"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and the
nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
evaluation.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > 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?
> >
> > 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.

Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
money and decline 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.

I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.

> 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.

You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course of
action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
responsibly.


> > > 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.

Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
immoral OR a crime.

> > >> 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?

Of course.

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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed. For example, you
claimed that eating meat was not wrong. Well, that isn't true based on
the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat in
North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement of
absoluteness.

To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton why
is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger meat?

Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
slaughter, but not tigers and camels?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed. For example, you
claimed that eating meat was not wrong. Well, that isn't true based on
the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat in
North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement of
absoluteness.

To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton why
is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger meat?

Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
slaughter, but not tigers and camels?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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?

How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it is
an action?

> > > > 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.

Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.

The problem, Dutch, has been defined.

When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle valid?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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?

How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it is
an action?

> > > > 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.

Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.

The problem, Dutch, has been defined.

When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle valid?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and the
> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> evaluation.

Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
*actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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.
>
> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and the
> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> evaluation.

Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
*actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > 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?
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
> evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
> money and decline the reward.

How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
Accepting a reward is not illegal.

> > > > 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.
>
> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.

Nice avoidance. When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
you make it an issue.

> > 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.
>
> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course of
> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> responsibly.

Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still aiding
someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
to the 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.
>
> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
> immoral OR a crime.

How did you decide that it was moral?

> > > >> 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?
>
> Of course.

But the vegan must be consistent. You have the freedom as a human to be
inconsistent, the vegan on the other hand must not be. I think the term
hypocrite is appropriate here -- do as I say, not as I do.

> > 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:
>
> [..]
>
> > > >> >> > 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.
>
> Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
> evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
> money and decline the reward.

How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
Accepting a reward is not illegal.

> > > > 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.
>
> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.

Nice avoidance. When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
you make it an issue.

> > 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.
>
> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course of
> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> responsibly.

Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still aiding
someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
to the 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.
>
> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
> immoral OR a crime.

How did you decide that it was moral?

> > > >> 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?
>
> Of course.

But the vegan must be consistent. You have the freedom as a human to be
inconsistent, the vegan on the other hand must not be. I think the term
hypocrite is appropriate here -- do as I say, not as I do.

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

Ron wrote:

> 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.)


why are you a pinko Ron? Dont you love America?

"Ron" > wrote
[..]

>> 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.
>
> Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.

No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be the
case, get used to it.

> For example, you
> claimed that eating meat was not wrong.

It isn't.

> Well, that isn't true based on
> the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat in
> North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement of
> absoluteness.

Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a response
to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement. Vegans
are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are referring
to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the charge
in my response.

> To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton why
> is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger meat?

First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof of
"circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because *you*
asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel and
tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by western
culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
endangered species status among others.

> Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> slaughter, but not tigers and camels?

Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
don't?

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

[..]
>> > 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?
>
> How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it is
> an action?

Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.

>> > > > 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.
>
> Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.

Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An accomplice
is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person" as
you have so often and wrongly alleged.

> The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
>
> When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle valid?

I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the development
of homo sapiens social groups.

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

[..]
>> > 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?
>
> How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it is
> an action?

Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.

>> > > > 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.
>
> Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.

Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An accomplice
is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person" as
you have so often and wrongly alleged.

> The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
>
> When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle valid?

I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the development
of homo sapiens social groups.

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

>> > 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.
>>
>> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and
>> the
>> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
>> evaluation.
>
> Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.

One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young people to a
life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.

Two actions may be identical in physical form but completely dissimiliar
when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know this or
else you are sociopathic.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > 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?
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>>
>> Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
>> evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
>> money and decline the reward.
>
> How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?

By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
equivalents in many cultures.

> Accepting a reward is not illegal.

I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality again,
the very mistake you keep accusing me of.

>> > > > 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.
>>
>> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.
>
> Nice avoidance.

Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the goalposts?

> When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
> you make it an issue.

Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.

Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked for
a legal opinion.

--------------------------------------------------------------
You:

> 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?

Me:

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

------------------------------------------------------------

I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
thinking seems quite confused.

>
>> > 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.
>>
>> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course
>> of
>> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
>> responsibly.
>
> Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still aiding
> someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
> after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
> to the authorities.

Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
self-professed free-thinker.


>> > > > 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.
>>
>> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
>> immoral OR a crime.
>
> How did you decide that it was moral?

A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.

>> > > >> 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?
>>
>> Of course.
>
> But the vegan must be consistent. You have the freedom as a human to be
> inconsistent, the vegan on the other hand must not be. I think the term
> hypocrite is appropriate here -- do as I say, not as I do.

No, the vegan does not need to be consistent, the vegan ought to recognize
and acknowledge his/her inconsistency where it is clearly pointed out to
him/her, as any rational person should.

The reality is, vegans either cannot or will not do this, which is what
makes it so much fun debating with them. You have your own personal brand of
bone-headed silliness that makes you entertaining.

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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
>
> No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be the
> case, get used to it.
>
> > For example, you
> > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
>
> It isn't.
>
> > Well, that isn't true based on
> > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat in
> > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement of
> > absoluteness.
>
> Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a response
> to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement. Vegans
> are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are referring
> to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the charge
> in my response.

We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
all animals (an absolute), but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
generalization).

> > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton why
> > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger meat?
>
> First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof of
> "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because *you*
> asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel and
> tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by western
> culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> endangered species status among others.

Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
are not inherent. In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
is not right but determined by such things as time and location.

> > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
>
> Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> don't?

Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above. I can
retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.

You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> [..]
>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
>
> No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be the
> case, get used to it.
>
> > For example, you
> > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
>
> It isn't.
>
> > Well, that isn't true based on
> > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat in
> > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement of
> > absoluteness.
>
> Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a response
> to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement. Vegans
> are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are referring
> to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the charge
> in my response.

We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
all animals (an absolute), but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
generalization).

> > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton why
> > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger meat?
>
> First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof of
> "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because *you*
> asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel and
> tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by western
> culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> endangered species status among others.

Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
are not inherent. In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
is not right but determined by such things as time and location.

> > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
>
> Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> don't?

Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above. I can
retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.

You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice and
> >> the
> >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> >> evaluation.
> >
> > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
>
> One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young people to a
> life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.

My question was, what is different about the actions?

> Two actions may be identical in physical form

Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.

> but completely dissimiliar
> when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know this or
> else you are sociopathic.

The circumstances are the the same. The reasoning or thinking is what is
being assessed and having label of morality applied.

What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular and
socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If being
an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.

I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in line
is a breeze.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > 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?
> >> > >
> >> > > 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.
> >>
> >> Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
> >> evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
> >> money and decline the reward.
> >
> > How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
>
> By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
> equivalents in many cultures.

Yes. A logical argument based on popularity. This is generally
considered a logical fallacy.

How have you translated something that is effectively "do unto
others..." into one must not give or accept a reward?

Now, if the golden rule applies, when Rick refers to me as pansy boy,
application of this principle would mean it is he who wishes to be
treated this way and called pansy boy -- do unto others.

> > Accepting a reward is not illegal.
>
> I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality again,
> the very mistake you keep accusing me of.

Now that we have that in print, please establish how you have determined
that it would be wrong to accept the reward or to give it in the
situation.

I know the golden rule in principle. I know that many follow it. I am
curious how you have determined that this principle is moral though.

> >> > > > 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.
> >>
> >> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.
> >
> > Nice avoidance.
>
> Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the goalposts?
>
> > When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
> > you make it an issue.
>
> Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.
>
> Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked for
> a legal opinion.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> You:
>
> > 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?
>
> Me:
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
> understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
> thinking seems quite confused.

Not at all and now that we have this in print. Please explain for us,
how you have determined the difference between morality and legality.

You've state the golden rule as logic, I state is merely common.

> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course
> >> of
> >> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> >> responsibly.
> >
> > Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still aiding
> > someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
> > after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
> > to the authorities.
>
> Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
> self-professed free-thinker.

THANK YOU! I know. I applied current morality and current law to the
situation and you were able to see it as black and white. Go figure.
When I do it, you can easily see it, when you do it you deny it. What's
that about?

> >> > > > 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.
> >>
> >> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
> >> immoral OR a crime.
> >
> > How did you decide that it was moral?
>
> A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.

