Schuylaar's Sesh - SCOTUS Upholds Public Prayer..

sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
do you know why people must carry auto insurance? it's to protect us against those who have no insurance..it's called "unisured motorists" coverage..florida is one of the highest states with 19% of uninsured motorists.
Click to expand...
Driving is a privilege. You are not being forced to drive. Don't want to pay the insurance? Take the bus, ride a bike, walk. You are allowed other options. Unlike health insurance.

Even I know this much.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
do you know why people must carry auto insurance? it's to protect us against those who have no insurance..it's called "unisured motorists" coverage..florida is one of the highest states with 19% of uninsured motorists.
Click to expand...
"Uninsured Motorist Coverage" is an optional coverage you can get WITH your auto insurance, which provides additional insurance should you be in a crash caused by an Uninsured Motorist.

the insurance mandate is unrelated, you could get Uninsured Motorist Coverage long before the mandates were imposed on us at the behest of the insurance companies.

Protip: in California, "Uninsured Motorist" policies specifically exempt the largest class of "Uninsured Motorists" from your coverage:

Government Vehicles!

if you get plowed by a cop car, a fire truck, a city bus, a federal state or local motorpool car, a Cal-Trans truck, or any vehicle with government plates your insurance company will NOT cover you, and youll have to sue the agency that runs the vehicle in question yourself.

government mandates everyone must have insurance... except themselves.

sweet.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Mindmelted said:
You do not have to have auto insurance unless you drive.
Click to expand...

A person does not create a victim by not having insurance. They create a victim by causing an accident and then not restituting that victim.

Forcing people to buy anything is a slippery slope and is not consistent with freedom. Government edicts do not create freedom, they remove it and replace it with a threat or actual force.
sheskunk said:
Driving is a privilege. You are not being forced to drive. Don't want to pay the insurance? Take the bus, ride a bike, walk. You are allowed other options. Unlike health insurance.

Even I know this much.
Click to expand...


They do like to say that driving is a privilege don't they? Of course th
UncleBuck said:
tell us more about what doesn't cause harm, but mere indifference.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will.

What a harm is in a logical justice system would be the initiation of aggression by one party (prohibtionists, bureaucrats, gov't boot lickers etc. ) on another party that is behaving peaceably. For instance, you are enjoying the use of your property in ways that you determine is acceptable with how you'd like to use your property, but that use does not impede another from using their own private property. The aggressor would be the one that limits your enjoyment of your property by making threats against you for not complying with their edict. You support aggressing against people that do not use their property in ways you would chose for them. That makes you the holder of a prohibitionist mindset.

Indifference is an act or more likely a belief or non act wherein one party does not initiate aggression. Nor do they try to make others use their property in ways that the property owner does not want to. It is a choice made by one party to not associate, but most importantly not to initiate aggression either. That would not be you or the wearers of the boots you love to lick.

You be sure and have a nice night now.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Okay, I will.

What a harm is in a logical justice system would be the initiation of aggression by one party (prohibtionists, bureaucrats, gov't boot lickers etc. ) on another party that is behaving peaceably. For instance, you are enjoying the use of your property in ways that you determine is acceptable with how you'd like to use your property, but that use does not impede another from using their own private property. The aggressor would be the one that limits your enjoyment of your property by making threats against you for not complying with their edict. You support aggressing against people that do not use their property in ways you would chose for them. That makes you the holder of a prohibitionist mindset.

Indifference is an act or more likely a belief or non act wherein one party does not initiate aggression. Nor do they try to make others use their property in ways that the property owner does not want to. It is a choice made by one party to not associate, but most importantly not to initiate aggression either. That would not be you or the wearers of the boots you love to lick.

You be sure and have a nice night now.
Click to expand...
so you're syaing denial of service to blacks in the south didn't cause any harm? that blacks "initiated aggression" by demanding access to the same goods and services a white person enjoyed?

do you have on single historian anywhere who shares your view?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so you're syaing denial of service to blacks in the south didn't cause any harm? that blacks "initiated aggression" by demanding access to the same goods and services a white person enjoyed?

do you have on single historian anywhere who shares your view?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that for something to be a "service" there must be agreement between the server and the servee on what the terms are. Absent that, there is no agreement. When a person is under threat of force to use their property in ways they have not agreed to, there has been an initiation of force.

