This is what happens when politics go one sided

[Rob Roy]

<what you say when you have nothing to say>

Rather than persuade me with an argument, which he seems unable to make, he resorts to insults and mischaracterizations.

That's a little sad, but not surprising.

 

[UncleBuck]

Rather than persuade me with an argument, which he seems unable to make, he resorts to insults and mischaracterizations.

That's a little sad, but not surprising.

what would it take to persuade you that black people shopping at the store is not akin to rape and slavery, klanman?

 

[PCXV]

That response has no legs, sounds full of emotion and is frighteningly bereft of any logic.

First, if I were being racist, I wouldn't insist a person of any race has a right to self determine and decline an interaction with someone they preferred not to interact with.

Second, if my ideology is based in human interactions which are voluntary are superior to ones which are involuntary, it can be inferred you support human relations that arise from involuntary circumstances wherein one party imposes them on another neutral and / or peaceful person. That was a fancy way of saying you're taking the same stance as a prohibitionist when it comes to human relations.

I'll be sure to enjoy pointing out your inconsistencies and wish you every success navigating thru life while you are walking in circles and insisting black women serve white men against their will while insinuating I am a racist.

The logic is perfect: minorities, women, the disabled, etc. have a right not to be discriminated against and denied services offered to the public.

I don't prefer involuntary association, but I realize our history of race relations and the ramifications. You are advocating for injustice in the context of reality. You don't care about the consequences of your principles. Your way causes actual harm, my way doesn't.

It is a common racist tactic to pretend to be oblivious to the presence and consequences of racism. So forgive me if I make that assumption about you.

 

[Rob Roy]

The logic is perfect: minorities, women, the disabled, etc. have a right not to be discriminated against and denied services offered to the public.

I don't prefer involuntary association, but I realize our history of race relations and the ramifications. You are advocating for injustice in the context of reality. You don't care about the consequences of your principles. Your way causes actual harm, my way doesn't.

It is a common racist tactic to pretend to be oblivious to the presence and consequences of racism. So forgive me if I make that assumption about you.

Well, I can certainly forgive an assumption, since it's only a thought. You should be free to think what you like, even when you are in error. Your thoughts might hurt my feelings (they don't in this case) but that's not an actionable harm which can be quantified in a way where you would owe me restitution.

An action though, wherein one person is forcibly made to serve another is another thing and CAN cause an actionable harm. You should not be free to forcibly cause another person to serve you. It's not up to you to decide what people will do with their own bodies, is it? They have a right to say no thank you and if that doesn't work, "fuck off" .

I do care about the consequences of my principles, which is why, I'm an Abolitionist and oppose forced human associations, which you do not.

Are you saying that, forcing others to serve people, slavery, doesn't cause harm?

 

[Rob Roy]

The logic is perfect: minorities, women, the disabled, etc. have a right not to be discriminated against and denied services offered to the public.

I don't prefer involuntary association, but I realize our history of race relations and the ramifications. You are advocating for injustice in the context of reality. You don't care about the consequences of your principles. Your way causes actual harm, my way doesn't.

It is a common racist tactic to pretend to be oblivious to the presence and consequences of racism. So forgive me if I make that assumption about you.

Well, I can certainly forgive an assumption, since it's only a thought. You should be free to think what you like, even when you are in error. Your thoughts might hurt my feelings (they don't in this case) but that's not an actionable harm which can be quantified in a way where you would owe me restitution.

An action though, wherein one person is forcibly made to serve another is another thing and cause an actionable harm. You should not be free to forcibly cause another person to serve you. It's not up to you to decide what people will do with their own bodies, is it? They have a right to say no thank you and if that doesn't work, "fuck off" .

I do care about the consequences of my principles, which is why, I'm an Abolitionist and oppose forced human associations, which you do not.

Are you saying that, forcing others to serve people, slavery, doesn't cause harm?

 

[Rob Roy]

what would it take to persuade you that black people shopping at the store is not akin to rape and slavery, klanman?

Knowing that both parties to a human interaction are in agreement and no party has been forced to acquiesce under a threat of force if they don't do what they are told. It is in harmony with my philosophy of live and let live.

What would it take for you to adopt a philosophy where you don't force people to associate with you, if they prefer not to?
Would a robotic love doll, keep you at home long enough that you stop prowling the streets looking for people to force to suck your dick for $14 ?

