Come watch crybabies cry about gay rights!

Rob Roy · May 11, 2015

UncleBuck said:
why can't you answer a simple question about how your supposedly peaceful, non-coercive method works?

so what's the least harmful way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?

answer the question, racial separatist.

The answer is self evident, but I am enjoying our usual fun and games. Please continue it in crayon though....please.

If a person is occupying what we agree is THEIR property and THEIR body is involved....who should make the choices of how that property and that body will be used? That person or somebody else?

What is the least harmful way to force an interaction on another persons property and demand they interact with you, if they prefer not to interact with you ?

Please tell me the most peaceful way to force a person to serve you.

Padawanbater2 · May 11, 2015

Rob Roy said:
No. I SAID property owners that had THEIR rights usurped were less free.

Also, I've never argued for a particular action on the part of a property owner, other than to say as long as they remain on their property it's not up to me to force them to do anything.

I can (and do) wish people did not discriminate based on race, but I also wish people did not force others to associate with them if the other person prefers not to. You ignore the force you advocate. I reject it.

So when the court decides on this next month, do you believe it will in effect "force others to associate" with people they don't want to?

Rob Roy · May 11, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
So when the court decides on this next month, do you believe it will in effect "force others to associate" with people they don't want to?

Government is force etc. - George Washington

UncleBuck · May 11, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I SAID property owners that had THEIR rights usurped were less free.

how is something that causes harm be a right?

blacks couldn't even travel in the south before civil rights. if they did, they faced higher prices, reduced competition, and barriers to entry, all things which you have stated cause harm.

do me and others like me have the right to collude against you and cause you harm?

UncleBuck · May 11, 2015

Rob Roy said:
If a person is occupying what we agree is THEIR property and THEIR body is involved....who should make the choices of how that property and that body will be used? That person or somebody else?

that person does, they get to choose to have a public store or a private store, all 100% free of coercion.

no how about you try to answer my question since i was so kind as to answer yours:

so what's the least harmful way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?

UncleBuck · May 11, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Government is force etc. - George Washington

"not now, martha, i'm busy whipping and raping my slaves!" - george washington

Rob Roy · May 12, 2015

UncleBuck said:
how is something that causes harm be a right?

blacks couldn't even travel in the south before civil rights. if they did, they faced higher prices, reduced competition, and barriers to entry, all things which you have stated cause harm.

do me and others like me have the right to collude against you and cause you harm?

You are talking about several different things as if they were all the same thing. You do that quite a bit. It's the sign of a weak argument.

Of course all people should be free to travel unmolested. What does that have to do with any person white, black or green entering another persons and forcing another person to interact with them?

Also this conversation sounds vaguely familiar....haven't I already kicked your ass several times in this kind of discussion in the past?

Rob Roy · May 12, 2015

UncleBuck said:
that person does, they get to choose to have a public store or a private store, all 100% free of coercion.

no how about you try to answer my question since i was so kind as to answer yours:

so what's the least harmful way to kick him out of that store based on his skin color?

Your absurd answer fails to address all the possibilities of free choice doesn't it?

"They get to choose". No they don't.

That's like saying you "get to" chose a chipmunk or a gerbil to crawl up your ass. What if somebody wants a lemming, hamster, field ,mouse or nothing stuck up their ass? What then Nanny?

UncleBuck · May 12, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Of course all people should be free to travel unmolested. What does that have to do with any person white, black or green entering another persons and forcing another person to interact with them?

you are saying that store owners had a "right" to throw people out based on their skin color.

but exercising that "right" caused harm.

so how can something that causes harm be a right?

do i have the right to cause harm to you?

UncleBuck · May 12, 2015

Rob Roy said:
"They get to choose". No they don't.

yes they do.

they can choose to be a public store or private store, or not a store at all.

this simple fact topples your entire philosophy, which is based on retarded false premises.

dumbass racial separatist.

Rob Roy · May 13, 2015

UncleBuck said:
you are saying that store owners had a "right" to throw people out based on their skin color.

but exercising that "right" caused harm.

so how can something that causes harm be a right?

do i have the right to cause harm to you?

I'm saying all people have a right to chose their interactions on a consensual basis and not have interactions forced on them if they are leaving others alone. You are saying the opposite.

