Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[abandonconflict]

Why are you following me?

I'm not, I'm going around, it just takes a long time.

 

[sheskunk]

I'm not, I'm going around, it just takes a long time.

Leave me alone. You're starting to creep me out.

 

[UncleBuck]

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?

racists don't have the right to cause harm.

you ever gonna try to refute my premises or name me a historian?

 

[londonfog]

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.

Why do you hate laws ??? You just want anarchy

 

[Rob Roy]

racists don't have the right to cause harm.

you ever gonna try to refute my premises or name me a historian?

No racists do not have the right to cause harm, nobody does. You and I agree there.

So when a racist stays on his own property and does not go to the property of another why do you think it is okay to invade the racists property? I think you dance away from that question, because your anger over what another believes still does not give you, me , or anyone the right to do anything to them, UNTIL they invade or lessen the property right of another person.

 

[Rob Roy]

Why do you hate laws ??? You just want anarchy

No. I want the end to coercion. No offense, but you really don't understand my position very well, it springs from following the idea of peace to its logical conclusion.

 

[sheskunk]

No. I want the end to coercion. No offense, but you really don't understand my position very well, it springs from following the idea of peace to its logical conclusion.

I understand your position fully.

And they call me dumb.

 

[UncleBuck]

No racists do not have the right to cause harm, nobody does. You and I agree there.

so you agree with one of my premises, premise 2.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.
premise 2: no one has a right to cause harm, even on their own property.

conclusion: racists' denial of service is not a protected right.

now, we need to see if you agree on premise 1.

you keep trying to say the racists only caused "indifference", not harm. can you find one single historian anywhere who agrees with you?

keep in mind, that's a yes or no question. you don't need to write a long winded reply that rapes the english language.

just tell me whether any historians agree with you with respect to premise 1, yes or no. feel free to list any historians who share your views on premise 1.

 

[NoDrama]

so you agree with one of my premises, premise 2.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.
premise 2: no one has a right to cause harm, even on their own property.

conclusion: racists' denial of service is not a protected right.

now, we need to see if you agree on premise 1.

you keep trying to say the racists only caused "indifference", not harm. can you find one single historian anywhere who agrees with you?

keep in mind, that's a yes or no question. you don't need to write a long winded reply that rapes the english language.

just tell me whether any historians agree with you with respect to premise 1, yes or no. feel free to list any historians who share your views on premise 1.

So if a guy runs out of gas and the owner of the gas station won't sell him any? How has the owner caused harm? The owner didn't cause the car to run out of gas. The owner did not force that customer to try and purchase gas. Do you go to gas stations that are closed and because they are closed cannot sell you any gas, does this harm you somehow? If you go past the local deli and see a "Closed" sign in the window, do you get your lawyers to sue them for actionable harm against you because they surely MUST be harming you if you aren't able to buy their products.

Please explain how you are harmed, if unable we will assume no harm has come to you due to these stores being closed and will just assume you know nothing as usual?

 

[MuyLocoNC]

so you agree with one of my premises, premise 2.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.
premise 2: no one has a right to cause harm, even on their own property.

conclusion: racists' denial of service is not a protected right.

now, we need to see if you agree on premise 1.

you keep trying to say the racists only caused "indifference", not harm. can you find one single historian anywhere who agrees with you?

keep in mind, that's a yes or no question. you don't need to write a long winded reply that rapes the english language.

just tell me whether any historians agree with you with respect to premise 1, yes or no. feel free to list any historians who share your views on premise 1.

Since when does the opinion of "historians" have ANY bearing on whether or not he is correct? Always trying to frame the debate in your own little parameters. Other than you, who the fuck appointed historians as the arbiters of what determines harm?

About as meaningful as this:

Just tell me whether any submarine cooks agree with you with respect to premise 1, yes or no. feel free to list any submarine cooks who share your views on premise 1.

Clown shoes.

 

[londonfog]

So if a guy runs out of gas and the owner of the gas station won't sell him any? How has the owner caused harm? The owner didn't cause the car to run out of gas. The owner did not force that customer to try and purchase gas. Do you go to gas stations that are closed and because they are closed cannot sell you any gas, does this harm you somehow? If you go past the local deli and see a "Closed" sign in the window, do you get your lawyers to sue them for actionable harm against you because they surely MUST be harming you if you aren't able to buy their products.

Please explain how you are harmed, if unable we will assume no harm has come to you due to these stores being closed and will just assume you know nothing as usual?

Racist store owner owns a store with a pharmacy. Man goes in to get a prescription filled. Denied service. Next pharmacy is 75 miles away. Man goes in the gas station to get gas for his trip to the next pharmacy. again denied service by another racist. Man unable to get prescription filled. Man dies due to blood pressure not being regulated by his medicine that he could not get.

