Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm not a race segregationist. How does your repeated lying about that bolster your position ?
Oscar flap 'ludicrous' and get rid of Black History Month
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
I'm not a race segregationist. How does your repeated lying about that bolster your position ?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
What do you call a person who believes a government that mandates equal access to public establishments regardless of arbitrary circumstances is government overreach?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
My first sentence below refutes your false assertion of my motives.
The right of individuals, to control their OWN property and their OWN body was relevant even when government WRONGFULLY PROHIBITED people of different races from integrating.
Government had no business telling people of different races they COULDN'T integrate, just like government has no right to tell people they MUST integrate. The involved parties alone should make that choice mutually, not a dictatorial third party.
You are championing the idea that a third party should dictate a relationship between two parties when one or both of the parties would prefer not to have a relationship. In other words you are endorsing a rapists tactics.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Been over this a dozen times with you. Ending segregation isn't "enforced integration". When the government said you can't discriminate against people based on X, Y & Z in public institutions, they didn't force anyone to integrate. Nobody forced anybody to open a public establishment. If the government said you're not allowed to have "whites only" groups even in private, you would have a point. But the existence of organizations like the KKK prove you wrong. Go ahead and have your all white sausage fest if you want, nobody is stopping you, that's your right as an American citizen. But when you open your business up to include the public, you have to abide by the rules, and the rules say you can't discriminate against someone based on their skin color. Again, me and others have been over this dozens of times with you before, for whatever reason, you refuse to accept it, how it works, or that you're wrong on this issue.
I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand... Private = ALL YOU, whatever the fuck you want, Public = Rules, regulations, and it doesn't mean the US is now a fascist state or your liberty is under attack
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
Your just spinning, its about a person owning a PRIVATE BUSINESS having the right to refuse service to someone. Have you not seen a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" I have seen this sign in more than 2 black establishments one of these was a BBQ place called the white pig. My uncle always got his BBQ from there he would call it in the day before and we would pick it up from the window, the sign was by the door, I asked my uncle about it one day and he laughed and said that it wasn't for whites that it was for some blacks he didn't want there. A week or two later we went there went in and he introduced me to the owner who seemed very nice, we ate there, it had two small tables and five chairs. The BBQ was on very large bun piled high the slaw and fries were also very good. At lest five years later after my uncle died I ate there and spent an hour + talking with him about my uncle who he to care a lot about, he also remembered my name I am sorry that I have now forgotten his.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I find your implication of an all white sausage fest a distraction and a poor rebuttal.
So, you are saying that a "hybrid" kind of property was created by government edict. In your normal pattern you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth and saying that at one time property can be both owned privately (ostensibly "owned" anyway) but administered publically, which of course lessens the nature of the ownership to render it less than actual private property.
Simply because I honor another persons right to control THEIR property does not mean I endorse how they might use it. You've stated I'm a segregationist etc. Yet you have failed to demonstrate that I am. (I'm not)
For instance I think your body is your property. I can endorse your right to ingest whatever you like, (as long as you didn't steal it)
but that doesn't mean I think WHAT you ingest is something I favor. You seem to have a problem with that kind of distinction and cannot / have not rebutted it in regards to your claim of my being a segregationist.
Also you need to brush up on your math. A sum of zeroes cannot create a positive sum, even if a billion people try to vote it so.
What is property and who can own it?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Can you legally murder or steal from someone on your private property?
Does the fact that you can't change the definition of or the ownership of your property?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
According to you, yes.
Here's how....you erroneously assign government rights you do not possess and no OTHER person possess, then you determine that government can arbitrarily make rules which don't apply to them, such as murdering people and calling it "collateral damage" etc. and then eagerly grant them the ability to steal and euphemize that theft into something called taxation etc.
Murder can be done by individuals and theft too, but the historical evidence points out clearly the highest instances of those crimes is perpetrated by governments who grant themselves immunity from it.
According to me...it would be wrong to murder a person but acceptable to kill a person in self defense. It's wrong to steal, but if a person is using your private property in ways you have not agreed to, they are the ones stealing from you.
That's why a clear understanding of property rights is important, to PREVENT or discourage those things from occurring.
For instance if you appear in my living room and begin wallowing on the couch absent my permission, I'm more likely to tersely request you to leave, but I DOUBT I'd immediately think I needed to kill you....unless you tried to teach me your phony math, then I might. lol.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You seem to be quite bent on this notion that "people can't delegate rights they don't have" when I just got done explaining to you that when people go through the process of a public election and they get elected to office by the people they represent, that gives them the authority to write and pass legislation. The power of election (representation of the people) gives them that right.
Not GOP
Well-Known Member
How about we call it "Black History Week", and then keep rolling it back from there for the sake of integration?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes you are.
those online IQ tests you are taking are fake.
you said some people were harmed by racist governemnt practices, but they are dead. they are not. it goes on to this day.
by the way, why do you call jim crow laws racist, and then advocate daily for us to make those practices legal again?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
then why do you want to make it legal for stores to deny service to people based on their race?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you really want to see it legal to kick someone out of a store based on their race again, just like it used to be before civil rights?
LOL
i bet you are totally not racist either.
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Isnt it equal access if anyone is equally likely to get thrown out?
What is the prevention of access going to cause in this situation? Hurt feelings? Is that the incredible crime you are trying to address here?
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
White people get all of history and black people only get a month. It is racist I tell ya!!
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Would it be equal access if a business was "No Whites Allowed"?
Yes, denying minorities equal rights just hurts their feelings, that's it.. 5,400 people were lynched between 1880-1920 in America, thousands more were beaten, arrested, bitten by dogs and killed between 1920-1965 fighting for equal rights. And it seems to me you're on the side of the issue crying about hurt feelings, that you and Rob no longer have the ability to deny equal rights to those you don't like based on arbitrary, ignorant reasons, and you try to mask it off as some libertarian principle about private property rights in a public space. Like many have told you before, you're free to have your white power club all you want so long as it's private. You should probably try to understand the distinction.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
did you not notice what happened before civil rights?
blacks couldn';t travel freely ya fucking bigoted racist retard.
red w. blue
Well-Known Member
I have the right and the ability to deny anyone anything that I wish, any time I wish and deny you that you have the right or the ability make me or change me.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
No, you don't have the right to deny people equal rights, says it right there in the 14th amendment
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I'm curious, because it seems to be central to your argument, is a business operating on privately owned property (not leased, like a strip mall) automatically defined as "public". Would it not still be a "private" business? I've never heard private businesses referred to as public, just because they actually serve the public. I've only ever seen government entities labeled public and corporations that offer stock.
Are you sure it isn't more accurately called a private business that just so happens to offer products/services to the public. Unless the public owns stock in the business, it seems like it is private. Privately owned vs publicly traded comes to mind.