-
By saying that to Dan, you're reponsible now if he says something nasty to Idiot causing him to kick his dog. You bastard.
Nick.Earthloop-
Ah, but I'm lovely and never say nasty things to people, and since everyone knows that, TW was safe to write what he did.
But the chain of causation is the point I find interesting. Let's say that TW knew that I was liable to fly off the handle and start saying unpleasant things to Idiot (rather than making a point which, with hindsight, probably didn't add to the debate at all) and that Idiot, being an irascible chap, was liable to kick his dog if I did so. And I knew that Idiot was liable to kick his dog if provoked. And all of this happened.
Idiot is clearly the primary agent responsible for kicking his dog. Bad Idiot. But would I be responsible, morally, for the foreseeable consequences of my actions even if those actions are the actions of a third party? Would TW be responsible further down the line? It's an interesting point and in contrast to the majority of people posting here, I'm not sure I have a complete answer to it.
Thought provoking stuff. Way too early in the morning for it, though.
Brommers
Hold up - the current bout of hand wringing is about inferring vicarious responsibility for another's actions against a third party at a later time.
i.e. By (running a red light / slapping a bonnet / wearing lycra / being in primary) now, you are responsible for the aggrieved driver running over a cyclist later on.