Take this survey (Isidewith.com), post your results

Padawanbater2 · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
No, the fact people have to call their property one or the other is self evidence they don't have control and some other entity does.

You're seriously splitting hairs. You HAVE TO label it one or the other in the same way I HAVE TO label light beer or not. It's one or the other for the benefit of the consumer. You own a business, you want to keep a certain group out of said business, you HAVE TO label it private. Nobody is forcing this, this is simply the rule you must follow if YOU CHOOSE to seclude a select group of people. You are wrong thinking this is itself some sort of form of control over you.

Rob Roy said:
I don't want racial separation. I want race to be irrelevant, but it's not my call or any governments call to force people to interact, if one party doesn't want to.

Goddammit, dude.. Where you go wrong is your belief that gov. is "forcing people to interact". Answer me this.. who is "forcing me to interact" with anyone, today? Does the fact that black people enjoy the same rights as me "force me" to interact with them?

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

UncleBuck said:
so some other entity determines whether their businesses are public or private?

i don't think so, racial separatist.

then why do you want it to be legal to kick someone out of a store based solely on skin color?

then why do you want it to be legal to kick someone out of a store based solely on skin color?

the harm caused to blacks when it was legal to kick someone out of a store based solely on skin color.

i have quotes of you calling pedophilia "consensual" and "a voluntary act".

If a person owns property and another person or entity comes along and says in order to do X , you must call it either of two things, or we will use force against you if you don't do it....hello!!!????

Q- Are you a good witch or a bad witch Dorothy?
A- I'm not a witch at all

I want to make it legal for people to be able to shit on their own floors, it should be the property owners call, shouldn't it? I thought you'd like that?

Your historical reference relies on the idea that a person seeking to be left alone (indifferent) is somehow harming another person. that is using force to create an interaction. You need to hook the dead horse to the front of the cart, then beat it, Meathead.

In the hypothetical situation with you and the badman, you did consent to it. That doesn't mean in every situation all people are as perverted as I portrayed you does it?

Also, if you want me to keep responding, I'm gonna have to see some more crayon.

Padawanbater2 · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Your historical reference relies on the idea that a person seeking to be left alone (indifferent) is somehow harming another person. that is using force to create an interaction.

Someone "seeking to be left alone" doesn't run a business open to the public

Why don't you fucking understand that, Rob?

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
You're seriously splitting hairs. You HAVE TO label it one or the other in the same way I HAVE TO label light beer or not. It's one or the other for the benefit of the consumer. You own a business, you want to keep a certain group out of said business, you HAVE TO label it private. Nobody is forcing this, this is simply the rule you must follow if YOU CHOOSE to seclude a select group of people. You are wrong thinking this is itself some sort of form of control over you.

Goddammit, dude.. Where you go wrong is your belief that gov. is "forcing people to interact". Answer me this.. who is "forcing me to interact" with anyone, today? Does the fact that black people enjoy the same rights as me "force me" to interact with them?

What will happen if a person says "no thank you" to these rules and simply wants to create the relationships they want and also agree to leave others alone? What will happen to them? Will they experience some kind of force? Obviously, the answer is yes.

Of course the government is forcing people to interact. (now). They used to force people to segregate, now they force people to integrate or they take away your right to determine the use of your own property if you don't "agree" to the two so called choices they present.

It's not about black people, don't get all Uncle Buck race card stupid please. It's about all humans being to chose their interactions on a consensual basis.

The simplest rule ( and most moral) to follow is to respect other peoples right as individuals to determine their human relations, so both forced segregation and forced integration are wrong in my book.

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Someone "seeking to be left alone" doesn't run a business open to the public

Why don't you fucking understand that, Rob?

Erroneous assumption. It relies on the idea that the present paradigm has provided for all the possible options, which it hasn't.

Of course a person could be in business and want to preclude others for lots of different reasons. No shirt, no shoes, no money, not old enough, wrong sex, carrying a gerbil in their pocket, etc.

The left alone part when I used it, wasn't meant they necessarily want to be left alone by the people they chose to interact with, it means left alone by an unwanted and uninvolved third party (the nanny state). You can't deny the nanny state doesn't intervene can you?

Padawanbater2 · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
What will happen if a person says "no thank you" to these rules and simply wants to create the relationships they want and also agree to leave others alone? What will happen to them? Will they experience some kind of force? Obviously, the answer is yes.

So if some black guy walks into a shop and the white owner doesn't serve black people and says "no thank you" to his service, will the white shop owner be subject to federal law, and "force"? Of course, as he should be. Not serving black people on the basis of their skin color is against the 14th amendment.

Rob Roy said:
now they force people to integrate

Could you elaborate on this? I've never been "forced to integrate" with people in my life. This seems to extrapolate that integration is some kind of force, as you seem to believe. To me "integrating with people" doesn't really mean shit to me other than "PEOPLE". Black people, white people, yellow people, brown people.. what the fuck is the difference? The obvious common denominator is "people"[/quote]

Rob Roy said:
It's about all humans being to chose their interactions on a consensual basis.

How does a black child "choose his interactions on a consentual basis" if white children are unwilling to include him?

