-
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-
In what way would those actions be foreseeable? You are, I'm guessing, probably no better than the rest of us at predicting the future.
Even post-fact, you couldn't show a causative link, given the degree of hindsight bias and confirmation bias that would exist.
Which is why the argument is always specious, and very often facile.
NotThamesWater
By saying that to Dan, you're reponsible now if he says something nasty to Idiot causing him to kick his dog. You bastard.