Oh, I don't mind the disagreement, I'm curious to understand why your position is so different from mine, after getting closer to understanding what your positi

Oh, I don't mind the disagreement, I'm curious to understand why your position is so different from mine, after getting closer to understanding what your position actually is. (I had to do that because there are some implicit premises in my thinking vs what you're saying which seem fundamentally different, and I had to work those out for myself.) I think I do get it now, and it seems to be pretty much to what I described before. While I think that there is responsibility for the outcomes of one's actions no matter through which ways and means they are accomplished, for you, it seems to depend: making it about smarts or intellect or whatever, and putting a computer in between, causes it to transcend legality and morality. Adverse consequences are not on the actor anymore, and purely on the "defender". That's not how a lot of people (including myself) see this issue. They would not agree that responsibility and outcomes should get disconnected or redistributed by changing the ways and means in between. (Edit, just to make this extra clear: The idea is that it should not matter if one uses their brain and a computer to effect damage, or some other means. Computers are a different tool, not a different game.) Even more, people find it hard to follow both the ethics and the logic of your argument, because you've not been able to express WHY an exception should be made for "smarts" and "computers" and not in other cases. Whenever I've asked you to explain, you've either misunderstood or evaded the question and responded with re-iterating that "smart" is different from "strong", as if that explains anything. (It boils down to being asked: "Why should the difference between red and blue matter here?" and answering with "Because they are different.") So, you're taking an position that people find ethically problematic and logically inconsistent, and that's the reason why you receive this pushback: people feel motivated to counter what they see as an uncontested "ethical divergence", and you gave them an obvious logical chink to pry a lever into. What I'm taking away is that you truly believe this, which is so foreign to me that I'm completely mystified. It makes me curious, and also uncomfortable, and for both reasons I wonder: How? Why? However, you're simply re-iterating your position, and I've come no closer to finding out, nor do I think I actually will, because I can't find a way to phrase my questions in a way that would bridge a barrier of understanding between us and make you respond to what I'm asking. I'm still curious. But in any case, please do enjoy the rest of your weekend.