If you do not want to conduct business with a person, for any reason, and then you are made to conduct business anyway....you have been extorted from. The color and positions of the independent players is secondary to the situation.

If you demand what another person owns and also tell them the terms that they will conduct business with you on, what would you call that?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No.
Click to expand...
so if you don't even have one single historian anywhere who agrees with you, doesn't that make you a denialist of reality and history?

shouldn't you change your views to reflect reality and history, rather than attempting to change history and reality to fit your failed views?
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so if you don't even have one single historian anywhere who agrees with you, doesn't that make you a denialist of reality and history?

shouldn't you change your views to reflect reality and history, rather than attempting to change history and reality to fit your failed views?
Click to expand...
Wow Buck, you CLEARLY lost the debate a long long time ago, you should give it up, even I get embarrassed at your feeble attempts. And I am hard to embarrass. Can you just stop? Humans everywhere are cringing.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
Wow Buck, you CLEARLY lost the debate a long long time ago, you should give it up, even I get embarrassed at your feeble attempts. And I am hard to embarrass. Can you just stop? Humans everywhere are cringing.
Click to expand...
so perhaps you can point me to a historian who agrees with robroy that blacks were not caused harm by the denial of service they faced in the south before civil rights.

i mean, i've lost the living shit out of the debate, so i imagine those historians exist and you guys are just waiting to spring them on me.

i'll be here waiting.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
There was nothing. Bang! There is everything. Sounds like "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth"
Click to expand...
it's a little deeper than that. scientific instruments used to measure expanding universe, high powered telescopes that allow us to see millions of light years away, yadda yadda yadda.

you go on hating science though, red. no one can stop you.
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
healthcare is not running someones life..it is a FACT with preventative screenings you CAN live a longer life. the choice is yours. it is FACT that if you take care of yourself, you won't wind up in the ER causing taxpayers (that's you and me) to pick up the tab or in many cases, hospitals going out of business in rural areas. it is a FACT if women have access to birth control without a copay they're more likely to use it. the bible beaters..the "pro-family" people are so worried about a women's right to have an abortion yet they deny the VERY THING which curtails it..for the last few days Red has been on his high-horse about my paying child support with joint-custody..denigrating me..what kind of "pro-family" person is he?..you righties talk a good game, then when it comes to pay up you're not exactly "pro-family"..this is why "New Hire Reporting" exists and everytime you change employment you SS is run through the database for "deadbeat dads"..a women paying child support is an anomoly and my ex was a dick.

EDIT: the moral of the story: you don't want healthcare? choose the basic coverage..don't use it, ever and if you should have an accident or somehting that causes you emergency treatment..you'll have hospitalization to protect us from you and your bill.
Click to expand...
Moral of the story, you don't want to be forced to buy insurance. buy it and don't use it. What kind of retarded logic is that?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No. I'm saying that for something to be a "service" there must be agreement between the server and the servee on what the terms are. Absent that, there is no agreement. When a person is under threat of force to use their property in ways they have not agreed to, there has been an initiation of force.

If you do not want to conduct business with a person, for any reason, and then you are made to conduct business anyway....you have been extorted from. The color and positions of the independent players is secondary to the situation.

If you demand what another person owns and also tell them the terms that they will conduct business with you on, what would you call that?
Click to expand...
to be a part of society there are rules..don't wanna be?..there's the manifesto..good luck!
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
so if you don't even have one single historian anywhere who agrees with you, doesn't that make you a denialist of reality and history?

shouldn't you change your views to reflect reality and history, rather than attempting to change history and reality to fit your failed views?
Click to expand...


Is the measure of truth and logic determined by "historians"? That's a weak analogy by itself. Work on fleshing it out some. By the way, it's 1491 and all the historians keep telling me I'm gonna fall off the earth.


How come you can't admit that being indifferent is not the same as an actionable harm? Can you use your big boy words to illustrate why you believe this?

My view of reality is that a million people voting something that is inherently wrong does not change the nature of that thing to make it right. I believe it is wrong to initiate aggression AGAINST ANYBODY OR THEIR PROPERTY....how about you, what do you believe?

Oh okay, I'll answer for you since you won't...You believe it is okay for some people to initiate aggression, as long as they are doing it the way you prefer. Isn't that the justification for all wars in history, Mr. History buff?

You really don't know the difference between indifference and initiated aggression? Wow that gerbil has crawled all the way up your chute to nibble on a few strands of your spinal chord eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top