On Mar 6, 7:25*pm, Derek > wrote:
> 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 2000http://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 2008http://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 2007http://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.
>

Making these statements is not "promoting animal cruelty" to any
greater extent than Derek promotes animal cruelty when he buys plant-
based food products.

Derek is stating that I am psychotic because I experienced a psychotic
illness in 2001. Derek is not ashamed of stigmatising people who have
a history of mental illness.