Vegetarian Discussion: Would Aristotle Be Proud Of His Protoge, Derek?

Would Aristotle Be Proud Of His Protoge, Derek?
Posts: 33

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

Dave
2005-10-07 00:33:28 EST
Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
necessary for the existence of that object.

Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
meat. It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
property of the sugar.

Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
logically consistent he would not be a vegan.


Dutch
2005-10-07 05:09:33 EST
The answer to your question, of course, is a resounding NO!

Derek uses ideas he finds with Google to mount arguments to support an
absurd vision of Animal Rights. He never understands those ideas, he mainly
picks them based on them having an authoritative ring to them. He then
proceeds to cobble together nonsensical "syllogisms" and other arguments.
Most people ignore him, but those of us who challenge his rubbish on a
regular basis soon find they become a target for his slur campaigns. I can't
say he's a typical ARA, that wouldn't be fair, he's a one-of-a-kind. Winning
an argument with him is quite simple, he makes logical blunders all over the
place, but he will never admit it, so there isn't the usual resolution one
might expect, he will spin away, misrepresent you, snip unethically, try to
change the focus on some imagined error in your reasoning or character, and
on and on ad absurdum. He's quite good at that game actually, drama, that's
where his real talent lies.

"Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote
> Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
> per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
> is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
> necessary for the existence of that object.
>
> Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
> the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
> it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
> animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
> meat. It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
> in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
> property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
> been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
> because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
> property of the sugar.
>
> Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
> can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
> vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
> to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
> to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
> of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
> of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
> logically consistent he would not be a vegan.

You won that argument a long time ago, but don't expect Derek to ever admit
it.



D*@.
2005-10-07 15:51:09 EST
On 6 Oct 2005 21:33:28 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
>per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
>is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
>necessary for the existence of that object.
>
>Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
>the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
>it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
>animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
>meat.

So is its life. Its life is of equal or superior consideration, since
without it there could be no death to cry about.

>It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
>in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
>property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
>been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
>because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
>property of the sugar.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:

Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future.

>Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
>can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
>vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
>to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
>to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
>of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
>of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
>logically consistent he would not be a vegan.

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Danny
2005-10-07 17:01:43 EST

Dave wrote:
> Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
> per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
> is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
> necessary for the existence of that object.
>
> Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
> the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
> it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
> animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
> meat. It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
> in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
> property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
> been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
> because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
> property of the sugar.

Aristotle - his name taken in vain by popes, philosophes and now
virtual skeptics - lends his name to yet another flawed interpretation
of exoteric epistles authored almost two and a half thousand years ago.

While the power of The Philosopher's metaphysics is manifest in this
post it is worth noting that the art of logic has remained
controversial. - All anachronistic and equally, inevitably, flawed -
we have Hegels dialectic (or Marx's if you prefer), Mills free market
of ideas, Poppers' provisional, iterative empiricism and Nietze's
dark night of the soul (not the sick, stupid, brutal nazi perversion of
his thoughts:).

Your premise doesn't support your proposition numbnut.

>
> Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
> can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
> vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
> to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
> to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
> of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
> of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
> logically consistent he would not be a vegan.

I guess you profit from the suffering of oppressed peoples in states
that produce oil and natural gas. Is this suffering a per-se or
per-accidens property of the qualtity of life that we both enjoy?


Dave
2005-10-07 18:01:34 EST

Danny wrote:

> Dave wrote:
> > Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
> > per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
> > is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
> > necessary for the existence of that object.
> >
> > Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
> > the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
> > it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
> > animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
> > meat. It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
> > in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
> > property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
> > been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
> > because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
> > property of the sugar.
>
> Aristotle - his name taken in vain by popes, philosophes and now
> virtual skeptics - lends his name to yet another flawed interpretation
> of exoteric epistles authored almost two and a half thousand years ago.
>
> While the power of The Philosopher's metaphysics is manifest in this
> post it is worth noting that the art of logic has remained
> controversial. - All anachronistic and equally, inevitably, flawed -
> we have Hegels dialectic (or Marx's if you prefer), Mills free market
> of ideas, Poppers' provisional, iterative empiricism and Nietze's
> dark night of the soul (not the sick, stupid, brutal nazi perversion of
> his thoughts:).
>
> Your premise doesn't support your proposition numbnut.

About which premise and which conclusion are you talking?

> > Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
> > can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
> > vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
> > to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
> > to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
> > of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
> > of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
> > logically consistent he would not be a vegan.
>
> I guess you profit from the suffering of oppressed peoples in states
> that produce oil and natural gas. Is this suffering a per-se or
> per-accidens property of the qualtity of life that we both enjoy?

It is a per-accidens property. Does it matter?


Dave
2005-10-07 18:17:36 EST

dh@. wrote:

> On 6 Oct 2005 21:33:28 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
> >per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
> >is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
> >necessary for the existence of that object.
> >
> >Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
> >the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
> >it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
> >animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
> >meat.
>
> So is its life. Its life is of equal or superior consideration, since
> without it there could be no death to cry about.

