Shouldn't all interactions with other people be voluntary?
I wasn't necessarily referencing a specific example.
yes, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
I would agree with that. But if I voluntarily remove myself from an interaction that is not an infringement to someone else's rights.
For example, the baker, if they don't want to bake that cake for the gay couple then that is their right. It is not the right of the couole to have a cake made for them. They could go to another baker. Nobody has a right to force another person into an association, nobody has the right to another person's labor or services.
Otherwise it is forced and that association is forced.
no, you cannot operate a business and refuse service to someone based on their gender, orientation, race, etc. that's called discrimination. if you don't want to serve everyone, don't start a business. opening a public business you are waiving your right to be a bigot.
So by opening a business you are waiving your right to voluntarily associate, is that what you are saying?
And you discriminate on every decision that you make, your definition is a little off.
yes, of course.
are you advocating going back to the days of yore when a business would be well within their right to post a sign saying "whites only"?
Let's say someone did that now, what do you think would happen?
Shouldn't all interactions with other people be voluntary?
I wasn't necessarily referencing a specific example.
yes, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
I would agree with that. But if I voluntarily remove myself from an interaction that is not an infringement to someone else's rights.
For example, the baker, if they don't want to bake that cake for the gay couple then that is their right. It is not the right of the couole to have a cake made for them. They could go to another baker. Nobody has a right to force another person into an association, nobody has the right to another person's labor or services.
Otherwise it is forced and that association is forced.
no, you cannot operate a business and refuse service to someone based on their gender, orientation, race, etc. that's called discrimination. if you don't want to serve everyone, don't start a business. opening a public business you are waiving your right to be a bigot.
So by opening a business you are waiving your right to voluntarily associate, is that what you are saying?
And you discriminate on every decision that you make, your definition is a little off.
Yes, by opening a public business you give up your right to discriminate against groups of people for reasons prohibited by law, including race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. By gaining the benefits of access to the public as clients you give up the right to discriminate against groups of them.
I disagree.
People open up a business to make money, it is in their best interest to accomodate everyone that is willing to pay. They don't need to be forced in order to do so if they want to remain in business.
Shouldn't all interactions with other people be voluntary?
I wasn't necessarily referencing a specific example.
yes, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
I would agree with that. But if I voluntarily remove myself from an interaction that is not an infringement to someone else's rights.
For example, the baker, if they don't want to bake that cake for the gay couple then that is their right. It is not the right of the couole to have a cake made for them. They could go to another baker. Nobody has a right to force another person into an association, nobody has the right to another person's labor or services.
Otherwise it is forced and that association is forced.
no, you cannot operate a business and refuse service to someone based on their gender, orientation, race, etc. that's called discrimination. if you don't want to serve everyone, don't start a business. opening a public business you are waiving your right to be a bigot.
So by opening a business you are waiving your right to voluntarily associate, is that what you are saying?
And you discriminate on every decision that you make, your definition is a little off.
yes, of course.
are you advocating going back to the days of yore when a business would be well within their right to post a sign saying "whites only"?
Let's say someone did that now, what do you think would happen?
we both know what would happen. what is your angle?
Shouldn't all interactions with other people be voluntary?
I wasn't necessarily referencing a specific example.
yes, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's rights.
I would agree with that. But if I voluntarily remove myself from an interaction that is not an infringement to someone else's rights.
For example, the baker, if they don't want to bake that cake for the gay couple then that is their right. It is not the right of the couole to have a cake made for them. They could go to another baker. Nobody has a right to force another person into an association, nobody has the right to another person's labor or services.
Otherwise it is forced and that association is forced.
no, you cannot operate a business and refuse service to someone based on their gender, orientation, race, etc. that's called discrimination. if you don't want to serve everyone, don't start a business. opening a public business you are waiving your right to be a bigot.
So by opening a business you are waiving your right to voluntarily associate, is that what you are saying?
And you discriminate on every decision that you make, your definition is a little off.
Yes, by opening a public business you give up your right to discriminate against groups of people for reasons prohibited by law, including race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. By gaining the benefits of access to the public as clients you give up the right to discriminate against groups of them.
I disagree.
People open up a business to make money, it is in their best interest to accomodate everyone that is willing to pay. They don't need to be forced in order to do so if they want to remain in business.
people's "convictions", no matter what they are, often trump their financial, or best, interest. you give people the right to discriminate, they will. we've seen that. we still see it.
I say all associations need to be voluntary and not forced. You agreed that is so if nobody is having their rights trampled. Then you tell me the bakery should have to bake a cake so now you are forcing association.
The customer had no rights violated.
Or do you think the customer has the right to the cake?
I say all associations need to be voluntary and not forced. You agreed that is so if nobody is having their rights trampled. Then you tell me the bakery should have to bake a cake so now you are forcing association.
The customer had no rights violated.
Or do you think the customer has the right to the cake?
the courts ruled you are incorrect, and I agree. the couple had their civil rights violated by being refused service based on their orientation.
do you think that Bunkers R' Us is within their rights to decline to serve you because they noticed your LBRTRN personalized licence plate?
I say all associations need to be voluntary and not forced. You agreed that is so if nobody is having their rights trampled. Then you tell me the bakery should have to bake a cake so now you are forcing association.
The customer had no rights violated.
Or do you think the customer has the right to the cake?
The customer has a right to service regardless of their race, sexual orientation, etc
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
but why would you wish to exclude an entire group, or rather, only include one specific group, in your daily life? what is that based on? it ain't tolerance, I tell you that.
