My dear friend;
If I just read your response correctly, are are advocating for the idea that violence, non-performance and fraud is not grounds to invalidate a treaty, only because the bully will resort to more violence if we confront them on that fact. As such, those that have been violated by the bully should shut up or face the consequences of more violence.
This stand is, in itself, a violent and abusive position to take and violates the foundations of this debate forum. You are justifying the actions of the state and telling the other part to shut up. Not only that, but you are arguing that the only way to get out of the treaty is if both sides agree, which further traumatizes the victims of the abuse and violence and provides even more power and authority to the abuser.
This is an abhorrent and violent position to argue my friend. I am disqualifying you from the debate due to your violation of the spirit of this debate. I am also calling out the 21 individuals who voted for this argument and I question their own integrity regarding violence, bullying, coercion, fraud and non-performance.
Please I never wished to be misunderstood by my comment, Like I explained to @realtreebivvy my position is based on an ideal treaty/contraction situation, however your yesterday's post (https://steemit.com/ungrip/@wwf/the-day-treaty-six-died) gave a more detailed and clearer explanation of the situation which is very obvious that the so called treaty in question is dead long long ago.
Am not in support of violence, bullying, coercion, fraud or non-performance from whoever against any people or group in any manner.
I'm not convinced my friend. Even if you were speaking from an ideal treaty / contract situation, your position still held the fact that the violence would NOT invalidate the agreement and your argument also suggested that the other party had no power to do anything about it.
This position is similar to an abused spouse trying to leave a relationship and the abuser having power over them to prevent the separation.
EVERYONE has a veto and to suggest otherwise is coercive, violent and abusive. Your argument supported that no veto exists and for anybody who has been on the receiving end of a violent relationship, they most likely would have a visceral reaction to your statements. Your words have power and I suggest you think twice about how you use them.
To argue such a position is, in fact, in support of the abuser. So your comments are now incongruent.