Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

[NoDrama]

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

wow.

What? Do things have to be considered incredible for you to be expected to perform what you would of anyone else? Integrity, lacking.

 

[NoDrama]

just beautiful. you are so smart.

You mean London, he is the one that came up with that scenario and then tried to pass it off as plausible. I can take no credit at all for that blunder. London is your ally in this isn't he?

 

[Harrekin]

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.

Clearly someone should setup a non-discriminatory pharmacy in the middle, and clean up.

Where have America's entrepreneurs gone?

 

[londonfog]

Clearly someone should setup a non-discriminatory pharmacy in the middle, and clean up.

Where have America's entrepreneurs gone?

You should visit Mississippi or Alabama

 

[Rob Roy]

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.

You ignore one of the important WHO's that caused harm. You have a bad case of wanting it both ways. You correctly see the aggression when the KKK pulls shit by applying force, but you cast a blind eye when others apply force.

Some racists actions caused actionable harms obviously, This happened when they LEFT their property and went to another persons property or onto "public property" and initiated aggression against people they did not like.

Essentially the government did the same thing (create an actionable harm) as the KKK when they went to peoples private property legislatively and redefined what private property is. The government did this when they changed the nature of some private property from owner controlled to government controlled. You somehow give government a pass when THEY initiate an actionable harm.

There are two sets of circumstances that can occur, when people associate.

It can be a consensual and peaceful association where both parties agree to engage or NOT to engage if one of the parties prefers not to.

Or it can be an association where one party applies force to make the engagement happen regardless if the other party wants it to occur or not. This is the tactic you prefer, and advocate - FORCED ASSOCIATION . Well, you prefer this tactic when it suits your argument anyway.

If any entity, a coercive government, you, me, the KKK, a black panther, the Pink Panther, a horde of marauding gerbils or a walking catfish with a bulbous erection forces an association, they are committing an actionable harm. THIS IS YOUR METHOD.

The second set of circumstances is when any entity does not force an association, instead they seek to avoid an association.
Peace is maintained when people seek to DISENGAGE and are allowed to.
THIS IS NOT YOUR METHOD, to allow people to disengage peacefully. You spank the KKK rightfully when they force an association, you ignore it when the Nanny state forces an association.

To admonish an act when it is committed by one entity and to embrace it when committed by another....hmmm what does that make a person???? Hmmm....Oh yeah....it makes you a hypocrite.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

fireman here to spray petrol on flames.

 

[Rob Roy]

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.

A man takes an extra helping of viagra because he has a new shipment of blow up dolls coming in from Somalia. He hops on one of his 3 harleys and runs down to UPS to pick them up. On the trip to UPS, he gets a huge won't go away bulbous erection (he's really excited) and seeks to relieve himself of the pressure or he fears he will die.

Does that person have a right to make another person use their private property or body to relieve him of a physical symptom he is suffering from? If he sees a gay woman that has a vagina that could "save" him, is she required to associate with him?

Is it the gay womans fault for not assisting this person she doesn't want to associate with if he suffers a burst nut?

Obviously this is an absurd illustration, but it does point out one thing. Just because a person has something you might want, it only rightfully becomes yours after a consensual agreement is made.

Also, any person engaged in commerce that denied service to another person on a racial basis could not have survived unless the entire racist culture was not supported and actively held in place by a coercive racist government.

 

[Rob Roy]

Clearly someone should setup a non-discriminatory pharmacy in the middle, and clean up.

Where have America's entrepreneurs gone?

The Free market solves the problem again!

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I'm torn betwixt my ethos, and logos on the issue...................

 

[londonfog]

A man takes an extra helping of viagra because he has a new shipment of blow up dolls coming in from Somalia. He hops on one of his 3 harleys and runs down to UPS to pick them up. On the trip to UPS, he gets a huge won't go away bulbous erection (he's really excited) and seeks to relieve himself of the pressure or he fears he will die.

Does that person have a right to make another person use their private property or body to relieve him of a physical symptom he is suffering from? If he sees a gay woman that has a vagina that could "save" him, is she required to associate with him?

Is it the gay womans fault for not assisting this person she doesn't want to associate with if he suffers a burst nut?

Obviously this is an absurd illustration, but it does point out one thing. Just because a person has something you might want, it only rightfully becomes yours after a consensual agreement is made.

Also, any person engaged in commerce that denied service to another person on a racial basis could not have survived unless the entire racist culture was not supported and actively held in place by a coercive racist government.

Seems like a story you can relate with

 

[Rob Roy]

Seems like a story you can relate with

If you really think about it, the whole premise of your example rests on the nature of a relationship that you assume is correct.
Government intervention via the prescription has created a false scarcity in the market.

