Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
I think racist is what you used. I said it is wrong. You could refuse service because a person is gay. That's not racist, but it is very wrong. Discrimination is wrong
Click to expand...

Is going to somebodies property and remaining on their property against their wishes wrong?

Is making a person use their body in ways you prefer, but they do not wrong?

I'm sure you'll get right back to me on those questions won't you?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
robby has made that argument and i have quoted it many times. he feels any reason is good enough, SKIN COLOR included.

hence why this came up in our discussions about CIVIL RIGHTS.

do try to follow along.
Click to expand...

I feel that the reasons a person wants to exclude me from their property is secondary to the idea that it is THEIR property and not mine. I dont make the rules for other people on how they will use THEIR property. I don't try to do this....you do....Prohibitionist.

When people that want to disassociate are prevented from doing so by a person that insists on being on their property is the owner of the property or the invader doing something wrong?
 
DonAlejandroVega

DonAlejandroVega

Well-Known Member
"AH! lol.......I am whole-heartedly against segregation. I prefer a rich mosaic of culture around me. I treat every man, woman, and child as my blood relation, as long as they initiate no force against me, and respect my property.

I am equally against the state coercing anyone......to do anything.......at the point of a gun."

you must refer to this bit of bigotry.........lol.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
I feel that the reasons a person wants to exclude me from their property is secondary to the idea that it is THEIR property and not mine. I dont make the rules for other people on how they will use THEIR property. I don't try to do this....you do....Prohibitionist.

When people that want to disassociate are prevented from doing so by a person that insists on being on their property is the owner of the property or the invader doing something wrong?
Click to expand...
Cant' keep going back and forth with you today, but I FULLY support our Civil Rights Act that stopped the practice of discrimination based on color,region and gender. I could give a damn about property right to those who practice discrimination. The past of this country deems this necessary. We have rules and laws for a reason. The laws I disagree with I fight against. I don't disagree with the Civil Rights Acts because that law stopped what was hurtful to some. You having to serve me is not hurting you one bit. I don't defend the practice of discrimination. Now if you don't like this... that's your problem. Not mine. I suggest try writing the SCOTUS

Now if you want to practice discrimination you can always make your business private; charge a membership and you can discriminate all you want,so please stop going in a loop talking about your right to discriminate has been taken away. Getting rather old the way you defend BS then say you don't support BS.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Owner, property, coercion, non-aggression principal...


Blah blah blah


Segregation is freedom to you.
Click to expand...

No, self determination is freedom to me.

Segregation is not a goal of mine. It is a possible goal of others. I don't set others goals for them if they are not invading other peoples property, apparently you would.

If a segregationist wants to be left alone is his wish to be left alone any less valid than a person that is not a bigot?

Use your intellect, it's pretty good when you do. There's no need to conflate the argument or avoid answering questions is there?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Cant' keep going back and forth with you today, but I FULLY support our Civil Rights Act that stopped the practice of discrimination based on color,region and gender. I could give a damn about property right to those who practice discrimination. The past of this country deems this necessary. We have rules and laws for a reason. The laws I disagree with I fight against. I don't disagree with the Civil Rights Acts because that law stopped what was hurtful to some. You having to serve me is not hurting you one bit. I don't defend the practice of discrimination. Now if you don't like this... that's your problem. Not mine. I suggest try writing the SCOTUS

Now if you want to practice discrimination you can always make your business private; charge a membership and you can discriminate all you want,so please stop going in a loop talking about your right to discriminate has been taken away. Getting rather old the way you defend BS then say you don't support BS.
Click to expand...

I don't discriminate based on race. Nor do I attempt to justify controlling other peoples property when that other person is not invading the property of another. You do.

You've shifted the argument and have not addressed my questions. Have a good day.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Property rights are more important to you than a person's right to live.

Lolbertarians value property over life.
Click to expand...

A persons right to self determination (life) is not infringed when another person refuses to associate with them.

It IS infringed when another person INSISTS on associating with them.

You have not refuted my argument. You are using the same kind of avoidances as your friend Uncle Dances With Gerbils.

You have attempted to say my respect for a bigots rights equates to my agreement with their point of view. That is false.

What is true though, is you are willing to use force against people that have not used force against you.

Deal with it.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A persons right to self determination (life) is not infringed when another person refuses to associate with them.

It IS infringed when another person INSISTS on associating with them.

You have not refuted my argument. You are using the same kind of avoidances as your friend Uncle Dances With Gerbils.

You have attempted to say my respect for a bigots rights equates to my agreement with their point of view. That is false.

What is true though, is you are willing to use force against people that have not used force against you.

Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Wherefore doth thine non-aggression principal reconcile upon exclusive deed regarding innate wherewithal?

It doesn't and never will. Therefore the force is defensive. The earth is the common heritage of humanity. To put a boundary up is to restrict the rights of others.

You are not an anarchist.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
DonAlejandroVega said:
liberals would have everyone get along and love each other...........or have SSWAT shoot them.
Click to expand...


If a person considers making others use their property as they insist, they are contributing to the breaking of the peace.

Peace is not always a circumstance where everyone plays together. It is the absence of one entity forcing others to comply with their wishes.

Indifference and disassociation is closer to peace than forcing associations. This is self evident based on the meanings of the words and the order the actions occur in.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Wherefore doth thine non-aggression principal reconcile upon exclusive deed regarding innate wherewithal?

It doesn't and never will. Therefore the force is defensive. The earth is the common heritage of humanity. To put a boundary up is to restrict the rights of others.

You are not an anarchist.
Click to expand...
So a person says to another, "hey go take some of those pieces of earth, make something useful from it and then serve me". You are okay with that?

So you think things made from the earth do NOT belong to the person that made them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top