Message from @unwoundtoast
Discord ID: 630304505065635850
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
And does not allow one to not agree 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
>Agrees to rules in order to make Discord account
>Gets banned from several servers for being an absolute twat
>***I'M BEING OPPRESSED***
@Phobia fuck off
No.
Let him have his fun @unwoundtoast
Why?
I'd recommend speaking to people here with a tad bit more respect
@Phobia I respect those I choose to respect
You are not one
Fuck yourself
So be it.
👍 👍 👍
The only way to enforce implicit rules is by coercion, simply because the one being involuntarily imposed upon didnt explicitly agree to rules.
@Anastasia the enforcement of implicit consent is not implicit consent itself
Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive
Time to order an inordinate number of dildos for toast to give to people when he wants them to go fuck themselves...
Please
Jeff Bezos will be happy
@T3CHN01200 make this quicker
That's because it is an assumption of acceptance.
@Anastasia that does not make the implicit consent itself coercive
Whether they use it to grant them legitimacy or not has no effect on whether implicit consent *itself* is or isn’t coercive
You legit clicked a checkbox that said that you agree to TOS
You can’t prove that moron
Jesus fucking Christ
A person cannot agree to anything they don't understand explicitly. It would be a fraudulent contract.
@Anastasia holding someone to implicit consent is not itself implicit consent