"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "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.

> 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.

> I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> abets my action.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "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.

> > 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.

> > I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> > unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> > abets my action.

"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.

In article >, "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. That
which is legal is moral that which is illegal is immoral. I imagine that
is one way to view the world. 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.

"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.

> 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.

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.)

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?

In article >, "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.

"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.

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.

"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.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
>> 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.

Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.

"In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
a vegetarian, among other things."
Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

"Derek" > wrote
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> [..]
> >> 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.
>
> Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>
> "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> a vegetarian, among other things."
> Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
are thereby also guilty of crimes.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
> > [..]
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> >
> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>
> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
> are thereby also guilty of crimes.

It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.

Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
an absolute moral code is problematic.

"Ron" > wrote
>"Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>> > [..]
>> > >> 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.
>> >
>> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
>> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>> >
>> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
>> > a vegetarian, among other things."
>> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>>
>> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
>> crimes
>> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
>
> It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
> this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
> act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.

Not necessarily the same crime. Driving a getaway car in a robbery may be
considered robbery, but buying the goods later is being an accessory to
robbery after the fact, a different crime.

> Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
> an absolute moral code is problematic.

You're the only one talking about an "absolute moral code". You attempt to
answer every problem you encounter in this debate by pummelling this same
strawman.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> >"Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Derek" > wrote
> >> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
> >> wrote:
> >> > [..]
> >> > >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> >> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> >> >
> >> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> >> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> >> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
> >>
> >> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
> >> crimes
> >> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
> >
> > It would be helpful if you were more specific. In some countries and at
> > this point in time, acting in conjunction with what is deemed a criminal
> > act can lead to a case of being found guilty of the same crime.
>
> Not necessarily the same crime. Driving a getaway car in a robbery may be
> considered robbery, but buying the goods later is being an accessory to
> robbery after the fact, a different crime.
>
> > Using North American laws, and inconsistent ones at that, as measure of
> > an absolute moral code is problematic.
>
> You're the only one talking about an "absolute moral code". You attempt to
> answer every problem you encounter in this debate by pummelling this same
> strawman.

Hmm. So it is subjectively wrong (ie. relative to time and location) or
absolutely wrong (universal through time and space) to be an accomplice
or accessory.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
> > [..]
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
> >
> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> > a vegetarian, among other things."
> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>
> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
> are thereby also guilty of crimes.

Of course, it was practiced in anciety Egypt as well. It is a common
principle of Aboriginals and Native Americans. Using the current legal
code of a few nations as measure of absolute morality, Dutch.

As I've been stating, Dutch, using the legal system to support a
circular argument of that which is moral is quite problematic.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>> > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>> > >In article >, "Dutch" >
>> wrote:
>> > [..]
>> > >> 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.
>> >
>> > Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
>> > behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>> >
>> > "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
>> > a vegetarian, among other things."
>> > Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb
>>
>> That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to
>> crimes
>> are thereby also guilty of crimes.
>
> Of course, it was practiced in anciety Egypt as well. It is a common
> principle of Aboriginals and Native Americans. Using the current legal
> code of a few nations as measure of absolute morality, Dutch.
>
> As I've been stating, Dutch, using the legal system to support a
> circular argument of that which is moral is quite problematic.

I'm not doing that, I am illustrating that the law follows this same
principle which we apply in morality and in logic. 'If I help someone do
something in some way, I am a part of that act of doing.'

"Derek" > wrote
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:
> [..]
> >> 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.
>
> Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>
> "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> a vegetarian, among other things."
> Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

That's irrelevant, everyone knows that accomplices and accessories to crimes
are thereby also guilty of crimes.

In article >,
Derek > wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
> >In article >, "Dutch" > wrote:
> [..]
> >> 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.
>
> Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
> behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.
>
> "In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
> a vegetarian, among other things."
> Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

At least two of the three things puts Dutch in a legal position to kill.
Someone who doesn't want to kill, in my view, would avoid at least two
of the three occupations (if we can call veganism an occupation).

"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.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:13:15 -0500, Ron > wrote:
>In article >, "Dutch" > wrote:
[..]
>> 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.

Dutch claims to have been a police officer, so the "legal mind"
behind this fundamental principle is his own, no doubt.

"In my life I was many things, a farmer, a police officer, and
a vegetarian, among other things."
Dutch 29 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/3kbsb

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "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.

> > 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.

> > I have been coerced and influenced. I am
> > unwilling to assert myself. I must now blame the person who aids and
> > abets my action.