On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
>> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
>> morality, and logic.
>
>Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
>what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.

Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.

"In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
a vegetarian, among other things."
Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:04:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on
> >> >>>something makes you a liar or a hypocrite.
> >> >>
> >> >> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
> >> >> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
> >> >> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
> >> >
> >> >Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.
> >>
> >> Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
> >
> >No, he believed what he was saying
>
> Prior to that you told me "he was parroting things
> that vegans typically say.", yet now you tell me "he
> believed what he was saying."

Right, at the time he believed his (parroted) words. What is so difficult to
understand about that?

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 09:04:27 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >"Derek" > wrote
> >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>>Nobody believes that changing one's position on
> >> >>>something makes you a liar or a hypocrite.
> >> >>
> >> >> In his quotes below he states that he dislikes flesh,
> >> >> so how does learning from one's mistakes, as he
> >> >> claims, suddenly change his tastes for food items?
> >> >
> >> >Quite easily, he was parroting things that vegans typically say.
> >>
> >> Are you asserting that he lied about his tastes in foods
> >
> >No, he believed what he was saying
>
> Prior to that you told me "he was parroting things
> that vegans typically say.", yet now you tell me "he
> believed what he was saying."

Right, at the time he believed his (parroted) words. What is so difficult to
understand about that?

"Derek" > wrote
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> [..]
> >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> >> morality, and logic.
> >
> >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
>
> Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>
> "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> a vegetarian, among other things."
> Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
are thereby also guilty of crimes.

"Derek" > wrote
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> [..]
> >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> >> morality, and logic.
> >
> >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
>
> Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>
> "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> a vegetarian, among other things."
> Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
are thereby also guilty of crimes.

"Ron" > wrote

> My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> professional who informed you of this?

Study this...

The Law of Complicity
This section examines the law of complicity. This deals with the liability
of individuals who assist or encourage others to commit an offence.

http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html

Any more questions?

"Ron" > wrote

> My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> professional who informed you of this?

Study this...

The Law of Complicity
This section examines the law of complicity. This deals with the liability
of individuals who assist or encourage others to commit an offence.

http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html

Any more questions?

Ron wrote:
> In article >, "Dutch"
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Reynard" > wrote
> > > They are doing exactly what they say they're doing: abstaining
> > > from meat, so stop pushing it onto them, pusher.
> >
> > It's not about "pushing meat", it's about reminding vegans that
their diets
> > are not bloodless.
>
> Unfortunately, arguments such as the one that Dutch makes assumes a
> degree of responsibility for the actions of others that defies any
> logical rationalization.

No, stupid ****, they're obvious to anyone with a working brain.
You're in the position of one who receives stolen goods. It's a
well-known legal and ethical principle.

DAMN, you're stupid.

>
> I admire vegans in that they do seem to be able to live up to their
> ethical values. Vegans are certainly better than I am. They can live
> their daily lives without having to kill.
They don't even try, you massive idiot.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
> that
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
> the
> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
> Don't
> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
> pulled
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> > > >>
> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
> murder
> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
> paid
> > > >> the
> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's over Ron.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> > > >
> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
> your
> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > > > reasoning used by children.
> > >
> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> > > morality, and logic.
> >
> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> > rarely and inconsistently.
>
> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They are
> named as accessories.
>
> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > > > actions or the outcomes.
> > >
> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
> >
> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
>
> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
> would also be guilty of a crime.

You got me. I guess pot use is immoral, it is after all illegal. That
which is legal is moral that which is illegal is immoral. I imagine that
is one way to view the world. Of course, that perspective relies on
mortality being jurisdictional. What is wrong in Canada then, not
necessarily wrong elsewhere. This means that morals are subjective, not
absolute.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > Dutch" >
>
> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times. Prior
> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy their
> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own actions?
> I
> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
> independent
> > > > of my actions.
> > >
> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
> but
> > > significant in principle.
> >
> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
> > was demonstrated.
>
> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent change.

In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
ratio of 1:1 is false. Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem of
theoretical constructions.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> > responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> > a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> > professional who informed you of this?
>
> Accessory.

What is the Sri Lankan, India, or Arabic equivalent of acessory. using
time or nationally specific laws to demonstrate a moral code -- let
alone claiming it as absolute is problematic. Laws against sodomozing
children are quite new, for example. Given the length of human history
and the legality of such behaviour, we can say that this was moral for a
heck of a lot longer than it has been consider illegal/immoral.

the state chopping off someone's hand is wrong and immoral -- here. This
practice though has been legal and right for sometime at various
locations in the world throughout history.

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
> >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> >> morality, and logic.
> >
> >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
>
> Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>
> "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> a vegetarian, among other things."
> Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

At least two of the three things puts Dutch in a legal position to kill.
Someone who doesn't want to kill, in my view, would avoid at least two
of the three occupations (if we can call veganism an occupation).

