Burn This Bitch Down!

[SmokeyDan]

Whatever you do, just tell him the bathroom is out of order. It's for "the good of society".

Someone called him mudballs earlier I think.

Buck took it as a race based insult. Which means he thinks of brown people as mud people.

But my mind went to his balls resting gently in his stool on the floor of a Wendy's.

 

[Rob Roy]

Someone called him mudballs earlier I think.

Buck took it as a race based insult. Which means he thinks of brown people as mud people.

But my mind went to his balls resting gently in his stool on the floor of a Wendy's.

One of the best parts of the movie Quest for Fire, is the fertility scene involving the captured large fire questing guy and the mud people women. I have a friend that looks like the old guy with the long white beard that swishes the stick and eggs them on.

Of course if you're not familiar with that movie, none of this matters and you should continue to think of the serial shitter guys gerbil nipped scrotum if you like.

 

[SmokeyDan]

One of the best parts of the movie Quest for Fire, is the fertility scene involving the captured large fire questing guy and the mud people women. I have a friend that looks like the old guy with the long white beard that swishes the stick and eggs them on.

Of course if you're not familiar with that movie, none of this matters and you should continue to think of the serial shitter guys gerbil nipped scrotum if you like.

Never even heard of the movie. Your first paragraph made no sense to me. I'm aware it was describing the movie.

 

[Rob Roy]

@SmokeyDan

Quest for Fire -

It's about a prehistoric clan that uses fire but hasn't yet figured out how to make fire. They are attacked by some bigfoot looking hominids and lose their fire...three of the young men then journey on a quest to find fire or steal it from other clans. Best to watch while liberally hitting the bong. Very little dialogue, but great acting displays of human emotion and kind of funny if you like that sort of stuff.

Tommy Chongs daughter is in the movie and is rescued by the main character from being cannabalized, then they make some caveman love.

 

[NoDrama]

One of the best parts of the movie Quest for Fire, is the fertility scene involving the captured large fire questing guy and the mud people women. I have a friend that looks like the old guy with the long white beard that swishes the stick and eggs them on.

Of course if you're not familiar with that movie, none of this matters and you should continue to think of the serial shitter guys gerbil nipped scrotum if you like.

Ron Perlman was in that movie. The writers had an easy job writing the characters dialogue.

 

[greenlikemoney]

Someone called him mudballs earlier I think.

Buck took it as a race based insult. Which means he thinks of brown people as mud people.

But my mind went to his balls resting gently in his stool on the floor of a Wendy's.

Uncle Mudballs to be exact. He takes everything as being racist, it's from getting his lunch money stolen as a small armed child. Come to think of it, he still is.

 

[ChesusRice]

Uncle Mudballs to be exact. He takes everything as being racist, it's from getting his lunch money stolen as a small armed child. Come to think of it, he still is.

But you are a racist

 

[SheriffBudBloomer]

But you are a racist

gross I don't even get how someone can be racist in this day and age.

 

[greenlikemoney]

But you are a racist

LOL, why, because you think I'm white? Typical stereotype with racist overtones. I'm not a white man.

 

[UncleBuck]

LOL, why, because you think I'm white? Typical stereotype with racist overtones. I'm not a white man.

you are a racist honkey cracker bitch.

 

[SheriffBudBloomer]

you are a racist honkey cracker bitch.

looking at his posting history I half agree. We don't need to shame women with the use of bitch though do we?

 

[Padawanbater2]

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.

Only when it comes to interactions that require the state (like the sale of goods/services or equal access to public utilities/services). People are completely free in society to associate with whoever they want (or don't), there are no laws saying you can't, only laws saying that if the state is required in any interaction between mutual parties, everything has to be equal in regards to race, religion, gender, etc.

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?

Because the state is not required in social settings

Do people cease to own themselves and their time, labor and goods in other settings that are not social settings? How did that happen?

No, but if you want to participate in the economy you have to abide by the rules established by society. You could move to rural China and pay the workers low wages because that society doesn't have rules set up to prevent it or they're not actively enforced

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.

"Not interacting" is not the same thing as denying someone an equal sale than you would someone else based on things society has established are unequal

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.

You are denying someone the chance of the sale, not the actual item they might be trying to purchase

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.

If you run a business or sell something, the chance of the sale is not yours to not give, everybody already has that by being part of the society. Social settings that don't require a 3rd party (state) don't apply

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.

Nobody is forcing an interaction to take place. The state is enforcing equal rights to citizens based on advancements in society. Even today there are places in the US that treat (insert minority here) worse than white people based solely on their differences. Our society isn't perfect and our laws and history reflect that, so it's a misunderstanding to judge our society today by a utopian societies standards.

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.

Afforded they abide by the rules set forth by the society..

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.

That was just an extreme example I used to gauge what you thought was a "peaceful act". When it comes to anything involving a 3rd party, the rules of society have to be followed because of all the reasons we've established are equal, when it comes to everything else, it doesn't apply

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.

Well, we know from history that without the rules (laws) a lot people aren't peaceful, so with or without the laws peace doesn't exist. I'd say we live in a reasonably peaceful society by most standards and for many different reasons, but without those laws it would undeniably be much less peaceful to live in.

 

[SmokeyDan]

gross I don't even get how someone can be racist in this day and age.

Critical evaluation

 

[sheskunk]

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.

I'm starving to death. Give me your food.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm starving to death. Give me your food.

i bet you'd enjoy it if i farted in your face. my dogs love it when i do that.

 

[UncleBuck]

Critical evaluation

is that the same type of critical evaluation which landed you a job at subway as a 30 year old, bignbushy?

 

[ChesusRice]

I'm starving to death. Give me your food.

I'm tired give me your pillow

 

[sheskunk]

I'm tired give me your pillow

I'm cold. Let me sleep in your bed.

 

[ChesusRice]

I'm cold. Let me sleep in your bed.

Shut up and make me a sammich

 

[sheskunk]

Shut up and make me a sammich

Do you want cheese on that?