"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.