he was just a young buck then.
Teacher fired for breaking up fight.
- Thread starter ginwilly
- Start date
correct. legally, the only time you can be considered property is your lifeless body which indeed becomes quasi-property.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the only problem is that you are a person that supports denying service to black people because they are black, call the president by racial slurs, and call equality for all "special rights for blacks".
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I believe in free air.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
that's about all that's left
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. I do not support or deny the particular actions people do with their own property as long as they do not do things to OTHERS property that the owner of said property doesn't want them to do.
What other people do with themselves isn't my business, your business or the business of an egotistical dipshit that presides over the largest prison population the world has ever known.
I support the right of a person, regardless of race or gender not to be forced to use their body or their property in ways they'd prefer not to. Which means I support the freedom of the individual, EVERY ONE OF THEM, to own themselves but not to own or take away the same right of others to own themselves.
You support taking away a property right , I support protecting it.
I do not support racist ideas, but I don't think it is my or your right and certainly not the right of a coercive government to inflict an actionable harm against somebody or take away their right of self determination if they have not aggressed against another person or that other persons property. You advocate PROSECUTING THOUGHT CRIMES.
You support a coercive government arranging relationships and threatening force if a person doesn't use their body and/or property in ways that a coercive government has told them they must or mustn't depending on the particular circumstances.
Following your philosophy wherein one party can make another associate, YOU SUPPORT the same business model used to create arranged marriages, prohibition and slavery. You can avoid defending your philosophy, but it is there beaming back at you from your cognitive dissonance mirror every morning when you wipe the gerbil lipstick off your mug.
Please explain how a person can own something, (themselves) and how another person can make them serve them and use their resources in ways they'd prefer not to and it is not an act of aggression against the person that doesn't want to associate. I hope you do not support rapist tactics in human interactions.
p.s. - I think you missed a spot of lipstick on your chin.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Please explain how people are not "owned" at least in some degree and the relationship this has to marijuana prohibition.
If you don't own yourself, somebody else does.
Figuratively you lick the boots of the coercive gang of thieves that owns you on a regular basis. If you want to concede ownership of yourself that's your right, why do you think it is your right to force others to be owned as well ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
I'm sure some capitalist is working hard to privatize the atmosphere.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
says the guy who opposes civil rights, which finally gave blacks legal recourse against the racism and discrimination they faced for so long.
the same guy who opposes civil rights also repeatedly calls the president by racial slurs.
but totally not racist somehow.
still waiting for you to show me where your white supremacist group founding buddy states that denial of service to blacks did not cause harm.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I oppose things that violate any and all persons right to peaceful self determination. You support at least some things that oppose a persons right of self determination. Strike one.
In the context I pointed out your presidents ethnicity I think I was correcting you. He was referred to as "black", probably by you, he's not. I didn't call him a racial slur, I said his race is mixed, I used the term mulatto. I asked you if that was a slur, was I slurring his white half or his black half. You, of course never answered that inquiry. Strike two.
How many gerbil dollars do you want to bet I can get you to swing wildly at the next one whiffer boy? You ready to strike out on a Thomas Woods curve or do you want to keep standing around sniffing the jock straps and throwing like a girl?
Thomas Woods is not my buddy, but he is a historian isn't he?
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
anyone that says folks, for numerous reasons, will not be harmed by the removal government, at first, is not being realistic. it does harm the black, in many cases, not to be able to purchase that gas. he ran out, he needs to go to the hospital, whatever. its wrong of the station owner to refuse the black man service because of his race,morally, but its his right, if there truly is freedom. there will be many a bloody nose, and house for sale, and nasty stink-eyes cast.
but I don't think it will be Rwanda. and if it is.......that's what it really is. freedom is not going to be all honey, and chocolate. its going to be a process. if "Civil Rights," exist because of Uncle's gun, they are a lie, and will turn to mayhem, if Uncle gets busy elsewhere. we need to live together because we want to, not because we are forced to.
but I don't think it will be Rwanda. and if it is.......that's what it really is. freedom is not going to be all honey, and chocolate. its going to be a process. if "Civil Rights," exist because of Uncle's gun, they are a lie, and will turn to mayhem, if Uncle gets busy elsewhere. we need to live together because we want to, not because we are forced to.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Not really. Property in many cases is a just proposition if it was made by the owner or acquired via a consensual trade. Does the farmer own his crops and the food he produces?
You also fail to explain how forcing people to associate is just.....don't people have the right to disassociate from those they would like to disassociate from ?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Thanks but I disagree. My prior statement was correct. Property requires force in most cases. When segregation and discrimination are present, it always requires force. If you just need a little corner of your mom's basement to be alone, go ahead bro.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
A person farms unoccupied land. He labors long and hard, who owns the produce? Does the farmer have a right to defend "his" property from another ?
Segregation can be based on lots of things that have nothing to do with race. Forcing people to associate ALWAYS requires force.
Whether or not to leave people alone provides a choice, NOT using force is one of those choices.
Also let's leave out the gerbils and moms basements for a bit okay? Besides it's a walkout basement.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
If it requires force, it's not a good idea.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
since when do people have the right to harm others?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what about the black person who wants to "peacefully self determine" himself a full tank of gas?
woooooops.
the president self-identifies as black and mulatto is a racial slur, you dumb fucking coot.
you still have not shown me where he claims that denial of service does not cause harm, you retarded old fuck.
WORDZofWORDZCRAFT
Well-Known Member
Definition of MULATTO
1
: the first-generation offspring of a black person and a white person
2
: a person of mixed white and black ancestry
Definition of NIGGER
1
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person
2
usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3
: a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons <it's time for somebody to lead all of America's niggers … all the people who feel left out of the political process — Ron Dellums
why didn't websters racist ass mention that mulatto is an offensive term?