is this the middle ages?

[Rob Roy]

Yes wouldn’t it be nice to live in a eutopian world of everyone doing the right thing but you realize that his thinking is flawed, and the one point he falls back on of serving or not serving a person depending on your whims is where it completely falls apart. You open a business and are able to turn away anyone you want because, “fuck you, I don’t like you” is in fact forcing the other person to not be free to shop where he/she wants. Kind of the same thing that happened not that long ago, something that was called segregation. Ya that worked well. Yup he’s winning lol.

Let's dissect your amazingly obtuse post which rests on a foundation of contradiction...

The error in your ahem "thought process" is you are misunderstanding the nature of property and the nature of the thing being contested in this discussion.

Property when the ownership is defined, serves as a kind of baseline, which other rights flow from or are inextricably mingled with. You can't be the one being violated if you are the one removing another persons rights, which is what you seem to be suggesting.The delineating thing that must be considered in whether a persons freedom (in this case liberty or right might be a better word) has been violated is to know WHO owns the thing in question.

If I came to your house, came to your owned place of business, or came in your mouth and you did not want me there. I would be the one violating your right. The reason why is, IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. Other peoples property requires their consent if you want to use it, failing to get their consent and doing so anyway, makes the person acting absent consent the aggressor, hence the rights violator. If you don't agree, with the foregoing sentence, tell me why please.

If I took your car and you did not want me to, I would be the one violating your right, The reason why is IT IS YOUR POPERTY.

You may not like me because of some superficial physical characteristic I possess and even say, "ain't no bigfoot stealing my car", but the reason why I'd be the one violating your right, is, IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY and you don't want me using it.

So, when you posit that it is a violation of another persons "freedom" to not be able to violate another person's right, you can't possibly be arguing for "equal rights". I've never argued for the freedom to do anything to OTHER peoples property, since that right doesn't exist.


Segregation?
Your comparison to "segregation" isn't a good one and actually helps make my argument for me. Thank you.

Presumably the reason most people don't like segregation is because when it was instituted, it was government forcibly REMOVING other WILLNG persons right to self determine their property (themselves) and interact on a voluntary and mutual basis if both chose to. Do I have to connect the rest of the dots for you or can you figure out the rest?

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

If I came to your house, came to your owned place of business, or came in your mouth and you did not want me there. I would be the one violating your right. The reason why is, IT IS YOUR PROPERTY. Other peoples property requires their consent if you want to use it, failing to get their consent and doing so anyway, makes the person acting absent consent the aggressor, hence the rights violator. If you don't agree, with the foregoing sentence, tell me why please.

we're talking about a business. most businesses are open to the public. if a stranger walks in, and you decide you don't like his looks, you can't tell him to gtfo.....unless you want to leave yourself open to a discrimination law suit. a person walking into a business has an expectation, and a right, to be treated the same as anyone else walking into that business. the fact that your business is open grants implied consent to the customers to be there.ALL of them, till they start to act inappropriately, then, and only then, is it ok for you to ask them to leave, whether you like their looks or not....
someone trespassing on clearly marked private property is an intruder, and as far as i'm concerned, they get one warning shot, then they get a real shot.....people touching me against my will don't get the warning shot......
but people walking into a business open to the public have a right to be served, no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference.....i do leave a little gray area to protect people from having to perform services they find personally distasteful, but they should have the sense to deal with the situation diplomatically, and not tell them GTFO WEIRDO.......because that leaves you open to being sued....

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

Presumably the reason most people don't like segregation is because when it was instituted, it was government forcibly REMOVING other WILLNG persons right to self determine their property (themselves) and interact on a voluntary and mutual basis if both chose to. Do I have to connect the rest of the dots for you or can you figure out the rest?

