With regard to human rights, which are clearly the subject of fundamental differences (for example, abortion. B, gun control, same-sex marriage), they still agree that the government has nothing to do to infringe « my rights, » whatever my definition. And indeed, personality rights have continued to grow over time. If you doubt it, think about where and how you can decide to live, go to work, go to school, go to school, go out and get married, know what you say, publish, and where you can choose – and how easy it is to choose – and what you can buy. In almost all cases, you have more rights than you did 50 or 25 years ago. [:24] In this episode, I talk to Terrence Donnelly and Joshua Imel, co-founders of Teeps, a growing company here in Orlando, FL, that transforms business by mobile. I asked Terrence and Joshua to get into the show and tell their story, which fascinates me, because they really are a great example of how a co-founding team did NOT allow people to end their business. They tell how they were in a group and that they traveled the country together, JOSHUA: It was interesting. We had long hair. LAURA: Wow. Long hair.
Oh, really? How did I not see pictures of that? Well, they`re out there. Probably on Facebook or maybe Myspace. to do business together. We talk about how they had their different perspectives, their horizons and their philosophies in one point in regular arguments that they then found useless, TERRENCE: And I would say, « Okay, we have to move the team. » And he`d say, « Okay, we can`t push the crew away. » And we`d literally go back and forth for hours. [1:29] and how the way they communicated allowed them to move away from what I call the « violent agreement » to achieve true direction. And so, yes, it was a big change. And honestly, I don`t think we`ve had a real fight in four or six months. You`re also talking about a sustainable balance as a fundamental value, including for a start-up – huh? I know, it`s great, right? The way I am able to quantify what was going on around me when I was in a situation where it was not sustainable. For, and only observed, the damage it can cause to an organization.
Not just to the man, and especially to the people, who only realized while they were doing damage until it was too late. And how, by really listening to each other, they have contributed to each other`s growth and development as a leader and business owner. So let`s go, this is Teeps. I have heard that this term agrees or « I agree with the overall plan, but not with the details of the plan. » Please help me sort this out. So my peeps were in violent agreement — we all wanted to go into the tunnel — but couldn`t decide whether to take a taxi or take the subway. If they are so passionate about the fact that their path is right, that no one is moving forward, then they are in a violent agreement. It is not the last, but it is not quite the first. It is an idiom that describes a situation where two or more people aggressively try to make the same point to each other, but in different terms. All of a sudden you can realize yourself and say, « I think we are in that opinion. » It`s a game with the more literal idea of a violent dis chord (where people scream, come to blows or worse).