Let me put some values into the equation describing Len’s moral system.
A girl of sixteen has seduced an eight-years-old boy (the girl’s clearly a perv). One day the mother of the child catches boy and girl engaged in some sort of sexual activity. So, the mother cries “self-defense!” and blows off the girl’s head. Then she goes to an “an-cap” court of “justice” wich dictates that the girl’s heirs shall pay damages and clean up the mess as well.
Something doesn’t seem just…right ?
I would have loved to have been the 8-yo boy, and was much better at not getting caught by Mom.
Danno
Essentially, yes. Your objection is that you don’t trust humans to know what is or isn’t aggression. Well, if one man is retarded enough to think that you’re agressing by smoking, or having a campfire, or whatever, then he will attack someone and be killed in self-defense, which will purify the gene pool.
But if, as you fear, a critical mass of people are that retarded, then you’re right: anarchy can’t work. But of course the state also can’t work, because the same retards will simply come after you using political means–and government is a force multiplier. A single idiot with his finger on the right lever can exercise tremendous influence. And idiots are often dedicated and single-minded. One look at the world around you will show you the damage a few idiots can do.
Still, I can sympathize with you as a minarchist libertarian. I used to be one myself. The trouble is that just what I wanted was already tried. Tommy Jefferson made a bold attempt, but the rot set in before the framers even died. We tried minarchy, and it was a failure.
–Len
You haven’t a clue what my moral system is, Mr. “I’m neither for nor against pedophilia.” Your straw-man is unwelcome here. I’ve expressed myself clearly enough, and at great length; if you really believe your sick parody of my position, then you can’t read.
–Len.
The term Statutory Rape tells you all you need to know. Legislation has caused a sex act that does not fit the common law defintion of rape to be treated as if it did.
Falsely classifying underage sex as rape is not required in order to “prevent” it. If a child is actually molested that fits the common law defintion of rape. Statutory Rape is only required to criminalize consensual activities. Obviously courts are able to determine, on an individual basis, what underage sex is consensual and which is not. If parents do not wish their competent children to engage in sex, they will have to use normal parental techniques and not the law.
It is good parenting, and not the law, that prevents children from being exploited. And the law can not be used by parents to control their children. There will be no fugitive slave laws whereby run-away children are returned to their parents.
Discussion moved to a more appropriate thread, at Could anarchy work in human society? - to avoid further disruption of this thread. Apologies for any inconvenience.
Danno
[:D] Maybe I am in the right place, after all. Thanks for speakin’ up.
Danno
I answer to your subject line rather than to go much into your content, as the answer is the same.
There is no right to have sex. If a human being is physicall able to have sexual intercourse, than he/she can have it, full stop.
Another question is if parents can offer their children a sensible and rational reason to not have sex before they can understand the consequences.
The question is a question that every individual has to decide on its own and not up to any “group” 
.
Isn’t the question of whether or not a child/individual has been abused one that can only be answered by the child/individual themselves? If someone has “consensual” sex with a 18 yr old, 12 yr old, 8yr old or whatever age child, or likewise an individual impaired due to drugs, coma, etc, they are placing themselves in a position where that child/individual may later choose to seek restitution under the grounds that they were assaulted and that their consent was invalid due to their impaired state of consciousness. It is not up to any third party to make this decision but up to the child/individual themselves! A third party may try to convince the victim that they have indeed been victimized, and may also provide means to facilitate restitution to the victim, but it is up to the victim themselves to demonstrate willingness to seek restitution with a court or protection agency.
As far as a third party (non-guardian) initiating force to prevent a child/individual from having consensual sex, the same rule should apply. It is up to the child/individual to decide whether this action constituted aggression and to demonstrate willingness to seek restitution as a result. This same logic should apply to initiating force to save someone’s life from eminent danger. The person initiating force must be judicious as to how their action will be interpreted by the “victim” being saved. The ungrateful victim is entirely within his/her rights to seek restitution from the person who “saved” his/her life if they were truly intending to commit suicide, have sex, or to endanger themselves in whatever way they were doing.
The parent or guardian of a child, however, has an implied contractual relationship with the child whereby the child must follow the rules of the house in exchange for the protection afforded by the parent, as in any tenant/landlord relationship. The parent or guardian most certainly may disallow the child from having sexual relations to whatever age they see fit so long as the child chooses to receive support from the parent or guardian. Again, an overly lenient or overly strict parent cannot be construed as abusing a child simply based on the moral judgments of a third party. If a parent has been neglectful or abusive, it is up to the child/victim to demonstrate their willingness to seek restitution for such neglect or abuse.
