In article >, "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.