Why did President Lincoln violate freedom of the press laws if he wanted to "free the slaves" ?

[see4]

Thank you for expressing your opinion in a reasonable manner.

Are you okay with President's "temporarily" disregarding peoples rights some of which are outlined in the bill of rights?

Are you ok with older men touching younger boys? God forbid laws coerce you into not touching little boys.

 

[dagwood45431]

Hopefully not.

What is like rape though Poopy Pants is going to another persons property and forcibly demanding they associate with you, even when they prefer not to.

 

[Rob Roy]

well


No.

when talking about Lincoln, given the time period, given the overall situation surrounding his presidency, and given the results of his presidency......

it is hard to argue that doing something different than what he did would've had a better results.....

not to sound too glorifying but I think if any other man would've been president at the time there would be 2 separate nations in what is now the United States - please note this is my opinion and you can disagree if you want - you are not convincing me.....

Why is having two separate nations or three or more etc. instead of one gigantic empire a bad thing ?

Should people be held in a single political union by force ?

 

[Rob Roy]

Are you ok with older men touching younger boys? God forbid laws coerce you into not touching little boys.

I'm afraid I can't condone your plan. I thought you liked girls?

 

[Rob Roy]

I wouldn't live in your Utopia. I'm afraid I'd get caught up saving you from people gunning you down. Because, you know... no laws and all.

Nice try on the "nu-uh, no you" argument though.

Well I appreciate your fantasies of rescuing me from some crazed hooligans, I really do. However I think you misunderstand what the results of "my Utopia" would be as far as dealing with offensive aggression from people.

You see, in the present, offensive aggression is systemic and embedded in the fabric of the culture and in the minds of much of the populace. However, since it occurs on a regular basis and is "legal", you fail to recognize it and defer to it as if it is the best thing that there can ever be. Which is a nice way of saying that you are in a mental trap of your own ignorance but you are not alone.

I don't think you understand what a free market really is and how it solves many of the injustices that you presently blithely accept as a given.

 

[Rob Roy]

no, that's just your ultra-racist interpretation of a black man trying to order lunch like everyone else. it gets you all mad for some reason.

but a 31 year old fucking a 12 year old doesn't seem to bother you in the least.

What really gets me mad is when you go into a Wendy's bathroom to wash your hands and there's a peculiar odor emanating from stall #4.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yes, but in Robs Utopia you'd have to get his "consent" first.

Because no laws and all (no ems/fire/rescue either) so no "implied consent" to intervene and save his ass.

Sounds like an ideal Utopia to me

So you feel that consent of other people isn't necessary when dealing with them?

Why is that?

 

[Rob Roy]

who the fuck is coming to your property forcing you to associate with them. Jehovah witnesses ?? Get a no soliciting and no trespassing sign when you get out the fucking mental hospital.

I'm sure your advice is well meaning, but it doesn't answer why you'd force a black man to use his own property and body to serve a white man against his will.

I mean Jehovahs can be a pain in the ass, but geez forcing a man to serve somebody he'd prefer not to sounds a little slavish. We can tell the Jehovahs to go away or simply not answer the door, what happens to that black guy if he tries to act like his property belongs to him though? Should he put up a sign telling people who is and who isn't welcome or should he just let himself be forced into serving somebody?

 

[dagwood45431]

what happens to that black guy

You do realize that flipping the scenario where the black guy is being "forced" to serve the white guy doesn't disguise the fact that you are motivated by your racism, don't you, jackass?

 

[Rob Roy]

You do realize that flipping the scenario where the black guy is being "forced" to serve the white guy doesn't disguise the fact that you are motivated by your racism, don't you, jackass?

Actually, no. I'm motivated by a desire to have voluntary and peaceful human interactions be the norm, rather than an acceptance of coercion based rituals which ignore the operational means (as if it doesn't exist).

So, why would you force a black man to serve a white man if he preferred not to, horse face ?

 

[dagwood45431]

So, why would you force a black man to serve...

Explained to you ad infinitum, Rub. You're stuck down an illogical rabbit hole of your own making. I and many others have thrown you a rope, but you're incapable of catching it for some reason (racism, stupidity and/or insanity being the likely suspects here). You're just going to have to climb out on your own. Until then, I'll just wave to you every now and then from up here. Racist jackass.

 

[Tangerine_]

So you feel that consent of other people isn't necessary when dealing with them?

Why is that?

"Dealing with them"? WTF are you trying to say now?

