On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, Glen > wrote:

>On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:

>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>
>No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>_________________________________________________ _____
>Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>to his own method. From Wiki;
>
>[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>
> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>
>The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>
>Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>_________________________________________________ ____

Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it, and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur, as we can see by the above post I made
last year.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless. They don't
even believe their own bullshit. You'll never get an honest
discussion here. You'll never get an honest answer from them.

Take Dutch, for example. When he first came here he claimed to
be a vegetarian and an advocate for animal rights. Like you he
used to believe;

"There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
sacrifice for your subsistence."
Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf

and

"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
production.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
better that they live that life than that they not live at
all"
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
animal-rights agenda.
Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
agenda.

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

"I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
it.

"... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."
28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm

So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,
intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
you.