As far as black people go, I have no problem with them exercising their right of self determination and refusing your offer to associate with them, if they'd prefer not to. I think everyone has the equal right of self determination. Do you want a black friend so bad that you need a law forcing one to associate with you?

 

[PCXV]

Well, I can certainly forgive an assumption, since it's only a thought. You should be free to think what you like, even when you are in error. Your thoughts might hurt my feelings (they don't in this case) but that's not an actionable harm which can be quantified in a way where you would owe me restitution.

An action though, wherein one person is forcibly made to serve another is another thing and CAN cause an actionable harm. You should not be free to forcibly cause another person to serve you. It's not up to you to decide what people will do with their own bodies, is it? They have a right to say no thank you and if that doesn't work, "fuck off" .

I do care about the consequences of my principles, which is why, I'm an Abolitionist and oppose forced human associations, which you do not.

Are you saying that, forcing others to serve people, slavery, doesn't cause harm?

Tyranny, abuse, slavery will exist de facto under your ideology, not mine. My way has the possibility of legislating for or against slavery. Do you see no upside to the law? Where is the harm in forcing people not to he enslaved/indentured? What is the harm in forcing people not to arbitrarily discriminate to reduce harm on an oppressed minority?

 

[UncleBuck]

one person is forcibly made to serve another

you have never named one person who was forced to serve another. not ever.

all you have are imaginary hypotheticals and an imaginary history in which black people did not want to be forced to serve whites.

your entire philosophy is imaginary and in no way based on actual events or actual history, klanman

 

[schuylaar]

Knowing that both parties to a human interaction are in agreement and no party has been forced to acquiesce under a threat of force if they don't do what they are told. It is in harmony with my philosophy of live and let live.

What would it take for you to adopt a philosophy where you don't force people to associate with you, if they prefer not to?
Would a robotic love doll, keep you at home long enough that you stop prowling the streets looking for people to force to suck your dick for $14 ?

As far as black people go, I have no problem with them exercising their right of self determination and refusing your offer to associate with them, if they'd prefer not to. I think everyone has the equal right of self determination. Do you want a black friend so bad that you need a law forcing one to associate with you?

keep in mind though, you are not forced to work a job that requires you to do something which you do not believe in. no one is forced to open a public company open to all either, but if you choose to do so you must serve all including your employees or they don't have to work there. no picking and choosing..to do so, would be discriminatory.

that's one of the flaws to your theory, rob.

 

[Flowki]

keep in mind though, you are not forced to work a job that requires you to do something which you do not believe in. no one is forced to open a public company open to all either, but if you choose to do so you must serve all including your employees or they don't have to work there. no picking and choosing..to do so, would be discriminatory.

that's one of the flaws to your theory, rob.

It comes down to tolerance on all sides. It is completely fine if a person privately does not like the color of my skin so long as that does not manifest into a dysfunctional encounter. In a work place that is ''professionalism'', we require a functional level of tolerance for society as a whole to work. Functional because too much tolerance can be as bad as to little, such as obesity.

It's akin to many things. I personally don't like fake breasts, I'd not sleep with a women who has them but I wouldn't socially or professionally interact with her any different. If she asked for the honest reason why I refused to sleep with her, the answer is only a problem if she wants it to be.

With so many races, cultures, religions and so forth it is irreversibly human that we have dislikes in one form or other. That's genuinely not a problem at all if you are ''civilized'' enough.

 

[UncleBuck]

It comes down to tolerance on all sides.

you yourself admitted that your particular side attracts nazis

 

[Rob Roy]

keep in mind though, you are not forced to work a job that requires you to do something which you do not believe in. no one is forced to open a public company open to all either, but if you choose to do so you must serve all including your employees or they don't have to work there. no picking and choosing..to do so, would be discriminatory.

that's one of the flaws to your theory, rob.

That's almost like a real refutation, except it relies on a shift of my actual premise and defaults to the erroneous idea that I'm saying the force begins at the point you open a store etc. That isn't my point.

So, no, my premise isn't that the force begins only at the point when a person opens a store. It surely IS there, but the force begins prior to that, when nearly EVERY law insists that permission from the state to do anything, to simply exist, is a baked in assumption.

