USCB Radical feminist porn professor goes nuts

[UncleBuck]

No. It's where all peaceful people get to use their body and their justly acquired property as they see fit as long as they don't deprive others of the use of their body or their property.

Thanks for asking though. By the way what size are those shoes? They're enormous. Why do you have a bulbous red nose?

didn't your version of "property rights", which include the right to deny service based on skin color like we saw in the south before civil rights, cause demonstrable harm to blacks?

or would you like to reject the notion that blacks were caused harm by your version of "property rights"?

well, i guess you have to reject the notion that blacks were harmed by denial of service, otherwise it wouldn't be a "property right", since rights do not include harming others.

 

[UncleBuck]

Graceful sidestep.

I was hoping to quote your boy Milton.

robroy is afraid to answer questions.

 

[schuylaar]

didn't your version of "property rights", which include the right to deny service based on skin color like we saw in the south before civil rights, cause demonstrable harm to blacks?

or would you like to reject the notion that blacks were caused harm by your version of "property rights"?

well, i guess you have to reject the notion that blacks were harmed by denial of service, otherwise it wouldn't be a "property right", since rights do not include harming others.

i'll answer for RR..YES!

 

[schuylaar]

robroy is afraid to answer questions.

he'll be back with meme.

 

[UncleBuck]

he's off jerking it to lysander spooner and composing a manifesto about his utopia, studiously avoiding cleaning his room.

 

[desert dude]

didn't your version of "property rights", which include the right to deny service based on skin color like we saw in the south before civil rights, cause demonstrable harm to blacks?

or would you like to reject the notion that blacks were caused harm by your version of "property rights"?

well, i guess you have to reject the notion that blacks were harmed by denial of service, otherwise it wouldn't be a "property right", since rights do not include harming others.

Blacks are so lucky to have a sensitive guy like you looking out for them. Take care of them, Buck. Where would they be without you?

 

[UncleBuck]

Blacks are so lucky to have a sensitive guy like you looking out for them. Take care of them, Buck. Where would they be without you?

i think blacks are even luckier to have folks like you around. i'm pretty sure that they appreciate knowing that you will always be there to argue against civil rights, seeing as how being denied service for the color of their skin is so great and all.

keep fighting the good fight!

and hey, why do you suddenly no longer spam rawn pawl endlessly on these forums? is his message junk now that the old man retired after funneling your money bombs to his family during his failure and joke of a campaign?

 

[Rob Roy]

didn't your version of "property rights", which include the right to deny service based on skin color like we saw in the south before civil rights, cause demonstrable harm to blacks?

or would you like to reject the notion that blacks were caused harm by your version of "property rights"?

well, i guess you have to reject the notion that blacks were harmed by denial of service, otherwise it wouldn't be a "property right", since rights do not include harming others.

Denial of a service ? Were you the kid in the neighborhood that never got invited to birthday parties lil Bucky? I bet you were. You may have felt bad, but you see the other kids could decide who they wanted at their birthday party, that was their right. If they crashed YOUR birthday party without an invite that would be wrong.

The line is specific. You own you and your stuff. Others don't. People are harmed when there is an act against them or their property, not when they are "denied" the use of things that do not belong to them.

Who is denied the use of your stuff or why does not change the fact that "your stuff" is your stuff. I know you have your heart in the right place, so the easiest solution to racism is to put the racist business owner out of business by going elsewhere. I'll also remind you that your government was the biggest perpetrator when it came to racism. Have a nice day
and really see a therapist and let those birthday party non invites go. It's not healthy to stew over those things.

 

[Rob Roy]

Graceful sidestep.

I was hoping to quote your boy Milton.

Go ahead and quote him. I do not wholesale embrace anybody as "my boy".

To be clear, I think a guaranteed income is founded in coercion, therefore I reject it.

 

[Olears]

mmmmmmm boner

 

[greentrip]

above image unrelated to people mentioned in forum article.

 

[UncleBuck]

Denial of a service ? Were you the kid in the neighborhood that never got invited to birthday parties lil Bucky? I bet you were. You may have felt bad, but you see the other kids could decide who they wanted at their birthday party, that was their right. If they crashed YOUR birthday party without an invite that would be wrong.

you're comparing the denial of service that blacks endured in the pre-civil rights south to not being invited to a child's birthday party?

there's that trademark lack of perspective that you are so infamous for.

People are harmed when there is an act against them

like the act of being denied access to the same set of services and goods based on the color of their skin?

Who is denied the use of your stuff or why does not change the fact that "your stuff" is your stuff.

we're not talking about the impressive collection of lysander spooner worship material scattered about your messy room, we're talking about businesses that are 'open to the public'.

when you advertise "your stuff" as being "available to the public" and then deny anyone who is publicly black (or gay, GO ARIZONA! amirite?), that's a different story.

for the philosopher you claim to be, you sure do suck at making distinctions, especially such simple ones.

the easiest solution to racism is to put the racist business owner out of business by going elsewhere.

you know that didn't work, right?

not only do you lack perspective entirely and are unable to make simple distinctions, but you are an unrepentant historical revisionist.

blacks were mocked and tormented by whites during the sit-ins. in some places of the south and out in tennessee, they were violently confronted and beaten.

you can attempt to revise history, you can turn a blind eye to important distinctions, you can keep your lack of perspective, and you can refuse to answer a simple straightforward question from me about whther or not the racist practices of the pre-civil rights south caused harm, but it only makes you appear even stupider than we all already know you are.