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
> > [..]
> > >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> > >> morality, and logic.
> > >
> > >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> > >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
> >
> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> >
> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>
> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
> are thereby also guilty of crimes.

Of course, it was practiced in anciety Egypt as well. It is a common
principle of Aboriginals and Native Americans. Using the current legal
code of a few nations as measure of absolute morality, Dutch.

As I've been stating, Dutch, using the legal system to support a
circular argument of that which is moral is quite problematic.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
> that
> > > >> > is
> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
> the
> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
> Don't
> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
> pulled
> > > >> > the
> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> > > >>
> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
> murder
> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
> paid
> > > >> the
> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> > > >>
> > > >> It's over Ron.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> > > >
> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
> your
> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> > > > reasoning used by children.
> > >
> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> > > morality, and logic.
> >
> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> > rarely and inconsistently.
>
> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They are
> named as accessories.
>
> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for my
> > > > actions or the outcomes.
> > >
> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
> >
> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
>
> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
> would also be guilty of a crime.

I did give you fair warning previously by mentioning the pitfalls of
confirmation bias. You continue to use circular reasoning to demonstrate
a point that is easily disputed. 1 or 2 hundred years of Canadian and US
history is mere pittance in the course of human history. These two
nations and only a handful of nations out of more than a hundred current
nations follow these principles. Over time and considering the number of
countries that have vanished and the variety of peoples and cultures
that have existed, using the now and our legal system as a measure of
any absolute morality is just flawed.

Buying stolen goods is how many became rich in the US and Canadian and
not in the very distant pass. The we _currently_ have laws against this
only demonstrates a current state of law in a handful of counties.

that you continue to use this as some means test of what is absolute
morality is problematic.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
> > outcomes of other people's actions.
>
> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".

And again, you avoided the question.

Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
other people's actions? Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
people's actions?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
> > [..]
> > >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> > >> morality, and logic.
> > >
> > >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> > >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
> >
> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> >
> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>
> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
> are thereby also guilty of crimes.

It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.

Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
an absolute moral code is problematic.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
>> that
>> > > >> > is
>> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
>> the
>> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
>> Don't
>> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
>> pulled
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
>> murder
>> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
>> paid
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It's over Ron.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
>> > > >
>> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
>> your
>> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
>> > > > reasoning used by children.
>> > >
>> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
>> > > morality, and logic.
>> >
>> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
>> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
>> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
>> > rarely and inconsistently.
>>
>> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
>> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They
>> are
>> named as accessories.
>>
>> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for
>> > > > my
>> > > > actions or the outcomes.
>> > >
>> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
>> >
>> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
>> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
>>
>> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
>> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
>> would also be guilty of a crime.
>
> You got me. I guess pot use is immoral, it is after all illegal.

Damn you're thick! I said *if* it were an illegal act, then complicity would
also be a crime. I didn't refer to morality specifically with reference to
legality.

> That
> which is legal is moral that which is illegal is immoral.

Not my belief..

> I imagine that
> is one way to view the world.

You imagine a lot. You use it a substitute for comprehension.

> Of course, that perspective relies on
> mortality being jurisdictional. What is wrong in Canada then, not
> necessarily wrong elsewhere. This means that morals are subjective, not
> absolute.

Imagining and not paying attention can lead to almost any conclusion.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
>> > outcomes of other people's actions.
>>
>> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
>
> Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument. Many
> of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal elsewhere
> and therefore moral.

Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or encourage a
person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as well.

You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on these
subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times.
>> > > > Prior
>> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
>> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
>> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy
>> > > > their
>> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own
>> > > > actions?
>> I
>> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
>> independent
>> > > > of my actions.
>> > >
>> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
>> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
>> but
>> > > significant in principle.
>> >
>> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
>> > was demonstrated.
>>
>> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
>> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent
>> change.
>
> In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
> for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
> ratio of 1:1 is false.

I said 1:1 is theoretical, a supply curve can't work that way.

> Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
> dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem of
> theoretical constructions.

There's no problem with the principle, if demands drops by a perceptible
amount for a single production cycle then production targets will be set
based on that level. That's where your impact is felt.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
>> > responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
>> > a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
>> > professional who informed you of this?
>>
>> Accessory.
>
> What is the Sri Lankan, India, or Arabic equivalent of acessory.

Must be much the same principle.

> using
> time or nationally specific laws to demonstrate a moral code -- let
> alone claiming it as absolute is problematic.

That's nice, what does it have to do with the subject? Every time I get
close to getting something through that thick skull of yours you throw up
this strawman of moral codes not being universal. I never said they were.
Complicity does not depend on a particular moral code, it's a basic
principle of logic.

