Burn This Bitch Down!

SmokeyDan · Nov 30, 2014

Rob Roy said:
If you "have to" provide ahem "customer service", that implies there is no ability to refuse an interaction doesn't it?

If you can't make a choice about a given interaction or refuse it and one party insists forcefully that the interaction will take place, it embodies the same methods as rape.

For there to be a service type interaction, there needs to be consent of both parties.

You've never been able to refute the logic of what is described above have you?

Human interactions that approve of one party setting the terms for another peaceful person against their wishes aren't the kind I support. Why do you?

Rob I hate this cliché, but it fits with your example here. You can't see the forest for the trees .

In this case you can't see the voluntary nature of the transaction for the volunteering to enter into transactions.

You used Wendy's, who sells burgers fries and shakes.

You can't walk up to a person and demand a hamburger. If you walk up to me and ask for a hamburger, I can either get you one or not. We do have that right to refuse.

But, if I open a Wendy's or get a job at one, I know full well that I am going to a place where I serve hamburgers to folks. You have voluntarily entered into some arrangement where you know you have to serve all who come.

If one is that opposed to serving blacks, open a delivery pizza shop and don't deliver to black neighborhoods. Most don't because of the high rate of delivery boy robberies.

Rob Roy · Nov 30, 2014

SmokeyDan said:
Rob I hate this cliché, but it fits with your example here. You can't see the forest for the trees .

In this case you can't see the voluntary nature of the transaction for the volunteering to enter into transactions.

You used Wendy's, who sells burgers fries and shakes.

You can't walk up to a person and demand a hamburger. If you walk up to me and ask for a hamburger, I can either get you one or not. We do have that right to refuse.

But, if I open a Wendy's or get a job at one, I know full well that I am going to a place where I serve hamburgers to folks. You have voluntarily entered into some arrangement where you know you have to serve all who come.

If one is that opposed to serving blacks, open a delivery pizza shop and don't deliver to black neighborhoods. Most don't because of the high rate of delivery boy robberies.

Okay. I'm glad to have this discussion as a property rights issue, without somebody claiming it isn't and trying to conflate it into a race thing. Seriously, that is very refreshing.

If you or a green alien or a former black slave or a transgender or a pastafarian own property, one of the major characteristics of ownership is control BY the owner, not another party. This right of control of said property MUST supersede other persons claims of how you are to use it, with ONE exception. You mustn't use it to DEPRIVE another person of any gender, race, etc of their right to fully own THEIR property. Agreed?

CC Dobbs · Nov 30, 2014

Burning can be good. A nice big fire is a good place for people to meet and to air their differences.

ChesusRice · Nov 30, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Okay. I'm glad to have this discussion as a property rights issue, without somebody claiming it isn't and trying to conflate it into a race thing. Seriously, that is very refreshing.

If you or a green alien or a former black slave or a transgender or a pastafarian own property, one of the major characteristics of ownership is control BY the owner, not another party. This right of control of said property MUST supersede other persons claims of how you are to use it, with ONE exception. You mustn't use it to DEPRIVE another person of any gender, race, etc of their right to fully own THEIR property. Agreed?

Without a goverment there is no property

UncleBuck · Nov 30, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Okay. I'm glad to have this discussion as a property rights issue, without somebody claiming it isn't and trying to conflate it into a race thing.

"property rights" is a completely transparent euphemism for "racist who hates civil rights".

you make that clear when you refer to blacks by racial slurs constantly.

spandy · Nov 30, 2014

Wilksey said:
It's about accountability.

The press is absolutely complicit in promoting hate, and inciting the violence that took place in Ferguson. ALL for ratings, mind you.

Without the media parasites, that dude wouldn't have an audience to inspire with his "burn that mother down" speech.

The media has been complicit in EVERY large scale incident of black rioting since at least the Rodney King riots, and I believe they should be held accountable for their actions.