Really. What in the golden rule of "do unto others..." refers to
complicity or being an accomplice. As I've stated, you have confused
legality and morality.

Please explain.

> >> > > >> 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?
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> > But the vegan must be consistent. You have the freedom as a human to be
> > inconsistent, the vegan on the other hand must not be. I think the term
> > hypocrite is appropriate here -- do as I say, not as I do.
>
> No, the vegan does not need to be consistent, the vegan ought to recognize
> and acknowledge his/her inconsistency where it is clearly pointed out to
> him/her, as any rational person should.

What in the golden rule of "do unto others" requires the vegan to stop
food growers or food producers from their actions or using their
products.

> The reality is, vegans either cannot or will not do this, which is what
> makes it so much fun debating with them. You have your own personal brand of
> bone-headed silliness that makes you entertaining.
>
> >> > You claim social constructs are imperfect -- logic
> >> > is a human construct and morality is a human construct.

Now that you've finally clarified for us the difference in the moral
principle "do unto others" please demonstrate how the vegan is behaving
immorally.

Now the you've defined accomplice theory as a legal issue with legal
links, please define how the vegan is acting illegally.

Entertaining, indeed.

The vegan does seem to conform to the golden rule.

Do unto others -- don't kill or don't kill for food, so as not be killed
or killed for food. They do seem to be "morally" consistent.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > 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?
> >> > >
> >> > > 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.
> >>
> >> Yes, morally it could be argued.. My point was that an early moral
> >> evaluation reveals that the right thing to do is give the person back the
> >> money and decline the reward.
> >
> > How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
>
> By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
> equivalents in many cultures.

Yes. A logical argument based on popularity. This is generally
considered a logical fallacy.

How have you translated something that is effectively "do unto
others..." into one must not give or accept a reward?

Now, if the golden rule applies, when Rick refers to me as pansy boy,
application of this principle would mean it is he who wishes to be
treated this way and called pansy boy -- do unto others.

> > Accepting a reward is not illegal.
>
> I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality again,
> the very mistake you keep accusing me of.

Now that we have that in print, please establish how you have determined
that it would be wrong to accept the reward or to give it in the
situation.

I know the golden rule in principle. I know that many follow it. I am
curious how you have determined that this principle is moral though.

> >> > > > 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.
> >>
> >> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.
> >
> > Nice avoidance.
>
> Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the goalposts?
>
> > When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
> > you make it an issue.
>
> Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.
>
> Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked for
> a legal opinion.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> You:
>
> > 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?
>
> Me:
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
> understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
> thinking seems quite confused.

Not at all and now that we have this in print. Please explain for us,
how you have determined the difference between morality and legality.

You've state the golden rule as logic, I state is merely common.

> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best course
> >> of
> >> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> >> responsibly.
> >
> > Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still aiding
> > someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
> > after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
> > to the authorities.
>
> Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
> self-professed free-thinker.

THANK YOU! I know. I applied current morality and current law to the
situation and you were able to see it as black and white. Go figure.
When I do it, you can easily see it, when you do it you deny it. What's
that about?

> >> > > > 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.
> >>
> >> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is not
> >> immoral OR a crime.
> >
> > How did you decide that it was moral?
>
> A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.

Really. What in the golden rule of "do unto others..." refers to
complicity or being an accomplice. As I've stated, you have confused
legality and morality.

Please explain.

> >> > > >> 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?
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> > But the vegan must be consistent. You have the freedom as a human to be
> > inconsistent, the vegan on the other hand must not be. I think the term
> > hypocrite is appropriate here -- do as I say, not as I do.
>
> No, the vegan does not need to be consistent, the vegan ought to recognize
> and acknowledge his/her inconsistency where it is clearly pointed out to
> him/her, as any rational person should.

What in the golden rule of "do unto others" requires the vegan to stop
food growers or food producers from their actions or using their
products.

> The reality is, vegans either cannot or will not do this, which is what
> makes it so much fun debating with them. You have your own personal brand of
> bone-headed silliness that makes you entertaining.
>
> >> > You claim social constructs are imperfect -- logic
> >> > is a human construct and morality is a human construct.

Now that you've finally clarified for us the difference in the moral
principle "do unto others" please demonstrate how the vegan is behaving
immorally.