 

[UncleBuck]

So if a guy runs out of gas and the owner of the gas station won't sell him any? How has the owner caused harm? The owner didn't cause the car to run out of gas. The owner did not force that customer to try and purchase gas. Do you go to gas stations that are closed and because they are closed cannot sell you any gas, does this harm you somehow? If you go past the local deli and see a "Closed" sign in the window, do you get your lawyers to sue them for actionable harm against you because they surely MUST be harming you if you aren't able to buy their products.

Please explain how you are harmed, if unable we will assume no harm has come to you due to these stores being closed and will just assume you know nothing as usual?

Since when does the opinion of "historians" have ANY bearing on whether or not he is correct? Always trying to frame the debate in your own little parameters. Other than you, who the fuck appointed historians as the arbiters of what determines harm?

About as meaningful as this:

Just tell me whether any submarine cooks agree with you with respect to premise 1, yes or no. feel free to list any submarine cooks who share your views on premise 1.

Clown shoes.

do either of you two dumb-dumbs want to just come out and say that denial of service to blacks did not cause any harm?

because it sounds like that's what both of you are implying, but are too chickenshit and cowardly to just come right out and actually say it because you know how ridiculous it would be to actually state such a thing.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

do either of you two dumb-dumbs want to just come out and say that denial of service to blacks did not cause any harm?

because it sounds like that's what both of you are implying, but are too chickenshit and cowardly to just come right out and actually say it because you know how ridiculous it would be to actually state such a thing.

Do you ever initiate a post that doesn't jump to a wild conclusion? I didn't comment on whether I agree with your premises, I simply had beef with the lame-brain way you were trying to frame the debate, as usual.

But, thank you for implying I'm a racist. Now we won't have to see you include me in the "RIU members I don't call racist" list to make your point you don't call all your opponents racists. And you picked an awesome example to disparage me with...my saying historians aren't the arbiters of harm. Cause that's fucking racist, for sure.

 

[UncleBuck]

Do you ever initiate a post that doesn't jump to a wild conclusion? I didn't comment on whether I agree with your premises, I simply had beef with the lame-brain way you were trying to frame the debate, as usual.

But, thank you for implying I'm a racist. Now we won't have to see you include me in the "RIU members I don't call racist" list to make your point you don't call all your opponents racists. And you picked an awesome example to disparage me with...my saying historians aren't the arbiters of harm. Cause that's fucking racist, for sure.

where did i imply that you were racist?

i only implied that you seemed to be chickenshit and cowardly and pussyfooting around the question.

did it cause harm? is my premise off?

 

[NoDrama]

Racist store owner owns a store with a pharmacy. Man goes in to get a prescription filled. Denied service. Next pharmacy is 75 miles away. Man goes in the gas station to get gas for his trip to the next pharmacy. again denied service by another racist. Man unable to get prescription filled. Man dies due to blood pressure not being regulated by his medicine that he could not get.

Man, realizing racists own the store, has a white friend get it for him.

Wow hypothetical situations are fun.

 

[UncleBuck]

Man, realizing racists own the store, has a white friend get it for him.

Wow hypothetical situations are fun.

seriously, why didn't more white people just help black people?

you are a genius.

 

[NoDrama]

do either of you two dumb-dumbs want to just come out and say that denial of service to blacks did not cause any harm?

because it sounds like that's what both of you are implying, but are too chickenshit and cowardly to just come right out and actually say it because you know how ridiculous it would be to actually state such a thing.

Not at all, we just want you to actually back up your claim with some evidence, not wild hypothetical situations. Why is that so hard for you to do, I am sure there are plenty of historians with first hand accounts of many blacks instantly dying the moment they were refused service at the local watering hole. Thousands if not millions I am sure, why you won't just produce one is beyond me to reason why.

 

[NoDrama]

seriously, why didn't more white people just help black people?

you are a genius.

Almost as dumb as there only being two pharmacies within 75 miles of each other and a man dying from not getting his blood pressure meds. almost.

Seriously, if you are so fucking dependent on medication that you will die within a few hours of not getting it, moving to a place where none is available is pretty stupid.

 

[UncleBuck]

Not at all, we just want you to actually back up your claim with some evidence, not wild hypothetical situations. Why is that so hard for you to do, I am sure there are plenty of historians with first hand accounts of many blacks instantly dying the moment they were refused service at the local watering hole. Thousands if not millions I am sure, why you won't just produce one is beyond me to reason why.

so my claim that denial of service harmed blacks is incredible to you? you have never seen any evidence of this?

wow.

 

[UncleBuck]

Almost as dumb as there only being two pharmacies within 75 miles of each other and a man dying from not getting his blood pressure meds. almost.

Seriously, if you are so fucking dependent on medication that you will die within a few hours of not getting it, moving to a place where none is available is pretty stupid.

just beautiful. you are so smart.