>>3005283>The accused is an animal rights activist, he wouldn't hurt a fly let alone a person. (Ruri is a prude)>The judge wears leather shoes during the trial. (Kyousuke has shameful thoughts)>the judge either cannot consider the man's intent and therefore must convict him of murder by default, (We cannot consider Ruri's intent and therefore she is shameless by default)False equivalency. The only way your initial judge statement matches is if I was insisting that everyone must judge themselves on Ruri's standard. Further, it is she that judged Kyousuke and your statement right there needs to be amended to "Kyousuke AND Ruri have shameful thoughts." Therefore that invalidates your whole analogy because now you must state that your "animal rights activist that wouldn't hurt a fly" is also wearing leather shoes and must commit sudoku. We already considered her intent by her actions. As I demonstrated in a post that broke character limit here:
>>3004769 the empirical tells us all we need to know. However, you insisted on using subjectives, which I am now beating your ass with as well.
Most importantly, I should have mentioned that whether the driver swerved away from the pedestrian and whether or not he applied brakes would be a major factor in determining intent.
>If we consider her intent, we must also accept that Kyousuke is shameless because she thinks he isWe do. We all do. They do. Everybody does. He's fucking his sister. They've told their friends. Now what?
>>3005284>If you had said "lewd" instead I still would have argued her prudery and intention in much the same wayPlease seek mental counseling.
