Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
what is the most peaceful, non-aggressive way to ask someone to leave your property because of their skin color?
Excuse me their young man, yes you the white kid with the large brown stain in his pants, could you please leave this place, we've talked about this before". - A polite black man trying to keep his bathroom clean at his business
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Your backward looking arguments boggle me -- segregation is no longer law in the deep south, so your argument about a "property right" that isn't upheld in today's society or courts is nonsense.

Let me ask you this: I don't understand the motivation for excluding a paying customer. Could you give a justification for why a shop owner would or should ask a customer to leave if they have the wrong skin color? I'm not discussing property rights -- an area where we deeply disagree -- I'm just asking why a shop owner would discriminate against a customer based upon skin color?
Thanks for asking politely. First let me make sure you understand what my argument is and isn't. I'm not a fan of forced segregation or of forced integration. I think that all human interactions should be on a consensual and voluntary basis decided by those individuals involved not a third party using force or threatening it.

I don't understand the motivation for disallowing a paying customer based on race either, in fact, I think it's pretty dumb. If a person wants to run their business in a dumb way, what gives me the right to make them do otherwise?

I also don't understand your view on property rights, which I think is an important element to consider when discussing who can say what happens or doesn't happen in a given situation. For instance at the most basic level, I think all individuals own themselves and nobody has the right to make them interact with somebody they prefer not to or to prevent them from ingesting something they like to smoke, eat or drink.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
racists always try to deny their racism. there's a reason why he so vigorously argues for the right to kick people out based on skin color and refers to the president by racial slurs.
That's a fail.

1) Racists do not always deny their racism.

2) I'm not a racist

3) People of ALL races have the right to refuse a forced interaction...for any reason...

4) People that shit on others floors (you) are full of shit and don't appreciate anothers property rights.


If you have to make shit up about the other guy....you're losing.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Because Rob Roy started commenting and now the thread is all like ermagerd muh private properteh and non-aggression principal because he doesn't realize that those two things are contradictory.

There are many other such oxymoronic neologisms in his world view like "Anarchocapitalism" and "consensual pedophilia". When he isn't mismatching ideas he's comparing things to rape like VA disability and having to sell gas to black people.

Right wing ideology is pathological.

If you were any good at debating you wouldn't run from questions or conflate the other persons point of view or outright lie.

What is property and who can own it?

What is consent?


Also, I'm not a "right winger". Nor do I want to use force to make people interact or to keep them from interacting consensually. You do though.

If your government check is spent on travel and hookers and you're hungry, London Fog can tell you where there's a nice grove you could steal some oranges from.
 

spandy

Well-Known Member
I actually clicked view ignored content for once, nice how you edited out the side of the screen shot.

My hypothesis was confirmed, you're still retarded.

Goodbye :)

I actually took him off ignore one day a week or two ago.

First post, couple sentences in, the order was reversed.

Then I added another asshat because I can't stand their flashing huge sigs. On a fucking roll.

Figure since I'm here for my own enjoyment, might as well make it mine
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fair enough comrade, had no idea that opposition to civil rights was a socialist value.
False dichotomy.

I'm not opposed to some of the values in so called "civil rights". It's the forcibly implemented part, I object to.

I think you have to admit that you and the floor shitter guy have conflated my positions pretty hard. I often wonder if you could have a real conversation....can you?
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I see that your ability to hold a discussion and examine ideas is limited. Do you also flip the chess board over when you are about to be check mated?
You know less about your philosophy than I do. You keep on just preaching the mises.org talking points with no idea of the right wing roots of the free market bullshit but deny you identify with it. At first, the pedophilia thing started because the guy who coined the term Anarchocapitalism (oxymoronic name of your philosophy which you try poorly to distance yourself from) made the point about a free market for children. That's Rothbard. Then you described pedophilia as consensual.

The whole panarchy thing was a weak attempt to start being taken seriously but you clearly believe that capitalism can exist without government. You keep repeating the same question about property because you're not even smart enough to understand that I thoroughly destroyed the premises and cornerstone of your bullshit by dispelling your "self ownership" and "non-aggression principal" as fancy words for wage slavery.

I'm just laughing at you because you literally bit hook line and sinker on a philosophy full of contradictions formulated to fool idiots to stay right wing.

This isn't a debate, you lost that months ago. I'm trolling you now because you're a neckbearded teenager in your mom's basement wearing a fedora and typing with the one finger that isn't covered in cheetoh residue and you masturbate to Ayn Rand.

Inb4 the civil rights movement gets compared to rape.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
You know less about your philosophy than I do. You keep on just preaching the mises.org talking points with no idea of the right wing roots of the free market bullshit but deny you identify with it. At first, the pedophilia thing started because the guy who coined the term Anarchocapitalism (oxymoronic name of your philosophy which you try poorly to distance yourself from) made the point about a free market for children. That's Rothbard. Then you described pedophilia as consensual.

The whole panarchy thing was a weak attempt to start being taken seriously but you clearly believe that capitalism can exist without government. You keep repeating the same question about property because you're not even smart enough to understand that I thoroughly destroyed the premises and cornerstone of your bullshit by dispelling your "self ownership" and "non-aggression principal" as fancy words for wage slavery.

I'm just laughing at you because you literally bit hook line and sinker on a philosophy full of contradictions formulated to fool idiots to stay right wing.

This isn't a debate, you lost that months ago. I'm trolling you now because you're a neckbearded teenager in your mom's basement wearing a fedora and typing with the one finger that isn't covered in cheetoh residue and you masturbate to Ayn Rand.

Inb4 the civil rights movement gets compared to rape.
So many words to say absolutely fuck all.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You know less about your philosophy than I do. You keep on just preaching the mises.org talking points with no idea of the right wing roots of the free market bullshit but deny you identify with it. At first, the pedophilia thing started because the guy who coined the term Anarchocapitalism (oxymoronic name of your philosophy which you try poorly to distance yourself from) made the point about a free market for children. That's Rothbard. Then you described pedophilia as consensual.

The whole panarchy thing was a weak attempt to start being taken seriously but you clearly believe that capitalism can exist without government. You keep repeating the same question about property because you're not even smart enough to understand that I thoroughly destroyed the premises and cornerstone of your bullshit by dispelling your "self ownership" and "non-aggression principal" as fancy words for wage slavery.

I'm just laughing at you because you literally bit hook line and sinker on a philosophy full of contradictions formulated to fool idiots to stay right wing.

This isn't a debate, you lost that months ago. I'm trolling you now because you're a neckbearded teenager in your mom's basement wearing a fedora and typing with the one finger that isn't covered in cheetoh residue and you masturbate to Ayn Rand.

Inb4 the civil rights movement gets compared to rape.

Nice try. You still haven't answered what property is and who can own it. Are you unable to do this?

Also, you were the one claiming Anarchist status, then laughably out of the other side of your mouth you attempt to defend the very institution of a central authoritarian government itself.

The rest of your post was really not relevant and another attempt to distract. Besides I like popcorn, not cheetohs.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You are only capable of having amicable conversation with your fellow right wing bigots.
Not true. I've fucked with several people here. In my recollection, it was only after having been fucked with by them in some way first.

I'm more polite than you in that regard.

If I ever initiated shit, I offer a blanket apology to those that I did it to.
 
Top