Is it unacceptable for two questions that aren't equivalent to each other to be both discussed within a single thread?

I was trying to spark a discussion. I began with separate questions, and I counted at least one question that seemed to be fairly clear as written.

If my impression was wrong, and none of them is clear as written, then I would certainly not expect anybody to know the one and only thing that I meant to say or ask. When writing is unclear, it might be difficult to generate even one guess as to what was meant, but how can a person who is reading it and trying to understand it know that there aren't many possibilities that have simply not yet occurred that person?

Somebody might decide to respond to the Original Post of a thread, and resolve to implement that decision, but I don't see why anybody would feel obligated to respond to all the questions in the Original Message. Why not pick one? For example, why not pick the clearest one?

Too funny

A little something to knock the stun off.

Why, the next thing you know, teenagers will be walking around gated communities with deadly assault Skittles.

They have too much refined sugar. However, I appreciate your insight in seeing a connection with current newsworthy events.

Of course, candy doesn't really qualify as food. However, fruit, even though it's sweet and tasty, is nutritious enough to be considered food. It can also be used as a weapon. See the video below for details.

Monty Python - Self-Defense Against Fruit

Food is necessary to live. Sex isn't.

How would you respond to the idea of making it legal for somebody who will soon die without a kidney transplant to buy a kidney from somebody who has two and is willing to sell one? By assumption, the kidney is necessary to live.

Some people say that if an interaction between consenting adults is legal when no money is involved, then it should also be legal when money is involved. They often wish to apply that principle to sex between adults and conclude that prostitution should be legal. However, couldn't the same principle allow one to reach the conclusion that it should be legal to buy a kidney? It's legal to receive a kidney when no money is involved. It's also legal for two 15-year-olds to have sex with each other when no money is involved. What if one of them is willing to pay the other for sex? Other 15-year-olds may hear about the transaction and decide that the price is a bargain. Soon there could be a successful 15-year-old capitalist (prostitute).

Also, I should mention that although you are right when you point out that people need to consume food, it's sometimes possible for people to obtain food without buying it. For example, they can grow it themselves, or they can do hunting and gathering.

What if children who didn't want to go to school had the option of working on a farm and not going to school? As they grow older, they might decide to study voluntarily, even after they are old enough that they don't have to choose between school and farm work. In the meantime, the food grown on American farms would be planted and harvested by Americans.

It cannot be with a credit card or check, since a minor cannot enter into an enforceable contract.

Are the terms of the contract not enforceable merely because cash was used as the method of payment?

A minor (usually, a person under 18 years of age) who makes a contract can rescind or void it, with one general exception. A minor contracting for "necessities" is bound to pay for their reasonable value. A "necessity" can be food or shelter but, depending upon the law of the particular state, it may also include cars or other items. A minor who rescinds a contract gets back whatever the other party received from the minor.

http://contracts.lawyers.com/contracts/Contract-Basics.html

Since the sale involved warranties and follow-up maintenance, etc., the bike shop wanted to do the deal with an adult.

necessities.