- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
As long as the fluids arent explosives?
What if they're exchanging moonshine for fuel?
As long as the fluids arent explosives?
Of course not. Of course this is no reason to allow anyone (heteros included) to get married.
I know everyone was thinking it, but I hate one sided poles like this.
No, I am not debating this again. Many other threads cover the gambit, this one will make no difference or change anyones views.
It depends if they do it in public or private........
So if someone is "damning themselves to hell" by performing "unnatural acts" the government should have the right to "save them from themselves?"
A difference in information will be present in any transaction, and will lead to one party having an advantage over the other. Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it. No one isn't consenting, its still none of the government's business.
And one person having unprotected sex with another can lead to that person's unsuspecting spouse dying of aids. Does that give the government the right to interfere in people's sex lives?
:rofl change that to two gerbils and I'm in:lol:Change that to a gerbil, and we're on.
I thought them thar hillbilly moonshine makers used it as fuelWhat if they're exchanging moonshine for fuel?
This is a ridiculous arguement. "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" can be taken to mean outright lies or deliberate mis-information. Taken to its extreme conclusion, it means that a fraudster should be blameless in any fraudulent scheme because the fraud victim should know that there are risk of frauds when they enter into any transactions. That's really a good arguement for non-government intervention.
If there's a way to prevent such spread that brings more benefits than harm, it should.
Well, anyone who would take "A difference in information will be present in any transaction" to mean outright lies clearly just doesn't have a mastery of the English language.
If I promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, I am obligated to give you a working unicycle if I take your money. If promise you a working unicycle in exchange for $30, but give you an empty box that claims to contain a unicycle instead, that is fraud.
I am not obligated to tell you that my competitor across the street is selling the exact same model for $15. That is a difference in information, and is ostensibly not fraud. I don't know why this distinction should be unclear to anyone.
If consenting adults choose to take risks, they should be allowed to take risks. Its no one's damn business.
Because you are the Arbiter of the English Language and can say what constitute a mastery of the language?
Why are you "obligated"? As you said: "Those who enter into such agreements need to realize that this is a risk, and take that into account when the agree to it." If you enter into a transaction to buy a bicycle and pay before you have the bicycle in your hands, and turns out it's an empty box, well, you're an adult, you took the risk to pay before the see the bicycle and that it's working properly yourself.
Fraud is to be expected, not something out of the ordinary. To his way of thinking, people are always out to get as much as they can get, as they should be, so you have to look after your own interest. Anyone who doesn't are fools. He's a pure capitalist as a result of his experiences.
And Who/what should make you fulfill your "obligation"?
Maybe you didn't read clearly, I said: "Taken to its extreme conclusion".
"A difference in information... [that] will lead to one party having an advantage over the other" is vague and broad. You might have that distinction in your mind, but I don't read your mind, so I don't know where you want to subjectively draw the line. You have problems with fraud, but others don't, and for those, "free market principles" include allowing people to be defrauded if they are stupid enough to be taken in.
Tell that to the women who got AIDs from their unfaithful husbands.
If two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange fluids, is it any of the governments business?
I suppose I am. For example, I suppose to some, "I'm not interested, please stop calling" could be taken to mean "I would love to purchase some vinyl siding from you, but I just need more convincing, why don't you call me tomorrow around dinnertime?"
In my arbitration, I have arbitrarily decided that these people have not yet mastered the English language.
Because that is the whole point of consenting adults voluntarily entering into an agreement. If I consent to give someone $30 in exchange for a unicycle, they need to give me their unicycle in exchange for my $30. If they take my money without giving me the unicycle, it becomes an issue of non-consent.
Well, be that as it may, deliberately defaulting on promises made as part of a transaction is fraud. Not giving someone every piece of information that could possibly be useful to them is not.
As soon as it becomes an issue of non-consent, it should be a matter of law, and not before.
I don't think it is necessary to read my mind. I have been quite clear about the distinction I am making, which is consent vs non-consent.
As long as both parties follow the contractual obligations they consented to to the letter, its none of the governments business. If one person tries to keep someone's capital/labour/other value without fulfilling their own obligation, that is fraud.
It doesn't seem like a terribly subjective line to me.
That was a risk she chose to take. Its none of the government's business.
Hey TM, that's great, but suppose instead of exchanging fluids, two consenting adult males voluntarily agree to exchange pokemon cards instead, or to exchange casserole recipes. Now whose business is it?