> Laws against sodomozing
> children are quite new, for example. Given the length of human history
> and the legality of such behaviour, we can say that this was moral for a
> heck of a lot longer than it has been consider illegal/immoral.
>
> the state chopping off someone's hand is wrong and immoral -- here. This
> practice though has been legal and right for sometime at various
> locations in the world throughout history.

That's not the point, the point is that by abeting the chopping off of a
hand you become part of that act, moral or not.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>> > [..]
>> > >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
>> > >> morality, and logic.
>> > >
>> > >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
>> > >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
>> >
>> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
>> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>> >
>> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
>> > a vegetarian, among other things."
>> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>>
>> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
>> crimes
>> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
>
> Of course, it was practiced in anciety Egypt as well. It is a common
> principle of Aboriginals and Native Americans. Using the current legal
> code of a few nations as measure of absolute morality, Dutch.
>
> As I've been stating, Dutch, using the legal system to support a
> circular argument of that which is moral is quite problematic.

I'm not doing that, I am illustrating that the law follows this same
principle which we apply in morality and in logic. 'If I help someone do
something in some way, I am a part of that act of doing.'

"Ron" > wrote
>"Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
>> that
>> > > >> > is
>> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
>> the
>> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
>> Don't
>> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
>> pulled
>> > > >> > the
>> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
>> > > >>
>> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
>> murder
>> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
>> paid
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It's over Ron.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
>> > > >
>> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
>> your
>> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
>> > > > reasoning used by children.
>> > >
>> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
>> > > morality, and logic.
>> >
>> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
>> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
>> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
>> > rarely and inconsistently.
>>
>> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
>> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They
>> are
>> named as accessories.
>>
>> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for
>> > > > my
>> > > > actions or the outcomes.
>> > >
>> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
>> >
>> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
>> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
>>
>> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
>> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
>> would also be guilty of a crime.
>
> I did give you fair warning previously by mentioning the pitfalls of
> confirmation bias. You continue to use circular reasoning to demonstrate
> a point that is easily disputed. 1 or 2 hundred years of Canadian and US
> history is mere pittance in the course of human history. These two
> nations and only a handful of nations out of more than a hundred current
> nations follow these principles. Over time and considering the number of
> countries that have vanished and the variety of peoples and cultures
> that have existed, using the now and our legal system as a measure of
> any absolute morality is just flawed.
>
> Buying stolen goods is how many became rich in the US and Canadian and
> not in the very distant pass. The we _currently_ have laws against this
> only demonstrates a current state of law in a handful of counties.
>
> that you continue to use this as some means test of what is absolute
> morality is problematic.

Big fat strawman Ron, you don't understand a thing.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
>> > outcomes of other people's actions.
>>
>> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
>
> And again, you avoided the question.
>
> Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> other people's actions?

Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.

> Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
> people's actions?

See above

Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html

"Ron" > wrote
>"Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>> > [..]
>> > >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
>> > >> morality, and logic.
>> > >
>> > >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
>> > >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
>> >
>> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
>> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>> >
>> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
>> > a vegetarian, among other things."
>> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>>
>> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
>> crimes
>> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
>
> It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
> this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
> act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.

Not necessarily the same crime. Driving a getaway car in a robbery may be
considered robbery, but buying the goods later is being an accessory to
robbery after the fact, a different crime.

> Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
> an absolute moral code is problematic.

You're the only one talking about an "absolute moral code". You attempt to
answer every problem you encounter in this debate by pummelling this same
strawman.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
> >> that
> >> > > >> > is
> >> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
> >> the
> >> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
> >> Don't
> >> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
> >> pulled
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
> >> murder
> >> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
> >> paid
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's over Ron.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
> >> your
> >> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> >> > > > reasoning used by children.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> >> > > morality, and logic.
> >> >
> >> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> >> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
> >> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> >> > rarely and inconsistently.
> >>
> >> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
> >> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They
> >> are
> >> named as accessories.
> >>
> >> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for
> >> > > > my
> >> > > > actions or the outcomes.
> >> > >
> >> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
> >> >
> >> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
> >> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
> >>
> >> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
> >> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
> >> would also be guilty of a crime.
> >
> > You got me. I guess pot use is immoral, it is after all illegal.
>
> Damn you're thick! I said *if* it were an illegal act, then complicity would
> also be a crime. I didn't refer to morality specifically with reference to
> legality.

I'm noting an avoidance from what you've claimed in the past. Please
clarify, Dutch.

Using pot is illegal. Is using pot immoral? IOW, is that which is
illegal also moral, and if so by what determination is pot use "moral".

