Memories Pizza Story Fabricated by local news

[This_person]

I don't deny prejudice is entirely natural, but as thinking creatures who can reason we have to acknowledge that prejudice can be wrong. We have to claw our way out of instinctual reactions to logical reactions. When we subsume logic for instinct, we become animals, enslaved ones at that.

In any case it's not pertinent to the legality, which is you can't throw people out based on broad social dislikes. "Being Gay" does not constitute a right to refuse service.

In all fairness, why not? What is wrong with a company having a policy of not serving {insert broad characterization here}? The vast majority of those companies will fail. Isn't that freedom? Isn't that fairness? We don't mandate a certain number of every demographic shop at certain stores, why should we demand those stores serve anyone they don't wish to serve?

I'm not advocating for denial of service to any particular group. I'm asking what is wrong with letting people be stupid in a non-harmful way.

 

[Midnightrider]

I didn't complain about anything, I'm living the great white privileged life and enjoying all the benefits this Country has to offer. Sucks not to be me.......
You just shoot the messenger.......I gave plenty of advice in that post, you just don't get it .....Fools won't heed it.....

Please, you start threads to bitch and complain all the time. I regularly call you on that bigoted crap.

Are you BlueBalls black brother?

If it makes you feel good to believe that, sure.

 

[Bird Dog]

Please, you start threads to bitch and complain all the time. I regularly call you on that bigoted crap.

.

Hmmmm.....you must have me confused with someone else...........sorry

 

[Midnightrider]

Hmmmm.....you must have me confused with someone else...........sorry

I have the right guy. Just do a keyword search for blackwashing

Like I said, you are a self appointed victim.

 

[TheLibertonian]

In all fairness, why not? What is wrong with a company having a policy of not serving {insert broad characterization here}? The vast majority of those companies will fail. Isn't that freedom? Isn't that fairness? We don't mandate a certain number of every demographic shop at certain stores, why should we demand those stores serve anyone they don't wish to serve?

I'm not advocating for denial of service to any particular group. I'm asking what is wrong with letting people be stupid in a non-harmful way.

Will they fail? The south sure as hell didn't have companies failing because black people weren't allowed to shop there.

Saying it's not harmful is tricky ground.

I'll be the first to say a lot of the stuff that gets whined about is just that, whining. But when it comes to basic services and treating everyone equally, that's a different thing. And always, always, presumption of innocence.

 

[SamSpade]

In any case it's not pertinent to the legality, which is you can't throw people out based on broad social dislikes.

Which was my point. Maybe I didn't make that clear. It is completely natural to *feel* and *think* all kinds of things. I *think* all kinds of things, but I have the self-control not to act on them. It is normal to FEEL a prejudicial attitude, just not legal to refuse doing business with them for some reasons.

What I reject is the racial (or whatever) thought police who think they need to change how people feel and react. THAT won't change. What you change with laws is what they do.

 

[Bird Dog]

I have the right guy. Just do a keyword search for blackwashing

Like I said, you are a self appointed victim.

I just post what is happening, links to the news. No different than many others. I use the word "blackwashing" because its a black thing to try wash away history they do not like.

No victim here.....have at it. Pretty satisfied in my life and my understanding of US history....the good and the bad....
The best part is, we are still the best country in the world to live in. We have more opportunities for all people to succeed. If you work hard and try not to suck off the system.

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in and how many want out."

I like USA and am very happy living here, no complaints except for some people who hate it and do not have the balls tdonto leave. In the next 20+ years I will probably be gone. I hope I made a better life for my family and gave them the fortitude to succeed in this country, even with a the parasites that want to kill it. I have taught them no excuses for failure, do not blame the government or other reasons. Understand the history of our country and learn from it.


"Illegitimis non carborundum"

 

[Bird Dog]

Will they fail? The south sure as hell didn't have companies failing because black people weren't allowed to shop there.

Saying it's not harmful is tricky ground.

I'll be the first to say a lot of the stuff that gets whined about is just that, whining. But when it comes to basic services and treating everyone equally, that's a different thing. And always, always, presumption of innocence.

.......and where is that happening today on a large scale? Christ, even a newspaper had to entrap someone into it......

 

[TheLibertonian]

.......and where is that happening today on a large scale? Christ, even a newspaper had to entrap someone into it......

So there's no harm in keeping the law in place then.

I don't actually believe in the march of liberalism, that humanity will forever be pushing forward to more individual liberties and freedom. We need laws to keep both us and our government honest.

 

[This_person]

Will they fail? The south sure as hell didn't have companies failing because black people weren't allowed to shop there.

Saying it's not harmful is tricky ground.

I'll be the first to say a lot of the stuff that gets whined about is just that, whining. But when it comes to basic services and treating everyone equally, that's a different thing. And always, always, presumption of innocence.

If there is ONE and ONLY one grocery store in a 900-mile radius, and that grocery store won't serve (insert group here), and no one in that group is able to start their own grocery store - ok, maybe that could be harmful.

Outside of that, what's the harm in allowing stupid people to be stupid? It only hurts the stupid people in the long run? Anything different basically robs the right of stupid people to be stupid, and I don't think that's right!

 

[BOP]

Will they fail? The south sure as hell didn't have companies failing because black people weren't allowed to shop there.

