Couscous is pretty game for keeping going during this massive pile-on. I agree with him. Attempting to murder someone is "attempted murder." I didn't think that was such a wild assertion.
But you haven't attempted to murder someone just because you say you did. That is the point.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Obviously, me being Qingu, I would agree that every religious person ought to get themselves mentally evaluated, but I am extremely uncomfortable with the opinion that we ought to force people to get mentally evaluated based on nothing but their beliefs and ritual actions.
If you think you can summon a demon you should get your head checked. If you think that somebody else can hurt you by sicking a demon/god/the tooth fairy on you, then you should get your head checked.
And that's the crux of the argument right there. Why are we giving the parishioners a pass on their stupidity if we aren't doing the same for demon-boy?
I'm not giving either a pass on anything. Both are idiots, neither is attempted murder.
At worst you can say demon boy was being a jerk. But then again, I wouldn't go to the cops and complain if some idiot told me they summoned a demon to get me, honestly I don't think I could make it through that with a straight face.
I've had Wiccans attempt to curse me before, and one of them tried to send imps to harass my Wiccan friend. She said she tamed them and turned them into pets of sorts, but maybe I should tell her to get her lawyer on the phone.
Stopping future-crimes makes more sense, since (assuming your predictive system works and didn't consist of drugged, enslaved psychics) the perps in question were going to to commit a crime and gank someone.
I wouldn't have a problem with using such a system to prevent crimes ahead of time.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
Obviously, me being Qingu, I would agree that every religious person ought to get themselves mentally evaluated, but I am extremely uncomfortable with the opinion that we ought to force people to get mentally evaluated based on nothing but their beliefs and ritual actions.
If you think you can summon a demon you should get your head checked. If you think that somebody else can hurt you by sicking a demon/god/the tooth fairy on you, then you should get your head checked.
And yet billions of perfectly sane people right now believe that supernatural forces can affect the physical world. Do you suggest they have their heads checked as well?
Stopping future-crimes makes more sense, since (assuming your predictive system works and didn't consist of drugged, enslaved psychics) the perps in question were going to to commit a crime and gank someone.
I wouldn't have a problem with using such a system to prevent crimes ahead of time.
And how would you know that you know?
How do we know that Demon Boy wouldn't have freaked out and de-summoned the demon if he saw it as real?
The whole thing is so fucking idiotic I'm having a hard time believing you're not trolling me right now.
dont worry dude. these boards are places where we argue about things but dont necessarily believe them.
i dont actually think anyone really thinks the guy should be arrested, let alone charged for attempted murder. harassment? maybe. attempted murder? nah, they're just visiting stupid land. they'll return to normal land once they get off their computers.
What recourse do I have but to eliminate the people holding the weapons? If not to protect me, then certainly to protect all the other friends of mine whom priests may one day target. My only hope to protect myself is to eliminate all Christians with access to high enough levels of influence with God that they can call for my death.
Just because the person believes he has the ability to do so doesn't mean he does or that you think he does. If you could prove you actually believed that, feel free to try it. I don't know how you could prove it.
Exactly.
In the same token, how exactly do you prove that a man really thought demon-summoning was going to work. Ask him? An answer that is a clear enough yes simply means he's crazy, and should not be punished for a crime but treated in an institution. An answer that is anything but a clear yes fails to establish intent and thus completely fails to even fit your incredibly broad idea of intent as crime.
Stopping future-crimes makes more sense, since (assuming your predictive system works and didn't consist of drugged, enslaved psychics) the perps in question were going to to commit a crime and gank someone.
I wouldn't have a problem with using such a system to prevent crimes ahead of time.
And how would you know that you know?
How do we know that Demon Boy wouldn't have freaked out and de-summoned the demon if he saw it as real?
Well, I don't know much about summoning demons, but if it works anything like summoning something in Final Fantasy doesn't whatever you called forth show up nuke everything and bolt?
Summon up bahamut and orbitally bombard their porch or something.
Well, I don't know much about summoning demons, but if it works anything like summoning something in Final Fantasy doesn't whatever you called forth show up nuke everything and bolt?
Summon up bahamut and orbitally bombard their porch or something.
FF Summons aren't really like standard summoning concepts.
Also demons probably have diplomatic immunity. Also wouldn't they be considered illegal aliens? inHuman trafficking charges maybe?
