Such cases suggest that the transferred intent fiction is most plausibly understood as an extremely coarse fictional device by which the law roughly tracks one dimension of the more general moral phenomenon articulated by CFD*: The scope of an actor’s remedial moral responsibility for the materialization of the risks of injury posed by his action is sensitive to his degree of culpability for imposing the risks in question. Is it implausible to suppose that the law should implement its underlying moral principles with so coarse a device? No; we will see several more such coarse devices below. Before that, however, it is worth dwelling a bit more on one of the doctrinal phenomena we have just encountered, and others in its vicinity.
第五十九条 当事人在仲裁过程中有权进行辩论。辩论终结时，首席仲裁员或者独任仲裁员应当征询当事人的最后意见。
，详情可参考新收录的资料
perms := READ | WRITE;。新收录的资料是该领域的重要参考
assert!(initial_values.is_empty());，详情可参考新收录的资料