Richard M. Stallman resigns

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by jakelazaroff on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:31AM (#20991904)

This doesn’t really have anything to do with the discussion we’re having, which is that given a specific set of facts about two person it is possible to objectively deduce whether or not they are allowed to have sex.

If you have an example of a set of ambiguous statutory rape laws, please cite it. Otherwise, I think this conversation has reached a stalemate.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @01:41AM (#20991955)

I never mentioned ambiguity, you did. I claimed that the laws were nuanced and not clear cut, and I guess you are just agreeing with that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by jakelazaroff on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @02:05AM (#20992098)

FWIW, “bright and clear” means that a law is objective and unambiguous [1], not that it’s simple or easy to apply. These laws may not be clear cut in that there are many conditions to evaluate, but they are clear cut in that you can deduce with certainly whether or not you’re breaking them.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright-line_rule

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Richard M. Stallman resigns by seanmcdirmid on Tuesday September 17, 2019 @03:28PM (#20999126)

Ok, I can agree we that. You might still need to be (or have knowledge of) a lawyer to determine if you are breaking the law, but at least it can be determined. I was just against the idea that these laws were somehow simple and easy to understand.

[ Parent | on HN ]