That's a flawed assumption, (as usual) but a reasonable approach in the manner of your question. I appreciate that.
So, let's expose your erroneous assumption and contradictory philosophy, Poopy Pants. You sanctify taking away one persons right, and somehow (in your opinion) simultaneously protect another parties nonexistent right to forcibly engage another person.
I don't think people interacting or not interacting on a basis they decide is any of my business. In fact I know it isn't. It's none of your business either if it doesn't involve you. I accept that as virtually axiomatic, you ought to.
So, when you pretend you and other people DO have a right to force person A to interact with person B, you are violating the equal right of person A to decline a human relationship. People who forcibly don't take NO for an answer when another person doesn't want to interact with them include rapists, slave masters, governments of all kinds and YOU.
I'm not spamming anything white nationalist, for one thing, I was born on a small Pacific island and I'm not much for "nations" or nationalists held together by political magic and imaginary boundaries. It's my hope people come to realize that forced relations as a personal and systemic means can never eliminate the things people hope to eliminate, it is logically impossible. Plus, you shouldn't shit on other people's floors...ever. Bad karma.
