Burn This Bitch Down!

[Rob Roy]

did you ever let your neighbors pay you and your kids so that they could do pedophile things with them?

No, but the kid down the road worked at Wendys and he said he ran into some pervert taking a shit on the floor of the bathroom he was assigned to clean. He's in therapy now, cuz the shit bandit tried to tattoo an image of a penis cloud on the kid, but luckily he got away. World is full of weirdos eh?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You are allowed to be racist, but you're not allowed to discriminate based on your racism, and when the state or some other authority figure says you have to sell to black people the same way you sell to white people, nobody is "taking away your right" to not interact with the black community. YOU decided to sell something, nobody made you sell anything. It's just like with insurance. I can legally not buy insurance, I just can't drive, if I do drive, I have to buy it to legally drive.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, but the kid down the road worked at Wendys and he said he ran into some pervert taking a shit on the floor of the bathroom he was assigned to clean. He's in therapy now, cuz the shit bandit tried to tattoo an image of a penis cloud on the kid, but luckily he got away. World is full of weirdos eh?

if one of your neighbors had offered you and your kids some amount of money to play with their weiners, would you have let them do it?

 

[londonfog]

if one of your neighbors had offered you and your kids some amount of money to play with their weiners, would you have let them do it?

He would let his kids make their own choice because it is their body. The Wisdom of Rob Roy

 

[Rob Roy]

If the only reason you don't reach a consensual deal is based on something like skin color, you legally relinquish your ability to sell goods/services in the society we live in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

I understand the legality. It used to be legal to own other people based on race, so I don't think whether something is legal or not is the determinant in whether or not it is just. Obviously owning others or attempting to own them or their property without their consent is not a very just way of approaching things is it?

Are you saying that because an act of aggressing against another persons property is legal, that it then becomes acceptable to take away their right of self determination of their own property and only their own property?


As an aside, thank you for answering the questions and engaging in this conversation in a reasonable way, it's appreciated.

 

[Rob Roy]

if one of your neighbors had offered you and your kids some amount of money to play with their weiners, would you have let them do it?

He would let his kids make their own choice because it is their body. The Wisdom of Rob Roy

My kids are adults. I taught them to respect others property and choices and not to blindly obey bad laws that violate the non aggression principle. You might try getting back to work, Uncle Sam needs his money to put the disobedient in jail.

 

[Rob Roy]

You are allowed to be racist, but you're not allowed to discriminate based on your racism, and when the state or some other authority figure says you have to sell to black people the same way you sell to white people, nobody is "taking away your right" to not interact with the black community. YOU decided to sell something, nobody made you sell anything. It's just like with insurance. I can legally not buy insurance, I just can't drive, if I do drive, I have to buy it to legally drive.

The discussion is generic. It's not a discussion of whether it is okay for a white person to determine the use of his property, please don't Uncle Buck out.

It is a conversation about whether ALL people have that right to self determine, but not force others to engage with them... I think all people do....don't you?

 

[Rob Roy]

as long as you don't run red lights it could

If there were a law that said running and playing in traffic could keep you safe....would it work?

Let's pass a law that makes mosquitoes stop biting, they always get stuck in my fur, the little fuckers.

Laws are only as good as the idea behind them. Murder is wrong whether it is illegal or legal.

Laws that defy natural law, will never work.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I understand the legality. It used to be legal to own other people based on race, so I don't think whether something is legal or not is the determinant in whether or not it is just. Obviously owning others or attempting to own them or their property without their consent is not a very just way of approaching things is it?

Are you saying that because an act of aggressing against another persons property is legal, that it then becomes acceptable to take away their right of self determination of their own property and only their own property?

As an aside, thank you for answering the questions and engaging in this conversation in a reasonable way, it's appreciated.

I think the reason it's illegal to discriminate based on race is because it is justified

It is a conversation about whether ALL people have that right to self determine, but not force others to engage with them... I think all people do....don't you?

I think living in a society like the one we've developed necessitates cooperation. You have the right to engage with whoever you want, or don't, but it's different when you want to use the law to bind contracts (which is what buying/selling is), if you want to use the law, you have to abide by it, whether you believe it's just or not. Do I think it's just? Yes, I do

 

[londonfog]

If there were a law that said running and playing in traffic could keep you safe....would it work?

Let's pass a law that makes mosquitoes stop biting, they always get stuck in my fur, the little fuckers.

Laws are only as good as the idea behind them. Murder is wrong whether it is illegal or legal.

Laws that defy natural law, will never work.

WOW...did you just say make a law to stop an insect from biting.
you really have no argument do you ?

 

[Rob Roy]

I think the reason it's illegal to discriminate based on race is because it is justified


I think living in a society like the one we've developed necessitates cooperation. You have the right to engage with whoever you want, or don't, but it's different when you want to use the law to bind contracts (which is what buying/selling is), if you want to use the law, you have to abide by it, whether you believe it's just or not. Do I think it's just? Yes, I do

So if a person owns something and prefers not to sell it to you, AND will leave you alone if you leave them alone, you would use the law to force them to interact with you?

