On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > 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...."

As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility. It also
looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
suffer and die is ongoing.



>> 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.

No, it doesn't.

>
>> 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.

Ha ha ha! No, I haven't - I dynamited the pedestal.


>> The objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.
>
> Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Obviously it is, because you're using the same failed arguments.


> 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.

Irrelevant. Most people convicted of crimes continue to insist they're
"innocent", as well, but the convictions typically stand.


>>> [...]
>>>
>>> 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.

Nope.


>
>>> 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.

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.

It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
killers. If he and *everyone* else stopped buying from animal-killing
producers, then animal-killing producers would either have to change
their methods or go out of business.

His "lifestyle" is not "cruelty free" - his pursuit of it leads to
animal death.



> The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
> from him.

<yawn> Same as meat eaters.

He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty, but he knows of it and rewards
the farmer for it by continuing to buy from him.


>> Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,
>
> No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.

He does need to, and if engages with Rupert much longer, he will.


>
>> 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.

He does have a complete clue regarding the connection between vegetable
farming and animal death.


> That's why he flip flops
> from deontology to utilitarianism all the time.

Yes, that's the "vegan shuffle" that started the thread.


> 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."

So, he won't have any basis for claiming virtue at all, then! Not only
won't he be on a pedestal, he'll be in a hole.


>> 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.

They're only smug sanctimonious hypocrites if they claim to be living a
"cruelty free 'lifestyle'", or if they claim to be minimizing when
they've never measured.


> I don't follow that connection.

Sure you do, if by "follow" you mean comprehend.


> 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?

What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
products?