Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your assumption would be inaccurate, just like your conflating arguments. I'm a little under 8' and can uproot small trees with my bare hands quite easily.
I don't judge people based on their race.
How many people understand the US Constitution?
- Thread starter MadMel
- Start date
Your assumption would be inaccurate, just like your conflating arguments. I'm a little under 8' and can uproot small trees with my bare hands quite easily.
I don't judge people based on their race.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I literally want people to chose their human interactions on a mutual, peaceful and consensual basis. That means one party or the other can't force the interaction if it isn't mutually desired.
Okay, you got me. I'm not really 8', but my balls are huge. I doubt you could even lift them.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
This is not the same thing as disallowing discrimination against patronage based on ethnicity. The TSA really do use their power to feel up children. No man should be refused service anywhere because of his race, creed, sexuality, or any kind of personal preference. Frankly, none of that shit applies to getting a haircut or buying toilet paper. If you think it's right, it isn't. No matter how you spin it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
that is already how it works, retard.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I feel your pain. If there were one thing I WISH that people would do, is to all get along and be peaceful.
However, people who compel somebody to interact or trade with them, when the other person wishes not to, isn't being peaceful, are they ?
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
On your time, feel free to do whatever you want. When you're working, you're on the store's time. No one should be denied access to food just because you hate their race.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
hanging "no negro" signs does not help that goal.
kicking someone out of a store because of their skin color isn't peaceful, pedo.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. You've confused the meanings of words again and also revealed your idea that government somehow can use offensive force to compell people and it doesn't count. You never did answer which PERSON has any right to force another person to interact with them...why not?
People who are compelled to interact are not "getting along".
You've also confused peace with imposed order. A common mistake.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not to be mean, but you're missing the meaning.
In between fucking with each other, Uncle Buck and I were talking about the owner of a property and the owner of an individual persons choices on who they will interact with or not.
My point has been, nobody has the right to initiate force to make another person interact with them. Would you agree or disagree? Do you have the right to make a person who would prefer not to, have a human relationship with you ?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you think it's reasonable and polite to hang a "no negros allowed" sign.
Olive Drab Green
Well-Known Member
My point is, that's true when it comes to personal matters, even if I disagree with that mentality, not business matters. Everyone needs to eat. Everyone needs medicine. I can't imagine how you'd survive under those circumstances if the roles were reversed and no one in town would feed you, but I definitely wouldn't call it alright. It's totally unacceptable.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Oh dear.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, a person uses their body to serve another person. That isn't personal?
If everyone needs to eat, how does that give you or me a right to make another person serve us or to interact with us?
In order to perpetuate human kind, people had to fuck, does that give me or you the right to force somebody to fuck us?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
those were your exact words, pedo.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No, I'm saying that nobody has the right to use or threaten force to initiate a human interaction upon a person or their property who prefers to be left alone.
The onus of proving that somebody does have that NONEXISTENT right is on you.
You've failed to answer that question, which is an admission on your part that you on one hand agree with that principle, BUT you will also READILY violate it to get your own way.
That makes you in disagreement with your own principles...why am I not surprised?
Last edited:
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
buying lunch at a restaurant is not initiating force, you racist retard.