Hacker News Reader

I do understand the concept. You have not changed my understanding with this description.

If I am suffering a delusion, and you know that, then you know that I am not mentally competent. You know that, if I agree to something, I do not correctly understand what I am agreeing to. Any expression of consent you extract from me is invalid.

View on HN

This seems extreme. You are consenting to be deluded, knowing everything that will come afterwards. And the consenting during as well

But you don't know everything that will come afterwards. You know what's planned.

The consent during cannot be valid. It's not informed: in fact it's specifically misled, and that is known to the other participant.

So you are saying there is no way for two willing, informed adults to consent to this happening?

Yes. That is what I'm saying. If consent needs to both informed and continuous, it's not possible. It's fundamentally broken.

Yes, that’s why you’d get consent before hand

Consent beforehand doesn't bind or imply consent during the act. If you're saying consent beforehand counts, you're saying that it's not possible for anything to happen that would cause me to change my mind if I was in a mentally competent state.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com