1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
BlackZzzverrR [31]
3 years ago
14

Should people have to agree with their government laws and leader?

History
2 answers:
mylen [45]3 years ago
8 0

Answer:yes

Explanation:

-BARSIC- [3]3 years ago
7 0

Yes they should. Hope this helps
You might be interested in
Which factor most unified western europe during the middle ages
marissa [1.9K]

Answer:

After the collapse of the western Roman Empire, the main unifying force in Europe was the Catholic Church

Explanation:

8 0
2 years ago
I WILL GIVE BRAINLEIST! Which slave market was probably the main source from which slaveholders in Arkansas purchased slaves?
charle [14.2K]

Answer:

Hi

Explanation:

Memphis is the answer

8 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
(IN THE CONTEXT OF CHRISTIANITY) the artwork below symbolizes that:
Novay_Z [31]

Answer:

correct

Explanation:

3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which of following is not true of the Treaty of Paris 1783
levacccp [35]

can you list the possible answer choices

8 0
3 years ago
4. Which is NOT a tip provided in the article for having
Mnenie [13.5K]

Answer:

The correct answer is D. It is not correct to try to convince the other person to agree with you when having a meaningful political conversation.

Explanation:

When talking about political issues, they often deal with controversial issues that can turn friendly talk into heated discussion. Therefore, as a way to prevent this, there are certain guidelines that must be taken into account.

Thus, not shouting, speaking personally and contemplating the opinion of the other party are fundamental criteria when it comes to having a serious and friendly political debate. In this way, cordiality regulates the content of the talk, and the acceptance of the thought different from the other (without the need to share it) gives legitimacy to the idea of the other person.

On the other hand, if in the conversation one of the parties tries to convince the other of its ideology, the conversation will most likely fail. This is so because when trying to convince, the other person's belief or conviction is discredited, a question that many people can take as a personal insult. Therefore, it is totally inadvisable to carry out this type of actions.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What did the Proclamation of 1763 do?
    13·2 answers
  • How did Spartan government differ from Athenian government?
    6·2 answers
  • Describe the opposing points of view expressed about federalism in the early years of the united states 1776-1862
    8·1 answer
  • In this forum, respond to the following questions: how did the two recording technologies change the approach of the 1966 4-trac
    7·1 answer
  • I need some help please and thank you!!
    15·1 answer
  • For the United States, how was "New Imperialism" different from Manifest Destiny?
    7·2 answers
  • Answer this question for my Military school.
    15·1 answer
  • How england became a developed nation after the industrial revolution
    7·1 answer
  • How did President Obama change the country's approach to the War on Terror?
    14·1 answer
  • Who controlled the budget in the roman empire
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!