Anti government in the politics section

[fdd2blk]

If you're so sleepy you should take a nap, not post about how sleepy you are. Just a suggestion.

 

[Justin-case]

Advocate for racial segregation, sad^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[dagwood45431]

A person wants to associate or trade with you, you let them know you prefer not to, they persist and force the association or force you to trade with them.

What are you? A fucking fur trapper from yesteryear? Society has evolved and commerce has changed. Come out of the woods. You have much to learn.

 

[Rob Roy]

Delegate a right they do not possess?
Well, we possess the right to choose who we interact with as consumers. But I've said, repeatedly, as a business owner we wave that right due to the fact that the customer base is society as a whole.
I've answered this. I do not think a business owner is afforded the right to refuse service to people based on physical or mental attributes.

We disagree. That's fine, asked and answered though.

So sorry to keep you waiting, thank you for your continued patience.

I think your answer is a contradiction and relies on two opposing value systems, which means at least in part it is wrong, since it erroneously attempts to give some people the right to delegate something they don't possess.


If a person DOESN'T want to associate with somebody else, and they DON'T waive that right of their own accord, wouldn't the person(s) insisting they associate be claiming a right they do not possess ?


Are you saying a person can have OTHERS waive their right to chose their associations ? Isn't that the basis for slavery?

 

[Rob Roy]

Advocate for racial segregation, sad^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^ Advocate for use of force to create a human interaction, like a rapist. Sad.

 

[Rob Roy]

What are you? A fucking fur trapper from yesteryear? Society has evolved and commerce has changed. Come out of the woods. You have much to learn.

I've learned that human interactions and trade should be based in mutual assent.

Have you learned something different ? Please enlighten me.

 

[Rob Roy]

so a black person trying to buy stuff from a store is the one not being peaceful, rather than the racist store owner who is kicking him out based on his skin color?

nice take, skinhead.

No, the person INSISTING that a human relationship take place over the objections of a neutral party is the one that is wrong. It is true regardless of the skin color of the participants.

Your policy, forcing another person to associate with you, or to serve you when they prefer not to attempts to use a means, offensive force, to create a positive circumstance. That is impossible though, since the circumstance arose not from consent, instead it arose from the use of offensive force.

What you are really saying is when you like the outcome, you're okay with the use of offensive force. Can you deny that in any coherent way? No, you can't.

 

[dagwood45431]

I've learned that human interactions and trade should be based in mutual assent.

Have you learned something different ? Please enlighten me.

Where did you "learn" that, Yukon John?

 

[Rob Roy]

Where did you "learn" that, Yukon John?

It is self evident. For instance if I told a neutral person they were going to associate with me and threatened the use of force to make that happen, would you say that person has the right to refuse my "offer" ?


Where did you learn that forcing a person to associate with you against their will is an acceptable thing, Ted Bundy or The Candy Plantation?

 

[Rob Roy]

How much did you donate to charity last year?

Or do you just post pictures and bitch troll.

I wonder if you could define charity please.

While you are at it, would you please define theft too?

Thanks.

 

[Rob Roy]

The sheer ignorance on display in this thread has reached proportions I didn't think possible.

Would you include holding two opposing views at once as an ignorant "point(s) of view" ?

If so, I concur with your assertion.

 

[HAF2]

I think your answer is a contradiction and relies on two opposing value systems, which means at least in part it is wrong, since it erroneously attempts to give some people the right to delegate something they don't possess.


If a person DOESN'T want to associate with somebody else, and they DON'T waive that right of their own accord, wouldn't the person(s) insisting they associate be claiming a right they do not possess ?


Are you saying a person can have OTHERS waive their right to chose their associations ? Isn't that the basis for slavery?

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make my opinion on the matter incorrect.
People are allowed to have their own opinions.

 

[Rob Roy]

Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't make my opinion on the matter incorrect.
People are allowed to have their own opinions.

That's true. But when their own opinions contradict one another, like yours have in our recent exchange, that's a clue that one of their opinions is inaccurate.

