It is only your consent if you voted for the winner. If you don't vote at all you are consenting to whatever everyone else decides.
My distilled position on the entire Lindsey Clancy idiocy is that from now on, until proven otherwise, any given woman must be assumed to be insane.
Fine then vote for Deez Nutz. But not voting at all is the equivalent of throwing your hands up and saying "whatever".
Since the government is the ones that make the rules in this chunk of geography simply saying "I do not consent" is meaningless. If your truly feel that way then go live on some other chunk of geography. Problem is, as bad as our lot is, the rest are worse.
And BTW since we are told, by women, that their mental state can change without notice at any time, this is an assessment which must be constantly and continuously revisited.
Same reason we don't just execute all (fill in the blank)
Worth remembering what happened with the French Revolution. Sooner or later the "execute them all" ideology gets around to executing those that started the executions.
argumentum ad verecundiam - try harder
Even if the Rs win both houses, and the money was allocated, etc. etc. I most likely wouldn't see any of it.
Oh I don't know, maybe do some research?
It is hardly a lawless system, given they have made so many laws even they can't keep them all straight. I simply fundamentally disagree regarding what constitutes consent.
As for the Declaration of Independence I have read it , many times. I have also read the history surrounding it such as the fact that by the time the declaration was written and published the colonies had been in open armed revolt for more than a year. You should also look up what happened to the signers of the Declaration. Most did not fair well.
Okay, but are we talking Ron Jeremy size or Imane Khelif size? Details matter.
Often
Not a question of skill anon, simple financial reality.
I agree on many of your points, though I do note you have moved the goal posts in classic failed argument fashion.
The solution to the issues you raise is not to throw a temper tantrum, take you ball and go home, rather it is to work (as difficult a concept to grasp as that may be) to get others to join you in pushing for the issues to be resolved. There is no such thing as a perfect system regardless of what the Utopians would like everyone to believe, So saying that if things aren't to your liking you aren't going to play is a solution which only empowers the most radical elements which oppose you. Do you really think that by saying "I'm not going to participate" the gun grabbers are going to respond with "Oh, well then I guess we won't do it after all."?
wrong again., on both statements.
And if this were tic-tac-toe or some other occupation with a definitive end you would have a point. Neither is true in this reality. Nothing will be improved by simply it out and hoping for things to get better. I repeat the question you quoted. Is that what you think? Do you really think that is how they will respond? I don't.
I reiterate that we clearly disagree as to what constitutes consent, but for the sake of argument…
By "withdrawing consent" you achieve what exactly? What of their actions will change as a result? Unless you are going to go occupy some other bit of geography where their rules do not apply you have achieved nothing. You still live under the same system, their rules still govern your life, so what exactly have you achieved?
I don't blame them for being pessimistic, I do disagree with them.
What I do blame them for is giving up and then whining about the fact that things don't get better.
Gets back to the definition of consent. Your question assumes that I consent to such things as gun control etc. I don't. But I do live in the real world where at this point in time, in this particular bit of geography there is a certain faction, with a certain degree of power which endorses and promotes those policies with which I disagree. I do not consider disengagement to be a solution to that problem at this point. If those factions reached a point where I saw no potential to counter them then my response would be to vacate the region where they held sway.
Who is making the offer? What is the context? To save the life of my child?
Without the context and history which leads up to that point the question is meaningless.
Oh my, I'm crushed. My feelings are just devastated by your thoughtless and cruel action.
In case you missed it that was sarcasm
Again, I dispute your definition of consent.
If those in control truly don't care who a vote is cast for then why would they care about the far more intangible concept of whether or not you consent? Do you really think Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot spent even a moment considering whether or not anyone consented? The only people whose consent they consider is the consent of those who enforce their edicts.
Those individuals may consider the consent of the governed but only to the extent they can perceive it, which is effectuated by such things as voting.
Still wrong. You really need to get a new line of reasoning, so far you are batting almost zero.
My point is they don't even consider whether or not you consent. It never even enters their thought process.
I'm out.
Night anons.
Even the ones I disagree with.