On 07/03/2012 19:26, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 11:16 AM, Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 11:11:21 -0800, George > wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/7/2012 10:44 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:19:03 -0800, George > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Vicarious responsibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Assigning vicarious responsibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How to Cite
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
>>>>>> responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377–380.
>>>>>> doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abstract
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
>>>>>> someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
>>>>>> another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
>>>>>> vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
>>>>>> person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
>>>>>> causing of the damage]
>>>>>> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
>>>>>> in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
>>>>>> able to control that person's causing of the damage."
>>>>>
>>>>> I just looked at that a little harder right now. You are inferring
>>>>> something that the authors do not say. They are not saying that the
>>>>> "superior relationship" and the ability to control the other's actions
>>>>> are *necessary* elements of vicarious moral responsibility. That is,
>>>>> *you* are the one inferring "if and only if" ["iff"]; the authors of
>>>>> that article do not say that in the abstract, and I doubt they say it in
>>>>> the article.
>>>>
>>>> The article stands on its own and identifies "the conditions
>>>> under which someone can be held vicariously responsible
>>>> for the actions of another." If you don't like my "iff" ignore
>>>> it. It makes no difference to the author's proper account.
>>>
>>> It most certainly *does* make a difference.
>>
>> Then ignore the iff if you have a problem with it. The article stands
>> on its own without any input from me.
>
> My position is gutted. Please accept my apology.

*TOO LATE* li'l fish. You're ****ed. No more blame gaming for you cocksucker. I live a cruelty free
lifestyle. Derek says so and he's right.