How many people understand the US Constitution?

UncleBuck said:
so we can safely assume you are a skinny weakling who stands 5'2'' then.

why do you hate black people so much?
Click to expand...


Your assumption would be inaccurate, just like your conflating arguments. I'm a little under 8' and can uproot small trees with my bare hands quite easily.

I don't judge people based on their race.
 
UncleBuck said:
you literally want to kick people out of stores based on their race you fucking retard.

must be a napoleon complex or something.
Click to expand...


No, I literally want people to chose their human interactions on a mutual, peaceful and consensual basis. That means one party or the other can't force the interaction if it isn't mutually desired.

Okay, you got me. I'm not really 8', but my balls are huge. I doubt you could even lift them.

upload_2017-5-20_0-1-53.png
 
Rob Roy said:
A little tiny government form ? HA HA HA

View attachment 3945846
Click to expand...
This is not the same thing as disallowing discrimination against patronage based on ethnicity. The TSA really do use their power to feel up children. No man should be refused service anywhere because of his race, creed, sexuality, or any kind of personal preference. Frankly, none of that shit applies to getting a haircut or buying toilet paper. If you think it's right, it isn't. No matter how you spin it.
 
Olive Drab Green said:
This is not the same thing as disallowing discrimination against patronage based on ethnicity. The TSA really do use their power to feel up children. No man should be refused service anywhere because of his race, creed, sexuality, or any kind of personal preference. Frankly, none of that shit applies to getting a haircut or buying toilet paper.
Click to expand...


I feel your pain. If there were one thing I WISH that people would do, is to all get along and be peaceful.

However, people who compel somebody to interact or trade with them, when the other person wishes not to, isn't being peaceful, are they ?
 
Rob Roy said:
I feel your pain. If there were one thing I WISH that people would do, is to all get along and be peaceful.

However, people who compel somebody to interact or trade with them, when the other person wishes not to, isn't being peaceful, are they ?
Click to expand...
On your time, feel free to do whatever you want. When you're working, you're on the store's time. No one should be denied access to food just because you hate their race.
 
Rob Roy said:
I feel your pain. If there were one thing I WISH that people would do, is to all get along and be peaceful.
Click to expand...

hanging "no negro" signs does not help that goal.

Rob Roy said:
However, people who compel somebody to interact or trade with them, when the other person wishes not to, isn't being peaceful, are they ?
Click to expand...

kicking someone out of a store because of their skin color isn't peaceful, pedo.
 
UncleBuck said:
that is already how it works, retard.
Click to expand...


No. You've confused the meanings of words again and also revealed your idea that government somehow can use offensive force to compell people and it doesn't count. You never did answer which PERSON has any right to force another person to interact with them...why not?

People who are compelled to interact are not "getting along".

You've also confused peace with imposed order. A common mistake.
 
Olive Drab Green said:
On your time, feel free to do whatever you want. When you're working, you're on the store's time. No one should be denied access to food just because you hate their race.
Click to expand...

Not to be mean, but you're missing the meaning.

In between fucking with each other, Uncle Buck and I were talking about the owner of a property and the owner of an individual persons choices on who they will interact with or not.

My point has been, nobody has the right to initiate force to make another person interact with them. Would you agree or disagree? Do you have the right to make a person who would prefer not to, have a human relationship with you ?
 
Rob Roy said:
Not to be mean, but you're missing the meaning.

In between fucking with each other, Uncle Buck and I were talking about the owner of a property and the owner of an individual persons choices on who they will interact with or not.

My point has been, nobody has the right to initiate force to make another person interact with them. Would you agree or disagree? Do you have the right to make a person who would prefer not to, have a human relationship with you ?
Click to expand...
My point is, that's true when it comes to personal matters, even if I disagree with that mentality, not business matters. Everyone needs to eat. Everyone needs medicine. I can't imagine how you'd survive under those circumstances if the roles were reversed and no one in town would feed you, but I definitely wouldn't call it alright. It's totally unacceptable.
 
Olive Drab Green said:
My point is, that's true when it comes to personal matters, even if I disagree with that mentality, not business matters. Everyone needs to eat. Everyone needs medicine. I can't imagine how you'd survive under those circumstances if the roles were reversed and no one in town would feed you, but I definitely wouldn't call it alright. It's totally unacceptable.
Click to expand...

So, a person uses their body to serve another person. That isn't personal?

If everyone needs to eat, how does that give you or me a right to make another person serve us or to interact with us?

In order to perpetuate human kind, people had to fuck, does that give me or you the right to force somebody to fuck us?
 
UncleBuck said:
there you go again, comparing equal rights to rape.

fucktard.
Click to expand...


No, I'm saying that nobody has the right to use or threaten force to initiate a human interaction upon a person or their property who prefers to be left alone.

The onus of proving that somebody does have that NONEXISTENT right is on you.

You've failed to answer that question, which is an admission on your part that you on one hand agree with that principle, BUT you will also READILY violate it to get your own way.

That makes you in disagreement with your own principles...why am I not surprised?
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
No, I'm saying that nobody has the right to use or threaten force to initiate a human interaction upon a person or their property who prefers to be left alone.

The onus of proving that somebody does have that NONEXISTENT right is on you.

You've failed to answer that question, which is an admission on your part that you one hand agree with that principle, BUT you will also READILY violate it to get your own way.

That makes you in disagreement with your own principles...why am I not surprised?
Click to expand...
Effective-Hair-Removal1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top