On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:20:16 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>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.

You still haven't identified that caveat.

>>>>>> [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
>> and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
>> and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
>> one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
>> onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
>> when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
>>this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.
>
>They did *not* give a definition of it,

They most certainly did. I saw it even if you didn't.

>and your use of "iff" was wrong.

iff definition
mathematics, logic
if and only if, i.e. necessary and sufficient.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iff