On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:

> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>
> How to Cite
>
> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>
> Abstract
>
> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
> causing of the damage]
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>
> Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
> in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
> able to control that person's causing of the damage." 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.

What do you have to say, Woopert? Is Derek right? It is a fact -
beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
deaths of meat animals. The degree of control and the degree of
"[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
are identical.

How about it, Woopert?

On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > *wrote:
> > [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>
> > * *How to Cite
>
> > Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
> > responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
> > doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>
> > Abstract
>
> > An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
> > someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
> > another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
> > vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
> > person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
> > causing of the damage]
> >http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>
> > Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
> > in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
> > able to control that person's causing of the damage." 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.
>
> What do you have to say, Woopert? *Is Derek right? *It is a fact -
> beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
> in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
> as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
> Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
> by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
> deaths of meat animals. *The degree of control and the degree of
> "[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
> are identical.
>
> How about it, Woopert?

Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
that Derek will not.

On 3/7/2012 8:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George > wrote:
>> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>
>>> How to Cite
>>
>>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>
>>> Abstract
>>
>>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>>> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
>>> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
>>> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
>>> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
>>> causing of the damage]
>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>>
>>> Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
>>> in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
>>> able to control that person's causing of the damage." 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.
>>
>> What do you have to say, Woopert? Is Derek right? It is a fact -
>> beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
>> in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
>> as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
>> Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
>> by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
>> deaths of meat animals. The degree of control and the degree of
>> "[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
>> are identical.
>>
>> How about it, Woopert?
>
> Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
> that Derek will not.

Well, good for you, then.