londonfog
Well-Known Member
I keep telling you mother after she sells that old pussy to take her underwear with her. She for some reason does not. Also let her know she owes me my cut.
Is secession a good thing?
- Thread starter Rob Roy
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The answer to your first question. I would shun the racist gas station owner and invite others to do that as well. If there were a market need to sell gas to people because a racist was shooting himself in the foot, I'd consider investing in one, if my motive were to make money. I'd sell to anybody that behaved, but I doubt you'd ever get the key to the bathroom.
I wouldn't charge anybody with rape, because I'm not involved in their interaction. If any person, black, white or floor shitter persists in trying to create an interaction on the property of another where they are clearly not welcome, I'd pay attention to that.
I can't answer your second question, as it's not relevant, but it does bring up a question. You had your hand in your pants while you typed that one didn't you?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Classy.
sheskunk
Well-Known Member
londonfog
Well-Known Member
we discussed your attempts of jokes and what happens when you want to play that game. If you don't like it, don't play.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
why do you think that some children are capable of making a "voluntary decision' to engage in pedophilia for pay?
would you think that was OK if it happened to your own children or grandchildren?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no you wouldn't, you would fight for his right to be aggressively and non-peacefully racist like you do every single day here.
racists have no greater friend than you.
what if a pedophile paid your child or grandchild for sex, calling it a 'voluntary agreement'?
would you be OK with that happening?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'll answer your questions after you take one hand out of your pants and go clean up.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your racist schtick is funny in a shitting on somebody else floor kind of way.
Can you describe how a person remaining on their own land is "being aggressive" when another person comes to their property and insists they will have an interaction?
Isn't the person that stays on their own property behaving in a neutral way and the person that insists they can force the interaction, being the aggressor? Let's try an example to see.
You are hanging out at home peacefully drawing cloud penis pictures with your gerbil friends, waiting for the bad man to stop by, maybe typing some silly retort on RUI with one hand in your pants. Then, there is a loud knock at your door. Who is it you say?
It's me, Rob Roy, I've come to your house to make you tell me all of your dope growing secrets, now lemme in muthafucker!
You - (OH SHIT) Go away... I have an ax you know...
Rob Roy - I'll kick this door in and make you sell me your crayons bitch!
You (opening the door) - Please don't hurt me, please.
Rob Roy - Hey fucker gimme those crayons, I gotta take a piss, where's the bathroom ?
You - (pointing down the hallway) It's down there, gawd I didn't realize you were so big...Please don't hurt me.
Rob Roy (enters bathroom) HEY, there's shit all over the floor in here!!!! (runs screaming from your house)
Now who was the aggressor in the hypothetical story above?
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no you won't, spaMBLA.
why do you think that some children are capable of making a "voluntary decision' to engage in pedophilia for pay?
would you think that was OK if it happened to your own children or grandchildren?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what is the most peaceful, most neutral, most non-aggressive way to kick someone out of your store based on their skin color, spaMBLA?
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
I have no idea who you're addressing, but it's fucking hilarious.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You asked the wrong question again Poopy Pants.
The proper question is, "Is there a peaceful way to go to another persons property and demand they interact with you?"
Your inability to differentiate between who the neutral person and who the aggressor is, is what leads to your inconsistency when determining what is right and what is wrong. You contradict yourself.
If a racists invades your property, he's wrong. If a bi-racial President , that you call black, invades your property he's wrong. If a 17 year old shit werewolf invades your property he's wrong. If the DEA invade your property, they are wrong.
If ANYBODY invades your property, without your consent, they are wrong.
Human interactions in order to be peaceful must rely on consent of both parties. Property rights should be respected, not shit on.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
your question contains false presuppositions, since no one is forced to interact with anyone else.
what i would do is walk into your store and inform you that civil rights was passed as a defensive force against your offensive and harmful racist practices. i would then tell you that if you wanted to continue segregating yourself by skin color, you would have to call yourself a private business, instead of one that is open to the general public.
i imagine you would scream about rape or slavery or some shit, but you would not be forced to interact with anyone of a skin color which you deemed unsuitable.
since i was so nice to answer your loaded question, please answer my completely unloaded question.
what is the most peaceful, most neutral, most non-aggressive way to kick someone out of your store based on their skin color, spaMBLA?
londonfog
Well-Known Member
He will never answer your question because there is no peaceful, neutral, non-aggressive way to be hateful and racist.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he has acknowledged that his position is racist, and that he holds it, yet he insists he is not racist, he just holds racist positions.
makes perfect sense.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
so he is not racist, but will support and fight for racist
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, he is racist. he just can't admit it. people who hold racist positions are racist.so he is not racist, but will support and fight for racist
here is where he admitted that the position he advocates for is a racist one.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I understand your position and we agree that some thoughts are disturbing, but if they are not acted out how would you "punish" the person having that thought which you don't like?
The thought police called and wanted to question you for raping that lady you eyeballed at the supermarket.
You know the one, the one you thought, hmm, I'd do her as she pushed her grocery cart past you, oblivious to your mental raping. Oh, you didn't actually rape her, you just thought you wouldn't mind having a fling with her.
You didn't grab her ass, you didn't stalk her and you didn't even make her feel uncomfortable by touching her, engaging her or going to her property and insisting that she interact with you. Were you being an actual rapist or a rapist in your head?
What if she were aware of your thoughts and in no way would she ever want to engage with a middle aged paunchy ex Airforce Laundromat coin dummy? Does she have the right to keep you from engaging her on her own property?
A racist or a rapist may not be thinking the things that you or I like, but if it's all in his head, how were you harmed?
I am not condoning your rapist thoughts anymore than I am condoning the thoughts of a racist. I am differentiating between thought and action. It is the grocery store ladies right to not interact with you, it is your right to think anything you like, but not your right to act upon it.
It is never our right to force people to interact with us on their own property though or to use their body to serve us though unless that interaction is by consensual agreement.
An act of Aggression is an act of action, usually not an act that only occurs in your mind.
I realize you will not address my example and will also be unable to refute it.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your statement is demonstrably false. Although, you are not alone in your ignorance. However a consensus of the ignorant doesn't change a thing that is wrong magically into a thing that is correct.
Of course people are forced to intertact. Isn't there a monopolistic entity that created pseudo private property and renamed it public accommodation property ? Aren't people forced to interact with that monopoly, and then by extension all of the edicts that are created by it?
You ignore the gun in the room, because you like many others are caught in a mass false dichotomy.
Thank you for being nice. The bathroom is still out of order though, maybe next time.