Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[UncleBuck]

Causing a harm? Okay you cram a gerbil up somebodies ass against their will. That is an actionable harm. You acted out in an aggressive way against a person that had not aggressed against you.

Your gerbil buddy calls and says he wants you to gerbilize him and it will be your fault if he can't come to your property and get some of that Uncle Buck love. You say not tonite, I have a headache. You expressed indifference. If your gerbil buddy comes over anyway despite your wishes, HE is creating the harm. You simply wanted to be left alone and remain indifferent. His unmet lust and blueballs is not your problem. He doesn't own you or your property.

Causes are generally things that are created by an actionable act, not a non act or an act of indifference. My failing to bring you a steaming shit burger from Wendy's is not causing you to starve. Your needs being met or not met are not the responsibility of others, they are your responsibility, race is not the issue.

The issue is who can claim a moral right to force another to interact with them if that person does not want to?

You say government should be able to make people associate, I disagree. If they have any valid role it would be to keep people from FORCING associations, not being indifferent.

Also, despite your claims, a person can be an advocate of leaving people alone and not forcing associations on them and not be a racist. That would be me.

However, in your case it is a bogus claim to say you are okay with forcing some people to use their property in ways they do not want to and still be an advocate of property rights or non-aggression. You keep trying to put things in a racist perspective, when the circumstances of protecting a persons right to not associate doesn't have to be motivated by race. Even if it is motivated by race, it doesn't matter. Racists as despicable as they may be, still have the right to enjoy their own property and not be made to use it in ways they do not want to.

still too cowardly to answer the question, and still completely unable to name a single historian who agrees with his historical denialism.

how incredibly sad and pathetic.

 

[Rob Roy]

still too cowardly to answer the questions, i see.

When people try to communicate it is important to have a mutual understanding on what things mean.


If a racist dickwad goes to your home and puts a chinese gerbil in your love canal you either consented to it or not.

If you consented, then there was no actionable harm. If you did not consent to the interaction do you have a right to tell the person, hey no chinese gerbils allowed in my house? If you own the house, you do. You also have a right to be indifferent and not answer the door, but that might be hard for you given the chance to interact with a gerbil and all.

If the a door to door gerbil salemen comes to your house, you should be able to refuse that person entrance, because you do NOT want to interact with him. If you are selling specially trained gerbils, but don't want to sell them to a particular person, of any race, I don't think you should be forced to engage in commerce.

I think the Interstate Gerbil act and the interstate commerce act are both bogus, but that's another story.

 

[Rob Roy]

still too cowardly to answer the question, and still completely unable to name a single historian who agrees with his historical denialism.

how incredibly sad and pathetic.

Harry Anslinger agrees with you. He thinks it is okay for government to control your property.

I could list many more people that believe that it is acceptable to force their way into your life and onto your property. You have many people that share your belief that some people can make others serve them against their will.

 

[UncleBuck]

When people try to communicate it is important to have a mutual understanding on what things mean.


If a racist dickwad goes to your home and puts a chinese gerbil in your love canal you either consented to it or not.

If you consented, then there was no actionable harm. If you did not consent to the interaction do you have a right to tell the person, hey no chinese gerbils allowed in my house? If you own the house, you do. You also have a right to be indifferent and not answer the door, but that might be hard for you given the chance to interact with a gerbil and all.

If the a door to door gerbil salemen comes to your house, you should be able to refuse that person entrance, because you do NOT want to interact with him. If you are selling specially trained gerbils, but don't want to sell them to a particular person, of any race, I don't think you should be forced to engage in commerce.

I think the Interstate Gerbil act and the interstate commerce act are both bogus, but that's another story.

all your whining will not change historical facts.

denial of service to blacks caused harm. no historian will disagree.

when a racist business owner kicked black customers away, the racist business owner was initiating aggression.

all your long winded rants won't change the fact that you support the right of racists to cause harm to others.

go fuck yourself.

 

[UncleBuck]

Harry Anslinger agrees with you. He thinks it is okay for government to control your property.

I could list many more people that believe that it is acceptable to force their way into your life and onto your property. You have many people that share your belief that some people can make others serve them against their will.

the racist business owners you support so much were allowed to switch over to "private club" type models and keep blacks out, ya know.

 

[Rob Roy]

and again, do you honestly think that was the extent of what blacks in the south faced before civil rights was passed?

are you that stupid? or did you just want to belittle the adversity that they faced?

which is it, stupid or belittling?

You are mixing events as if they were the same event. When aggressors such as the KKK went to somebodies property they were causing an actionable harm.

When people do not want to permit somebody onto their property and the disallowed person insists on being there....hmmm....sounds like the disallowed person is using the same tactic as the KKK.

 

[UncleBuck]

When people do not want to permit somebody onto their property and the disallowed person insists on being there....hmmm....sounds like the disallowed person is using the same tactic as the KKK.

are you honestly trying to compare a black person trying to buy gas at a gas station to a KKK lynch mob?

i know i'm not the only one cringing at this ridiculously racist worldview you insist on spouting.

 

[Rob Roy]

all your whining will not change historical facts.

denial of service to blacks caused harm. no historian will disagree.

when a racist business owner kicked black customers away, the racist business owner was initiating aggression.

all your long winded rants won't change the fact that you support the right of racists to cause harm to others.

go fuck yourself.

Says the person that advocates non consensual relationships.

If a person regardless of their race insists on coming to your property against your wishes....WHO is the person initiating aggression again?

