Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[Rob Roy]

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.

If you don't want to associate with somebody and remain on your property it seems that your ability to initiate aggression against another is very limited. You are not only a prohibitionist, now you are a wearing thought police badge.

Just to be clear. I don't think you are a gerbil lover, but if you were and you had a trained consenting gerbil that you got your freak on with I'd defend your right to do so, even while having no love for what you are doing.

So, no, I don't defend racists, I defend everyones right to think what they want, but not to act out those thoughts if they include initiating aggression. We differ there. You think people are committing aggression by seeking to disassociate, I bet your gerbil has a better grasp of some concepts than you do.

Also, I'm kicking your ass so hard gerbil guts are coming out of your mouth.

 

[Rob Roy]

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?

I didn't compare a lynch mob to a sandwich buyer. You did. They are distinctly separate instances and circumstances. One involves an act of aggression, that would be the KKK.

The other may or not involve an act of aggression depending upon the status of the relationship between the sandwich maker and the prospective buyer. Absent a consensual agreement, the sandwich buyer cannot force the sandwich maker to serve him and claim neutrality, UNLESS, they have an agreement. An agreement takes two....unless you're a rapist or a person that doesn't recognize anothers right to disassociate.

Historians say seven out of ten alimentary canal blockages are caused by tunneling gerbils.

 

[UncleBuck]

I defend a racists...

So, no, I don't defend racists...

make up your retarded mind.

Also, I'm kicking your ass so hard gerbil guts are coming out of your mouth.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.
premise 2: no one has a right to cause harm, even on their own property.

conclusion: racists' denial of service is not a protected right.




good job on declaring victory, now try to refute the premises.

 

[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.

I didn't compare a lynch mob to a sandwich buyer.

so you want to claim now that we have not been talking about civil rights this whole time, and your fiercely racist opposition to it?

your entire argument literally depends on denying known history. it's a shitty argument, even as far as racist arguments go.

take heart though, stormfront has a dating section now. i'm sure you can find a hot date there and drop the gerbil fascination.

 

[abandonconflict]

Also, I'm kicking your ass so hard gerbil guts are coming out of your mouth.

No you aren't.

You are demonstrating clearly that private property is aggressive. As in, inconsistent with the non aggression principle. You are demonstrating that THE ONLY REASON TO OWN A THING IS TO DISCRIMINATE.

You are a feudalist.

The earth is our common heritage.

 

[UncleBuck]

at least he declared victory.

 

[abandonconflict]

at least he declared victory.

He doesn't revolution.

 

[Rob Roy]

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?

I try to treat people as individuals. I try to respect an individuals right to use their body and property as they see fit. You do not.

I know the difference between an actionable act that causes harm and indifference. You need some work there.


Also, you're putting a lot of weight on the term Mulatto. If it is offensive to you my nigga, what would you call a mixed race person?
Oh, you'd call him "black". Some of the KKK idiots probably share your belief that one drop of black blood makes him "black" or that very very very bad word that starts with n.

Special rights are "created" when coercive government usurps a persons right to self determination and sets up rules on how a person may behave on their own property or how they can use their own body. People of all races are affected by this.
It is the same rationale for prohibition which you defend, that is where a coercive government can determine what you will or won't do with your own body or property.

If implementing equality is the goal, all peoples right to self determination should be protected. Instead you try to protect access to peoples private property against their will. That action disregards the rights of the property owner.

 

[Rob Roy]

He doesn't revolution.

Che whiz.

 

[abandonconflict]

Say property a few more times.

 

[Rob Roy]

And therefore ownership of oneself can transfer to another person...

Consent and agreement are important things to consider. I think if a person has "self ownership" it implies that no other can give their consent for them or the consent is fraudulent.

 

[Rob Roy]

Say property a few more times.

I assume you own clothing? Is it yours or did you steal them? Aren't your clothes your property?

What can a person own ? What can't or shouldn't another person own?

 

[abandonconflict]

Consent and agreement are important things to consider. I think if a person has "self ownership" it implies that no other can give their consent for them or the consent is fraudulent.

You also completely ignore the coercion that a person faces when they are in a system where resources and infrastructure are privately owned.

They have a single choice to make. Rent themselves out or starve.

That is the liberty offered by voluntaryism.

 

[UncleBuck]

I know the difference between an actionable act that causes harm and indifference.

care to name one single historian that agrees with you then?

Also, you're putting a lot of weight on the term Mulatto.

imagine that. you use a racial slur and i call you out on it.

I If it is offensive to you my nigga, what would you call a mixed race person?

mixed race or biracial.

IOh, you'd call him "black".

if they self identify as black, i sure would.

that's part of the whole "respecting individuals" thing you claim to do, only to turn around and call them by antiquated racial slurs.

Special rights

racists call them "special rights". the rest of us call them "civil rights".

why don't you work on something more simple, like refuting my simple, straightforward premises and the conclusion we derive from them.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.
premise 2: no one has a right to cause harm, even on their own property.

conclusion: racists' denial of service is not a protected right.

 

[abandonconflict]

What can't or shouldn't another person own?

Power over others.

 

[Rob Roy]

care to name one single historian that agrees with you then?




imagine that. you use a racial slur and i call you out on it.




mixed race or biracial.




if they self identify as black, i sure would.

that's part of the whole "respecting individuals" thing you claim to do, only to turn around and call them by antiquated racial slurs.




racists call them "special rights". the rest of us call them "civil rights".

why don't you work on something more simple, like refuting my simple, straightforward premises and the conclusion we derive from them.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.
premise 2: no one has a right to cause harm, even on their own property.

conclusion: racists' denial of service is not a protected right.

Is the right to controlling your own property and your own body worth protecting ? I think it is.

You have confused granted privileges from government with rights. Nobody has a right to steal your gerbil and you shouldn't let them.

Your premise is saying that failing to provide something for somebody is an actionable harm. I'm kind of hungry right now, could you run down to Wendy's and pick me up a large fry and some burgers? The government said you can't deny me a service.


Of course nobody has a right to cause harm. Everybody has the right to be indifferent though. HEY, where's my fucking burger??!!! Are you just going to sit there and be indifferent to my needs, you fucking racist!!

 

[Rob Roy]

Power over others.

That's an incomplete reply. What CAN people own?

 

[abandonconflict]

That's an incomplete reply. What CAN people own?

You're starting to sound like a broken record bro.

Is property the only thing that matters to ancaps?

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

You're starting to sound like a broken record bro.

Is property the only thing that matters to ancaps?

private property rights and no initiation of force.........that about covers it.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

if I was black I would DESIRE being denied service in a racist's establishment; I wouldn't want to support his, or her, business.