What political issues are you unwilling to compromise on?

Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
That doesn't mention the person you're smearing without any evidence.

When it gets down to it, you really suck at this whole debate and discussion of ideas thing.

You might try taking a class- on second thought, maybe not. Considering your behavior here, you might get your face pushed in.
Click to expand...
Or you could yell at him in traffic.
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
No I don't. Most American's do agree with progressive positions
Click to expand...
Actually if you begin a conversation with most people and ask if they think anyone has a right to force them to pay for an idea they disagree with, most people would answer "no".

Those same people then abandon that answer when the same question is asked, but the person(s) doing the forcing is changed.

This is because most people have been trained that when you or I force somebody to fund our ideas against their will it's bad, but if this thing called "government" does it, it magically changes things. Of course that's absurd, but it is the result of years of indoctrination.

Charity does not come from a threat.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Actually if you begin a conversation with most people and ask if they think anyone has a right to force them to pay for an idea they disagree with, most people would answer "no".

Those same people then abandon that answer when the same question is asked, but the person(s) doing the forcing is changed.

This is because most people have been trained that when you or I force somebody to fund our ideas against their will it's bad, but if this thing called "government" does it, it magically changes things. Of course that's absurd, but it is the result of years of indoctrination.

Charity does not come from a threat.
Click to expand...
How would your political philosophy effectively protect American citizens from foreign invasion? Say half the population doesn't support the military, so they don't pay for it while the other half does. Then we get invaded. Does the military only protect the people who supported funding it?

I don't see how liberty, in the way you define it, can exist among a population with very different opinions across the political spectrum. How can a white racist business owner enjoy liberty while at the same time a black patron enjoy the same liberty? They can't, they are mutually exclusive. If one enjoys liberty, either the white racist enjoys the liberty to prevent the black patron from entering his place of business effectively limiting/eliminating his liberty, or the black patron enjoys the liberty to enter into the white racists place of business effectively limiting/eliminating his liberty..

How would you solve that problem?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
In the morning, Buck might be happy. But you will still be dumb.
Click to expand...
Padawanbater2 said:
How would your political philosophy effectively protect American citizens from foreign invasion? Say half the population doesn't support the military, so they don't pay for it while the other half does. Then we get invaded. Does the military only protect the people who supported funding it?

I don't see how liberty, in the way you define it, can exist among a population with very different opinions across the political spectrum. How can a white racist business owner enjoy liberty while at the same time a black patron enjoy the same liberty? They can't, they are mutually exclusive. If one enjoys liberty, either the white racist enjoys the liberty to prevent the black patron from entering his place of business effectively limiting/eliminating his liberty, or the black patron enjoys the liberty to enter into the white racists place of business effectively limiting/eliminating his liberty..

How would you solve that problem?
Click to expand...

I don't have a political philosophy, I have a philosophic philosophy. Politics and freedom are seldom aligned.


I would solve the "problem" you described first by analyzing the question and asking you to think about it.
You mentioned that the person who wants to force a relationship with an unwilling participant (in your example a black person, but it could just as easily be a person of any gender or race ) is being denied a liberty.

How?

If a person doesn't want to have any kind of human interaction with you, are you saying that if they decline interacting with you, they owe you something or that you are justified in using force to make them interact with you?

I can't think of any instance where I have a right to demand you to serve me against your wishes if we don't have an explicit agreement that we both agreed to without any duress.

The fact that a law protects some people in some instances when they do force others to interact with them, isn't evidence of a right to force an interaction with an unwilling participant, it's just evidence there is a law, (backed by force) that says it's okay and robs the liberty of at least one person, the unwilling participant.

Laws should not forcibly prevent people who wish to interact, from doing so. That would be respecting liberty.

Laws should not force people to interact with others if one or both individual(s) parties would prefer not to. That would not be respecting liberty.

If human relations are not mutual and voluntary, they are involuntary. That is not liberty.

