The Goose

22 | libertarian | What is a Republican?

If you thread hop, I will block you.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Consenting to the risk is consenting to the outcome.

If I go to the casino, I consent to the risk of losing money gambling. I can't then say "oh, actually, I don't consent to the outcome" and then go take my money back.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@gzyzg12 @ABrownLamp @KatelynTweeter No. Probability is about statistics. Plasuibility is about reason.

Probability and plausibility are very correlated, but neither are causational of the other.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@gzyzg12 @ABrownLamp @KatelynTweeter I'd not make that argument. That's an argument of probability, not plausibility.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Eh, sure.

By getting a ride from you, or by driving a car at all, I am implicitly consenting to the possibility of me getting into a car crash.

This doesn't mean I want it to happen. It doesn't mean I am responsible for it happening. It means that I am fine taking the risk.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Nope. Likely is not the same thing as plausible.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@loc12321 @ZoomerIsland So 24 to 28 weeks post-gestation?

How do we exactly determine when it has sentience?

Also, is this just basic signs of sentience, or full signs of sentience? Because those only start appearing a couple years after birth.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter When did I say that consent to an action is consent to every possible outcome?

I believe I have been consistent with the qualifier of the outcome being plausible.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter I know?

I said that the implicit consent is to the plausible outcomes, and you gave an example of you driving off a bridge.

Do you think driving off a bridge is a plausible outcome of getting a ride?

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@loc12321 @ZoomerIsland Ok, so at what point in development does a human get the right to live?

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter You consider those plausible outcomes of getting a ride?

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Is consent to an action consent to the plausible outcomes of said action?

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Now, and I've left room for these interpretations literally all over, in cases of rape (or any coercive sex) and to save the mother's life, one can make an argument within the bounds of natural rights theory.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Correct. You consent to the plausible things they would do there. Just as you consent to the plausible things related to pregnancy.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@loc12321 @ZoomerIsland So which is more developed?

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Except the consent to the pregnancy had already been given via implicit consent via consent to sex.

Revocation of consent does not then allow you to violate one's natural rights.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@loc12321 @ZoomerIsland At 22 weeks, the brain, the lungs, temperature regulation, and body fat all lack serious development.

Are you saying that that is more developed than a 32 week old fetus having none of those lack of developments just cause a woman shot it out of her pussy earlier?

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter That aggression must be non-consensual.

I explained this in the post.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter I won't make you keep repeating it because one of two outcomes will happen.

1. You understand what I mean by aggression, cause you clearly don't.

2. You don't understand what I mean by aggression, and I disengage because we will never move on if you don't.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter That alone does not qualify as aggression.

I suggest you reread my longpost to understand the basics of natural rights theory.

[The Goose @TheHonkingOne]

@ABrownLamp @gzyzg12 @KatelynTweeter Your argument rests upon the assumption that the fetus is an aggressor, but you have given no argument for it being one.