is this the middle ages?

[abandonconflict]

Is forcing another person to interact with you, when they prefer not to a peaceful and neutral act ?

This is not a thing that you have ever experienced. If it were, you would have something better than a perverted fantasy (which sounded like something Bernard Sanders wrote) as an example.

 

[Rob Roy]

Then quit pushing your extreme right-wing beliefs on us all. It's been years now that you have been derailing threads and in all the years I have seen no more than a few people vaguely agree with any part of it.

Your arguments against child sexual consent laws in particular are extremely unwelcome.

Again, you conflate. Doesn't "your government", Fake Anarchist, have laws regarding consent which conflict with each other amongst it's various plantations?

Also, I've made it plain, I'm arguing for rationality. It is irrational to expect an entity which exempts itself from theft, fraud and murder to also be the arbiter of such things.

Sometimes I think your failure to rebut my arguments makes you run to innuendo, because you got nothing.

 

[abandonconflict]

Reported for arguing against child sexual consent laws.

 

[Rob Roy]

This is not a thing that you have ever experienced. If it were, you would have something better than a perverted fantasy (which sounded like something Bernard Sanders wrote) as an example.

So, if I began selling widgets and didn't seek or gain government permission to do so, nothing would happen?

Just because you can't see a threat before it is enacted, does not mean the threat for noncompliance isn't omnipresent.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

That's a blatant strawman. I DON'T bemoan racial minorities "participating in the economy".

I've stated many times that laws which prevented people of different races who wished to interact from doing so, were heinous. They were heinous because they removed the consent of the involved parties and replaced it with an edict from a central authority.

no. they weren't heinous because they removed the consent of the involved parties. they were heinous because they tried to turn human being into chattel. they tried to trivialize the lives of human beings that the makers of the law didn't want to recognize as equal to themselves.any connection it had to "consent" was tertiary to that, at best

 

[Rob Roy]

Reported for arguing against child sexual consent laws.

That's not an argument.

 

[Rob Roy]

no. they weren't heinous because they removed the consent of the involved parties. they were heinous because they tried to turn human being into chattel. they tried to trivialize the lives of human beings that the makers of the law didn't want to recognize as equal to themselves.any connection it had to "consent" was tertiary to that, at best

Good morning.

I don't mean to be rude, but your commentary seems redundant to my claim that those laws removed the element of consent.

 

[abandonconflict]

Just because you can't see a threat before it is enacted, does not mean the threat for noncompliance isn't omnipresent.

So no, you are not the victim of government force, but as established, still the beneficiary.

 

[Rob Roy]

So no, you are not the victim of government force but as established, still the beneficiary.

Says the guy who sat in mom's basement collecting a government check.

The flaw in your assumption is you seem to think that without a central coercion based authority that relies on involuntary capture of it's subjects that other means couldn't possibly facilitate benefits. You might be stuck in a false dichotomy.

 

[Rob Roy]

I know lol. I just keep asking though, it’s called insanity on my part I believe. I only do this on weekends now, it’s entertaining lol. I like watching him deflect the hard ones.

Can you delegate a right you do not possess? Ahem.

 

[Budley Doright]

If a business "has to abide by certain rules" are they rules that are demanded of the owner by a nonowner? Yes

If a business "has to abide by certain rules" , are those rules a forcible edict from other people ? Yes

Is a forcible edict from a third party a method of demonstrating inequality and removing consent ? Yes


If you disagree, please detail where my error is.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No it actually produces more equality in the fact that the public (being the buyer) is equally ensured that they will be provided with a safe (most of the time), quality (most of the time), working system.
The owner is somewhat ensured that all other business’s with have to provide equally, the same level of professionalism in regards to qualified (expensive) people to do the job.
Do you not agree that this leads to more equality?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Can you delegate a right you do not possess? Ahem.

Good morning slave.

Every day you wake up in this coercive society that tromps on the rights of individuals to opt out, you remain...

My Slave. Bark like a good boy or I will send the men with guns.

Winning. Every morning. Every night. And lunchtime too - lunchtime is the best.

