Re: Some Hard Truths for Ethical Vegetarians

Dreck wrote:
> > > I'm not talking of my personal choices,
> >
> > You shuold be.
>
> Well, I'm not. I'm talking about the deaths caused
> by farmers.

For your cheap(er) food. You could pay more to have food produced more 
humanely, tightwad.

> > > but rather the farmer's actions,
> >
> > Buck passer.
>
> They kill them, so holding them responsible is
> anything but buck passing. You, on the other
> hand, want to pass the buck onto his consumers.

That's not quite how it happens in the real world, Dreck. Farmers supply 
what consumers demand. When you step up and pay more for humanely 
produced foods, you'll find more farmers willing to provide them.

> > > and that he is responsible for them.
> >
> > No, you are.
>
> Buck passer.

You're the one passing bucks, Dreck.

> > > The hard truth is that they are killed by the
> > > farmer for profit, not for our food, as Michael
> > > claims.
> >
> > Your claim that the farmer is responsible for profit motive
>
> That isn't my claim. 

Yes, it is.

> My claim is that there is no
> causal link between my trade with farmers and
> the methods they use to produce veg. 

Yes, there is. In most cases, it costs less to use machinery to harvest 
than it does to hire pickers. Mechanized death is a result of the 
cost-effective method you choose by purchasing indiscriminantly. You can 
skip the mechanized CDs by PYO, growing your own, co-op'ing with others, 
or finding farmers who use the more expensive method of hiring pickers.

> It doesn't instruct them to farm one way or the other.

Why do farmers switch to organic, Dreck? Does consumer demand have 
anything to do with that? Or are such decisions haphazardly chosen?

> Those options are theirs, and they, being completely
> autonomous are reponsible for their actions. I
> blame them on the basis that they are morally
> responsible agents carrying obligations to endure
> the consequences of their actions.

Buck passing since you ignore other options. Your demand is for cheap 
food, so you're responsible for more CDs.

> > > I was talking of the the farmer's actions, not my
> > > choices, so your comment on my choices was
> > > indeed a non sequitur.
> >
> > A farmer's actions are only one of your choices.
>
> I'm not talking of my choices, but rather the farmer's
> culpability for his own actions, so talking of my choices
> when I'm discussing the farmer's actions is indeed a non
> sequitur.

No, it's buck passing on your part (as usual).

> > > > > The hard truth is that animals are intentionally
> > > > > killed for financial gain, not to feed the farmer's consumers
> > > > > as Michael claims.
> > > >
> > > > No
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Neither of you is correct
>
> You are wrong, because the hard truth is that animals
> are intentionally killed for financial gain, not to feed the
> farmer's consumers.

CDs are unintentional. Farmers will avoid CDs by growing with less 
pesticides and chemicals, picking by hand, etc. That costs more. Are you 
buying those foods or looking for what's on special -- guaranteeing the 
highest risks to animals in the field -- at Sainsbury's?

> > but at least Michael is on the right track in
> > accepting the role of demand upon how food is produced.
>
> His demand is the same as mine: vegetables.

Only your demand isn't avoidance of CDs.

> > You're wrong
> > since you simply avoid the issue of supply and demand and engage in buck
> > passing.
>
> I keep the blame at the culprit's feet without passing
> it on to others as you clearly are, blame shifter.

Your ignorance of basic economics and logic is apparent. You're the one 
shifting the blame and passing the buck. You choose cheap food, which 
requires less attention when it comes to the lives and safety of animals 
in the fields. Their blood is on your hands.

> > > > > I pay farmers in the same way I pay any other
> > > > > employee, and if my employees cause damage
> > > > > while going about their business, then they are
> > > > > fully responsible for any blame.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding employer/employee liability issues, if you'd mis-wired a car
> > > > and it caught fire, whom would the car's owner sue?
> > >
> > > Me, you fool.
> >
> > No, your employer -- the garage -- would be sued.
>
> He sues whoever takes his money, but the responsibility
> for any damages lies with whoever causes them, namely
> me in your example. 

No, he sues the party of responsibility -- the one who should have 
liability insurance for such occasions. Employers are ultimately 
responsible for what their employees (or agents) do during the course of 
their jobs.

> If I were self employed he would
> sue me under the current contract laws, but not because
> of any moral responsibility.

Goalpost move, but irrelevant. Self-employment would still mean the 
employer is being sued, yeah?

> > > > You hire the farmer
> > > > to grow cheap food rather than humane food.
> > >
> > > False. I hire him to grow food, period. If his methods
> > > are inhumane, then he is blameworthy.
> >
> > Only if he operates a monopoly.
>
> Under any circumstance, monopoly or not. If
> his methods are inhumane, then he is blameworthy.

Yet you still enjoin his blameworthiness AND further his inhumanity by 
supporting the manner in which he carries out his business.

> > You DO have other choices.
>
> I'm not talking of my choices, but rather the farmer's
> culpability for his own actions, so talking of my choices
> when I'm discussing the farmer's actions is indeed a non
> sequitur.
> [..]

No, it's buck passing on your part.

