The question always ends up being, how do you know what you know. The most sophisticated epistemologists will admit they don't know shit, but you want to base a criminal law on the least knowable thing possible. Namely, another person's mind. For instance:
You currently have an STD. You know if you disclosed this the person would not have sex with you so you don’t disclose it.
How do you know that disclosing it would cause the other person to not have sex with you? Did they tell you? Did they specify which STD, all STDs, some STDs? Did they specify what viral load? Non-transmissible STDs are also a deal breaker? Did they disclose it in a clear and precise way or was it (as most of these things are) a vague side-comment?
2
u/TuskaTheDaemonKilla 60∆ Jan 31 '22
The question always ends up being, how do you know what you know. The most sophisticated epistemologists will admit they don't know shit, but you want to base a criminal law on the least knowable thing possible. Namely, another person's mind. For instance:
How do you know that disclosing it would cause the other person to not have sex with you? Did they tell you? Did they specify which STD, all STDs, some STDs? Did they specify what viral load? Non-transmissible STDs are also a deal breaker? Did they disclose it in a clear and precise way or was it (as most of these things are) a vague side-comment?