General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So last month HBO ran a documentary about a religion. They portrayed the central figure of that [View all]Chathamization
(1,638 posts)and argued that intent mattered (I also brought up the example of Brandon Lee).
The fact that in order to ridicule it you need to present part of my example with it's intent (adding honey being "attempted murder" because we're considering intent) while framing Geller's without it ("drawing of a cartoon"
seems to underscore the fact that you understand the point just fine and are no being evasive. If you actually think I was making a comparison between the two (I wasn't; I was giving an example), it would be correct to either compare both actions ("adding honey to a drink is like drawing a cartoon"
or both intents ("attempted murder is like trying to incite violence"
. Again, I wasn't comparing the two actions (but an example of why it's ludicrous to ignore intent), but those would be the two way one would honestly take the comparison if I was.
To reiterate, the fact that you felt the need to include intent for one action and hide it for the other in order to make you argument work seems to show that you understand this difference. So maybe it's time to stop pretending intent doesn't matter?