3 ms·
Oh I agree that the article is very interesting. I never said otherwise. I was using the resource of hyperbole. I _know_ that the article is more subtle than "
by jbombadil 6y ago
Oh I agree that the article is very interesting. I never said otherwise.
I was using the resource of hyperbole. I _know_ that the article is more subtle than "lie -> no consent".
Through the two examples I was trying to say that IMO, the subject is more complicated than what the article suggests. It covers one aspect of consent (adult sexual relationships), applying principles from other areas (business transactions).
But if that principle is expanded into other areas (like TOS / tax code / law), the argument starts to become weaker. (Not stating that I disagree with it out right. Just that it's not as clear)
- wombatmobile 6y ago> But if that principle is expanded into other areas Yes, that's the key. The principle is what it is. What makes it interesting here is the context. Can we rely on one legal construct to give us a civilised result in contexts that vary all the way from consumer law through to sexual morality and inter-personal psychodynamics?