Some (deceptively) simple questions

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Flag *
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Password	(For file and post deletion.)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 1440469622941.jpg (63.63 KB, 510x720, 17:24, 1327278993194.jpg)

Some (deceptively) simple questions Anonymous 08/25/15 (Tue) 02:27:02 1cb032 No.1954

- Should any being, of sound mind, be allowed to enter into an irrevocable arrangement of any sort? Why or why not?

- Should any being, of sound mind, be allowed to enter into an agreement which disproportionately favors the other party in the agreement? Why or why not?

Anonymous 08/25/15 (Tue) 11:55:30 1cb032 No.1955

>>1954

Yes to both because it should be well within someone's rights to enter into any sort of agreement they deem acceptable for them.

It isn't anyone else's right to tell another what is and isn't acceptable for them.

Anonymous 08/25/15 (Tue) 13:33:05 1cb032 No.1956

No, to either, but said being is not the one to be concerned about, but rather the party that makes agreements with disproportionate gain.

Anonymous 08/25/15 (Tue) 23:31:05 1cb032 No.1957

No to both. Circumstances could change. If I offer to sell you a factory and its destroyed in a fire, bankrupting me. I should not be held to a debt for the rest of my life, and required to build you another factory. I should be allowed to just return the money or ask your pardon.

The second is too general. If both profit why not, but if one prey upon the other then no.

Jim Profit!nOMXoMP0iI 09/26/15 (Sat) 15:43:08 1cb032 No.2067

File: 1443282202428.jpg (37.89 KB, 640x360, 16:9, WIN_20150916_181717.JPG)

>>1954

1: No. Because no arrangement should be absolute. That is a power dynamic that is just disgusting. Granted I'm sure killing the other party can end the arrangement if the state won't.

2: No. There is only the possibility the person is irrational to let someone have disproportionate power over them, or is desperate. There is no possibility that this does not involve exploitation and whether or not they "consent" is superfluous liberal masturbation.

Anonymous 09/28/15 (Mon) 04:50:29 1cb032 No.2069

The first is not a "yes" or "no" question because it is impossible for a such a scenario to exist. There is no such thing as a permanent being (regardless if the being is one person or millions), and so permanent deals can not exist because no one could possibly enforce it. If you mean deals of life or death, I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to make those.