Was the knight in the wrong?

He intended to sell them to the strongest, but the knight was clearly of the weakest.

What if the knight wanted to wait until he was stronger to use the potions?

If he had the option to buy some powerful potions he would take it,

How was the potion-seller supposed to know that? He was just being a responsible retailer.

I'm a bit out of the loop. Is this a new Veeky Forums maymay, or is there an actual story behind this?

Nevermind, just reverse image searched OPs image.

What if the knight wanted to use the potions to kill a dragon?

>refuses to sell goods to someone who isn't strong enough
Yes, the potion-seller is ableist scum trying to cover his ass by rejecting the knight's right to free commerce.

But the potion seller should have the right to refuse service

, c

Weee woo wee woo
Ableist shitlord detected

The Knight was about to go into battle, so unless he got much stronger (stronger than a dragon even) in a very short amount of time he would be killed by the potion. Granted, we don't know exactly when this battle was going to take place, but from the way the Knight spoke it seemed imminent.

>knight
*traveler

POTION SELLER, I...

The customer is always right

That... Would actually be a pretty cool thing to use in a game.
>NPC merchant doesn't wanna sell potion because they are too strong for you
>Table laugh it off if they know about the video but insist on buying
>After much debate and many rolls, they buy the potion witouth even trying to identify it
>Eventually someone use it in battle
>''You overdose on the concentrated health potion and fall to the ground shaking violently''
>Player's face when

The potion seller is a dick. He could offer weaker potions or even point the knight in the direction of a different potion seller.

However, legally he is in the right. It is the right of the vendor to refuse service to anyone who comes into his store.

his potions are too dangerous

...

>He could offer weaker potions
His potions were to strong. Also,

>You better go to a seller that sells weaker potions.

Oh yeah that sounds so cool good idea.

Is there an actual basis to this image? I mean i know about the cake thing and stuff like that, but i don't use facebook so i've never heard about that.

>>>
>Anonymous 01/01/17(Sun)23:47:39 No.50982076 ▶
you don't know what you ask traveller

They state that he was a knight, re watch the video and don't reply to that many posts

The cake people should have the right to refuse service. It makes them petty bigots for doing it over something as asinine and innocuous as sexual orientation but they should have the right regardless.

The god emperor of mankinds election has lead to a outcry of "Fake news" which has lead to places like google willing to hide "fake news" and limit its circulation in social media.

What that is defined as is mostly vague but appears to mostly mean "not cnn"

Conservatives thought they were being censored on Facebook because Zuckerberg is a Jew. They thought it was discrimination.

Of course, if you weren't redpilled (and if there actually was any censorship going on), you could argue that there is a significant difference between discriminating between political views and sexual orientation. Or you could say that there's a difference between making a cake and public ally displaying someone's message on your website in perpetuity. But then I would shout "KEK" and "SHILL" over and over again until you left.

"Fake News" is basically anything that doesn't fit fully into the current media's carefully designed Liberal narrative
The hilarious part is that this is only leading to people trusting these media giants less and less, and they were already in a bad spot before the election, now they just look like literal babies throwing a temper tantrum

What they shouldn't be able to do, however, is make the cake, and then refuse to sell it at the last minute so that when the people arrive to take it to the fucking wedding, its now way too fucking late to change plans and get a cake from someone else.

Yes. A bakery in Northern Ireland was prosecuted for not making a cake for a gay wedding after a gay couple deliberately sought them out to try and get them prosecuted. Notice they went for some Ulster Protestants, not say some Pakistani baker in Bradford.

They *are* allowed to refuse service.
You can't discriminate against employees, but customers are fair game unless you harass them.

>and if there actually was any censorship going on
There isn't censorship per se, but Facebook does construct echo chambers.
The posts displayed are heavily weighted towards your own ideology, whatever that may be.

This thread got bad and stupid so have some relevant slash: archiveofourown.org/works/5441447

Keep being idiots and I may escalate to explicit.

>slash fiction inspired by a years-old meme video.

