Is the preceding poster a poltroon or not?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nope, but he is a Poletroon

[Lachi]

Defenatly not.

[Xing]

Nope.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The categorical imperative may have been criticized for indicating that it's wrong to lie to protect somebody from a murderer, but consequentialism has been criticized for indicating that it's moral to kill someone to harvest their organs. Clearly you didn't even read to the end of the section in question, which brings up a possibility that both Kant and Constant fail to address. Is it possible that the originator of a concept may not have the most ironclad understanding of it??!

I skimmed it. Moral systems that don't take what happens as a result of an action are by nature irrational and damaging. And you clearly don't understand my view of consequentialism. Killing someone is only moral in either A. Self defense,(sometimes) or B. If doing so would save more people then were kill (killing one person to save a single individual is a complex grey area).

I understand your view of consequentialism very well, actually; thank you for confirming it.

[RFayette]

Lolno

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Nope

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It takes balls to have Clegg in your signature in 2016.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Kalwejt is many things, not all of them good (although most are!), but a poltroon is definitely not one of them.

[RFayette]

Of course not!

[Enduro]

Not at all.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Probably not

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Absolutely not.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

No

[Ban my account ffs!]

TimTurner is the very opposite of a poltroon. 

[RFayette]

Of course not.....Snowguy is a cool guy.

[Mr. Smith]

No