So you want to suppress the media and control what they can air?

Who sets these standards, and who's opinion do they go off of? Yours? Mine?

Yeah, cuz fuck freedom of speech.

NLXSK1 · Nov 30, 2014

UncleBuck said:
"property rights" is a completely transparent euphemism for "racist who hates civil rights".

you make that clear when you refer to blacks by racial slurs constantly.

Yeah, cause minorities totally cannot own property.... oh wait.... They can... Hmm....

What the fuck are you trying to say again?

UncleBuck · Nov 30, 2014

NLXSK1 said:
Yeah, cause minorities totally cannot own property.... oh wait.... They can... Hmm....

What the fuck are you trying to say again?

yeah, because we all know civil rights was implemented because of all those whites being harmed and refused service at minority owned businesses.

maybe some more ellipses abuse will have people mistake for your ineloquent rather than retarded. that's your best bet, kiddo.

SmokeyDan · Nov 30, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Okay. I'm glad to have this discussion as a property rights issue, without somebody claiming it isn't and trying to conflate it into a race thing. Seriously, that is very refreshing.

If you or a green alien or a former black slave or a transgender or a pastafarian own property, one of the major characteristics of ownership is control BY the owner, not another party. This right of control of said property MUST supersede other persons claims of how you are to use it, with ONE exception. You mustn't use it to DEPRIVE another person of any gender, race, etc of their right to fully own THEIR property. Agreed?

Private property, yes. Your home.

Maybe even a single family home like a cabin in the mountains that is used for rentals. Maybe even a small house or 4plex apartment.

But large housing structures, and places of business open to "the public " for said business, no. If you're selling fries, gas, hotel/motel, damn near anything. Common carrier.

Open for one, open for all.

Why?

Because everyone should be treated equal under the law.

There are a few exceptions I'm willing to make. Like personal services where you go on site. If you don't want to go to a black man's home to install something I'm willing to allow that.

But if you open a place for business, you've opened it to the public at large who are all equal under the law.

Padawanbater2 · Dec 1, 2014

spandy said:
So you want to suppress the media and control what they can air?

Who sets these standards, and who's opinion do they go off of? Yours? Mine?

Yeah, cuz fuck freedom of speech.

The media should be held responsible for the things they say on air. Lies and fabrications should be met with significant fines, media pundits opinions should not be aired. These are the things that change the public perception and they do it on purpose because they have a political agenda to sell.

The media is not afforded the right to lie to the American public under the guise of "free speech", in the same way you can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, profits be damned.

sheskunk · Dec 1, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
The media should be held responsible for the things they say on air. Lies and fabrications should be met with significant fines, media pundits opinions should not be aired. These are the things that change the public perception and they do it on purpose because they have a political agenda to sell.

The media is not afforded the right to lie to the American public under the guise of "free speech", in the same way you can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, profits be damned.

Why don't you take some responsibility for yourself and do a little research before you base your opinions on what some newscaster tells you? Think for yourself.

ginwilly · Dec 1, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
media pundits opinions should not be aired

I agree that lying should be penalized.

Editorials however are as old as cave drawings. Unless you are UB stupid, others opinions shouldn't affect your life. Yes, there are people who listen to their favorite partisan hack and take it as gospel, but would not letting those pundits say it on air really make those idiots any smarter?

Can you imagine how mundane the Ferguson coverage would have been without opinion? Hell, there wouldn't have been any coverage.

spandy · Dec 1, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
The media should be held responsible for the things they say on air. Lies and fabrications should be met with significant fines, media pundits opinions should not be aired. These are the things that change the public perception and they do it on purpose because they have a political agenda to sell.

The media is not afforded the right to lie to the American public under the guise of "free speech", in the same way you can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, profits be damned.

Well yeah ,if they are telling flat out lies, but giving an opinion should never be scrutinized by anyone but the person holding the remote. Make your own decisions at that point, listen and agree/disagree, or shut the damn thing off.

