On 3/7/2012 11:26 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:14:24 -0800, George > 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.

The article in no way supports your claim, as it was not pretending to
establish a *theory* of when vicarious moral responsibility is
established. You didn't read the article, anyway - you read the
abstract, and it doesn't support your claim.


>> 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 practically perfect.