Now the you've defined accomplice theory as a legal issue with legal
links, please define how the vegan is acting illegally.

Entertaining, indeed.

The vegan does seem to conform to the golden rule.

Do unto others -- don't kill or don't kill for food, so as not be killed
or killed for food. They do seem to be "morally" consistent.

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

[..]
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
> >
> > No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> > whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be
the
> > case, get used to it.
> >
> > > For example, you
> > > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > > Well, that isn't true based on
> > > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat
in
> > > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement
of
> > > absoluteness.
> >
> > Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a
response
> > to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> > relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement.
Vegans
> > are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are
referring
> > to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the
charge
> > in my response.
>
> We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> all animals (an absolute),

Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

> but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> generalization).

They are both generalizations.

> > > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton
why
> > > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger
meat?
> >
> > First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof
of
> > "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because
*you*
> > asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel
and
> > tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by
western
> > culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> > endangered species status among others.
>
> Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> are not inherent.

They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
no reason for a moral precept to exist.

> In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> is not right but determined by such things as time and location.

Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

> > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> >
> > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> > don't?
>
> Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
> having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.

Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

> I can
> retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
> meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.

I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

> You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.

Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

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

[..]
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > Dutch, we've covered this and it was easily disputed.
> >
> > No it wasn't. I told you, you have NOT refuted anything I have stated,
> > whereas I refute virtually everything you say. That will continue to be
the
> > case, get used to it.
> >
> > > For example, you
> > > claimed that eating meat was not wrong.
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > > Well, that isn't true based on
> > > the definitions that you provided. Tiger meat is meat. Camel meat is
> > > meat. Panda meat is meat. Clearly not _all_ meal is not wrong to eat
in
> > > North America. Stating eating meat is not wrong is still an statement
of
> > > absoluteness.
> >
> > Wrong again, "eating meat is not wrong" is a generalization, and a
response
> > to a specific charge by vegans within the context of a discussion on the
> > relative ethics of certain diets. It is NOT an absolute statement.
Vegans
> > are not referring to endangered species when they say it, they are
referring
> > to [all] animals in general, and I am accepting the parameters of the
charge
> > in my response.
>
> We call that hypocrisy where I live -- for the vegan, animal refers to
> all animals (an absolute),

Actually.. you're wrong again. To the vegan or ARA it refers to animals
exploited and/or *killed* for the purpose of human use, they have no moral
objection to using animals that die of natural causes.

> but meat doesn't refer to all meat (a
> generalization).

They are both generalizations.

> > > To further demonstrate the circular reasoning that you've employed by
> > > using law and morality interchangeably is for me to ask the quesiton
why
> > > is it right to eat cow meat in North America but not camel or tiger
meat?
> >
> > First of all, bonehead, asking that question will not produce any proof
of
> > "circular reasoning", a) because I haven't used any, and b) because
*you*
> > asking a question can't provide evidence of a position of mine. Camel
and
> > tiger meat are simply not part of the group of animals accepted by
western
> > culture as food, for various reasons involving cultural biases and
> > endangered species status among others.
>
> Thank you for finally agreeing to what I stated likely 2 weeks ago. My
> moral codes are that which I learned within my culture and family and
> are not inherent.

They are not exclusively either one. There are inherent properties or
principles in moralities as well as cultural specifics. For example, morals
almost always hinge on some sort of harm, if there is no harm then there is
no reason for a moral precept to exist.

> In fact, you did demonstrate my point that eating meat
> is not right but determined by such things as time and location.

Eating meat is "not wrong" in the context of the specific discussion between
myself and a vegan. I *may* believe it is wrong under other circumstances.
Wrong itself is also a rather vague term.

> > > Even further, why is it morally acceptable to breed and herd cows for
> > > slaughter, but not tigers and camels?
> >
> > Are you asking because you don't understand why or because you think I
> > don't?
>
> Neither. I'm asking because it is easier to show the errors of logic by
> having you put your responses in the newsgroup as you did above.

Trouble is, I'm not making errors in logic.

> I can
> retrive from the archives where I clearly stated that morality on eating
> meat and morality in general was subjective and determined by the vary
> factors that you FINALLY acknowledge above.

