In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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.

I'm noting an avoidance from what you've claimed in the past. Please
clarify, Dutch.

Using pot is illegal. Is using pot immoral? IOW, is that which is
illegal also moral, and if so by what determination is pot use "moral".

> > 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.

Criticizing my choice of words is does not make for a strong rebuttal.
The 'theory' of accomplices, or aiding and abetting is a feature
specific to a period of time and specific nations. This is why I asked
you to clarify when you made the declaration that this was a fundamental
principle of law.

I ask then, when and were did being an accomplice become equivalent to
carrying out the criminal act. (You'll note now that we've gone from
what is being responsible for the actions and outcomes of others, to
what is current in some aspects of law for a few nations.)