indiana

[Pinworm]

Your latent homosexuality is showing

Despite your hyperbolic example, let me provide one maybe you'll be a little more sympathetic towards..

You go to Subway for a sandwich, after your homosexual interracial group sex bukkake marathon, you've got a hankering for some meat, so you tell the young man behind the counter you'd like a ham on white (because if you ain't white, you ain't right, am I right?!), extra mayo, and salt, but no pepper, because black and all.. The young man informs you he's Muslim and therefore can't handle pork products, despite your insatiable appetite for said meat.

Now, do you respect his "religious freedom" to not serve you a ham sandwich, even though he voluntarily accepted a job at Subway, knowing full well before hand he'd be required to handle pork products? I bet you'd be the first in line to protect the poor Muslim man's rights, now wouldn't you...?

Bakers don't wanna bake cakes, get the fuck out of the cake baking business. Seems pretty fuckin' simple to me..

I you, pada.

 

[UncleBuck]

You have confused the initiation of force and the use of defensive force to protect a person or their justly acquired property. They are not the same thing.

In your example the hostage taker initiated the force, not the persons using force defensively. Also, when people fight in a ring, neither was forced to do so, both agreed to it.

If somebody is beating the shit out of somebody, it is important to determine, who began the interaction or who "initiated force".

In the context I have described the meaning of "initiation of force", would you agree that being the person that starts shit or "initaites force" is the aggressor?

Again, the use of defensive force is not the same as an initiation of force, it is a valid response to somebody initiating force against your person or your property.

for the eighth time, what is the most peaceful, least aggressive, non force initiating way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color?

 

[UncleBuck]

Just because you leftists like sucking cock doesn't mean you have the right to try and force everyone else into sucking cock,
Just go about sucking cocks and leave everyone else alone who does not like sucking cock alone and stop filing law suits against them,Problem solved

you sure think about sucking cock a lot, even for a latent homosexual such as yourself.

 

[theexpress]

Arkansas is implementing a similer law as this anti gay law in Indy. I don't care what two consenting adults do but even though I don't have children I can see some fathers not wanting to explain to his kids why two men are passionately kissing the table next to us at dennys and as a straight man myself don't wanna eat a meal in front of gays engaged in gayness.. take that Shit to California...

 

[Rob Roy]

only if they make their private property a private store, and not a public one.

otherwise they must serve the public, you bigoted racist fuck.




why do you keep referring to harmful racial and sexuality based discrimination as a right?

no one has a right to harm others, you racist bigoted fuck.

We agree nobody has the right to harm others.

Then the other side of your mouth starts moving and you say it is okay for somebody to go another persons property and force them to interact with them and do things they'd prefer not to. All of that can occur when a third party, your nanny state tells the interloper, its okay they have to serve you or we will harm them.

Harm isn't created by staying on your own property and seeking to be left alone. It is created when you use or threaten force to make a person interact with you though.

When civil rights were enacted it was an attempt to solve one problem, that of government sponsored forced segregation. Instead of solving the problem, your beloved nanny state complicated it. You don't take away one persons right, that of control of their OWN property without creating another set of problems.

Forced segregation is wrong. So is forcing people to interact or integrate. All initiated force is wrong. That is the point you miss dung breath.

Isn't almost time for your stick men figures now? It's been a day or two.





Also, I'm not a racist. I think its stupid, l just don't think any of us have the right to shit on another persons property. You do.

 

[UncleBuck]

We agree nobody has the right to harm others.

no we don't.

i say that no one has a right to harm others.

you argue that hostile racists may cause harm to others every day of the week, because you are a racist.

Harm isn't created by staying on your own property and seeking to be left alone. It is created when you use or threaten force to make a person interact with you though.

for the ninth time, what is the most peaceful, least aggressive, non force initiating way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color?

When civil rights were enacted

it was impossible for blacks to travel in the south because of people like you practicing race based discrimination.

blacks faced higher prices, reduced competition, and barriers to entry. this causes harm by your very own words.

no one has a right to cause harm you racist bigoted fuck.

You don't take away one persons right, that of control of their OWN property without creating another set of problems.

business owners still control their property by calling it a public business or a private business.

So is forcing people to interact or integrate.

not many people describe integration as "forced", but then again, not everyone is as racist as you and your klan buddies are.

