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.
> >
> > 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.

I do understand much more than you are prepared to give me credit for or
to accept. I do appreciate the difference between logical problems of
absolutes and the relative nature of time and location.