05-10-2016, 11:00 PM
(05-10-2016, 10:50 PM)THE Bigzoman Wrote: You act as if the parallel didn't carry the same logic; as though market transactions don't require consent to be legally and morally correct.
But continue your puritian smugness that things suddenly become different in the realm of sex.
I don't think I've ever seen pretentious pomposity on this high a level in a thread before. Duly noted.
I consider bodily autonomy, or liberty, to be a higher level concern than crimes of property. Just my line of thinking there. But I'll attack your logic. Online retailers can't protect you from yourself, there is only one actor in drunk buying online. The retailer is passive and has no knowledge of your intoxication. In drunken sex where one party is intoxicated there is no passive party, both are active, and the state of intoxication can be perceived. So no, they don't carry the same logic.
And I am far from puritanical in my attitudes towards sex. Wanting people to be sober when they do so does not qualify.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
