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
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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


No, it's not blabber.


It's blabber.


You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.

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.

  #122 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:19 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:

Vicarious responsibility.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

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

Abstract

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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage."


I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
"superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's actions
are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
*you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say it in
the article.
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:20 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 3/7/2012 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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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

No, it's not blabber.


It's blabber.


You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology


They did *not* give a definition of it, as I just wrote, and your use of
"iff" was wrong.
  #124 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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

No, it's not blabber.

It's blabber.


You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.


They did *not* give a definition of it,


They most certainly did. I saw it even if you didn't.

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
  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:42 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 10:39 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:20:16 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 10:01 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:20:03 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 9:01 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, wrote:
On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:

They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
__________________________________________________ ____
Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
to his own method. From Wiki;

[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:

"...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:

"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law

Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
__________________________________________________ ___

Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,

Vegetables generally have that history.

No, I don't believe that.

It's true all the same.

No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.

and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur,

Absolutely wrong, Derek.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract...."

As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.

No, it addresses both.

It doesn't.

It does.

It doesn't.

Then it should be easy for you to identify the caveat given
in the above which excludes moral responsibility. I can't
see it because it isn't there.


Not all moral responsibility leads to legal responsibility. This is
trivially true.


You still haven't identified that caveat.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

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

Abstract

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

No, it's not blabber.

It's blabber.

You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.


They did *not* give a definition of it,


They most certainly did. I saw it even if you didn't.


They didn't give a definition.


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.


  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage."


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


The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
for the actions of another. If you don't like my "iff" ignore
it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.
  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 06:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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

No, it's not blabber.

It's blabber.

You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.

They did *not* give a definition of it,


They most certainly did. I saw it even if you didn't.


They didn't give a definition.


Repeatedly rejecting what's there in plain English isn't going to
convince me you're right on this issue. They did give a definition.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

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

Abstract

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


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.
  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 07/03/2012 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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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

No, it's not blabber.


It's blabber.


You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.

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.
  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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

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

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

Vicarious responsibility.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

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

Abstract

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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage."


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


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


It most certainly *does* make a difference. 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.


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:14 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 The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 10:51 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:42:47 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 10:39 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:20:16 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 10:01 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:20:03 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:01 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, wrote:
On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:

They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
__________________________________________________ ____
Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
to his own method. From Wiki;

[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:

"...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:

"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law

Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
__________________________________________________ ___

Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,

Vegetables generally have that history.

No, I don't believe that.

It's true all the same.

No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.

and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur,

Absolutely wrong, Derek.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract...."

As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility.

No, it addresses both.

It doesn't.

It does.

It doesn't.

Then it should be easy for you to identify the caveat given
in the above which excludes moral responsibility. I can't
see it because it isn't there.

Not all moral responsibility leads to legal responsibility. This is
trivially true.

You still haven't identified that caveat.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

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

Abstract

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

No, it's not blabber.

It's blabber.

You cannot ignore as blabber the proper meaning of vicarious
responsibility given by the European Journal of Social Psychology
and a well established general rule of English law to then insist I
and everyone must accept your vague definition of it as the correct
one. I know how important it is to you to foist vicarious responsibility
onto vegans for things they aren't responsible, but there comes a time
when you have no option but to concede that you are very wrong on
this issue in light of the irrefutable evidence against you.

They did *not* give a definition of it,

They most certainly did. I saw it even if you didn't.


They didn't give a definition.


Repeatedly rejecting what's there in plain English isn't going to
convince me you're right on this issue. They did give a definition.

[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

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

Abstract

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


Repeating it won't get around the fact that they did not say "iff", and
that it guts your view on vicarious moral responsibility. 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.
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 11:00 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.
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -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: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

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

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage."

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


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


It most certainly *does* make a difference.


Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
on its own without any input from me.
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:21 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 07/03/2012 19:16, 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.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 07:21 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 3/7/2012 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"?


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 02:26 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