Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

UncleBuck said:

yes, we know you love to defend racists. they are just "leaving others alone" when they deny service to blacks, right?

totally peaceful, causing no harm, right?

care to name a few historians who share your view that those racist business owners caused no harm by denying service to blacks?

thanks again.

Click to expand...

If you don't want to associate with somebody and remain on your property it seems that your ability to initiate aggression against another is very limited. You are not only a prohibitionist, now you are a wearing thought police badge.

Just to be clear. I don't think you are a gerbil lover, but if you were and you had a trained consenting gerbil that you got your freak on with I'd defend your right to do so, even while having no love for what you are doing.

So, no, I don't defend racists, I defend everyones right to think what they want, but not to act out those thoughts if they include initiating aggression. We differ there. You think people are committing aggression by seeking to disassociate, I bet your gerbil has a better grasp of some concepts than you do.

Also, I'm kicking your ass so hard gerbil guts are coming out of your mouth.

UncleBuck said:

if i can't argue, then why have you yet to name a single historian who will side with you?

if you're not a racist, then why do you compare a black person trying to buy a sandwich to a KKK lynch mob? why do you call the president by racial slurs? why do you call steps towards equality "special rights" for black people"?

want me to bring out the quotes again where you repeatedly call the president by racial slurs?

Click to expand...

I didn't compare a lynch mob to a sandwich buyer. You did. They are distinctly separate instances and circumstances. One involves an act of aggression, that would be the KKK.

The other may or not involve an act of aggression depending upon the status of the relationship between the sandwich maker and the prospective buyer. Absent a consensual agreement, the sandwich buyer cannot force the sandwich maker to serve him and claim neutrality, UNLESS, they have an agreement. An agreement takes two....unless you're a rapist or a person that doesn't recognize anothers right to disassociate.

Historians say seven out of ten alimentary canal blockages are caused by tunneling gerbils.

Rob Roy said:

I defend a racists...

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

So, no, I don't defend racists...

Click to expand...

make up your retarded mind.

Rob Roy said:

Also, I'm kicking your ass so hard gerbil guts are coming out of your mouth.

Click to expand...

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.




good job on declaring victory, now try to refute the premises.

Rob Roy said:

When people do not want to permit somebody onto their property and the disallowed person insists on being there....hmmm....sounds like the disallowed person is using the same tactic as the KKK.

Click to expand...

Rob Roy said:

I didn't compare a lynch mob to a sandwich buyer.

Click to expand...

so you want to claim now that we have not been talking about civil rights this whole time, and your fiercely racist opposition to it?

your entire argument literally depends on denying known history. it's a shitty argument, even as far as racist arguments go.

take heart though, stormfront has a dating section now. i'm sure you can find a hot date there and drop the gerbil fascination.

Rob Roy said:

Also, I'm kicking your ass so hard gerbil guts are coming out of your mouth.

Click to expand...

No you aren't.

You are demonstrating clearly that private property is aggressive. As in, inconsistent with the non aggression principle. You are demonstrating that THE ONLY REASON TO OWN A THING IS TO DISCRIMINATE.

You are a feudalist.

The earth is our common heritage.

at least he declared victory.

UncleBuck said:

at least he declared victory.

Click to expand...

He doesn't revolution.

UncleBuck said:

if i can't argue, then why have you yet to name a single historian who will side with you?

if you're not a racist, then why do you compare a black person trying to buy a sandwich to a KKK lynch mob? why do you call the president by racial slurs? why do you call steps towards equality "special rights" for black people"?

want me to bring out the quotes again where you repeatedly call the president by racial slurs?

Click to expand...

I try to treat people as individuals. I try to respect an individuals right to use their body and property as they see fit. You do not.

I know the difference between an actionable act that causes harm and indifference. You need some work there.


Also, you're putting a lot of weight on the term Mulatto. If it is offensive to you my nigga, what would you call a mixed race person?
Oh, you'd call him "black". Some of the KKK idiots probably share your belief that one drop of black blood makes him "black" or that very very very bad word that starts with n.

