Because the outcome informs the choice. Regardless of the pithiness of the aphorism, if the result of its application is the destruction of a site like HN then

Because the outcome informs the choice. Regardless of the pithiness of the aphorism, if the result of its application is the destruction of a site like HN then it doesn't matter what the aphorism says - it's functionally a HN-destroying bomb. It's a deontological reversal. When someone points out the consequences of the action, the intentions necessarily become the realization of those consequences. So why shouldn't they be liable? Because that liability is yoked directly to its destruction. They are inseparable.