Incenjucar on
0
Burden of ProofYou three boys picked a beautiful hill to die on.Registered Userregular
Couscous is pretty game for keeping going during this massive pile-on. I agree with him. Attempting to murder someone is "attempted murder." I didn't think that was such a wild assertion.
but he didnt even attempt murder. at best, he attempted to have a magical third party convince people (or harass them enough) to kill themselves.
i have no fucking clue what any of you guys are talking about anymore.
Stopping future-crimes makes more sense, since (assuming your predictive system works and didn't consist of drugged, enslaved psychics) the perps in question were going to to commit a crime and gank someone.
I wouldn't have a problem with using such a system to prevent crimes ahead of time.
And how would you know that you know?
How do we know that Demon Boy wouldn't have freaked out and de-summoned the demon if he saw it as real?
How do you know that the priest hadn't taken the Planar Turning feat and/or prepared Banishment?
Stopping future-crimes makes more sense, since (assuming your predictive system works and didn't consist of drugged, enslaved psychics) the perps in question were going to to commit a crime and gank someone.
I wouldn't have a problem with using such a system to prevent crimes ahead of time.
And how would you know that you know?
How do we know that Demon Boy wouldn't have freaked out and de-summoned the demon if he saw it as real?
How do you know that the priest hadn't taken the Planar Turning feat and/or prepared Banishment?
Not to mention that clearly Satan was behind it all along, and the poor Demon Summoner is just being controlled.
So in this retard trainwreck abortion shitfest, we've yet to hear anything to counter
- Means Rea: the desire of the deaths of the church goers through the summoning of a demon
- Actus Reus: entering the church, performing the act (ritual), bragging about it
- Attendant Circumstance: his plot shares dangerous similarities with planting a bomb
And now I'm going to face an onslaught of lol god lol angels lol demons lol fairy tales lol christians lol religion lololol which amounts to jack and shit in terms of argumentative weight, only jack got fucking tired of this shit and left town last week.
I even bolded the important parts so the lololol brigade can more easily draw their attention to the important parts. And I remind you again: that an outcome is impossible is not an admissible criminal defence
So in this retard trainwreck abortion shitfest, we've yet to hear anything to counter
- Means Rea: the desire of the deaths of the church goers
- Actus Reus: entering the church, performing the ritual, bragging about it
- Attendant Circumstance: his plot shares dangerous similarities with planting a bomb
And now I'm going to face an onslaught of lol god lol angels lol demons lol fairy tales lol christians lol religion lololol which amounts to jack and shit in terms of argumentative weight, only jack got fucking tired of this shit and left town last week.
So in this retard trainwreck abortion shitfest, we've yet to hear anything to counter
- Means Rea: the desire of the deaths of the church goers through the summoning of a demon
- Actus Reus: entering the church, performing the act (ritual), bragging about it
- Attendant Circumstance: his plot shares dangerous similarities with planting a bomb
And now I'm going to face an onslaught of lol god lol angels lol demons lol fairy tales lol christians lol religion lololol which amounts to jack and shit in terms of argumentative weight, only jack got fucking tired of this shit and left town last week.
I even bolded the important parts so the lololol brigade can more easily draw their attention to the important parts. And I remind you again: that an outcome is impossible is not an admissible criminal defence
his "summoning" doesn't have any "dangerous similarities" with planting a bomb, aside from the part where he walked in the door
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
So in this retard trainwreck abortion shitfest, we've yet to hear anything to counter
- Means Rea: the desire of the deaths of the church goers through the summoning of a demon
- Actus Reus: entering the church, performing the act (ritual), bragging about it
- Attendant Circumstance: his plot shares dangerous similarities with planting a bomb
None of those three concepts necessarily lines up with your statements. Especially the second one.
You would need a very strong rhetorical argument to convince a jury that the third one is true.
which amounts to jack and shit in terms of argumentative weight,
You are not the arbiter of whether or not something has argumentative weight.
The fact that convicting said person would establish an unfeasible and probably unconstitutional legal precedent certainly has argumentative weight.
And I remind you again: that an outcome is impossible is not an admissible criminal defence
Irrelevant to most of the actual counterarguments. I am sure everyone on here would support convicting a person who believed he was assembling a real bomb when he was tricked into assembling a fake bomb.
Rob, to spell this out a bit more, here is the problem with what you are arguing.
