"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > >> > As I stated previously, it is consistent with the thinking of a
> > child
> > > > >> > to
> > > > >> > think that one is responsible for the outcome of other people's
> > > > >> > actions.
> > > > >> > It is what many of us are taught as children. As adults,
however,
> > we
> > > > >> > recognize the accountability and responsibility of the
individual
> > for
> > > > >> > their own actions.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Aiding and/or abetting are NOT actions? Why are we responsible
for
> > our
> > > > >> own
> > > > >> actions in other cases but not then?
> > > > >
> > > > > How do I perform the act of aiding if you are going to insist that
it
> > is
> > > > > an action?
> > > >
> > > > Any number of ways, read the article I linked below.
> > > >
> > > > >> > > > Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
> > > > >> > > > or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > other
> > > > >> > > > people's actions?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > See above
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Read http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tcmplicty.html
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > This is further evidence of the problem of such thinking.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Define the problem.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > An accomplice
> > > > >> > to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not
the
> > thief.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> An accomplice is an accomplice, to use your tautological form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup. An accomplice is an accomplice. We agree.
> > > >
> > > > Well, I'm happy we can at least agree on self-evident truths. An
> > accomplice
> > > > is held accountable *as* such, not for "the actions of another
person"
> > as
> > > > you have so often and wrongly alleged.
> > >
> > > Now, that we have that in print, I ask again -- when a farmer in
Mexico
> > > kills an amphibian in Mexico and a consumer is in Canada who is
> > > responsible for the action and the outcome of growing the food and
> > > killing the amphibian?
> >
> > As with any "act", responsibility is distributed among all parties who
> > knowingly participate in it for their benefit.
>
> What part of the moral code of "do unto others" are you finding this?

"Do unto others" is not a moral code, it's a guideline.

> > In this case the "act" is rooted in your hunger, your desire for
tomatoes,
> > and through your ability to pay it is linked via wholesalers and
retailers
> > to a farmer in Mexico who receives a portion of your dollar to kill an
> > amphibian in the process of cultivating the tomato field. The tomato is
more
> > than a red vegetable, it tells a story.
>
> Sorry. You've argued that the moral principle at work is the golden
> rule.

No, I didn't.

I agree that this is common to North America and Christianity. I,
> however, fail to see how complicity is in any way related to this moral
> code. Please clarify.

You're hopelessly confused Ron.

> > > Further, since the act of growing tomatoes is not illegal, how have
you
> > > determined that the Canadian in the example to be an accomplice?
> >
> > There you go confusing legality and moral complicity again.
>
> See above. Complicity has nothing to do with the statement or phrase "do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems there are
> other moral codes being operationalized that you are not stating here.

It seems you are obfuscating.

> > > > > The problem, Dutch, has been defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > When and were is the notion of accomplices extant or the principle
> > valid?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know precisely, but I suspect it began very early in the
> > development
> > > > of homo sapiens social groups.
> > >
> > > An opinion? A belief? Something that you hold as true without
evidence.
> >
> > A suspicion. I haven't read anything about that specifically. It would
be
> > under anthropology.
> >
> > > One might even call that faith.
> >
> > Or a guess.
>
> Same thing -- different word.

No, different concept.

> > > One could even regard the criminal code
> > > as the sacred text of a religion and be consistent with this as
religion
> > > by form and function.
> >
> > That could be argued, but to what purpose?
>
> I'm noting your observation of the vegan

Are we still talking about vegans?

> seems to be how you are
> treating the law -- a religion in form and function.

No.

> The law becomes the
> sacred text. There are "prophets" that are quoted as being the
> authorities and so on. Beliefs, moral codes, rules of conduct (where our
> disagreement appears) are the requirements of the practice of the
> religion.

Not convincing.