Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[Rob Roy]

Civil rights is slavery now lol

To enslave a person, you take away their right of self determination and control of the things they own.

A matter of degrees is the variant. Force is the mechanism.

How would you get people to serve others? Would you use force on them if they preferred to simply disassociate?

You've developed a habit of running from questions too.

 

[sheskunk]

I bet it is you.

You posted it, dumbass.

 

[Rob Roy]

You posted it, dumbass.

He's not responsible. He doesn't own himself.

 

[Red1966]

Yeah, their Deliverance style living conditions fill me with envy.

Yes, Deliverance portrays the south like a Lucky Charms commercial portrays Ireland

 

[Red1966]

Yeah, their Deliverance style living conditions fill me with envy.

Well, you DO got a purty mouth.

 

[UncleBuck]

So you are okay with forcing people to serve others? Isn't that what slave owners did?

no one is forced to serve another, you can just open a private club if you want to do the segregation thing you love so much.

 

[Red1966]

American flags make AWESOME toilet paper too...

And Ireland is a monumental toilet

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm going to have to ask you to consider whether any person regardless of their race has a right to control their own property and engage in transactions on a consensual basis.

of course they do, but they have no right to cause harm. can you name one single person who shares your deluded view that denial of service didn't cause harm?

 

[UncleBuck]

Would you use force on them if they preferred to simply disassociate?

if they prefer to disassociate, they probably shouldn't open a store and advertise it to the public.

 

[UncleBuck]

And Ireland is a monumental toilet

ireland is about half the size of alabama and pulls in almost twice as much in tourism dollars.

 

[londonfog]

Okay. I'll assume for the purposes of the example that the pharmacy is owned by a private person, that has made it clear they do not want to transact with some people.

Private property means that an individual owns the piece of property. Ownership vests control in that piece of property to the owner, not you, not me, not a coercive government. if it doesn't vest control, then there is no such thing as private property.

A person that owns something has the right to use it, not use it or trade it for something another person has as long as both agree to the terms. If there is no agreement and one person or entity dictates the terms with an "or else caveat", they have initiated aggression

In the instance of civil rights, a coercive government instructed private individuals how they could and could not use their own property. There was a very real "or else" included. The "or else" was an initiation of aggression.

Using somebodies property that has made it clear to you that they do not want you to is another initiation of aggression.

I hope that helps.

Take a guess why Ron Paul never made it.

 

[UncleBuck]

if any politician in america were to publicly repeat the views that racistroy spouts here, they'd be nationally mocked as the most racist, segregationist asshole in the entire nation.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[UncleBuck]

 

[Pinworm]

Now I am dissapoint.

 

[BigNBushy]

i've already answered your questions over and over.

what you have failed to do is find one single other person that agrees with your retarded notion that denial of service to blacks did not cause harm.

we agree that there is no "right" to cause harm, now all you need is to find someone else that shares your delusion.

not even the guy who thinks he is the messiah is as deluded as you are.

I'm sure there are "some" instances where blacks were denied services.

However, I think denial of services aren't as wide spread as you let on.

consider the "sit in" at the local diner. Blacks weren't denied services there, they were denied internal seating.

They could, and did very often order their food from a window out back.

Equality, no, but you'd be hard pressed to find a diner anywhere in the south that didn't work that way.

Most towns even had blacks only diners that whites weren't allowed into- I don't see you crying about the harm from their denial of services.

There were public water fountains, one for whites, one for coloreds.

Please tell me a service that they were denied!

I can't think of any, they often had to accept substandard service, but rarely were they left with no options, if ever, to get a bite to eat if they had cash.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm sure there are "some" instances where blacks were denied services.

However, I think denial of services aren't as wide spread as you let on.

consider the "sit in" at the local diner. Blacks weren't denied services there, they were denied internal seating.

They could, and did very often order their food from a window out back.

Equality, no, but you'd be hard pressed to find a diner anywhere in the south that didn't work that way.

Most towns even had blacks only diners that whites weren't allowed into- I don't see you crying about the harm from their denial of services.

There were public water fountains, one for whites, one for coloreds.

Please tell me a service that they were denied!

I can't think of any, they often had to accept substandard service, but rarely were they left with no options, if ever, to get a bite to eat if they had cash.

i agree with you and robroy. no real harm caused. i assume you won't complain when "tea partiers" like yourself are treated the same way?

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm going to have to ask you to consider whether any person regardless of their race has a right to control their own property and engage in transactions on a consensual basis.

by the way, civil rights does ensure that you can "engage in transactions on a consensual basis" "regardless of race". it was designed to do that specifically for the black people who were being denied and harmed by the practices of white racist public business owners.

those white racist public business owners are free to switch to the old, harmful, racist model, it just has to be a private club. so "regardless of race" those white racist business owners may still have "a right to control their own property" and those racist business owners may "engage in transactions on a consensual basis" by disallowing blacks. you and them still have that right.

you fail to understand the difference between a private club and a public business, which is a pretty easy thing t discern.

dumbass.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Yes, Deliverance portrays the south like a Lucky Charms commercial portrays Ireland

that post was magically delicious!

 

[Rob Roy]

no one is forced to serve another, you can just open a private club if you want to do the segregation thing you love so much.

You miss the obvious. Of course somebody IS forced when an owner of a property is made to use their property in ways they'd rather not. If there is NO THREAT of force please explain what happens to a person that says he's not going to use his property the way the non owner tells him he must........The initial use of force comes from the usurpation of the property right by your beloved nanny state.

You probably also think it is appropriate for a coercive government to issue "freedom permits" to people so that they can use a certain plant.

Didn't slave owners sometimes give their slaves travel permits too, Uncle Toby?