If we disagree on something very important and consequential to us, like you think my house belongs to you, I would request the government to remove you against your will.
You want others think like you, you have to persuade them in a non violent way.
Post by twetch#4245
I'm not the one arguing for violence, you are
How about your cult having to persuade others to join instead of using violence?
See the inconsistency?
Why can your cult force people, violating their individual rights?
How to get that special privilege?
What the chain says
- Block
- 662 131
- Time
- 2020-11-20T16:42:45Z
- Signer
- 1GwecezoL8jciHU2Ysyupxrnv18JMGAV6R
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#4245
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
1GwecezoL8jciHU2Ysyupxrnv18JMGAV6R VerifiedReplies (7)
I am not and I am not saying you are. This is pointless, i hope you wise up.
Cheers
There's a limit for how long you can avoid a simple question without making it obvious that you have no answer (that fits in your ideology).
Obviously you don't owe me an answer,
but maybe you owe it to yourself...
Live and let live!
Say no to violence!
Ok, so don't avoid this question:
A guy with a gun occupies your house and refuses to leave after logical argument. How do you handle this without the government or violence?
After avoiding all questions you now prefer to go back to asking?
I own my body ->
I own the product of my labor and contracts
S.o. occupying my house IS violence.
Removing them is self defense, whether alone or via an org. protecting rights.
Now you.
Rule 1: Assess the situation
Rule 2: Apply Blame
Rule 3: Dont let the blamee hear about you blaming them
Rule 4: Make a suggestion but don't own up to it in case it sucks
Rule 4: Take well deserved nap
and lastly
rule 5: Ignore existence of dilemma and it shall go away