I Can't Breathe..I Can't Breathe..I Can't Breathe..I Can't Breathe..

god1 said:
Either you're just being really ornery or you're confused again. But no, he doesn't support segregation in the direct sense; even though the policy he's talking about could in a non-ideal world support the action.
Click to expand...

we tried his proposal about 50 years ago.

it led to segregation.

wallace.jpg
 
UncleBuck said:
yes he does.

he supports relegalizing discrimination on the sole basis of skin color.

that's segregation. we literally saw it happen in this very country less than 50 years ago you dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


I support your right to shit your pants, but not shit on the floor of property you do not own, unless the owner has given you permission. That doesn't mean I like people that shit their pants or want to shit my own pants because I support your right does it? No, it doesn't.

It means I have no right to tell you how to determine the use of your own property, but I have EVERY right to use defensive force to repel you from shitting on MY floor.

I support a persons right to determine their own associations, you do not. Now go change your pants stinky.
 
UncleBuck said:
yes you do!

you argue endlessly for their right to kick london out of their stores because of london's skin color!

that's directly supporting their racist actions. you even called the policy itself racist and said you support it.

yet somehow you want us to believe you are totally not racist, you only support racist policies.

go back to your teenage angst and ayn rand, dickface.
Click to expand...


London has the right to determine his own human associations. He has NO right to initiate force on other people to compel them under threat of violence to associate with him. If he doesn't that have that right and I don't have that right and you don't have that right, nobody does. An aggregate of zeroes is still zero, even when your nanny state tries to intervene and compel people to stay away from each other or to compel people to associate.

Sometimes I think you're not very bright.
 
Rob Roy said:
I support your right to shit your pants, but not shit on the floor of property you do not own, unless the owner has given you permission. That doesn't mean I like people that shit their pants or want to shit my own pants because I support your right does it? No, it doesn't.

It means I have no right to tell you how to determine the use of your own property, but I have EVERY right to use defensive force to repel you from shitting on MY floor.

I support a persons right to determine their own associations, you do not. Now go change your pants stinky.
Click to expand...

you're comparing a black person who wants to buy your goods and services to someone shitting on your floor, and saying you need to use "defensive force" against black people who want to buy your goods and services.

you yourself called your position against civil rights racist, but you claim not to be racist. you only hold racist positions.

does that make any sense to anyone whatsoever?
 
Rob Roy said:
London has the right to determine his own human associations. He has NO right to initiate force on other people to compel them under threat of violence to associate with him. If he doesn't that have that right and I don't have that right and you don't have that right, nobody does. An aggregate of zeroes is still zero, even when your nanny state tries to intervene and compel people to stay away from each other or to compel people to associate.

Sometimes I think you're not very bright.
Click to expand...

the only one that can "compel you to associate" with those blacks you hate so much is you.

only you can decide to open a business, and only you can make it a public one instead of a private one.

cry some more you racist crybaby.
 
god1 said:
Either you're just being really ornery or you're confused again. But no, he doesn't support segregation in the direct sense; even though the policy he's talking about could in a non-ideal world support the action.
Click to expand...


Thank you for that reasonable response.

In the alternative, FORCING people to associate or not to associate does not present a mere chance of bad things happening, it ASSURES bad things happening by virtue of the systemic approval of the initiation of force against an otherwise peaceful person.
 
Rob Roy said:
Thank you for that reasonable response.

In the alternative, FORCING people to associate or not to associate does not present a mere chance of bad things happening, it ASSURES bad things happening by virtue of the systemic approval of the initiation of force against an otherwise peaceful person.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't call someone who prohibits people from entering his store based on their skin color a peaceful person, dumbass.
 
UncleBuck said:
you're comparing a black person who wants to buy your goods and services to someone shitting on your floor, and saying you need to use "defensive force" against black people who want to buy your goods and services.

you yourself called your position against civil rights racist, but you claim not to be racist. you only hold racist positions.

does that make any sense to anyone whatsoever?
Click to expand...


Nope. You sure can side step though, I'll give you that, is it because your shoes are slippery? Is there something on the bottom of them?

The reason a person wants to control their own property and only their own property doesn't change the nature of what property is and what must occur to ensure that the right of self ownership is protected.

Racists might not be nice people, neither are floor shitters, but I digress, neither are the real issue in the matter though simpleton.

The issue is WHO has the right to tell others what they can do with their own property and their body? I say not you, not me, not anybody. You conflate the discussion to your racist agenda and then spew your nonsense all the while ignoring that the policy you advocate encourages some people owning other people or their stuff.

Prohibitionists use the same argument lines you use, they "know" how others should behave and rapists use the same tactics, they apply force to somebody in a non defensive way, that is undeniable.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
Thank you for that reasonable response.

In the alternative, FORCING people to associate or not to associate does not present a mere chance of bad things happening, it ASSURES bad things happening by virtue of the systemic approval of the initiation of force against an otherwise peaceful person.
Click to expand...

From a pragmatic or implementation point of view you've got a problem. I assume you realize that.
 
UncleBuck said:
i wouldn't call someone who prohibits people from entering his store based on their skin color a peaceful person, dumbass.
Click to expand...


A floor shitter is at home happily crapping away on his OWN floor, not disturbing anyone. Maybe he will draw some cloud penis art in his dung pile or save it for later, but he's not abusing anybody else or their property.

A non floor shitter barges in and holds the floor shitter at ax point and demands he stop immediately and use his body and property the way HE has determined.

Who broke the peace feces breath? Check mate. (again)
 
god1 said:
From a pragmatic or implementation point of view you've got a problem. I assume you realize that.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating people discriminate based on criteria as silly as race or gender preference. However, it is silly for me or anyone to force them to associate with other people and then claim that I have not broken the peace\ by virtue of the force or threat of it that has been employed.

Cart before horse. Horse before cart. The order of operations...It makes a difference.
 
Rob Roy said:
I'm not advocating people discriminate based on criteria as silly as race or gender preference. However, it is silly for me or anyone to force them to associate with other people and then claim that I have not broken the peace\ by virtue of the force or threat of it that has been employed.

Cart before horse. Horse before cart. The order of operations...It makes a difference.
Click to expand...
You do realize no one is FORCING them to associate. They agree to associate when they open a business that is open to the public.
 
londonfog said:
You do realize no one is FORCING them to associate. They agree to associate when they open a business that is open to the public.
Click to expand...


That is false. A person is PREVENTED (forced) from conducting business when others determine the what, the who and the how of that business. Your blind spot shields institutional coercion from your gaze.

Also, in all seriousness I could give an Uncle Buck shit what color a person is or isn't. That's not relevant to me, but self determination is.
 
UncleBuck said:
it's called the civil rights act, google it fatty.
Click to expand...


I believe she meant an actual agreement wherein all of the people that are affected by the agreement voluntarily consented to it as individuals. I recognize that is a hard concept for you to grasp, given that you're a little dull, sycophantic and anal retentive.
 
Rob Roy said:
I believe she meant an actual agreement wherein all of the people that are affected by the agreement voluntarily consented to it as individuals. I recognize that is a hard concept for you to grasp, given that you're a little dull, sycophantic and anal retentive.
Click to expand...

He retains things in his ass? So you mean that pic of the double fisting he posted was a selfie?
Oh my, I don't even want to know how he built himself up to that ability. Life long trial and error I assume.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top