> > That
> > which is legal is moral that which is illegal is immoral.
>
> Not my belief..
>
> > I imagine that
> > is one way to view the world.
>
> You imagine a lot. You use it a substitute for comprehension.
>
> > Of course, that perspective relies on
> > mortality being jurisdictional. What is wrong in Canada then, not
> > necessarily wrong elsewhere. This means that morals are subjective, not
> > absolute.
>
> Imagining and not paying attention can lead to almost any conclusion.

Criticizing my choice of words is does not make for a strong rebuttal.
The 'theory' of accomplices, or aiding and abetting is a feature
specific to a period of time and specific nations. This is why I asked
you to clarify when you made the declaration that this was a fundamental
principle of law.

I ask then, when and were did being an accomplice become equivalent to
carrying out the criminal act. (You'll note now that we've gone from
what is being responsible for the actions and outcomes of others, to
what is current in some aspects of law for a few nations.)

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> >>
> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> >
> > Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument. Many
> > of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal elsewhere
> > and therefore moral.
>
> Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or encourage a
> person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as well.

Really. If I encourage someone to return money that has been recovered
and there is a reward then, I am morally and obviously legally entitled
to part of that reward?

Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they die as a
result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in that death?

Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples of where
you are mistaken.

> You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on these
> subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.

It's been suggested that you were a former police officer. I suspect any
former police officer could recite the criminal code far better than I
ever could. That a policy academy though would be any demonstration of
the ability to clearly argue a position IS another matter.

So, in what jurisdiction are you claiming an expertise?

As I have been stating all along, Dutch, it is a principle that is
inconsistently applied. Further, it is not universal or absolute.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times.
> >> > > > Prior
> >> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine my
> >> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals, use
> >> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy
> >> > > > their
> >> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own
> >> > > > actions?
> >> I
> >> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
> >> independent
> >> > > > of my actions.
> >> > >
> >> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on your
> >> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very small,
> >> but
> >> > > significant in principle.
> >> >
> >> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action as
> >> > was demonstrated.
> >>
> >> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In reality
> >> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent
> >> change.
> >
> > In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
> > for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
> > ratio of 1:1 is false.
>
> I said 1:1 is theoretical, a supply curve can't work that way.

Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
agreeing.

> > Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
> > dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem of
> > theoretical constructions.
>
> There's no problem with the principle, if demands drops by a perceptible
> amount for a single production cycle then production targets will be set
> based on that level. That's where your impact is felt.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I are
> >> > responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it was
> >> > a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> >> > professional who informed you of this?
> >>
> >> Accessory.
> >
> > What is the Sri Lankan, India, or Arabic equivalent of acessory.
>
> Must be much the same principle.
>
> > using
> > time or nationally specific laws to demonstrate a moral code -- let
> > alone claiming it as absolute is problematic.
>
> That's nice, what does it have to do with the subject? Every time I get
> close to getting something through that thick skull of yours you throw up
> this strawman of moral codes not being universal. I never said they were.
> Complicity does not depend on a particular moral code, it's a basic
> principle of logic.

You supported the contention previously that premeditated murder and
sodomizing children were absolute wrongs. Please clarify, do you think
this or not?

Further, it is not a basic principle of logic. It is a common (and
inconsistent) feature of North American jurisprudence that has its
historical basis from other Western nations.

> > Laws against sodomozing
> > children are quite new, for example. Given the length of human history
> > and the legality of such behaviour, we can say that this was moral for a
> > heck of a lot longer than it has been consider illegal/immoral.
> >
> > the state chopping off someone's hand is wrong and immoral -- here. This
> > practice though has been legal and right for sometime at various
> > locations in the world throughout history.
>
> That's not the point, the point is that by abeting the chopping off of a
> hand you become part of that act, moral or not.

I see. So because I can be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada as
an accessory after the fact, you have now generalized this to any
behaviour that could exist throughout time and in any nation -- even
where legal. That is rather odd.

Please be specific, how is chopping off the hand of someone in a country
where it is illegal an immoral act. The law of that land allows for the
act. I've repeatedly cautioned that there is a problem with circular
reasoning and using the law to support contentions about morality.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" >

>> >>
>> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for
>> >> > the
>> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
>> >>
>> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
>> >
>> > Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument. Many
>> > of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal
>> > elsewhere
>> > and therefore moral.
>>
>> Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or encourage a
>> person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as well.
>
> Really. If I encourage someone to return money that has been recovered
> and there is a reward then, I am morally and obviously legally entitled
> to part of that reward?

Nobody is entitled to a reward for returning lost money, you opportunist.

> Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they die as a
> result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in that death?

Encouraging responsible pot use to a pot user probably *adds* years to their
life.

> Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples of where
> you are mistaken.

You haven't found a single instance where I have been mistaken yet, but you
will eventually if you keep trying long enough. You will pronounce yourself
victorious at that point in time no doubt.

