> /Adults/ can say no (as indeed can non-adults), but /consenting/ adults
> are, by definition, adults who say yes. If they say no, they are not
> consenting. Consenting, by definition, means saying yes.
Consenting means saying yes when you can say no. Saying yes when a no won't be
listened to is just non-resistance.
> James's statement ("any application which restricts PUA use is
> effectively precluding consenting adults from reaching and implementing
> their private agreements") is correct. If you choose to redefine the
> word "consenting" to mean "one who consents to using an application
> which restricts the PUA" then I would argue that's just a silly
> redefinition.
No, it's deciding what to do with the PUA. By this logic any application which
does apply semantics to characters in the PUA is equally non-conformant because
it is restricting the use of the PUA to the defined behaviou - and the only
conformant applications are those which pass PUA characters through untouchted,
though they would generally do so with a source and/or sink that assigns
meaning and hence the system as a whole is still non-conformant.
