"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.
>
> You got me. I guess pot use is immoral, it is after all illegal.

Damn you're thick! I said *if* it were an illegal act, then complicity would
also be a crime. I didn't refer to morality specifically with reference to
legality.

> That
> which is legal is moral that which is illegal is immoral.

Not my belief..

> I imagine that
> is one way to view the world.

You imagine a lot. You use it a substitute for comprehension.

> Of course, that perspective relies on
> mortality being jurisdictional. What is wrong in Canada then, not
> necessarily wrong elsewhere. This means that morals are subjective, not
> absolute.

Imagining and not paying attention can lead to almost any conclusion.