Why must a person have government approved "permission" (a prescription) in the first place? Shouldn't products people need or want be available to them as long as they can find somebody willing to provide that product to them on an agreed basis absent any unwanted third party intervention?

Also, I think based on your reply you assume I approve of all the choices others make about their own property. That is not correct. In the case you mentioned, I think it is foolish for a business person to NOT serve a willing and able customer based on race. I just think the choice of who you and I associate with, cannot be imposed on us. If it is imposed on us, then we have no freedom of association. When people have no right or ability to disassociate,,,,what would you call it?

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm torn betwixt my ethos, and logos on the issue...................

I don't know the name of the third Musketeer either...

 

[Rob Roy]

You should visit Mississippi or Alabama

Or Louisiana during a flood if you want to see government racism in action.

Not to mention 2nd amendment violations.

 

[UncleBuck]

You ignore one of the important WHO's that caused harm. You have a bad case of wanting it both ways. You correctly see the aggression when the KKK pulls shit by applying force, but you cast a blind eye when others apply force.

Some racists actions caused actionable harms obviously, This happened when they LEFT their property and went to another persons property or onto "public property" and initiated aggression against people they did not like.

Essentially the government did the same thing (create an actionable harm) as the KKK when they went to peoples private property legislatively and redefined what private property is. The government did this when they changed the nature of some private property from owner controlled to government controlled. You somehow give government a pass when THEY initiate an actionable harm.

There are two sets of circumstances that can occur, when people associate.

It can be a consensual and peaceful association where both parties agree to engage or NOT to engage if one of the parties prefers not to.

Or it can be an association where one party applies force to make the engagement happen regardless if the other party wants it to occur or not. This is the tactic you prefer, and advocate - FORCED ASSOCIATION . Well, you prefer this tactic when it suits your argument anyway.

If any entity, a coercive government, you, me, the KKK, a black panther, the Pink Panther, a horde of marauding gerbils or a walking catfish with a bulbous erection forces an association, they are committing an actionable harm. THIS IS YOUR METHOD.

The second set of circumstances is when any entity does not force an association, instead they seek to avoid an association.
Peace is maintained when people seek to DISENGAGE and are allowed to.
THIS IS NOT YOUR METHOD, to allow people to disengage peacefully. You spank the KKK rightfully when they force an association, you ignore it when the Nanny state forces an association.

To admonish an act when it is committed by one entity and to embrace it when committed by another....hmmm what does that make a person???? Hmmm....Oh yeah....it makes you a hypocrite.

it was actually a yes or no question. you wrote a fucking novel though, like the idiot you are.

premise 1: racists' denial of service based on skin color caused harm.


is premise 1 correct? type "yes" or "no".

 

[UncleBuck]

I just think the choice of who you and I associate with, cannot be imposed on us. If it is imposed on us, then we have no freedom of association.

so you think freedom of association is dead because you have to serve blacks at your gas station?

sounds like something a white separatist would say.

When people have no right or ability to disassociate,,,,what would you call it?

you do have the right and ability to disassociate though. keep your racist ass at home and put a "no negroes allowed" sign at the front of your driveway, rob.

 

[Rob Roy]

Does forcing people to use their property or body to serve another person they would prefer not to cause an actionable harm?

Should people that are remaining on their property be able to disassociate from others or should other people be able to make them meet their needs and wants?

Lots of questions....lots of green crayon and very few answers.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

I don't know the name of the third Musketeer either...

Menthos........the one with the fresh breath

 

[Rob Roy]

so you think freedom of association is dead because you have to serve blacks at your gas station?

sounds like something a white separatist would say.



you do have the right and ability to disassociate though. keep your racist ass at home and put a "no negroes allowed" sign at the front of your driveway, rob.

I don't care to disassociate due to a persons race. However I don't care to make other people use their body or their property in ways that I think they should. That would be running their life for them when they alone should make those choices as long as they are not committing an actionable harm against another person or their property.

You, like a true Prohibitionist prefer to use the force of a coercive government to tell people how they will use themselves. Harry Anslinger would be proud of you.

 

[Rob Roy]

racists don't have the right to cause harm.

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

Thomas E. Woods Jr.

You're right racists don't have the right to cause (initiate) harm. Neither does a coercive government, a gay person, a KKK member, a black person or a Wendy's patron doing the "I really have to take a shit" dance. Now go clean the litter box.

 

[UncleBuck]

Thomas E. Woods Jr.

lol, a neo-confederate white supremacist.



good one, robby. now go clean your room.