5 ms·
I believe in this case it's reasonable to interpret the past imposition as a statement of future intent and resist by proportional means. Discontinue consumptio
by 1_person 7y ago
I believe in this case it's reasonable to interpret the past imposition as a statement of future intent and resist by proportional means.
Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent.
Use violence as necessary to resist being coerced into consumption in proportion to the degree being intoxicated and used for gratification inhibits your survival and pursuit of objective truth.
- excalibur 7y ago> If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent. > Discontinue consumption of substances offered to you by someone who has previously intoxicated you without your consent. So you agree there wasn't consent the first time. Sounds like refuting yourself to me.
- 1_person 7y agoI do not assert the dichotomy. If the option to resist the imposition is not presented, the question of consent has not been called. The act occurs without consent but also without dissent. When likely future intent is made known by past actions, the question of consent has been called and may be answered. You raise an interesting challenge and it is a scenario I haven't considered before. I am happy to discuss it and any other issues you find with my morality, but I would prefer if we could please agree that language is an approximation of meaning, attempt to seek clarity before semantic assertions, and that I be allowed to speak for myself.
- excalibur 7y agoOkay, speak for yourself. Do you stand by the statement "If you do not resist an imposition of will, you consent," or do you wish to revise it?