On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:20:03 -0800, George Plimpton > 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.

>>>> [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.

>>> So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
>>> made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
>>> abuses in countries like China.
>>
>> No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
>> from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
>> atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?
>
>No.

Righto ;-)

>>> You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
>>> because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
>>> that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!
>>
>> No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
>> that I covered all that.
>
>No, you didn't.

Yeah I did.

<restore>
Meat eaters demand animals be killed in order to eat them.
The farmers they employ are subject to their command as
to the manner in which they shall do their work when
producing meat.

Unlike the meat eater, the farmers [Glen] employs are
not subject to his command as to the manner in which
they shall do their work when producing his vegetables. His
independent contractor kills animals against his will while
producing his vegetables.
<end restore>

>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.

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: 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
>
> 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.

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.


>>>>> [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

They did *not* give a definition of it, as I just wrote, and your use of
"iff" was wrong.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:20:16 -0800, George Plimpton > 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.

>and your use of "iff" was wrong.

iff definition
mathematics, logic
if and only if, i.e. necessary and sufficient.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iff

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.


>> and your use of "iff" was wrong.
>
> iff definition
> mathematics, logic
> if and only if, i.e. necessary and sufficient.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iff

Yes, and they did not say that; you added that.

They didn't give a definition at all; they gave a couple of possible
hypotheses they wanted to test, and of course they didn't describe the test.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George Plimpton > 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: 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
>>
>> 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.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:42:47 -0800, George Plimpton > 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

>
>>> and your use of "iff" was wrong.
>>
>> iff definition
>> mathematics, logic
>> if and only if, i.e. necessary and sufficient.
>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iff
>
>Yes, and they did not say that; you added that.
>
>They didn't give a definition at all; they gave a couple of possible
>hypotheses they wanted to test, and of course they didn't describe the test.

You cannot ignore their result and insist your vague flexi-definition
is the correct one.

On 07/03/2012 18:01, 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.
>
>>>>> [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.
>
>>>> So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
>>>> made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
>>>> abuses in countries like China.
>>>
>>> No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
>>> from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
>>> atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?
>>
>> No.
>
> Righto ;-)
>
>>>> You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
>>>> because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
>>>> that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!
>>>
>>> No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
>>> that I covered all that.
>>
>> No, you didn't.
>
> Yeah I did.
>
> <restore>
> Meat eaters demand animals be killed in order to eat them.
> The farmers they employ are subject to their command as
> to the manner in which they shall do their work when
> producing meat.
>
> Unlike the meat eater, the farmers [Glen] employs are
> not subject to his command as to the manner in which
> they shall do their work when producing his vegetables. His
> independent contractor kills animals against his will while
> producing his vegetables.
> <end restore>
>
>> 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*

I emailed you late night. Check your junk mail folder.
Regards Glen.

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

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: 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
>>>
>>> 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. You are saying that it is a
necessary condition for vicarious moral responsibility. That's wrong;
it is only sufficient, but not necessary. Having full control over your
degree of involvement with someone the morality of whose actions is
being examined is another way in which you could obtain vicarious moral
responsibility. I gave a perfectly good and workable definition of my
own, not cadged from some web site, years ago. I think at some point I
expanded the elements to six, but there are four crucial ones. There is
vicarious moral responsibility established if:

* the relationship is voluntary - no coercion applied to the principal

* the principal is an active participant, i.e., actively engages in
the relationship such as, for example, going to the grocery

* the principal is fully aware of the agent's actions

* the relationship is not instrumentally necessary for the principal to
achieve a legitimate goal, e.g. the acquisition of food

I'll keep looking to see if I can find one of the posts in which I
expanded it by a couple more, but I think those four are good. As I
said, that's all due to original theorizing, not mucking about on the web.

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. My view of
it, as being established by a relationship that is:

* voluntary
* fully informed
* ongoing
* unnecessary

is much better, and shows that "vegans" and omnivores *both* have shared
moral responsibility for animal deaths.

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. Your
relationship with farmers who kill animals is:

* voluntary
* fully informed
* ongoing
* unnecessary

and that is sufficient to establish your moral responsibility for the
animal deaths.