The internet will never cease to amaze me.

>Was the knight in the wrong?

He wasn't ethically wrong, but he was mistaken in thinking he could handle potion seller's potions.
Assuming the potion seller was telling the truth about his potions, he was merely fulfilling his duty of care by withholding his potions.

that is a pretty fucking shitty thing to do yeah

that creates a dangerous legal precedence. Imagine if grocery stores refused to service people for any reason, or auto repair places. Sure these aren't life or death situations but they're major quality of life issues that would seriously hinder someone

then those stores will slowly lose business and die

Legally requiring businesses to provide services can also set a dangerous precedent. What if I live in a really dangerous neighborhood. A war zone, basically. And then I order a pizza (delivery). Can the government force them to deliver that pizza, or are they allowed to discriminate against me based on where I live?

Or what if I'm a stripper? And some weird church wants to hire my services so that they can preach at me and tell me that I'm going down a path to hell. I would be required to show up and strip for them.

Maybe these are slippery slope fallacies, but that's what dangerous precedents are all about.

I will point out that your examples are slightly flawed because they involve discriminating against people for reasons unrelated to the services provided. On the other hand, a business could argue that [race of people] ruins business for [such and such a reason] or that providing food that allows [that sexual orientation] to live is against their religion.

It's a pretty tricky subject, but I come down on the side of allowing discrimination in general, but forbid certain forms of discrimination (e.g. Racial, gender-based, orientation-based). This is the way that American anti-discrimination laws currently work, I think.

You are not legally entitled to any of those. If someone has a problem with serving gays or blacks, that's his problem, and I among many others will take their business elsewhere regardless of our cocksucking and chicken-eating status.

This fucking thing starting these goddamn philosophical threads.

Potion Seller's Dilemma
>A knight demands to buy a potion but the merchant claims that it will kill him and refuses to sell it.
>Who is in the wrong?

This is like something that you'd write about in literature class or some shit.

>Was the knight in the wrong?

They were both being mad cunts

The knight does not have some """right""" to buy the potions if the seller doesn't want to sell and should fuck off when told to. The seller should not be sitting there all smug-like deciding he knows how powerful a potion the knight can "handle," maybe the knight knew full well he would die but the dragon needed killing first, that's not for the seller to judge. His potions, he can not sell if he wants to but he was being a cunt about it.

>What they shouldn't be able to do, however, is make the cake, and then refuse to sell it at the last minute so that when the people arrive to take it to the fucking wedding, its now way too fucking late to change plans and get a cake from someone else.

Right, but that's because it's fraud and/or breach of contract. I don't have any right to demand a cake from arbitrary people - it's different if those people have already agreed to it though.

>Imagine if grocery stores refused to service people for any reason,

I am imagining a world where I go to a different grocery store to spend my money, and the original store gets a shitshow of bad press, and Corporate, who wants to make money, comes down on that like a bag full of hammers.

Remember: The Jim Crow LAWS were LAWS because the government had to force people to discriminate, they didn't do so on their own because they wanted to make money.

Both were in the wrong in a way due to shit communication.
The knight said he needed the strongest potions, but the potion seller kept repeating that the potions would kill him. The problem here is the potion seller has no way to tell that just by looking at the knight.

If it was truly urgent and there wasn't time for test results then the potion seller would be in the right because it would highly risk the knights death if he gave him a potion for drinking. But as said in this thread the knight could have used it for a poison against the dragon.

If it wasn't truly urgent then the knight could have demanded a test to see if he was truly strong enough for a potion.

Le invisible hand :^)

>It makes them petty bigots
You should really stop assuming false moral high ground, people are getting wise to that bullshit and it devalues your arguments. "I'm right and anyone who disagrees with me is a racist sexist bigot cishet shitlord homophobe" doesn't lend you credibility except with people who already think like you.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a private entity refusing to take part in something they find morally objectionable, they're allowed their beliefs and they are equally as valid as yours, up until the point they infringe on the rights of someone else. As far as I know this isn't the case, as last I checked the cake makers didn't try to disrupt the gay wedding with their military grade cake batter blasters or anything.

