Why do some have problems with people of different color

TacoMac said:

Georgia schools have actually received, quite literally, billions from the state run lottery.

Click to expand...

Does it matter where the money comes from if it isn't enough?

twostrokenut said:

View attachment 3957008

Click to expand...

so your argument is that you are perfectly fine with your ideological colleagues calling black people "an inferior lot"?

that's not much of an argument.

The way I see it you treat me with respect I treat you with respect regardless of race color or creed

londonfog said:

Sure . Now explain to me again why a racist store owner should have the right to not serve someone of the black, brown or purple color? Open to the public means just that, but your ass and @twostrokenut would die to defend that racist piece of shit.

and please don't ask me what is property and who owns it.

Click to expand...

Thank you for asking politely. I'll address your post now.

I think our differences arise in your misunderstanding of the difference between a right and a government granted privilege.

A racist store owner or a non racist store owner should both have the ability to determine the use of their OWN bodies and their OWN property. I consider that their equal right and somewhat axiomatic.

To use ANOTHER persons body or to determine the use of ANOTHER persons property requires the consent of the other person, if it doesn't then there can be no such thing as equality. If you don't understand that point, I can explain it to you later if you like.

How other people decide to use their OWN property or their OWN body may meet with our disapproval, but to take away a persons right of self determination is wrong isn't it ? If you say yes to my question, then we have no argument. If you say no, then you are at least in part supporting unequal rights, as you would be endorsing one party having the ability to force another party when the other party is in a neutral status. In that instance, the onus of defending the use of offensive force falls upon you. I can't think of any proper moral defenses for the use of offensive force, can you?


"Open to the public" is a phrase you toss around, but then you fail to understand the contradiction. It can only be "open to the public" if the owner voluntarily wishes it to be so or if another entity forcibly imposes that status on the owner. right?

In the case of the hypothetical racist store owner clearly his intention is NOT to be "open to the public". If he isn't trying to run ANOTHER persons body or ANOTHER persons property, how would you or I have any right to tell him what to do with his OWN body or property ? Where would that right come from?

londonfog said:

Shit he sent his kids to fucking public school. Now he bitches about property tax.
Confused hypocritical nut job...with very good writing skills. thanks to public school

Click to expand...

I would forgive you for stealing that orange.

Rob Roy said:

I would forgive you for stealing that orange.

Click to expand...

Like the wedding cake shop that got sued for refusing service to a gay couple.

Drowning-Man said:

Like the wedding cake shop that got sued for refusing service to a gay couple.

Click to expand...

Not sure of your point.

Are you simultaneously endorsing the idea that gay people have a right to chose their human interactions unmolested from others (they do) but at the same time gay people somehow have a right to force other people to lose their right to chose their human interactions ?

Sounds a little contradictory...because it is.

TacoMac said:

It's called "the greater good".

Long ago this nation decided that it didn't want to live in the stone age. It wanted an educated, thinking, developing, dynamic populace that would contribute to the nation rather than be a burden to it.

That is where mandatory public education and the taxes to pay for it comes from: the idea that as a nation, we should all work to improve not only ourselves, but our posterity. (That's in the Constitution, FYI)

So for pennies a day, we send not some, but ALL of our youth to school to learn basic education to prepare them for their adult lives.

Want to live in a nation with no taxes for nation wide public education? Africa is rife with them. Not surprisingly, that entire continent lives in, at best, 18th century conditions for the most part. Some even live in 14th century conditions at best.

But that's not the real issue you have. The real issue you have, and it's a whopper, is that you're all against everything the government does with every post you make, but at the same time somehow expect everything to be done by magic, for everybody to just learn how to be productive through osmosis or some other bullshit.

You're dense beyond any rational level to excuse. It's pretty sad, really.

Click to expand...

So, in order to achieve a "greater good" you are saying it's okay to remove the rights of a peaceable individual to self determine?