To sum up, if you choose to act upon our moral judgments on the consensual activities between other individuals, regardless of their age or state mind, you must be willing to face responsibility for your actions! We are always responsible to the victim for our actions, but it is up to the victim to hold us as such.
I can prove that that’s not the case in general. Suppose that someone kills a child (very “humanely,” let’s say), and claims the child consented. Would it be impossible to prosecute the killer without an accusation from the deceased? Similarly if someone renders a child comatose, or incurably insane, claiming his actions were consensual. That suffices to prove that crimes can be prosecuted without an accusation from the victim.
In the case of child abuse, things get tricker: a child can be groomed to say almost anything, including that abuse was actually consensual. At issue is the child’s ability to understand what he’s supposedly “consenting” to in the first place, as well as any psychological damage done by the abuse, of which the child is most likely unaware. Psychological damage is awfully hard to quantify, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t real. When it’s particularly severe, nobody would dream of denying it.
You’re neglecting the fact that costs are imposed on the custodians. If someone molests my child, and I end up paying tens of thousands of dollars for psychological treatment, I most certainly will come after the perpetrator for (at least) full compensation. Applying your argument, I have no choice but to eat the costs of the abuse, or else put the child out of my house (which, incidentally, is likely to result in the molester taking him in).
If you apply your argument to the comatose or the insane, or anyone else with diminished mental capacity, you’ll see why it’s certainly objectionable. Can caregivers of comatose women rent them out for kinky sex? Can a brothel take in women too insane to complain about anything, and allow them to be raped and beaten?
–Len
Len,
I would concede that in the case of murder, and perhaps total and permanent incapacitation, an self-declared agent of the victim would be in a legitimate position to make claims on the behalf of the victim.
My point was that eventually a child is no longer a child and may choose even years later to seek restitution from their aggressor. Further, it is precisely this fact that a child (or mentally handicapped individual) may be heavily influenced and aided by third parties (who may even take it upon themselves to forcefully remove a child from an abusive situation) and may easily be convinced of the invalidity of the consent they originally gave that creates the risk one faces when (and is the disincentive towards) entering into “consensual” relationships with such individuals of dubious mental capacity. The very fact that “a child can be groomed to say almost anything” is strong evidence in and of itself that the child in question was not in position to give valid consent. It is still, however, up to the victim or their voluntarily contracted agent to prove to a court or protection agency that the alleged action occurred and that consent was indeed invalid due to the state of mind of the victim.
That’s not at all what I’m saying. You’re perfectly entitled to go after the perpetrator, on your own behalf for the costs you’ve incurred and on behalf of your child, provided your child’s willingness to accuse the perpetrator of aggression. If your child declares that he/she was not really molested and that they were fully consenting, only then are you not entitled to go after the perpetrator. The choice to put your child out of your house as a result of his/her action is totally your own and irrelevant to the question.
A brothel could do any of these things, but at grave risk of prosecution against them. Any of their customers could take the initiative and choose to “save” (kidnap) such a victimized woman. Provided the woman is willing to accept the assistance offered to her, the brothel owner most certainly could be held responsible. But again, anyone choosing to “save” such a woman must be willing to be held responsible for forceable abduction should the woman, despite her incapacity, still declare that she was consenting to whatever activity was committed against her.
You may be right that in the extreme case that a victim is so totally incapacitated as to not be able to express any opinion in the matter, a third party may be in a legitimate position to declare themselves as the agent of the individual. Even so, yet another party would possibly be equally in position to challenge this claim. This particular extreme case is, I think, open for further debate…
My point was that you can and should initiate force in defense of someone you think is being victimized, based on whatever criteria you should decide; however, you must be judicious and willing to face responsibility to the victim for your action. Anyone is entitled to take justice into their own hands provided they are willing to be held responsible.
You’re REALLY overestimating the mental capacity of a one-year-old molestation victim. A predator can, and usually does, teach his victim either (1) to beg for it, or (2) to believe it’s deserved.
