is this the middle ages?

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
How do you politely request blacks to not enter a public establishment.

I'm a black guy. I was told that if I wanted to build my business in a certain location I would have to pay for the sewer line from building to second main larger line. I really don't think they made me do it because I'm black but anyhoot.
I did it because it was part of regulation to assure certain flow of sewage was assured. I would have loved to have saved that money, but it would have fucked the sewage line the fuck up. Whole lot of things I was forced to do ( did I tell you I was black), but I did it because it assured a safe business would be ran without harming.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'll try to make some sense of your fascinating septic story.

It actually bolsters my argument, that consent of both parties should be a requisite when human interactions take place. Thank you.

Since you wanted to use something, you paid the ostensible "owners" of that something to be able to use it. Presumably you and the "owners" * made a mutual and voluntary arrangement to use the sewer line, right?



* I used the word owners (government) in terms you might be able to understand, not that I agree with the idea, but for purposes of remaining consistent with your example/story. I question that there can be such a thing as "pubic property", since it is an oxymoron.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Most people have learned by the age of 12 that defecating on the floor isn't a good idea. Although, I'll admit even at the age of 17 there might still be some retarded outliers.
Click to expand...
Thinking that some 12 year old are mature enough for you to have sex with is disgusting. Try to distract all you want from that fucked up statement you made, but the internet never forgets.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Thinking that some 12 year old are mature enough for you to have sex with is disgusting. Try to distract all you want from that fucked up statement you made, but the internet never forgets.
Click to expand...
So when you say that could you detail if you mean physically mature enough or mentally mature enough?

Also there's no need to imply me as the subject in your story. The last time I showed any interest in a girl that young I was about 10 years old.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So when you say that could you detail if you mean physically mature enough or mentally mature enough?

Also there's no need to imply me as the subject in your story. The last time I showed any interest in a girl that young I was about 10 years old.
Click to expand...
Rob you commented that some 12 year old are more mature than others. That was YOUR argument as to age of consent. You seem highly against rules forbidden sex with a minor.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Okay. I'll try to make some sense of your fascinating septic story.

It actually bolsters my argument, that consent of both parties should be a requisite when human interactions take place. Thank you.

Since you wanted to use something, you paid the ostensible "owners" of that something to be able to use it. Presumably you and the "owners" * made a mutual and voluntary arrangement to use the sewer line, right?



* I used the word owners (government) in terms you might be able to understand, not that I agree with the idea, but for purposes of remaining consistent with your example/story. I question that there can be such a thing as "pubic property", since it is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
Why does rules and regulations bother you so much ? Do you also hate the FDA for requiring what feed you can give your chickens that you are going to sell on the market?
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
"consent of both parties should be a requisite when human interactions take place"....it should be....but it's practically impossible to achieve that....people flatly refuse to agree with each other. people hold grudges, prejudices, misconceptions, phobias, and neuroses.....they take moral stands, and refuse to take one step back. they could compromise, but it always becomes a competition to see what you can get out of the deal, which eventually causes resentment and hate, and broken deals.....which is why you need a framework for people to live within. because we're not even close to being as mature as we like to pretend we are, and until we get a lot closer, we need "babysitters"...because we act like fucking babies
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Rob you commented that some 12 year old are more mature than others. That was YOUR argument as to age of consent. You seem highly against rules forbidden sex with a minor.
Click to expand...
Some 12 year olds are more mature than others.

Some 20 year olds are more mature than others.

Those are facts, but they don't make your implied argument that I am some kind of kiddie diddler.

I am highly against rules that remove a capable person's ability to peacefully self determine. Prohibitionists are not.

To make the connection you insinuate, which amounts to the fallacious argument that I prefer all the things other people, who are capable of consenting to something, do consent to, is intellectual sloth on your part.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Why does rules and regulations bother you so much ? Do you also hate the FDA for requiring what feed you can give your chickens that you are going to sell on the market?
Click to expand...

Explain how you get to "equality" if there is an overarching hierarchical authoritarian government in place as the
default status again ? (It's impossible, but you didn't understand my question anyway)
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
"consent of both parties should be a requisite when human interactions take place"....it should be....but it's practically impossible to achieve that....people flatly refuse to agree with each other. people hold grudges, prejudices, misconceptions, phobias, and neuroses.....they take moral stands, and refuse to take one step back. they could compromise, but it always becomes a competition to see what you can get out of the deal, which eventually causes resentment and hate, and broken deals.....which is why you need a framework for people to live within. because we're not even close to being as mature as we like to pretend we are, and until we get a lot closer, we need "babysitters"...because we act like fucking babies
Click to expand...
I have no serious disagreement with some of what you said, Those things do happen. Except, it's why we need NOT to have an imposed hierarchy, as a default status.

Your implication is that we need an imposed hierarchy by SOME people, so that OTHER people won't be able to impose a hierarchy. Circular reasoning leads back to the place you started.

Any framework which includes as a standard part of it the thing you wish to prevent, can't possibly eliminate the thing you wish to prevent. It's like using feces as laundry soap to get out shit stains. "Hmm, must need to wash these jeans again, they STILL smell like shit!"
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Explain how you get to "equality" if there is an overarching hierarchical authoritarian government in place as the
default status again ? (It's impossible, but you didn't understand my question anyway)
Click to expand...
Explain first in which how you would keep a black from going into a store where the owner did not want to serve due to color. How does this owner get the black person out his/her store, that should be open to the public.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Explain first in which how you would keep a black from going into a store where the owner did not want to serve due to color. How does this owner get the black person out his/her store, that should be open to the public.
Click to expand...
It's not up to me to decide how another person would defend their property from an unwanted intruder. It's not my property, remember?