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George Plimpton > 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: 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
>>>>
>>>> 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.

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. Derek has proved you wrong. Live with it. The guilt is all
yours, not mine killer.

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.


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

Oh, okay, you nymshifted. Some asshole shit-4-braincell pusillanimous
"vegan" was calling me "little fish" a few weeks back, and so it was
you. Yes, now I found it, shitbag. It was in the "WHO IS JESUS?"
thread that was crossposted between alt.christnet and
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and you were posting then as "mark". So
is your real name "glen", or is it "mark", or is it just "little
cocksucker"?

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

>On 3/7/2012 10:51 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:42:47 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> On 3/7/2012 10:39 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:20:16 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>> On 3/7/2012 10:01 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:20:03 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/7/2012 9:01 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ____
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to his own method. From Wiki;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________ ___
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vegetables generally have that history.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't believe that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's true all the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
>>>>>>>> going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and there's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the deaths that may occur,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely wrong, Derek.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
>>>>>>>>>>>> rule of English law that dictates,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
>>>>>>>>>>>> employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
>>>>>>>>>>>> though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>> under the contract...."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
>>>>>>>>>>> *legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, it addresses both.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then it should be easy for you to identify the caveat given
>>>>>> in the above which excludes moral responsibility. I can't
>>>>>> see it because it isn't there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not all moral responsibility leads to legal responsibility. This is
>>>>> trivially true.
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't identified that caveat.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How to Cite
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>>>>>>>>>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>>>>>>>>>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>>>>>>>>>> someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it's not blabber.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's blabber.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
>>>>>> responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
>>>>>> and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
>>>>>> and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
>>>>>> one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
>>>>>> onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
>>>>>> when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
>>>>>> this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.
>>>>>
>>>>> They did *not* give a definition of it,
>>>>
>>>> They most certainly did. I saw it even if you didn't.
>>>
>>> They didn't give a definition.
>>
>> Repeatedly rejecting what's there in plain English isn't going to
>> convince me you're right on this issue. They did give a definition.
>>
>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>
>> How to Cite
>>
>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
>> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
>> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
>> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
>> causing of the damage]
>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>
>Repeating it won't get around the fact that they did not say "iff", and
>that it guts your view on vicarious moral responsibility.

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

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

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

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: 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
>>>>>
>>>>> 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".

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?

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.

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.

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 ****.

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

> [bullshit snipped]

You lose, little cocksucker.

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. 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.

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: 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.

"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, 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?

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: 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.

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*

"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.

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: 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.

"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.

On 07/03/2012 16:45, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George > wrote:
>>> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>
>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>
>>>>> That's all??? That's the best you can manage?
>>>
>>>> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
>>>> all that needs to be said.
>>>
>>> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.
>>
>> Well, you're a bit weird.
>
> Nope.
>
> You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
> that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.

Whatsamatter, Mr. I ain't got no PHD but I'm gonna try to impress everyone by braggin I've got one?
Can't you do your own dirty work any more? Looking for a bit of support eh? Man what a loser. No
wonder St. Derek makes such an easy meal of you every time he shows up. How long did it take him
this time? 5 posts? 6? Nah just a couple. *LOL*

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

> On 07/03/2012 16:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>> On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
>>>>>>>> kill *any*
>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>
>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>>> That's all??? That's the best you can manage?
>>>>
>>>>> Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
>>>>> all that needs to be said.
>>>>
>>>> It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.
>>>
>>> Well, you're a bit weird.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
>> that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.
>
> Whatsamatter,

Nothing. I've established you're a thorough hypocrite and liar. No,
nothing is the matter at all, "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" or
whatever you're using this week.

"Derek" > wrote in message
news:davcl7dgen51h2oq7a69u3vr25ci1emro8@Derek...
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"Derek" > wrote
>>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>>
>>That's bad advice.
>>
>>> Their only objective
>>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>
>>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan diet
>>can
>>be healthy,
>
> You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,
>
> "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
> one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
> experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
> meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
> Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a

That doesn't contradict what I said above.

> Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
> here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
> lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
> convincing.

No I didn't.