>> You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on these
>> subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.
>
> It's been suggested that you were a former police officer. I suspect any
> former police officer could recite the criminal code far better than I
> ever could. That a policy academy though would be any demonstration of
> the ability to clearly argue a position IS another matter.
>
> So, in what jurisdiction are you claiming an expertise?
>
> As I have been stating all along, Dutch, it is a principle that is
> inconsistently applied. Further, it is not universal or absolute.

Complicity is a natural principle that is found in logic, morality, law, in
some form in most every discipline. That it may be unevenly applied in laws
or elsewhere should come as no surprise, human social constructs are
imperfect.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> >> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times.
>> >> > > > Prior
>> >> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine
>> >> > > > my
>> >> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals,
>> >> > > > use
>> >> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy
>> >> > > > their
>> >> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own
>> >> > > > actions?
>> >> I
>> >> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
>> >> independent
>> >> > > > of my actions.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on
>> >> > > your
>> >> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very
>> >> > > small,
>> >> but
>> >> > > significant in principle.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action
>> >> > as
>> >> > was demonstrated.
>> >>
>> >> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In
>> >> reality
>> >> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent
>> >> change.
>> >
>> > In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
>> > for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
>> > ratio of 1:1 is false.
>>
>> I said 1:1 is theoretical, a supply curve can't work that way.
>
> Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
> agreeing.

The difference reflects the complexity of a demand/supply situation in a
diverse market. The principle stands, decreasing demand leads to decreasing
production, and vice versa.

To state it simplistically but essentially correctly, YOU cause a farmer to
grow a tomato every time you eat one.

>> > Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
>> > dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem
>> > of
>> > theoretical constructions.
>>
>> There's no problem with the principle, if demands drops by a perceptible
>> amount for a single production cycle then production targets will be set
>> based on that level. That's where your impact is felt.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Ron" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I
>> >> > are
>> >> > responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it
>> >> > was
>> >> > a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
>> >> > professional who informed you of this?
>> >>
>> >> Accessory.
>> >
>> > What is the Sri Lankan, India, or Arabic equivalent of acessory.
>>
>> Must be much the same principle.
>>
>> > using
>> > time or nationally specific laws to demonstrate a moral code -- let
>> > alone claiming it as absolute is problematic.
>>
>> That's nice, what does it have to do with the subject? Every time I get
>> close to getting something through that thick skull of yours you throw up
>> this strawman of moral codes not being universal. I never said they were.
>> Complicity does not depend on a particular moral code, it's a basic
>> principle of logic.
>
> You supported the contention previously that premeditated murder and
> sodomizing children were absolute wrongs. Please clarify, do you think
> this or not?

No, you have me confused with someone else. In fact I argued with that same
person that a premeditated, unlawful murder might be seen as right and just.

> Further, it is not a basic principle of logic.

Of course it is, if I help, support or encourage you in some way to do *A*,
then in a real sense *we* did it, we were a team.

> It is a common (and
> inconsistent) feature of North American jurisprudence that has its
> historical basis from other Western nations.

Prove it.

>> > Laws against sodomozing
>> > children are quite new, for example. Given the length of human history
>> > and the legality of such behaviour, we can say that this was moral for
>> > a
>> > heck of a lot longer than it has been consider illegal/immoral.
>> >
>> > the state chopping off someone's hand is wrong and immoral -- here.
>> > This
>> > practice though has been legal and right for sometime at various
>> > locations in the world throughout history.
>>
>> That's not the point, the point is that by abeting the chopping off of a
>> hand you become part of that act, moral or not.
>
> I see. So because I can be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada as
> an accessory after the fact, you have now generalized this to any
> behaviour that could exist throughout time and in any nation -- even
> where legal. That is rather odd.

Why is that odd? You wouldn't be charged if it were not illegal, but you
would still be complicit. If you take part in any way, you're complicit.

> Please be specific, how is chopping off the hand of someone in a country
> where it is illegal an immoral act. The law of that land allows for the
> act. I've repeatedly cautioned that there is a problem with circular
> reasoning and using the law to support contentions about morality.

