- Mar 11, 2009
- 1,776 (0.33/day)
- Little Rock, AR
|Processor||AMD Ryzen 3700x|
|Motherboard||AsRock B550 Phantom Gaming ITX/AX|
|Video Card(s)||ASRock Radeon RX 6800 XT Phantom Gaming D|
|Case||Phanteks Eclipse P200A D-RGB|
|Power Supply||800w CM|
|Mouse||Corsair M65 Pro|
|Software||Windows 10 Pro|
Please point out in my post where I told you to stop talking about it? Or any post in this thread for that matter.
I also don't have a side. I'm just here playing the game like everyone else. Also, this is not my philosophy. I am merely giving the reality and what you can do about it. Our philosophies are not that far off from each other.
Take a chill pill.
I think this conversation went somewhere it didn't need. You're free to respond but I wouldn't expect a response from me.
A "dog whistle" is when you say something, but there is a hidden meaning or agenda. By saying we should "agree to disagree" you are essentially signaling that you no longer wish to talk to about it. Seeing as how this specific branch of the conversation began with your reply to me, you have joined into the conversation. So telling me to agree to disagree is a dog whistle for "shut up about it." You may not mean it that way, but it effectively is. Also, continually saying that this is off topic or "this conversation went somewhere it shouldn't".... More dog whistling. You're saying, without saying it explicitly , that I should stop talking.
Moreover, as I said, we cannot "agree to disagree" when your philosophy warrants that you should have dominion over me. Agree to disagree implies that we leave each other alone. But the collective (I won't use "you" anymore, because apparently you deny it) will continue to force their laws and regulation upon me, regardless of whether I've done anything to harm them. So there is no "agree to disagree" here.
You say that it isn't your philosophy, but you said outright that we disagree on whether "electing officials to create laws and regulations doesn't actually grant the elected officials the power to create laws and regulations. " That's the philosophy. And yea sure, you're merely giving the reality on what you can do about it. I understand that. I understand that your three choices are, indeed, reality. That's not the point. The point is that by the very nature of those three choices, the collectivists are threatening violence as the alternative. That's my only point here... If you have to threaten violence to maintain your agenda, your authority is not legitimate.