Why The Democrats Are The Party Of SLAVERY And VICTIMIZATION

[UncleBuck]

No there is a law that tells Frederick if he has property, he MUST (there's the force) make a declaration of the use of it, or he will suffer a consequence, if he decides to use his property to conduct his business in a way that HE determines and doesn't lessen anothers right to use their OWN property.

You're ignoring the automatic inclusion of your nanny state, maybe because you've licked the boots so much you don't even realize it.


Also, you never refuted my declaration that a person can support a racists right to control his OWN property and that doesn't make that person a racist. You're failing badly.

so there is no law forcing frederick douglass to make his store open to the public?

that's what i thought.

advocating that businesses deny service to people based on race, as you do, is a racist position. you even said so yourself.

so how does someone who is not a racist advocate for a racist position?

 

[Rob Roy]

so there is no law forcing frederick douglass to make his store open to the public?

that's what i thought.

advocating that businesses deny service to people based on race, as you do, is a racist position. you even said so yourself.

so how does someone who is not a racist advocate for a racist position?

I'm not advocating for a racist position. I'm advocating for self determination and the right of every person, regardless of race, gender etc. to control their own body and their own property. It's like this, you could paint your house with pictures of Rabbi's "assisting" with circumcisions. I might not like your artwork, but I don't think it's up to me to tell you not to do it. Now if YOU went to someone else's property and did that, I'd endorse their right to remove you.


I have never advocated a person deny service to anyone based on race. You had to make that up, shitty debater person.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm not advocating for a racist position.

yes you are, you even said so yourself. want me to quote the post?

I'm advocating for self determination and the right of every person, regardless of race, gender etc. to control their own body and their own property.

people already can control their property.

I have never advocated a person deny service to anyone based on race.

that's exactly what you're advocating for though.

 

[Rob Roy]

so your answer to the least aggressive way to kick a black person out of your store is that you would hang a sign out front stating that blacks are not welcome in your store?

seems pretty aggressively racist.

No, I personally would not discriminate based on race. However proper use of the bathroom, ....ah fuck it..., even I'm getting tired of the you shit on the floor stuff.

Can you confess to something else stupid you've done so I can get some new material? I am certain there must be lots of stupid things you've done. C'mon just one or two things?

 

[UncleBuck]

No, I personally would not discriminate based on race.

you just said the least aggressive way to kick someone out of a store was to post a sign stating they are not welcome because of their race. remember?

It would be polite and reasonable to remind any person first that they are uninvited on private property.

so why do you think that hanging a sign letting black people know they are not welcome is not an act of aggression?

that's about as aggressively racist as it gets, klanman pedo.

 

[Rob Roy]

yes you are, you even said so yourself. want me to quote the post?




people already can control their property dipshit.



that's exactly what you're advocating for though.

No. people are restricted from controlling their property, you've already been proven wrong there. Your choosing to ignore the automatic inclusion of government doesn't mean it's not there. So, again your error is self evident.

I'm advocating for self determination, how others exercise it, is a DIFFERENT thing. I often disagree with how some people exercise their right of self determination, which is not the same as failing to recognize that they HAVE a right of self determination. (you do that)

 

[Rob Roy]

you just said the least aggressive way to kick someone out of a store was to post a sign stating they are not welcome because of their race. remember?



so why do you think that hanging a sign letting black people know they are not welcome is not an act of aggression?

that's about as aggressively racist as it gets, klanman pedo.

If a person owns themself and owns their property, they are not committing an act of aggression if they are remaining on their property and another person, regardless of race, comes to their property, unwelcomed and forcibly creates the interaction.

If a black person didn't want you on their property, would you insist on remaining there against their wishes?

 

[UncleBuck]

people are restricted from controlling their property

no they aren't.

anyone who owns property can choose to open a public store, a private store, or not open one at all.

everyone can control their property already.

 

[UncleBuck]

If a person owns themself and owns their property, they are not committing an act of aggression if they are remaining on their property

so hanging a sign that says blacks are not welcome, which is what you advocate for people to do, is not a hateful and racist act of aggression against black people?

maybe you have been in the klan too long and are blind to your own hateful aggressive racism.

 

[Rob Roy]

no they aren't.

anyone who owns property can choose to open a public store, a private store, or not open one at all.

everyone can control their property already dipshit.

False Dichotomy fail. There are other possibilities you have disallowed.

Can they exclude your coercive third party and simply "own" the property in the real sense of the word ownership? No, that is not permitted.

You lose (again).

Sometimes I honestly wonder if you are as dense as you portray. Sometimes.

 

[UncleBuck]

False Dichotomy fail. There are other possibilities you have disallowed.

Can they exclude your coercive third party and simply "own" the property in the real sense of the word ownership? No, that is not permitted.

You lose (again).

Sometimes I honestly wonder if you are as dense as you portray. Sometimes.

people already control their property. they can open a private store, a public store, or not open one.

no one is forced to open a public store.

your entire philosophy collapses based on that fact.

 

[Rob Roy]

so hanging a sign that says blacks are not welcome, which is what you advocate for people to do, is not a hateful and racist act of aggression against black people?

maybe you have been in the klan too long and are blind to your own hateful aggressive racism.

Weak. Very weak.

As I've stated before what a person does with their property and THAT a person has a right to do with their property are not the same things. Hence, I do not advocate a person use their property in any particular way and quite often disagree with how people use their property, while at the same time recognizing it is THEIR property. You don't.


Shouldn't you stop embarrassing yourself and go beat your wife now?

