In article >,
Rudy Canoza > wrote:

> 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.

Ah, you blew it with this paragraph.