 

[Rob Roy]

are you honestly trying to compare a black person trying to buy gas at a gas station to a KKK lynch mob?

i know i'm not the only one cringing at this ridiculously racist worldview you insist on spouting.

No. You are.

I say they are two different kinds of interactions. You say they are the same. I accept that you are confused and gerbils have severed your spinal cord ganglia. Is it too late for me to go fuck myself?

 

[Rob Roy]

the racist business owners you support so much were allowed to switch over to "private club" type models and keep blacks out, ya know.

If somebody owns something, then another person or entity starts "allowing" them to do this or that with the thing they own. Do they still own it?

I don't support racist business owners. I find them almost as despicable as prohibitionists. However you support agressing against an indifferent person.

 

[UncleBuck]

WHO is the person initiating aggression again?

that would be the racist business owner chasing away paying customers due to their skin color, an action you will apparently endlessly defend despite the demonstrable harm it caused which every historian ever agrees on.

but you're totally not racist.

 

[UncleBuck]

No. You are.

I say they are two different kinds of interactions. You say they are the same. I accept that you are confused and gerbils have severed your spinal cord ganglia. Is it too late for me to go fuck myself?

how is a black person trying to buy gasoline at a gas station in any way comparable to a KKK lynch mob?

 

[UncleBuck]

If somebody owns something, then another person or entity starts "allowing" them to do this or that with the thing they own. Do they still own it?

yes.

you are not allowed to murder people on your property, do you still own it (or more accurately, do your parents still own it, you fucking child)?

I don't support racist business owners.

yes you do, you have spent weeks and months arguing for their "right" to cause harm to black people in your opposition to civil rights.

you also use racist terms to describe mixed race people and call civil rights, the biggest step towards equality in our lifetimes, "special rights" for black people.

not only do you support racists, you are one of the biggest racists on this forum. you are just too old and dumb to even recognize it.

but everyone else does.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Two teens were beating up on each other. It looked like a barroom brawl. Their bodies hurled around the room. Furniture flew. Onlookers screamed.

Except this wasn’t a barroom. It was a classroom. At Detroit’s Pershing High School. And the first responder was, naturally, the teacher, a 5-foot-2 English instructor named Tiffani Eaton.

She did what she was supposed to do. She screamed at them to stop. She radioed for security. No one came because the radio given to her was broken. The teens tumbled to the floor now, one punching the head of the other.

So Eaton grabbed the first thing she could, a broom, and swatted the back of the young man on top, several times, screaming at him to get off the other student. They separated. Soon after, the fight broke up.

If I stop right there, many of you would give this woman a medal.

Instead, she was fired — fired? — because she violated the school’s corporal punishment rule.

http://www.freep.com/article/20140510/COL01/305100064/Mitch-Albom-Broom-swinging-teacher-did-what-she-had-to-do-to-protect-students

I would have accidentally dropped my box-cutter next them, and went out for a cup of coffee............... but that's me

 

[Rob Roy]

that would be the racist business owner chasing away paying customers due to their skin color, an action you will apparently endlessly defend despite the demonstrable harm it caused which every historian ever agrees on.

but you're totally not racist.

I defend your right to put small rodents in your own manhole. Not my cup of tea, but it is after all YOUR manhole.

I do not defend your aggression when you try to put small rodents in nonconsenting manholes. I would not defend a racist, a black guy, a black racist, a mulatto racist (do they even have those?) or any other such dipshits to go to anothers property and attempt to control it. YOU defend those actions, not me.

I defend a racists or anyones right to be left alone as long as they are leaving others alone. I do not need to share their beliefs to defend a persons right to be left alone.

Also, I know the difference between seeking to disassociate and initiating aggression against another.


So the moral of the story is....you like gerbils so much you think it is okay to put them places that others don't want them, I don't.

 

[Rob Roy]

yes.

you are not allowed to murder people on your property, do you still own it (or more accurately, do your parents still own it, you fucking child)?





yes you do, you have spent weeks and months arguing for their "right" to cause harm to black people in your opposition to civil rights.

you also use racist terms to describe mixed race people and call civil rights, the biggest step towards equality in our lifetimes, "special rights" for black people.

not only do you support racists, you are one of the biggest racists on this forum. you are just too old and dumb to even recognize it.

but everyone else does.

Your examples do not address the ones I gave. If a person is initiating aggression against you, you would not be murdering them dipshit, you would be acting in a morally acceptable defensive way.

Just because you can't argue, doesn't mean I'm a racist or that everybody should be gerbilized against their will.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I'm opening a restaurant that refuses service to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and parents that hit their children. Rational Rations

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm opening a restaurant that refuses service to Christians, Jews, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and parents that hit their children. Rational Rations

No soup for you!

 

[UncleBuck]

I defend a racists or anyones right to be left alone as long as they are leaving others alone.

yes, we know you love to defend racists. they are just "leaving others alone" when they deny service to blacks, right?

totally peaceful, causing no harm, right?

care to name a few historians who share your view that those racist business owners caused no harm by denying service to blacks?

thanks again.

 

[UncleBuck]

Just because you can't argue, doesn't mean I'm a racist

if i can't argue, then why have you yet to name a single historian who will side with you?

if you're not a racist, then why do you compare a black person trying to buy a sandwich to a KKK lynch mob? why do you call the president by racial slurs? why do you call steps towards equality "special rights" for black people"?

want me to bring out the quotes again where you repeatedly call the president by racial slurs?