For instance if a person doesn't open a store it might be because they don't want to bother with all of the bullshit they are forced to undergo. Isn't the land they supposedly own taxed, via a forcible process whether they do commerce there or not ?

Also, prior to all of the bullshit laws people simply traded with others on a basis they mutually established. That activity predates any laws, it is as old as mankind.

In order to exist today, no you aren't forced to work, but practically speaking without some source of income or ability to sustain yourself, thru your own work and / or mutual trade or charity from others who did some kind of work, living becomes virtually impossible. So while the government "doesn't force you to work" , you must work or live off the work of others, since the circumstances of sustaining yourself, keeping yourself alive, are a fact of life that exists whether there is a government or not.

Government essentially uses facts of our biological existence (feeding and sheltering yourself) as their ally, since they skim off the top of most of those efforts every person must undergo merely to stay alive.

It would be like saying, if the government taxed air (they've tried to) they don't force you to breath, but how will you live without it ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Tyranny, abuse, slavery will exist de facto under your ideology, not mine. My way has the possibility of legislating for or against slavery. Do you see no upside to the law? Where is the harm in forcing people not to he enslaved/indentured? What is the harm in forcing people not to arbitrarily discriminate to reduce harm on an oppressed minority?

I appreciate your sentiments, but your plan has a logical impossibility aspect to it, which you can't refute.

We might even share the same hoped for results, that people will intermingle and there will be a kind of peaceful existence. That is certainly my hope.

Except the way that you propose this will happen, the means, if you will, is not peaceful, it threatens force to neutral people for refusing an association. Which of course negates the possibility that peace will occur, since the presence of the threat against a person seeking to run their own life, but not others lives, provides evidence that the peace HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN by using your proposed method.

While your way of doing things, (the means you would use) may have created the outward appearance of peace, it isn't peaceful, it is really a kind of imposed order, backed by threats of force. So, again, when a threat is part of human interactions, peace becomes impossible. In order for peace to be the prevailing thing, human interactions must be on a voluntary basis or not occur at all, which is what my proposal is.

The harm is in the force. You cannot use force to eliminate force.

I doubt you can give an on point refutation of what I said, since it is impossible. You're welcome.

 

[Rob Roy]

Tyranny, abuse, slavery will exist de facto under your ideology, not mine. My way has the possibility of legislating for or against slavery. Do you see no upside to the law? Where is the harm in forcing people not to he enslaved/indentured? What is the harm in forcing people not to arbitrarily discriminate to reduce harm on an oppressed minority?

There is no ideology that will make every person a good person, none.

There is no ideology that can use offensive force as a systemic means to eliminate offensive force, since it is impossible. That is what you are attempting to do though. You are trying to legislate the impossible, good luck with that.

Before I can school you further, it might be good to understand the difference between using offensive force and defensive force and the meaning of the word neutrality. If you'd care to examine those concepts, you might see that I am consistent and you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you insist that using offensive force is the antidote to tyranny.

Insisting a neutral person do ANYTHING other than leave others alone, is the point you are conveniently ignoring. That's known as cherry picking and is intellectually dishonest.

Or you could conflate my position and we could go round and round as you dance away from questions and I post awesome bigfoot memes.

 

[UncleBuck]

I am radical right?

yes

alt-left is a thing.

no

 

[Fogdog]

I am radical right?... only you are making things up here.

What narrative am I trying to control?. People on the left in my country would not say they are economically communist nor are they always anti capitalist and certainly not in a position to live an anarchist life nor desire to do so. The left more or less represents some of their social views on equality, views on fair wages, ensuring corps are taxed ''correctly'' etc etc. The problem you are not seeing is that polarized politics is forcing square pegs in round holes. People choose a party that ''somewhat'' represents what they stand for and that for many people has them voting far more left or right than they would, or maybe even not far enough.

You are vastly over estimating the average voters understanding on what they are truly voting for. If you are poor, the left is traditionally what you blindly vote for. If you are rich and don't want to get taxed as much, the right is your friend. Since the left is traditionally favored by the poor, minority's tend to fall under that bracket too.. so it draws in equality crowds. On the right, the well off tend to be white, so no surprise that white supremacists end up on that side, often disregarding economic down fall for voting right.. over their hatred of X. Politicians have been pandering back and forth making false promises to try and steal and retain votes on both sides.. to the point you have poor people voting right at times when it makes little sense.

