Something I have been thinking about.

Ahhh... see my signature line. My signature line gives a tighter restriction and limits our freedom to that which is still in the mind. Thinking about an action is OK, but to bring that action out of the mind and place it into the external reality carries a consequence.

 

I agree. It's just that I think that everything and anything is a freedom. You should be able to do it, as long as you're willing to accept the consequences.

 

Thank you for the agreeance. As to the highlighted text: Whether or not a person is willing to accept the consequences is irrelevant, as sometimes the consequence will foist itself upon the perpetrator.

 

By taking the action you are agreeing, whether you realize it or not that you are accepting the consequences.

 

That would be dependent upon the indivual and his/her definition of 'accepting'. You mentioned the use of the word "agreeing". That would imply an understanding of the consequence and that consequence having been articulated to the offending party, or the offending party having previously studied the consequence(s), which would mean the action was premeditated and carried out regardless of the consequence(s). Not all people think so rationally as to give consideration of the possible consequence(s).

 

The way I see it, when someone does something, they're making an unwritten contract and so "agreeing" makes sense in that context. You're right, accepting is a much better word though, and it's what I meant to say. It doesn't matter if they agree to it, they have to accept that it happens.

 

Written or "unwritten" would result in the same thing:
"con·tract (kntrkt)n.1. a. An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law. See Synonyms at bargain.

b. The writing or document containing such an agreement."

So, in the cases of murder, rape, theft, the parties involved both "agreed" to the possible consequence(s) of the actions of the perpetrator? Would the female victim of a rape scenario have entered into an agreement/contract with her assailant? Your closing statement clarifies your position rather clearly and Yes! Both parties would be in agreement that the event did happen... however pleasant (on the one hand) or however revolting, demeaning, or barbaric (on the other hand) it may have been in the mind of the respective parties. Good conversation Krane. I enjoy exchanging with you.

 

I'm glad you get what I'm saying. This is the basis to my political ideology so it's good that someone can follow along. I really do like these conversations we've had together.