On 3/7/2012 10:39 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:20:16 -0800, George > 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.

They didn't give a definition.


>> 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

Yes, and they did not say that; you added that.

They didn't give a definition at all; they gave a couple of possible
hypotheses they wanted to test, and of course they didn't describe the test.