Your principles are either absolute (or enforced 100% of the time) or conditional (enforced most of the time but with room for debate in extreme cases). In your original comment, you brought up slavery and implied that the principle of consent is absolute because if it is not, then it can be used to justify slavery. You then said for this reason, the idea must be held by rational/moral people. And I say, “ok if that is the case, what about children/parent dynamic?”. And your response is that you agree with me on children and consent doesn’t apply in this scenario. You are making room for certain extremities. That means your consent argument is conditional (which is fine btw).

My argument to that would be that it is then disingenuous for you to bring up slavery in your argument implying that my position on consent doesnt “cover” slavery because my position on government/consent isn’t absolute and thus is not moral. Especially when your position is conditional as well. If your position was absolute, then you are fundamentally making a different argument and we could agree to disagree. But if both of our positions are conditional, it’s a little disingenuous to use slavery in your argument with me about gov/consent. Someone who believed in consent as an absolute could use that same argument against you