i dont know all the names

or most of the names tbh

hah

please stop posting about green crying naruto

fucking casual

Are you at fault for curing cancer if you get a decent following and one of the guys you told to do it actually does?

there is no "fault" in non criminal action

Or was it the guy who figured it out?

who is 'not stupid'?

notyou

you are quite stupid

dab

faco y dab

me telling you to dab epic style is diferent from me telling you to kill some dude

Fault, responsibility, pls.

do you even UNDERSTAND the Blackwater Formulation?

eu faço o dab

Doesn't seem like you even follow the argument.

But you ARE appealing to authority which is rather common these days

the Blackwater Formulation implies that the State will allow many more criminals to go free on a technicality rather than lock up a single innocent in the name of 'the greater good'

therefore, as a consequence, women required a community of good men to insulate them from those 'bad men' which the State has released based on the 'presumption of innocence'

the moment 'incitement' which is 'me speaking words ONLY without ACTION' can be actionable by the STATE, the State will begin trying to LEGISTLATE morality and will use that leverage to label any 'joke or critisizm' as ' threat'

Makes sense so far

So animal is fine with people whipping up a mob. Got it.

we now live in a world where i could see two kids playing in the street and out of concern go to the mother and say, "You should REALLY get your kids out the street before then get hit by a car" and the woman will interpret this as, "This man is threatening to run my kids down wiith his car!"

anyone can misisntpret a joke as a 'call to action'

thats pretty stupid

and the 'intent' isn't what qualifies something as 'incitement' only the INTERPRETATION

whether intented that way or not

I have a real smortphone now

@Ayylmao A person commanding someone to do something is not more or less responsible for the outcome simply because of a moral judgement on said outcome.

No it's cut and clear if I say to kill or damage a property that's incitement.

it was US law for almost a century

youre intentionally overblowing a simple situation into some sort of weird extremely autistic scenario

you are being naive and oversimplifying things assuming that people are more often like you, rational, rather than the opposite

if you are lucky, you get a 50/50 mix

That's because animal is probably autistic tbf to go though such mental gymnastics to justify incitement.

but i digress

nope. but i HAVE been misinterpreted BY autistics before and got in trouble for it