Teacher fired for breaking up fight.
- Thread starter ginwilly
- Start date
LetsGetCritical
Well-Known Member
Australia broski, it is now 3:36am. Also to my friend Don " If somebody threatens you with serious bodily harm or death, you can do whatever is reasonably necessary to defend yourself from serious injury or death." so, you are wrong, and what is iggy or whatever you said?
LetsGetCritical
Well-Known Member
urban dictionary tells me you are ignoring me so you are probably not seeing this. I think I won
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Initiating is set by taking the first step; to begin
Aggression is overt, often harmful, social interaction with the intention of inflicting damage or other unpleasantness upon another individual.
Please explain how someone coming in a pharmacy to get a prescription filled is initiating aggression.
Okay. I'll assume for the purposes of the example that the pharmacy is owned by a private person, that has made it clear they do not want to transact with some people.
Private property means that an individual owns the piece of property. Ownership vests control in that piece of property to the owner, not you, not me, not a coercive government. if it doesn't vest control, then there is no such thing as private property.
A person that owns something has the right to use it, not use it or trade it for something another person has as long as both agree to the terms. If there is no agreement and one person or entity dictates the terms with an "or else caveat", they have initiated aggression
In the instance of civil rights, a coercive government instructed private individuals how they could and could not use their own property. There was a very real "or else" included. The "or else" was an initiation of aggression.
Using somebodies property that has made it clear to you that they do not want you to is another initiation of aggression.
I hope that helps.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So you don't own anything at all?
I value life too. My most important "property" is my life. I don't think I or anyone should be made to serve another person unless the interaction is consensual. Why do you like to enforce non consensual interactions?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, "some people". nice euphemism.
i bet they made that clear enough by hanging a sign that says "pharmacy" which is visible from a public road.
the government told the racists that you keep on defending that they could not continue to cause harm.
it's pretty simple.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
then open up a private club and you can kick out all the "some people" you want to, racistroy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
All private property is a "private club" in the sense that the owner must be the one to make the rules or it has ceased to be private property.
You give the coercive government a pass and don't question or address their stripping individuals of the right to control their own property.
You conveniently ignore the difference between a person controlling their own property versus attempting to control the property of another.
Also, despite your trying really hard to pin me as a racist you have only exposed yourself as a person that advocates individuals have no rights of ownership if the nanny state says so. That makes you a prohibitionist and a person that thinks some kinds of initiated violence are okay.
I think you are too afraid and too incompetent intellectually to engage in a real debate, since you like to make shit up and try to assign people their beliefs based on your inability to refute anything.
A person that tells others how to use their property = A prohibitionist. That would be you.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
"the government told" = a usurpation of the private individuals right to control their own property.
"the government told" = you can't consume certain plants
"the government told" = you must associate with people that you prefer not to.....isn't that the mode of a rapist?
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Why do you think property is synonymous with liberty?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You own yourself and things that you have made and/or justly acquired.
What can a person own ? What can't a person own? Your turn.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not a private club:
not private clubs:
not a private club:
private club:
do you get the difference, racistroy?
you still have not even attempted to refute my premises, which are super simple and don't require 87 paragraphs of racist euphemism and doublespeak, like yours do.
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.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you don't have to. like we've said many times, you can make your restaurant a "private" one and kick out all the black people you want to, racistroy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
A restaurant that is owed by a person already IS private property isn't it Mr. Marx?
Pinworm
Well-Known Member
^^^Nice Doer, Doer.^^^
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
I don't want a world of private clubs, but I don't think it would be that way. I have more faith in people. my place would be called" The All Welcome Inn."
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
owning private property does not make it OK to cause harm to others. sorry, racistroy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i have faith in most people, but exceedingly little faith in bigots and racists.
why haven't these places closed down yet after refusing to serve gays in this day and age?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
We agree. People don't have a right to cause others harm, ie "initiate aggression".
Not owning the subject property doesn't give a person or a coercive government the right to control it either. That is the first act of aggression isn't it?
So the solution is found, when we determine who initiated the aggression. Hmmmm, you don't own something and you start making rules on how it will be used by the owner. Oh my, it looks like we've found the initial aggressor and it's your nanny state.
