Sarah Huckabee Sanders told to go FK yourself

Sativied

Well-Known Member
The problem with his argument is that the black guy is there to serve those seated in his section.

If they are seated they are to be served and the black server knows this just as a white yellow brown red servers know too.

If commotion caused then it’s case by case.

In the case of Sanders she was the commotion and her party was invited to stay- just not HER. Removing her removed the offensive.

While not illegal her lying on behalf of an institution that’s not supposed to and has always been suspect..? That’s balls.

Red Hen Management: no more taking a knee during the National Anthem! And Merry Christmas!
Racists are racist because they’ve been taught. It’s out of fear of the differences rather than learn and embrace.

You aren’t BORN a racist.
When you are in Rome, you are also in Italy :shock:
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
This is just a silly and extreme overgeneralization with no merit.

You still assert it’s acceptable to have racism as a preference in the first place. It’s not. No laws or ethics need to be created or philosophized to accommodate those who want to work in a restaurant but prefer not to serve people of color.

When people like you who aren’t completely stupid talk themselves into such pointless positions, I always wonder what the motive is. Do you know?

Racism isn't acceptable to me, but neither is obesity or many other things I don't like. None of those things give me any right to force a person to serve me or cease the control they exert over their own body though do they?

It's not up to me ( or you) to decide what other people do with their own body or their own property, it's up to them.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
This is just a silly and extreme overgeneralization with no merit.

You still assert it’s acceptable to have racism as a preference in the first place. It’s not. No laws or ethics need to be created or philosophized to accommodate those who want to work in a restaurant but prefer not to serve people of color.

When people like you who aren’t completely stupid talk themselves into such pointless positions, I always wonder what the motive is. Do you know?

By default you are asserting that a neutral party on his/her own property can be forced to interact with a person they prefer not to, and that somehow the person initiating the force is exempt from using initiatory force.

When people like you "know what's best" for other people and are willing to use force to get it, against a neutral party, how is that ensuring that equality is present ?

Isn't it obvious if you make others choices for them, against their will, that equality is no longer present?
 
Last edited:

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Except equality isn't present if one person can forcibly cause an interaction with another person against that persons will.

If equality is the goal, it would mean every person has the equal right of self determination, and no person or persons has the right to force another person to interact with them against their wishes.
You are thinking like an extremist, an idealist. The first sentence above is a false statement. More correct would be to assert complete and perfect equality isn’t present if one can one-sidedly force an interaction. How do you propopse we measure equality in such a precise manner? (rhetorical, we can’t) You also clearly reduce everything to the individual, it appears you perhaps should think less egocentrically.

Your second statement has the same flaw. If everyone together makes up rules (society) and everyone has to adhere to them, it’s still equal enough. Equality is not something you reach, it’s something we strive for, but without pretending it’s the ultimate goal by itself. What it really is, is a means to a decent society, not some idealistic goal by itself.

So no, striving for equality does not mean there are no rules and laws and does not require everyone has the ultimate freedom you seem to consider the ultimate goal still.



There’s a selfish and a social way to go about the above golden rule.
 

Sativied

Well-Known Member
Racism isn't acceptable to me, but neither is obesity or many other things I don't like. None of those things give me any right to force a person to serve me or cease the control they exert over their own body though do they?
It isn’t rational to compare racism to obesity in this context. The second sentence is a great example of an emotive conjugation. Learn to avoid those as it drops the level too low for me.

It's not up to me ( or you) to decide what other people do with their own body or their own property, it's up to them.
That seems to be about something else...
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
You are thinking like an extremist, an idealist. The first sentence above is a false statement. More correct would be to assert complete and perfect equality isn’t present if one can one-sidedly force an interaction. How do you propopse we measure equality in such a precise manner? (rhetorical, we can’t) You also clearly reduce everything to the individual, it appears you perhaps should think less egocentrically.

Your second statement has the same flaw. If everyone together makes up rules (society) and everyone has to adhere to them, it’s still equal enough. Equality is not something you reach, it’s something we strive for, but without pretending it’s the ultimate goal by itself. What it really is, is a means to a decent society, not some idealistic goal by itself.

So no, striving for equality does not mean there are no rules and laws and does not require everyone has the ultimate freedom you seem to consider the ultimate goal still.



There’s a selfish and a social way to go about the above golden rule.

