Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >, "Dutch" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ron" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 14:51:02 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>>Derek > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:27:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza >
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then forced complicity
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no such thing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Forced complicity exists, and if I were to threaten
>>>>>>>>you and your family with death by starvation, you'd
>>>>>>>>be forced to comply with the truth of this sentence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We disagree, Derek. The choice to comply is still a choice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then, if I were to bend your arm up your back in
>>>>>>a half Nelson, you would have the choice not to
>>>>>>comply and stand with your arm up your back? A
>>>>>>person can be forced to comply with brute force
>>>>>>and coercion if applied firmly enough.
>>>>>
>>>>>Logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have the choice of fighting back. I have the choice of avoiding the
>>>>>situation.
>>>>
>>>>You are missing the point.. complicity implies willingness. Cooperating
>>>>under extreme duress does not form complicity.
>>>
>>>Doing X because my arm may be broken is still complicity.
>>
>>Generally speaking, if you are coerced into doing something under extreme
>>duress you are not held responsible for the outcome, morally or legally.
>>That makes perfect sense, except to somone like you.
>
>
> I hold you accountable for all your actions. No wonder you like this
> moral code that you go on about. You get to excuse yourself from all
> sorts of things.
>
> My _moral_ code begins with the question of "who is performing the
> action?"
That is an immature view.
|