"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.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

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

"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.

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:

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

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

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

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

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