco-vegan'.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You may not see the stupidity in it, but I can.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >When I decided that "eat no meat or dairy" was too
> >> >> >> >simplistic a rule then the nym no longer seemed
> >> >> >> >appropriate for me. That is all.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You dropped it because you were told that it
> >> >> >> was self-contradictory, and if you had any sense
> >> >> >> at all you wouldn't have used it in the first place.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your lack of a response here tells I'm right: you
> >> >> dropped the nym AFTER it was shown to be
> >> >> self-contradictory.
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >
> >What for? I forgot to respond
>
> One lack of a response might be seen as forgetful,
> but two in a row, especially after being told that
> you had failed to respond the first time is a tacit
> admission.

I have already responded to this exact point. If you want
to delude yourself that my failure to repeat myself here
is a tacit admission, go ahead.

On 24 Sep 2005 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.

Sorry if the format of this post comes out a little strange. My server
crashed just
before I had finished composing it and I had to copy-paste the whole
thing
into word and then back again.

Derek wrote:

> 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.

Note the unannotated snippage.
>
> >> >> >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.

This still doesn't imply that the property (animal being slaughtered)
is always absolutely necessary for the product we were discussing
(meat from farmed animals) .

> > > >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.

OK. I see you wish to be more specific about the product
we were discussing. The slaughter of animals is a per-accidens
property of meat that comes from livestock. It is a per-se
property of meat that a consumer can buy over the counter.
However this redefining exposes a massive hole in your ethics.
Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat
from animals that died naturally. In that case the slaughter
of animals would become a per-accidens property of meat that
can be bought over the counter and hence, according to your
ethics become, in essence, perfectly ethcial even if the
particular piece of meat you purchased came from an animal
that had been slaughtered. It doesn't make sense!

> >> 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.

I have nothing to add to my reply to your previous point.

> >> >> >> >> 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.

I stand by everything I have said to you in this thread. I already
understand the
distinction between per-se and per-accidens. My contribution to the
thread, demonstrates this.

> >> >> >> >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?

Only when you present opinions that do nothing to further the
discussion like "You don't understand the terms". I shall
continue my policy of responding only to arguments and constructive
statements.

> >> >> >> >> >> 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.

I did respond. Here's the proof:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...7487edd?hl=en&

"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
<..>
>> Suppose that butchers and supermarkets did start buying meat
>> from animals that died naturally.

Strictly prohibited.

'Death from natural causes or accident
27(1) A person shall not take into an abattoir an
animal that has died from natural causes or because
of an accident.
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/acts376?opendocument

'FOOD SAFETY
State and Federal Standards and Regulations
...
It is unlawful to handle, skin, butcher, cut up, dress
or prepare for the making of fertilizers, animal feeding,
or other uses, any animal, or the meat or other parts
of an animal, that died from natural causes, disease,
or accident, in any room of an establishment where
animals are slaughtered, dressed, and prepared for
human food.
http://www.nasda-hq.org/nasda/nasda/...nnsylvania.pdf