|
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. |
24th February 2017, 03:28 PM | #1281 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
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 |
24th February 2017, 03:33 PM | #1282 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 03:48 PM | #1283 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
Bears no ressemblance to anything I've said.
Are you going to make an actual argument, and acknowledge those made by others?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
STOP LYING. |
24th February 2017, 03:51 PM | #1284 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the protesters be the owners of those windows?
Quote:
Quote:
|
24th February 2017, 03:59 PM | #1285 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
Quote:
What gives the bank the right to assert its purpose over the protester's purpose? |
24th February 2017, 04:34 PM | #1286 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
24th February 2017, 04:37 PM | #1287 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
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? |
24th February 2017, 04:42 PM | #1288 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 04:45 PM | #1289 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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.
Neither.
Quote:
|
24th February 2017, 04:46 PM | #1290 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
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. 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 |
|
24th February 2017, 04:47 PM | #1291 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 04:49 PM | #1292 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
What's special about it?
Can anyone do anything with anything? Can I break the window just because I like the sound of breaking glass? Seems wasteful. 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? 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. 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? 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? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 04:51 PM | #1293 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
24th February 2017, 04:54 PM | #1294 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 04:55 PM | #1295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
In medieval Spain, saying that God doesn't exist is without standing. I thought this was a skeptic forum?
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiki
|
24th February 2017, 04:56 PM | #1296 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 05:01 PM | #1297 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 05:05 PM | #1298 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 05:06 PM | #1299 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
24th February 2017, 05:06 PM | #1300 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
24th February 2017, 05:16 PM | #1301 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
Yes, like I said, because the distinction between "destruction" and "creation" is a value judgement.
Quote:
Quote:
It's not like this is difficult or anything you know. |
24th February 2017, 05:18 PM | #1302 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
24th February 2017, 05:47 PM | #1303 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 06:00 PM | #1304 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 06:09 PM | #1305 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
24th February 2017, 06:14 PM | #1306 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
24th February 2017, 06:16 PM | #1307 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 06:24 PM | #1308 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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.
|
24th February 2017, 06:28 PM | #1309 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
24th February 2017, 06:33 PM | #1310 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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.
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 06:33 PM | #1311 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
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. |
24th February 2017, 06:51 PM | #1312 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
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. |
24th February 2017, 07:04 PM | #1313 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
From wikipedia:
Quote:
Quote:
|
24th February 2017, 07:49 PM | #1314 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
|
24th February 2017, 07:51 PM | #1315 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
I quoted your own words back to you. Accept them. Stop lying.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
24th February 2017, 08:18 PM | #1316 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
|
24th February 2017, 08:56 PM | #1317 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
24th February 2017, 09:09 PM | #1318 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
25th February 2017, 04:19 AM | #1319 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
25th February 2017, 01:08 PM | #1320 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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, |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|