"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
>> >> > do
>> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
>> >>
>> >> You don't think.
>> >
>> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
>> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
>> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
>> > respect
>> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
>> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
>>
>> You have been utterly incoherent.
>>
>> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
>> > within
>> > the criminal code as well.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> >
>> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
>> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
>> > that I attended.
>>
>> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
>
> I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> passed from one generation to the next.
>
> So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> other people's actions.

You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't think.
> >> >
> >> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
> >> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
> >> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
> >> > respect
> >> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
> >> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
> >>
> >> You have been utterly incoherent.
> >>
> >> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
> >> > within
> >> > the criminal code as well.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
> >> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
> >> > that I attended.
> >>
> >> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
> >
> > I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> > An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> > that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> > would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> > come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> > this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> > passed from one generation to the next.
> >
> > So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> > other people's actions.
>
> You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

Nice try, Dutch, or should I say pass the dutchie to the right hand side.

The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
outcomes of other people's actions.

"Ron" > wrote

> 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".

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> > 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".

And again, you avoided the question.

Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
other people's actions? Who taught the indigenous populations of Africa
or Australia that they were responsible for the outcomes of other
people's actions?

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> > 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".
>
> And again, you avoided the question.
>
> Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> other people's actions?

Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.

> 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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> > 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".
> >
> > And again, you avoided the question.
> >
> > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > other people's actions?
>
> Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
> abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.

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.

> > 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. An accomplice
to murder is not the murderer. An accomplice to theft is not the thief.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
> > "Ron" > wrote
> > > "Dutch" > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Ron" > wrote
> > >>
> > >> > 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".
> > >
> > > And again, you avoided the question.
> > >
> > > Who taught the pharoahs that they were responsible for the outcomes of
> > > other people's actions?
> >
> > Assuming that you're talking about actions in which you have aideding or
> > abeted, since it's common sense, their fathers and mothers probably.
>
> 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?

> > > 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.

"Ron" > wrote

> 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".

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > As much as I would enjoy another entertaining round of "he made me
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > it", I think this approach might be best.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't think.
> >> >
> >> > the only evidence that I can find to support your position is one entry
> >> > in the criminal code that you continually refer back to. I have given
> >> > multiple examples to illustrate how this feature of the law with
> >> > respect
> >> > to this ONE act is similar to the thinking of children and pervasive in
> >> > our culture. Troll, indeed.
> >>
> >> You have been utterly incoherent.
> >>
> >> > I have previously demonstrated that this position is inconsistent
> >> > within
> >> > the criminal code as well.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Where did you learn that I was responsible for the actions and outcomes
> >> > of others. It certainly wasn't taught in any classroom or university
> >> > that I attended.
> >>
> >> Attended but were tossed out unceremoniously for inability to think.
> >
> > I'm curious. Please do tell. Where did you learn this? Was it in school?
> > An ethics class? From a favourite professor or loved one? Who taught you
> > that you are responsible for the outcomes of other people's actions. I
> > would suggest that our knowledge of the law regarding a hitman doesn't
> > come until much later in life, likely our teens. I'm guessing then, that
> > this is a lesson most often learned in the home where faulty logic is
> > passed from one generation to the next.
> >
> > So, who taught you that you or I are responsible for the outcome of
> > other people's actions.
>
> You're responsible for YOUR OWN actions, i.e. hiring hitmen.

Nice try, Dutch, or should I say pass the dutchie to the right hand side.

The question was who taught you that you or I was responsible for the
outcomes of other people's actions.