So, to solve the problem WITHOUT using force, how would you do it?
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I don't have a political philosophy, I have a philosophic philosophy. Politics and freedom are seldom aligned.


I would solve the "problem" you described first by analyzing the question and asking you to think about it.
You mentioned that the person who wants to force a relationship with an unwilling participant (in your example a black person, but it could just as easily be a person of any gender or race ) is being denied a liberty.

How?

If a person doesn't want to have any kind of human interaction with you, are you saying that if they decline interacting with you, they owe you something or that you are justified in using force to make them interact with you?

I can't think of any instance where I have a right to demand you to serve me against your wishes if we don't have an explicit agreement that we both agreed to without any duress.

The fact that a law protects some people in some instances when they do force others to interact with them, isn't evidence of a right to force an interaction with an unwilling participant, it's just evidence there is a law, (backed by force) that says it's okay and robs the liberty of at least one person, the unwilling participant.

Laws should not forcibly prevent people who wish to interact, from doing so. That would be respecting liberty.

Laws should not force people to interact with others if one or both individual(s) parties would prefer not to. That would not be respecting liberty.

If human relations are not mutual and voluntary, they are involuntary. That is not liberty.

So, to solve the problem WITHOUT using force, how would you do it?
Click to expand...
please stop spamming us with your white supremacist bullshit, ya fucking pedophile cretin
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I can't think of any instance where I have a right to demand you to serve me against your wishes
Click to expand...
if my mother, who is an RN, knew what a piece of shit white supremacist you were, she would likely not take the necessary steps to save your life when your inevitable health catastrophe occurs.


nonetheless, she cannot deny you lifesaving medical attention, despite the fact that you are of the lowest grade of human shit that exists
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
If a person doesn't want to have any kind of human interaction with you, are you saying that if they decline interacting with you, they owe you something or that you are justified in using force to make them interact with you?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

If someone chooses not to interact with me based on something I cannot change about myself, then it has nothing to do with me, rather, it has to do with that persons insecurity. As someone who values freedom and liberty, just as you do, I believe that's wrong. I believe it is then appropriate to enforce a law that criminalizes said action. If you choose not to interact with me based on something I can't change, I believe the government should regulate your behavior to accommodate me because that's the only way both of our differences can be reconciled within a civil society without resorting to physical violence. If you believe we can somehow reach an agreement where you won't sell to me because I'm black or Asian or gay (or whatever), without resorting to physical violence, I would love to hear it
Rob Roy said:
I can't think of any instance where I have a right to demand you to serve me against your wishes if we don't have an explicit agreement that we both agreed to without any duress.
Click to expand...
What if you're a woman, and I only serve men?
Rob Roy said:
The fact that a law protects some people in some instances when they do force others to interact with them, isn't evidence of a right to force an interaction with an unwilling participant, it's just evidence there is a law, (backed by force) that says it's okay and robs the liberty of at least one person, the unwilling participant.
Click to expand...
Do you think someone has the right to refuse service to someone else based on something that person cannot change about themself? Like height, skin color, or gender?

You're not forcing anyone to interact with anyone else. You're simply saying that if you choose to interact with the public by opening a business that services the public, you can't discriminate against patrons based on features they have no control over. If someone doesn't wear a shirt, you absolutely have the right to kick them out of your place of business since choosing to wear a shirt or not is optional. I have no option of being black or being gay or being female, etc. As a place of business that operates in America, according to the Constitution, you can't discriminate against people for the color of their skin, their gender, their religion, etc. These are things people can't readily change on a whim.

I want to pause here, just to make sure we're on the same page. You agree with that, right?
Rob Roy said:
Laws should not force people to interact with others if one or both individual(s) parties would prefer not to. That would not be respecting liberty.

So, to solve the problem WITHOUT using force, how would you do it?
Click to expand...
I don't believe there are any laws that exist that force people to interact with people they don't want to
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
please stop spamming us with your white supremacist bullshit, ya fucking pedophile cretin
Click to expand...
I'm not spamming you with white supremacist bullshit. I'm spamming you with peace and freedom bullshit.