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>
>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>
>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>
>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>> *any*
>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>
>>> He is incorrect.
>>
>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>/contaminated/
>>with it.
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]

See George arguing against veganism.

See how he ALWAYS does.

See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".

See how that shows what a fool you are.

On Mar 7, 6:44*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.
>
> >>>>>> Of course it is.
>
> >>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>> No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.
>
> >>> You're a fool.
>
> >> Gotcha!
>
> > I see.
>
> Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.
>

Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
is.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
> >>>>>>> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
> >>>>>>> that you are "trying to do the best you can".
>
> >>>>>> Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
> >>>>>> didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
> >>>>>> their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
> >>>>>> to benefit from their similar consideration.
>
> >>>>> 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*? *I
> >>>> didn't. *I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.
>
> >>> By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
> >>> kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
> >>> human rights?
>
> >> Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
> >> rights.
>
> > Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
> > Pacific Islands.
>
> >http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm
>
> > In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
> > have occurred? Why or why not?
>
> No, because they can be relocated.
>

Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place? If
at least one premature death takes place, is that or is it not a
rights violation?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> You haven't got any
> >>>>>>> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
> >>>>>>> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.
>
> >>>>>> 1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
> >>>>>> * * * * established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
> >>>>>> * * * * absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
> >>>>>> * * * * whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
> >>>>>> * * * * universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
> >>>>>> * * * * it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
> >>>>>> * * * * harm than many "vegan" diets.
>
> >>>>> There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
> >>>>> significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
> >>>>> vegetable crops are least-harm,
>
> >>>> Bullshit.
>
> >>>>> partly because there is no reliable
> >>>>> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
> >>>>> done.
>
> >>>> There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
> >>>> can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
> >>>> PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?
>
> >>>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
> >>>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
> >>>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
> >>>> which vegetables are least-harm?
>
> >>> I don't know; you'll have to ask them.
>
> >> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
> >> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
> >> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
> >> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
> >> internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
> >> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
> >> They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
> >> their claims for it: *not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
> >> second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation..
>
> >> The entire thing is shit.
>
> > Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?
>
> You've never made the case that it is. *As noted, there is an infinite
> number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.
>

Actually, that is theoretically possible. They could all be within a
small margin of the least amount of harm that must be caused in order
to provide someone with adequate food given that his main source of
food is going to be commercial agriculture. Or the great majority
could be; the ones that don't include large amounts of rice, for
example. I don't know, granted. I don't believe it is within my power
to find out unless I abandoned my current job and did the research
myself. Some research has been done; Steven Davis' research on
reduction in field mouse populations after harvesting of an alfalfa
crop, for example. Gaverick Matheny did an estimate of the amount of
harm caused by a typical vegan diet on that basis, correcting Davis'
mathematical error. It came out at 0.3 of a death per year. That would
indicate that any further reduction is not going to be very great.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
> >>>> This has been established thoroughly: *they do NOT care. *The easy, lazy
> >>>> and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
> >>>> sufficient is just too convenient.
>
> >>> You're a fool.
>
> >> Gotcha!
>
> >>>>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
> >>>>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.
>
> >>>> That's a lie.
>
> >>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?
>
> >> See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
> >> gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.
>
> > What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
> > vegan diets?
>
> The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
> cause zero CDs.

The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
fruits don't count. It is not clear to me that grass-fed beef causes
zero CDs because I believe the farmers would still need to kill
predators to protect the cattle. In any event, death must still be
caused in order to produce the animal flesh itself. So the question is
what is the comparison of the total death count. We mentioned Gaverick
Matheny's estimate of 0.3 of a death per year for a typical vegan
diet. That would suggest that including grass-fed beef and wild-caught
fish would make the death count come out worse. Gaverick Matheny's
estimate might be dodgy but you've never suggested that you know of
any better estimate.

On Mar 7, 8:21*pm, 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.
>

If you didn't want to imply that, then what was the point of pointing
out that he was contributing to polar bears' deaths?

As we have observed, you are contributing towards human loss of life
in the future as well.

