Burn This Bitch Down!
- Thread starter Rifleman420
- Start date
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
Ty Pruitt, Michael Browns cousin, responds to a CNN question about how the family is doing:
"That's the question I get axed all the time."
Classic made-for-television ignorance.
"That's the question I get axed all the time."
Classic made-for-television ignorance.
travisw
Well-Known Member
Not that you give a shit, with your KFC pics and what not, but it isn't wrong. Does that make your faux pas classic roll it up ignorance?
Chaucer used ax. It's in the first complete English translation of the Bible (the Coverdale Bible): " 'Axe and it shall be given.'
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/03/248515217/why-chaucer-said-ax-instead-of-ask-and-why-some-still-do
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/people-have-been-saying-ax-instead-ask-1200-years-180949663/?no-ist
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, Chaucer, the thug communities favorite writer.
xxjohndeerexx
Well-Known Member
http://rightwingnews.com/culture/michael-browns-parents-now-investigation-violent-attack-grandmother/
Brown didnt live with his parents, His parents kicked him out to live to with granny, yet there so distraught about his death. Yet they go beat the crap out of the ganny for selling shirts of the child/man, Why because all they cared about was the money and donations that would roll in.
This mike brown thing is fucking disgusting, A criminal is becoming an icon, A symbol. What the fuck is wrong with people today?
Brown didnt live with his parents, His parents kicked him out to live to with granny, yet there so distraught about his death. Yet they go beat the crap out of the ganny for selling shirts of the child/man, Why because all they cared about was the money and donations that would roll in.
This mike brown thing is fucking disgusting, A criminal is becoming an icon, A symbol. What the fuck is wrong with people today?
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
Yet the lamestream media continue to call Louis Head Michael Browns step-father or step-dad, which he is not. He is merely Michael Browns mothers BF, nothing more. Hell, he's not even the babydaddy. It's a joke really.
As clerkes ben ful subtile and ful queynte,
And prively he caughte hire by the queynte,
And seyde, “Ywis, but if ich have my wille,
For deerne love of thee, lemman, I spille.”-Chaucer
Its a nice try, but suggesting people say ax because they are representin Chaucer is pretty lame, no one speaks like Chaucer, obviously.
If someone says "Ax" to me in any context except a lumber jack one, I know they actually mean ASK and am not offended in any way. In fact I feel good that they trust me enough to speak normally around me. I hope others don't hate me because my English is different than theirs as well.
xxjohndeerexx
Well-Known Member
This guy tells it like it is.
“Now, they know all about the last three people that have been killed by the Milwaukee police department over the course of the last several years,” the upset Flynn stated. “There’s not one of them, can name one of the last three homicide victims we’ve had in this city.”
And the puckering of liberal asses was actually heard.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I think your bung hole might not survive such an assault. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
greenlikemoney
Well-Known Member
I would guess our resident penis drawer considers this guy a racist since he only spoke about AA when he threw out %'s.
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Clearly a poor, persecuted white male and racist. Can I get uh amen from my progressive retards?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Flynn is a Democrat
Flynn is a gun grabber
Milwaukee is one of the most segregated communitys in the USA
Milwaukee police have a history of race oriented brutality
Frank Jude
Double double racist, ver ver bad.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for asking and continuing this conversation in a reasonable way. It's how I started on this forum years ago and probably the best way for me to continue forward.
Okay onto your questions and comments...
It is wrong to forcefully segregate people when both parties wish to associate.
It is wrong to forcefully integrate people when one or both parties wish NOT to associate.
You keep relying on the precedent of statutory laws to decide what is right and wrong. That is a slippery slope.
The only people that should decide if they will or will not have an association are the persons involved, not an aggressor or a third party that isn't or shouldn't be involved. You acknowledge that in your post above when you mention dating etc., but then you limit that idea to social settings. Why?
Do people cease to own themselves and their time, labor and goods in other settings that are not social settings? How did that happen?
Part of the problem most people have with viewing it this way, is they see a person that doesn't want to interact as somehow being an aggressor or denying another person something. That is impossible. If a person doesn't interact with somebody, they can't POSSIBLY be initiating aggression. Because in order to initiate aggression, a person would have to interact in the first place to cause the aggression.
Also, you can't possibly be denying somebody something, that ISN'T theirs in the first place. It can only justly become their property when a CONSENSUAL interaction (trade or gift) has taken place. That would require a mutual agreement, by BOTH parties, absent any duress to occur.
Denying somebody something that is yours to begin with is not an act of aggression, it is an act of free will. While we may not like what others do with their stuff, it is after all THEIR stuff isn't it? The nature of the goods or amount of goods a person owns doesn't change the nature of the relationship the owner has with his property, his own body, etc.
You asked how peace is maintained when one party refuses to interact with somebody.
The person that uses or threatens force to ENSURE an interaction takes place is the one that is causing the peace to be broken.
Again, you agree with this in a social setting, but somehow fail to be consistent with your definition of what ownership is when it involves a potential business interaction. Peace.
Last edited:
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
OK, let me use an example to illustrate my point
Say there's 1 group of people (A) and 1 group of people (B) on an island and each group supports segregation (you stay over there, I'll stay over here), seems peaceful enough..
But what happens if group A runs out of fresh water? They need to go get some from group B, but nobody in B wants to associate with A
Do you consider B not giving/selling group A water a "peaceful" act?
This is an extreme example, but the exact same kind of resentment is created whether or not the goods/services or life/death implication exists and it always leads to violence
Now consider instead of water, we're talking jobs, loans, housing, education, etc.
Say there's 1 group of people (A) and 1 group of people (B) on an island and each group supports segregation (you stay over there, I'll stay over here), seems peaceful enough..
But what happens if group A runs out of fresh water? They need to go get some from group B, but nobody in B wants to associate with A
Do you consider B not giving/selling group A water a "peaceful" act?
This is an extreme example, but the exact same kind of resentment is created whether or not the goods/services or life/death implication exists and it always leads to violence
Now consider instead of water, we're talking jobs, loans, housing, education, etc.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
That's an interesting example, but it doesn't address the questions or comments I recently posted.
Also IF the water is owned by a party, it then becomes their property to disposition as they wish. If another party insists that they give them some or tries to set the terms of trade unilaterally (one way and not by mutual agreement) it no longer is "trade", it then becomes a form of theft.
If the water is unowned, it then becomes available for others to use as it is an unowned natural resource that has not been modified by another person into owned property.
A person "not giving" something to somebody that they own, or refusing an offer for something that they own but prefer not to sell under the offered terms is engaging in a neutral act. If it weren't, I could walk up to Cheesus Rice and say, hey nice bikes. Wow, you have 3 Harleys? Dude, I really fuckin' want one, and then menacingly tell him that he was going to sell me one of his bikes for a price I stated whether he agreed to it or not. Then I'd flip him $5 when his bike is worth thousands and then consumate the transaction by riding off on a bike he did not agree to sell to me. What just happened? I stole his bike.
It appears that your emotions are in a good place, but that still doesn't mean any of us can (or should) force people to interact. In order to be peaceful the interaction must be consensual, logic dictates that.
You just described how war starts, generally, congratulations.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Whatever you do, just tell him the bathroom is out of order. It's for "the good of society".