However are all right like that?, no. So we label the idiots as alt-right. You are fine with that, but why not just call them racists?. Why do we have to have the term alt-right?.. or even neo-nazi?. Racism was a thing before the alt-right or neo-nazis. Obviously we have those names because they more accurately describe said groups.

As the left traditionally has a lot of poor and minority, as politics have become polarized, as the internet offers a platform to all nut jobs, extreme factions have formed on the left. They may in many cases hold opposite opinions to the nut jobs on alt-right but the actions are not always the opposite. Blocking freedom of speech/opinion by using the race card as a weapon (rather than the ignorance of racism). Justifying violent protest and hatred on account of a ''righteous movement''. that is not anarchism.. they are not marching to govern their own lives, they are using all these things to get the government to make changes that suite them.. and the demands/accusations are increasingly more absurd. Those people who believe in what they are doing and use the above are alt-left. You no doubt have people like chuck who use the situation to do nothing but create chaos. People like him are worse than the alt-left and alt-right.. they just want to see pain for the sake of it, mentally ill.

All of the above is why you and others fail to understand that alt-left is a thing. Some African Americans call each other nigger as a casual friendly gesture. By your definition that isn't possible, but it's fact none the less.

You talk in generalities. Name some people who you call alt left. Better yet, name some people who you call extreme left who are in power or have access to power. If you name George Soros, I'm going to laugh.

There is a long list of people on the radical right who are in power or have access to power. I can start with Trump and Spencer.

 

[PCXV]

I appreciate your sentiments, but your plan has a logical impossibility aspect to it, which you can't refute.

We might even share the same hoped for results, that people will intermingle and there will be a kind of peaceful existence. That is certainly my hope.

Except the way that you propose this will happen, the means, if you will, is not peaceful, it threatens force to neutral people for refusing an association. Which of course negates the possibility that peace will occur, since the presence of the threat against a person seeking to run their own life, but not others lives, provides evidence that the peace HAS ALREADY BEEN BROKEN by using your proposed method.

While your way of doing things, (the means you would use) may have created the outward appearance of peace, it isn't peaceful, it is really a kind of imposed order, backed by threats of force. So, again, when a threat is part of human interactions, peace becomes impossible. In order for peace to be the prevailing thing, human interactions must be on a voluntary basis or not occur at all, which is what my proposal is.

The harm is in the force. You cannot use force to eliminate force.

I doubt you can give an on point refutation of what I said, since it is impossible. You're welcome.

Lol you claim victory after that spew of nonsense?

"It's not peace, it just looks like peace" Holy fuck you bumbling dumbass!

So not only is the status quo superior in every way possible, now you admit your way includes slavery, discrimination, murder, rape, because we can't tell people what to do?! LMAO you sound like a pre-teen rebel.

No, the harm isn't in the punishing people when they harm eachother or "forcing" people not to harm eachother, the harm is when people actually harm other people. Are you really that dull?

 

[PCXV]

There is no ideology that will make every person a good person, none.

There is no ideology that can use offensive force as a systemic means to eliminate offensive force, since it is impossible. That is what you are attempting to do though. You are trying to legislate the impossible, good luck with that.

Before I can school you further, it might be good to understand the difference between using offensive force and defensive force and the meaning of the word neutrality. If you'd care to examine those concepts, you might see that I am consistent and you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you insist that using offensive force is the antidote to tyranny.

Insisting a neutral person do ANYTHING other than leave others alone, is the point you are conveniently ignoring. That's known as cherry picking and is intellectually dishonest.

Or you could conflate my position and we could go round and round as you dance away from questions and I post awesome bigfoot memes.

You aren't schooling anybody you dotard. I know those terms better than you do evidently. What do you call using offensive force to punish a person who used offensive force to harm another person?

 

[Flowki]

You talk in generalities. Name some people who you call alt left. Better yet, name some people who you call extreme left who are in power or have access to power. If you name George Soros, I'm going to laugh.

There is a long list of people on the radical right who are in power or have access to power. I can start with Trump and Spencer.

