3 ms·

How is that at all comparable to this situation? That is putting in toxic ingredients that the buyer is not informed about. That's false advertising, fraud and

How is that at all comparable to this situation? That is putting in toxic ingredients that the buyer is not informed about. That's false advertising, fraud and criminal negligence. This is a company offering a game with terms of services clearly spelled out to you, with you free to accept or reject their offer with full knowledge of what they are offering. >>A collection of people not providing you with food on your terms is not a violation of your rights right? It is not a violation of my rights, but what you described is not that. That would be like if food providers all decided to offer food that is slightly poisoned, and disclosed that the food had been slightly poisoned. You would then have a choice to either take your chances on producing your own food, or taking their poisoned food.

rowanG077 5y ago
I didn't say the buyer is not informed about it. You completely made that up. It's on the back in small print with the chemical name just like all other ingredients. Besides that I think that your viewpoint is completely nuts and no well functioning society could exist like that.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>It's on the back in small print with the chemical name just like all other ingredients. So they are not informed. No court would consider that sufficient disclosure of a poison additive. Common law can't be evaded by resorting to technicalities as in your caricature. Its basis is informed consent, and that incorporates all of the context that goes into making a determination of whether that's present, including custom, reasonable assumptions, etc. Notice what distinguishes your "fine print" hypothetical from the scenario I described: This is a company offering a game with terms of services clearly spelled out to you, with you free to accept or reject their offer with full knowledge of what they are offering. Note: "clearly spelled out to you" and "full knowledge of what they are offering" Not "fine print", with the implication that no one is reading it. >>Besides that I think that your viewpoint is completely nuts and no well functioning society could exist like that. You have not explained why you think this, so this is not a particularly constructive track of discussion.

rowanG077 5y ago

I didn't say the buyer is not informed about it. You completely made that up. It's on the back in small print with the chemical name just like all other ingredients. Besides that I think that your viewpoint is completely nuts and no well functioning society could exist like that.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>It's on the back in small print with the chemical name just like all other ingredients. So they are not informed. No court would consider that sufficient disclosure of a poison additive. Common law can't be evaded by resorting to technicalities as in your caricature. Its basis is informed consent, and that incorporates all of the context that goes into making a determination of whether that's present, including custom, reasonable assumptions, etc. Notice what distinguishes your "fine print" hypothetical from the scenario I described: This is a company offering a game with terms of services clearly spelled out to you, with you free to accept or reject their offer with full knowledge of what they are offering. Note: "clearly spelled out to you" and "full knowledge of what they are offering" Not "fine print", with the implication that no one is reading it. >>Besides that I think that your viewpoint is completely nuts and no well functioning society could exist like that. You have not explained why you think this, so this is not a particularly constructive track of discussion.