Debate with a Trumper (any Trumper)

[UncleBuck]

sorry gays

why do you need to virtue signal your hatred for people who have a different sexual orientation?

you voted for cruz and trump, we already know you're a bigot who hates LGBTQ people.

no need to virtue signal it any further than that, you dumb racist.

 

[OldMedUser]

You cannot be a pacifist if you advocate for coercion based government programs. It is impossible.

I never said I did. Us Canadians continue to vote for things like medical so how can you say it's coerced?

Fail.

 

[UncleBuck]

For something to be a right it shouldn't pre empt another persons right.

you don't have the right to harm others.

the racial segregation you love so dearly harms others.

despite the fact that you will never admit it.

 

[UncleBuck]

i need to go do work

yo need remedial training in a trade school.

 

[cuddlesthesheep]

sorry gays i need to tend to some real life stuff like gardening ,laterz

Cawpppppppp Outtttttttaaaa Heeeerrreeeee

 

[HAF2]

Yeah i seen the post,musta got lucky or is in a better area/system then my friend

I don't know the story of your friend. For sure there are problems with our system. Even more problems in more remote areas of Canada where the doctors and nurses are spread thin.
But being someone that has been sick since childhood, the Canadian medical system has not let me down. Life saving surgeries for my friends and family and their children were covered and not paid for out of pocket. I don't know a single person that has died as a result of our health care system. Not a single person that has endured financial hardship having to pay for a necessary medical procedure.
Can you say the same of your country?

 

[Rob Roy]

@Rob Roy You have disdain for civil rights? Because the Constitution and its Amendments are an outline of civil rights, which this country was founded upon--Civil Rights as opposed to the totalitarian rule of a monarch government. You can't have disdain for civil rights and call yourself an American. You also can't support rights for the corporate machine, such as giving a corporate entity the same status as an actual person, and not support the rights of the People.

Oh, hello. I'm not sure you really understand where I'm coming from. Maybe you could answer a few questions...

I have disdain for the use of offensive force and a higher regard for personal accountability and voluntary and peaceful human interactions.

If people have rights, shouldn't those rights include the right of self determination ?


American ? I'm not interested in identifying with a nation state which has disdain for freedom and is run by a blood thirsty gang of thieves etc.

The Constitution is a piece of paper with words written on it. How could it be an agreement between anybody except for those who signed it ?

Isn't the United States a corporation ?

I do support rights of people that's why I'm opposed to a coercion based form of government. It is contradictory to be for "peoples rights" and then automatically assume they consent to a form of governance which removes their right of choice from the onset.

 

[Rob Roy]

Why did you force others to fund your sons schooling ?

In that arena I was nearly as ignorant of the inherent contradictions within a government controlled "education system" as you remain now....Nearly.

Why do you think it is okay to threaten force against a person who prefers not to abide by your demands, but is willing to leave you alone if you leave them alone?

 

[Rob Roy]

you don't have the right to harm others.

the racial segregation you love so dearly harms others.

despite the fact that you will never admit it.

Except...you're wrong.

What you are saying is...
Choosing not to interact with a person who is trying to forcibly cause an interaction with on you on your own property is harmful and people shouldn't have the ability to choose their interactions on a mutual and peaceful basis of all the involved parties.

In other words, you are defending forcibly derived human interactions and relationships, wherein ONE party can MAKE an interaction occur regardless of the wishes of the other party who wishes to remain neutral or simply to be left alone.

I would admit to something which was true, but you haven't addressed what I've stated above in any way which rebuts it. Can you ? I bet you can't.


As a side note, I certainly think a racist has the wrong mindset and believe I should be able to bar them from my property or prevent them from forcibly interacting with me.
Nobody, even a racist, if they are remaining neutral, should be forced into a human interaction they'd prefer not to be in. It's funny that you would use a rapist or slavers tactics to solve what you perceive is your right to force a person to interact with another person.

 

[Justin-case]

Except...you're wrong.

What you are saying is...
Choosing not to interact with a person who is trying to forcibly cause an interaction with on you on your own property is harmful and people shouldn't have the ability to choose their interactions on a mutual and peaceful basis of all the involved parties.

In other words, you are defending forcibly derived human interactions and relationships, wherein ONE party can MAKE an interaction occur regardless of the wishes of the other party who wishes to remain neutral or simply to be left alone.

I would admit to something which was true, but you haven't addressed what I've stated above in any way which rebuts it. Can you ? I bet you can't.


As a side note, I certainly think a racist has the wrong mindset and believe I should be able to bar them from my property or prevent them from forcibly interacting with me.
Nobody, even a racist, if they are remaining neutral, should be forced into a human interaction they'd prefer not to be in. It's funny that you would use a rapist or slavers tactics to solve what you perceive is your right to force a person to interact with another person.

You don't get to decide who is wrong and right , segregationists. Tldr.

 

[UncleBuck]

Except...you're wrong.

please find me a list of all the people who agree with you that denying equal rights to black people was a completely harmless thing to do then, segregationist.

 

[Rob Roy]

please find me a list of all the people who agree with you that denying equal rights to black people was a completely harmless thing to do then, segregationist.

Your statement is garbled and includes some false assumptions.

Could you rephrase and take out the idiot speak and false assumptions please ?

 

[Rob Roy]

You don't get to decide who is wrong and right , segregationists. Tldr.

Is it wrong to force another person to associate with you if they prefer not to ?

I bet you don't answer that.

 

[Justin-case]

Your statement is garbled and includes some false assumptions.

Could you rephrase and take out the idiot speak and false assumptions please ?

Ramblings of a racist pedophile ^^^^^^^

 

[Justin-case]

Is it wrong to force another person to associate with you if they prefer not to ?

I bet you don't answer that.

We prefer not to associate with pedophiles. Why are you still here?