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, 03:28 PM   #1281
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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.
who here sees the problem? Yes exactly, our stalwart correspondent is injecting his belief system into the protester.

The owner intended for the window to have a certain purpose and the protester understood that purpose and broke the window to deprive the bank of its intended purpose.

indeed the protester in doing so implicitly recognized that the window was the private property of the bank, and in fact that recognition was the reason for the action in the first place.

And thus endeth the lesson.

damn i am good
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, 03:33 PM   #1282
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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.
You're equivocation now is with the word "purpose". The window was created to serve a purpose, that a protester wants to put it to a different "purpose" does not invalidate the original purpose.

How would the protester describe this purpose? What gives the protester the right to assert his purpose over the banks purpose?
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, 03:48 PM   #1283
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
"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand him."
Bears no ressemblance to anything I've said.

Are you going to make an actual argument, and acknowledge those made by others?

Quote:
I must have missed it, can you link to where you provide their identities?
The owners of the companies to which those windows belong. I said so already. This is the second time at least. Stop pretending that I haven't. EVERYBODY can read my posts.

Quote:
Your belief system about who "owns" the things at the bank.
That's not an answer. Be specific.

Quote:
No it doesn't. Stop lying.
I QUOTED YOU:

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some group of people.
STOP LYING.
__________________
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, 03:51 PM   #1284
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
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.
That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the protesters be the owners of those windows?

Quote:
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".
I quoted your words. Everybody can go back and follow the discussion. It's not my fault if you edited your post afterward.

Quote:
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.
Protip: just because you subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that everyone else does. Stop refering to everything as 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, 03:59 PM   #1285
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
You're equivocation now is with the word "purpose". The window was created to serve a purpose, that a protester wants to put it to a different "purpose" does not invalidate the original purpose.
Invalidates? It, of course, remains the original purpose. Why should it have special status though?

Someone rearranges it for some purpose, then someone else rearranges it for some other purpose, then yet another person rearranges it for yet another purpose, and so on...

Quote:
How would the protester describe this purpose?
How should I know?

Quote:
What gives the protester the right to assert his purpose over the banks purpose?
For one, the protester is an actual person and the bank is just an idea you have in your head. Also the bank obviously, being an idea, has not mixed its labour with it.

What gives the bank the right to assert its purpose over the protester's 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
Old 24th February 2017, 04:34 PM   #1286
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
the bank is just an idea you have in your head.
Do you or do you not acknowledge the concept of ownership?

And if not, can I smash your computer?
__________________
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, 04:37 PM   #1287
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
EVERYBODY can read my posts.
Correct. Everyone can see you frantically switch back and forth between saying that a specific group of people "owns" a specific window and saying that your claim is just that "property is owned by people".

Quote:
Everybody can go back and follow the discussion.
They should, just two posts more than from where you conveniently chose to start your recollection.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's not my fault if you edited your post afterward.
Are you claiming that I later edited in that part about an alternative belief system being that the protesters "own" the window, rather than that you snipped it out?
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, 04:42 PM   #1288
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 caveman1917 View Post
I never claimed that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exist.
What did you intend to say here?
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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 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, 04:45 PM   #1289
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Protip: just because you subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that everyone else does. Stop refering to everything as a belief system.
I'm not subscribing to an ideology, you are, fanatically so. And I'm not referring to everything as a belief system, you're just butthurt that your belief system was correctly identified as just some random belief system rather than accepted as fact by your mere assertion, so you're now just making crap up really.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Do you or do you not acknowledge the concept of ownership?
Neither.

Quote:
And if not, can I smash your computer?
No.
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, 04:46 PM   #1290
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 caveman1917 View Post
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.
If you live in medieval spain, you are absolutely correct. That rhetorical argument is irrelevant and without standing.

Claiming that you don't believe in the basis of the law doesn't invalidate the law, and doesn't excuse you from the consequences of that law.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Legal persons, as in companies, could hardly be any more distinct from people.
Companies aren't people. Companies, as legal entities, have certain rights that are bestowed upon the organization as an entity, and which are not tied to the people working for that corporation. Thus if a CEO leaves a company, that company doesn't cease to exist. The company is a legal entity independent of the set of people that comprise it. But it's not a person, and never will be.

Entity <> 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, 04:47 PM   #1291
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
I don't believe in ignore lists so that cannot be true.

Lol
__________________
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, 04:49 PM   #1292
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Invalidates? It, of course, remains the original purpose. Why should it have special status though?
What's special about it?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Someone rearranges it for some purpose, then someone else rearranges it for some other purpose, then yet another person rearranges it for yet another purpose, and so on...
Can anyone do anything with anything? Can I break the window just because I like the sound of breaking glass? Seems wasteful.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How should I know?
Because you are the one who declared the protesters had their own purpose for it. What is that purpose?

