Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[UncleBuck]

If the person stays on private property after he is aware the owner doesn't want him there, he is violating a property right of the owner and he is also seeking to transact, but not in a way where both parties have made an agreement.

by opening up a store to the public, you have made an agreement to serve the public. that includes black members of the public, you racist old shit.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm about to refuse to service to a black man. Because I have that right.

If you don't have the right to chose your associations, and interact on consensual basis, then somebody is forcing non consenting relationships on another person.

by opening up a store to the public, you have made an agreement to serve the public. that includes black members of the public, you racist old shit.

No, you confuse WHO has "made the agreement". The agreement in this case was not one entered into on a mutual and consensual peaceful basis. Somebody else set the terms FOR the property owner and told the property owner, you will abide by THESE terms or you will face harm. You never seem to want to discuss that part though.


Oh, how'd you like the story?

 

[abandonconflict]

Says the Anarchist that wants the nanny state to create laws that protect people who force associations.

No I don't.

I want to kill fascists and eat the rich.

 

[sheskunk]

No I don't.

I want to kill fascists and eat the rich.

No you don't. You want to post meme's and pretend you won something on the internet.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, you confuse WHO has "made the agreement". The agreement in this case was not one entered into on a mutual and consensual peaceful basis. Somebody else set the terms FOR the property owner and told the property owner, you will abide by THESE terms or you will face harm. You never seem to want to discuss that part though.

so it can't be peaceful unless you get to kick blacks out of your gas station. got it.

if you don't want to serve members of the public (that includes black people, you racist fuck), then maybe consider not opening a store that serves the public. or a private club where you can hang your impressive amount of "no negroes or mullattos" signs.

 

[Rob Roy]

No I don't.

I want to kill fascists and eat the rich.

Just don't try to eat any of the gerbils at the Gerbil emporium. The owner of that private property will not sell them for food.

 

[Rob Roy]

so it can't be peaceful unless you get to kick blacks out of your gas station. got it.

if you don't want to serve members of the public (that includes black people, you racist fuck), then maybe consider not opening a store that serves the public. or a private club where you can hang your impressive amount of "no negroes or mullattos" signs.

I think I've covered that if I had a private business, discrimination based on race would not be something I would do. That poor horse has been dog food for a long time. Why are you attempting to put a saddle on a dead horse? Is it because the only way you can advance your argument is if you tell the other person what his position is?

What I don't want is people to make others use their property in ways they'd prefer not to. I respect the right of people to determine how they will use their property and their body, even if I don't think it is the best way to be. You seem to like making people do things they'd prefer not to do. Which of us is the one that's approving of initiating aggression........I think it is you.

 

[UncleBuck]

I think I've covered that if I had a private business, discrimination based on race would not be something I would do.

racists say a lot of things. you can tell that they are lying when you hear them refer tot he president by a racial slur repeatedly or call civil rights "special rights" for black people.

i've learned not to take racists at their word.

I respect the right of people to determine how they will use their property

except that kicking black people out of your hotel or restaurant or gas station causes harm, and is thus not a right.

maybe try refuting my premises directly some time instead of repeating your tired old racist euphemisms.

 

[abandonconflict]

Just don't try to eat any of the gerbils at the Gerbil emporium. The owner of that private property will not sell them for food.

I plant cannabis on other people's private property.

 

[Rob Roy]

Funny how you want to make it seem like all I have is memes and rhetoric. That is really all your posts have contained and when I showed you how your heroes, who's works you have clearly never read, were all fascist, you started using Google Translate to insult me in Latin. You really are the new dipshit around here.

Since you want my attention so badly, why not deliver some substance?

Is it okay to own anything of substance?

 

[abandonconflict]

Is it okay to own anything of substance?

If you need permission probably not.

 

[Rob Roy]

If you need permission probably not.

We probably come closest to agreement here.


"Permission" should be the default position if a persons actions do not create an actionable harm. If there is such a thing as private property and the right of an individual to own their own body, removing their ability to determine the uses and replacing it with a, "this is what you will do and how you will do it" command doesn't sound like it protects the right of self determination.

Also, as an aside, I have some concerns about which things can justifiably be owned. We probably could have a good discussion on that.

 

[Rob Roy]

racists say a lot of things. you can tell that they are lying when you hear them refer tot he president by a racial slur repeatedly or call civil rights "special rights" for black people.

i've learned not to take racists at their word.



except that kicking black people out of your hotel or restaurant or gas station causes harm, and is thus not a right.

maybe try refuting my premises directly some time instead of repeating your tired old racist euphemisms.

Do you believe a person that owns something has the right to determine the use of it as long as the use of it does not take away another persons right to use their own property or body?

I bet you a million gerbil dollars you will NEVER directly answer the question above.

 

[abandonconflict]

We probably come closest to agreement here.


"Permission" should be the default position if a persons actions do not create an actionable harm. If there is such a thing as private property and the right of an individual to own their own body, removing their ability to determine the uses and replacing it with a, "this is what you will do and how you will do it" command doesn't sound like it protects the right of self determination.

Also, as an aside, I have some concerns about which things can justifiably be owned. We probably could have a good discussion on that.

I'm going to the Dominican Republic today, already sitting at the airport actually. I dropped so many seeds yesterday. Viva la revolucion!

By the way, yesterday was the 18th year of the death of one of the greatest musicians in history.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

No you don't. You want to post meme's and pretend you won something on the internet.

oh, no she didn't!

 

[abandonconflict]

View attachment 3162707


oh, no she didn't!

You have yet to post anything of substance.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

have a safe flight.......and enjoy

 

[sheskunk]

I'm going to the Dominican Republic today, already sitting at the airport actually. I dropped so many seeds yesterday. Viva la revolucion!

By the way, yesterday was the 18th year of the death of one of the greatest musicians in history.

He was a redundant junky who couldn't keep clean to save his own life. A real role model.

 

[abandonconflict]

He was a redundant junky who couldn't keep clean to save his own life. A real role model.

Nobody likes you.

 

[sheskunk]

Nobody likes you.

Why are you following me?