"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "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.
>
> You supported the contention previously that premeditated murder and
> sodomizing children were absolute wrongs. Please clarify, do you think
> this or not?

No, you have me confused with someone else. In fact I argued with that same
person that a premeditated, unlawful murder might be seen as right and just.

> Further, it is not a basic principle of logic.

Of course it is, if I help, support or encourage you in some way to do *A*,
then in a real sense *we* did it, we were a team.

> It is a common (and
> inconsistent) feature of North American jurisprudence that has its
> historical basis from other Western nations.

Prove it.

>> > 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.
>
> I see. So because I can be charged under the Criminal Code of Canada as
> an accessory after the fact, you have now generalized this to any
> behaviour that could exist throughout time and in any nation -- even
> where legal. That is rather odd.

Why is that odd? You wouldn't be charged if it were not illegal, but you
would still be complicit. If you take part in any way, you're complicit.

> Please be specific, how is chopping off the hand of someone in a country
> where it is illegal an immoral act. The law of that land allows for the
> act. I've repeatedly cautioned that there is a problem with circular
> reasoning and using the law to support contentions about morality.

I didn't say it was an immoral act per se, bonehead.