I am woman

[desert dude]

You sure do get whiny when your diaper is wet. You also should start viewing people as individuals, rather than collectively... racist.

Okay I'll answer your questions, since you do such a good job responding to others questions, well you don't but I'll forgive you. I'll forgive you, because I know you are incapable of answering some questions, most likely because you're a little slow on the logic and comprehension and because you have a pack of gerbils up your ass.

A society is a collection of individuals all with individual likes, dislikes etc. Those individuals that get along and want to associate should be free to associate on a consensual basis regardless of any silly rules others might try to impose on them.
No peaceful society can imbed forced associations as a matter of course or legally endorse those coercive actions and remain "peaceful", it is illogical. Like putting gas on a fire and hoping it will extinguish it.

All people should be free not to associate with those they prefer not to. Nobody, black, white, or other, should be forced to associate with anyone, since that would imbed legal (but immoral) coercion from the start or impose an unequal hierarchy, which is a bad idea. I assume since you've never addressed or refuted the points I just made, you believe they are valid.

Since you brought up force, I'll state their are two kinds of force. One is a defensive act, which is morally justifiable to use to REPEL an act of aggression or forced association.

In other words a black person that has a KKK guy burning a cross on his front lawn has a moral right to repel the KKK douchebag. I wouldn't bat an eye in that instance if the KKK guy got his ass handed to him. He has it coming, in THAT instance.

However, If the KKK douchbag stayed on his own property and wanted to wear a sheet, that's his right. While I don't think he's making a good choice, it's not my right to force him to do anything, UNLESS and UNTIL he leaves his own property and causes another person an actionable harm.

Conversely the black person, or anybody else of any color or race, has no right to force anybody to associate with him or serve him. All people only have the right to repel a forced association (act of initiated aggression) against them or their justly acquired property. NO people have the right to force an association. Those rights are the same for all people, race is irrelevant.

The other kind of force is an offensive act which is the kind you endorse, the kind that substitutes force for consent and allows one party to make another associate with them regardless if the association is agreed to both parties. This is the kind that prohibitionists use, coercive governments use and people that like to run others lives for them use. You endorse this kind. I do not.

You refer to "blacks" as a class of people, which is revealing about how you view the world. I tend to view people as individuals you appear not to. However, "blacks" have the same rights as anybody else, no more, no less. Blacks should not be forced to associate with anybody they prefer not to. Therefore neither blacks, whites or anybody else has any right to force others to associate with them, and all people have the right to resist a forced association, just as they have the right to resist a home invasion, a rape or an internet douchebag that wants to stuff gerbils up their ass or shit on their bathroom floor and run away.

As far as "blacks" voluntarily accepting inferior goods, what is your point? That all blacks will behave in lockstep? That's racist of you to think that way.
Some will steal. Some will be creative. Some will be productive. I doubt all will behave the same way. Those that want to trade on a consensual basis with others will find lots of willing trade partners, unless the coercive government re-institutes a policy of forced segregation.

Nobody should be kept from integrating, IF all the parties in that instance agree. Nobody should be forced to integrate, if one or both of the parties prefers not to associate.

Nobody should be made to be segregated, IF the all individual parties in that instance wish to associate.

No, I am not white trash. That sounds like a racist term.

Now go home and rub some salve on your kicked ass and please let the gerbils go, it would be the right thing to do.

This NR editorial is not exactly on point to your excellent post, RR, but it is in the same ball park.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/383154/property-and-peace-kevin-d-williamson


Principles are dangerous things — whiskey is for drinking, water and principles are for fighting over. The anti-ideological current in conservative thinking appreciates this: If we all seek complete and comprehensive satisfaction of our principles, then there will never be peace. This is why scale matters and why priorities matter. In a world in which the public sector consumes 5 percent of my income and uses it for such legitimate public goods as law enforcement and border security, I do not much care whether the tax system is fair or just on a theoretical level; and while I may resent it as a matter of principle, the cost of my consent is relatively low, and I have other things to think about. But in a world in which the parasites take half, and use it mainly to buy political support from an increasingly ovine and dependent electorate, then I care intensely.

 

[UncleBuck]

A person that sucks cock for money on a consensual basis is involved in an honest exchange.

A person that receives payment via a public school, which is funded thru coercion is involved in a forced exchange.




Does your morality believe that forced exchanges are better than consenting exchanges?

we get it.

you'd rather see your daughter be a whore that sucks strangers' cocks than a teacher who teaches children how to read.

can't fix white trash.

 

[UncleBuck]

You sure do get whiny when your diaper is wet. You also should start viewing people as individuals, rather than collectively... racist.

Okay I'll answer your questions, since you do such a good job responding to others questions, well you don't but I'll forgive you. I'll forgive you, because I know you are incapable of answering some questions, most likely because you're a little slow on the logic and comprehension and because you have a pack of gerbils up your ass.