On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.
>>
>>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>
>>>>>> No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.
>>
>>>>> You're a fool.
>>
>>>> Gotcha!
>>
>>> I see.
>>
>> Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.
>>
>
> Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
> is.

Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
own admission you *don't* see?

Uh-oh! You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?



>>> Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
>>> Pacific Islands.
>>
>>> http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm
>>
>>> In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
>>> have occurred? Why or why not?
>>
>> No, because they can be relocated.
>>
>
> Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?

Yes, eminently so.



>>>>>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
>>>>>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
>>>>>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
>>>>>> which vegetables are least-harm?
>>
>>>>> I don't know; you'll have to ask them.

Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?


>>
>>>> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
>>>> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
>>>> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
>>>> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
>>>> internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
>>>> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
>>>> They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
>>>> their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
>>>> second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.
>>
>>>> The entire thing is shit.
>>
>>> Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?
>>
>> You've never made the case that it is. As noted, there is an infinite
>> number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.
>>
>
> Actually, that is theoretically possible

No. We know that different crops cause different numbers of animal
deaths per kcal, and so if two "vegan" diets are identical except that
one contains a higher CD food than the other, then by definition they
cause different amounts of harm.

You ****wit.



>>>>>>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
>>>>>>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

And you have never given any practical suggestions for how to determine
the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets. It's because you
don't care about reducing animal harm - not really. *All* you care
about is assuming a sanctimonious moral pose by not putting animal bits
in your mouth.


>>
>>>>>> That's a lie.
>>
>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?
>>
>>>> See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
>>>> gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.
>>
>>> What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
>>> vegan diets?
>>
>> The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
>> cause zero CDs.
>
> The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
> caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
> fruits don't count.

Of course they count, you ****wit, because I never proposed a meat-only
diet.

On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George > 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.
>>
>
> If you didn't want to imply that,

I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.

On Mar 8, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > * * *wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.
>
> >>>>>>>> Of course it is.
>
> >>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>>>> No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.
>
> >>>>> You're a fool.
>
> >>>> Gotcha!
>
> >>> I see.
>
> >> Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.
>
> > Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
> > is.
>
> Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
> own admission you *don't* see?
>
> Uh-oh! *You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?
>

No, I'm not.

I found what you wrote mildly amusing. Writing "I see" was an
expression of my amusement. It was ironic, writing "I see" was meant
to draw attention to the fact that the point of what you wrote is very
unclear.

> >>> Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
> >>> Pacific Islands.
>
> >>>http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm
>
> >>> In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
> >>> have occurred? Why or why not?
>
> >> No, because they can be relocated.
>
> > Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?
>
> Yes, eminently so.
>

Well, there's not much one can say about that, is there.

Even if no premature deaths take place that is still not an especially
good reason to think that no rights violation has occurred. You
believe humans have property rights, don't you?

> >>>>>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
> >>>>>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
> >>>>>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
> >>>>>> which vegetables are least-harm?
>
> >>>>> I don't know; you'll have to ask them.
>
> Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
> many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
> but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
> determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?
>

For all I know they have.

It's pretty difficult to get reliable information about how many
collateral deaths are actually occurring, and how many of them are
actually caused by human activity and not by predation. Gaverick
Matheny made use of Steven Davis' data to estimate that the production
of a vegan diet causes 0.3 of a death per year. If that's the average
then that would suggest you're not very likely to achieve substantial
reductions by putting enormous effort into doing research about how
much harm is caused by the production of the different kinds of crops.
Gaverick Matheny is a utilitarian; he may very well feel that he can
do more good by investing his time and energy in other ways, and I
would say he's probably right about that. I conjecture that is the
reason Gaverick Matheny has not embarked on the exercise. I don't know
the details of Nathan Nobis' ethical views, but he may very well have
a similar reason.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
> >>>> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
> >>>> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
> >>>> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
> >>>> internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
> >>>> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.

On Mar 8, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George > *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.
>
> > If you didn't want to imply that,
>
> I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.

Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that you did indeed want
to imply that. You obviously wanted to criticise Glen for failing to
live up to his own views about animal rights. There would be no good
reason to mention the connection between his activities and harm to
polar bears unless you believed that this supported your case in some
way.