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
but why would you wish to exclude an entire group, or rather, only include one specific group, in your daily life? what is that based on? it ain't tolerance, I tell you that.
I can't speak for them, not really sure what the mission statement is.
Didn't BLM issue demands for an ethno-state or states?
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
but why would you wish to exclude an entire group, or rather, only include one specific group, in your daily life? what is that based on? it ain't tolerance, I tell you that.
I can't speak for them, not really sure what the mission statement is.
Didn't BLM issue demands for an ethno-state or states?
ok, but you seem to be advocating for whatever their mission is. why do that if you don't know what it is?
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
Both are sad.
I currently live in a beautiful part of the country. I love the lifestyle I lead here.
However one important thing is missing. There is almost NO cultural diversity here. I can go days, weeks, and sometimes months without seeing a single person of color. Or a Hispanic or Asian person. It is very very lilly white here and culturally boring. Yes I know that for some people this is the perfect place.
I look forward to trips to culturally diverse places like Chicago, NYC, New Orleans, Miami, etc. I love to see and experience different people,cultures, religions, foods, and hear different languages. Personally I don't get why anyone would want to live a life devoid of diversity.
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
but why would you wish to exclude an entire group, or rather, only include one specific group, in your daily life? what is that based on? it ain't tolerance, I tell you that.
I can't speak for them, not really sure what the mission statement is.
Didn't BLM issue demands for an ethno-state or states?
ok, but you seem to be advocating for whatever their mission is. why do that if you don't know what it is?
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
but why would you wish to exclude an entire group, or rather, only include one specific group, in your daily life? what is that based on? it ain't tolerance, I tell you that.
I can't speak for them, not really sure what the mission statement is.
Didn't BLM issue demands for an ethno-state or states?
ok, but you seem to be advocating for whatever their mission is. why do that if you don't know what it is?
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
And this redefinition is how they've manipulated people and why the media has normalized them.
I was trying to tell you what I thought the difference was in the two labels. I can't comment on either's agenda. Thanks.
You're interpretation of the labels implies you have an idea about their agendas: one is "filled with hate", the other "wants to associate voluntarily". They're actually both of those things, but the label white nationalists is used to try and gain some sort of acceptance and can draw in the bigot who doesn't consider themselves a bigot.
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
but why would you wish to exclude an entire group, or rather, only include one specific group, in your daily life? what is that based on? it ain't tolerance, I tell you that.
I can't speak for them, not really sure what the mission statement is.
Didn't BLM issue demands for an ethno-state or states?
ok, but you seem to be advocating for whatever their mission is. why do that if you don't know what it is?
One is filled with hate, the other wants to associate voluntarily. That is how I see it anyway.
And this redefinition is how they've manipulated people and why the media has normalized them.
I was trying to tell you what I thought the difference was in the two labels. I can't comment on either's agenda. Thanks.
You're interpretation of the labels implies you have an idea about their agendas: one is "filled with hate", the other "wants to associate voluntarily". They're actually both of those things, but the label white nationalists is used to try and gain some sort of acceptance and can draw in the bigot who doesn't consider themselves a bigot.
White nationalists are also better dressed and haven't shaved their heads completely bald, just shaved on the sides and back. That's about the only differences I can see. Just a cleaned up modern day Nazi.
Speaking of the white race. This should bother Spencer, and maybe unsung.
There's no such thing as a 'pure' European—or anyone else
one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risked becoming “a gray mishmash.”
In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They—and all other Europeans—are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.
Comments
What's the difference between a white nationalist and a white supremacist?
People open up a business to make money, it is in their best interest to accomodate everyone that is willing to pay. They don't need to be forced in order to do so if they want to remain in business.
www.headstonesband.com
this thread is proof of that.
www.headstonesband.com
I say all associations need to be voluntary and not forced. You agreed that is so if nobody is having their rights trampled. Then you tell me the bakery should have to bake a cake so now you are forcing association.
The customer had no rights violated.
Or do you think the customer has the right to the cake?
do you think that Bunkers R' Us is within their rights to decline to serve you because they noticed your LBRTRN personalized licence plate?
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com
Didn't BLM issue demands for an ethno-state or states?
I have no idea.
www.headstonesband.com
I currently live in a beautiful part of the country. I love the lifestyle I lead here.
However one important thing is missing. There is almost NO cultural diversity here. I can go days, weeks, and sometimes months without seeing a single person of color. Or a Hispanic or Asian person. It is very very lilly white here and culturally boring. Yes I know that for some people this is the perfect place.
I look forward to trips to culturally diverse places like Chicago, NYC, New Orleans, Miami, etc. I love to see and experience different people,cultures, religions, foods, and hear different languages.
Personally I don't get why anyone would want to live a life devoid of diversity.
My 2 cents
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
There's no such thing as a 'pure' European—or anyone else
one self-described neo-Nazi on the district council told The New York Times that by allowing the influx, the German people faced “the destruction of our genetic heritage” and risked becoming “a gray mishmash.”
In fact, the German people have no unique genetic heritage to protect. They—and all other Europeans—are already a mishmash, the children of repeated ancient migrations, according to scientists who study ancient human origins. New studies show that almost all indigenous Europeans descend from at least three major migrations in the past 15,000 years, including two from the Middle East. Those migrants swept across Europe, mingled with previous immigrants, and then remixed to create the peoples of today.http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/theres-no-such-thing-pure-european-or-anyone-else
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com