Saying it's not harmful is tricky ground.

I'll be the first to say a lot of the stuff that gets whined about is just that, whining. But when it comes to basic services and treating everyone equally, that's a different thing. And always, always, presumption of innocence.

Except that blacks in America were such a small subset of the population back in those days, that turning away their business had little to no economic impact on businesses.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Except that blacks in America were such a small subset of the population back in those days, that turning away their business had little to no economic impact on businesses.

"In America" and "Regional demographics" are two separate things. 10% of the population of the south was black, and that's not an insignificant number. Further, breaking down by areas show places that were pretty much 90% black.

 

[TheLibertonian]

If there is ONE and ONLY one grocery store in a 900-mile radius, and that grocery store won't serve (insert group here), and no one in that group is able to start their own grocery store - ok, maybe that could be harmful.

Outside of that, what's the harm in allowing stupid people to be stupid? It only hurts the stupid people in the long run? Anything different basically robs the right of stupid people to be stupid, and I don't think that's right!

They can still hate all they want, I don't give a crap about that, but the law is and should be a denial of their right to put that hate into action.

I'm not allowed to kill people who cut me off and then slow down. I SURE WANT TO. But I'm not allowed to.

 

[This_person]

They can still hate all they want, I don't give a crap about that, but the law is and should be a denial of their right to put that hate into action.

I'm not allowed to kill people who cut me off and then slow down. I SURE WANT TO. But I'm not allowed to.

Are you equating killing someone and not selling them a slurpie?

 

[TheLibertonian]

Are you equating killing someone and not selling them a slurpie?

Both rob of an individual of their dignity as a person, although obv. murder is much worse. But it's based on the same logic. "This person is not really a person and doesn't deserve the same rights as me." The old joke that "all crime is theft" could apply here.

As I said, I reject the idea of the march of liberalism (liberalism in the classic sense), so I see these laws as necessary to keep both the population and the government honest, because human beings have a tendency to revert to tribalism really quickly as it's our natural state of being.

 

[SamSpade]

"In America" and "Regional demographics" are two separate things. 10% of the population of the south was black, and that's not an insignificant number. Further, breaking down by areas show places that were pretty much 90% black.

It was - and still is - a lot more than that. *Nationally*, it has varied between 10-13%, but during the period we're discussing, states like Mississippi had between 40-50% black population, and the South region still has the highest total PERCENTAGE of blacks, although it has been dwindling since the slave era. The trend has been sloping downward from the 40's and high thirties as a region, but some states and counties aren't changing - mostly along the Mississippi River.


A map like this one -

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html

haven't really changed significantly in 50 years. It can be quite eye opening, but it explains a lot of bogus statistics that are often cited.

I'm actually supporting your point, it's just that in those states, a boycott by blacks had a HUGE effect on business. There were and still are, a LOT.

 

[This_person]

Both rob of an individual of their dignity as a person, although obv. murder is much worse. But it's based on the same logic. "This person is not really a person and doesn't deserve the same rights as me." The old joke that "all crime is theft" could apply here.

As I said, I reject the idea of the march of liberalism (liberalism in the classic sense), so I see these laws as necessary to keep both the population and the government honest, because human beings have a tendency to revert to tribalism really quickly as it's our natural state of being.

So, you're saying people needto be forced, by law, to act counter to their desires, to meet some people's view of fairness?

 

[Restitution]

Like I said, you are a self appointed victim.

Apparently you may not have seen my original response to this statement to which you failed to reply so....

How is this "self appointed victim" any different from anyone involved in the BLM movement?

 

[TheLibertonian]

So, you're saying people needto be forced, by law, to act counter to their desires, to meet some people's view of fairness?

Yes, and so do you unless your an anarchist. Mans instincts are to kill and rape and pillage and take what it feels it needs even if in reality it doesn't need it. Hobbesian of me? Absolutely.

But I think man can be pulled out of its instinctual brutishness for a better society, and laws are the way in which we do that. Again, tribalism is a natural human tendency. Natural however does not equal good.

Utopia is a illusion, but utopianism isn't. We can strive for that better place and the better place is based on thought and education versus instinct and ignorance. Until we get a perfect osicety where everyone has access to as much knowledge as possible, which is an impossibility, we must have laws to counter our tribalistic and natural behaviors. Social mores are another way of countering that.

 

[GURPS]

Yes, and so do you unless your an anarchist. Mans instincts are to kill and rape and pillage and take what it feels it needs even if in reality it doesn't need it. Hobbesian of me? Absolutely.

I think you have that backwards ...


Hobbes (hŏbz), Thomas 1588-1679.
English philosopher and political theorist best known for his book Leviathan (1651), in which he argues that the only way to secure civil society is through universal submission to the absolute authority of a sovereign.



unless this is the manner in which you speak;

Adjective

Hobbesian ‎(comparative more Hobbesian, superlative most Hobbesian)

1. Involving unrestrained, selfish, and uncivilized competition among participants.
   1995, Fred Pfeil, White Guys: Studies in Postmodern Domination and Difference (page 150)
   In Hammett's writings, the social is constructed as a vast Hobbesian landscape of grim functionaries and desperate scrabblers […]
   
2. (political philosophy) Relating to Thomas Hobbes or his philosophical theories.