Constructing a bomb (unless you are licensed to) is an illegal act.
Summoning a demon is not an illegal act.
If someone believes they are constructing a bomb to kill people and pantomimes the motions for constructing that bomb, they are guilty both of mind and of action.
If someone believes they are summoning a demon to kill people, they are not guilty of anything because that's not a crime. Performing rituals, or claiming to have performed rituals, is not a "guilty action." It is simply nonsensical to assert that either qualifies.
And the similarity with summoning a demon in a church and planting a bomb in a church (i.e. attendant circumstances)—obviously this is in the eye of the beholder, but I would hope not in any reasonable beholder.
- Means Rea: the desire of the deaths of the church goers through the summoning of a demon
Not really. He said that the demon could affect people in several ways, and only in the most extreme circumstances would they take their own life. If you want to be specific he claims he told a demon to dwell there, to cleanse it, his side goal is converting the priest.
- Actus Reus: entering the church, performing the act (ritual), bragging about it
Again, summoning demons is not a crime.
Attendant Circumstance: his plot shares dangerous similarities with planting a bomb
Bullshit. A bomb is a very real and physical thing. You can't road side demon someone.
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.
I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.
JihadJesus on
0
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited October 2009
So, if we'd like to get off the path to Sillyville, from what I understand the facts are not as they have been presented within this thread.
While "Lynius Shadee" is jerk, who like all pagans subscribes to a "let's make it up as we go along" jerk religion ("Oh, ladeedah, I'm the head of the Australian Druidic Tradition!" "Congratulations, a proud tradition, extending back almost a decade, I am honoured to be in such prestigious company!"). Except unlike organsied jerk religion they don't have any social pressure to excuse their belief. Instead of never growing out of beliving in Santa Claus, pagans/wiccans/mages never stopped playing "make believe", which is lamer (though no less retarded).
The point of that preamble to my actual point was to express my intense dislike of alternative religions. However, in this case, it's not just demonjerk being a jerk. He's a total fucking loon, but he didn't just suddenly appear and decide to be a jerk to the the other jerks. He specified his intent to start up an occult centre, and the Christian community or at least the preistly types complained and said that "Mr Shadee is most certainly an occultist in the truest form and I am of no doubt of the powers he can summon, within the paranormal. My concerns are that if he is allowed to open an occult centre there would be an epidemic of anti-faiths." another said it was plainly a load of nonsense. In response to their opposition, he summoned the demon.
So, no less whacky or stupid, but not unprovoked - he's not trying to scare people just for the evlulz. Not a rational escalation of hostilities, of course.
Basically the new, weird kid in town brought his Anime make-believe character to the established He-Man fantasy narrative and it's making everyone worry over the fate of Castle Greyskull.
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question.
It's relevant because we generally only make doing real things, like building bombs, illegal.
Now, you can be convicted of this even if the bomb you're building isn't real, if you think it's real and behave like it's real. But that's because building a bomb is an illegal act. Summoning a demon isn't an illegal act.
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question.
It's relevant because we generally only make doing real things, like building bombs, illegal.
Now, you can be convicted of this even if the bomb you're building isn't real, if you think it's real and behave like it's real. But that's because building a bomb is an illegal act. Summoning a demon isn't an illegal act.
I was more referring to the act of planting a bomb. And we must phrase our concept of what is real from the mind of the suspect: if he actually believed he was summoning a demon to do harm, we must treat it as such - because it demonstrates that this fellow is willing to do harm to others in ways he thinks are real.
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.
I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.
If I claim I'll hate you to death, is that attempted murder if I actually believe I can do it?
You are right on the edge of a pretty steep incline, here
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question.
It's relevant because we generally only make doing real things, like building bombs, illegal.
Now, you can be convicted of this even if the bomb you're building isn't real, if you think it's real and behave like it's real. But that's because building a bomb is an illegal act. Summoning a demon isn't an illegal act.
I was more referring to the act of planting a bomb. And we must phrase our concept of what is real from the mind of the suspect: if he actually believed he was summoning a demon to do harm, we must treat it as such - because it demonstrates that this fellow is willing to do harm to others in ways he thinks are real.
why would we need to do that
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.
I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.
If I claim I'll hate you to death, is that attempted murder if I actually believe I can do it?
You are right on the edge of a pretty steep incline, here
Oh goody the slippery slope fallacy
why would we need to do that
For the same reason you first determine the viewpoint of a psychiatric patient before you begin treatment.
