Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #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
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.

  #137 (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
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 10:44 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:

Vicarious responsibility.

[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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "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."

I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say it in
the article.

The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another." If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.


It most certainly *does* make a difference.


Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.


Your position is gutted without "iff".
  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:28 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 11:21 AM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 19:16, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:00 AM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 18:01, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:20:03 -0800, George
wrote:


It is not in dispute that omnivores' relationship to
meat producers is identical in terms of degree of control and
degree of
"superiority", whatever that's supposed to mean, as "vegans'"
relationship with crop producers.

No, it is in dispute. See above.

*LOL BUSTED*


No. You have vicarious moral responsibility for animal CDs.


You're talking ******** little fish.


No, "mark" - oh, wait, you're "glen" this week, aren't you, bitch?

I have established that if I have any moral responsibility for the
deaths of animals, so do you, under exactly the same theory. You're
****ed, little cocksucker.

How's your friend Lesley Simon these days, bitch? Is she still whoring
around Ireland?
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 07/03/2012 19:21, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:

flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?

When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


Yes you did little fish.


Gotta say one thing --- You can take one hell of
a beating little fish.


Oh, okay, you nymshifted.


Is that right, Jonathan Ball. Man you're such a ****ing hypocrite.
  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:29 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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: 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.


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.


  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 11:29 AM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 19:21, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?

When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?

You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


Yes you did little fish.


No, I didn't, "mark".



Gotta say one thing --- You can take one hell of
a beating little fish.


Oh, okay, you nymshifted.


Is that right, Jonathan Ball. Man you're such a ****ing hypocrite.


Ha ha ha ha ha! Gotcha, you little ****.
  #142 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - friend of Lesley Simon, the
Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - bullshitted:

[bullshit snipped]


You lose, little cocksucker.

  #143 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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: 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.


The article in no way supports your claim


Yes it does little fish. Your blame game days are over thanks
to Derek's mighty boot. Hail Derek! The garage mechanic who
came from nowhere, took em all on and beat them single handed.
  #144 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 07/03/2012 19:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 10:44 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:

Vicarious responsibility.

[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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "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."

I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say it in
the article.

The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another." If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.

It most certainly *does* make a difference.


Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.


My position is gutted. Please accept my apology.


*TOO LATE* li'l fish. You're ****ed. No more blame gaming for you cocksucker. I live a cruelty free
lifestyle. Derek says so and he's right.


  #145 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"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:
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.


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, fatuously, that
you don't have "control" over the actions of your agent. But you have
full control over the choice to have the relationship in the first
place, little cocksucker.

You have moral responsibility for the CDs your diet causes - not in
rational dispute, little cocksucker.

How /is/ Lesley Simon these days, little cocksucker?


  #146 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:11 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 12:00 PM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 19:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George
wrote:

On 3/7/2012 10:44 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George
wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:

Vicarious responsibility.

[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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "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."

I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's
actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say
it in
the article.

The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another." If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.

It most certainly *does* make a difference.

Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.


Your position is gutted.


*TOO LATE* li'l fish.


No, little cocksucker and friend of the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
Roscommon. You are morally responsible for the CDs. You're finished.
  #147 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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:
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.

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*
  #148 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - friend of Lesley Simon, the
Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - bullshitted:

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:



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.


Derek is wrong, "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whoever you
are this week.


My independent contractor


You have no need of one, "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or
whoever you are this week. Because you *choose* to hire one repeatedly,
voluntarily, actively and unnecessarily, you incur moral liability for
the CDs he causes, "mark" or "glen" or "little cocksucker" or whoever
you are this week. This is settled.
  #149 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 07/03/2012 20:11, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 12:00 PM, Glen wrote:
On 07/03/2012 19:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George
wrote:

On 3/7/2012 10:44 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George
wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:

Vicarious responsibility.

[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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "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."

I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's
actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say
it in
the article.

The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another." If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.

It most certainly *does* make a difference.

Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.

Your position is gutted.


*TOO LATE* li'l fish.


No


Yes Mr I aint got no PHD but I'm gonna pretend I've one anyway. St. Derek has taken you *OUT*


, little cocksucker and friend of the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
Roscommon. You are morally responsible for the CDs. You're finished.


  #150 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:27 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - friend of Lesley Simon, the
Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - bullshitted:

On 07/03/2012 20:11, George Plimpton wrote:
"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - friend of Lesley Simon, the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - bullshitted:
On 07/03/2012 19:26, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George
wrote:



I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's
actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That
is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the
authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say
it in
the article.

The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another." If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.

It most certainly *does* make a difference.

Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.

Your position is gutted.

*TOO LATE* li'l fish.


No, little cocksucker and friend of the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon. You are morally responsible for the CDs. You're finished.


Yes


No, little cocksucker and friend of the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
Roscommon. You are morally responsible for the CDs. You're finished.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The 'vegan' shuffle" George Plimpton Vegan 0 08-05-2013 06:58 AM
The dreaded supermarket shuffle Nancy Young General Cooking 25 23-08-2007 02:44 AM
Pan shuffle/toss technique!?! Andy General Cooking 9 31-10-2006 01:52 AM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017