On 07/03/2012 20:10, George Plimpton wrote:
> "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - friend of Lesley Simon, the
> Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - bullshitted:
>
>> On 07/03/2012 19:29, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> 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
>>
>> Yes it does little fish.
>
> No, it doesn't, little cocksucker friend of the Whore of
> Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon. Derek is claiming, correctly, that
> you don't have "control" over the actions of your agent.

St. Derek is correct. My independent contractor works according
to his own method and is morally responsible for the animals *HE*
kills. Not I. I live a cruelty-free lifestyle. You don't like it but ****
you killer. I live by my convictions, and I don't lie about having a
PHD when I aint got one either, li'l prick. *LOL*