What’s shining through your post is a sense that incapacitation is a binary quantity. An independent adult is regarded as “fully capacitated,” and a newborn is “fully incapacitated,” but somewhere in between you believe that a switch is thrown, and the child passes from one state to the other? That just ain’t so. It sounds rather like, and is just as wildly false as, the old notion that a child is a miniature adult. There are degrees of incapacitation, and degrees of maturity. Cheese whiz, man! I hate psychobabble as much as the next guy, but while we’re building a libertarian legal theory here, we shouldn’t cultivate total ignorance of things like child development as if it were a virtue.
–Len
I would expect that anyone who rendered their partner in a consensual act incapable of giving testimony in such a fashion would have the burden of proof of that consent, and that the evident damage would be sufficient to substantiate an accusation from a third party, regardless of the ages involved.
But you’re really starting to reach for the extreme situations to make your point here.
Um… my first wife damaged me, both materially and psychologically. I cannot claim that I did not consent to marry her. My mistake.
(A word that this editor apparently won’t allow) occurs. Every human interaction carries risks, not all of them forseeable. It’d be lovely if that were not so, but it is so - and “I was hurt” is a feeble accusation to make in matters of the heart, unless non-consent can be shown, through fraud or coercion. If non-consent can be shown, then the age matters not - it’s rape.
Yes, a child (or an adult, for that matter) can be groomed to say almost anything, given enough time for the grooming. This argument could be used to invalidate anyone’s testimony. I would expect the burden of proof to rest upon the person claiming that the testimony was interfered with, just as the burden of proof in a perjury accusation rests with the accuser.
One wonders why you would expect an abused child to willingly seek out shelter with their abuser. In a custodial relationship, there are other factors that come into play, conflating the issues - but in a non-custodial relationship, they’re remarkably minimal - so your assumption that the child would seek shelter with the ‘abuser’ implies that you posit the idea that the ‘child’ may actually be consenting - but not really, because you know what’s better for them, and you know more, and your wishes for their attitudes should trump their will.
FWIW, if someone molests your child, and they’re harmed to the point of needing tens of thousands of dollars in therapy, they’re remarkably unlikely to claim that it was consensual.
Those who are comatose, or whose relationship with reality is obviously dysfunctional, (would that include Hillary fans?) clearly cannot consent. If your child, in the years before they’re ready to move out of your house (or at any time, for that matter), fits either description, you have my sympathies (once I’ve been assured that you’re not the cause of such a state of health).
But this thread isn’t about “The right to have sex - at what state of health?”. My assumption has been that the person having sex is aware of their surroundings, able to communicate reasonably clearly, and believes that they have the capacity to decide whether they want to or not, regardless of your opinion on the matter. That you keep bringing up examples that do not fit those criteria is leading me to believe that you’re dodging the question because of a deeply-held emotional belief that you can’t put forth rationale for.
To use one of the more extreme examples that gives people nighmares, the 6-yo girl is possibly making an unwise decision when she lets the nice stranger look inside her undies in exchange for a candy bar - but I may be making an unwise decision if I meet an attractive, 50-yo redhead at the bar tonight and go off with her for sex, too. At what point do we get to change our minds retroactively, and claim that our consent was invalid, even if we gave it freely at the time? At what point can someone else claim that we’re incapable of giving or withholding consent?
Danno
No sane and healthy person takes drugs. If somebody takes drugs that’s a sign of lack of mental development, or a sign of mental damage, or mental illness - wich means that drug users can’t form consent. So drug ‘dealers’ are commiting a crime similar to rape when they sell drugs to their clients - not clients, victims actually. So, drug dealers are fair game - they can be shot in “self-defense”.
I’ll sit back, sip my gin and tonic, light a cigarette, and point out that your point wasn’t immediately evident - I had to think about it for a minute. Maybe it’s just me - it has been a long day. Then again, in my corner of the world, “addiction” is now officially a disease for which I cannot be held responsible (I swear, yerHonor - I’m a victim of the Tanqueray bottlers and Reynolds tobacco company!) - so your point may be lost on some.
Maybe I should bring charges up against Mary - we had an ugly breakup, and now I’m not so sure that I’d consented to the sex she inflicted on me. It’d serve her right, y’know?
Danno
Not if you read carefully what my point is. It’s a rigorous proof (in the mathematical sense) that one can be convicted of a crime without an accusation from the vicitm. No more, no less.
