Or is that Law & Order boiling it down and losing the nuance?

Is Jesse Martin involved? Because if so, I already forgot the question.

Is Butanol another name for Methanol?

No. It has 4 carbon atoms per molecule, whereas methanol has one.

Methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol...

Is Butanol another name for Methanol?

No, methanol is CH₃OH and butanol is C₄H₁₀O. Also, I'm pretty sure you need to modify a gasoline engine to use Methanol, but butanol can used without modification. I listened to that same SciFri segment.

But why only part of a break? I feel very binary about this--either it's okay to kill someone willing, or it's really not.

I see your point. But, I doubt that anyone ever really thought about it. I suppose that a corollary would be a failed suicide pact (i.e. where two people are supposed to shoot each other and one misses)

Do you think in the US he'd have had an insanity plea?

no, because legal insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong, not that I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway because _____ .

(Bear in mind, I think nothing's wrong with cannibalism. It's killing people that's wrong)

heh.

no, because legal insanity is not knowing the difference between right and wrong, not that I knew it was wrong, but I did it anyway because _____ .

I don't get the impression that this guy thinks killing people and eating them is wrong, though.

His defence lawyers argue that Brandes willingly agreed to Meiwes's plans, saying the original advert clearly stated that he was looking for a volunteer to be "slaughtered and eaten".

"This was not murder. His [Brandes's] goal was to be eaten and that meant being killed," defence lawyer Joachim Bremer told the court.

This and the "beautiful death" comment that Jessica quoted reads to me that he thought it was A-OK.

I don't get the impression that this guy thinks killing people and eating them is wrong, though.

perhaps, but the question is does he know that it's against the law?

does he know that it's against the law?

Is that the dividing line?

And now I have to go to four hours of meeting. At least there's food.

But why only part of a break? I feel very binary about this--either it's okay to kill someone willing, or it's really not.

I see your point. But, I doubt that anyone ever really thought about it. I suppose that a corollary would be a failed suicide pact (i.e. where two people are supposed to shoot each other and one misses)

I think a closer corollary would be euthanasia.

To my obviously unschooled eyes, he sounds like he's crazy by American standards. Isn't it about not being able to recognise what you're doing is wrong? Or is that Law & Order boiling it down and losing the nuance?

Like Vortex already noted, that's close enough definition for a discussion, since every state will be somewhat different. I think it's hard sometimes to separate out the already craziness you need to actually commit a crime, let alone a horrifying murder, and the craziness you need to not know that intentionally killing someone is wrong. I think this guy knew what he was doing was intentional homicide, whether the other guy wanted it or not. BUT this is a great 2-minute L&O legal question.

Is that the dividing line?

pretty much. My use of the "wrong" is synonymous with "illegal"