"You have yet to prove that implicit consent is necessarily coercive"
Sure did. Wow.

Drunk?

That’s a quote, but beforehand you did not do so

How slow are you?

The impossibility to prove implicit consent does not make it coercive

This is cute, you're both such incredibly toxic human beings, I wouldn't be surprised if you hook up at some point

"You just quoted my challenge?"
Then....."That’s not a quote"
Then......"I never said that"
Hmmmmm.....

Read it very slowly

I will give you one chance here to tabula rasa

Can you opt-out of implied consent?

No, but such does not make it coercive.

You seem to conflate the actions taken *because of* implicit consent with the action itself

Such is incorrect

But that's social contract. You're using the thing so must agree to the rules. That's an assumption and cannot be backed by factual evidence. And since I didnt have to agree to any terms to enter into a server or discord, to enact new or unknown rules after entering is coercive.

It's a public forum.

Social contract is the *outcome*, as are the actions taken under the name of

Not an apartment.

You are conflating the actions caused by with the origin

Such is fallacious

Believing in social contract is what makes statism exist. Plus, its unprovable.

If I murder a man under the name of god, that does not make god a murderer

Show me where I consented.

Do you understand?

Murder isn't discord.

Discord isn't murder.

@Anastasia and?

I prefer to stick to the facts at hand.

Unless were talking about murder, I see no reason to talk about murder.

If you fail to understand my point then I can restate it

Unless your point has something to do with discord, I don't see the relevance.

Subject matter, and all that.

It is fallacious to conflate the very idea of or actions of implicit consent *itself* with the bindings of the state or other similar actions taken under the guise of legitimacy via implicit consent

Yet you're trying to conflate murder with discord. But that's collateral

Do you understand why I hold such a posit?

Implicit consent is what statists use to exert coercion over people.

But, implicit consent is an assumption that one agrees to the rules.

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

It is impossible to prove factually

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