Also, I'm not a racist.

yes you are.

 

[see4]

We agree nobody has the right to harm others.

Then the other side of your mouth starts moving and you say it is okay for somebody to go another persons property and force them to interact with them and do things they'd prefer not to. All of that can occur when a third party, your nanny state tells the interloper, its okay they have to serve you or we will harm them.

Harm isn't created by staying on your own property and seeking to be left alone. It is created when you use or threaten force to make a person interact with you though.

When civil rights were enacted it was an attempt to solve one problem, that of government sponsored forced segregation. Instead of solving the problem, your beloved nanny state complicated it. You don't take away one persons right, that of control of their OWN property without creating another set of problems.

Forced segregation is wrong. So is forcing people to interact or integrate. All initiated force is wrong. That is the point you miss dung breath.

Isn't almost time for your stick men figures now? It's been a day or two.





Also, I'm not a racist. I think its stupid, l just don't think any of us have the right to shit on another persons property. You do.

Then what exactly is your position?

You say nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything at any time, ever.
Then you say, forced segregation is wrong.

Ok, so what do you do about people who segregate and discriminate? Do you simply close your eyes and plug your ears? That is a very cowardly way of resolving the problem. If there were no enforcement, society would be much more divided than it is today.

Sort of like income inequality. We played the, "turn a blind eye" way, your way, and look where that got us.


I think what we are discussing Rob is not political but rather philosophical. And the problem with philosophy, is that it is open to interpretation.

 

[Rob Roy]

no we don't.

i say that no one has a right to harm others.

you argue that hostile racists may cause harm to others every day of the week, because you are a racist.



for the ninth time, what is the most peaceful, least aggressive, non force initiating way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color?



it was impossible for blacks to travel in the south because of people like you practicing race based discrimination.

blacks faced higher prices, reduced competition, and barriers to entry. this causes harm by your very own words.

no one has a right to cause harm you racist bigoted fuck.



business owners still control their property by calling it a public business or a private business.



not many people describe integration as "forced", but then again, not everyone is as racist as you and your klan buddies are.



yes you are.

You've combined two separate things again.

Obviously no law should prevent a person from traveling or interacting with those that want to interact with them. I've never said that was a good thing have I ?

I am well aware of the harm Jim Crow did. Certainly laws that forced segregation were asinine.

You don't solve the problems created by force, by legislating force again through reducing the right of a person to control their own property and their own body Einstein.

When so called civil rights were enacted the rights of all property owners were reduced. You can't argue that, no why....it's a fact. How does forcing a person to interact with somebody on his own property not change the nature of what ownership is?

My argument has never been about race. It's been about respecting all persons rights to interact or not interact with others on a mutual and consensual basis. You seem to ignore that part, as it doesn't fit your narrative.

When you suck governments dick as hard as you do, don't be surprised when Uncle Sam comes in your mouth.

 

[UncleBuck]

When so called civil rights were enacted the rights of all property owners were reduced.

no they weren't, because causing harm is not a right.

when blacks couldn't travel because they faced race based discrimination, they were harmed.

why do you want to re-legalize race based discrimination and cause harm to others?

 

[Rob Roy]

Then what exactly is your position?

You say nobody has the right to force anyone else to do anything at any time, ever.
Then you say, forced segregation is wrong.

Ok, so what do you do about people who segregate and discriminate? Do you simply close your eyes and plug your ears? That is a very cowardly way of resolving the problem. If there were no enforcement, society would be much more divided than it is today.

Sort of like income inequality. We played the, "turn a blind eye" way, your way, and look where that got us.


I think what we are discussing Rob is not political but rather philosophical. And the problem with philosophy, is that it is open to interpretation.

There's something in error in your understanding in your first paragraph.
Government should never have been involved in forced segregation. It was wrong. What I mean by that is people shouldn't be prevented from associating if BOTH parties agree to it. If people willingly segregate themselves, how is that your business or mine?

If it's wrong to force people to segregate, it's also wrong to force people to integrate. Know why? Free people don't have others define their human relations for them.

Peaceful relations involve one of two things,

1) a mutual interaction wherein all parties agree to it

2) a mutual understanding that one party or both would prefer not to interact, and both leave each other alone.

