Ron wrote:
> In article >,
> Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Ron wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>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.

Still can't explain the flaw...hence the whiff off.

I really didn't think you would even try.