I am against involuntary human relations and the use of offensive force as a means to an end.
Are you against that too or do you embrace the idea that some people have special rights that others do not, where they can use force justifiably in a nondefensive way?

I await your astute and learned reply.

Rob Roy said:

Not sure of your point.

Are you simultaneously endorsing the idea that gay people have a right to chose their human interactions unmolested from others (they do) but at the same time gay people somehow have a right to force other people to lose their right to chose their human interactions ?

Sounds a little contradictory...because it is.

Click to expand...

The shop owners refused based on religious and moral beliefs. They werent homophobes.

Drowning-Man said:

The shop owners refused based on religious and moral beliefs. They werent homophobes.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. While I would disagree with their rationale even if they WERE homophobes, I don't think they should be forced to bake a cake for anyone they chose not to associate with.




Bigots and racists have the same right to self determine as anybody else. Conversely they have NO RIGHT to take away another persons right to self determine.

Rob Roy said:

Thanks for the clarification. While I would disagree with their rationale even if they WERE homophobes, I don't think they should be forced to bake a cake for anyone they chose not to associate with.




Bigots and racists have the same right to self determine as anybody else. Conversely they have NO RIGHT to take away another persons right to self determine.

Click to expand...

When i was in san Antonio every single business had a right to refuse service sighn

Drowning-Man said:

When i was in san Antonio every single business had a right to refuse service sighn

Click to expand...

I consider a service something that is entered into on a mutual basis of both parties.

While I am disappointed that some people are homophobes or racists, I think the best way for me to deal with them, is to give my money to a business that isn't homophobic or racist.

UncleBuck said:

no one is born racist, it is learned. so that right exists.

everyone is born with a skin color though.

what a shitty argument you just tried to make. you must be mentally retarded or something.

Click to expand...

Your arguments rely on the idea that some people are born with the right to force another person to associate with them.

I don't think that right exists. Can you please explain who has that right and who doesn't ? If that right does exist, wouldn't that be your advocating that some people have MORE rights than others?

UncleBuck said:

you were aware of the property tax, agreed to it voluntarily, and now cry like a little bitch about it.

is it really that hard to scrounge up $14 every year to pay off your subsistence farm?

Click to expand...

If a person is aware that a thug will kick them in the balls if they don't pay the thug for allowing them to do something, payment to the thug does not constitute agreement with the thug does it?

londonfog said:

you also wouldn't want to pay property tax although you and your children were direct benefactors from it

Click to expand...

I wouldn't pay somebody to rob you even if the robber was going to give me some of your stuff and me and my children benefitted from it...because it's wrong to take your stuff against your will.

londonfog said:

So will you claim your SS when you reach of age ? Will you also be returning the monies that it took to educated your children and yourself. Please stay off our roads and do not ever use a library.

Click to expand...

You continuously refer to a system which places a ransom on your home to force payment and that inculcates people in obedience by design as "education". You're using the wrong term.

The one you want is "indoctrination". If you were educated you would already know that.

Rob Roy said:

I wouldn't pay somebody to rob you even if the robber was going to give me some of your stuff and me and my children benefitted from it...because it's wrong to take your stuff against your will.

Click to expand...

I dont believe in annual land tax. They call it taxes i call it rent. Sales tax is one thing.

TacoMac said:

What's a 'yer'? You can type 'conversation' but not 'your'? Then you say 'outa'? You couldn't be bothered to once again hit just two more keys and say 'out of'?

Are you that damn lazy that one or two more buttons is just too much to push?

Are you that stupid?

Could it be (please tell me it isn't) that you think you look cool by typing like an uneducated 14 year old idiot that just stumbled across his daddy's cell phone and is trying desperately to butch up by pretending to be from the 'hood'?

Click to expand...

I'm patiently waiting for your responses to my questions.

Drowning-Man said:

I dont believe in annual land tax. They call it taxes i call it rent. Sales tax is one thing.

Click to expand...

A land tax is a vestige of the landlord / serf thing.