cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1898872
Archived version: https://archive.ph/7EVMt
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825172835/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66602814
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1898872
Archived version: https://archive.ph/7EVMt
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230825172835/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66602814
What you’re saying here doesn’t make any sense. What you said previously made sense but lacked nuance or any deeper understanding of the situation you proposed yourself.
Perhaps you think blatant, ignorant bigotry and “testing freedom of speech” are the same thing, which explains your response, and shows you the reasoning behind mine.
Oh boy. No, I don’t think they are the “same thing” I’m saying you can’t infer motivation just by observing therefore the motivation isn’t relevant. Try and keep up, or don’t.
You’re discussing the law and being arrested. Intent absolutely matters in this context which is why I brought up other examples of where intent matters as murder/manslaughter, hate crimes, assault versus self defense, etc. You seem quite confused about a topic that you brought up on your own…
You’re not thinking clearly. Intent is irrelevant, it can’t be known in this example. Got it?
Just in case, here it is again. Intent is irrelevant.
But you defined the intent in your previous comment and laws/courts take intent into account when determining whether they’ve been violated or not.
If it can’t be known then your entire question/scenario is irrelevant and pointless because it could never apply to the real world. For someone who keeps talking about confusion and not following the conversation, you seem to lack even a basic understanding of what’s being talked about.