I'm allowed to argue opposite points.

No one said the opposite. You just need to define your ground. Either you support freezing stake or don't. Only accepting it when X is doing it is a bit weird.

Equating freezing the ninja mine

Run a node, and get your data straight. Because what you suggesting is pretty weird, people are throwing this ninja mine around without really knowing for sure. Once you get things clear up, don't try to dodge the facts by saying that there was a social contract once you get the proof that a lot of people you are supporting have sweet candies in their stomachs.

This is not DPOS, this is one account controlling everything.

• Pure DPOS = Your influence on the chain equals the amount of your stake and delegated stake. If you want more influence on the chain, you need to buy more stake and invest.

• DPOS + Feelings = Even if you played by the rules and bought a lot of Steem, you should not be able to influence the chain because my feeling could get hurt.

The network did not "come to consensus" to freeze those accounts.

Based on feelings or DPOS? Because things can change as I mentioned above.

All witnesses who did not agree with account freezing were immediately replaced.

If a witness does not reflect your vision, why should you keep voting for him?