You have the right to defend yourself and your justly acquired property. You do not have the right to initiate offensive force against a person or their property etc.

The various circumstances and scenarios you can create regarding, race, gender, flatulence or handicap etc. do not mean that a person of one particular race or gender etc. should be granted an exception to the standards mentioned above. Nobody has a right to use offensive force to create an unwanted interaction. You reject that idea, I do not.

Rob Roy · May 13, 2015

UncleBuck said:
yes they do.

they can choose to be a public store or private store, or not a store at all.

this simple fact topples your entire philosophy, which is based on retarded false premises.

dumbass racial separatist.

You left one thing out though dolt....they don't get to "chose" to carry on a business that isn't somehow fit into the definition scheme laid out by a third party which isn't the owner. (Your nanny state).

Therefore the idea that they have a real choice is refuted....dolt.

Their available choices have been limited....like your intellect....limited.

Padawanbater2 · May 13, 2015

Rob Roy said:
You left one thing out though dolt....they don't get to "chose" to carry on a business that isn't somehow fit into the definition scheme laid out by a third party which isn't the owner. (Your nanny state).

Therefore the idea that they have a real choice is refuted....dolt.

Their available choices have been limited....like your intellect....limited.

So it's either be public or private, but if your private because you want to exclude people based on arbitrary things like skin color or sexual orientation, your choices are being limited because you won't make the same amount of money as you would if the business was public..

No Rob, that's the price you pay for excluding willing customers all on your own. A shop owner's choices are limited only by his own decisions.

AlecTheGardener · May 13, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
So it's either be public or private, but if your private because you want to exclude people based on arbitrary things like skin color or sexual orientation, your choices are being limited because you won't make the same amount of money as you would if the business was public..

No Rob, that's the price you pay for excluding willing customers all on your own. A shop owner's choices are limited only by his own decisions.

He refuses to accept the social contract and denies the ability of any governments to have authority over anything, UNLESS it is all brought down first.

How the hell is this supposed to work Roy? I am all for the concept of zero 'coercion' but that would involve so much more energy and effort and ultimately end up in the same place no? Your ideas confuse me not because their concepts are incorrect or I dislike them, but because they are unrealistic.

UncleBuck · May 13, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I'm saying all people have a right to chose their interactions on a consensual basis and not have interactions forced on them if they are leaving others alone. You are saying the opposite.

you have it backwards.

i point out the fact that anyone can open a public store or private store, thereby choosing their interactions.

you want a world where any store owner can kick people out based on skin color, because you are a racial separatist.

Rob Roy said:
You have the right to defend yourself and your justly acquired property. You do not have the right to initiate offensive force against a person or their property etc.

kicking people out of a store because of their skin color is not a form of defense.

offering store owners money in exchange for goods and services is not offensive.

you have the definitions of words all wrong, which is why your entire philosophy falls apart even on the weakest examination.

you racist fucking loser.

UncleBuck · May 13, 2015

Rob Roy said:
You left one thing out though dolt....they don't get to "chose" to carry on a business that isn't somehow fit into the definition scheme laid out by a third party which isn't the owner. (Your nanny state).

Therefore the idea that they have a real choice is refuted....dolt.

Their available choices have been limited....like your intellect....limited.

name one person who has been forced to open a public store otherwise your entire philosophy on this has been refuted.

ItzWordzHo · May 13, 2015

I can solve thiz problem fags, first thing we set up a gay rights zone like how you can only protest in a free speech zone unless you're a black. I think we make the gay rights zone Joplin Mo and the rest of our great land is for normal people.

AlecTheGardener · May 13, 2015

ItzWordzHo said:
I can solve thiz problem fags, first thing we set up a gay rights zone like how you can only protest in a free speech zone unless you're a black. I think we make the gay rights zone Joplin Mo and the rest of our great land is for normal people.

This guy!

We should meet up and then see where it leads us.

*hint: it was a me and you having anal sex joke

Harrekin · May 13, 2015

AlecTheGardener said:
This guy!

We should meet up and then see where it leads us.

*hint: it was a me and you having anal sex joke

Look at the name...

AlecTheGardener · May 13, 2015

Harrekin said:
Look at the name...

Why do you think I brought up anal sex? I don't just offer that to anyone on the first grope.

Come watch crybabies cry about gay rights!

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

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member