Ron wrote:

> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>anal leakage wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>anal leakage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Holding other vegans accountable for Dolores actions doesn't seem
>>>>>reasonable to me.
>>>>
>>>>No one is attempting to hold any "vegan" responsible
>>>>for the *actions* of anyone else. It is the moral
>>>>outcome for which "vegans" share responsibility, not
>>>>the actions.
>>>>
>>>>This has been explained to you dozens of times, over
>>>>the course of several weeks. You either are being
>>>>deliberately obtuse, or you are very stupid and unable
>>>>to see the distinction. Those are the only two
>>>>possible explanations.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is really interesting. In my family and in my culture we are taught
>>>that we are responsible for our actions. Your theory requires that I be
>>>responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions.
>>
>>You share responsibility for the outcomes of other
>>people's actions when those actions are done on your
>>behalf,
>
>
> Who taught you such nonsense?

It isn't nonsense.

Once again: if you drive the getaway car in a bank
robbery in which some innocent person in the bank is
shot and killed, you share in the legal AND moral
responsibility for that death (the legal responsibility
is based on the moral responsibility), and you face a
punishment greater than you would if no one had been
killed. This is not nonsense. You are a participant
in the event, even though you didn't pull the trigger.
This is moral, just, and as it should be.

Deal with it. Or, instead of sitting there effetely
trying to be clever, try to explain, in detail and
without resorting to faggy sarcasm, exactly where the
flaw is.

>
>
>>and when you are fully aware of the likelihood
>>of the outcomes.