I have never denied that there is a large component of subjectivity in
morality, in fact I have given several illustrations of that very principle
over the past couple of weeks. In one case I go out and commit premeditated
murder and conclude that I have done something moral.

> You look foolish disagreeing with me then and agreeing with me now.
> Further, claims of morality are ridiculous, when all we are really
> speaking of is when a group of humans (X) thinks Y about any given issue.

Why is it ridiculous to give credence to what humans think?

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

[..]
> > >> > 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?
> > >
> > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that it
is
> > > an action?
> >
> > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> >
> > >> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> >
> > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
accomplice
> > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another person"
as
> > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
>
> Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in Mexico
> kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> killing the amphibian?

As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
knowingly participate in it for their benefit.

In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for tomatoes,
and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and retailers
to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is more
than a red vegetable, it tells a story.

> Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have you
> determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?

There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.

> > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > >
> > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
valid?
> >
> > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
development
> > of homo sapiens social groups.
>
> An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without evidence.

A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would be
under anthropology.

> One might even call that faith.

Or a guess.

> One could even regard the criminal code
> as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as religion
> by form and function.

That could be argued, but to what purpose?

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

[..]

> > >> > 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.
> > >>
> > >> It depends on the nature of the act to which you are an accomplice
and
> > >> the
> > >> nature of the complicity. Every case requires a moral and/or legal
> > >> evaluation.
> > >
> > > Buying pot for glaucoma treatment and buying pot for selling to
> > > teenagers is the SAME act. Please describe the differences in the
> > > *actions* to warrant different moral or legal responses.
> >
> > One relieves the symptoms of a disease, the other condemns young people
to a
> > life of menial jobs and unfulfilled potential.
>
> My question was, what is different about the actions?

I answered it.
>
> > Two actions may be identical in physical form
>
> Thank you, so they are identical actions that are treated and regarded
> differently despite your claims that they are not the same actions.

The same actions in different circumstances.

> > but completely dissimiliar
> > when the entire circumstances are assessed morally. You must know this
or
> > else you are sociopathic.
>
> The circumstances are the the same.

No they aren't. The presence of the disease of glaucoma is a different
circumstance.

> The reasoning or thinking is what is
> being assessed and having label of morality applied.

No, there is an actual physically different set of circumstances in this
instance.

> What you are calling moral, is merely a question of what is popular and
> socially acceptable. I grew out of that phase by the 8th grade. If being
> an assertive adults constitutes being a sociopath then, so be it.

You have a complex about *not* being thought of as a child, resulting in the
adoption of childish notions. Ironic..

> I imagine then that your willingness to agree with what is popular or
> common is an avoidance to be labeled as a sociopath. Keeping you in line
> is a breeze.

Your self-professed "free thinking" is a pose. You are a prisoner of your
abject fear of being viewed as "normal" or "conventional" or "a child" of
being manipulated or controlled. You have lost all objectivity as a result.
You are just as "in line" as I am, except that I understand why.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]

> > > How did you determine that it is "right" to give back the reward?
> >
> > By moral evaluation based on "The Golden Rule", a principle that has
> > equivalents in many cultures.
>
> Yes. A logical argument based on popularity.

It's not based on popularity, it's based on the power of the concept, which
in turn makes it popular.

> This is generally
> considered a logical fallacy.

It's not argumentum ad populum, you don't know what you're talking about.

> How have you translated something that is effectively "do unto
> others..." into one must not give or accept a reward?

I would return someone's wallet because I would hope they would do the same
for me, not because I expect to be paid.

> Now, if the golden rule applies, when Rick refers to me as pansy boy,
> application of this principle would mean it is he who wishes to be
> treated this way and called pansy boy -- do unto others.

Not an unreasonable conclusion, although he probably would prefer you come
up with your own epithets.

> > > Accepting a reward is not illegal.
> >
> > I didn't say it was. There you go confusing legality with morality
again,
> > the very mistake you keep accusing me of.
>
> Now that we have that in print,

Good, I'm pleased you acknowledge that you keep doing it.

> please establish how you have determined
> that it would be wrong to accept the reward or to give it in the
> situation.

See above.

> I know the golden rule in principle. I know that many follow it. I am
> curious how you have determined that this principle is moral though.