> > > My belief in not being responsible for the deaths
> > > caused by others is very relevant to my other
> > > beliefs in rights generally, for if I truly believed I
> > > was responsible for the deaths caused by farmers,
> > > I wouldn't buy from them. 

As you shouldn't, but you do.

> > > Likewise, if I were
> > > knowingly buying goods with a history of human
> > > collateral deaths, AND held a belief that I was
> > > responsible for them, I wouldn't buy from that
> > > source either.

As you shouldn't.

> > > How does one hold a moral belief
> > > in being responsible and causal to the deaths of
> > > animals and humans while continuing to claim that
> > > THEIR victims have a right not to be THEIR
> > > victims?

If one understands his choices have deleterious consequences he doesn't 
want, he should make other choices. Is that really so bloody difficult, 
Dreck?

> You failed to comment. Can I take that as tacit
> agreement and an acknowledgement that you
> have no answer?

No (to both parts of your question).

> > > > Responsibility/culpability isn't a function of personal belief.
> > >
> > > I agree, so why do you *believe* I am culpable
> > > for the deaths of animals which were certainly
> > > killed by another's hand? Physical evidence tells
> > > you who is culpable for them, so for you to then
> > > claim that the responsibility for them segues from
> > > him to me through thin air is merely a belief on your
> > > part.
> >
> > Under your "physical evidence" claim, the Nazi hierarchy weren't
> > responsible for genocide since the underlings committed the atrocities.
> > Same with any other war crimes, no?
>
> Non sequitur. 

Analogous AND it follows what you suggest.

> If you believe that, "Responsibility/culpability
> isn't a function of personal belief.", why do you *believe* I
> am culpable for the deaths of animals which were certainly
> killed by another's hand? Physical evidence tells you who is
> culpable for them, so for you to then claim that the responsibility
> for them segues from him to me through thin air is merely a
> belief on your part.

No, because you demand food. You demand it be grown and harvested as 
cheaply as possible. You have other options which cost more but provide 
fewer (or no) CDs. You refuse to spend more for those options. Your 
demand drives supply; supply of cheaper food also drives your demand. 
You therefore accept CDs as a trade-off for cheap food.

> > It's not a matter of a "segue."
>
> Then the blame doesn't segue, and stays with the
> culprit who causes them.

The blame isn't shifted. You demand. The farmer supplies. Change your 
demand, the supply will change.

> > It's supply and demand.
>
> What is?

Everything, actually.

> > You don't demand  CD-free food.
>
> I demand food, period.

So you get what you pay for. Cheap food = CDs galore.

> > > "I don't believe I'm responsible for them, but if I did
> > > hold such a belief, how would I be able to continue
> > > buying from such a source while still claiming they
> > > have a right not to be intentionally killed for my
> > > personal gain?"
> >
> > Responsibility is not a function of whether you *believe* you are or not.
>
> You haven't answered my question.

I don't think I need to. See above, Mr Tacit Agreement.

> > <snip>
> >
> > > > I'll say that consistency counts, even though such hypothetical
> > > > questions are irrelevant.
> > >
> > > These hypothetical questions are not irrelevant if
> > > one's consistency is to be measured. If you found
> > > that all your clothes were in fact made from the
> > > sweat and tears of forced child labour, would you
> > > blame yourself or the slaver who profited from
> > > his inhumane methods of production?
> >
> > Supply, demand.
>
> If you would rather blame "supply, demand" instead of
> the slavers who cause the harms, why don't you blame
> "supply, demand" instead of vegans who buy veg?

Again, your ignorance of economics is on display. I'm not blaming supply 
and demand, I'm blaming you for lack of discrimination in what you 
support through your demands of the market. You're provided with what 
you demand. You demand food, you don't demand how it's grown or 
harvested. You get what you want. You have to accept the consequences of 
your choices.

> > I don't buy cheap clothes, and I refuse to support
> > sweatshops.
>
> Some garments made in sweatshops enter the market
> with dodgy lables attached, and they are so much like
> the original that most everyone is fooled by them, so
> how do you know your best lime-green slacks weren't
> produced from a sweatshop? 

First, I have no lime-green slacks; I'm not English. Second, I know who 
tailors my slacks, shirts, and coats.

> Isn't it a fact that you are
> now denying the antecedent, pusspecker?

Nope, asshole.

> > I would blame myself for not being a good consumer.
>
> That's easy, but would you blame yourself for the
> hardship meted out to those kids by their slavers?

That's what you can infer from my blaming myself.

> Are you willing to say that their actions are your fault,
> and that you make them enslave young children for
> personal gain?

That's what I said.

> > > Likewise,
> > > if I should find that some food I ate came at the
> > > expense of animal's lives, why should I blame
> > > myself and not the farmer who profited from his
> > > inhumane methods of production?
> >
> > You should hold yourself responsible for your actions,
>
> I do.

No, you don't.

> > and that would include the way you spend your money.
>
> Correct.

Then start doing it and be a responsible consumer.

> > You buy from high-CD farming
>
> Unsupported speculation and false.

Borne out by your past remarks.