Again though, I agree that lies should come with real penalties.

NoDrama · Dec 1, 2014

Padawanbater2 said:
The media should be held responsible for the things they say on air. Lies and fabrications should be met with significant fines, media pundits opinions should not be aired. These are the things that change the public perception and they do it on purpose because they have a political agenda to sell.

The media is not afforded the right to lie to the American public under the guise of "free speech", in the same way you can't yell "FIRE!" in a movie theater, profits be damned.

Most "Media" companies are actually classified as entertainment. When classified that way you can make up the biggest lies you want with absolutely no accountability. I mean Hollywood lies to you in just about every movie. For example: a .22 lr round will go clean through a car IRL, but in a movie, full auto fire from a military 134A mini gun won't penetrate a car door, it just bounces off with some sparks (Lead or copper doesn't spark either). All cars blow up if you shoot the gas tank (None actually will). and all cars blow up if they go off a cliff ( None will do that).

Face it, the dumbed down American public will believe anything as long as it seems entertaining.

Wilksey · Dec 1, 2014

spandy said:
Well yeah ,if they are telling flat out lies, but giving an opinion should never be scrutinized by anyone but the person holding the remote. Make your own decisions at that point, listen and agree/disagree, or shut the damn thing off.

Again though, I agree that lies should come with real penalties.

Accountability is all I ask for, and our "media" is long past due for said accountability.

IMO, EVERY business burned down by the disgusting display of barbarity in Ferguson should band together and file a class action suit against the parent media companies responsible for false reporting and INTENTIONALLY inciting violence.

Rob Roy · Dec 1, 2014

UncleBuck said:
"property rights" is a completely transparent euphemism for "racist who hates civil rights".

you make that clear when you refer to blacks by racial slurs constantly.

You need new material. You're slipping...is there something on the bottom of your shoe?

No, property rights cross race and gender etc. You see, if EVERYBODY truly owns themself, and their property, but they don't own others or others property, the answer becomes self evident.

You're not real bright are you?

Rob Roy · Dec 1, 2014

SmokeyDan said:
Private property, yes. Your home.

Maybe even a single family home like a cabin in the mountains that is used for rentals. Maybe even a small house or 4plex apartment.

But large housing structures, and places of business open to "the public " for said business, no. If you're selling fries, gas, hotel/motel, damn near anything. Common carrier.

Open for one, open for all.

Why?

Because everyone should be treated equal under the law.

There are a few exceptions I'm willing to make. Like personal services where you go on site. If you don't want to go to a black man's home to install something I'm willing to allow that.

But if you open a place for business, you've opened it to the public at large who are all equal under the law.

So, what you're saying is the nature of ownership changes depending upon how the owner uses something?

If that were true, do you favor a person not owning their own body if you or somebody else doesn't approve of how they use their own body or what that person may or may not ingest?

londonfog · Dec 1, 2014

Rob Roy said:
You need new material. You're slipping...is there something on the bottom of your shoe?

No, property rights cross race and gender etc. You see, if EVERYBODY truly owns themself, and their property, but they don't own others or others property, the answer becomes self evident.

You're not real bright are you?

what would stop someone from killing another and taking property.

Rob Roy · Dec 1, 2014

londonfog said:
what would stop someone from killing another and taking property.

Well we know it won't be the government spies that monitor sites like this don't we?

Can you say "asset forfeiture" ? I bet you can.

If you'd like a real answer after you're done folding the laundry I'll think about it.

londonfog · Dec 1, 2014

Rob Roy said:
Well we know it won't be the government spies that monitor sites like this don't we?

Can you say "asset forfeiture" ? I bet you can.

If you'd like a real answer after you're done folding the laundry I'll think about it.

again I pay others to do any folding. Would you like a job ? You will have to serve all

Now again what would stop someone from killing another and taking that persons property.

Burn This Bitch Down!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member