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.
I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.
If I claim I'll hate you to death, is that attempted murder if I actually believe I can do it?
You are right on the edge of a pretty steep incline, here
Oh goody the slippery slope fallacy
I don't think it's that fallacious, in this case. We are claiming that you can charge someone for attempted murder based completely on what they thought the effects of their actions would be, aren't we?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I don't see how whether or not demons are real is a relevant question. The relevant question in this hypothetical is whether or not Demonlover McNutso thought they were, and that his actions would actually summon one expressly resulting in someone's death. As many people have pointed out, it's not really a practical legal question - either you admit this belief and have a tailor made insanity defense, or you deny the belief and beat the charge since only your own testimony could reasonably serve to prove this point. It's more of an interesting academic question, and I agree with Rob. Assuming you actually believe that demons exist and that performing a specific incantation/ceremony/whatever will conjure such a demon who will then kill someone, performing that ceremony probably qualifies as attempted murder.
I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.
If I claim I'll hate you to death, is that attempted murder if I actually believe I can do it?
You are right on the edge of a pretty steep incline, here
Oh goody the slippery slope fallacy
why would we need to do that
For the same reason you first determine the viewpoint of a psychiatric patient before you begin treatment.
we aren't talking about giving someone psychiatric treatment.
If they can be proven to have acted on what they thought was a murderous plot, then isn't that the very definition of attempted murder?
no
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It's kind of staggering to me that so many people are arguing it's totally okay to make the decision to kill another human being, and to follow through with it, as long as you're crazy enough to do it in a nonsensical way.
Also, if we're basing our actions on what the person THINKS is going to happen, we cannot do anything against someone who murders in order to "save souls." In fact we should throw them parades.
Posts
But you haven't attempted to murder someone just because you say you did. That is the point.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Hey, I'm sending a golem and a sasquatch over to your house right now to kill you.
Oh, look, I'm a criminal!
I'm not giving either a pass on anything. Both are idiots, neither is attempted murder.
At worst you can say demon boy was being a jerk. But then again, I wouldn't go to the cops and complain if some idiot told me they summoned a demon to get me, honestly I don't think I could make it through that with a straight face.
I wouldn't have a problem with using such a system to prevent crimes ahead of time.
Rigorous Scholarship
You already know the answer.
And how would you know that you know?
How do we know that Demon Boy wouldn't have freaked out and de-summoned the demon if he saw it as real?
dont worry dude. these boards are places where we argue about things but dont necessarily believe them.
i dont actually think anyone really thinks the guy should be arrested, let alone charged for attempted murder. harassment? maybe. attempted murder? nah, they're just visiting stupid land. they'll return to normal land once they get off their computers.
Exactly.
In the same token, how exactly do you prove that a man really thought demon-summoning was going to work. Ask him? An answer that is a clear enough yes simply means he's crazy, and should not be punished for a crime but treated in an institution. An answer that is anything but a clear yes fails to establish intent and thus completely fails to even fit your incredibly broad idea of intent as crime.
Well, I don't know much about summoning demons, but if it works anything like summoning something in Final Fantasy doesn't whatever you called forth show up nuke everything and bolt?
Summon up bahamut and orbitally bombard their porch or something.
FF Summons aren't really like standard summoning concepts.
Also demons probably have diplomatic immunity. Also wouldn't they be considered illegal aliens? inHuman trafficking charges maybe?
Bambi comes out and blows bubbles at you.
conspiracy to commit an attempted murder
attempted solicitation to commit an attempted murder
you're going away for a long time, buddy.
but he didnt even attempt murder. at best, he attempted to have a magical third party convince people (or harass them enough) to kill themselves.
i have no fucking clue what any of you guys are talking about anymore.
consider the fucking facts please.
Not to mention that clearly Satan was behind it all along, and the poor Demon Summoner is just being controlled.
- Means Rea: the desire of the deaths of the church goers through the summoning of a demon
- Actus Reus: entering the church, performing the act (ritual), bragging about it
- Attendant Circumstance: his plot shares dangerous similarities with planting a bomb
And now I'm going to face an onslaught of lol god lol angels lol demons lol fairy tales lol christians lol religion lololol which amounts to jack and shit in terms of argumentative weight, only jack got fucking tired of this shit and left town last week.