Morality, as I said before, hinges on the idea of harm, avoiding and
preventing it. Since most of us have an aversion to being harmed, we
naturally wish that others do not harm us. If we all refrain from causing
harm to one-another, that will best minimize the chance of each of us
suffering harm. Therefore the golden rule makes perfect sense. It's the
perfect moral rule.

> > >> > > > 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.
> > >>
> > >> I thought we agreed that legality is not the issue.
> > >
> > > Nice avoidance.
> >
> > Why is it avoidance to point out your constant shifting of the
goalposts?
> >
> > > When you google legal issues to support moral claims,
> > > you make it an issue.
> >
> > Tch tch Ron, don't blame me for your inconsistency.
> >
> > Here is the exchange where I provided that link. You specifically asked
for
> > a legal opinion.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > You:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Me:
> >
> > 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
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I repeat, I am NOT confusing the ideas of legality and morality, I
> > understand the distinction between them. I wonder if you do though, your
> > thinking seems quite confused.
>
> Not at all and now that we have this in print.

Right, we do, proof positive that you are moving the goalposts to and from
between morality and legality. Why?

> Please explain for us,
> how you have determined the difference between morality and legality.

Laws are written in law books.

> You've state the golden rule as logic, I state is merely common.

See above.

>
> > >> > 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.
> > >>
> > >> You have forgotten my entire comments. I recommended that the best
course
> > >> of
> > >> action is to abstain altogether, but *if* one is to use drugs, so so
> > >> responsibly.
> > >
> > > Which is still "counselling" for the use of drugs. Which is still
aiding
> > > someone to break the law. Which is still providing support to someone
> > > after using drugs. Slice it anyway you want, please turn yourself over
> > > to the authorities.
> >
> > Very black and white thinking there Ron, not very enlightened for a
> > self-professed free-thinker.
>
> THANK YOU! I know.

Black and white thinking is not good, you should not be proud of it.

> I applied current morality and current law to the
> situation and you were able to see it as black and white. Go figure.
> When I do it, you can easily see it, when you do it you deny it. What's
> that about?

It's just more of your utterly shallow thinking. Once I *advise* someone to
refrain from pot, that is my primary moral, and sensible position. If I say
*if* you choose to smoke it, do so responsibly, I am NOT advising them to
smoke it or condoning it, I have stipulated that they already made that
decision on their own, contrary to my advice.

> > >> > > > 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.
> > >>
> > >> Failure to report something that one has not direct evidence of is
not
> > >> immoral OR a crime.
> > >
> > > How did you decide that it was moral?
> >
> > A complex, on-the-fly moral evalution, including testing for complicity.
>
> Really. What in the golden rule of "do unto others..." refers to
> complicity or being an accomplice. As I've stated, you have confused
> legality and morality.

LOL!!! That's rich Ron.

-snip-

The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.

"Ron" > wrote

[..]
> IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> perspective.

Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil from
harm. That is innate. Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are flawed
and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent drive
to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural artifacts
is wrong.

"Ron" > wrote

[..]
> IOW, we are who we are because we are individuals AND we have been
> taught to be who we are -- a socialization process. Any argument of
> innateness of anything requires significant evidence from my
> perspective.

Every living organism is hard-wired for survival, to avoid and recoil from
harm. That is innate. Moral precepts, like The Golden Rule, are just ways to
organize behaviour in an attempt to minimize harm. Moral codes are flawed
and inconsistent, but they are all based on the fundamental inherent drive
to avoid harm. The suggestion that they are simply random cultural artifacts
is wrong.

Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:51:51 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:34:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>explain how "learning from your own mistakes"
>>>>>changed your tastes for certain foods.
>>>>
>>>>Strawman.
>>>
>>>You've claimed that your change in stance was
>>>because you learned something from your mistakes,
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>
>>>yet part of this change seems
>>
>>Seems? Is that the best you can do, fatso?
>
> I wrote 'seems' because I don't believe one's taste in
> foods can change

Strawman. You're the only one suggesting that my tastes have changed.

>>>to have altered your
>>>taste for certain foods as well,
>>
>>Which foods would those be
>
> The foods I mentioned which are in your quotes
> that you keep snipping away.

