The Democratic Party Autopsy Report

[Rob Roy]

you're comparing civil rights to rape because you are a hysterical and frightened racist bitch.

No, I'm comparing one kind of forced association wherein one person objects to another kind with similar objections.

So why would you force a black person to use his property and body to serve a white person he didn't want to ?

 

[dagwood45431]

So, who has the right to force another person to serve them? Do you ?

Don't open a public business. Problem solved, dumdum.

 

[Rob Roy]

how can we persuade you to not hate black people to the point of wanting to harm them by denying them service?

Even for you that was weak. Try again.

Who has the right to force another person to serve them ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Don't open a public business. Problem solved, dumdum.

You conflate private property with "public business" . Dum dum.

 

[PCXV]

@Rob Roy how is forcing a business to sell a product to someone they don't like harmful?

The purpose of a business isn't to enact their prejudice, it is to serve the public and make money. The store wants to sell a sandwich, the customer wants to buy it. That is the only relational transaction happening, and both are voluntary. Agents placing their personal prejudice over the purpose of the business is petty at best.

 

[Rob Roy]

@Rob Roy how is forcing a business to sell a product to someone they don't like harmful?

The purpose of a business isn't to enact their prejudice, it is to serve the public and make money. The store wants to sell a sandwich, the customer wants to buy it. That is the only relational transaction happening, and both are voluntary. Agents placing their personal prejudice over the purpose of the business is petty best.

The purpose of property (which is what a business is) is to establish who has the right to determine the use of something. If you don't agree, I'll be over later and will raid your refrigerator, drink all your beer, bang your wife and drive off in "our" car.

Who has the right to force another person to serve them?

 

[twostrokenut]

You are wrong retard. Deal with it.

actually implying a paid internet troll would get paid in physical metal of any consistency is very, very stupid. implying they might get paid in anything but worthless zinc today is equally stupid. pretending not to care or know why only worthless zinc replaced it's periodic brethren is next level stupid.

 

[PCXV]

How so? What harm have you caused by forcing people to tolerate each other, to treat each other with respect?

Your statement above is a contradiction. You can't force a person to respect you. That's like telling your rape victim to moan and say he loves it.

If I'm greedy, why am I the one leaving others alone and you're the one forcing them to comply with your wishes regarding their own body and own property?

Respect as in respecting their human and citizen rights and priveleges, recognizing them as an equal on human and civil level, not personally liking them. But you know that.

 

[PCXV]

The purpose of property (which is what a business is) is to establish who has the right to determine the use of something. If you don't agree, I'll be over later and will raid your refrigerator, drink all your beer, bang your wife and drive off in "our" car.

Who has the right to force another person to serve them?

Not all property can or should be private, unregulated property, though. What you describe is theft and off-the-rails. I'm still talking about unavoidable compromise if you want any semblence of fairness and prosperity. But you know that.

 

[Rob Roy]

Respect as in respecting their human and citizen rights and priveleges, recognizing them as an equal on human and civil level, not personally liking them. But you know that.

I have no right to force my wishes onto you or your property, nor do you have a right to force your wishes onto me or my property.

Just so we're clear, I am not advocating racial separation as a desirable default status. I am advocating that individual people should be left alone to decide their own destiny on a mutual and voluntary basis. You are not.

 

[dagwood45431]

You conflate private property with "public business" . Dum dum.

Sigh. Whatevs.

 

[Rob Roy]

Not all property can or should be private, unregulated property, though. What you describe is theft and off-the-rails. I'm still talking about unavoidable compromise if you want any semblence of fairness and prosperity. But you know that.

Is a persons body their own private property ? Yes, but you know that.

What I describe is the idea that people should not be forcibly prevented from associating if both parties wish to do so. Also, if one party does not wish to associate, the other one should not force the association. Which part do you disagree with?

 

[PCXV]

I have no right to force my wishes onto you or your property, nor do you have a right to force your wishes onto me or my property.

Just so we're clear, I am not advocating racial separation as a desirable default status. I am advocating that individual people should be left alone to decide their own destiny on a mutual and voluntary basis. You are not.

Yep, I am not agreeing with you. Forcing your "wishes" to buy something a store already offers doesn't make sense. You are actually helping the business so they literally have no legitimate reason to deny you service. The store owners open racism and hate will cause conflict and harm. I think that's wrong and worse, you don't.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yep, I am not agreeing with you. Forcing your "wishes" to buy something a store already offers doesn't make sense. You are actually helping the business so they literally have no legitimate reason to deny you service. The store owners open racism and hate will cause conflict and harm. I think that's wrong and worse, you don't.

How do you help a person by forcing them to associate with you if they have made it clear they wish not to?

Who has the right to force another person to serve them or to interact with them ? Do you?

 

[PCXV]

Is a persons body their own private property ? Yes, but you know that.

What I describe is the idea that people should not be forcibly prevented from associating if both parties wish to do so. Also, if one party does not wish to associate, the other one should not force the association. Which part do you disagree with?

The second part, in a way. People who do not wish to associate with certain people shouldn't enter markets or control land essential to commerce and community if they plan to alienate part of the said public/community.

 

[Rob Roy]

i'll keep saying it you scared, weak, little white bitch.

i'm still waiting for the name of this imaginary restaurant some racist white was forced to open, you racist pedophile fuck.

So you would or would not force a black person to serve a white person against the black persons will?


Your argument amounts to saying you know what's good for other people and if they don't use their property they way you want them to, even when they are leaving you alone, you are fine with forcing them to associate with you...like a rapist.

 

[PCXV]

So you would or would not force a black person to serve a white person against the black persons will?


Your argument amounts to saying you know what's good for other people and if they don't use their property they way you want them to, even when they are leaving you alone, you are fine with forcing them to associate with you...like a rapist.

Your arguments amount to apartheid and despotism.

 

[Rob Roy]

The second part, in a way. People who do not wish to associate with certain people shouldn't enter markets or control land essential to commerce and community if they plan to alienate part of the said public/community.

So you are okay with forcing people into involuntary relationships with other people on their own property?

Can you see that "our wife" is showered and "our" fridge is stocked with beer for when I come over ?
Or are you going to alienate me from "our stuff" ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Your arguments amount to apartheid and despotism.

No they don't. They amount to respecting others right to self determine.

No where did I say I ENDORSE every action other people might take with their own body or their own property.

I just have never gotten any kind of real answer when I ask who has any right to force another to associate with them or to serve them ? Can you tell me who that person is ? I don't think there is any.

 

[FootballFirst]

Good to see Uncle Buck hasn't changed in all these years. Still lashing out with personal insults instead of debating the merits of the argument.

Liberals, they're all the same. They never debate you on the merits of your argument because they can't win. Instead they slander and discredit you while ignoring the actual argument. It's straight out of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky.

The very basis of Liberals' socialistic ideals are not sustainable financially because they run completely counter to basic math and their social ideals run completely counter to how humans have evolved which is by incentive driven behavior. You'd think the natural sciences of math and evolution would guide Liberal thought as they espouse science every chance they get, yet most of their social ideals revolve around making everything equal for everybody which is in direct conflict with the world of science they claim to espouse which is where only the strongest survive and the weak die.

People like Uncle Buck really are conflicted individuals because what they believe doesn't match up with what they claim to espouse. It's no wonder they become angry and lash out when you wave their conundrums in front of their face.

I particularly love seeing Liberals squirm over Trump. They broke all the rules and corrupted everything to put Hillary in the White House and it still didn't work. Their Trump tantrums are adorable.

Liberalism, it's not sustainable.