MAKE PEDOPHILIA GREAT AGAIN!

UncleBuck said:
there's no debate to be had with a person who refuses to say pedophiles who diddle 12 year old children should be jailed, or that certain 12 year olds certainly can consent, or that the pedophile who diddles a 12 year old is the "victim".
Click to expand...

You're afraid to debate me, because I'm smarter than you are. I understand that and have for several years. That's why you feature distractions. Good bye Poopy Pants.
 
HansBud said:
Trump didn't have sex with his kids you guys can take anything and blow it out of proportion, but thank you for proving my point of not letting go if I'm such a young dumbass who doesn't know shit why can't you ignore my posts?
Click to expand...
I can't ignore all dumbass right wing posters -- all of right wingers fit that mold. One of the reasons I come here is to see what the other side is saying. Another reason is to hold up a mirror for right wingers so the can see what kind of shit heads they are. Disgusting and offensive posters get my ignore button. Simply being stupid and simply being right wing isn't enough.

If you can't handle disagreement, why did you post in politics? We don't give a fuck about your personal life, btw. How about you stop whining and come up with a better line than "did not"? Trump's hands are all over his daughter in his public appearances with her. Kissy faces and stated desire to date her too. Defend his slimy groping of his daughter if you like but to me, he's showing all the characteristics of a pervert.
 
UncleBuck said:
let's illustrate how incredibly wrong you are with one question:

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
Click to expand...


Are you implying the solution to a situation involving people or their ancestors who had been put into a forced association (slavery) is to then to put OTHER PEOPLE in a circumstance where they are forced to associate?

Please explain how forcing people to associate solves a problem which began with a forced association. Do you use gasoline to put out fires too?
 
Rob Roy said:
Are you implying the solution to a situation involving people or their ancestors who had been put into a forced association (slavery) is to then to put OTHER PEOPLE in a circumstance where they are forced to associate?

Please explain how forcing people to associate solves a problem which began with a forced association. Do you use gasoline to put out fires too?
Click to expand...

it's a yes or no question, you racial segregationist.
 
UncleBuck said:
it's a yes or no question, you racial segregationist.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that it's okay for person A to force person B to serve them or associate with them?

I'm not a racial segregationist. I think racists are foolishly engaging in a form of collectivism, like you often do. I think people should associate with whomever is willing to associate with them, but nobody has a right to force an unwilling person to serve them or associate with them unless it is to back up an explicit agreement they made etc..


I see you ran away from defending your hypocrisy, when you couldn't answer my reply to your question above...I'm not surprised. Nighty night.
 
Rob Roy said:
Are you saying that it's okay for person A to force person B to serve them or associate with them?

I'm not a racial segregationist. I think racists are foolishly engaging in a form of collectivism, like you often do. I think people should associate with whomever is willing to associate with them, but nobody has a right to force an unwilling person to serve them or associate with them unless it is to back up an explicit agreement they made etc..


I see you ran away from defending your hypocrisy, when you couldn't answer my reply to your question above...I'm not surprised. Nighty night.
Click to expand...

it's an easy yes or no question, you racial segregationist.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
 
UncleBuck said:
it's an easy yes or no question, you racial segregationist.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
Click to expand...


Slavery (a kind of forced association) causes a harm. Not associating with a person (leaving them alone, not forcing them to associate or engage in trade etc,) is a position of neutrality.

Preventing other people from trading with blacks or whites or Indians, etc. if they wanted to was wrong and is the essentially the same thing as forcing people to associate or trade. The common denominator being the relationship is not consensual in both circumstances.

I should point out you probably agree that forced associations are wrong, until you then disagree with yourself and advocate for a forced association if the forced association results in something you like. Which is why you are wrong, because holding two opposing views at once, is the mark of an incorrect person, you.

You haven't touched my question or disproved that you advocate for forced human relations...just like slavers did.

By the way, I'm winning.
 
UncleBuck said:
did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
Click to expand...

I explained what causes harm and what is a neutral position. What caused harm was preventing people who wished to associate from associating. Just as forcing people who do not wish to associate to associate causes a harm as it uses the same means as slavery, which you correctly know to be wrong, before you get all hypocritical and adopt slaver tactics.



I see you are not able to answer my question. Why not give it a try?

Are you saying that it's okay for person A to force person B to serve them or associate with them?
 
Rob Roy said:
I explained what causes harm and what is a neutral position. What caused harm was preventing people who wished to associate from associating. Just as forcing people who do not wish to associate to associate causes a harm as it uses the same means as slavery, which you correctly know to be wrong, before you get all hypocritical and adopt slaver tactics.



I see you are not able to answer my question. Why not give it a try?

Are you saying that it's okay for person A to force person B to serve them or associate with them?
Click to expand...

it's a yes or no question, you racial segregation. either it was harmful, or it wasn't.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
 
UncleBuck said:
it's a yes or no question, you racial segregation. either it was harmful, or it wasn't.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
Click to expand...


Your question amounts to a non sequitur. I put it in the right perspective and you have refused to address your advocacy for using force against a neutral person. Which is very telling.


Here is the relevant answer to whether people have a right to force others to associate etc. If you could refute what I say below, you would, but you can't.