So, rather than leaving a person alone who prefers not to interact with you, if you can get enough people to agree that it's okay to force that person to interact it then becomes acceptable to initiate force against them ?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It isn’t rational to compare racism to obesity in this context. The second sentence is a great example of an emotive conjugation. Learn to avoid those as it drops the level too low for me.

That seems to be about something else...

Except, the comparison wasn't obesity to racism.

The comparison was one of two instances, both of which are situations where a person is able to determine how they would control their own body and / or their own property as long as they aren't trying to forcibly make those determinations for others.
A racist and an obese person BOTH have the right to determine how they will use their own body, neither has the right to determine how others will use their bodies.

I will forgive your error. At least you didn't call me a racist though, I appreciate that.
 
Last edited:

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
Protected classes for one... you may very legally discriminate for any reason as long as its not a protected class... now we can argue morals of it, but legally its certainly an apples and oranges comparison...... race, color, religion or creed, national origin or ancestry, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, veterans status...those are protected classes

Political affiliation is not a protected class..

However i beleive the restaraunt owner was right in doing so... she has gay employees and sleezy sarah defends trumps trangender issues and that was troubling. . With an interview w the owner she pulled Sarah aside and did it privately, she said the exchange was polite and civil. They said her family could stay, but they chose not to, and they asked to pay for the cheese tray they had been nibbling on, the owner said it was on the house...it was not a grand standoff...

The owner said its a time that everyone make their stand...

The group that thinks cake bakers should be able to make you pass a morality test before theyll bake ur cake and if they dont approve of whom you love they can deny you services for being who you were born as... huge difference between the two..

Being black or being gay is not the moral equivalancy to working for the biggest threat to our republic since the confeceracy by choice..
Indisputable points made.
Excellent post
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Except, the comparison wasn't obesity to racism.

The comparison was one of two instances, both of which are situations where a person is able to determine how they would control their own body and / or their own property as long as they aren't trying to forcibly make those determinations for others.
A racist and an obese person BOTH have the right to determine how they will use their own body, neither has the right to determine how others will use their bodies.

I will forgive your error. At least you didn't call me a racist though, I appreciate that.
I think you need to find out what open to the public means. It would help with you appearing like a racist bigoted fuck fuck
 

Jimdamick

Well-Known Member
Both @Rob Roy and @Sativied have made great arguments, worthy of a discussion before the Supreme Court.
That's the way debate should work, without the fuck you asshole shit that usually occurs.
Please keep up the good work, it makes me smile :)
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I think you need to find out what open to the public means. It would help with you appearing like a racist bigoted fuck fuck

I think your point is based in a contradiction. It defaults to the idea that "some people" have a right to force other people to interact with them, even if the unwilling person prefers not to and is also willing to leave you alone. If you think that represents an equal rights position, why does it rely on one party using force against a neutral party ? How is that an instance of equality?



You seem to think that it's okay to force an unwilling person to interact with you, is that why you keep those handcuffs and mouth gag in the trunk of your car?
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Both @Rob Roy and @Sativied have made great arguments, worthy of a discussion before the Supreme Court.
That's the way debate should work, without the fuck you asshole shit that usually occurs.
Please keep up the good work, it makes me smile :)
I would love to hear you opinion on how @Rob Roy debates that a child of 12 can consent to sexual relations with someone 27 years old. He believes some children are mature for their age and age limits should be accordingly.
I gave up with this argument and decided to just lean towards the "fuck you asshole shit "
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I would love to hear you opinion on how @Rob Roy debates that a child of 12 can consent to sexual relations with someone 27 years old. He believes some children are mature for their age and age limits should be accordingly.
I gave up with this argument and decided to just lean towards the "fuck you asshole shit "

That's am intentional mischaracterization on your part. I believe the older a person is the more likely they will have developed the wherewithal to knowingly consent to something. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" when it comes to people. For instance, I know this guy that was so juvenile, he shit on the floor of a bathroom at the age of 17.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Except equality isn't present if one person can forcibly cause an interaction with another person against that persons will.

If equality is the goal, it would mean every person has the equal right of self determination, and no person or persons has the right to force another person to interact with them against their wishes.

When one party is denied the ability to opt out of an interaction, the person(s) denying them is creating an "unequal" situation, since their wishes are superseding the wishes of the other neutral party. Not to mention the wishes of the person(s) insisting that an interaction take place are backed by threats of violence for failure to obey. What I just said is undeniable by the way, but I'd be interested in your point of view if you think it's otherwise.
Please stop spamming us with your anti civil rights white supremacy spam
 
Top