Again, I'm not advocating racism as a practice or a belief, I find both objectionable. I am advocating that people who leave others alone, should be left alone to determine the use of their own property.

If others can make a person interact with them aren't you attempting to justify using force to a person that isn't even interested in interacting with you? Shouldn't that person be left alone?

 

[Rob Roy]

WOW...did you just say make a law to stop an insect from biting.
you really have no argument do you ?

I think drinking laundry detergent has addled your brain and disabled your sarcasm detector dear fellow.

 

[londonfog]

I think drinking laundry detergent has addled your brain and disabled your sarcasm detector dear fellow.

Never know with you. I mean you did tell me that IF you did have a daughter you would not object to her being a stripper and giving BJ for money, because it is her body. I mean really

 

[UncleBuck]

You might try getting back to work, Uncle Sam needs his money to put the disobedient in jail.

are you institutionalized, robby?

 

[Padawanbater2]

So if a person owns something and prefers not to sell it to you, AND will leave you alone if you leave them alone, you would use the law to force them to interact with you?

Again, I'm not advocating racism as a practice or a belief, I find both objectionable. I am advocating that people who leave others alone, should be left alone to determine the use of their own property.

If others can make a person interact with them aren't you attempting to justify using force to a person that isn't even interested in interacting with you? Shouldn't that person be left alone?

I wouldn't, no, but then again I also wouldn't be the type to become violent about racial discrimination. You're framing the question in a hypothetical sense that doesn't apply to the society we live in. For example, if a group of people owns something and prefers not to sell it to another group of people, and the first group will leave the second group alone, I would absolutely use the law to force the first group to sell to the second group equally as they would to any of their same group.

The thing is, you're making an active statement by choosing not to sell to the second group (leave people alone). By "leaving them alone", you're discriminating against them. Take the sale aspect away and you're totally free to give anything to anyone that wants it or not give it to people you don't want to. The contract requires the state (otherwise discrimination happens, "need" in this example means "in order for an equal transaction to occur), and we should have equal contracts among equal parties.

 

[Rob Roy]

Never know with you. I mean you did tell me that IF you did have a daughter you would not object to her being a stripper and giving BJ for money, because it is her body. I mean really

Again, you hear what you wish to. If I had a daughter I would have taught her that she owns her body, nobody else does.

That means while I might disagree with what she does, IF I force another peaceful person to use or NOT use their body how they determine I would be being a hypocrite. I try hard to avoid being a hypocrite.

By the way how come you never answered my question as to why you bow before a government that murders people under the color of law and steals their shit for any number of reasons, none of which are valid?

Can you hear me or are you out murdering people that stole some laundry lint from you?

 

[Padawanbater2]

It's not the Latinos that are going to get us. It's the Latinos with the blacks.

If a virus was released that got rid of every Hispanic person, in about 100 years blacks would out number whites in this country due to differential birth rates.

If you're right, the hispanics may save us. I have my reservations. The Democrats seem to be herding them into the same ghettos they have the blacks, victimization and dependence.

Every day across this country there are thousands of meetings where white people are trying to figure out how they can help these minorities. Giving up money and power to them. Why?

No good can come from it. All that can happen is wither turn us into south Africa or south America.

No thanks.

This is such a skewed perception of reality I can't even take it seriously..

 

[UncleBuck]

Again, you hear what you wish to. If I had a daughter I would have taught her that she owns her body, nobody else does.

That means while I might disagree with what she does, IF I force another peaceful person to use or NOT use their body how they determine I would be being a hypocrite. I try hard to avoid being a hypocrite.

By the way how come you never answered my question as to why you bow before a government that murders people under the color of law and steals their shit for any number of reasons, none of which are valid?

Can you hear me or are you out murdering people that stole some laundry lint from you?

if you had an eight year old daughter and you found out that she "voluntarily" accepted $5 from a pedophile in exchange for rough anal sex, what would you do?

 

[Rob Roy]

I wouldn't, no, but then again I also wouldn't be the type to become violent about racial discrimination. You're framing the question in a hypothetical sense that doesn't apply to the society we live in. For example, if a group of people owns something and prefers not to sell it to another group of people, and the first group will leave the second group alone, I would absolutely use the law to force the first group to sell to the second group equally as they would to any of their same group.

The thing is, you're making an active statement by choosing not to sell to the second group (leave people alone). By "leaving them alone", you're discriminating against them. Take the sale aspect away and you're totally free to give anything to anyone that wants it or not give it to people you don't want to. The contract requires the state (otherwise discrimination happens, "need" in this example means "in order for an equal transaction to occur), and we should have equal contracts among equal parties.

I'm framing the question in the most basic way it can be framed.

If a person prefers not to interact and is doing so peacefully... isn't the party forcing them to interact the party that is initiating aggression? That's a rhetorical question by the way.

All people have the right to be left alone. No people have the right to force themselves on somebody that is leaving them alone. When we honor that idea, we create the opportunity for peace, when we don't we allow some people to peacefully determine the use of their own body or property, we've essentially become a prohibitionist.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm framing the question in the most dishonest way it can be framed.

fixed it for you.

All people have the right to be left alone.

the easiest way to do that is to keep your racist ass at home, robby.