Preventing other people from trading with blacks or whites or Indians, etc. if they wanted to was wrong and is the essentially the same thing as forcing people to associate or trade. The common denominator being the relationship is not consensual in both circumstances.
 
Rob Roy said:
Your question amounts to a non sequitur. I put it in the right perspective and you have refused to address your advocacy for using force against a neutral person. Which is very telling.


Here is the relevant answer to whether people have a right to force others to associate etc. If you could refute what I say below, you would, but you can't.

Preventing other people from trading with blacks or whites or Indians, etc. if they wanted to was wrong and is the essentially the same thing as forcing people to associate or trade. The common denominator being the relationship is not consensual in both circumstances.
Click to expand...

bla bla bla, pedo.

it's a yes or no question, you racial segregation. either it was harmful, or it wasn't.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
 
UncleBuck said:
bla bla bla, pedo.

it's a yes or no question, you racial segregation. either it was harmful, or it wasn't.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?
Click to expand...

You are the one advocating the solution to something is to force people to associate. The burden of justifying why forcing people to associate is not a harmful tactic is on you.

I think you are refusing to engage because your hypocrisy has been laid bare. I don't advocate people be forced to associate, and you do.
You haven't denied that, because you can't. By repeating your question, it's a form of denial that you are advocating for that which you say you oppose. Too funny.


Preventing other people from trading with blacks or whites or Indians, etc. if they wanted to was wrong and is the essentially the same thing as forcing people to associate or trade. The common denominator being the relationship is not consensual in both circumstances.
 
Rob Roy said:
You are the one advocating the solution to something is to force people to associate. The burden of justifying why forcing people to associate is not a harmful tactic is on you.

I think you are refusing to engage because your hypocrisy has been laid bare. I don't advocate people be forced to associate, and you do.
You haven't denied that, because you can't. By repeating your question, it's a form of denial that you are advocating for that which you say you oppose. Too funny.


Preventing other people from trading with blacks or whites or Indians, etc. if they wanted to was wrong and is the essentially the same thing as forcing people to associate or trade. The common denominator being the relationship is not consensual in both circumstances.
Click to expand...

you are the last person who should ever talk about consent.

this debate can't even get started until you answer the very simple yes or no question.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?

i say it did. you afraid?
 
UncleBuck said:
you are the last person who should ever talk about consent.

this debate can't even get started until you answer the very simple yes or no question.

did the denial of service to black people before civil rights laws were passed cause them harm?

i say it did. you afraid?
Click to expand...

No, not afraid. Bored and slightly amused at how easy it is to reveal your hypocrisy.

What caused black people harm was they were forced to associate with slaveholders. Then when they were "freed", laws went into effect which disallowed the freedom of association between people who wanted to associate.

The freedom of association carries a corollary, which is the freedom not to be forced to associate (to be able to remain neutral). That is where your disconnect lies. You don't see that you are advocating that which you claim to disavow (forced associations).

Preventing other people from trading with blacks or whites or Indians, etc. if they wanted to was wrong and is the essentially the same thing as forcing people to associate or trade. The common denominator being the relationship is not consensual in both circumstances.

This debate isn't a debate because you can't defend your premise and insist on holding two opposing views at once. Which is kind of a childish way to present an argument.

Past my bedtime. Good night Poopy Pants.
 
Rob Roy said:
The guy who shits on floors at 17 and thinks it's funny to create an out of context quote for the purposes of maligning a stalwart and upstanding person (did you like that one?) thinks calling the cops to solve a problem is his only go to.

Also, in the hypothetical example when you postponed your floor shattery, you were kind of a victim of fraud, since the over developed girl told you she was 16. Are you saying that you knew she wasn't and you proceeded anyway?

Also, you STILL haven't mentioned what you think should happen to a serial floor shitter? Rub their nose in it? Life imprisonment? What?
Click to expand...
No you've got it all wrong. No cops.

I'd deal with you in a much different way. ;)

Die in your sleep tonight please. We will all be happier.
 
UncleBuck said:
the other option is complete and outright denial of history as we know it.
Click to expand...

History (his story) as you know it is distorted.
Slavery is prominent in Arab countries today, and the blacks get treated far worse than the
slaves in America back in the day.

Look how good the descendants of the American slaves have it now; they can become anything they want, but most of them are to lazy. Muh ancestors woz slaves, gibs me dat.
They scream racism and unfair treatment, yet they would never go back to Africa.

If whitey is so bad why are they flooding into our white countries?
Why don't they build and develop their own countries?
After all we're all the same, aren't we? so why do they live like that?
Why do they come into our countries and turn nice suburbs into slums?
 
Mahatma_Billi said:
History (his story) as you know it is distorted.
Slavery is prominent in Arab countries today, and the blacks get treated far worse than the
slaves in America back in the day.

Look how good the descendants of the American slaves have it now; they can become anything they want, but most of them are to lazy. Muh ancestors woz slaves, gibs me dat.
They scream racism and unfair treatment, yet they would never go back to Africa.

If whitey is so bad why are they flooding into our white countries?
Why don't they build and develop their own countries?
After all we're all the same, aren't we? so why do they live like that?
Why do they come into our countries and turn nice suburbs into slums?
Click to expand...

go back to gab.ai where your white supremacist propaganda is welcomed, please.

thank you, YT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top