re: #250 Wendell Zurkowitz (slave to the waffle light)

Logical, but again, this is a philosophical issue, and these can be looked at from various angles.

It’s just interesting to explore various hypotheticals, as philosophers (as well as jurists) are wont to do. For instance: whether the owner of a theoretical plant that was emitting carcinogenic pollutants some time ago, thus causing n provable cancer deaths m years later, is guilty of homicide in the same a) legal, b) philosophical sense (provided he knew he was going above the norm). (I would argue yes, but I don’t know whether the law agrees.) Or whether a president starting an unnecessary war under false pretenses, the murderous results of which were easily predictable, is guilty of mass homicide.