Schuylaar's Sesh - SCOTUS Upholds Public Prayer..

[Red1966]

You don't seem to enjoy my attention but you bought it, dude.

The heath care is not mandatory either. It is a tax, and you can pay the tax and ignore the benefit.

So you will punished if you do not participate. My, how you contort words and logic.

 

[NoDrama]

my wife's family came over from europe to escape the holocaust, nice try though.

Your wifes family came over from Europe to escape the holcaust? What does that have to do with the fact that they made all their money by exploiting blacks?

 

[Rob Roy]

[QUOTE="Rob Roy, post: 10496664, member: 10179You would go so far as to approve of harming an indifferent person.

you're the one in favor of harming people.

you defend the practice of denial of service to blacks who merely wanted to give business owners their money in exchange for goods and services.

every single historian everywhere agrees that caused harm, and you defend that causing of harm.[/QUOTE]


No, I'm in favor of leaving people alone if for some reason they do not want to engage with other people. That's indifference and while I may not agree with the reasons they do not wish to associate with others, it is not my place to make them. Nor is it yours
Meathead Stivic.


The actionable harm comes when people like you use force to make people that do not want to associate with others do as you would have them do with their property.

I defend the practice of minding my own business. I do not condone telling others what they must do with their own property. I do approve of defensive force. For instance if a racist Chinese person came to your house and wanted you to stop shitting on your floors, yet your floor shitting was not harming the Chinese person or committing an act of aggression against his property, you would be in a morally acceptable position to defend using your property as you see shit, I mean see fit.

The racial identity of the people is irrelevant. All people have a right to use their property as they see fit and not use the property of others in ways that the others do not wish them too.

You never address the point I make above. That's because you can't, as the logic is sound and you melt like a wicked witch when you get anywhere near a drop of logic. Have a great night, Prohibitionist.

You erroneously extrapolate my protection of ALL peoples rights to own themself and their property as my condoning racists causing actionable harm. You make alot of errors and smell like a red herring.

 

[Rob Roy]

my wife's family came over from europe to escape the holocaust, nice try though.

come up with any historians who agree with the "no harm caused" line of historical denialism yet?

That's an interesting story, but not relevant. My

so you have some historians who will say that denial of service to blacks did not cause any harm?

Actionable harms = an act of initiating aggression against a person or their justly acquired property.

Indifference = an act that neither causes an actionable harm or brings aid


Historians = red herring

You get points for wanting to help people. They all get taken away when you become an advocate for initiating aggression against an indifferent behaving person.

note - gerbils were not mentioned in this post

 

[UncleBuck]

Assuming for a second that this isn't the very behavior that got you fired from Subway, how does a discussion like that start?

No fellow white person, don't eat the semen butter. Guess what I started doing to the butter today?

Do you still eat there? How do you know your friends quirks don't extend to other areas of the menu?

Which butter do you prefer?

i miss rep.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm in favor of leaving people alone

that's not your stance.

your stance is that these racist store owners have a RIGHT to deny service to blacks. you don't want to leave them alone, you want to protect the racists whose action causes harm to others.

and we all know that the denial of service to blacks caused a lot of harm. you can't name a single historian who shares your historical denialism view that it didn't.

you want to protect racists because you feel they have a RIGHT to cause harm to blacks. it really is as simple as that.

 

[Doer]

It has the option of not participating and paying a tax.

Are saying Congress cannot tax? SCOTUS says they can.

 

[Doer]

So you will punished if you do not participate. My, how you contort words and logic.

WE punish the shit out of anyone for not participating in Tax.

 

[UncleBuck]

Actionable harms = an act of initiating aggression against a person or their justly acquired property.

Indifference = an act that neither causes an actionable harm or brings aid

can you name one single historian who shares your view that denial of service to blacks, which you feel should be a protected RIGHT, did not cause harm?

You get points for wanting to help people. They all get taken away when you become an advocate for initiating aggression against an indifferent behaving person.

denying service to blacks because of their skin color is not indifference, it is hostility.

indifference would be letting them spend their money at your shop just like everyone else.

stop raping the english language, you feeble twat.

 

[Rob Roy]

can you name one single historian who shares your view that denial of service to blacks, which you feel should be a protected RIGHT, did not cause harm?




denying service to blacks because of their skin color is not indifference, it is hostility.

indifference would be letting them spend their money at your shop just like everyone else.

stop raping the english language, you feeble twat.