You really need to get away from the BS that these animal lives are
gifts from humans.
>
> >It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
> >in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
> >property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
> >been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
> >because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
> >property of the sugar.
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
> Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
> Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
> Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum,
> Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
> Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
> auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, brake fluid,
> contact-lens care products, glues, sunscreens and sunblocks,
> dental floss, hairspray, inks, Solvents, Biodegradable
> Detergents, Herbicides, Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips,
> Combs and Toothbrushes, Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape,
> Laminated Wood Products, Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and
> Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape,
> Abrasivesl, Steel Ball Bearings

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain why many of these
products can be found in shops with "suitable for vegans"
stamped on the packaging.

> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future.
>
> >Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
> >can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
> >vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
> >to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
> >to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
> >of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
> >of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
> >logically consistent he would not be a vegan.
>
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals.

Let's see your Maths then.

> Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products.


Danny
2005-10-07 18:38:50 EST

Dave wrote:
> Danny wrote:
>
> > Dave wrote:
> > > Aristotle, we are reliably informed, made a distinction between
> > > per-se and per-accidens properties of an object. The property
> > > is classified as per-se if that property is always absolutely
> > > necessary for the existence of that object.
> > >
> > > Aristotle's protege likes to use this definition to determine
> > > the ethical status of a consumer product. According to him,
> > > it is unethical to consume farmed meat becuase the death of the
> > > animal it came from is, he claims, a per-se property of that
> > > meat. It is OK to consume plant foods because any animal deaths caused
> > > in their production - even deliberate animal deaths - are not a per-se
> > > property of the plant food. Similarly it would have
> > > been OK to consume plantation sugar in the days of slavery
> > > because the death and suffering of the slaves was not a per-se
> > > property of the sugar.
> >
> > Aristotle - his name taken in vain by popes, philosophes and now
> > virtual skeptics - lends his name to yet another flawed interpretation
> > of exoteric epistles authored almost two and a half thousand years ago.
> >
> > While the power of The Philosopher's metaphysics is manifest in this
> > post it is worth noting that the art of logic has remained
> > controversial. - All anachronistic and equally, inevitably, flawed -
> > we have Hegels dialectic (or Marx's if you prefer), Mills free market
> > of ideas, Poppers' provisional, iterative empiricism and Nietze's
> > dark night of the soul (not the sick, stupid, brutal nazi perversion of
> > his thoughts:).
> >
> > Your premise doesn't support your proposition numbnut.
>
> About which premise and which conclusion are you talking?

Duh!

Delibrate suffering of animals (and people) is an inevetible product of
eating non-animal products.

Therefore vegans must support the suffering of animals..

Duh!

The object is to oppose deliberate indifference (and much worse) to the
suffering of poor defenceless animals.

Duh!

The object, numbnut, is not to avoid complicity but to say '.. thus far
and no further'..

Premise = Animals suffer and are killed deliberately because vegans do
not wish to consume meat.

Conclusion (Numbnuts) = Vegans do not consume meat therefore they must
endorse the deliberate slaughter and suffering of animals.

Stupid poster.. Are you nice and warm?? You must support the deliberate
tyranny of leaders across the mid-east and far-east that have natural
oil/gas resources..

Oh no.. I'm complicit. I couldn't possibly object now..

Stupid poster..

>
> > > Meanwhile Aristotle's protege has conceeded that "if animals
> > > can be farmed to old age in perfect bucolic settings with
> > > vetenary care then I see no reason why we shouldn't continue
> > > to farm and eat them". Since it is theoretically possible
> > > to raise livestock in this way, it follows that any abuse
> > > of livestock in the real world must be a per-accidens property
> > > of meat. The inescapable conclusion is that if Derek was
> > > logically consistent he would not be a vegan.
> >
> > I guess you profit from the suffering of oppressed peoples in states
> > that produce oil and natural gas. Is this suffering a per-se or
> > per-accidens property of the qualtity of life that we both enjoy?
>
> It is a per-accidens property. Does it matter?

It doesn't matter to you then, numbnut?


Dutch
2005-10-08 02:17:42 EST

"Danny" <xxxxx6@btopenworld.com> wrote
>
> Dave wrote:

>> > Your premise doesn't support your proposition numbnut.
>>
>> About which premise and which conclusion are you talking?
>
> Duh!
>
> Delibrate suffering of animals (and people) is an inevetible product of
> eating non-animal products.

Show where he made that claim.

> Therefore vegans must support the suffering of animals..

> Duh!

That's a no-brainer all-right.

> The object is to oppose deliberate indifference (and much worse) to the
> suffering of poor defenceless animals.

Veganism fails miserably on that front.

> Duh!

<the rest is summed up by that..>



Danny
2005-10-08 05:07:31 EST
What a dazzling repost..

No really, I'm wounded Dutch..


Dutch
2005-10-08 05:53:28 EST

"Danny" <xxxxx6@btopenworld.com> wrote
> What a dazzling repost..
>
> No really, I'm wounded Dutch..

Good you don't use too many words, fewer opportunities to demonstrate your
illiteracy.


Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron