On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>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.

No, I don't believe that.

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

I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"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...."

>This idea of shared or vicarious moral
>responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
>established beyond rational dispute.

Yes, and it goes directly against your view.

>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.

And you've failed to do that.

>The
>objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.

Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.

>"vegans" are not
>behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.

I disagree.
>
>> [...]
>>
>> 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.

No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.

>> 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.

Yep.

>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."

And it is on his part. The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
from him. The callous food producer is responsible for the
cruelty, and it stays with him.

>Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,

No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.

>as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
>abandon it, anyway

Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
know he doesn't really have a clue. That's why he flip flops
from deontology to utilitarianism all the time. It's why he
switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.

>- and then he'll have to play the counting game,

I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."

>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.

But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
are killed during crop production. I don't follow that connection.
Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
because you wear a leather watch strap, for example? And
would your failure to foreswear leather have any bearing on
the matter anyway?

>> 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.