"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.