Denying service to people because of their skin color certainly is a thing I find stupid. Yet not doing something to somebody is not the cause of an actionable harm or a reason for somebody to aggress against the indifferent person who is not behaving as we would have them behave. hmmm....smells like Prohibitionist "logic"....is that what you are cooking with that mess of red herring?

You use the term rape. That is an actionable harm, because it disrespects a persons ability to disassociate with somebody they do not wish to associate with. You are too easy when you make points for the other side of what you argue.

What you do with your gerbils is your business, what you try to do with other peoples gerbils is not.

 

[Red1966]

WE punish the shit out of anyone for not participating in Tax.

YOU don't do shit

 

[Doer]

Oh yes, WE do.

 

[UncleBuck]

not doing something to somebody is not the cause of an actionable harm or a reason for somebody to aggress against the indifferent person

keeping someone out of your store is doing something to somebody. it is not, as you try to put it, "not doing something to somebody".

if i walk into a store and the shop owner helps me just like he did everyone else, he is being indifferent.

if i walk into a store and the shop owner kicks me out for my skin color, he is taking hostile actions against me.

you are retarded if you think racist hostilities caused blacks no harm, and that is why not a single credible historian agrees with you on your historical denialism. because credible historians are not fucking retarded.

 

[Red1966]

It has the option of not participating and paying a tax.

Are saying Congress cannot tax? SCOTUS says they can.

By paying the "tax", one is participating, under force. SCOTUS also said they can take property without just compensation to sell for private use for profit. A direct contradiction of the Constitution. SCOTUS never ended slavery, either.

 

[Rob Roy]

WE punish the shit out of anyone for not participating in Tax.

In a free society people pay for that which they use, and do not attempt to make others pay for that which they do not use and do not want.

In a totalitarian society, the "we" becomes the mob, but you already knew that

that's not your stance.

your stance is that these racist store owners have a RIGHT to deny service to blacks. you don't want to leave them alone, you want to protect the racists whose action causes harm to others.

and we all know that the denial of service to blacks caused a lot of harm. you can't name a single historian who shares your historical denialism view that it didn't.

you want to protect racists because you feel they have a RIGHT to cause harm to blacks. it really is as simple as that.

If a person owns themself, they have a right to determine the use of their body and not the body of others

If a person owns property, they have a right to determine the use of their property, as long as they are not violating anothers right to using THEIR own property...even if that use is one we don't approve of. If the previous statement were false, there is no such thing as self ownership or private property is there?

Of course racists have rights. To their own property, just like everybody else. Of course nobody, including racists and drippy liberal cognitive dissonance slurping gerbil lovers have NO RIGHT to others property.

You might want to mount an argument that addresses what property rights are and what they aren't. of course I know you won't because you routinely advocate violating them...just like a prohibitionist does.

Note - gerbils were mentioned in this post

 

[Red1966]

Oh yes, WE do.

You're just a loudmouth with an inflated ego. Stop pretending you have any effect.

 

[UncleBuck]

Of course racists have rights. To their own property, just like everybody else. Of course nobody, including racists and drippy liberal cognitive dissonance slurping gerbil lovers have NO RIGHT to others property.

spoken like a true angry old racist coot.

the fact is that the racist hostilities which you call "RIGHTS" are not rights and cannot be, because they cause harm. and no one has a right to cause harm.

you want to kick out black folks, rob? fine. open a private club.

 

[Rob Roy]

keeping someone out of your store is doing something to somebody. it is not, as you try to put it, "not doing something to somebody".

if i walk into a store and the shop owner helps me just like he did everyone else, he is being indifferent.

if i walk into a store and the shop owner kicks me out for my skin color, he is taking hostile actions against me.

you are retarded if you think racist hostilities caused blacks no harm, and that is why not a single credible historian agrees with you on your historical denialism. because credible historians are not fucking retarded.

If you walk into a store, they probably get the mop and bucket ready...given your uh incontinence.

So please define what private property is and what self ownership is?

So please define your understanding of the non initiation of aggression principle?

Do you want fries with that red herring?

 

[UncleBuck]

If you walk into a store, they probably get the mop and bucket ready...given your uh incontinence.

So please define what private property is and what self ownership is?

So please define your understanding of the non initiation of aggression principle?

Do you want fries with that red herring?

keep defending racists, rob. might as well throw in some good ol' historical revisionism and outright denial of reality while you're at it, you deluded old racist coot.

 

[NoDrama]

if i walk into a store and the shop owner kicks me out for my skin color, he is taking hostile actions against me.

Which exactly what Rob has been saying he WOULD NOT DO, how many times does he have to repeat himself? No one gets kicked out of anything.