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?