In both instances above peace is maintained.



Force Interactions involve this - One party or both create an interaction that is not consensual

In that instance Peace is destroyed.



I win again!!!!

 

[see4]

There's something in error in your understanding in your first paragraph.
Government should never have been involved in forced segregation. It was wrong. What I mean by that is people shouldn't be prevented from associating if BOTH parties agree to it. If people willingly segregate themselves, how is that your business or mine?

Round and round you go, like a dog chasing his tail. If people are willingly segregating themselves, who the fuck cares? BUT THAT IS NOT YOUR ARGUMENT.

If it's wrong to force people to segregate, it's also wrong to force people to integrate. Know why? Free people don't have others define their human relations for them.

No. And because you are a racist bigot, you will never understand that forcing people to not be total fucking assholes is the decent thing to do. The civil thing to do. People are not free to discriminate against others if the act of discrimination alienates individuals who would otherwise be able to have the same access, simply based on their sexual preference or skin color. Your racist bigotry can't fathom that concept.

Peaceful relations involve one of two things,

1) a mutual interaction wherein all parties agree to it

2) a mutual understanding that one party or both would prefer not to interact, and both leave each other alone.

In both instances above peace is maintained.



Force Interactions involve this - One party or both create an interaction that is not consensual

In that instance Peace is destroyed.

If one party would like to peacefully interact, and the other party does not and is basing their discrimination based solely on sexual preference or skin color without prior interaction or knowledge thereof, that is a violation of civil rights, people's inalienable rights.

If you, as a "store owner" let Tom, a white fella, into your store and allow him to purchase goods, but deny, Cliff, a black fella, any access, you are violating his civil rights. You are the cause of the destroyed peace, and therefore you must face the consequences of your actions.

You racist bigot shit stack.

 

[Rob Roy]

Round and round you go, like a dog chasing his tail. If people are willingly segregating themselves, who the fuck cares? BUT THAT IS NOT YOUR ARGUMENT.



No. And because you are a racist bigot, you will never understand that forcing people to not be total fucking assholes is the decent thing to do. The civil thing to do. People are not free to discriminate against others if the act of discrimination alienates individuals who would otherwise be able to have the same access, simply based on their sexual preference or skin color. Your racist bigotry can't fathom that concept.



If one party would like to peacefully interact, and the other party does not and is basing their discrimination based solely on sexual preference or skin color without prior interaction or knowledge thereof, that is a violation of civil rights, people's inalienable rights.

If you, as a "store owner" let Tom, a white fella, into your store and allow him to purchase goods, but deny, Cliff, a black fella, any access, you are violating his civil rights. You are the cause of the destroyed peace, and therefore you must face the consequences of your actions.

You racist bigot shit stack.

An asshole remaining on his property has every right to be an asshole. Since they are not taking away your right to control your self or your own property or interact with other people on a consensual basis. They aren't breaking the peace if they are asking to be left alone are they?

A person controlling another person and insisting somebody interact with them is the person that is breaking the peace, and engaging in a kind of asshole behavior.

What you are saying is that a person can be forced to interact and serve another person and somehow that instance of breaking the peace is acceptable to you.

Also, if you look at my previous post, it is obvious I won. You can't refute what I said, so you just repeated your rationalization of why its okay to use force to make people associate. Your goal of harmony is admirable. Your acceptance of force to try to achieve it, is not. People have a right not to be forced to interact. Assholes force interactions.

 

[see4]

An asshole remaining on his property has every right to be an asshole.

Yes. We can all agree on that. Whatever you do on your own private residence is completely up to you, so long as you are not committing a crime.

Can we agree on that?

Since they are not taking away your right to control your self or your own property or interact with other people on a consensual basis. They aren't breaking the peace if they are asking to be left alone are they?

If you aren't "breaking the peace" or violating any laws, you are completely free to be left alone. Yes, we agree on that.

A person controlling another person and insisting somebody interact with them is the person that is breaking the peace, and engaging in a kind of asshole behavior.

Be specific. Are you referring to private residence or a business open to the public? Be specific. Why can't you be specific?

What you are saying is that a person can be forced to interact and serve another person and somehow that instance of breaking the peace is acceptable to you.