A society is a collection of individuals all with individual likes, dislikes etc. Those individuals that get along and want to associate should be free to associate on a consensual basis regardless of any silly rules others might try to impose on them.
No peaceful society can imbed forced associations as a matter of course or legally endorse those coercive actions and remain "peaceful", it is illogical. Like putting gas on a fire and hoping it will extinguish it.

All people should be free not to associate with those they prefer not to. Nobody, black, white, or other, should be forced to associate with anyone, since that would imbed legal (but immoral) coercion from the start or impose an unequal hierarchy, which is a bad idea. I assume since you've never addressed or refuted the points I just made, you believe they are valid.

Since you brought up force, I'll state their are two kinds of force. One is a defensive act, which is morally justifiable to use to REPEL an act of aggression or forced association.

In other words a black person that has a KKK guy burning a cross on his front lawn has a moral right to repel the KKK douchebag. I wouldn't bat an eye in that instance if the KKK guy got his ass handed to him. He has it coming, in THAT instance.

However, If the KKK douchbag stayed on his own property and wanted to wear a sheet, that's his right. While I don't think he's making a good choice, it's not my right to force him to do anything, UNLESS and UNTIL he leaves his own property and causes another person an actionable harm.

Conversely the black person, or anybody else of any color or race, has no right to force anybody to associate with him or serve him. All people only have the right to repel a forced association (act of initiated aggression) against them or their justly acquired property. NO people have the right to force an association. Those rights are the same for all people, race is irrelevant.

The other kind of force is an offensive act which is the kind you endorse, the kind that substitutes force for consent and allows one party to make another associate with them regardless if the association is agreed to both parties. This is the kind that prohibitionists use, coercive governments use and people that like to run others lives for them use. You endorse this kind. I do not.

You refer to "blacks" as a class of people, which is revealing about how you view the world. I tend to view people as individuals you appear not to. However, "blacks" have the same rights as anybody else, no more, no less. Blacks should not be forced to associate with anybody they prefer not to. Therefore neither blacks, whites or anybody else has any right to force others to associate with them, and all people have the right to resist a forced association, just as they have the right to resist a home invasion, a rape or an internet douchebag that wants to stuff gerbils up their ass or shit on their bathroom floor and run away.

As far as "blacks" voluntarily accepting inferior goods, what is your point? That all blacks will behave in lockstep? That's racist of you to think that way.
Some will steal. Some will be creative. Some will be productive. I doubt all will behave the same way. Those that want to trade on a consensual basis with others will find lots of willing trade partners, unless the coercive government re-institutes a policy of forced segregation.

Nobody should be kept from integrating, IF all the parties in that instance agree. Nobody should be forced to integrate, if one or both of the parties prefers not to associate.

Nobody should be made to be segregated, IF the all individual parties in that instance wish to associate.

No, I am not white trash. That sounds like a racist term.

Now go home and rub some salve on your kicked ass and please let the gerbils go, it would be the right thing to do.

we get it, you really don't like black people.

you even got a like from a white supremacist and a thief.

it really is too bad for you that the strain of racism that made your utopia a reality caused so much harm to so many and was thus outlawed.

by law we no longer allow racist shitheads like yourself to cause so much harm to an entire segment of our population.

but you can still dream, you racist piece of shit.

 

[desert dude]

 

[desert dude]

 

[Rob Roy]

we get it.

you'd rather see your daughter be a whore that sucks strangers' cocks than a teacher who teaches children how to read.

can't fix white trash.

I see you refuted my points. Oh I guess you didn't. Gee, that's a surprise.

Teaching people that willingly want to learn and individually agree to pay for it is a good thing. Of course that's not how public schools operate is it Kaiser Wilhelm ? Tell me about the ransom funded schools again Poindexter.

Well have a nice day and remember, no matter how many cocks you suck, you should always have permission of the owner of said cock or it's rape....slave.

 

[Rob Roy]

so how do you envision your society of denying service to blacks working, voluntarily?

nope, it requires FORCE by HOSTILE RACISTS to work like you envision it.

blacks are not just gonna voluntarily agree to a lesser and inferior set of goods and services, because that is a harmful and racist policy (which you argue endlessly for).

you are white trash. get fucked.

Forced segregation occured when your beloved government would not allow people of different colors to intermarry etc. These people would have associated by THEIR OWN MUTUAL CONSENT, but were prevented from doing so.

Forced segregation is not what happens when one party does not consent to an interaction though.

In order for there to be an interaction absent force, both parties must agree to the interaction. In your example above that is not the case though is it? No, it isn't.

In other words your example is erroneous and you are not very smart.

Are you really that dense? Have you been sniffing glue again?

 

[UncleBuck]

Teaching people that willingly want to learn and individually agree to pay for it is a good thing.

so are the 6 year olds paying for their primary education now in your retarded utopia?

or are the parents being forced to live some place where they pay property taxes? because last time i checked they could move elsewhere.

but i guess rather than take reality into account you'd rather your stripper daughter suck trucker cock for a few extra bucks.

because that's noble.

