In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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?
>
> "Do unto others" is not a moral code, it's a guideline.
>
> > > 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.
>
> No, I didn't.
>
> 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.
>
> You're hopelessly confused Ron.
>
> > > > 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.
>
> It seems you are obfuscating.
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
> No, different concept.
>
> > > > 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
>
> Are we still talking about vegans?
>
> > seems to be how you are
> > treating the law -- a religion in form and function.
>
> No.

Then demonstrate by clearly stating what moral code (and not law, the
new religion) the vegan violates by buying rice or tomatoes.

> > 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.
>
> Not convincing.

I think it is quite convincing. What is being demanded of the vegan fits
quite well with my observation of the law as a religion by function.