Ron wrote:

> 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.)


why are you a pinko Ron? Dont you love America?