 

[UncleBuck]

I do not advocate a person use their property in any particular way

ad·vo·cate

verb
ˈadvəˌkāt/

1. 1.
   publicly recommend or support.

so you did not just publicly recommend that people who do not want to serve black people should hang a sign saying that black people are not welcome?

It would be polite and reasonable to remind any person first that they are uninvited on private property.

oh, yes you did.

why do you think that hanging a sign in front of your store stating that black people are not welcome is somehow not an aggressive and hateful act of racism?

 

[Rob Roy]

ad·vo·cate

verb
ˈadvəˌkāt/

1. 1.
   publicly recommend or support.

so you did not just publicly recommend that people who do not want to serve black people should hang a sign saying that black people are not welcome?



oh, yes you did.

why do you think that hanging a sign in front of your store stating that black people are not welcome is somehow not an aggressive and hateful act of racism?

No. I did not recommend people discriminate based on race. I am not in favor of that, in fact, I think it's stupid. Stupid.

You asked the most peaceful way a person could declare their intentions of the use of their own property, I suggested a method. That is not an endorsement of the act of discrimination, is it? You really are trying hard, but you continually fail.

So let's see, I've kicked your ass pretty hard. (again) You have tried to false dichotomize and conflate your way into some kind of "I've finally beaten Rob Roy in an argument" , except you haven't....loser.

I'm going to hop in the shower with my hot middle aged wife, and please, stop beating yours. Nighty night, Meathead.

 

[UncleBuck]

No. I did not recommend people discriminate based on race.

i asked you: what's the least aggressive way to kick someone out of your store based on their skin color?

and you responded:

It would be polite and reasonable to remind any person first that they are uninvited on private property.

in response to my question about kicking people out of stores based on race, you publicly recommended that people hang signs reminding people that they are not invited to be on that property because of their race.

now, you described this act of racial segregation as "polite and reasonable". those are not the words i would use, i would say your public recommendation to uninvite people based on their skin color is hateful and aggressively racist.

you are an advocate for racial segregation, by definition of the word "advocate" and your suggestion in response to my question about your preferred method to kick someone out of a store based on skin color.

 

[Rob Roy]

i asked you: what's the least aggressive way to kick someone out of your store based on their skin color?

and you responded:



in response to my question about kicking people out of stores based on race, you publicly recommended that people hang signs reminding people that they are not invited to be on that property because of their race.

now, you described this act of racial segregation as "polite and reasonable". those are not the words i would use, i would say your public recommendation to uninvite people based on their skin color is hateful and aggressively racist.

you are an advocate for racial segregation, by definition of the word "advocate" and your suggestion in response to my question about your preferred method to kick someone out of a store based on skin color.

No. I don't think racism is polite or reasonable. I never said or implied it was. In fact, I said it was stupid.

On the other hand, I don't think it is polite or reasonable to go to another persons property and act as if YOU own it and they don't.

I think all people of every race, gender, etc. have the right of self determination. No people have the right to force an interaction with a neutral or unwilling party. All people have the right to self defensive of themselves and their justly acquired property.

The problem with your "debating" is it relies on conflation.

I advocate property rights and the right to peaceful self determination. You're just mad because without conflation, I can easily beat you in any debate and usually do.

 

[UncleBuck]

No. I don't think racism is polite or reasonable. I never said or implied it was.

denying that what just happened, happened, is not a winning form of debate.

so let's review.

i asked you: what's the least aggressive way to kick someone out of your store based on their skin color?

you answered: It would be polite and reasonable to remind any person first that they are uninvited on private property.

so clearly you did say that racism is "polite and reasonable".

I advocate property rights and the right to peaceful self determination.

people already have property rights, and can peacefully self determine whether they want to open a public business, a private business, or no business at all.

you advocate for more than that. you just advocated for "no blacks allowed" signs, calling such signs "polite and reasonable".

there is nothing polite or reasonable about what you are advocating for. you are advocating for the least peaceful, most aggressive, hostile, and nasty racism imaginable.

it is easy to see that you are a klan member.

 

[Rob Roy]

denying that what just happened, happened, is not a winning form of debate.

so let's review.

i asked you: what's the least aggressive way to kick someone out of your store based on their skin color?

you answered: It would be polite and reasonable to remind any person first that they are uninvited on private property.

so clearly you did say that racism is "polite and reasonable".



people already have property rights, and can peacefully self determine whether they want to open a public business, a private business, or no business at all.

you advocate for more than that. you just advocated for "no blacks allowed" signs, calling such signs "polite and reasonable".

there is nothing polite or reasonable about what you are advocating for. you are advocating for the least peaceful, most aggressive, hostile, and nasty racism imaginable.

it is easy to see that you are a klan member.

No, you're wrong. I said the act of noticing a person they were not welcome could be done in a particular manner as a response to a question you asked. I didn't say that I thought the REASON for the notice was polite did I or that I agreed with the property owner did I?

In fact Mr. Floor Shitter, I've stated many times I think racism is stupid.

You asked SPECIFICALLY about the LEAST aggressive way etc. I gave a polite and reasonable way to notice somebody didn't I?



On the other hand you've never answered my question about why you think it is acceptable to force a person to serve another.

That means you're losing (again).

 

[UncleBuck]

I gave a polite and reasonable way to notice somebody didn't I?

hanging a sign telling people they are not welcome because of their race is not polite or reasonable.

you must be pretty deep into the klan if you think that type of thing is polite and reasonable.

 

[abandonconflict]

inb4 pedophilia is described as consensual again