 

[Tangerine_]

I'm sure your advice is well meaning, but it doesn't answer why you'd force a black man to use his own property and body to serve a white man against his will.

I mean Jehovahs can be a pain in the ass, but geez forcing a man to serve somebody he'd prefer not to sounds a little slavish. We can tell the Jehovahs to go away or simply not answer the door, what happens to that black guy if he tries to act like his property belongs to him though? Should he put up a sign telling people who is and who isn't welcome or should he just let himself be forced into serving somebody?

They'd put up a no soliciting sign just like anyone else would regardless of skin tone.

 

[londonfog]

I'm sure your advice is well meaning, but it doesn't answer why you'd force a black man to use his own property and body to serve a white man against his will.

I mean Jehovahs can be a pain in the ass, but geez forcing a man to serve somebody he'd prefer not to sounds a little slavish. We can tell the Jehovahs to go away or simply not answer the door, what happens to that black guy if he tries to act like his property belongs to him though? Should he put up a sign telling people who is and who isn't welcome or should he just let himself be forced into serving somebody?

Although you do write quite well. your debate game sucks donkey dicks.
What black man is being force to serve a white man against his will. Let me know or STFU.
I'm considered black and no on is forcing me to serve anyone. Name me a black man who is being force to serve a white man

 

[londonfog]

Actually, no. I'm motivated by a desire to have voluntary and peaceful human interactions be the norm, rather than an acceptance of coercion based rituals which ignore the operational means (as if it doesn't exist).

So, why would you force a black man to serve a white man if he preferred not to, horse face ?

again give an example where this is happening in America.

 

[dagwood45431]

Although you do write quite well. your debate game sucks donkey dicks.

There's certain melodic-resolve-to-discord quality there that I really, really enjoyed.

 

[londonfog]

Why is having two separate nations or three or more etc. instead of one gigantic empire a bad thing ?

Should people be held in a single political union by force ?

I guess you hate the fact that the Confederacy lost the war. Never knew you felt this strong about slavery

 

[see4]

Well I appreciate your fantasies of rescuing me from some crazed hooligans, I really do. However I think you misunderstand what the results of "my Utopia" would be as far as dealing with offensive aggression from people.

You see, in the present, offensive aggression is systemic and embedded in the fabric of the culture and in the minds of much of the populace. However, since it occurs on a regular basis and is "legal", you fail to recognize it and defer to it as if it is the best thing that there can ever be. Which is a nice way of saying that you are in a mental trap of your own ignorance but you are not alone.

I don't think you understand what a free market really is and how it solves many of the injustices that you presently blithely accept as a given.

Rob Roy: "I think you misunderstand"... a theoretical sociological dream of mine.
Me: Uhh, ok. Cool story?
Rob Roy: "offensive aggression is systemic and embedded", somebody is telling me what to do, and it makes me angry!! because, Murica.
Me: Uhh, ok. Cool story?
Rob Roy: "I don't you understand what a free market really is..."
Me: I run several businesses, rather successfully. No, Rob, I have no idea what free market is, you must explain it to me so I can better make gooderer with my monies and my free wills. Because Freedumbs!!

Rob, rules are meant for society, not as a mandate to any one individual or business. In the case of free markets, though ideal, it is not possible for a business to be truly free of rules, as with persons. An individual person, business, et al, alone is only to abide by themselves. Once part of a society, market, et al, rules are required to ensure we "play nicely" with others.

Your hypotheticals have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[see4]

I'm afraid I can't condone your plan. I thought you liked girls?

Rob, your "nu-uh, no you" argument, is lazy. Try harder.

 

[dagwood45431]

Rob Roy: "I think you misunderstand"... a theoretical sociological dream of mine.
Me: Uhh, ok. Cool story?
Rob Roy: "offensive aggression is systemic and embedded", somebody is telling me what to do, and it makes me angry!! because, Murica.
Me: Uhh, ok. Cool story?
Rob Roy: "I don't you understand what a free market really is..."
Me: I run several businesses, rather successfully. No, Rob, I have no idea what free market is, you must explain it to me so I can better make gooderer with my monies and my free wills. Because Freedumbs!!

Rob, rules are meant for society, not as a mandate to any one individual or business. In the case of free markets, though ideal, it is not possible for a business to be truly free of rules, as with persons. An individual person, business, et al, alone is only to abide by themselves. Once part of a society, market, et al, rules are required to ensure we "play nicely" with others.

Your hypotheticals have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.