To avoid harm, you must identify intent.

To punish, you must establish intent.

Intent has been the core underiding feature of the law since the Magna Carta. To ignore or trivialise it is nothing short of advocating for the return of kings.

▲

bigbadfeline 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Intent has been the core underiding feature of the law since the Magna Carta.

I've already explained that intent is another word for interest - material or political, it may not be as trivial as potato chips but it's far simpler than rocket science.

> To ignore or trivialise it is nothing short of advocating for the return of kings.

Another purely speculative assertion with zero meaning or practical value.

There's no logical path from trivializing your occultist and unknowable notion if intent to the return of kings. First, you've got to start with a proof that at present there aren't any kings... but philosophy's got no proofs.

Speaking of kinks (sic), wasn't Epstein one of them? Or at least under their protection... until he wasn't, as usual.

	▲	shakna 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If intent were so simply explained, then the High Courts across the world would serve no function - as interpreting intent is their core role. Material interest and intent only accidentally collide. Intent cannot be defined in that manner. Almost every person beneath a capitalist system has a material interest in wealth. That does not translate to intent to seize it. If intent does not matter, only interest, then there is no war crime in bombing boats. There is no arguing with the government's interpretations of law, as they will have a vested interest as to how it plays out. The "test of intent" is not a part of law to be so offhandly thrown aside.