It's you who is trying to control the narrative by forcing the microscope to where it suites your argument. If you can't comprehend the growing presence of a group that is not officially recognized that's on you. It's ironic that the seed of that group was planted in your country during the Vietnam war. It may not come to be known as alt-left, it may develop another name but until then, those wolves in sheep's clothing are alt-left.

The rich in your country and mine were mostly white, because the civilizations where founded by mostly whites. During times like the industrial revolution etc much land and business was created and acquired by white family's (both country's). The wealthy family's want to keep things as they are so laws and party's arose with that sentiment in mind. People who also got rich or benefited greatly from said family's also voted in that direction. Since racism was a large deal back then most of those privileged people were also white. The long lasting racial divide through economic trenching was set from those days.

Fast forward to now, we have quite a discrepancy between white privileged people and poor people of various origin, far less to do with racism, much more to do with economics. We have an easy time picking out the bad white people, they take all the money and pay little tax, been there for life times. We don't have an easy time picking out the bad poor people because it inherently seems righteous to take, take, take from the rich and give, give, give to the poor. Rich are not all bad people, not all poor are good, the left seem to forget that fact very quickly.

Our civilizations were dreamed up and payed for by white men. White rich men didn't build it, poor people did.. often not at a fair price. This is a fact that is important to understand because it underlines all the current tensions we have now.

So whats the fix, do you think wealthy people are going to give up half their shit to the poor?, would you give half your shit to an African right now?. That's the decades long impasse we are at. As I said before, try to take too much too soon from big corps and they leave.. we all lose, badly.

This is why the alt-left and many aspects of the left are dangerous. I agree with the sentiment, change needs to happen, wealth needs to be more equally spread to people who earn it. It is happening slowly and that's the only way it can happen. As it spreads you have seen more and more colored people rising the ranks of politics and official positions, you've had a black president. The door is open but the alt-left don't seem to see it.. they are consumed by anger of the past. They want it all and they want it now, If a demand is not met, protest.. and it is becoming ever more violent of an affair. If somebody opposes opinion, shut it down with race/sex cards. That does not lead way to progress.. that leads way to the opposite extremity. We've seen suppression by race, the alt-left are no better by attempting suppression by guilt and social fear. No better because they should know better.

In our country's, going on protest, violent or not does jack shit for change. The issue is economical and factually from past events the only way to change things on a social level is to do it economically. You no doubt will jump to anger but look around.. look at the likes of African Americans now compared to 60 years ago. Everybody is in a position to go after well payed or high ranking jobs in my country and yours. True some people will have far more hurdles to over come but it's pretty naive to expect a fair run in a country that was so one sided. That's the part where you deal with the cards you've got, rather than spit your dummy out the pram and go smash some windows.

 

[Rob Roy]

Lol you claim victory after that spew of nonsense?

"It's not peace, it just looks like peace" Holy fuck you bumbling dumbass!

So not only is the status quo superior in every way possible, now you admit your way includes slavery, discrimination, murder, rape, because we can't tell people what to do?! LMAO you sound like a pre-teen rebel.

No, the harm isn't in the punishing people when they harm eachother or "forcing" people not to harm eachother, the harm is when people actually harm other people. Are you really that dull?

That was quite a colorful flock of flying strawmen you've attracted to your bird feeder.
Here, let me address your frothing at the mouth contradictory laden "argument"...

Slavery? My way does not include slavery. It doesn't tolerate one party being subjected to the directives of another or others in the ways that yours does. Your way is based in disallowing individuals the choice of self determination, which is the main ingredient of slavery isn't it?

Discrimination is a human trait wherein individuals chose their preference of one thing over another, based on their wants or needs. Today I will make a discriminating choice when I decide to drive my sweet antique Volvo rather than my dirty pickup truck. Without the ability to make your own choices about your own body and your stuff, to make discriminating choices about how you will run your OWN life, you become subject to another persons choices with or without your consent...a slave. Forcing people to serve others against their will to combat discrimination is doing it wrong, since it violates the individual right every person has to self determine. When you attempt to correct one perceived problem by violating another persons right, you haven't solved a problem, you've created another one.

Murder and rape? Okay, I'll bite. Which part of your anatomy did you pull those from ? Could you offer an example of where I endorse that ?

No, I am not dull, you should see me when I have the lampshade on my head.