UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
racists say a lot of things to save face. he is still calling racist hostilities that cause harm to others a "RIGHT".
just let me know when i have the right to harm you, i'll be right over.
Schuylaar's Sesh - SCOTUS Upholds Public Prayer..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
just let me know when i have the right to harm you, i'll be right over.
Why do you think he is defending racists? He is defending the idea of property and self ownership, he personally would welcome all black people with open arms if he had a business. Why do feel it necessary to distort other's arguments?
You can't harm someone by not servicing them Buck, maybe you inconvenience them, but such is life. I know you think that any kind of inconvenience is akin to harm, but you really need to get out more and realize that the world is not perfect, never will be no matter how many laws are made, new problems erupt from each change, a infinite tail chase by the US dog.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I do not want to kick anybody out based on race. You seem to have ignored that I have stated that many times.
I just don't think I have any right to tell others how to use their body or their property, but you do. You avoid that point like a plague of gerbils with diarrhea bent on aggressing against a Wendy's floor.
You are arguing for taking away the right of a person to determine how they will use their own property. That makes you the same kind of person as Harry Anslinger.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
probably because he tries to turn "racist hostility" into "indifference" and deny that refusal of service to blacks caused any harm (it did).
he is literally calling the actions of hostile racists who cause harm to blacks a "RIGHT".
to anyone who is not completely and totally fucking retarded, it's pretty clear he is defending racists.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
can you find even one single historian who will agree with you that denial of service to blacks before civil rights did not cause harm then?
What harm? You mean like not selling someone a pair of socks or something?
Or do you mean something else entirely? Can you elaborate and be a bit more specific?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
of course, because no one has the right to cause harm to others.
my right to swing my fist ends at your face. are you arguing that i should be allowed to punch you in the face with my fist, thereby shattering the old, decrepit, flimsy bones left underneath your wrinkly, sagging, old man skin?
or are you arguing to take away my right to determine how i will use my property?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Does that mean I'm not invited to your birthday party and I have to stay out of your yard too?
Doer
Well-Known Member
Can you show that every historian that ever lived agreed with you?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
are you claiming that denial of service to blacks before civil rights did not cause any harm?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, by contrapositive.
until you show me one single historian ever anywhere who claims that denial of service to blacks did not cause harm, my assertion stands.
Tax cheats, isn't the same as someone who uses the law as written to pay the least amount of tax allowable by said law.
So in other words, the ultra rich will continue to be taxed nearly nothing and so will the big corporations they own. The little guy are so numerous that they can carry all the weight.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
find a dictionary and do it yourself.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, your misery is that you have to endure yourself, shitty logic, historical denialism, defense of racist hostilities that cause harm, and all.
Ra$p0tin
Well-Known Member
Apparently Buck has selective reading, and only sees what he wants to, and nothing else.