"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

I'm not arguing absolutes, that's a strawman. There is wide gap between
acknowledging a valid principle and calling it absolute. In human affairs
very little is absolute. In other words, you are not refuting my arguments
by asserting that they are not absolute.