On 3/7/2012 12:00 PM, Glen wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> Your position is gutted.
>
> *TOO LATE* li'l fish.

No, little cocksucker and friend of the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
Roscommon. You are morally responsible for the CDs. You're finished.