Seriously, are you being tedious on purpose?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
For one, the protester is an actual person and the bank is just an idea you have in your head.
No, both the protester and the bank are hypotheticals constructs. They're supposed to facilitate the communication of ideas, except for some unknown reason you are resisting being understood.

If you think ideas don't have their own reality, explain why we're talking about two things that don't really exist.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Also the bank obviously, being an idea, has not mixed its labour with it.
What difference does it make? Suppose instead of a bank it were a custom window store, and the owner had literally made and installed the window himself. Does anything change?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What gives the bank the right to assert its purpose over the protester's purpose?
In the real world the answer is they own the window.

In your world, what gives the protester the right to decide his "purpose" is more important?
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, 04:51 PM   #1293
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
What did you intend to say here?
Try not highlighting half of one sentence together with another. There is a reason the sentences are distinct from each other. I don't see how I can put it more clearly though.
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, 04:54 PM   #1294
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 caveman1917 View Post
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.
A broken window isn't a window.
__________________
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, 04:55 PM   #1295
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
If you live in medieval spain, you are absolutely correct. That rhetorical argument is irrelevant and without standing.
In medieval Spain, saying that God doesn't exist is without standing. I thought this was a skeptic forum?

Quote:
Claiming that you don't believe in the basis of the law doesn't invalidate the law
Of course it does.

Quote:
Companies aren't people. Companies, as legal entities, have certain rights that are bestowed upon the organization as an entity, and which are not tied to the people working for that corporation. Thus if a CEO leaves a company, that company doesn't cease to exist. The company is a legal entity independent of the set of people that comprise it. But it's not a person, and never will be.

Entity <> Person
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

Originally Posted by wiki
To have legal personality means to be capable of holding legal rights and obligations[1][2] within a certain legal system, such as entering into contracts, suing, and being sued.[3] Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name.

A holder of legal personality is called as a person (Latin: persona). Persons are of two kinds: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: persona ficta) – entities such as corporations, which are treated in law as if they are persons.[1][4][5] While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born, juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law.
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, 04:56 PM   #1296
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 caveman1917 View Post
Correct. Everyone can see you frantically switch back and forth between saying that a specific group of people "owns" a specific window and saying that your claim is just that "property is owned by people".
Pretty sure nobody but you has interpreted Argumemnon's posts as frantic anything, let alone switching. Argumemnon's posts have been consistent and reasoned.

ETA: Just in case there's some strange marxist lack of reading comprehension here...

"Property is owned by people" is a generalization of a relationship. It means that in the abstract, people - living human beings - are the ones who have ownership status with relationship to property - things. Things don't own things, people own things. An organization, such as a bank, may own things on behalf of the owners of the bank, but only because it is acting as a proxy. This leads directly then to specific things being owned by specific people. An apple is owned by the person who owns the apple.

Contrast this with "Property is owned by the people" which seems to be what you believe - that people as a collective entity have collective ownership of all things.

If this is the case, you are the only person in this thread who is misinterpreting Argumemnon's post in this fashion.
__________________
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

Last edited by Emily's Cat; 24th February 2017 at 05:00 PM.
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, 05:01 PM   #1297
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 caveman1917 View Post
No.
Why can't he smash your computer if he wants to? It's not like it belongs to you or anything. It's not like you own it or have some claim upon that property, right? Thus, he should be allowed to smash it if he so pleases.
__________________
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, 05:05 PM   #1298
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 caveman1917 View Post
Try not highlighting half of one sentence together with another. There is a reason the sentences are distinct from each other. I don't see how I can put it more clearly though.
I highlighted the parts to which I wished to draw attention, and which directly contradicted your post. You did indeed claim that the window was not destroyed. You supported that claim by arguing that the molecules were rearranged. Thus, you claimed that the window was not destroyed because the molecules were only rearranged.

That is what you posted, and what everyone here clearly read. And yet you then said that you did not make the claim that you clearly made.

Therefore, you are either unclear on how the time continuum, post history, the scroll wheel, and computers work altogether... or you intended something completely different from what you actually wrote.

If you intended something completely different, and you believe that did not say what you clearly said, this is your opportunity to correct that.
__________________
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, 05:06 PM   #1299
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Pretty sure nobody but you has interpreted Argumemnon's posts as frantic anything, let alone switching. Argumemnon's posts have been consistent and reasoned.
Consistent and reasoned? Oh please...
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, 05:06 PM   #1300
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 caveman1917 View Post
In medieval Spain, saying that God doesn't exist is without standing. I thought this was a skeptic forum?
What does my skepticism regarding the existence of god in 2017 have to do with the laws of medieval europe?
__________________
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, 05:16 PM   #1301
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You did indeed claim that the window was not destroyed.
Yes, like I said, because the distinction between "destruction" and "creation" is a value judgement.

