Originally posted by no1marauder
What options besides letting her escape (don't talk about disabling shots please; any shot is potentially fatal)?

If a shot is only potentially (but not certainly) fatal, then is the person shooting intending the fatality?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]It's a very economical summary of a common luciferian strategy!

Really? Perhaps you noticed that the post no1 is referencing (timestamp: 1715) had two paragraphs?[/b]

Actually the post I'm replying to has FIVE paragraphs; if you're going to nitpick, at least try to avoid gross errors of this sort.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]It's a very economical summary of a common luciferian strategy!

Really? Perhaps you noticed that the post no1 is referencing (timestamp: 1715) had two paragraphs?[/b]

It's a general observation of one of your techniques. I couldn't care less what the two of you are (tediously and predictably) blathering on about in this thread.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If a shot is only potentially (but not certainly) fatal, then is the person shooting intending the fatality?

Don't know what they teach Freshman Philosophy students, but generally in the military or among hunters or others who use firearms regularly, the accepted principle is don't shoot at someone or some living thing unless you intend to kill it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Don't know what they teach Freshman Philosophy students, but generally in the military or among hunters or others who use firearms regularly, the accepted principle is don't shoot at someone or some living thing unless you intend to kill it.

So, your answer is "yes"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Actually the post I'm replying to has FIVE paragraphs; if you're going to nitpick, at least try to avoid gross errors of this sort.

If you're going to nitpick, go back and read the post which started this sub-discussion. FWIW, I provided the timestamp.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's a general observation of one of your techniques. I couldn't care less what the two of you are (tediously and predictably) blathering on about in this thread.

I don't deny that at times I nitpick. But I would deny it's one of my "techniques". When I debate, I debate. When I correct, I correct.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If you're going to nitpick, go back and read the post which started this sub-discussion. FWIW, I provided the timestamp.

What post was I "replying and quoting" to, LH? And I was responding to the points in that post, not the prior one.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So, your answer is "yes"?

As far as moral culpability it is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
As far as moral culpability it is.

That wasn't my question. My question was whether she/he was intending it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That wasn't my question. My question was whether she/he was intending it.

That's the question I answered.

Originally posted by no1marauder
What post was I "replying and quoting" to, LH? And I was responding to the points in that post, not the prior one.

The one with the "one word" ("lawfully" ) you were talking about. And my point was that you ignored a full half of the prior one -- making it rather hypocritical of you to accuse me.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's the question I answered.

Okay, so she intended to kill.

Now, is a doctor who performs a potentially lethal operation intending to kill his patient?

By your logic the answer should be yes.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Okay, so she intended to kill.

Now, is a doctor who performs a potentially lethal operation [b]intending to kill his patient?

By your logic the answer should be yes.[/b]

Your attempts at logic are pathetic. I have never claimed that any possible consequences are intended. I have claimed that necessary consequences are. Do you see the difference?

EDIT: You are following the same strategy as in the other thread - focusing on one word in an offhand comment.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Your attempts at logic are pathetic. I have never claimed that any possible consequences are intended. I have claimed that necessary consequences are. Do you see the difference?

EDIT: You are following the same strategy as in the other thread - focusing on one word in an offhand comment.

Your verbal handstands aside, you're now contradicting yourself. Here's the conversation repeated for your convenience:

LH: If a shot is only potentially (but not certainly) fatal, then is the person shooting intending the fatality?

Translation: Are non-necessary (i.e. possible) consequences intended?

no1: Don't know what they teach Freshman Philosophy students, but generally in the military or among hunters or others who use firearms regularly, the accepted principle is don't shoot at someone or some living thing unless you intend to kill it.

Translation: Yes.

LH: So, your answer is "yes"?

Just checking.

no1:As far as moral culpability it is.

Translation: Yes.


So, I'll ask you again:

Is a doctor who performs a potentially lethal operation intending to kill his patient?


And the question of what forms "intent" isn't "one word in an offhand comment" in this thread. It's the very core of what our argument is about.