 

[Rob Roy]

No you didn't. You have been repeating incessantly that racial discrimination is a neutral and peaceful act. You have only decried the "use of force to compel business owners to serve" anyone they would refuse. This is your first mention of the opposite.

Get chopping, pedo.

Context is important. If a person is not interested in having an interaction with another person, that is a state of neutrality.

If that same person goes to another persons property and INSISTS the other unwilling person interact with them, that is a state of aggression, ie "non peaceful" .

Which part of the above is inaccurate?

 

[Rob Roy]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No it actually produces more equality in the fact that the public (being the buyer) is equally ensured that they will be provided with a safe (most of the time), quality (most of the time), working system.
The owner is somewhat ensured that all other business’s with have to provide equally, the same level of professionalism in regards to qualified (expensive) people to do the job.
Do you not agree that this leads to more equality?

You have confused the "equality" of a forced edict being applied equally to lesser people by an overarching authority with actual equality of self determination of the individual.

If you understand this, I invite you to point out where it is in error.

 

[Rob Roy]

Good morning slave.

Every day you wake up in this coercive society that tromps on the rights of individuals to opt out, you remain...

My Slave. Bark like a good boy or I will send the men with guns.

Winning. Every morning. Every night. And lunchtime too - lunchtime is the best.

Good morning.

 

[Budley Doright]

If you don't want to eliminate forced compliance, you can never ensure equality / consensual human interactions since the two concepts are polar opposites.

When you attempt to use forced compliance as a basis for a relationship, it becomes part of the equation and doesn't conveniently disappear when examining the circumstances.

Pellet stove? Not me. Wood stove. Still hand split most of it.

Hmmm wood stove huh, I respectfully ask that you stop using it, you are ruining my air quality with your inefficient appliance lol. Actually I just wanted to end the slavery of getting up at 3am to feed the stove......although I’m up a lot now .

Your math homework is waaaaay overdue.

Im waiting for yours.

 

[abandonconflict]

Says the guy who sat in mom's basement collecting a government check.

I'm not the one arguing against the existence of civil society. I collected veterans benefits while I was receiving physical therapy from service connected disabilities.

Context is important. If a person is not interested in having an interaction with another person, that is a state of neutrality.

I didn't remove any pertinent context. You're definitely arguing that racial discrimination is a neutral and peaceful act. You also have definitely been arguing against child sexual consent laws.

 

[Budley Doright]

Ask Gilligan.

Not him, he had a couple of real women to tap. No need for false idols.

 

[londonfog]

Can you delegate a right you do not possess? Ahem.

Rob Roy lives on a land that has a nice stream running through said property. This streams water comes crystal clear from the mountain running down stream. Rob Roy uses this water to drink , feed plants, cook, etc...
A new neighbor moves up stream from Rob Roy with his 7 kids and wife. This stream also runs through the neighbors property as well running down stream to Rob Roy.
This new neighbor and family shits and dumps all kind of waste in this stream slightly downstream but still on their property. Rumors has it they allow the farm animals to do the same well.
Rob Roy starts to notice that his stream water is not fresh as it used to be, before his neighbor moved up stream. Rob Roy goes to the neighbor to delegate a right he does not have by asking his neighbor to stop. The neighbor tells him to fuck off and get the fuck off his property. Roy Roy ask why he is shitting in the stream water. The neighbor ask "can you delegate a right you do not possess" ? Rob says no and returns home, were his wife beats him for not stopping the problem. Rob dies from intestinal parasites from drinking and cooking shitty water, because some days he did not feel like being a slave and boiling his water from the stream.
His wife/widow sues the neighbor and wins, stopping the shit from coming down stream. Rob was pretty stupid. THE END

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm not the one arguing against the existence of civil society. I collected veterans benefits while I was receiving physical therapy from service connected disabilities.


I didn't remove any pertinent context. You're definitely arguing that racial discrimination is a neutral and peaceful act. You also have definitely been arguing against child sexual consent laws.

That's the part where the false dichotomy on your part comes in.

It is possible that a person could be opposed to racial discrimination and kiddie diddling and still be opposed to edicts coming from a central coercion based authority isn't it?

I thought you were smart enough to get that. Guess not.