I even bolded the important parts so the lololol brigade can more easily draw their attention to the important parts. And I remind you again: that an outcome is impossible is not an admissible criminal defence
then stop posting
no one will mind
Refutation of the year material right there
his "summoning" doesn't have any "dangerous similarities" with planting a bomb, aside from the part where he walked in the door
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
because as the last dozen pages demonstrate your argument consists entirely of divorcing logic from context and doesn't deserve or require refutation
None of those three concepts necessarily lines up with your statements. Especially the second one.
You would need a very strong rhetorical argument to convince a jury that the third one is true.
You are not the arbiter of whether or not something has argumentative weight.
The fact that convicting said person would establish an unfeasible and probably unconstitutional legal precedent certainly has argumentative weight.
Irrelevant to most of the actual counterarguments. I am sure everyone on here would support convicting a person who believed he was assembling a real bomb when he was tricked into assembling a fake bomb.
Constructing a bomb (unless you are licensed to) is an illegal act.
Summoning a demon is not an illegal act.
If someone believes they are constructing a bomb to kill people and pantomimes the motions for constructing that bomb, they are guilty both of mind and of action.
If someone believes they are summoning a demon to kill people, they are not guilty of anything because that's not a crime. Performing rituals, or claiming to have performed rituals, is not a "guilty action." It is simply nonsensical to assert that either qualifies.
And the similarity with summoning a demon in a church and planting a bomb in a church (i.e. attendant circumstances)—obviously this is in the eye of the beholder, but I would hope not in any reasonable beholder.
Not really. He said that the demon could affect people in several ways, and only in the most extreme circumstances would they take their own life. If you want to be specific he claims he told a demon to dwell there, to cleanse it, his side goal is converting the priest.
Again, summoning demons is not a crime.
Bullshit. A bomb is a very real and physical thing. You can't road side demon someone.
I'm not convicned that assumption has ever actually been met. I certainly don't think any hellfire and brimstone preacher I've ever heard of meets that description, nor does this specific demon dude.
While "Lynius Shadee" is jerk, who like all pagans subscribes to a "let's make it up as we go along" jerk religion ("Oh, ladeedah, I'm the head of the Australian Druidic Tradition!" "Congratulations, a proud tradition, extending back almost a decade, I am honoured to be in such prestigious company!"). Except unlike organsied jerk religion they don't have any social pressure to excuse their belief. Instead of never growing out of beliving in Santa Claus, pagans/wiccans/mages never stopped playing "make believe", which is lamer (though no less retarded).
The point of that preamble to my actual point was to express my intense dislike of alternative religions. However, in this case, it's not just demonjerk being a jerk. He's a total fucking loon, but he didn't just suddenly appear and decide to be a jerk to the the other jerks. He specified his intent to start up an occult centre, and the Christian community or at least the preistly types complained and said that "Mr Shadee is most certainly an occultist in the truest form and I am of no doubt of the powers he can summon, within the paranormal. My concerns are that if he is allowed to open an occult centre there would be an epidemic of anti-faiths." another said it was plainly a load of nonsense. In response to their opposition, he summoned the demon.
So, no less whacky or stupid, but not unprovoked - he's not trying to scare people just for the evlulz. Not a rational escalation of hostilities, of course.
Now, you can be convicted of this even if the bomb you're building isn't real, if you think it's real and behave like it's real. But that's because building a bomb is an illegal act. Summoning a demon isn't an illegal act.
I was more referring to the act of planting a bomb. And we must phrase our concept of what is real from the mind of the suspect: if he actually believed he was summoning a demon to do harm, we must treat it as such - because it demonstrates that this fellow is willing to do harm to others in ways he thinks are real.
If I claim I'll hate you to death, is that attempted murder if I actually believe I can do it?
You are right on the edge of a pretty steep incline, here
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
why would we need to do that
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Oh goody the slippery slope fallacy
For the same reason you first determine the viewpoint of a psychiatric patient before you begin treatment.
I don't think it's that fallacious, in this case. We are claiming that you can charge someone for attempted murder based completely on what they thought the effects of their actions would be, aren't we?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
we aren't talking about giving someone psychiatric treatment.
no
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
If we acted on imaginary attempted crimes, we would have no room in prison for people have successfully committed crimes using real things.
We would also have a religious civil war on our hands.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Like those guys who blow up abortion clinics.