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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:13 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 7:25*pm, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, Glen 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, and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur, as we can see by the above post I made
last year.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless. They don't
even believe their own bullshit. You'll never get an honest
discussion here. You'll never get an honest answer from them.

Take Dutch, for example. When he first came here he claimed to
be a vegetarian and an advocate for animal rights. Like you he
used to believe;

"There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
* collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
* sacrifice for your subsistence."
* Dutch * Aug 26 2000 *http://tinyurl.com/7dduf

and

*"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
* enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
* their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
* attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
* diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
* unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
* It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
* v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
* Dutch *Dec 13 2000http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
production.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
* for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
* better that they live that life than that they not live at
* all"
* Rupert 24 July 2008http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
* in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
* I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
* animal-rights agenda.
* Rupert 12 May 2007http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
agenda.


Making these statements is not "promoting animal cruelty" to any
greater extent than Derek promotes animal cruelty when he buys plant-
based food products.

Derek is stating that I am psychotic because I experienced a psychotic
illness in 2001. Derek is not ashamed of stigmatising people who have
a history of mental illness.

  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:14 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On Mar 6, 4:56*pm, George Plimpton 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.

Well, "glen", there you go. *Rupert McCallum, the "smartest 'vegan' in
Usenet" - he has a Ph.D. in mathematics, you know - is telling you that
your "vegan 'lifestyle'" does indeed cause harm to animals; no doubt
about it. *You do not live a "cruelty-free 'lifestyle'" by any stretch
of the imagination.


  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:16 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 4:54*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:


On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


Eating meat causes the death of animals.


Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.


That isn't true.


It *is* true.


It /may/ cause some deaths


It does.


but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.


It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.


Eating meat *WILL* cause them.


As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.


There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.


"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.


It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.


So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
that be?


There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.


There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.


No. I don't believe you.


You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
course, and here you are to prove him wrong.


I never made that claim about all vegans.


You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. *"glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.


I did.









You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
and death on your plate.


No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.


You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact


You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.


It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.


It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
animals.


By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
is already dead.


and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.


No


Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone.."


I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.


The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.


No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
even *every*, "vegan" diet.


If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
drive.


Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
minute?


One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future.


More likely than not, yes.

It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.


I never made such a claim.


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.







If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
and death, like it does, I would still drive.


Driving your car causes misery and death. *You simply close your eyes to
it. *You're a filthy hypocrite.


  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:16 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 4:52*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George *wrote:


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.


Of course you do. *You can't *NOT* know it.


On the basis of what evidence do I know it?
  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:









On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:


Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.


I never said anything about rice.


* * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.


But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.


* * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!


*Now
I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
CDs than the beef.


No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
evidence one way or the other.


* * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?


If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
should stop making that claim.


* * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
sometimes involves less.


I don't have any way of knowing, do I?

You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
with one serving of tofu. If you do not have any idea of any range
into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
comparisons.

For you to finally confess that you're aware of that
one fact would be a huge step for you but you still have not taken it, much less
have you gotten to the position of being able to determine in which cases soy
produces more and in which cases beef does. Notice that this is yet another
distinction that you not only are unable to make, but you don't even want to
accept that the situations which create the distinctions exist, even though it's
obvious that they do.

* * When you go look into grass raised dairy while at the same time getting to
see some first hand examples of dairy cows on a farm, while you think about the
value of life to them also think about the fact that they contribute to less
deaths than soy, and WAY fewer deaths than rice. That *could* be a big learning
day for you, and it could lead to many many more if you find a place where you
can regularly get some grass raised dairy, and enjoy seeing cows enjoying lives
of positive value (most days, hopefully :-), and maybe you could finally learn
what that means too.
. . .







* * Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think.. If you
do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
claim to be unable to.




  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 02:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George Plimpton 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.

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. If you can remember, I also brought
another piece from the European Journal of Social Psychology
on how to assign vicarious responsibility.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.

It also
looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
suffer and die is ongoing.


