Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Lincoln was a kind of separatist and favored deporting freed slaves. Historians paint him as a noble person, yet he caused the death of many many people that did not need to happen when he waged war on people that wanted to disassociate.

If he had allowed the secession to proceed there would have been no legal obligation for people in the northern states to return runaways slaves to their masters.

However the civil war was more about "saving the Union" and consolidating Federal power than it was about setting people free.

I'll pass on the Asian / black penis, but please don't let me stop you from enjoying yourself.
you'd* be a hit over on stormfront with talk like that.













*conditional tense used tentatively
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Yourself be the property of yourself, but not the property of others.

Of course if a person wishes to temporarily consensually rent themself out or sell themself they should be able to on terms that they and the renter agree to.
Ancaps fucking love wage slavery.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Yourself be the property of yourself, but not the property of others.

Of course if a person wishes to temporarily consensually rent themself out or sell themself they should be able to on terms that they and the renter agree to.
Prostitution is what comes to mind in that second paragraph.

In a social structure of your design, since parents effectively own their children. Should a parent be able to rent their child for sexual purposes?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
and since your stance is that i can do what i want with my property, then i can go ahead and punch you right in your old, withered, racist face. amirite?
Not quite there Randy Savage. You can do what you want with your property, but when you use it to initiate aggression against another persons property (their face) it would be wrong, unless it is to defensively repel another.

Is this the part where I get indignant and do an internet flex? I can't wait until we get to that part.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Prostitution is what comes to mind in that second paragraph.

In a social structure of your design, since parents effectively own their children. Should a parent be able to rent their child for sexual purposes?
I'd say no, but what you and your daddy do is none of my business.

Also it could be argued that all people, children included are "owned" by the state apparatus.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Most people do not know the real reasons "free" public schools were implemented.

Certainly, pooling money with like minded people is a good way to benefit from economies of scale.

Forcing people who are not like minded to participate in something on pain of seizure of their home is not such a good thing though eh?
this would not have happened if they were all in the public school online option..
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
this would not have happened if they were all in the public school online option..

Putting a person in the position of being forced to pay for something they do not agree with or they will have their home seized is not something that can be denied as the present mode.

Pointing to a result, whether the result is good or bad does not address the flaw in the origin of how it is funded does it?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Have you ever thought of publishing?
Retired. Might unretire someday, never know.


Mostly, I drink coffee and hang out at Wendy's hoping for a clean bathroom*






* Okay, so I've been working the Wendy's bathroom thing a little too much, but it rubs sand in the vagina of my favorite troll.
 

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
Retired. Might unretire someday, never know..
I was thinking more on the lines of a book full of one liners. I'm not concerned with preserving your views, I can read Rawls et al anytime I like. It's just you have a talent for conveying a great deal in short, staccato sentences with a lot of humour. It's not very common.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I was thinking more on the lines of a book full of one liners. I'm not concerned with preserving your views, I can read Rawls et al anytime I like. It's just you have a talent for conveying a great deal in short, staccato sentences with a lot of humour. It's not very common.
Neither is common sense.

Anyhow, thanks.
 
Top