Other than consuming a couple servings of sashimi two weeks ago, how has
my diet changed, fatso?

<snip strawman and assorted shit-stirring>

Retard wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:51:51 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Retard wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 17:34:05 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Retard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>explain how "learning from your own mistakes"
>>>>>changed your tastes for certain foods.
>>>>
>>>>Strawman.
>>>
>>>You've claimed that your change in stance was
>>>because you learned something from your mistakes,
>>
>>Correct.
>>
>>
>>>yet part of this change seems
>>
>>Seems? Is that the best you can do, fatso?
>
> I wrote 'seems' because I don't believe one's taste in
> foods can change

Strawman. You're the only one suggesting that my tastes have changed.

>>>to have altered your
>>>taste for certain foods as well,
>>
>>Which foods would those be
>
> The foods I mentioned which are in your quotes
> that you keep snipping away.

Other than consuming a couple servings of sashimi two weeks ago, how has
my diet changed, fatso?

<snip strawman and assorted shit-stirring>

Ron wrote:

>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>humane slaughter which they object.
>
>
> Killed, of course, by meat eaters.

You mean by meat-eating farmers hired by urbanite vegans to produce food
at the lowest possible price rather than the most peculiar set of
pseudo-ethics. Vegans are hypocritical scumbags, and so are you for so
feebly attempting to defend them.

Ron wrote:
>>>>This ignores the fact that animals die in the course of "vegan" food
>>>>production, too. Those deaths -- through poisoning, mutilation,
>>>>drowning, predation, etc. -- are significantly more "cruel" than the
>>>>humane slaughter which they object.
>>>
>>>Killed, of course, by meat eaters.
>>
>>Ipse dixit, in any case it's irrelevant, the vegan hires this person to do
>>his dirty work for him and thus is equally culpable. If you go to the street
>>and ask a common thief to steal you a stereo, you are complicit in that
>>crime when it is committed.
>
> It's the lesser "evil".

How is it a lesser evil? You're making a mockery of what little you were
taught in your intro to logic course, you dopey little twink.

Dutch wrote:

> I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very

> *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
very
> well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about

This is way too schizoid.

OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
would I be a vegan?

Dutch wrote:

> I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very

> *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
very
> well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about

This is way too schizoid.

OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
would I be a vegan?

John Deere wrote:
>>>FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>>>to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>>>due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>>>meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>>>once does deserve some praise.
>>
>>I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>>self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.

At least you know yourself well enough to pat yourself on the back for
meaningless gestures.

> I am simply speculating

And don't forget that!

> that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

Why do you vegans have such indifference to the *results* of your
actions and consumption? The results are either no different (best case
scenario) or of the same kind (worst case scenario) as any other diet
you assail. Your "goodwill" is complete bullshit, especially when it's
attached to any stupid claims about your superior morality.

John Deere wrote:
>>>FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>>>to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>>>due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>>>meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>>>once does deserve some praise.
>>
>>I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>>self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.

At least you know yourself well enough to pat yourself on the back for
meaningless gestures.

> I am simply speculating

And don't forget that!

> that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

Why do you vegans have such indifference to the *results* of your
actions and consumption? The results are either no different (best case
scenario) or of the same kind (worst case scenario) as any other diet
you assail. Your "goodwill" is complete bullshit, especially when it's
attached to any stupid claims about your superior morality.

Claire's Stupid Uncle Dreck wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 12:33:38 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>
>>"Retard" > wrote
>>
>>>The Moving Finger writes;
>>
>>Yawn, same old tactics eh Derek?
>>
>>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?

Strawman. When did my tastes ever change? I ate two servings of spicy
tuna. Other than that, my diet is unchanged for the same reasons given
in the past, you fat ****.

Claire's Obese Uncle Dreck wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>Claire's Obese Uncle > 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
> when pretending to be a vegan, or, like you, was he
> intentionally deluding himself during that time?

Strawman. My tastes haven't changed.

Claire's Obese Uncle Dreck wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:04:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>Claire's Obese Uncle > 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
> when pretending to be a vegan, or, like you, was he
> intentionally deluding himself during that time?

Strawman. My tastes haven't changed.

John Deere wrote:
>>I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>>*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
>>very well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.

How so?

> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Why are you a vegan?