Quote:
You supported that claim by arguing that the molecules were rearranged.
No I didn't. I said that the molecules being rearranged is all that can be empirically observed.

Quote:
Thus, you claimed that the window was not destroyed because the molecules were only rearranged.
Not at all. The set of molecules under consideration goes from state A to state B. Whether this change constitutes "destruction" or "creation" depends on which state you value more.

It's not like this is difficult or anything you know.
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, 05:18 PM   #1302
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
What does my skepticism regarding the existence of god in 2017 have to do with the laws of medieval europe?
The validity of skepticism regarding the existence of god does not depend on the year in which it takes place.
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, 05:47 PM   #1303
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The validity of skepticism regarding the existence of god does not depend on the year in which it takes place.
Neither does the existence of laws depend on your agreement to their foundation.
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, 06:00 PM   #1304
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Not at all. The set of molecules under consideration goes from state A to state B. Whether this change constitutes "destruction" or "creation" depends on which state you value more.
That someone prefers the window broken doesn't change that it is broken.

If I think destroying your computer is an act of creation, creating a world with a little less idiocy on the Internet, why shouldn't I have just as much right to do that as your protester has to break a window?
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, 06:09 PM   #1305
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Neither does the existence of laws depend on your agreement to their foundation.
Correct, they don't exist, irrespective of my or anyone else's agreement to them.
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, 06:14 PM   #1306
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Correct, they don't exist, irrespective of my or anyone else's agreement to them.
Snerk.

The fact that this poster has me on ignore is an honor.

Things I don't like don't exist.
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, 06:16 PM   #1307
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Correct, they don't exist, irrespective of my or anyone else's agreement to them.
All laws? Or just some of them?
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, 06:24 PM   #1308
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That someone prefers the window broken doesn't change that it is broken.
It does though. If everyone else also preferred it in state B rather than state A we'd say that it was fixed rather than broken. Heck rather than have a word for its specific configuration in state A (ie "window") we'd have a word for it in state B instead. You really should learn the difference between belief systems and empirical reality.
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, 06:28 PM   #1309
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
All laws? Or just some of them?
All laws. Unless you can actually provide evidence for the existence of a law - rather than just evidence of the existence of people who believe in the existence of a law.
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, 06:33 PM   #1310
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It does though.
No it doesn't, but I've grown bored with trying to get you to communicate something of substance. If you want to claim breaking windows isn't breaking windows and you want to ignore the numerous questions that might clarify your reasoning, then my time is better spent clipping toenails.
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, 06:33 PM   #1311
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
All laws. Unless you can actually provide evidence for the existence of a law - rather than just evidence of the existence of people who believe in the existence of a law.
If ideas didn't exist we couldn't have this conversation.

Stop being silly, god does not exist because he is an idea that supposedly has form and agency and neither can be proven.

The law has neither form nor agency it is an idea that people enforce. The law exists unless that is you use a non standard version of exist, in which case you are acting like a child.
sadhatter 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, 06:51 PM   #1312
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
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.
I see. In a similar manner, I might propose to rearrange the molecules that make up the person known as Caveman1917, but whether it consists of destruction or creation would be a value judgment.

On the other hand, if one breaks my window, I don't regard it as a mere difference of opinion whether he has caused me harm. It's my window, not his, and he has changed it in a way that I didn't desire.

I'm all in favor of saying that some things are mine, and some things are yours, and I get to choose what happens to my things within certain limits, and so do you. And arbitrary rearrangements of my stuff requires really good reasons which go beyond "this other guy says stuff that pisses me off. "

Because, honestly, he's not my problem.

Last edited by phiwum; 24th February 2017 at 08:13 PM.
phiwum 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, 07:04 PM   #1313
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
The law exists unless that is you use a non standard version of exist,
From wikipedia:
Quote:
Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence.
I did not know this is a "non standard version of exist" - could you perhaps enlighten us as to the "standard version of exist".

Quote:
in which case you are acting like a child.
Does any old crap you make up in your head "exist"? Sounds very child-like to me. For example, children tend to learn at some point that their imaginary friends don't exist, but apparently you haven't gotten to such point yet where you learn to make a distinction between what you believe and what 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, 07:49 PM   #1314
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I see. In a similar manner, I might propose to rearrange the molecules that make up the person known as Caveman1917, but whether it consists of destruction or creation would be a value judgment.
That isn't particularly similar, unless you're an animist? Or I guess unless you see no distinction between an inanimate object and a person. Are you somehow equating disagreement about some random belief system of yours with actual murder?

