1.“Federal agencies have the authority to intervene in protests, picket signs, or blockades. The law is impartial: it must be enforced without exception.”
2.“Federal forces are not required to have judicial oversight for their actions.”
3.“Forces are not obligated to consider alternative entrances or pathways. If the main path is blocked, their duty is to clear it.”
4.“This action continues until the flow of traffic is fully restored.”
5.“To carry out these acts, forces will use the minimum necessary force, which is sufficient and proportional to the situation they are addressing.”
6.“Instigators and organizers of the protest will be identified.”
7.“Vehicles used in the protest will be identified and subjected to citations or penalties.”
8.“Data of the instigators, accomplices, participants, and organizers will be transmitted to the authorities through appropriate channels.”
9.“Notices will be sent to the judge in cases of damage, such as burning flags.”
10.“In cases involving minors, relevant authorities will be notified, and the guardians of these youths who bring them to these demonstrations will face sanctions and punishment.”
11.“The costs incurred by security operations will be borne by the responsible organizations or individuals. In cases involving foreigners with provisional residency, information will be forwarded to the National Directorate of Immigration.”
12.“A registry will be created for organizations that participate in these types of actions.”
You continue to treat these two as mutually exclusive. Ask me how I can say you’ve never designed a working thing in your life.
Your comment about me somehow contradicting myself doesn’t make sense, because those statements do not contradict each other. Is that clearer?
They do contradict each other if your initial argument was “My statement was a joke” and you answered that question with a serious reply.
Unless…did you mean that the only thing that was a joke in your statement was equating copyright with the age of consent, and you’re in fact totally fine with libertarians being “split on the issue of the age of consent”? Because holy shit.
Of course they are, they’re an earnest fuckin lolbertarian
Probably also believe in the ‘complex nature of the debate’ around driver’s licenses and libraries
Honestly, they come off as a naive clown trying to hold it together, they’re far too eager and in depth on some of their replies, and they believe in the ‘virtuosity of the conversation’ around those items, ignoring that the frothing fash parts of their little ingroup which just hate minorities, poor people, and want to fuck kids
ed: nevermind, saw their comments on taxation and benefits, they need to be ran thru a woodchipper feet first
i just thought of something, whenever someone says something is complicated or, shudders nuanced, i think they are sorta thinking about the concept of infinite regress.
like you can go to an arbitrary depth on maybe anything, whether it is productive or not does not i think really change whether a person can state their opinion or not.
it’s almost like the folks who do not answer and speak the discussion indirectly are metagaming, they wanna have their cake and eat it too
Fuck off and die you freak loser