On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:42:47 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:
>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.

Repeatedly rejecting what's there in plain English isn't going to
convince me you're right on this issue. They did give a definition.

[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 for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

>
>>> 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.

You cannot ignore their result and insist your vague flexi-definition
is the correct one.