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 25th February 2017, 02:14 PM   #1321
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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?
Ah, I see. Some arrangements of molecules count for more than others. Fair enough, and let's leave living beings out of it.

Do you honestly assert that you have no right to demand that others leave their paws off your stuff? You own things, yes? Maybe a car, several books, whatever? Now, someone, let's say Sigourney Weaver, says things that piss me off and so I decide to torch your car and wee in your books. That's a reasonable act, yes? Because, after all, property is merely a matter of convention, so, you know, you can take a dump on your neighbor's lawn as an act of protest against a third party and he really has no legitimate beef.

Quote:
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?
Not sure what you're getting at here. Far as I know, I'm not a fictional person. And also the persons who invested in the bank are not, for the most part, fictional and each of these investors suffer real (if fairly slight) losses.

Quote:
He could say the same thing about you though.
Right. He could say that it's his window, and I've changed it in ways he doesn't desire, but when he does so, there are two obvious points. The lesser point is that I haven't changed it and the greater point is that it really isn't his window if, in fact, it is my window.

See, that's the thing. Some things are mine and I get to use them (within certain constraints) and some things are yours and you get to use them, and I don't get to break your **** just because some other person says stuff I don't like and I want him to stop.

Really, not all that hard to understand.

Quote:
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.
Ah, but that's not really how the rules work. I should think a full-growed man would have sussed this by now.

The rules are not quite as arbitrary as your argument requires. Perhaps not as fair as we might like, but not totally arbitrary either.
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 25th February 2017, 04:32 PM   #1322
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
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.
No, it really doesn't depend on who you ask. Glass windows (which is what we're talking about) all do the same thing: permit the passage of light, block the flow of air. This function fails when the window is broken. Pretending otherwise doesn't demonstrate sophisticated thinking, it merely demonstrates delusion.
__________________
"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 25th February 2017, 04:38 PM   #1323
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it really doesn't depend on who you ask. Glass windows (which is what we're talking about) all do the same thing: permit the passage of light, block the flow of air. This function fails when the window is broken. Pretending otherwise doesn't demonstrate sophisticated thinking, it merely demonstrates delusion.
Obviously, you are biased in favor of those who paid for the windows. Those who broke them have a different purpose in mind. Duh.
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 26th February 2017, 11:19 AM   #1324
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
And yet CPAC banned Milo from their conference.
Hercules56 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 26th February 2017, 02:13 PM   #1325
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
And yet CPAC banned Milo from their conference.
What's your point?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 26th February 2017, 03:12 PM   #1326
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What's your point?
Conservatives shouldn't complain about a "lack of tolerance" from Liberals when themselves censor speakers due to their beliefs.
Hercules56 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 26th February 2017, 04:30 PM   #1327
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Conservatives shouldn't complain about a "lack of tolerance" from Liberals when themselves censor speakers due to their beliefs.
Yeah, no. This simply isn't equivalent. Rescinding your own invitation really isn't the same as using violence to silence someone. The equivalent would have been if the Berkeley student group that invited him had uninvited him, but that's not what happened.
__________________
"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 26th February 2017, 05:28 PM   #1328
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Conservatives shouldn't complain about a "lack of tolerance" from Liberals when themselves censor speakers due to their beliefs.
You seem to be suggesting that I can't support freedom of association unless I also support using violence to suppress speech.

Is that really what you meant?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 26th February 2017, 05:30 PM   #1329
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You seem to be suggesting that I can't support freedom of association unless I also support using violence to suppress speech.

Is that really what you meant?
You don't support Freedom of Speech if you can suddenly rescind a speeking invitation due to what someone said.
Hercules56 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 26th February 2017, 05:33 PM   #1330
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
You don't support Freedom of Speech if you can suddenly rescind a speeking invitation due to what someone said.
Declining to allow someone to use a platform for increasing the reach of their message isn't diminishing their Freedom of Speech.

That's not how it works.
Delphic Oracle 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 26th February 2017, 05:36 PM   #1331
Hercules56
Philosopher
 
Hercules56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Declining to allow someone to use a platform for increasing the reach of their message isn't diminishing their Freedom of Speech.