 

[UncleBuck]

Forced segregation is not what happens when one party does not consent to an interaction though.

so the black person who needs to buy gas just leaves voluntarily when the racist owner refuses service? or the black person doesn't show up at all?

nope.

the denial of service to blacks you defend endlessly requires force on the part of the hostile, racist business owner.

it's forced segregation on the part of the racist. and you call that "freedom".

1964 called, they want their hostile racism back.

 

[WORDZofWORDZCRAFT]

so the black person who needs to buy gas just leaves voluntarily when the racist owner refuses service? or the black person doesn't show up at all?

nope.

the denial of service to blacks you defend endlessly requires force on the part of the hostile, racist business owner.

it's forced segregation on the part of the racist. and you call that "freedom".

1964 called, they want their hostile racism back.

blacks do love to ride in sixfo's

 

[Rob Roy]

so are the 6 year olds paying for their primary education now in your retarded utopia?

or are the parents being forced to live some place where they pay property taxes? because last time i checked they could move elsewhere.

but i guess rather than take reality into account you'd rather your stripper daughter suck trucker cock for a few extra bucks.

because that's noble.

When you go all "Drunkle Buck" you go all the way don't you?

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

hello......1964 here......someone called?

 

[Rob Roy]

we get it.

you'd rather see your daughter be a whore that sucks strangers' cocks than a teacher who teaches children how to read.

can't fix white trash.

Do you believe forced interactions are better than voluntary and consensual exchanges?


I think you run from questions like the one above...fleeing rapist Poopy pants Gerbil boy

 

[Rob Roy]

so the black person who needs to buy gas just leaves voluntarily when the racist owner refuses service? or the black person doesn't show up at all?

nope.

the denial of service to blacks you defend endlessly requires force on the part of the hostile, racist business owner.

it's forced segregation on the part of the racist. and you call that "freedom".

1964 called, they want their hostile racism back.

Let's say we are both Chinese for the purposes of this example.

If I come to you and decide that you will serve me, but you prefer not to interact with me, is it morally acceptable to you if I use force to make you interact with me?


Oh look another question you will flee from.

 

[Rob Roy]

blame rob roy.

he's the one who said he wouldn't mind if his stripper daughter sucked strangers' cocks for extra money.

after all, she has to own herself. way more dignified than teaching kids to read in a public school.

Civil rights organizations and their progressive allies, who all but suggest that blacks cannot achieve unless they are given special privileges, grossly insult and demean black people.

But worse than that, when civil rights organizations and their progressive allies pursue special privileges for blacks in college admissions and when they attack academic performance standards as racially discriminatory, they are aiding and abetting an education establishment that delivers fraudulent education. They let educators off the hook, thereby enabling them to continue to produce educational fraud.

Agreed or is this a racist point of view?

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I'm against any individual, or group, being treated liked retarded Australopitheci. if they are not, then they are held back back the premise itself. if they are, they do indeed need protection. but not the vote. no. that's for normal, sane citizens.

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you believe forced interactions are better than voluntary and consensual exchanges?

it is not a forced interaction because no one is being forced to own a gas station. if you want to own a gas station, you have to serve all races.

the racism that caused so much harm (which you defend endlessly) is outlawed. if you decide to own a gas station in light of this new law, you are consenting to serve all races.

I think you run from questions like the one above...fleeing rapist Poopy pants Gerbil boy

i have answered that same retarded fail question of yours many times now. you just don't seem to be able to compute the answer through your racism.

 

[UncleBuck]

Let's say we are both Chinese for the purposes of this example.

If I come to you and decide that you will serve me, but you prefer not to interact with me, is it morally acceptable to you if I use force to make you interact with me?

you are implying that outlawing denial of service based on skin color is not morally acceptable.

most people would say that denying service based on skin color is not morally acceptable, but not you.

you are classic white trash.

Oh look another question you will flee from.

the only one running from questions is you.

for example, can you name one single historian who agrees with you on your retarded supposition that denial of service did not cause harm?

you have to deny history completely in order to hold the racist, harmful positions that you do.

 

[UncleBuck]

Civil rights organizations and their progressive allies, who all but suggest that blacks cannot achieve unless they are given special privileges, grossly insult and demean black people.

But worse than that, when civil rights organizations and their progressive allies pursue special privileges for blacks in college admissions and when they attack academic performance standards as racially discriminatory, they are aiding and abetting an education establishment that delivers fraudulent education. They let educators off the hook, thereby enabling them to continue to produce educational fraud.

Agreed or is this a racist point of view?

yes, 100% racist.

to say that legal protection against discrimination and denial of service is a "special privilege" for black people is not only 100% racist, but it ignores that civil rights protections apply to EVERY race and protected status, not just the minorities that you so clearly and obviously hold a grudge against.

yes, you are one racist piece of shit alright.

 

[desert dude]