Segregation was never "instituted" ....it was never a national policy. any jim crow laws were passed locally, and none of them stood up in court once they started being challenged. so the Government didn't remove anything....local governments removed the rights of people of color to be treated like human beings....and gave racists strength to grow and spread their hate....and just exactly how many white business owners WANTED to have black customers? if both chose to....well, i'm sure most of the black people would have been fine with being able to shop at the 5&10....but i don't think the white folks would have been quite as cool with it...
i'm not a white basher, never seen the point in bashing myself, but i'm not blind to history, especially recent history. you keep making up these scenarios that never existed....until the government enacted segregation, black folks and white folks got along fine, shopped at the same stores, sat next to each other at church? did their kids go to the same schools? live next door to each other? one part of society used, abused, insulted, and ignored another part....there was no "if both chose to".....
the reason most people don't like segregation is that it treats a part of humanity as less than human....and you just don't seem to get that...you have to turn it into something that makes sense to you...but you aren't a normal person...not an insult, just look around....
so, here's my question....
do you think you're the only person alive who sees the truth? that the rest of us are all blind, and ignorant, basically just stupider than you, and that you're the only one smart enough to see the truth?
7.499 billion idiots....one guy who sees the truth? you are the Zenith, the Apex human, the Prime Mover? and the rest of us are deluded idiots? really?............there's nothing wrong with being an individual....but goddamn dude.....at least stay in sight of reality....tie a rope to your ankle so you'll be able to pull yourself out of the ocean of delusion occasionally.....

 

[Rob Roy]

we're talking about a business. most businesses are open to the public. if a stranger walks in, and you decide you don't like his looks, you can't tell him to gtfo.....unless you want to leave yourself open to a discrimination law suit. a person walking into a business has an expectation, and a right, to be treated the same as anyone else walking into that business. the fact that your business is open grants implied consent to the customers to be there.ALL of them, till they start to act inappropriately, then, and only then, is it ok for you to ask them to leave, whether you like their looks or not....
someone trespassing on clearly marked private property is an intruder, and as far as i'm concerned, they get one warning shot, then they get a real shot.....people touching me against my will don't get the warning shot......
but people walking into a business open to the public have a right to be served, no matter their color, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference.....i do leave a little gray area to protect people from having to perform services they find personally distasteful, but they should have the sense to deal with the situation diplomatically, and not tell them GTFO WEIRDO.......because that leaves you open to being sued....

Except you haven't addressed my point...

The reason, at least why some business, "are open to the public", is because an inequality and a property right violation was expressed via legislation. That's an indisputable fact by the way.

Meaning simply because government acted as a property rights violator via a law and then granted that privilege of property rights violation to "everybody" doesn't mean a property right violation hasn't occurred. So to proceed from there without addressing that violation is sort of hypocritical. Government has no more right to delegate a nonexistent right than you or I do.
^^^
This is the part which hasn't been addressed by anybody here other than me. Can you address that part?

Your recitation of statutory laws, isn't necessary, nor does it address or refute my pint.. I already know the history and flawed logic of the law. Laws just as often violate rights as they protect them. You can't be protecting equality of rights, while removing them from some people. It is an impossibility which can be expressed mathematically.

 

[Rob Roy]

Segregation was never "instituted" ....it was never a national policy. any jim crow laws were passed locally, and none of them stood up in court once they started being challenged. so the Government didn't remove anything....local governments removed the rights of people of color to be treated like human beings....and gave racists strength to grow and spread their hate....and just exactly how many white business owners WANTED to have black customers? if both chose to....well, i'm sure most of the black people would have been fine with being able to shop at the 5&10....but i don't think the white folks would have been quite as cool with it...
i'm not a white basher, never seen the point in bashing myself, but i'm not blind to history, especially recent history. you keep making up these scenarios that never existed....until the government enacted segregation, black folks and white folks got along fine, shopped at the same stores, sat next to each other at church? did their kids go to the same schools? live next door to each other? one part of society used, abused, insulted, and ignored another part....there was no "if both chose to".....
the reason most people don't like segregation is that it treats a part of humanity as less than human....and you just don't seem to get that...

Except...

I'm not a fan of forcible government instituted segregation or government instituted forced integration. The reason why is in both instances, there is a rights violation and an inequality being expressed.

Can you delegate a right you don't possess ? No. Nobody can. If you think it's possible, how about explaining how that is done? Government is "only a collection of individual people" none of whom have a right to force anybody to interact, which is why forcible segregation and forcible integration is wrong.

