On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>It's true all the same.

No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> No, it addresses both.
>
>It doesn't.

It does. I can't accept your vague definition in light of all the evidence
I've produced from articles describing a "well-established general rule of
English law" and the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
>based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.
>
>
>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>
>> How to Cite
>>
>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>> someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]

No, it's not blabber. It describes how and when to properly assign
vicarious responsibility. It's a shame you had to carve it all out.

>So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
>made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
>abuses in countries like China.

No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?

>You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
>because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
>that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!

No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
that I covered all that.