USCB Radical feminist porn professor goes nuts
- Thread starter greentrip
- Start date
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
lol'd at this
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You're very funny. I never insulted anybody here, until the likes of you and Cheese dick initiated aggression long ago, likely because I was severely kicking your ass in a "debate". Then after awhile I figured I would return your stupidity with a defensive action. It's a little childish to sink to your level, but I have done it. As far as your yes or no ultimatum, that's really funny, given your dodge ball history and constant tap dancing. I know you think it is sometimes a good thing to initiate aggression, I don't. There's our difference.
You have touched on a sensitive issue which is emotional for many, so I will answer your question, but it's likely you will not be satisfied and will need to go jack off to a Mike Stivic poster.
If a store is closed and you went there to buy gasoline, were you harmed? That's a good question. Your not being able to purchase something that isn't yours may have affected your plans, yet your ownership interest in something you don't own can't possibly have been diminished, since you never owned it. I'll assume the store owners did not come to your property and take your stuff for the purpose of this explanation. Had they done that, they would have caused a harm. Staying on their property and using it as they see fit, EVEN in ways you or I might not, is not our concern.
Until you've purchased it, who does the gasoline belong to? There has been no agreement of exchange made, has there? If a person doesn't consensually agree to make an exchange with somebody, they retain ownership. Simply by owning something, the right of the owner in determining how, when or if that something will be dispositioned is inherent. IF it isn't then there is no such thing as private property.
So, yes it was cruel of the other kids not to invite you to their birthday parties, (maybe not though given your nature) but the recourse should not have been your mom calling the cops to make them or their parents use their property in a way they had chosen not to. That is an act of aggression against THEIR property. You should have had a birthday party on your property and invited all the sock puppet kids and made the best of it. That would be the ONLY moral action you could take. But, NOOOO, you wanted to use other peoples property, even when you weren't welcome there. So you became the aggressor by taking away another right of ownership and self determination to use their stuff as they see fit.
So to your question. If a person pays for a service and they are denied the service they were harmed and they should be restituted. However, in order to obtain the service, the service provider must not be compelled under threats of force to provide that same service though...you miss that point....party pooper.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your answer lies in the past few posts. Your failure to differentiate an active harm and indifference has rendered your question incomplete. Which act are you speaking of and on whose property did it occur? You score a D- on comprehension.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so your answer is "no"? no harm caused, just indifference?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
actually in most of the world, the physician's oaths from most every culture prohibit physicians from helping terminate a pregnancy unless the mother would die from carrying the child to term.
the hippocratic oath does it
the jewish version of the physicians oath does it
the hindu medical oath does it
the ancient chinese medical oath does it
the ancient japanese oath does it
the ancient persian oath does it
etc etc etc.
who decides what a physician can ethically do? ideally, physicians and their ethics do, but now, lawyers do.
and everybody knows lawyer ethics are very much negotiable
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Would you rather a woman gets an abortion safe and legally and goes about her business, or unsafe and illegally and becomes a criminal? Because whether it's legal or not, abortions will happen
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
these prohibitionists are incapable of accepting the reality of things though.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
But not a million and a half every year.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How many is acceptable?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
how many women dying from an unsafe procedure is an acceptable number of dead women for you?
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Why do you want to control what people do?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so let's see.
you hate women, you hate immigrants, you hate gays, you hate muslims, you hate blacks...who does that leave?
are straight white christian males the only ones worthy of having rights in your view?
you brought up changing the law not me
I dont discus matters with lying racist bigots such as yourself so dont waste your time asking
me questions bigot.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
he's not on the side of prohibition and criminalizing women for daring to exercise control over what happens to their own body, a concept you might know as "liberty" or "freedom".
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you're the one that wants to let business deny services to gays just because they are gay, yet i'm the bigot?
enjoy your second ban, toolwoman. you know it's coming soon.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Abortion is currently legal, Red said "a million and a half every year" is unacceptable, so I asked how many was acceptable, and pointed out that even if were illegal, women would still get illegal abortions, which leads to the question of if we should turn those women into criminals and have them undergo less safe procedures instead.
So making abortions illegal would be changing the law
What does what someone else does with their own body in the privacy of their own life have to do with anything but themselves? Why is this at all a societal matter? Why are conservatives so concerned with abortions, drugs, sex, etc? Things people do behind the privacy of closed doors? What does it matter?