"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.
>
> 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.

Big fat strawman Ron, you don't understand a thing.