Why on earth would you willingly do business at a place that obviously hates you?

>no one can handle my strongest potions
Why would he even make potions no one could handle? Potion Seller has some serious issues.

>/pol/fags on my Veeky Forums again
If I could hit a button and eliminate all SJWs and /pol/fags, I would hit it one hundred times.
Fuck your politics shit, I am talking about dragons.

>I am talking about dragons.
No dragons here. The potions killed them. Those potions were only for the strongest beings.

Hide thread and move along. Flag if you truly believe that this is a breach of conduct.

We can still talk about dead dragons

Why didn't he potion seller just give him a strength potion so that he would be able to handle his strongest potions?

Because even the strength potion would have killed him. He made his potions to OP.

You're adorable.

>The god emperor of mankinds election has lead to a outcry of "Fake news"
Lemme guess, the crazies are claiming that the Emperor's favored son is actually a deranged monster?

> Forgetting what we all agreed on after the Jim Crow era this easily.

Praise the algorithm!

All you third party dudes do is whine about both sides. Keep talking that shit though, because we both know that you'll do fucking nothing

I'd like these threads more if they didn't show up every single day.

Well, they could start spamming like you guys.
Thankfully, they so far are more polite.

My first exposure to this was the manga cover.
Took me ages to realize there was no manga.
Then found that fan fic, before I found the video.

The problem is that people aren't entitled to any of those services, or at least they shouldn't be in a free society. To provide those entitlements you have to force other individuals to do things and that in my opinion is a pretty clear infringement on their rights. Businesses that discriminated constantly would be out of a job pretty quickly though, because who in our society would want service from a place you couldn't trust not to arbitrarily discriminate against you? All any other store would have to do is say "hey we offer the same service but we won't discriminate against anyone". They'd starve discriminatory businesses to death in short order.

Imho gays should be hanged, but nobody should be deprived of cake.

It's not fair to deny services to a minority based on their identity any more than it's fair to throw Japanese people in camps because of their identity. You can't treat people differently because of their skin colour, their national heritage, or their inherent attraction towards one gender or another. Personal liberty stops when you exercise it to deny the personal liberties of others; the right to bear arms is stopped by the right to not be shot in the face for no reason.

People have a right to not be abducted/forced into a situation like a concentration camp.
No one has a right to cake.

>It's not fair.
Life's not fair, and while denying someone a non-necessary service is a shitty thing to do, it is not in any way comparable to forcing citizens into interment camps.
>You can't treat people differently because of their skin color?
Why not? Who said being free entitled anyone to anything other than equality under the law? Last I checked there was no right to cake, or right to demand service from a business. Obviously if someone has already paid for a service they should no longer be denied, but if a private business wants to deny someone before that person has paid any money or signed any contract, I think they should be allowed to do that. I also think it would be OK for the government to deny that business any government service which that business uses because of that same discriminatory behavior. It seems to me that that would be a much better solution than giving state or federal governments the power to compel citizens to conform to social standards with the threat of force.

In 30+ states I can walk up to a taco stand, hand them a fiver, and the server can say "Nah, I'm not serving you, I think you're a fag." Doesn't matter if I'm straight, gay, bi, whatever, they can deny me service -or a job- on those grounds completely legally. My orientation doesn't have anything to do with the service or product involved but they can tell me to fuck off because of it. Do you think that practice of discrimination should be legal, or that it is morally acceptable to do so?

Different user, but yes. You have the right to look for employment, you do not have the right to employment. Unless you violate the law and are punished with imprisonment, nobody can force you not to work, however you are also not entitled to automatically be employed simply because you meet the minimum necessity for that job. Discrimination is a fundamental part of selecting workers for a business, whether people would like to admit it or not an employer will often have multiple people vying for a single job and that employer will have to discriminate to select one of them.
Should it be morally acceptable to turn people away for completely arbitrary reasons? Nah, that's just shitty, unhelpful, anti-social behavior. Should the government be given the power to enforce that morality under threat of fine, violence, or imprisonment? Absolutely not.