 

[UncleBuck]

above image unrelated to people mentioned in forum article.

you do know that came directly from the group's facebook page, right?

you do know that the girl in that image is one of the two girls who chased down the pregnant professor and assaulted her to get their sign back, right?

https://www.facebook.com/WeAreSurvivors

 

[Rob Roy]

you're comparing the denial of service that blacks endured in the pre-civil rights south to not being invited to a child's birthday party?

there's that trademark lack of perspective that you are so infamous for.



like the act of being denied access to the same set of services and goods based on the color of their skin?



we're not talking about the impressive collection of lysander spooner worship material scattered about your messy room, we're talking about businesses that are 'open to the public'.

when you advertise "your stuff" as being "available to the public" and then deny anyone who is publicly black (or gay, GO ARIZONA! amirite?), that's a different story.

for the philosopher you claim to be, you sure do suck at making distinctions, especially such simple ones.



you know that didn't work, right?

not only do you lack perspective entirely and are unable to make simple distinctions, but you are an unrepentant historical revisionist.

blacks were mocked and tormented by whites during the sit-ins. in some places of the south and out in tennessee, they were violently confronted and beaten.

you can attempt to revise history, you can turn a blind eye to important distinctions, you can keep your lack of perspective, and you can refuse to answer a simple straightforward question from me about whther or not the racist practices of the pre-civil rights south caused harm, but it only makes you appear even stupider than we all already know you are.

So, you didn't get invited? Well it's no wonder the other kids were probably afraid you'd shit on the floor, your not understanding property rights and all.

A harm is an act that causes another to lose control of his/her self or causes damage to them. You confuse an active harm with a neutral indifference. That's your weak link and what makes you a proponent of initiating aggression under the guise of doing good. You conflate indifference into active harm and gloss over that. Then you tell the indifferent party you must use your property in a certain way, which of course victimizes the property owner.

I know you probably don't understand the difference between indifference and an active harm, so I'll just let you wear the clown shoes a little longer. Also you forgot to call me a racist.

 

[UncleBuck]

You confuse an active harm with a neutral indifference.

so let me see if i have this straight: you claim that the racist practices of the pre-civil rights south did not cause active harm to blacks, but was rather simply neutrally indifferent to them, causing no harm?

is that correct?

Also you forgot to call me a racist.

for someone like you who fancies himself a philosopher, you also suck at implications.

because i implied it the whole time, ya racist.

 

[Rob Roy]

so let me see if i have this straight: you claim that the racist practices of the pre-civil rights south did not cause active harm to blacks, but was rather simply neutrally indifferent to them, causing no harm?

is that correct?



for someone like you who fancies himself a philosopher, you also suck at implications.

because i implied it the whole time, ya racist.

No. You linked two possibly separate things. You like to do that, when you try to tell others what they think.

Racist practices that involved a person denying another person a property right caused harm. That's self evident.

However when you are using your property and only your property and not denying another the same, you are engaging in a practice that does not cause harm. The abuse is when you deny another the right to their property or you agress against them in a way that causes an active harm. Choosing not to interact with somebody is not aggression. People that don't want to interact with somebody should not be forced to...why do you champion rapist tactics?

I am not fancy, my slippers have holes in them and the flannel shirt is tattered...but the litter box is clean.

 

[UncleBuck]

No. You linked two possibly separate things.

all i did was apply your definitions of "active harm" and "neutral indifference".

let's try this in a very simple way, so that you can answer yes or no to a very straightforward question. no need for you to revert to your childish doublespeak or ad homs.

did the denial of service to blacks by gas stations, restaurants, hotels, and the like cause harm to blacks in the pre-civil rights south?

yes or no.

 

[cannabineer]

probably the same way you study anything else.

"Hard"? ~couldn't resist~

 

[UncleBuck]

i have abandonment issues and you know it bear. stop doing this to us. stop doing this to me.

 

[cannabineer]

No. You linked two possibly separate things. You like to do that, when you try to tell others what they think.

Racist practices that involved a person denying another person a property right caused harm. That's self evident.

However when you are using your property and only your property and not denying another the same, you are engaging in a practice that does not cause harm. The abuse is when you deny another the right to their property or you agress against them in a way that causes an active harm. Choosing not to interact with somebody is not aggression. People that don't want to interact with somebody should not be forced to...why do you champion rapist tactics?

I am not fancy, my slippers have holes in them and the flannel shirt is tattered...but the litter box is clean.

Once upon a time, a person could be property. 'Ware lawyers.