On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:14:24 -0800, George Plimpton > wrote:

>On 3/7/2012 10:51 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:42:47 -0800, George > 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
>
>Repeating it won't get around the fact that they did not say "iff", and
>that it guts your view on vicarious moral responsibility.

No, the article stands on its own without any input from me, and
it guts your view on vicarious moral responsibility, rather.

>My view of
>it, as being established by a relationship that is:
>
>* voluntary
>* fully informed
>* ongoing
>* unnecessary
>
>is much better,

No, it's not better. It's just your view on it, that's all, and it's
incorrect. My view is supported with irrefutable evidence.
Sorry, but that's just how it is.