In America today, who has it worse?

londonfog · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
How does a person acquire the right to make another person serve them ? You've never answered that question, are you afraid of it?

When that person entered into an agreement to open a business that deals the public and interstate commerce. If you don't like serving certain people
PRIVATE CLUB

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2014

londonfog said:
When that person entered into an agreement to open a business that deals the public and interstate commerce. If you don't like serving certain people
PRIVATE CLUB

You're funny.

An "agreement" is one where both parties are not under duress and both have an equal footing in the negotiation prior to agreement.

Not to be rude, but you do know what "duress" means I hope.

londonfog · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
So in order for a person to own themself or determine the peaceful use of their own property they must first acquire permission to do so? I think you are the one going around in a circle Mr. Dizzy Dean.

You see, "ownership" implies you get to decide, not others get to decide for you. I support freedom, you support controlling other peoples property for them, against their will and with threats of violence for non compliance with your violent edicts.

I suggest you attempt to contact your congressman and/or the supreme court to see if they will change the laws to fit your view, until then...wheat bread, light mayo, spicy mustard and if you have red onions please put a little of those on as well

londonfog · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
You're funny.

An "agreement" is one where both parties are not under duress and both have an equal footing in the negotiation prior to agreement.

Not to be rude, but you do know what "duress" means I hope.

I know your side lost this argument.

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2014

londonfog said:
I suggest you attempt to contact your congressman and/or the supreme court to see if they will change the laws to fit your view, until then...wheat bread, light mayo, spicy mustard and if you have red onions please put a little of those on as well

I don't swear allegiance to any coercive government that murders innocent people and jails people for victim less crimes.

My allegiance is to the golden rule and concepts such as minding my own business, not the business of others.

Sorry we're out of mayo....How 'bout a warmup for your coffee sugar?

londonfog · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
I don't swear allegiance to any coercive government that murders innocent people and jails people for victim less crimes.

My allegiance is to the golden rule and concepts such as minding my own business, not the business of others.

Sorry we're out of mayo....How 'bout a warmup for your coffee sugar?

sounds like you agree to a PRIVATE CLUB...glad I could help

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2014

londonfog said:
sounds like you agree to a PRIVATE CLUB...glad I could help

No, I fail to recognize and honor systems that enable one party to threaten force against another that isn't harming them.

How about you, do you believe it is wrong to make others serve you using threats ?

You erroneously conclude that a person who will protect another persons right to live there life unmolested (that would be me) is somehow endorsing every aspect of that persons choices. I can support your right to own yourself and to eat what you want, but that doesn't mean I want a cock sandwich too does it?

You are confused and want to talk about sandwiches when I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions. You run from questions and attempt to re-position another persons argument.

Your ability to defend your position rests not on logic ,but on straw man arguments. In other words you can't debate worth jack shit.

So who owns you? Who can own other people ?

I think you own yourself....don't you?

londonfog · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
No, I fail to recognize and honor systems that enable one party to threaten force against another that isn't harming them.

How about you, do you believe it is wrong to make others serve you using threats ?

You erroneously conclude that a person who will protect another persons right to live there life unmolested (that would be me) is somehow endorsing every aspect of that persons choices. I can support your right to own yourself and to eat what you want, but that doesn't mean I want a cock sandwich too does it?

You are confused and want to talk about sandwiches when I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions. You run from questions and attempt to re-position another persons argument.

Your ability to defend your position rests not on logic ,but on straw man arguments. In other words you can't debate worth jack shit.

So who owns you? Who can own other people ?

I think you own yourself....don't you?

yawnnnnn. dude can I get that sandwich or what ???

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2014

londonfog said:
yawnnnnn. dude can I get that sandwich or what ???

Call your congress thug, maybe he/she can help. They are good at taking things that belong to one person and giving them to another. You'd like that.... eating a stolen sandwich.

Dr Kynes · Aug 25, 2014

SmokeyDan said:
I've had a few spirited debates with some on this forum that homosexuals have a bit of relief to the discrimination they face because their sexuality isn't able to be known without their disclosure.

This is true, I do not wish to rehash if it is good or not.

But that has gotten me to thinking. Another group that faces discrimination in this country is atheists.

We have no (to my knowledge) atheists in either branch of the legislature, none on the highest court, and the idea of an atheist being able to be elected president is laughable.

I think many conservative Republicans would sooner vote for Obama than someone who is an atheist, at least Muslims believe in a God, is what they undoubtedly would say.

