Affordable?

ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i was rebutting your idiotic assertion that you "don't think society will let this happen again, it's all in the past".

obviously it's not, thanks to bigots like these businesses and the bigots like you who defend them.



that's as laughable as your sandra fluke conspiracy, but examine the sentiment of what you just said anyway.

"the gay couple could have gone elsewhere"

"the blacks could have just gone elsewhere"

why do you defend this bigoted, racist, hateful, intolerant shit?
Click to expand...
The gay couple had several other bakeries to choose from. 60 years ago blacks couldn't go around the corner to the next Howard Johnsons. To compare the plight is at best insensitive at worst idiotic.

If only 1 out of ten thousand businesses was all that discriminated against blacks there wouldn't have been the civil rights fight this country mounted.

An older American black; "When I was a kid, my family had to sleep in the car because there were no hotels on our trip that would let us stay there"

Unclebuck; "If you think that's bad, some guy tried to refuse to bake a fancy cake for a gay couple! nothing ever changes"
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
it was $100k and oh yes i did most certainly did..my SS statement has me collecting well over $3k/monthly when the time comes (last i looked 2009?).

also single and childless:

students
husbands or wives paying child support non-custodial
empty nesters 45-70
Click to expand...
Your SS payment is based on the last ten years before retirement. You don't work those last ten years, you don't get shit.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
The gay couple had several other bakeries to choose from.
Click to expand...
just like blacks could have just gone somewhere else too.

ginwilly said:
60 years ago blacks couldn't go around the corner to the next Howard Johnsons. To compare the plight is at best insensitive at worst idiotic.
Click to expand...
again, you are making that comparison. i am simply rebutting your statement that you "don't think society will let this happen again, it's all in the past".

why do you defend this hateful, bigoted, intolerant shit?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
So a Black owner of the only gas station in town on the edge of a desert should have the right not to sell me any gas on his not wanting to serve people of my skin color?
Or maybe he just wants to sell me gas at normal price plus 50%

You are ok with that?
Click to expand...
I think he should charge you an extra 300%
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
BUt you are not alone. You are in a society. And as long as you remain in that society. YOu abide by it's rules or move someplace else more to your liking.
You consented to this when you were born. And you are bound by it until you are dead

Deal with it
Click to expand...
So the Civil Rights movement was all wrong? They should have just moved elsewhere?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
that must explain why i don't understand how a subsidy which reduces the cost of your health insurance is akin to "pay up sucker".
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
then why did we all have a good laugh about it while getting high later that night on the driving range?
Click to expand...
Often when people misuse others property they think it's funny, it's a common psychological problem of the deranged. I'm sure many people that burned crosses on others property to display their racists ignorance laughed too. Sad.

Had you simply observed some other dipshit leaving dung, and done nothing you would have been indifferent. Therefore it would not have been your responsibility to do anything to restitute the owner for the damage you caused.

However you took an active role and were the cause of shit going down. You INITIATED AGGRESSION against someone's property. Did you ever apologize to the owner of the franchise for the harm you caused him?
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
just like blacks could have just gone somewhere else too.



again, you are making that comparison. i am simply rebutting your statement that you "don't think society will let this happen again, it's all in the past".

why do you defend this hateful, bigoted, intolerant shit?
Click to expand...

I'm not hateful. Not bigoted. As far as an intolerant shit, well....there was the Wendy's incident which you've attempted to defend as a youthful voluntary prank. That was you, not me Poopy Pants.

You sure have a hard time comprehending the difference between an actionable harm and indifference don't you?
They are two separate and distinct things though and you consistently treat them as though they were not.

A person can be racist or not racist on their own property, which is a state of mind. I might not like their racism, but I think there is no moral cause for me to initiate aggression against them. Since they are being indifferent in the sense of causing an actionable harm. I am not willing to harm a person for their thoughts or initiate aggression against them (use offensive force).
You apparently are.

Had you only thought about fowling the floor, the owner of Wendys would not have been harmed would he?

When or if a racist person or a non racist person causes an actionable harm to another or their justly acquired property they are in the wrong and I would endorse the harmed to defend themselves or their property.
In that instance the aggressor owes restitution to the person they initiated aggression against. It works the same if racism isn't the motivation for the actionable harm.

Where does the right of property come in? Good question shit for brains.

To cause an actionable harm to another is usually done when you are not on your property, it most frequently occurs when you aggress against another or their property, off your property. For instance nobody at Wendys would be harmed if you had burned a cross of corn speckled turd logs in your own bathroom would they? I'm pretty sure they'd have been grossed out, but at the end of the day shrugged in indifference.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
According to your non aggression principle
There is nothing wrong with letting your 3 year old child starve to death as long as you dont prevent the child from obtaining food
It would be wrong however for others to trespass on your land trying to give the kid you are starving to death a piece of bread.
Click to expand...
Which side of your mouth moves when the topic of abortion comes up? Yeah....I thought so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top