That's not how it works.
According to many on the Right, folks protesting on college campuses and preventing Right-wingers from speaking at their facilities, is an act that violates the principle of Freedom of Speech.
Hercules56 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 26th February 2017, 06:21 PM   #1332
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
According to many on the Right, folks protesting on college campuses and preventing Right-wingers from speaking at their facilities, is an act that violates the principle of Freedom of Speech.
A) I could care less what "many on the right" have to say.

B) Protests are free speech, too. One can protest a person speaking through a given platform, perhaps also protesting the platform owners' decision to allow its use in ways that do not infringe on the speech being so protested.

C) Preventing someone from using a third party's platform (especially through violent means) is another matter entirely and is not comparable to a venue/platform denying usage.
Delphic Oracle 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 26th February 2017, 07:55 PM   #1333
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
You don't support Freedom of Speech if you can suddenly rescind a speeking invitation due to what someone said.
There is a huge difference between deciding what speakers you want at your own event, and deciding someone else isn't allowed to have the speaker they want at their event.

The first is exercising you own rights of speech and association. The second is trying to prevent someone else from exercising theirs.
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 26th February 2017, 07:59 PM   #1334
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
There is a huge difference between deciding what speakers you want at your own event, and deciding someone else isn't allowed to have the speaker they want at their event.

The first is exercising you own rights of speech and association. The second is trying to prevent someone else from exercising theirs.
Well, I haven't invited hercules to an event hosted in my home, for him to express his opinions to all my friends and associates. So clearly I don't believe in his right to free speech.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige 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 26th February 2017, 08:56 PM   #1335
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
I have to agree that dis-inviting Milo from CPAC isn't hypocritical. It is not a free speech issue at all.

However, it is telling that the CPAC love Milo's racist, homophobic, sexist bigotry but it was pedophilia that finally crossed their line.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 26th February 2017, 08:59 PM   #1336
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
According to many on the Right, folks protesting on college campuses and preventing Right-wingers from speaking at their facilities, is an act that violates the principle of Freedom of Speech.
Simply protesting a speaker is not. If the protests use force to prevent the speaker talking (as happened at Berkeley), then yes, it DOES violate the principle of freedom of speech. Again, as Mycroft already pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between deciding who you want to invite to your own event and deciding who someone else gets to invite to their event.
__________________
"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 26th February 2017, 09:00 PM   #1337
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
I have to agree that dis-inviting Milo from CPAC isn't hypocritical. It is not a free speech issue at all.

However, it is telling that the CPAC love Milo's racist, homophobic, sexist bigotry but it was pedophilia that finally crossed their line.
Milo is homophobic? Yeah, um... no.
__________________
"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 26th February 2017, 09:07 PM   #1338
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Milo is homophobic? Yeah, um... no.
Yes. It is possible to be homosexual and bigoted against homosexuality.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 26th February 2017, 09:11 PM   #1339
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yes. It is possible to be homosexual and bigoted against homosexuality.
Particularly true when one is simply a professional troll who is simply out to bilk the gullible.
Mumbles 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 26th February 2017, 09:13 PM   #1340
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Yes. It is possible to be homosexual and bigoted against homosexuality.
It's possible, but he's not.
__________________
"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 26th February 2017, 10:07 PM   #1341
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It's possible, but he's not.
Except he says homophobic things. In other words, you are wrong.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yi...#Homosexuality
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken 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 27th February 2017, 07:24 AM   #1342
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Except he says homophobic things.
No. He says some things about homosexuals that some people find offensive. Not the same thing.
__________________
"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 27th February 2017, 07:41 AM   #1343
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. He says some things about homosexuals that some people find offensive. Not the same thing.
Well, if we define "homophobic" to be like "racist", wouldn't it be homophobic to say that gay people are bad workers because they're always late for work? Because he said that, and that sounds like saying that black people are lazy. I don't find it offensive, but I do find it racist.
__________________
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 27th February 2017, 09:33 AM   #1344
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
It being okay to cause physical harm to others, cause destruction to certain classifications of property in certain instances, etc...that's also a belief system.
It is only ok when expressing your love of sports teams or pumpkins. Then no one cares. I mean imagine if we cancled major sporting events just because of riots! That would never be acceptable.

