Why should consequences matter?

No he didn't.


No they don't.

Despite the contrived, inconsistent, and frankly offensive shuck-and-jive persona that you have inexplicably adopted, you seem to be a reasonably intelligent person. In the area of philosophy, however, you're definitely trying to punch way above your weight class. Your posts here and elsewhere betray a fundamental unfamiliarity with the basics of morality. Consequently, your questions don't even rise to sophomoric - they're freshmanic at best. You attempt to pose as someone who is genuinely interested in pursuing answers, but you're really only interested in scoring cheap points - a task that you will ultimately find futile because your shallow knowledge of the subject matter will allow even the dullest participant in these threads to run rings around you. Your inconsistency with regard to your own personal beliefs is simply one aspect of your general inability, not to mention unwillingness, to grapple honestly with the topic at hand. As a result, your contributions are at once obnoxiously contentious and obtuse. That you have no problem wasting everyone else's time with your juvenile antics is no surprise, but it's baffling why you're so seemingly eager to waste your own.

And that, sonny, is my "bitch."

Welcome to statistical justice Hell layman.

Heh, that's what I thought. Bedazzle us with your philosophical expertise now, willya? So far you have mainly said nothing, and what little you have said shows very little sophistication.

Don't hold back, now, Joey. Bedazzle us. Say something OF SUBSTANCE for once, eh?

If you want examples of my philosophical expertise, you are free to search my posting history. I had a debate with Debra Law a decade ago regarding the law of attempts that you might find enlightening.

As for discussing this particular topic with you, I've already explained that I won't waste my time. You have nothing to contribute to the discussion.

1. I didn't see any "philosophy" in that discussion
2. It looks like she kicked your ass in that debate for not knowing the difference between a permissible inference and a burden-shifting rebuttable presumption
3. You say "mens rea" is an element of every crime, and yet you want to portray me as "confused" for saying that both intent and consequences are at issue in MY interpretation of MY post.

you want to pretend someone else is disingenuous!? Go figure, eh?

Kinda strange Thomas. Joey posted a link to a past thread where you participated. You brought up this very same "voodoo doll" hypothetical there.

You were told that it could be prosecuted as an attempted murder in most jurisdictions because factual impossibility is not generally a defense to a crime.

You THEN said that would make perfect sense to you, BECAUSE deterrence was called for.

As I noted, that's exactly what your prior rationale, as previously offered in this thread, would seem to call for.

But now you deny your former position (in the past thread). How come?

You refuse to "waste your time" in this thread and then represent that you have no intention of participating in any discussion, YET you keep dropping in to make feeble attempts to portray me in an inferior light.

What's up with that, I wonder? Could it be this:



I can see where you might be quite knowledgeable about such tactics, eh? But that doesn't mean everyone is like you, ya know?