 

[Rob Roy]

Segregation was never "instituted" ....it was never a national policy. any jim crow laws were passed locally, and none of them stood up in court once they started being challenged. so the Government didn't remove anything....local governments removed the rights of people of color to be treated like human beings....and gave racists strength to grow and spread their hate....and just exactly how many white business owners WANTED to have black customers? if both chose to....well, i'm sure most of the black people would have been fine with being able to shop at the 5&10....but i don't think the white folks would have been quite as cool with it...
i'm not a white basher, never seen the point in bashing myself, but i'm not blind to history, especially recent history. you keep making up these scenarios that never existed....until the government enacted segregation, black folks and white folks got along fine, shopped at the same stores, sat next to each other at church? did their kids go to the same schools? live next door to each other? one part of society used, abused, insulted, and ignored another part....there was no "if both chose to".....
the reason most people don't like segregation is that it treats a part of humanity as less than human....and you just don't seem to get that...you have to turn it into something that makes sense to you...but you aren't a normal person...not an insult, just look around....
so, here's my question....
do you think you're the only person alive who sees the truth? that the rest of us are all blind, and ignorant, basically just stupider than you, and that you're the only one smart enough to see the truth?
7.499 billion idiots....one guy who sees the truth? you are the Zenith, the Apex human, the Prime Mover? and the rest of us are deluded idiots? really?............there's nothing wrong with being an individual....but goddamn dude.....at least stay in sight of reality....tie a rope to your ankle so you'll be able to pull yourself out of the ocean of delusion occasionally.....

Addressing the last part of your post here.

No, I do not think I am the only person alive who sees the truth. The discussion isn't about me, any references there are only for entertainment purposes. Don't get mad and shift from the topic at hand to focusing on your perception of me, it won't make your argument or refute mine.

Reality? The reality is I haven't had my points refuted with any consistent logic. Can you ?

 

[UncleBuck]

Rob Roy isn’t racist he just hates racial integration

 

[Rob Roy]

Rob Roy isn’t racist he just hates racial integration

Not correct numbnuts.

I don't like applications of offensive force and the systems, actions and laws that arise from them. Both forced segregation and forced integration by government edict are wrong and both can never bring about "equality". It's impossible.

No person can delegate a right they don't possess. You haven't refuted that.

Still winning.

 

[UncleBuck]

Not correct numbnuts.

I don't like applications of offensive force and the systems, actions and laws that arise from them. Both forced segregation and forced integration by government edict are wrong and both can never bring about "equality". It's impossible.

No person can delegate a right they don't possess. You haven't refuted that.

Still winning.

How did the government force you to racially integrate

 

[Rob Roy]

How did the government force you to racially integrate

I'll answer in a generic way.

The government forces people to integrate if they do X with their property. Could that be a true statement ? Yes.

Can you delegate a right you do not possess? (You are afraid to answer this question)

 

[UncleBuck]

I'll answer in a generic way.

The government forces people to integrate if they do X with their property. Could that be a true statement ? Yes.

Can you delegate a right you do not possess? (You are afraid to answer this question)

Specifically how did the government force racial integration on you and why does that upset you

 

[Rob Roy]

Specifically how did the government force racial integration on you and why does that upset you

If you believe your law which you erroneously think "guarantees equal rights" applies to me, you should be able to figure that out, if you only possessed the extrapolative abilities of a 12 year old.

Here let me help you numb nuts. No person may "open a business" without getting permission to do so. If you do open a business, your law insists that the nonowner, rather than the owner will decide the use of a given property...when we decide the use of other peoples property absent their consent, that is a great example of an inequality being expressed.

You're welcome.

 

[UncleBuck]

If you believe your law which you erroneously think "guarantees equal rights" applies to me, you should be able to figure that out, if you only possessed the extrapolative abilities of a 12 year old.

Here let me help you numb nuts. No person may "open a business" without getting permission to do so. If you do open a business, your law insists that the nonowner, rather than the owner will decide the use of a given property...when we decide the use of other peoples property absent their consent, that is a great example of an inequality being expressed.

You're welcome.

What do any of those lies you just spewed have to do with your imaginary subjugation at the hands of “forced racial integration”

 

[Rob Roy]

What do any of those lies you just spewed have to do with your imaginary subjugation at the hands of “forced racial integration”

If they were lies you'd focus on the content of my posts and refute them with logical and on point explanations. You haven't done that.

You accept your subjugation and brag about getting free pens. Good slave.

You've made the error of thinking equal subjugation is the same as equality of liberty and self determination etc. They are two different things.

