On 3/7/2012 10:01 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:20:03 -0800, George > wrote:
>
>> On 3/7/2012 9:01 AM, Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George > 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.
>>
>> It doesn't.
>
> Then it should be easy for you to identify the caveat given
> in the above which excludes moral responsibility. I can't
> see it because it isn't there.

Not all moral responsibility leads to legal responsibility. This is
trivially true.


>>>>> [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's blabber.
>
> You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
> responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology

They did *not* give a definition of it, as I just wrote, and your use of
"iff" was wrong.