To clarify: this applies to agreements *between them*; as in they can't agree to go involve a third party nonconsensually, such as robbing a gas station.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Sound mind ?
End of conversation
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
-
-
You should define terms for polls like these since the results hinge upon the meaning much more than other questions.
-
I read "two adults" as "an adult party and an adult counterparty", which I think gets rid of the confusion about two people agreeing to rob a store (as the store-owning counterparty is not included in the statement).
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
All depends what they are agreeing on
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Okay, so we’re both agreed, we’re going to kill Dave.”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I only realised after voting that I interpreted "should be able to" as "are capable of" — i.e. Aumann's agreement theorem. Now I'm realising you probably meant it as "should be legally/socially allow to", which is different.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.