On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > 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,

Vegetables generally have that history.


> and there's
> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
> for the deaths that may occur,

Absolutely wrong, Derek. This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute. It's the motivation behind
boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.


> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.

The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal. The
objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled. "vegans" are not
behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


> [...]
>
> 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

That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
omnivorous diets.


>
> 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

Same again.

However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free." Eventually he'll have to abandon that
claim, as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
abandon it, anyway - and then he'll have to play the counting game, and
then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".


> 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

Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.


>
> 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

That's high-volume commercial meat packing plants as they currently
operate. I think kosher and halal slaughterhouses don't operate that
way, which is a big part of why that meat is much more expensive.


> 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,

Not by me, he won't.


> 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.