On Friday, April 18th, 2025 at 1:02 AM, Rowan Evans via agora-discussion <[email protected]> wrote:
> > But I note that this quote actually makes the same logical problem e is > trying to reject. It doesn't actually make sense to say "the rock doesn't > want anything to do with me". > > Consent governs a "want to do" vs. "want to not do" distinction that is > only relevant for entities who have thoughts and feelings, and whose > thoughts and feelings can be protected by not subjecting them to things > they would rather not happen. Rocks exist permanently in a state of absence > of want (which is different to wanting something not to happen). "Want to do" vs. "want not to do" does not cover all states a person might be in. As you have pointed out, there is a third option, a state of "not wanting". I can, for example, "not want to eat a burger", but that is not the same as "wanting to eat something other than a burger". I may just not be hungry. > Thing 1: > "1. Whether an inanimate object is capable of consenting to being bound by > the rules; " > > Is either IRRELEVANT or TRUE. > > ... > > In other words, it's a fool's errand to apply the logic of consent to a > rock. They have no true or false value on their consent, only null. As Agora's definition (R2519) allows consent to be implied by desire (bullet #4), in the form of "reasonably clear wanting", if we could apply R2519 to the rock, then the rock does not consent, since it cannot desire, and the other bullet points cannot apply, so FALSE is still considerable as an option to statement 1 (and I believe it to be the case.) If we instead presume that R2519 does not apply to nonpersons (as is likely appropriate), we have that the rules are silent on whether nonpersons can consent, and so then by 217 we must turn to "common sense"[1]. Outside of our game, consent does not require nor is implied by desire. Consent is a voluntary, positive affirmation of informed agreement to a specific event (i.e., action) or behavior (i.e. contract), and does not require[2,3] an individual desiring the outcome. Since a rock cannot put forward an affirmation of any sort, it cannot consent, and so once again statement 1 is FALSE. [1] Among game custom, past judgements, and best interest, but I've nothing to say on these (and am not aware of any of the former two.) [2] Hence why a player can consent to something that they may not want, as noted by Janet. [3] There are some cases where it is expected for there to be both desire and consent, i.e., "enthusiastic consent", but since a rock cannot want, it cannot give such a form of consent. > I agree with my learned colleague Mischief's observations > > ... > > Janet says: > ... > and then goes on to make some dismissive comments about people's mental > states. Finally, as a more personal note, please be sure to treat your peers as both humans and equals, even if (especially if) you disagree with them. Agora is a game, and a collaborative one at that. -- kiako, Archivist, Webmastor
