View Single Post
  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Derek[_3_] Derek[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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: 377380.
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: 377380.
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.