Not surprised you can't tell the difference though.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
if my mother, who is an RN, knew what a piece of shit white supremacist you were, she would likely not take the necessary steps to save your life when your inevitable health catastrophe occurs.


nonetheless, she cannot deny you lifesaving medical attention, despite the fact that you are of the lowest grade of human shit that exists
Click to expand...
I would never force your mother to do anything to my body if she wasn't willing to.

As far as whether I'd be willing, I'd need to see some pictures first.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying

If someone chooses not to interact with me based on something I cannot change about myself, then it has nothing to do with me, rather, it has to do with that persons insecurity. As someone who values freedom and liberty, just as you do, I believe that's wrong. I believe it is then appropriate to enforce a law that criminalizes said action. If you choose not to interact with me based on something I can't change, I believe the government should regulate your behavior to accommodate me because that's the only way both of our differences can be reconciled within a civil society without resorting to physical violence. If you believe we can somehow reach an agreement where you won't sell to me because I'm black or Asian or gay (or whatever), without resorting to physical violence, I would love to hear it

What if you're a woman, and I only serve men?

Do you think someone has the right to refuse service to someone else based on something that person cannot change about themself? Like height, skin color, or gender?

You're not forcing anyone to interact with anyone else. You're simply saying that if you choose to interact with the public by opening a business that services the public, you can't discriminate against patrons based on features they have no control over. If someone doesn't wear a shirt, you absolutely have the right to kick them out of your place of business since choosing to wear a shirt or not is optional. I have no option of being black or being gay or being female, etc. As a place of business that operates in America, according to the Constitution, you can't discriminate against people for the color of their skin, their gender, their religion, etc. These are things people can't readily change on a whim.

I want to pause here, just to make sure we're on the same page. You agree with that, right?

I don't believe there are any laws that exist that force people to interact with people they don't want to
Click to expand...
I don't believe anybody or any group of people has the right to initiate force. Your ideas are founded in forcing an unwilling and otherwise neutral person to interact with somebody. You are advocating offensive force.

Why they don't want to interact isn't our business. They have a right to self determine don't they ?

I believe all people have the right to repel force. It's a defensive action.

Your last line is not a very good one. I'll give you some time to reconsider it, ask it again if you still believe it is true in a day or two.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I don't believe anybody or any group of people has the right to initiate force. Your ideas are founded in forcing an unwilling and otherwise neutral person to interact with somebody. You are advocating offensive force.

Why they don't want to interact isn't our business. They have a right to self determine don't they ?

I believe all people have the right to repel force. It's a defensive action.

Your last line is not a very good one. I'll give you some time to reconsider it, ask it again if you still believe it is true in a day or two.
Click to expand...
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I would never force your mother to do anything to my body if she wasn't willing to.

As far as whether I'd be willing, I'd need to see some pictures first.
Click to expand...
your own philosophy would kill you if tolerant people like myself and my mother would allow it
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
Click to expand...
That's not accurate. If the owner of a place of business has preferences over who they will do business with and who they won't, what makes it "open to the public" ?

Are you saying that the "owner" is NOT the owner and that somebody else is?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
telling people to hang "no blacks allowed" signs is not peace or freedom
Click to expand...
I've never told anybody to do that though. You just made that up. You asked me a long time ago the most peaceful way (or something like that) a racist could notice others who wanted to force them to interact with them, of the racists, racism. My answering your question, wasn't me telling or aligning policies with a racist, it was simply answering your question. What do you think is the most peaceful way for a racist to notice others of their racism?

Maybe you could tell me how you will take guns away from black people without using a gun to do it?

As far as a person forcing another person to serve them against their will and threatening force if they don't serve them...could you describe how that advances freedom? Could you describe how a threat against a person who is not willing to associate with you, but remains on their own property. is NOT breaking the peace?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top