How would you force an unwilling person to use his property and body to serve you ?

Why is it always a black person? What if a white guy, that hated white people, didn't want to serve a white guy ? Would you ask government to force that guy to serve another person ?

Isn't being forced to serve somebody you haven't agreed to serve, slavery?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
"consent of both parties should be a requisite when human interactions take place"....it should be....but it's practically impossible to achieve that....people flatly refuse to agree with each other. people hold grudges, prejudices, misconceptions, phobias, and neuroses.....they take moral stands, and refuse to take one step back. they could compromise, but it always becomes a competition to see what you can get out of the deal, which eventually causes resentment and hate, and broken deals.....which is why you need a framework for people to live within. because we're not even close to being as mature as we like to pretend we are, and until we get a lot closer, we need "babysitters"...because we act like fucking babies
Click to expand...

So when you transact with a person to buy or sell something, you're saying it should occur when an agreement is reached. That is what I'm saying too. Logically, it follows if there is no agreement, people should move on, rather than force the other person into an unwanted interaction.

Absent an agreement, one party MAKING the other persons choices for them, against their will, isn't a good way for humans to conduct themselves.

Ironically, the hyenas here presenting their lame arguments think they are protecting people by defending NONCONSENSUAL human interactions, while exempting government people from using offensive force in circumstances which if it were ordinary people doing the same thing it would be seen by them as harmful.

Also, if you think people "need babysitters" , are you saying that the people who comprise government are more honest and mature than other people ?
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
yeah, i agree with what you're saying about how it should be. but it's not that way. if you don't have laws, strong people force their will on weaker people. that's the way people are. we haven't even begun to evolve out of it. the people who comprise the government aren't more honest or more mature, but they are required to work within a framework that only gives them certain options, in certain situations. they aren't allowed to just let the stronger person have their way. they are forced to go through an arbitration process with most things. they have a book of rules and regulations that they follow, and we're bound to follow what they decide. there are ways to challenge that decision, if you don't like it, instead of shooting the offending party dead.....(and yes, i realize that people abuse these positions, and don't do their jobs, but you work with what you got, till you get something better)
your way of thinking isn't really wrong, but it requires people to act responsibly, and respect the rights of others. not going to fucking happen. people care about themselves. they'll run you the fuck over to get a better parking spot. they'll shoot you dead for the food in your house if they're hungry enough.....you keep saying how it ought to be, and you ain't wrong.....but how it ought to be and how it is are two very, very fucking different things.....and until people grow the fuck up, your way is a pipe dream
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
yeah, i agree with what you're saying about how it should be. but it's not that way. if you don't have laws, strong people force their will on weaker people. that's the way people are. we haven't even begun to evolve out of it. the people who comprise the government aren't more honest or more mature, but they are required to work within a framework that only gives them certain options, in certain situations. they aren't allowed to just let the stronger person have their way. they are forced to go through an arbitration process with most things. they have a book of rules and regulations that they follow, and we're bound to follow what they decide. there are ways to challenge that decision, if you don't like it, instead of shooting the offending party dead.....(and yes, i realize that people abuse these positions, and don't do their jobs, but you work with what you got, till you get something better)
your way of thinking isn't really wrong, but it requires people to act responsibly, and respect the rights of others. not going to fucking happen. people care about themselves. they'll run you the fuck over to get a better parking spot. they'll shoot you dead for the food in your house if they're hungry enough.....you keep saying how it ought to be, and you ain't wrong.....but how it ought to be and how it is are two very, very fucking different things.....and until people grow the fuck up, your way is a pipe dream
Click to expand...

Thank you for your response. Not being a wise ass here, but I know I'm not wrong.

The things you fear happening, are a CERTAINTY to occur when you centralize power in the hands of the few and a coercion based government is the norm. That isn't up for debate either, it's just a fact.

I could list countless atrocities throughout history all done by various governments that far outweigh all the bad deeds done by nongovernment people throughout history. It's not even close.

Rules and regulations aren't any good, if the government is the arbiter of it's own rules and many of the "government people" are exempt from personal liability, like judges etc. . Ever wonder why most of the "internal investigations of Police depts. end up being a joke?

The problem will be solved when enough people drop the superstitious belief in authority, there is more to it than that, but that's the first hurdle to solving the problem. When an act which you or I do is considered wrong, but the same behavior is standard operating procedure for a government, it proves that most people are in a state of ignorance and/or denial. This isn't a coincidence, it is a purposeful psychological method of gaining and maintaining power over people. The playbook it comes from has been used for centuries.

I could go on, but maybe another time.
 
Budley Doright

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
yeah, i agree with what you're saying about how it should be. but it's not that way. if you don't have laws, strong people force their will on weaker people. that's the way people are. we haven't even begun to evolve out of it. the people who comprise the government aren't more honest or more mature, but they are required to work within a framework that only gives them certain options, in certain situations. they aren't allowed to just let the stronger person have their way. they are forced to go through an arbitration process with most things. they have a book of rules and regulations that they follow, and we're bound to follow what they decide. there are ways to challenge that decision, if you don't like it, instead of shooting the offending party dead.....(and yes, i realize that people abuse these positions, and don't do their jobs, but you work with what you got, till you get something better)
your way of thinking isn't really wrong, but it requires people to act responsibly, and respect the rights of others. not going to fucking happen. people care about themselves. they'll run you the fuck over to get a better parking spot. they'll shoot you dead for the food in your house if they're hungry enough.....you keep saying how it ought to be, and you ain't wrong.....but how it ought to be and how it is are two very, very fucking different things.....and until people grow the fuck up, your way is a pipe dream
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top