If the person in question is committing a crime and/or violating someone's civil or inalienable rights, then yes, they should be forced to stop. Racist bigots seem to not grasp this concept, and neither do you.

Also, if you look at my previous post, it is obvious I won. You can't refute what I said, so you just repeated your rationalization of why its okay to use force to make people associate. Your goal of harmony is admirable. Your acceptance of force to try to achieve it, is not. People have a right not to be forced to interact. Assholes force interactions.

Only racist bigots say things like this. Yes, you have won. You have shown us all that you are a racist bigot without actually saying it. Congratulations!!

Boy you are one delusional sick racist bigoting man-child.

 

[UncleBuck]

Government should never have been involved in forced segregation.

they really weren't. a few local governments had a few rules about not serving blacks, but for the most part that was just done by hostile racist bigots of their own accord, absent any law mandating them to do so.

or, as you would rape the language to describe it, just peaceful people owning themselves and controlling their property.

you're a historical revisionist and denialist, and you are on par with a holocaust denier.

 

[Rob Roy]

they really weren't. a few local governments had a few rules about not serving blacks, but for the most part that was just done by hostile racist bigots of their own accord, absent any law mandating them to do so.

or, as you would rape the language to describe it, just peaceful people owning themselves and controlling their property.

you're a historical revisionist and denialist, and you are on par with a holocaust denier.

You're lying. There were lots of stupid laws forcing people to segregate, federal, state and local. A couple of weeks back I posted something. You were probably too drunk to remember.

Peace is never maintained by forcing people to segregate or forcing them to integrate.

Also its not hostile to leave people alone, but it is hostile to force them to do things.

 

[UncleBuck]

An asshole remaining on his property

apparently "remaining on his property" is your euphemism for "denying service to blacks and gays".

you try to rape the language to make your racist ideation sound more acceptable, but anyone can see that they are doing more than just "remaining on their property".

they are not taking away your right to control your self

tell that to blacks who, before civil rights, could not even travel the nation because of racist assholes like you who just wanted to "remain on their own property".

you dumb pile of shit.

They aren't breaking the peace if they are asking to be left alone are they?

A person controlling another person and insisting somebody interact with them is the person that is breaking the peace, and engaging in a kind of asshole behavior.

so your gay son is an asshole who is breaking the peace because he wants to peacefully hand money to the same store owners that serve you?

why do you say such mean things about your gay son?

What you are saying is that a person can be forced to interact and serve another person

for the third time, who is forced to open a public store rather than a private one?

somehow that instance of breaking the peace is acceptable to you.

and somehow this is totally peaceful and acceptable to you.

 

[Rob Roy]

apparently "remaining on his property" is your euphemism for "denying service to blacks and gays".

you try to rape the language to make your racist ideation sound more acceptable, but anyone can see that they are doing more than just "remaining on their property".



tell that to blacks who, before civil rights, could not even travel the nation because of racist assholes like you who just wanted to "remain on their own property".

you dumb pile of shit.

so your gay son is an asshole who is breaking the peace because he wants to peacefully hand money to the same store owners that serve you?

why do you say such mean things about your gay son?




for the third time, who is forced to open a public store rather than a private one?




and somehow this is totally peaceful and acceptable to you.

 

[UncleBuck]

There were lots of stupid laws forcing people to segregate, federal, state and local.

cite them.

show me the laws in each and every state mandating that gas station owners charge blacks twice as much as whites.

show me the federal laws mandating that woolworth's not serve blacks.

show me the laws in each and every state mandating that hotel owners refuse service to blacks.

don't make a liar out of yourself, you racist fuckwad.

forcing them to integrate.

only racists like you are "forced" to integrate, the rest of us do it willingly and with no force needed whatsoever.

its not hostile to leave people alone

for the tenth time, what is the most peaceful, non-aggressive, non-hostile way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color?

 

[see4]

or, as you would rape the language to describe it, just peaceful people owning themselves and controlling their property.

It's funny because it's true. It's almost as if he believes he is intelligent. I never liked philosophy majors, and now I see why. Redneck racist philosophy majors are a bane on society.

 

[UncleBuck]

for the fourth time, who is forced to open a public store rather than a private one?

for the eleventh time, what is the most peaceful, non-aggressive, non-hostile way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color?

I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.