Special rights are "created" when coercive government usurps a persons right to self determination and sets up rules on how a person may behave on their own property or how they can use their own body. People of all races are affected by this.
It is the same rationale for prohibition which you defend, that is where a coercive government can determine what you will or won't do with your own body or property.

If implementing equality is the goal, all peoples right to self determination should be protected. Instead you try to protect access to peoples private property against their will. That action disregards the rights of the property owner.

abandonconflict said:

He doesn't revolution.

Click to expand...

Che whiz.

Say property a few more times.

abandonconflict said:

And therefore ownership of oneself can transfer to another person...

Click to expand...

Consent and agreement are important things to consider. I think if a person has "self ownership" it implies that no other can give their consent for them or the consent is fraudulent.

abandonconflict said:

Say property a few more times.

Click to expand...

I assume you own clothing? Is it yours or did you steal them? Aren't your clothes your property?

What can a person own ? What can't or shouldn't another person own?

Rob Roy said:

Consent and agreement are important things to consider. I think if a person has "self ownership" it implies that no other can give their consent for them or the consent is fraudulent.

Click to expand...

You also completely ignore the coercion that a person faces when they are in a system where resources and infrastructure are privately owned.

They have a single choice to make. Rent themselves out or starve.

That is the liberty offered by voluntaryism.

Rob Roy said:

I know the difference between an actionable act that causes harm and indifference.

Click to expand...

care to name one single historian that agrees with you then?

Rob Roy said:

Also, you're putting a lot of weight on the term Mulatto.

Click to expand...

imagine that. you use a racial slur and i call you out on it.

Rob Roy said:

I If it is offensive to you my nigga, what would you call a mixed race person?

Click to expand...

mixed race or biracial.

Rob Roy said:

IOh, you'd call him "black".

Click to expand...

if they self identify as black, i sure would.

that's part of the whole "respecting individuals" thing you claim to do, only to turn around and call them by antiquated racial slurs.

Rob Roy said:

Special rights

Click to expand...

racists call them "special rights". the rest of us call them "civil rights".

why don't you work on something more simple, like refuting my simple, straightforward premises and the conclusion we derive from them.

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.

Rob Roy said:

What can't or shouldn't another person own?

Click to expand...

Power over others.

UncleBuck said:

care to name one single historian that agrees with you then?




imagine that. you use a racial slur and i call you out on it.




mixed race or biracial.




if they self identify as black, i sure would.

that's part of the whole "respecting individuals" thing you claim to do, only to turn around and call them by antiquated racial slurs.




racists call them "special rights". the rest of us call them "civil rights".

why don't you work on something more simple, like refuting my simple, straightforward premises and the conclusion we derive from them.

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.

Click to expand...

Is the right to controlling your own property and your own body worth protecting ? I think it is.

You have confused granted privileges from government with rights. Nobody has a right to steal your gerbil and you shouldn't let them.

Your premise is saying that failing to provide something for somebody is an actionable harm. I'm kind of hungry right now, could you run down to Wendy's and pick me up a large fry and some burgers? The government said you can't deny me a service.


Of course nobody has a right to cause harm. Everybody has the right to be indifferent though. HEY, where's my fucking burger??!!! Are you just going to sit there and be indifferent to my needs, you fucking racist!!

abandonconflict said:

Power over others.

Click to expand...

That's an incomplete reply. What CAN people own?

Rob Roy said:

That's an incomplete reply. What CAN people own?

Click to expand...

You're starting to sound like a broken record bro.

Is property the only thing that matters to ancaps?

abandonconflict said:

You're starting to sound like a broken record bro.

Is property the only thing that matters to ancaps?

Click to expand...

private property rights and no initiation of force.........that about covers it.

if I was black I would DESIRE being denied service in a racist's establishment; I wouldn't want to support his, or her, business.