>You have the right to look for employment, you do not have the right to employment.
It's illegal to discriminate based on race or gender, but not illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Are you saying that you would want to do away with all of those laws and make it legal to reject a possible employee based on the colour of their skin? Or it is just gay people that you think should have less rights, protections, and freedoms?

tfw Veeky Forums has better political discourse than /pol/ could ever dream of having.

I don't think anyone should have the right to be entitled to a job. Protected classes should certainly be done away with, because a protected class is being given a fundamental legal advantage over other people. That is not my idea of fairness or freedom. Yes, employers should have the right to be assholes, their own shitty behavior will give competing non-discriminatory businesses a definite edge.

That is not really saying much as you can have a better political discourse than /pol/ at a grade school.

You didn't really answer his question.

Potion seller threads are like /v/'s KOTH Online threads. Please, keep it to once a week tops.

Excuse me then if I was not crystal clear, nobody of any color, creed, or sexual preference should be specially protected by the government. The establishment of a protected class of people is a clear threat to every other group of people who is not explicitly given that protection. If we insist upon legislating morality with the threat of force, that legislation should be distributed equally amongst all citizens, else the US's claim to be a country which values equality is absolutely worthless. I would also dispute the idea that the creation of protected classes is somehow increasing freedoms, or rights.

Fuck the idea of protected classes and rights and all that.
We should instead focus on creating people who can enforce their own rights, whatever they choose those to be. I suggest a program of light biological research to this end.

The potion seller showed very poor customer service skills and should've directed the knight to a more suitable potion seller.

So... are you saying that you think "We can't give you a job because we don't hire niggers." should be a right of employers protected under the law?

Bear in mind, making this illegal is not the same as guaranteeing a job to anyone. It just means that employers can't deny someone a job based solely on race. If you were black, you wouldn't be *given* a job by this, but if an employer turned you away it would have to be based on grounds more legitimate than "We don't like your kind." Ideally, this would also mean that you can't be denied a job based solely on being white, middle-eastern, hispanic, asian, etc.

Further, would you apply the same for sexual orientation? That is, employers couldn't turn you away for being gay/straight/bi.

I understand that these sorts of laws can be unfairly exploited, and the fear of such puts unnecessary pressure on employers. It's hard to prove or disprove that someone made a decision based only on prejudice, and people can use that to strongarm employers into giving them a job, or even ruin their reputation through highly publicized complaints about that supposed prejudice.

I'd like to know your position on the principle behind the laws, since you've been forthcoming about how it should or shouldn't play out in practice.

he does it for the art, you fuck

also probably to bum them off to assassins looking for cheap and obscure Alchemitoxins

cannot find the video for the life of me. Anyone got links?

Facebook happily blocked all outgoing links to wikileaks and Zuckerberg is on record for attempting to broker back room deals with germany to block discussions that portray immigration in a negative light.

I dont give a flying fuck about yankee politics, but fundamentally either private corporations have the ability to ignore anti-discrimination laws and refuse to make cakes for people based off their sexuality or they have to abide by them. Personally I support the latter and see huge problems in censoring media organisations, stories and individuals by declaring them to be guilty of spreading "fake news".

youtube.com/watch?v=NIQVbxMJWgM

>Conservatives thought they were being censored on Facebook because Zuckerberg is a Jew

lol no, facebook conservatives don't act like that, they're philosemetic if anything.

The basis of the post is this:

The person argue a company is allowed to refuse service because it's a private company in once instance (Facebook), but not another (bakeries)

>he doesn't move back and forth in-front of the camera
>also everything else
Disgusting.

Here's the definitive version, courtesy of your dubs.
youtu.be/R_FQU4KzN7A

Should a man be allowed to own recreational nukes for personal defense?

So long as he designs and manufactures them himself.

...

But user, property is a spook.

>Why respect knights, when my potions can do anything that you can?

What did he mean by this? Are his potions really that strong.