Child psychology in general, and sexual abuse in particular, has a massive body of literature–none of which you can possibly have read, and still make that statement. Some 80% of molesters prey on children who know and trust them, and the result is often the sexualization of the child, including acting out sexually. The child internalizes and rationalizes the abuse. The precise problem IS that the child comes away with a pathological concept of sexuality, and often doesn’t realize he has a problem–until many years later, when adulthood exposes his dysfunction in relationships and, in many cases, replication of the abuse he himself experienced.
In short, the effect of the abuse is to render the child mentally ill, and one of the primary symptoms is an inability to understand his abuse for what it is. This is milder than placing him in a coma, or rendering him insane enough for an institution, but the difference is in degree rather than kind. His ability to give testimony is damaged as a direct result of the aggression he experienced.
Which brings us back to the caretaker. There are traumas that can do the same thing to adults. However, an independent adult in such situations is unlikely to seek help until the consequences of her psychological damage become intolerable. That’s the way the cookie crumbles, in our present society OR in a free society. If she can feed and clothe herself, and poses no danger to others, she will get no help except what she asks for, and no action will be taken against aggressors against her unless she initiates it. This is one of the more unpleasant parts of reality, which is why statists dream of a nanny government that can save such victims from themselves. It can’t happen, short of divine intervention.
Children and other dependents, however, do happen to have an advocate. They are not completely free agents; if they attempted to live as free agents, they would die. And so long as they are dependent on others, their support comes with strings attached. No libertarian thinker, even the mighty Rothbard, has incorporated them cleanly into the theory of liberty, so we’re in essentially uncharted waters. I’ve suggested analogies to contractual relationships, but that’s barely scratching the surface of the topic.
One thing we can be sure of. The notion that newborns can enter into sexual relationships with NAMBLA members is idiotic beyond belief. A complete theory of liberty, if one is ever completed, will not involve such a conclusion. It will find a way to fit dependents into libertarian law in a way that respects reality. Pretending that all homo sapiens, regardless of condition or circumstance, are adult free agents, is simply ludicrous.
–Len
If they’re incapacitated and unable to give testimony, which has nothing to do with “says they gave consent” - which is what I thought we were talkin’ about here.
Odd - I guess I’ll have to toss out the literature on my shelf - I must have merely imagined myself reading it. Come to think of it, didn’t I offer a cite from one of them in this thread? I’m really not uninformed, and there really is serious research that says (as politically incorrect as it may seem) that not all sex is damaging to people who are under the current “age of consent” - or, necessarily, pre-pubescent. Not even the sex with notable differences in age. Coerced or forced sex is almost always traumatic - but only almost always, and that’s not what we were talking about here.
There is, indeed, a large body of “research”, feminist-PC in tone, which claims the view you mention here. Among therapists eager to cash in on the “hidden abuse” boom in therapy, and those with an anti-sex axe to grind, it’s pretty popular. Very few sexologists take it very seriously.
There is even a published theory (though it claims to be fact) that states that any penetrative sex is inherently abusive - but very few take it seriously.
This does not, however, address the question - when does a person have the right to choose for themselves? Must they be self-supporting? Must they be post-pubescent? Must they have X level of verbal skill? Until you quantify this in some way, you’re just duckin’ the question.
Ahh - the “you may think you’re having fun, but you’re not having fun at all” theory of psychiatry. I hold that in the same high regard that I hold the “you may think you own that, but you’re merely the steward of it, it belongs to society at large” theory of economics.
You do, uncharacteristically, seem to be able to take this rationale for the need for a nanny state quite seriously. I suppose I’ll be a jerk and ask - are you familiar with the Reality Therapy school - Glasser’s work? Do you consider it valid, or relevant to this theory? Or were you just funnin’ us about your expertise in this field?
Just in case it wasn’t clear, I’m not going to mourn for the poor people whom we can’t help, merely because they don’t want help. I’d prefer to respect their wishes and leave them in peace, as cold and heartless as that may sound.
Not exactly uncharted territory - some parents actually allow their dependent minors as much freedom as they’d like - as long as they’re willing to accept the responsibilities that go with that freedom. It’s entirely likely that nobody’s come up with a concise, workable plan that nobody can argue with, but it’s not unexplored.
This is, however, still a side issue - you seem to be trying very hard to justify your stance on the original question, without deigning to answer that question clearly.
