"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>> Accessory.
>
> What is the Sri Lankan, India, or Arabic equivalent of acessory.

Must be much the same principle.

> using
> time or nationally specific laws to demonstrate a moral code -- let
> alone claiming it as absolute is problematic.

That's nice, what does it have to do with the subject? Every time I get
close to getting something through that thick skull of yours you throw up
this strawman of moral codes not being universal. I never said they were.
Complicity does not depend on a particular moral code, it's a basic
principle of logic.

> Laws against sodomozing
> children are quite new, for example. Given the length of human history
> and the legality of such behaviour, we can say that this was moral for a
> heck of a lot longer than it has been consider illegal/immoral.
>
> the state chopping off someone's hand is wrong and immoral -- here. This
> practice though has been legal and right for sometime at various
> locations in the world throughout history.

That's not the point, the point is that by abeting the chopping off of a
hand you become part of that act, moral or not.