In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.
> >
> > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in Mexico
> > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > killing the amphibian?
>
> As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> knowingly participate in it for their benefit.

What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?

> In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for tomatoes,
> and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and retailers
> to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is more
> than a red vegetable, it tells a story.

Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
rule. I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
code. Please clarify.

> > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have you
> > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
>
> There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.

See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.

> > > > 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.
> >
> > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without evidence.
>
> A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would be
> under anthropology.
>
> > One might even call that faith.
>
> Or a guess.

Same thing -- different word.

> > One could even regard the criminal code
> > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as religion
> > by form and function.
>
> That could be argued, but to what purpose?

I'm noting your observation of the vegan seems to be how you are
treating the law -- a religion in form and function. The law becomes the
sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
religion.