On 07/03/2012 20:11, George Plimpton wrote:
> 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

Yes Mr I aint got no PHD but I'm gonna pretend I've one anyway. St. Derek has taken you *OUT*


, little cocksucker and friend of the Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County
> Roscommon. You are morally responsible for the CDs. You're finished.