View Single Post
  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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.