I know that animals occasionally die in crop production, just
like I know some people occasionally die from police brutality.
I continue to pay the food producer and the police as independent
contractors and, as such, not being in a "superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and able to control that person's
causing of the damage" I am not morally or legally responsible
for what they do.

This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute.


Yes, and it goes directly against your view.


No, it doesn't.


I'm afraid it does. You cannot foist vicarious moral responsibility
on those who are "not in a superior relationship to the person who
caused the damage and is able to control that person's causing of
the damage."

However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free."


And it is on his part.


It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
killers.


And that relationship is that of an employer and his subcontractor
as described above. There's no cruelty on his part, and so he can
reasonably say that his lifestyle is cruelty-free.

The cruelty is not his and doesn't come from him.


yawn Same as meat eaters.


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.

He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty,


Exactly. Unlike the meat eater, the farmers he employs are
not subject to his command as to the manner in which
they shall do their work when producing his vegetables. His
subcontractor kills animals against his will while producing
his vegetables.

Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?


What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
products?


Getting dogs to fight to their death and getting farm animals to
live and die in horrendous circumstances involve abject cruelty
on the part of the person who finds enjoyment from the result of
either practice, it can be argued.
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 02:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:13:40 -0800 (PST), Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 7:25*pm, Derek wrote:


Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
production.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
* for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
* better that they live that life than that they not live at
* all"
* Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
* in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
* I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
* animal-rights agenda.
* Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
agenda.


Making these statements


.... presents a false dilemma, and you know it. New welfarism
demands we either continue using animal welfare practices
or do nothing to alleviate the suffering. It reinforces the idea
that animals can be exploited and drives home the message
that happy meat is preferable to doing nothing at all. It excludes
abolition.
  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:14 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

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.
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:20 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:


On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


Eating meat causes the death of animals.


Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.


That isn't true.


It *is* true.


It /may/ cause some deaths


It does.


but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.


It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.


Eating meat *WILL* cause them.


As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.


There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.


"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.


It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.


So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
that be?


There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.


There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.


No. I don't believe you.


You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
course, and here you are to prove him wrong.


I never made that claim about all vegans.


You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.


I did.


Barely.


You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
and death on your plate.


No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.


You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact


You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.


It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.


It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
animals.


By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
is already dead.


and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.


No


Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."


I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.


The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.


No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
even *every*, "vegan" diet.


If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
drive.


Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
minute?


One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future.


More likely than not, yes.

It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.


I never made such a claim.


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.


Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:52 pm, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George wrote:


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.


Of course you do. You can't *NOT* know it.


On the basis of what evidence do I know it?


Sorry, Woopert - we've been over all this before, and now you're just
trying to refight battles you've already lost.


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:26 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George Plimpton 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.
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:30 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:


On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


Eating meat causes the death of animals.


Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.


That isn't true.


It *is* true.


It /may/ cause some deaths


It does.


but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.


It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.


Eating meat *WILL* cause them.


As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.


There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.


"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.


It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.


So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
that be?


There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.


There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.


No. I don't believe you.


You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
course, and here you are to prove him wrong.


I never made that claim about all vegans.


You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. *"glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.


I did.


Barely.


No, I did correct him, full stop.









You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
and death on your plate.


No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.


You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact


You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.


It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals..


It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
animals.


By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
is already dead.


and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.


No


Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."


I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.


The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.


No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
even *every*, "vegan" diet.


If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
drive.


Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
minute?


One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future.


More likely than not, yes.


It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim..


I never made such a claim.


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.


Nope. *Not in the least. *"vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. *I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. *I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. *Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. *I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. *I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. *I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. *I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. *That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

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". 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.
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:31 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 17:21, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 6, 4:52 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George * *wrote:


It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.


Of course you do. *You can't *NOT* know it.


On the basis of what evidence do I know it?


Sorry, Woopert - we've been over all this before, and now you're just
trying to refight battles you've already lost.


No, we haven't been through it before.

It strikes me as entirely implausible that one collateral death takes
place for every serving of tofu I eat. You've never presented the
least evidence for this contention. Your assertion that I "can't not
know it" is obviously utterly absurd.
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 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.


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. Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.


[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]


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.

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!
  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

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.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017