I suspect your indoctrination in public schools has something to do with your world view, or you might just be incapable of making a good argument. Either way, I'm still winning.

 

[londonfog]

If you believe your law which you erroneously think "guarantees equal rights" applies to me, you should be able to figure that out, if you only possessed the extrapolative abilities of a 12 year old.

Here let me help you numb nuts. No person may "open a business" without getting permission to do so. If you do open a business, your law insists that the nonowner, rather than the owner will decide the use of a given property...when we decide the use of other peoples property absent their consent, that is a great example of an inequality being expressed.

You're welcome.

why when people ask you a simple question, you do nothing but wordplay and insult.
Do you think one should be able to just open a business selling rotten food, sell of alcohol to minors, lies about what is being sold, weight machines that is out of calibration..etc

 

[Rob Roy]

why when people ask you a simple question, you do nothing but wordplay and insult.
Do you think one should be able to just open a business selling rotten food, sell of alcohol to minors, lies about what is being sold, weight machines that is out of calibration..etc

Wordplay - It's important to use similar definitions when discussing something. You avoid that and seek to use words like equality, property and rights in two opposing ways at once.

Insults - Now you're just being a clown, Bozo. Much hypocrisy.


Selling shitty food etc. - No, I'd prefer people didn't shit where food is prepared. That has little to do with the topic of being forced to interact with another person and somehow you think that means equality is still in the picture.


So, how about you answer my question?

Can anybody delegate a right they do not possess ?

 

[londonfog]

Wordplay - It's important to use similar definitions when discussing something. You avoid that and seek to use words like equality, property and rights in two opposing ways at once. Wordplay and a wordsmith is what you do and are. Just like a politician

Insults - Now you're just being a clown, Bozo. Much hypocrisy. Me?? I constantly keep our conversations clean by asking about your beautiful sweet soft loving mother. I have even offered to give her pretty dresses


Selling shitty food etc. - No, I'd prefer people didn't shit where food is prepared. That has little to do with the topic of being forced to interact with another person and somehow you think that means equality is still in the picture. But it does have something to do with why you have to register you business and follow certain rules by a government. You are admitting you agree with the FDA and USDA


So, how about you answer my question?

Can anybody delegate a right they do not possess ? Why did you make a teacher teach your child when you could have home schooled ? Why can't I dump trash by your front yard, BUT not on your property ? Can I also shit and piss in the stream the runs down into your land for your drinking use.

in red

 

[Rob Roy]

So, by drifting away from answering my question, you hope to refocus things, so you can avoid answering ?

The topic is about how "equal rights" is based in an erroneous assumption. You haven't refuted that. Nor can you.

You can't delegate a right you don't possess. Nobody has a right to use offensive force. You can't get around that, it's why I'm

STILL WINNING

 

[charlestonchunk]

opinions are one thing, you're entitled to yours, and i'm entitled to mine, and if they don't ever meet, well, then they just never meet.
politics are a very touchy subject right now, and if you expect to be able to have an opinion without someone else having a differing opinion, you're just naive. if you can't take people calling you names on the internet....well, leave the closet door cracked so you don't suffocate while you're hiding in there....
this is about two guys getting roasted alive, because one guy incited a crowd to take "justice" into their own hands....and the entire town that stood by and allowed it to happen....and the possibility of it happening here, in the heart of "civilization".....and i'm of the opinion that the only reason it doesn't happen is that people are afraid of the consequences...that "civilization" isn't even a veneer, its a loose shroud that can be blown off by a slight breeze.....and a fucking hurricane is coming......soon

It’s incredibly hard to tell myself I participated in this, I see the effects of social media BIGTIME. Drug use, experimenting, Soc media etc. allowes for diisaccociation with nature;
The word “friend” is definitely nebulous now

 

[londonfog]

So, by drifting away from answering my question, you hope to refocus things, so you can avoid answering ?

The topic is about how "equal rights" is based in an erroneous assumption. You haven't refuted that. Nor can you.

You can't delegate a right you don't possess. Nobody has a right to use offensive force. You can't get around that, it's why I'm

STILL WINNING

Would you stop me and other from dumping trash in front of your property but not on it. You can't delegate a right you don't possess right ?
Trump thinks he is WINNING as well