Rob Roy said:
The simplest rule ( and most moral) to follow is to respect other peoples right as individuals to determine their human relations, so both forced segregation and forced integration are wrong in my book.

There's no such thing as "forced integration"

Padawanbater2 · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Erroneous assumption. It relies on the idea that the present paradigm has provided for all the possible options, which it hasn't.

Of course a person could be in business and want to preclude others for lots of different reasons. No shirt, no shoes, no money, not old enough, wrong sex, carrying a gerbil in their pocket, etc.

The left alone part when I used it, wasn't meant they necessarily want to be left alone by the people they chose to interact with, it means left alone by an unwanted and uninvolved third party (the nanny state). You can't deny the nanny state doesn't intervene can you?

Total Bullshit

I don't want to be left alone by the people I want to interact with, I just want to be left alone by the people I don't want to interact with..

Sorry bud, but "being left alone" entails EVERYONE. "Alone" means BY YOURSELF. Stop trying to change words around to suit your own narrative.

sheskunk · May 8, 2015

And yet another awesome meltdown.

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
So if some black guy walks into a shop and the white owner doesn't serve black people and says "no thank you" to his service, will the white shop owner be subject to federal law, and "force"? Of course, as he should be. Not serving black people on the basis of their skin color is against the 14th amendment.

Could you elaborate on this? I've never been "forced to integrate" with people in my life. This seems to extrapolate that integration is some kind of force, as you seem to believe. To me "integrating with people" doesn't really mean shit to me other than "PEOPLE". Black people, white people, yellow people, brown people.. what the fuck is the difference? The obvious common denominator is "people"

How does a black child "choose his interactions on a consentual basis" if white children are unwilling to include him?

There's no such thing as "forced integration" [/QUOTE]

So, we agree that force is involved.

Integration CAN be forced, it isn't always.

I don't think you have used the word "consensual" correctly. It means both parties agree, not just one.

Okay, you view people on an individual basis. So do I, what's your point?

Don't black people have the right to refuse an interaction for whatever reasons they chose?

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
Total Bullshit

I don't want to be left alone by the people I want to interact with, I just want to be left alone by the people I don't want to interact with..

Sorry bud, but "being left alone" entails EVERYONE. "Alone" means BY YOURSELF. Stop trying to change words around to suit your own narrative.

Okay, Jimmy , Sally and Fred live in the same neighborhood. Jimmy and Fred build a tree house and want to exclude Sally (she's a girl and has cooties) they want to be "left alone" by Sally.

You seem to be on the verge of calling me a racist, which is kind of funny. I hope you have a better day going forward. I will leave you alone for now.

Padawanbater2 · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Okay, Jimmy , Sally and Fred live in the same neighborhood. Jimmy and Fred build a tree house and want to exclude Sally (she's a girl and has cooties) they want to be "left alone" by Sally.

You seem to be on the verge of calling me a racist, which is kind of funny. I hope you have a better day going forward. I will leave you alone for now.

According to your example, Jimmy and Fred are selling donuts to boys only, Sally comes along wanting to buy a donut and Fred says "Boys only!" Sally says "that's not fair!" and you say "tough luck, shoulda been born with a cock!"

And you think that's not discrimination..

OK..

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
According to your example, Jimmy and Fred are selling donuts to boys only, Sally comes along wanting to buy a donut and Fred says "Boys only!" Sally says "that's not fair!" and you say "tough luck, shoulda been born with a cock!"

And you think that's not discrimination..

OK..

I do think that is discrimination. Gay people discriminate all the time, so do straight people.

The point is, who owns the donuts? Who owns the tree house?

Should the owner of something be the person to determine who they will engage with or should somebody else make that call for him or her?

Also, please don't turn the conversation to cock, it'll draw you know who here like a fly to shit.

londonfog · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I do think that is discrimination. Gay people discriminate all the time, so do straight people.

The point is, who owns the donuts? Who owns the tree house?

Should the owner of something be the person to determine who they will engage with or should somebody else make that call for him or her?

Also, please don't turn the conversation to cock, it'll draw you know who here like a fly to shit.

are these donuts being advertise as being sold to the public ? Is this a public tree house or private ?

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

londonfog said:
are these donuts being advertise as being sold to the public ? Is this a public tree house or private ?

I'm sorry the orange grove is down the street, please take your thieving buddies there.

londonfog · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I'm sorry the orange grove is down the street, please take your thieving buddies there.

You give back your land yet ?

Rob Roy · May 8, 2015

londonfog said:
You give back your land yet ?

None of us really own land do we?

UncleBuck · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Of course the government is forcing people to interact....they force people to integrate or they take away your right to determine the use of your own property

why do you use the language of a racial separatist and then try to deny that you are a racial separatist?

UncleBuck · May 8, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Of course a person could be in business and want to preclude others for lots of different reasons.

why d you think that skin color should be one of them and then try to deny that you are racist?

UncleBuck · May 8, 2015

Padawanbater2 said:
There's no such thing as "forced integration"

there is, but only for racial separatists like robrot.

UncleBuck · May 8, 2015

please post a link to my facebook.

Take this survey (Isidewith.com), post your results

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads