"If that's too hard to understand, just think of them as ghosts you can punch to death without being magic."Originally Posted by You
"If that's too hard to understand, just think of them as ghosts you can punch to death without being magic."
If he intended to destroy the world he wouldn't have freaked out and started ranting in rage when it was revealed that what he was doing would destroy the world instead of doing what he actually thought it would.
Ragnarok, come day of wrath
That fallen souls might bear our plea.
To hasten the Divine's return.
O piteous Wanderer.
Intent to destroy the world? Because he definitely didn't foresee or want that.
As Lev discovered it's kinda hard to find people who want to destroy humanity.
Last edited by Kotonoha; November 9th, 2015 at 10:57 PM.
Some things I've gathered
Spoiler:
Mostly accurate?
And now for something random...
Correct me if I'm wrong but what I'm getting from the following snippet is that if you understand what your actions will do after the fact then you had oblique intent.
Edit: Wiki link as bad as it isOblique intent: a person has oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The 'natural consequence' definition was replaced in R v Woollin with the 'virtually certain' test. A person is now held to intend a consequence (obliquely) when that consequence is a virtually certain consequence of their action, and they knew it to be a virtually certain consequence. The first leg of this test has been condemned as unnecessary:[2] a person should be held as intending a consequence if (s)he believed it to be a virtually certain consequence, regardless of whether it was in fact virtually certain.
This has two applications:
- When a person is planning to achieve a given consequence, there may be several intermediate steps that have to be taken before the full result as desired is achieved. It is not open to the accused to pick and choose which of these steps are or are not intended. The accused is taken to intend to accomplish all outcomes necessaoverall plan. For example, if A wishes to claim on B's life insurance policy, and so shoots at B who is sitting in a bus, the bullet may have to pass through a window. Thus, even though A may not have desired B's death, it was an inevitable precondition to a claim. Similarly, he may never consciously have considered the damage to the window, but both the murder and the damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 are intended. This is distinguishing between the direct intent, which is the main aim of the plan—and the oblique intent, which covers all intermediate steps. More generally, someone directly intends a consequence when their purpose or aim is to cause it, even though they believe the likelihood of success is remote. In R v Dadson, for example, the defendant shot at a man he wrongly believed was out of range. In R v Mohan,[3] the court held that direct intent means, "aim or purpose"—"a decision to bring about, insofar as it lies within the accused's power, the commission of the offence..no matter whether the accused desired that consequence of his act or not."
- Sometimes, by accident, a plan miscarries and the accused achieves one or more unintended consequence. In this situation, the accused is taken to have intended all of the additional consequences that flow naturally from the original plan. This is tested as matters of causation and concurrence, i.e. whether the given consequences were reasonably foreseeable, there is no novus actus interveniens and the relevant mens rea elements were formed before all of the actus reus components were completed.
Last edited by Trubo; November 9th, 2015 at 11:00 PM.
It is literally the opposite.
You only intend a consequence if you think it'll happen as a result of your actions.Oblique intent: a person has oblique intent when the event is a natural consequence of a voluntary act and they foresee it as such. The 'natural consequence' definition was replaced in R v Woollin with the 'virtually certain' test. A person is now held to intend a consequence (obliquely) when that consequence is a virtually certain consequence of their action, and they knew it to be a virtually certain consequence. The first leg of this test has been condemned as unnecessary:[2] a person should be held as intending a consequence if (s)he believed it to be a virtually certain consequence, regardless of whether it was in fact virtually certain.
Also I have no idea why you bring legal jargon into this when we're talking about common definitions.
Last edited by Siriel; November 9th, 2015 at 11:03 PM.
Ragnarok, come day of wrath
That fallen souls might bear our plea.
To hasten the Divine's return.
O piteous Wanderer.
Everyone starts calling you Master during the Herc attack.
Because you are Mastering them
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
He did not understand what his actions would do after the fact. He thought his actions would do something completely different than what they actually would have done.
Why are you bringing criminal law into this we're talking about normal people words mate.
It's like if someone told me "make me a milkshake" and i was blind and they gave me the ingredients and I made a milkshake because milkshakes are good, but it turns out that milkshake was a bomb.
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
See this actually makes sense. Thanks, Koto.
F/GO SUPPORT
Thanks for the clarification. Since we're going through that one comment of mine, would Jason still be considered a good guy for wanting to kill an uncooperative Euryale just from the consideration that he thought killing Euryale would lead to a greater good?
Cause apparently I'm terrible with common definitions, so may as well use the ones that will matter in the worst case in real life.Also I have no idea why you bring legal jargon into this when we're talking about common definitions.
If you start to argue about the morality of killing Servants then everyone in Fate is evil.
Ragnarok, come day of wrath
That fallen souls might bear our plea.
To hasten the Divine's return.
O piteous Wanderer.
Sure, why not?
Is Romulus a good guy for killing his brother so ROMA can be ROMA?
Though abandoned, forgotten, and scorned as out-of-date dolls, they continue to carry out their mission, unchanged from the time they were designed.
Machines do not lose their worth when a newer model appears.
Their worth (life) ends when humans can no longer bear that purity.
Because Gilgamesh is Chaotic Good.
Self-defense?
Better question, was Remus Roma?
REMA
Grail wars are fought in self-defense?????
You, are you okay?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