I didn't say it was an immoral act per se, bonehead.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> >"Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and illegal.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike thinking
> >> that
> >> > > >> > is
> >> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't give me
> >> the
> >> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his fault.
> >> Don't
> >> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it. I
> >> pulled
> >> > > >> > the
> >> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense against a
> >> murder
> >> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person who
> >> paid
> >> > > >> the
> >> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It's over Ron.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> >> > > >
> >> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support for
> >> your
> >> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is the
> >> > > > reasoning used by children.
> >> > >
> >> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> >> > > morality, and logic.
> >> >
> >> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> >> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law. I
> >> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> >> > rarely and inconsistently.
> >>
> >> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
> >> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable. They
> >> are
> >> named as accessories.
> >>
> >> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible for
> >> > > > my
> >> > > > actions or the outcomes.
> >> > >
> >> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
> >> >
> >> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the money
> >> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
> >>
> >> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an agreement
> >> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act they
> >> would also be guilty of a crime.
> >
> > I did give you fair warning previously by mentioning the pitfalls of
> > confirmation bias. You continue to use circular reasoning to demonstrate
> > a point that is easily disputed. 1 or 2 hundred years of Canadian and US
> > history is mere pittance in the course of human history. These two
> > nations and only a handful of nations out of more than a hundred current
> > nations follow these principles. Over time and considering the number of
> > countries that have vanished and the variety of peoples and cultures
> > that have existed, using the now and our legal system as a measure of
> > any absolute morality is just flawed.
> >
> > Buying stolen goods is how many became rich in the US and Canadian and
> > not in the very distant pass. The we _currently_ have laws against this
> > only demonstrates a current state of law in a handful of counties.
> >
> > that you continue to use this as some means test of what is absolute
> > morality is problematic.
>
> Big fat strawman Ron, you don't understand a thing.

I do understand much more than you are prepared to give me credit for or
to accept. I do appreciate the difference between logical problems of
absolutes and the relative nature of time and location.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> >>
> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> >
> > And again, you avoided the question.
> >
> > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > other people's actions?
>
> Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
> abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.

As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a child to
think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's actions.
It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however, we
recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual for
their own actions.

> > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
> > people's actions?
>
> See above
>
> Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html

This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking. An accomplice
to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the thief.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> >"Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Derek" > wrote
> >> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> wrote:
> >> > [..]
> >> > >> It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of law,
> >> > >> morality, and logic.
> >> > >
> >> > >Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would appreciate
> >> > >what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in law.
> >> >
> >> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> >> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> >> >
> >> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> >> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> >> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
> >>
> >> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
> >> crimes
> >> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
> >
> > It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
> > this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
> > act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.
>
> Not necessarily the same crime. Driving a getaway car in a robbery may be
> considered robbery, but buying the goods later is being an accessory to
> robbery after the fact, a different crime.
>
> > Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
> > an absolute moral code is problematic.
>
> You're the only one talking about an "absolute moral code". You attempt to
> answer every problem you encounter in this debate by pummelling this same
> strawman.

Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and location) or
absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an accomplice
or accessory.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" >
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> >> >
> >> > Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument. Many
> >> > of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal
> >> > elsewhere
> >> > and therefore moral.
> >>
> >> Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or encourage a
> >> person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as well.
> >
> > Really. If I encourage someone to return money that has been recovered
> > and there is a reward then, I am morally and obviously legally entitled
> > to part of that reward?
>
> Nobody is entitled to a reward for returning lost money, you opportunist.

I am an 'accomplice". If the accomplice to a crime is entitled to the
punishment then, the accomplice to a reward is entitled to the reward.

> > Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they die as a
> > result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in that death?
>
> Encouraging responsible pot use to a pot user probably *adds* years to their
> life.

Irrelevant. It is the encouragement of illegal activities. It is the
encouragement for trafficking and possession. It is aiding and abetting
criminal activity. It is acting with knowledge before and after the fact
-- it is being an accessory. Please turn yourself in to the nearest
authorities.

> > Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples of where
> > you are mistaken.
>
> You haven't found a single instance where I have been mistaken yet, but you
> will eventually if you keep trying long enough. You will pronounce yourself
> victorious at that point in time no doubt.

Single? I found many. Failing to 'snitch' or 'rat' in any circumstance
of illegal activity (such as the possession of marijuana -- a crime) is
protecting someone from the outcome of criminal activities.

> >> You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on these
> >> subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.
> >
> > It's been suggested that you were a former police officer. I suspect any
> > former police officer could recite the criminal code far better than I
> > ever could. That a policy academy though would be any demonstration of
> > the ability to clearly argue a position IS another matter.
> >
> > So, in what jurisdiction are you claiming an expertise?
> >
> > As I have been stating all along, Dutch, it is a principle that is
> > inconsistently applied. Further, it is not universal or absolute.
>
> Complicity is a natural principle that is found in logic, morality, law, in
> some form in most every discipline. That it may be unevenly applied in laws
> or elsewhere should come as no surprise, human social constructs are
> imperfect.