The idea that more than a fraction of a percent of them would want to is just as idiotic - that straw man won’t work. People who are erotically attracted to infants are rare - to newborns, vanishingly rare. Nor has anyone here inferred that a newborn would be aware enough of their surroundings to give consent. To equate a newborn to a 14-yo person is just as absurd, in any sense.
NAMBLA’s literature (if you can find it - they’re not PC) clearly addresses love between adults and self-identified homosexual, pubescent boys - nowhere near the “newborn” you use as an example. Surely you can come up with a better straw man than that.
Okay - it’s a bit sideways, but you finally infer your answer - they should not be allowed to consent to sexual activity until they’re fully adults.
I can only assume that you’re focusing so heavily on extreme examples (killed, traumatized into catatonia, newborn) to avoid being asked to justify such a stance - so I won’t ask you to.
Is there anyone else who would care to discuss the actual issue?
Danno
Again from the top: it was suggested that one can’t be charged with a crime of aggression unless the victim testifies to that effect. I proved that that is not always true. Once we’ve established that, we can talk about when it is and when it isn’t. But we’ve disposed once and for all of the assertion that a crime can’t be charged without an accusation from the victim. Sometimes it can. This is not at all difficult to grasp.
Have you any experience whatsoever with abused children?
I did assert that you appear completely ignorant of the field, but I never claimed expertise. That would be an appeal to authority, which is invalid anyway. If I had first-hand experience of child sexual abuse, I wouldn’t tell you: it’s none of your business; and some on this thread would treat the information disrespectfully.
You aren’t reading carefully, then. I’ve already conceded that exceptional eight-year-olds might exist who are ready to marry and settle down. What I’ve been saying to you for some time now, and you seem to completely be missing, is that competence is a continuum. Between a comatose individual and an awake, aware, well-adjusted adult with a genius IQ there is a freaking continuum. Between the same well-adjusted genius adult and a hopelessly insane individual there is a freaking continuum. Between a newborn and a thirty-year-old blushing bride there is a freaking continuum.
Folks on this thread, like Juan, are doing what most libertarians do: ignoring the disabled or partially disabled completely, and assuming that all humans are either completely comatose, or completely competent free-agents. There are degrees of intelligence, sanity, maturity and competence. I’ve picked random points that are low on those scales, like “toddlers,” or “five year olds” or even “newborns” to reinforce that point, but it’s been so completely ignored so far that I’m more than a little frustrated. DO YOU GET IT?
There are also degrees of competence for adults, but any adult on its own and not dependent on anyone else is treated by convention as if he is a fully competent free agent. I support that fully, because I think it’s a worse evil to empower any paternalistic agent of force. I emphatically and specifically support the rights of stupid people, whackos and nutjobs of every description, including the crazy cat lady down the street and the weirdo one town over who weighs 300 pounds and wanders around town in a clown costume all day. (I think she’s on welfare, and that I don’t support. But assuming she’s living on inherited money or something, all is hunky dory.)
People too low on those scales to survive on their own, including dependents and wards of every description, be they mentally ill, mentally retarded, severely handicapped, children or whatever, are NOT completely free agents. No libertarian theory I’m aware of (including Rothbards) actually treats such people; they all ignore such people or, at best, pretend that they’re at least capable of negotiating the terms of their dependency. THE THEORY IS INCOMPLETE.
Treating them all like completely free agents, when they’re clearly not, is understandable under the circumstances, but dead wrong. Ludicously so, as anyone realizes who actually supports such wards and dependents.
That’s a rather insulting dismissal, but I’m discussing precisely the issue. “Age of consent” laws are stupid attempts to address the continuum of competence and maturity by converting it into a binary state: competent; incompetent. There are thirteen-year-olds who are ready to marry out there, and there are eighteen-year-olds who are still insufficiently competent dependents. The question doesn’t belong with any agent of force; it belongs with the interested parties and involves a negotiation of the child, the would-be paramour and the guardians and other interested parties. The interesting, unsolved questions of libertarian law revolve around defining the criteria by which guardians have standing, and the limits of their authority, given that the child’s testimony can vary between completely unavailable (newborns, say) through wildly unreliable (one-year-olds, say) through perfectly reliable (a mature adult ready to move out on his own, well adjusted with at least average IQ, say). THERE IS A CONTINUUM.
