Message from @Anastasia

Discord ID: 630306234242957342


2019-10-06 07:26:54 UTC  

@T3CHN01200 make this quicker

2019-10-06 07:27:05 UTC  

That's because it is an assumption of acceptance.

2019-10-06 07:27:22 UTC  

@Anastasia that does not make the implicit consent itself coercive

2019-10-06 07:27:28 UTC  

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

2019-10-06 07:27:49 UTC  

You legit clicked a checkbox that said that you agree to TOS

2019-10-06 07:28:01 UTC  

You can’t prove that moron

2019-10-06 07:28:06 UTC  

Jesus fucking Christ

2019-10-06 07:28:12 UTC  

A person cannot agree to anything they don't understand explicitly. It would be a fraudulent contract.

2019-10-06 07:28:30 UTC  

@Anastasia holding someone to implicit consent is not itself implicit consent

2019-10-06 07:28:33 UTC  

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

2019-10-06 07:28:38 UTC  

There is no binding contract with implicit consent.

2019-10-06 07:28:59 UTC  

Correct, such does not make implicit consent coercive

2019-10-06 07:29:07 UTC  

They cannot enforce the non binding contract without using an involuntary hierarchy.

2019-10-06 07:29:13 UTC  

Also correct

2019-10-06 07:29:15 UTC  

But again

2019-10-06 07:29:25 UTC  

The enforcement != the implicit consent

2019-10-06 07:29:38 UTC  

Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive

2019-10-06 07:30:14 UTC  

Implicit consent is by it's very nature coercive because it can't be enforced. To claim that it is a contract is the coercion.

2019-10-06 07:30:29 UTC  

Unenforceability is coercion?

2019-10-06 07:30:36 UTC  

Is that your argument?

2019-10-06 07:31:56 UTC  

Because if the one trying to enforce the contract, is using a nullity, the very thought of it being an enforceable contract is coercion.

2019-10-06 07:32:13 UTC  

Is unenforceability grounds to classify a thing as coercive?

2019-10-06 07:33:03 UTC  

Illegitimate enforcement is grounds to classify a thing as coercive.

2019-10-06 07:33:22 UTC  

Agreed, but again, implicit consent is not the enforcement thereof

2019-10-06 07:33:29 UTC  

Will you admit this or not?

2019-10-06 07:34:00 UTC  

Unenforceability means no there is no contract.

2019-10-06 07:34:17 UTC  

Will you admit or not?

2019-10-06 07:36:12 UTC  

To what? That implied consent isn't a contract? Yes. Implied consent also implies enforcement to a statist. (One that uses might makes right)
Implied consent IS enforcement.

2019-10-06 07:36:28 UTC  

That implication is incorrect

2019-10-06 07:36:31 UTC  

I reject it

2019-10-06 07:36:43 UTC  

Please explain.

2019-10-06 07:37:26 UTC  

I reject that implicit consent confers enforcement, and unless you consider yourself a statist by your logic, I presume you agree

2019-10-06 07:37:42 UTC  

Ergo I believe you’ve called your own arguments herein irrelevant

2019-10-06 07:38:00 UTC  

Because you agree that implicit consent is not the enforcement thereof

2019-10-06 07:38:12 UTC  

Ergo implicit consent is not coercive

2019-10-06 07:38:15 UTC  

Why do you reject it?

2019-10-06 07:38:21 UTC  

Because it is incorrect

2019-10-06 07:38:37 UTC  

Explain your claim.

2019-10-06 07:38:57 UTC  

Implicit consent does not necessarily beget enforcement

2019-10-06 07:39:06 UTC  

Consider the case of the man kissing his wife

2019-10-06 07:39:31 UTC  

I'm not talking about men and women. I am talking about discord.