You are inconsistent? You claim social constructs are imperfect -- logic
is a human construct and morality is a human construct.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > I have purchased tomatoes in the past past 2 weeks, three times.
> >> >> > > > Prior
> >> >> > > > to this, I purchased some in approximately May of 2004. Imagine
> >> >> > > > my
> >> >> > > > surprise and chagrin to note that farmers still kill animals,
> >> >> > > > use
> >> >> > > > pesticides, clear land and all of those things when I don't buy
> >> >> > > > their
> >> >> > > > products. Could it be that they are responsible for their own
> >> >> > > > actions?
> >> >> I
> >> >> > > > don't control the universe. They will still do what they do
> >> >> independent
> >> >> > > > of my actions.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > They are not independent of your actions, in fact they DEPEND on
> >> >> > > your
> >> >> > > demand. The reason nothing changes is that your demand is very
> >> >> > > small,
> >> >> but
> >> >> > > significant in principle.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now you've changed the argument. They act independent of my action
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > was demonstrated.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, in theory supply responds 1:1 with fluctuations in demand. In
> >> >> reality
> >> >> supply does not change unless there is a significant and peristent
> >> >> change.
> >> >
> >> > In _theory_. Clearly, if I am and others are able to not buy tomatoes
> >> > for periods of months and growers will still do their thing then, the
> >> > ratio of 1:1 is false.
> >>
> >> I said 1:1 is theoretical, a supply curve can't work that way.
> >
> > Theoretical and actual are different. That was the point. Thank you for
> > agreeing.
>
> The difference reflects the complexity of a demand/supply situation in a
> diverse market. The principle stands, decreasing demand leads to decreasing
> production, and vice versa.
>
> To state it simplistically but essentially correctly, YOU cause a farmer to
> grow a tomato every time you eat one.

As a flawed human/social theoretical construction.

I caused nothing. Farmers grew thousands of tomatoes in the months that
i didn't buy any. I can support this by producing statistics of tomato
sales for my local store, by region or by nation for the time that I was
not buying tomatoes.

> >> > Frankly, I wasn't interested in changing the
> >> > dynamic at this time and for the reasons stated previously. A problem
> >> > of
> >> > theoretical constructions.
> >>
> >> There's no problem with the principle, if demands drops by a perceptible
> >> amount for a single production cycle then production targets will be set
> >> based on that level. That's where your impact is felt.

Now what was it you said about social construct (read human constructs
like _theories_?)

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >> > My recent question remains unanswered. Who taught you that you or I
> >> >> > are
> >> >> > responsible for the outcome of the actions of others. You stated it
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > a legal principle. Can you cite the text, or professor, or legal
> >> >> > professional who informed you of this?
> >> >>
> >> >> Accessory.
> >> >
> >> > What is the Sri Lankan, India, or Arabic equivalent of acessory.
> >>
> >> Must be much the same principle.
> >>
> >> > using
> >> > time or nationally specific laws to demonstrate a moral code -- let
> >> > alone claiming it as absolute is problematic.
> >>
> >> That's nice, what does it have to do with the subject? Every time I get
> >> close to getting something through that thick skull of yours you throw up
> >> this strawman of moral codes not being universal. I never said they were.
> >> Complicity does not depend on a particular moral code, it's a basic
> >> principle of logic.
> >
> > You supported the contention previously that premeditated murder and
> > sodomizing children were absolute wrongs. Please clarify, do you think
> > this or not?
>
> No, you have me confused with someone else. In fact I argued with that same
> person that a premeditated, unlawful murder might be seen as right and just.
>
> > Further, it is not a basic principle of logic.
>
> Of course it is, if I help, support or encourage you in some way to do *A*,
> then in a real sense *we* did it, we were a team.
>
> > It is a common (and
> > inconsistent) feature of North American jurisprudence that has its
> > historical basis from other Western nations.
>
> Prove it.
>
> >> > Laws against sodomozing
> >> > children are quite new, for example. Given the length of human history
> >> > and the legality of such behaviour, we can say that this was moral for
> >> > a
> >> > heck of a lot longer than it has been consider illegal/immoral.
> >> >
> >> > the state chopping off someone's hand is wrong and immoral -- here.
> >> > This
> >> > practice though has been legal and right for sometime at various
> >> > locations in the world throughout history.
> >>
> >> That's not the point, the point is that by abeting the chopping off of a
> >> hand you become part of that act, moral or not.
> >
> > I see. So because I can be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada as
> > an accessory after the fact, you have now generalized this to any
> > behaviour that could exist throughout time and in any nation -- even
> > where legal. That is rather odd.
>
> Why is that odd? You wouldn't be charged if it were not illegal, but you
> would still be complicit. If you take part in any way, you're complicit.

If i were still thinking as a child.

> > Please be specific, how is chopping off the hand of someone in a country
> > where it is illegal an immoral act. The law of that land allows for the
> > act. I've repeatedly cautioned that there is a problem with circular
> > reasoning and using the law to support contentions about morality.
>
> I didn't say it was an immoral act per se, bonehead.