–Len
(The display in the ‘Preview’ section of the reply javascript is not properly displaying nested quote boxes, and I can’t find the cause - they look fine in the editor window of the ‘Compose’ tab. I’m hoping that this display issue is a flaw on my end, and will display correctly on Mises - if not, I apologize in advance if the following is confusing. I tried, but failed. If you see double-boxed quotes below the phrase “don sails”, please read the paragraph following them as being within the outside box of the double boxes.)
One last shot, I suppose…
Not only easy to grasp, but a remarkably tangential side point that nobody’s disputing. What you have not demonstrated is why this is relevant to the topic under discussion, which would be situations in which someone has (and can, assumedly, testify that they have) given consent.
I don’t recall anyone asking whether sexual activity with someone who could not consent should be considered aggression, or anyone contending that it should not be - you’re tilting at a windmill here, and I’m getting quite bored with being invited to don sails.
If you think that’s an effective or relevant answer to the point I raised (mostly in the part that you cut out), then this demonstrates the futility of my continuing this conversation with you.
Not that it’s any of your business, or even particularly relevant to the question at hand, but I’ll answer this side issue question, just for completeness - I’d hate to appear as if I were ignoring questions because I had no good answer. I have no clinical experience (I’m not a licensed therapist, nor qualified to be one), some tangential social experience, fairly extensive social experience with adult survivors of childhood sexual activity (consensual and otherwise), and a fairly solid (for a layman) level of study in the university-level literature, though it was tangential to my primary focus in the genre.
What has that to do with the point I was trying to make there - in the part you declined to quote or answer? You may think you’re being effective in making a point when you ignore the questions, or edit quotes to obscure points being made - but it’s not as effective or convincing as you seem to think it is.
In order: yes indeed, not exactly, close to true, true but immaterial.
You have, indeed, repeatedly and insultingly claimed that I must be totally ignorant of the field, totally ignoring indications to the contrary.
By citing the " a massive body of literature–none of which you can possibly have read", you imply that you have read at least some of it - and have some familiarity with the field. I’ve implied the same, long ago, by citing some such works. No, neither of us has claimed expertise, and I’ll have to admit to a cheap shot (in the part you deleted), where I fished for an indication of how well-read you are in the field.
That isn’t exactly an appeal to authority, but it’s close - but that is not always invalid. For example, if someone here says “Rothbard showed …”, it’ll carry some weight - it won’t necessarily be definitive, or a proof in and of itself, but it’ll carry some weight - it’s not totally without validity. (If it didn’t carry some weight, every discussion would require that everyone ignore the work that’s already been done, and re-invent the wheel for themselves - terribly inefficient.)
Your entirely correct, it’d be nobody else’s business - but that’s immaterial, being as nobody has asked you that question.
Okay - you imply here that exceptional 8-yos may be prepared to marry and settle down - but nobody asked about how to determine someone’s ability (and thus, right) to attempt marriage, which is usually viewed as contractual. Are you equating a readiness for sexual experience with a readiness for marriage? (I’d expect that the one would be a needful prerequisite for the other, but it has not always been viewed as such). Or are you, yet again, sidestepping the question by focusing on extremes?
Yes, we get it - nobody’s disputed it, and I’ve alluded to it myself, repeatedly. It’s not the topic I’ve been trying to discuss, though it is relevant - it’s just so obvious, one wonders why you’re striving so hard to demonstrate that it gets dark at night on an overcast night if there isn’t any other light source. By focusing on the extreme low end of that scale, you’ve (apparently successfully) derailed this conversation, well away from the original point, without ever giving a clear answer to the original question yourself.
Fine - if you don’t want to answer the question, find a topic you do want to discuss. If what you want to discuss is how awful it is when sexual activity is forced upon the unwilling or those who cannot understand the consequences, be my guest - but I, at least, was trying to discuss something else.
If you can point to, or quote, where someone besides you asked “The right to have sex with mentally ill, severely handicapped children - at what age?”, I’ll stand corrected. Else, I’ll leave you to your straw men - have a blast raising them and knocking them down.
Yes, it was - but no, you weren’t.
And, by focusing solely and repeatedly on the extreme ends of that continuum, ignoring any points or questions you had no answers for, you have effectively blocked discussion of the middle, gray areas - where I’d hoped to find an interesting discussion.
A shame, really.
Danno
(deleted–dang-ol’ busted editing interface)