UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're claiming that the denial of service to blacks in the south before civil rights didn't cause any harm?
Scottish independence?
- Thread starter BigNBushy
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Logic is claiming that you cannot initiate harm against an indifferent person and state that it is a defensive action. Nice try though.
Why does this steak taste like red herring?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
logic can make no claims, but people can.
and it seems as though you are claiming against all known and recorded history that the denial of service to blacks did not cause harm.
because we all know you wouldn't defend the rights of racists to cause harm to others based on skin color, would you?
go home rob, and take your failed philosophy with you.
WORDZofWORDZCRAFT
Well-Known Member
I don't read threads I just comment on the last page.... I wonder how scottish independence turned into white guilt for the american negro slaves
WORDZofWORDZCRAFT
Well-Known Member
7 posts in not really a topic changer though.
29 posts in to get the ball rolling
#37 getting there
#41 we have slid down the slope
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm not claiming anybody should initiate aggression against another person or their property. You are,
You've only proven you don't know the difference between indifference and an actionable harm.
Skin color is irrelevant, all people in order to own something must enjoy the ability to control it. Without that, ownership is the wrong term to use. So, please take the puppy outside before he pukes again.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're claiming that black americans who wanted to shop at the same stores as white americans were "initiating aggression"?
so you're claiming that the racist practices of southern business owners before civil rights caused no harm to blacks at all? is that what you're claiming?
WORDZofWORDZCRAFT
Well-Known Member
how could they harm people who werent allowed in?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
could you be just as successful if you were subjected to a secondary and lesser set of goods and services based on your skin color?
1harm
noun\ˈhärm\
: physical or mental damage or injury : something that causes someone or something to be hurt, broken, made less valuable or successful, etc.
WORDZofWORDZCRAFT
Well-Known Member
lil wayne did it
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
No. I'm claiming that anybody that discriminates based on race has a different value system than me, but I don't own them so I have no right to make them do as I would do. I'm also claiming no right to make others use their property in ways they prefer not to. You believe it is okay to tell others what they can do with their private property. I do not. That makes me a person that respects a persons ability to control their own property, but not the property of others. You are still going to have to clean up after the puppy.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Indifference called, but they hung up before you could get to the phone. You were likely abusing somebodies property and not cleaning up after your dizzy puppy.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no to what?
do you mean: NO, black americans who wanted to shop at the same stores as white americans were not "initiating aggression"?
or did you mean: NO, the racist practices of southern business owners before civil rights caused no harm to blacks at all?
please answer the straightforward questions i am asking, as i need help clarifying your ridiculous and dizzying series of justifications for supporting racist business owners over the civil rights of americans.
so if a racist business owner is causing harm to others based on their skin color, you don't believe it's OK to stop them from causing harm with their racist practices?
it sounds like you believe that racists are justified in causing harm based on skin color. in fact, that is EXACTLY what you are defending.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so again, i will ask you a simple, straightforward question that ALL historians agree on the answer to.
did the racist practices of racist business owners in the south cause harm to blacks?
it's a simple yes or no question, and every single historian ever agrees on the answer.
How can you equate not conferring a benefit on someone to causing them harm?
An employee asking for a raise is seeking a benefit. The employer denying this request is not harming the employee.
Not picking up a hitchhiker is not harming him.
Using the same line of reasoning, the above scenarios are harms in your mind.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
so you're claiming that blacks were not harmed by the denial of services they faced in the south before civil rights?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
leave it to bignbushy to suggest that instead of simply ending the harmful and racist practices of white people, we just do "separate but equal" racial separatism instead.
glad he's on your side, rob!
I'm not going to categorically deny any harm came to blacks from practices made illegal by the civil rights acts.
However, it is hard to see how you can say they were harmed for having to order take out from behind the diner, instead of being able to plop down on a bar stool.
They could still obtain a meal.
I'm also not saying that I wish we still had such practices or that blacks don't deserve go be able to incorporate into society.
The integration of blacks into society would have been better for all, even if it took a couple decades longer to achieve, if it could have happened naturally.
There are ways to accomplish this.
Without mandate from the government, slavery would have ended naturally, and integration into society of blacks would have occurred naturally.
Slavery wouldn't have seen the 20th century, and segregation wouldn't have seen the 21st, if it happened at all.
Much of the animosity towards blacks was a direct result of their emancipation. Prior to the civil war race relations were better than at any point following until very recent
times.
We might not have even had "separate but equal" in this country if it weren't for forced emancipation.
killemsoftly
Well-Known Member
There are a number of culprits here-no names it's not my style- who have, in effect, collectively hijacked this thread. None of the rest of us can discuss- Scottish Independence, remember?- as we are now in in the mud, knee deep.
Somewhat sad and rather unfair to the rest of us who would probably prefer a different tone. If i'm a minority opinion on this please disregard. If not please feel free to express your displeasure. Please, no finger pointing it's really not productive.
It's pretty clear there are distinct differences in the way some of us see a wide spectrum of issues but to make other guys and gals wade through pages of this is a little excessive.
Just a thought.
Somewhat sad and rather unfair to the rest of us who would probably prefer a different tone. If i'm a minority opinion on this please disregard. If not please feel free to express your displeasure. Please, no finger pointing it's really not productive.
It's pretty clear there are distinct differences in the way some of us see a wide spectrum of issues but to make other guys and gals wade through pages of this is a little excessive.
Just a thought.
I'm right with you... but once it starts it can't stop.
I have participated in the derail, not jumping in until the train was well off the track.
But we had a good three pages.