Ah, back to the per se.

When previously asked, you stated that premeditated murder and
sodomizing children were absolutely wrong. Are you sticking with that
story? I caution you again on the difficulties associated with
confirmation bias. That should give you an indication where your
argument will be undermined.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > >"Dutch" >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [..]
> > >> > > >> >> Enticing or inciting to commit murder is immoral and
illegal.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Yes, it is illegal and a demonstration of the childlike
thinking
> > >> that
> > >> > > >> > is
> > >> > > >> > pervasive in our culture.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > "He made me do it." "Honestly, your honour. If he didn't
give me
> > >> the
> > >> > > >> > money, I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. It's all his
fault.
> > >> Don't
> > >> > > >> > blame me for my actions, blame him for causing me to do it.
I
> > >> pulled
> > >> > > >> > the
> > >> > > >> > trigger but he paid me."
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> You might have a point if that were a legitimate defense
against a
> > >> murder
> > >> > > >> charge, but it isn't, It doesn't excuse the killer. The person
who
> > >> paid
> > >> > > >> the
> > >> > > >> shooter is just another criminal.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> It's over Ron.
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> Now repeat after me, "I will troll no more."
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > There you go again, using one vague instance in law as support
for
> > >> your
> > >> > > > position. Sadly, the rest of us are quite clear that this is
the
> > >> > > > reasoning used by children.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > It's not "one vague instance", it's a fundamental principle of
law,
> > >> > > morality, and logic.
> > >> >
> > >> > Really. Do tell. I have a passing interest in law. I would
appreciate
> > >> > what legal mind has declared this as a fundamental principle in
law. I
> > >> > would also be curious why this fundamental principles is applied so
> > >> > rarely and inconsistently.
> > >>
> > >> It's applied as consistently as any legal principle. When a crime is
> > >> committed, anyone complicit in the crime is also held accountable.
They
> > >> are
> > >> named as accessories.
> > >>
> > >> > > > Someone paid me $10 to type this. I cannot be held responsible
for
> > >> > > > my
> > >> > > > actions or the outcomes.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > False conclusion, you AND he are now *both* responsible.
> > >> >
> > >> > He is responsible for what I type. More of the same. He and the
money
> > >> > controls my fingers, muscles, tendons, words and so on.
> > >>
> > >> In a sense yes. They contributed to the act by entering into an
agreement
> > >> whereby they compensate you for doing it. If it were an illegal act
they
> > >> would also be guilty of a crime.
> > >
> > > I did give you fair warning previously by mentioning the pitfalls of
> > > confirmation bias. You continue to use circular reasoning to
demonstrate
> > > a point that is easily disputed. 1 or 2 hundred years of Canadian and
US
> > > history is mere pittance in the course of human history. These two
> > > nations and only a handful of nations out of more than a hundred
current
> > > nations follow these principles. Over time and considering the number
of
> > > countries that have vanished and the variety of peoples and cultures
> > > that have existed, using the now and our legal system as a measure of
> > > any absolute morality is just flawed.
> > >
> > > Buying stolen goods is how many became rich in the US and Canadian and
> > > not in the very distant pass. The we _currently_ have laws against
this
> > > only demonstrates a current state of law in a handful of counties.
> > >
> > > that you continue to use this as some means test of what is absolute
> > > morality is problematic.
> >
> > Big fat strawman Ron, you don't understand a thing.
>
> I do understand much more than you are prepared to give me credit for or
> to accept. I do appreciate the difference between logical problems of
> absolutes and the relative nature of time and location.

I'm not arguing absolutes, that's a strawman. There is wide gap between
acknowledging a valid principle and calling it absolute. In human affairs
very little is absolute. In other words, you are not refuting my arguments
by asserting that they are not absolute.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for
the
> > >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> > >>
> > >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> > >
> > > And again, you avoided the question.
> > >
> > > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > > other people's actions?
> >
> > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
> > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.
>
> As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a child to
> think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's actions.
> It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however, we
> recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual for
> their own actions.

Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible for our own
actions in other cases but not then?

> > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
> > > people's actions?
> >
> > See above
> >
> > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
>
> This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.

Define the problem.

> An accomplice
> to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the thief.

An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for
the
> > >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> > >>
> > >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> > >
> > > And again, you avoided the question.
> > >
> > > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > > other people's actions?
> >
> > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
> > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.
>
> As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a child to
> think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's actions.
> It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults, however, we
> recognize the accountability and responsibility of the individual for
> their own actions.

Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible for our own
actions in other cases but not then?

> > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
> > > people's actions?
> >
> > See above
> >
> > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
>
> This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.

Define the problem.

> An accomplice
> to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the thief.

An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.