It seems you not only don't want to agree with me, you don't consistently agree with yourself. You claim to be an advocate for peace, but then you rationalize why it's okay for one person to force another neutral person to associate with them. That's an example of your holding two opposing opinions at once.


I don't think a person can delegate a right they don't have. In that regard I've aligned my opinion with a fact. If you think a person CAN delegate a right they don't have, please offer an example of how that can be done.

 

[HAF2]

That's true. But when their own opinions contradict one another, like yours have in our recent exchange, that's a clue that one of their opinions is inaccurate.

It seems you not only don't want to agree with me, you don't consistently agree with yourself. You claim to be an advocate for peace, but then you rationalize why it's okay for one person to force another neutral person to associate with them. That's an example of your holding two opposing opinions at once.


I don't think a person can delegate a right they don't have. In that regard I've aligned my opinion with a fact. If you think a person CAN delegate a right they don't have, please offer an example of how that can be done.

I'm sorry it was hard for me to hear you over how loudly you're patting yourself on the back.
If you feel you have "won" this exchange, good for you. Have a lolly.

 

[Rob Roy]

And that helps lower insurance for all. I've found the more people have to lose the more they tend to care. Not money but better life choices are the reason some have more money. Not all. People with money tend to have better hygiene than winos. Some just make better choices. It's best for those that don't make good choices to gently nudge them in the direction to help lower our insurance is a good thing.

A "gentle nudge" ? Interesting.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm sorry it was hard for me to hear you over how loudly you're patting yourself on the back.
If you feel you have "won" this exchange, good for you. Have a lolly.

View attachment 3905259

Thanks, but I generally don't eat lollipops. Also, despite what you may perceive as a "know it all" demeanor on my part, that isn't my motivation. My motivation is to help foster a world where people interact on a voluntary and peaceful basis. Horrible huh?

 

[HAF2]

Thanks, but I generally don't eat lollipops. Also, despite what you may perceive as a "know it all" demeanor on my part, that isn't my motivation. My motivation is to help foster a world where people interact on a voluntary and peaceful basis. Horrible huh?

You do you man.

 

[Rob Roy]

You do you man.

 

[dandyrandy]

A "gentle nudge" ? Interesting.

Didn't your mom and dad give you a gentle nudge? Maybe not.

 

[dandyrandy]

The problem with your example is it doesn't fit with your question. In other words you are conflating again. I think you do that when your feelings are hurt and you can't refute my claims directly. Come to think of it, you've never really refuted anything I've posited, Poopy Pants.


When people forcibly prevented others who wanted to associate or trade on a MUTUAL BASIS from doing so, of course there was harm done.
It's the same kind of harm done when people are forced to associate when one or both parties would prefer not to. Nobody has the right to use offensive force.
Two sides of the same coin.


You seem particularly slow and thickheaded concerning the issue of permissible uses of force.

Here let me give you some examples and explain, dolt.

A person wants to associate or trade with you, you let them know you prefer not to, they persist and force the association or force you to trade with them. That person has initiated the relationship not on mutual consent, instead on the basis of offensive force. That makes them WRONG. It's wrong because the association is not based in mutual consent.

The same kind of wrong exists when people who WOULD associate are prevented from doing so, by douchebags like the KKK, government statutes, douchebags who conflate and rationalize etc.


Further you have no grasp on how human relations work. You seem to dismiss, as in not address, the right of the person who doesn't want to be involved in an interaction, for their own reasons. You act as if the default among humans is not one of neutrality. You think people MUST associate if only one party wants the association to happen, which means you are endorsing the use of offensive force. Which means you are wrong when you endorse rapist tactics.

Any person has a right to use DEFENSIVE FORCE to repel a person using offensive force in an attempt to create a nonconsensual association or force somebody to engage in trade. If a person is forced to trade with another, it ceases to be trade and becomes something else, doesn't it ?

I realize for you to address my points may be difficult for you, so I'll just assume you agree with them until you can refute them.

Oh by the way, you never answered my question concerning the delegation of rights.

Not much on society? I think I understand now.