Quote:
On the other hand, if one breaks my window, I don't regard it as a mere difference of opinion whether he has caused me harm.
For starters, are you a fictional person? If not, why do you substitute yourself for a bank which is a fictional person? Are you failing to distinguish between the property of the shareholders and the property of the bank?

Quote:
It's my window, not his, and he has changed it in a way that I didn't desire.
He could say the same thing about you though.

Quote:
I'm all in favor of saying that some things are mine, and some things are yours, and I get to choose what happens to my things within certain limits, and so do you.
Can we then agree that everything is mine and nothing is yours? It's an example of saying that some things are mine and some things are yours, so you should be all in favour of it, and I guess I'll go along with it as well.

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th February 2017 at 07:57 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, 07:51 PM   #1315
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
They should, just two posts more than from where you conveniently chose to start your recollection.
I quoted your own words back to you. Accept them. Stop lying.

Quote:
Are you claiming that I later edited in that part about an alternative belief system being that the protesters "own" the window, rather than that you snipped it out?
I am claiming exactly what I wrote, nothing else.

Quote:
I'm not subscribing to an ideology, you are, fanatically so.
There's nothing ideological or fanatical about understanding how ownership works. You are continuing to lie about what I am saying, and also continuing to pretend that you know better than I do what goes on in my head. Stop it.

Quote:
Neither.
That is illogical. It cannot be neither nor both. It's either one or the other.

Quote:
No.
Why not? You don't actually own it.
__________________
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, 08:18 PM   #1316
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
There's nothing ideological or fanatical about understanding how ownership works.
There is nothing ideological or fanatical about understanding how christianity or religion in general works. There is, though, a lot ideological and fanatical about continuously asserting as fact that the christian god exists and all other deities are false. Since we're just asserting random belief systems here, I'll assert that the window was the property of the protester.

Quote:
That is illogical. It cannot be neither nor both. It's either one or the other.
Do you acknowledge the concept X which consists of the set of the following two sentences: {"the sky is blue", "the earth is flat"}? You really shouldn't be using these terms like "illogical".

Last edited by caveman1917; 24th February 2017 at 08:21 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, 08:56 PM   #1317
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
From wikipedia:


I did not know this is a "non standard version of exist" - could you perhaps enlighten us as to the "standard version of exist".



Does any old crap you make up in your head "exist"? Sounds very child-like to me. For example, children tend to learn at some point that their imaginary friends don't exist, but apparently you haven't gotten to such point yet where you learn to make a distinction between what you believe and what exists.
Laws fit that Wikipedia definition; They persist despite your presence. When you travel from nation to nation, the law still exists in the jurisdiction you left.

But the real issue about the broken window is not whose rights you violate in breaking it, it's that the act of breaking it is a threat of violence. It's saying implicitly that if someone doesn't do what you want, they could get hurt or killed by a mob. Your strategy for improving the human condition is to utilize one of our most savage instincts to scare people to submitting to your will. It's a gangster tactic.
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, 09:09 PM   #1318
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You defended the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, IIRC. So why can't I nuke your house?
.
Because Argumemnon didn't sink your battleship
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus 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 25th February 2017, 04:19 AM   #1319
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
Since we're just asserting random belief systems here, I'll assert that the window was the property of the protester.
You're carefully dodging every point: in all seriousness, and in actual reality, who did the window belong to?

Quote:
Do you acknowledge the concept X which consists of the set of the following two sentences: {"the sky is blue", "the earth is flat"}? You really shouldn't be using these terms like "illogical".
Word salad again.

How about you address what's been said to you instead of trolling or lying?
__________________
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 25th February 2017, 01:08 PM   #1320
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Caveman could you clarify what seem to be contradictory positions?

You say that the rioting and vandalism that occurred is to be encouraged, even though it resulted in damage to property of people who weren't involved at all.

But when it's your property you are against it.

I can't imagine you're actually arguing that it's okay to destroy other innocent peoples property but not yours so please clarify.
He seems to believe that "ownership" is determined by usage and need.

For example, you can own your house because you occupy it and need shelter. Ownership of a house that you rent to someone else is more abstract, and therefore questionable. You can own your personal effects, tools of your trade, and also the product of your labor factors in somehow, but it's vague how ownership can be transferred from one person to another.

For whatever reason he's extraordinarily reluctant to just explain the rules he considers to be valid,
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
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 03:45 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.