In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" >
>
> >> >>
> >> >> > The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > outcomes of other people's actions.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's called complicity. In legal jargon it's "accessory".
> >> >
> >> > Using cultural, or national laws really undermines your argument. Many
> >> > of the acts that are illegal (and therefore immoral) are legal
> >> > elsewhere
> >> > and therefore moral.
> >>
> >> Morality doesn't matter to the principle. If you aid, abet or encourage a
> >> person to commit an act of mercy you have complicity in that act as well.
> >
> > Really. If I encourage someone to return money that has been recovered
> > and there is a reward then, I am morally and obviously legally entitled
> > to part of that reward?
>
> Nobody is entitled to a reward for returning lost money, you opportunist.

I am an 'accomplice". If the accomplice to a crime is entitled to the
punishment then, the accomplice to a reward is entitled to the reward.

> > Further, if one encourages one to use pot responsibly and they die as a
> > result of the responsible pot use then too are complicit in that death?
>
> Encouraging responsible pot use to a pot user probably *adds* years to their
> life.

Irrelevant. It is the encouragement of illegal activities. It is the
encouragement for trafficking and possession. It is aiding and abetting
criminal activity. It is acting with knowledge before and after the fact
-- it is being an accessory. Please turn yourself in to the nearest
authorities.

> > Should we discuss the Good Samaritan laws as further examples of where
> > you are mistaken.
>
> You haven't found a single instance where I have been mistaken yet, but you
> will eventually if you keep trying long enough. You will pronounce yourself
> victorious at that point in time no doubt.

Single? I found many. Failing to 'snitch' or 'rat' in any circumstance
of illegal activity (such as the possession of marijuana -- a crime) is
protecting someone from the outcome of criminal activities.

> >> You really are hopelessly lost trying to win an argument with me on these
> >> subjects, I understand them far better than you ever will.
> >
> > It's been suggested that you were a former police officer. I suspect any
> > former police officer could recite the criminal code far better than I
> > ever could. That a policy academy though would be any demonstration of
> > the ability to clearly argue a position IS another matter.
> >
> > So, in what jurisdiction are you claiming an expertise?
> >
> > As I have been stating all along, Dutch, it is a principle that is
> > inconsistently applied. Further, it is not universal or absolute.
>
> Complicity is a natural principle that is found in logic, morality, law, in
> some form in most every discipline. That it may be unevenly applied in laws
> or elsewhere should come as no surprise, human social constructs are
> imperfect.

You are inconsistent? You claim social constructs are imperfect -- logic
is a human construct and morality is a human construct.