I'm sure some localities and probably state government's have elected officials who are atheists.

It seems most of you here are atheists, and i put myself there as well.

How come we never talk about that?

when did athiests ever stop talking about how oppressed atheists are in the US/Britain/Canada/Spain/France/Germany/Scandinavia/anywhere on the fucking planet?

thats ALL you clowns talk about, how youre athiests and everybody else is stupid, and how oppressed you are.

Pass it Around · Aug 25, 2014

I think that the arabs have it nice in america, I been eating arab food all day

UncleBuck · Aug 25, 2014

ginwilly said:
Because it's been asked and answered over and over, you just won't give up for some reason until you get to call RR racist for his stance that has nothing to do with skin color.

yeah, i'm sure his use of racial slurs and opposition to civil rights and the fact that he deems them to be "special rights" for black people has NOTHING to do with race.

have you ever met a racist you wouldn't defend?

Pass it Around · Aug 25, 2014

UncleBuck said:
yeah, i'm sure his use of racial slurs and opposition to civil rights and the fact that he deems them to be "special rights" for black people has NOTHING to do with race.

have you ever met a racist you wouldn't defend?

yeah! i defend no race

UncleBuck · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
translation = I have run into my cognitive dissonance and it scares me.

cognitive dissonance is when you outright deny the historical fact that denial of service caused harm.

why?

because if it causes harm to others, it is not a right you may have.

now go on and tell us all again how denial of service to blacks over the course of decades never caused a bit of harm, only mere "indifference".

then go on to contradict yourself by telling us all about how barriers to entry cause harm through less cmpetition and higher prices (and of course, the barrier to entry itself).

you dumb fuck.

UncleBuck · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
I said I personally don't support doing that, maybe like 150 times.

and you've also said that you need to be "coerced" and "forced" into serving black people who you "would not prefer to serve" about 3000 times.

so which is it? would you freely serve a black person, or do you need to be coerced and forced into serving blacks?

UncleBuck · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
How does a person acquire the right to make another person serve them ?

that right does not exist, you are raping the english language like elfoodstampo rapes blacked out drunk chicks.

i can not force anyone to open a restaurant. that is their choice.

i can not force anyone to make their restaurant open to the public or private. that is their choice.

but if that person does choose to open a restaurant, and does choose to make it open to the public, they have to serve the public, regardless of skin color.

we tried it your way, where they could deny service to people based on skin color (totally not racist!), and it caused a lot of harm to many people.

no one has the right to cause harm to others. so we outlawed it.

do you think people have the right to cause harm to others?

Rob Roy · Aug 25, 2014

UncleBuck said:
cognitive dissonance is when you outright deny the historical fact that denial of service caused harm.

why?

because if it causes harm to others, it is not a right you may have.

now go on and tell us all again how denial of service to blacks over the course of decades never caused a bit of harm, only mere "indifference".

then go on to contradict yourself by telling us all about how barriers to entry cause harm through less cmpetition and higher prices (and of course, the barrier to entry itself).

you dumb fuck.

So, your denial of "service" to me by not giving me the extreme wisdom of your dope growing wizardry regarding god bud is a bad thing and harmful to me? I should get the nanny state to spank you and make you tell me?

Oh look, there's giant nose growing out of your face Pinocchio.

UncleBuck · Aug 25, 2014

Rob Roy said:
I am kicking your non-intellectual ass. That is evident by your lack of response to some specific questions.

good job declaring victory, cupcake.

now tell me, did denial of service to blacks for decades cause harm via less competition, higher prices, or outright barrier to entry?

:lol:

you dumb shit.

Pass it Around · Aug 25, 2014

UncleBuck said:
cognitive dissonance is when you outright deny the historical fact that denial of service caused harm.

why?

because if it causes harm to others, it is not a right you may have.

now go on and tell us all again how denial of service to blacks over the course of decades never caused a bit of harm, only mere "indifference".

then go on to contradict yourself by telling us all about how barriers to entry cause harm through less cmpetition and higher prices (and of course, the barrier to entry itself).

you dumb fuck.

woah, pulling out the big words I see.

Pass it Around · Aug 25, 2014

UncleBuck said:
good job declaring victory, cupcake.

now tell me, did denial of service to blacks for decades cause harm via less competition, higher prices, or outright barrier to entry?

you dumb shit.[/QUOTE]

I repeat myself often when I am mad bro.

In America today, who has it worse?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads