IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th February 2017, 11:41 AM   #1241
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Belief system; private property does not exist, breaks window.
Reality; private property does exist, guy who breaks window gets arrested.

Fin
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:42 AM   #1242
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Statements of fact aren't beliefs.
Facts? That's interesting. Any evidence?

Quote:
The rest of your post if just mindless personalisation. You need to get back on track and address the actual arguments that people make.
What arguments? You mean the endless sequence of "my random belief system is a fact"? Those are not arguments, just assertions. It's got the argumentative quality of continuously shouting "God exists!"
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 11:44 AM   #1243
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Facts? That's interesting. Any evidence?
It's axiomatic, caveman. Property is owned by people.

Let's be honest with each other, here: the only reason you're engaged in this ridiculous rhetorical dishonesty of yours is because you want to be able to justify the destruction of property as an expression of disagreement against your political opponents. You are unwilling to back down from that and also unwilling to agree that the people who opposed Milo were wrong to do these things because -- let's face it -- you hate Milo and thus need to cheer his opposition no matter what they do.

And that's YOUR belief system.

Quote:
What arguments? You mean the endless sequence of "my random belief system is a fact"? Those are not arguments, just assertions.
Can you quote me saying that? Of course you can't.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 12:51 PM   #1244
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's axiomatic, caveman.
Ok, it's axiomatic, God exists. And only the one specific God, all other deities axiomatically don't exist. And there ends our discussion. Have fun with your "axioms".
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 12:57 PM   #1245
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Ok, it's axiomatic, God exists. And only the one specific God, all other deities axiomatically don't exist. And there ends our discussion. Have fun with your "axioms".
The claim was "property is owned by people". That is axiomatic because the question is one of definition.

"God exists" is not a definition. It is a claim.

Your constant pretense of being befuddled by basic language is tiresome and unconvincing.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 12:58 PM   #1246
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
I keep on telling you people, arguing with a devout anarchist is just like arguing with a religious fanatatic......
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 12:59 PM   #1247
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I keep on telling you people, arguing with a devout anarchist is just like arguing with a religious fanatatic [sic]......
Exactly like it, in fact. Both of them accuse you of having a belief system.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:04 PM   #1248
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's axiomatic, caveman. Property is owned by people.

Let's be honest with each other, here: the only reason you're engaged in this ridiculous rhetorical dishonesty of yours
Just so these random accusations don't go unanswered, even though I'm usually just ignoring them because they aren't worth wasting time with, but it's really getting out of hand:

Of course it's patently obvious that the dishonesty is yours. Notice how you went from claiming that the objects which you claim to have been destroyed belonged to a specific group of people, which you refused to identify. Then when pointed out that this was just random belief system you change to "property is owned by people" in a general sense. Is this why you refused to identify the people you claimed owned the objects? So you could later support your belief system by a generalization sleigh of hand?

"My God exists and all other deities are false."
"That's just your belief system."
"It is axiomatic that some deity exists."

Note how, even if we accept the latter statement, it still doesn't support the first one.

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th February 2017 at 01:09 PM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:05 PM   #1249
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Exactly like it, in fact. Both of them accuse you of having a belief system.
You are the fanatic here.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:08 PM   #1250
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The claim was "property is owned by people".
No your claim was that the things at the bank are the "property" of a specific group of people. Stop lying and misrepresenting the discussion.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:10 PM   #1251
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Of course it's patently obvious that the dishonesty is yours.
I'm not the one pretending to not understand the concept of ownership.

Quote:
Notice how you went from claiming that the objects which you claim to have been destroyed belonged to a specific group of people, which you refused to identify.
Speaking of dishonesty, I have identified them.

Quote:
Then when pointed out that this was just random belief system you change to "property is owned by people" in a general sense.
I didn't "switch" to anything. Your "pointing" out this is not only a lie, but a nonsensical one at that. My belief system are not "random", nor do they have anything to do with the definitions of the words used here.

Quote:
"My God exists and all other deities are false."
"That's just your belief system."
"It is axiomatic that some deity exists."
No, this isn't how language works. You just have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You are way out of your depth, here.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You are the fanatic here.
Oh, really? What am I fanatical about, specifically? Let's see how deep your misunderstanding runs.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:13 PM   #1252
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Private property is a belief, not a thing.
What do you base this belief on?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you did mean private property, then yes I encourage people to argue against it and "destroy" it. If you meant the thing - say a window - then I disagree that it was destroyed. Empirically all one can say is that it was molecularly rearranged. Whether such state change consists of "destruction" or "creation" is a value judgement.
The logical fallacy you display here is called "equivocation", which means you substitute one definition for another. For a window to be "destroyed" in the common sense it only needs to be rendered unusable as a window, it's not necessary to break apart its molecules or atoms.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:16 PM   #1253
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No your claim was that the things at the bank are the "property" of a specific group of people. Stop lying and misrepresenting the discussion.
Ok let's have fun, shall we:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some group of people.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Statements of fact aren't beliefs.
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Facts? That's interesting. Any evidence?"
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's axiomatic, caveman. Property is owned by people.
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Ok, it's axiomatic, God exists. And only the one specific God, all other deities axiomatically don't exist. And there ends our discussion. Have fun with your "axioms".
There we go. Your first post above, highlighted, denies that windows are the property of people, so you agreed that this was my claim. You edited your post after I quoted you, which leads to this hilarious bit:

Quote:
Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some specific group of people you've identified.
So now I've identified them? You just claimed that I refused to do so. Which is it?

Stop lying. Seriously.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:19 PM   #1254
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not the one pretending to not understand the concept of ownership.
"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand him."

Quote:
Speaking of dishonesty, I have identified them.
I must have missed it, can you link to where you provide their identities?

Quote:
No, this isn't how language works. You just have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You are way out of your depth, here.


Quote:
Oh, really? What am I fanatical about, specifically? Let's see how deep your misunderstanding runs.
Your belief system about who "owns" the things at the bank.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:23 PM   #1255
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Scripture. It always starts with scripture first. As if writing some belief system down makes it correct.
What's really funny is that describes your belief system.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:23 PM   #1256
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
There we go. Your first post above, highlighted, denies that windows are the property of people
No it doesn't. Stop lying.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:24 PM   #1257
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The logical fallacy you display here
There is no logical fallacy in what I said.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:26 PM   #1258
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
What's really funny is that describes your belief system.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:35 PM   #1259
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
I keep on telling you people, arguing with a devout anarchist is just like arguing with a religious fanatatic......
It's not "just like". Anarchism is a religion. Like Marxism or Scientology.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:38 PM   #1260
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You most definitely are. You're just such an outright fanatic about your belief system that you can't even conceive of an alternative such belief system or simply not adopting any such belief system. Here's but one such possible alternative belief system: the window was the property of the protesters.
What belief system?
As anyone can determine one alternative belief system to yours, which has been provided, is that the window was the property of the protesters. Since this clearly still has "people owning windows" it is obvious that the belief system you promoted is not just "people owning windows" in a general sense.

As anyone can also determine you snipped the highlighted part from the post when you quoted it and set up your switcheroo with the "what belief system".

Besides, even if your belief system was merely that things are "owned" by people it would still just be a random belief system without basis in fact. It's just moving from "my God is the only true deity" to "some deity exists".
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:39 PM   #1261
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
It's not "just like". Anarchism is a religion. Like Marxism or Scientology.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:50 PM   #1262
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Belief system; private property does not exist, breaks window.
Reality; private property does exist, guy who breaks window gets arrested.

Fin
Pretty much. I suspect that your post will be met with just as much resounding silence as mine was.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:50 PM   #1263
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
It's not "just like". Anarchism is a religion. Like Marxism or Scientology.
Although most people think of religion in terms of belief in gods, I think that's too narrow. I like to define religion as a shared set of arational (not necessarily irrational) beliefs that provide strong motivation for a wide variety of behaviors. In that sense, you're absolutely correct, those are religions.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:54 PM   #1264
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
There is no logical fallacy in what I said.
Yes there is. A broken window is "destroyed". Your claim that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exists is an example of equivocation. It's destroyed in the sense that it's no longer useful for the purpose it was created.

But let's move forward.

Take "private" away from "private property".

What gives you the right to destroy property, and what purpose is served by it?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:56 PM   #1265
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Yes there is. A broken window is "destroyed". Your claim that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exists is an example of equivocation. It's destroyed in the sense that it's no longer useful for the purpose it was created.
Agreed: a broken window is not longer a window. A chopped down tree is no longer a tree. A burned down house is no longer a house. Regardless of whether the molecules themselves still exist, the item that the collection of molecules previous were no longer is.

A blown-up person is no longer a person.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 01:59 PM   #1266
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
What gives you the right to destroy property, and what purpose is served by it?
Because he wants to, because it's fun. That's all the justification he needs, everything else is just rationalization. caveman isn't just an anarchist, he's a nihilist.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:14 PM   #1267
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Private property is a belief, not a thing. If you did mean private property, then yes I encourage people to argue against it and "destroy" it. If you meant the thing - say a window - then I disagree that it was destroyed. Empirically all one can say is that it was molecularly rearranged. Whether such state change consists of "destruction" or "creation" is a value judgement.
" you are charged with murder, how do you plead?"
"Murder? Ha ha. No, I merely molecularly rearranged his body."
"You blew him up with dynamite!"
"That's a value judgment. I prefer to say I liberated him from state-worship."
"I sentence you to life imprisonment."
"Bare assertion fallacy! Your courts are mere social constructs!"

...
"Hey, let me out of this prison!"
"What prison? Why do you make such a value judgment?"
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:14 PM   #1268
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Yes there is. A broken window is "destroyed". Your claim that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exists is an example of equivocation.
I never claimed that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exist.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:14 PM   #1269
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Because he wants to, because it's fun. That's all the justification he needs, everything else is just rationalization. caveman isn't just an anarchist, he's a nihilist.
Hell just froze over. You posted something I 100% agree with.

I take that back a little. The individual in question is a Moral Nihilist,as opposed to other forms of Nihilism .
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.

Last edited by dudalb; 24th February 2017 at 02:18 PM.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:22 PM   #1270
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I never claimed that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exist.
You appear to be trying not to communicate any idea of importance while dragging out the exchange for as long as possible.
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:25 PM   #1271
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Hell just froze over. You posted something I 100% agree with.

I take that back a little. The individual in question is a Moral Nihilist,as opposed to other forms of Nihilism .
I only recall him saying nihilist, the particular sub-categories don't interest me, I'll take your word for it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:27 PM   #1272
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
I missed your post, and I'm not responding to TBD because of being on my ignore list.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Before I go down the rabbit hole here... the "belief" of private property is one of the bases for the entire US legal and judiciary system. It is a fundamental element of the social contract that US citizens are bound by. If you just randomly decide that you don't "believe" in private property and start picking up or destroying objects around you... you're going to end up in jail for theft or vandalism, or something similar pretty quickly. Any rhetorical arguments about whether or not private property is "just a belief" or whatever it is you're spouting is completely irrelevant and without standing.
The "belief" in the Christian God was one of the bases for the entire medieval Spain's legal and judiciary system. It is a fundamental element of the social contract that Spanish citizens were bound by. If you just randomly decide that you don't "believe" in God and start saying things expressing such disbelief...you're going to end up in jail for blasphemy or something similar pretty quickly. Any rhetorical arguments about whether or not God is "just a belief" or whatever it is you're spouting is completely irrelevant and without standing.

Quote:
Now that I've got that off my chest... I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between "people" and "legal persons".
Legal persons, as in companies, could hardly be any more distinct from people. Do you understand the distinction between deities and people? One being a belief (it goes away just by stopping to believe in it) and the other being reality (it doesn't go away).
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:29 PM   #1273
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I only recall him saying nihilist, the particular sub-categories don't interest me, I'll take your word for it.
There are other forms of Nihilism,like the belief that the universe is basically chaotic, that are realitvely benign and harmless;moral nihilism is dangerous.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:30 PM   #1274
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I missed your post, and I'm not responding to TBD because of being on my ignore list.
I don't believe in ignore lists so that cannot be true.

The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:33 PM   #1275
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
You appear to be trying not to communicate any idea of importance while dragging out the exchange for as long as possible.
What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:42 PM   #1276
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,425
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.
Nope. Wrong. Wrongity-wrong-wrong. If a window is broken, then it cannot perform its intended purpose (ie, permitting light to pass through while obstructing the flow of air). This can indeed be measured empirically. Whether or not this destruction is a good thing or a bad thing may be a value judgment, but that it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed and built is indeed easy to determine objectively and empirically.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 02:59 PM   #1277
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,709
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.
Yeah. Try that at trial.

"Your honour, the ice pick merely re-arranged his molecules. Empirically, he's still there."
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 03:06 PM   #1278
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 35,981
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
There are other forms of Nihilism,like the belief that the universe is basically chaotic, that are realitvely benign and harmless;moral nihilism is dangerous.
No, you seem to have this backward. Moral nihilism is a philosophical position in opposition to moral realism. The assertion that there is no objective or absolute morality.
__________________
Слава Україні! **** Putin!
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 03:11 PM   #1279
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.
A distinction of no relevance to the discussion.

Again, you appear to be trying not to communicate anything of value while trying to drag on the exchange for as long as possible.

How about answering the question of what is accomplished with property destruction and how you determine you have a right to do it?
Mycroft is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2017, 03:14 PM   #1280
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Nope. Wrong. Wrongity-wrong-wrong. If a window is broken, then it cannot perform its intended purpose (ie, permitting light to pass through while obstructing the flow of air). This can indeed be measured empirically. Whether or not this destruction is a good thing or a bad thing may be a value judgment, but that it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed and built is indeed easy to determine objectively and empirically.
You're confusing determining if it can perform some function with determining its intended purpose. Depends on who you ask. The bank might have intended for it to have a certain purpose, yet the protester who broke it clearly disagreed. You can not objectively measure purpose.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:26 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.