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

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

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

Define the problem.

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

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

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?

"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.

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?