So as long as it is sports related no one really cares about who's stuff is damaged.

I am still waiting for white leadership to do something about whites perverse and violent love of pumpkins as shown in the pumpkin riots in Keyne. But white leaders are still silent on this.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 27th February 2017, 09:43 AM   #1345
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Yeah, no. This simply isn't equivalent. Rescinding your own invitation really isn't the same as using violence to silence someone. The equivalent would have been if the Berkeley student group that invited him had uninvited him, but that's not what happened.
And of course if they had removed the invitation it would still be decried as censorship on college campuses, after all college campuses are required to give people like Milo a platform to speak on, that is what all these college censorship threads have always said.

CPAC is just not held to the same standards because they are not the liberal elite. They can censor anyone they want for any reason they want and get a free pass at it.

So you will now no longer give people grief for just protesting and pressuring schools to uninvite people like Milo, or is that still horrific violations of free speech?

At least bomb threats to drive away feminists are OK, that still hasn't changed right?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 27th February 2017, 09:44 AM   #1346
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Declining to allow someone to use a platform for increasing the reach of their message isn't diminishing their Freedom of Speech.

That's not how it works.
But that has been the claim on the right against liberal colleges censoring proper conservative voices by not inviting them or having them withdraw the invitation. That is the poisonous anti free speech of the left after all. That has been the argument for years.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 27th February 2017, 09:46 AM   #1347
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Milo is homophobic? Yeah, um... no.
Yes he is a homophobic gay man. Why else is he making a big deal about getting straightened out and becoming an xgay?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 27th February 2017, 11:08 AM   #1348
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It is only ok when expressing your love of sports teams or pumpkins. Then no one cares. I mean imagine if we cancled major sporting events just because of riots! That would never be acceptable.
.
Generally the riots happen after the sporting event. I don't think anyone other than the rioters think they're okay.
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 27th February 2017, 11:43 AM   #1349
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Generally the riots happen after the sporting event. I don't think anyone other than the rioters think they're okay.
They don't blame the sports fans for them though. I mean imagine if they closed down a college sports franchise over riots, the riots that would create would be legendary!

Sports fans who riot because their guy lost his job over aiding and abetting child rape is OK and totally american. Having a little violence in a protest against a racist, sexist, troll is right out. The sports gives people a cover because right thinking americans like sports, just like right thinking americans like racist sexist trolls.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 27th February 2017, 12:13 PM   #1350
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Generally the riots happen after the sporting event. I don't think anyone other than the rioters think they're okay.
Sports rioters don't even get half the vitriol that political ones do nowadays. Hell, sports rioting is practically socially acceptable in comparison.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 27th February 2017, 12:19 PM   #1351
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by twinstead View Post
Sports rioters don't even get half the vitriol that political ones do nowadays. Hell, sports rioting is practically socially acceptable in comparison.
They get to be minor news for a while and then ignored.

They often even refuse to call a good sports riot a riot and ignore the damage far in excess of what happened a berkeley. When Penn State closes down the football team for a year because of a riot, I will think they start actually caring about them.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 27th February 2017, 05:45 PM   #1352
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Really, not all that hard to understand.
Of course not, it's trivial to understand.

"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand Him"...
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 27th February 2017, 05:48 PM   #1353
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, it really doesn't depend on who you ask. Glass windows (which is what we're talking about) all do the same thing: permit the passage of light, block the flow of air. This function fails when the window is broken. Pretending otherwise doesn't demonstrate sophisticated thinking, it merely demonstrates delusion.
I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
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 27th February 2017, 05:49 PM   #1354
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've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
Are you suggesting that the earth was designed and engineered?
__________________
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 27th February 2017, 05:58 PM   #1355
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Of course not, it's trivial to understand.

"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand Him"...
You think that the convention of private and public ownership us like belief in God?

I own my car. You haven't a right to destroy it in order to protest a speaker who has nothing to do with me.
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 27th February 2017, 05:59 PM   #1356
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?
Human created artifacts are not like the earth. Sometimes they have intended functions.
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 27th February 2017, 06:21 PM   #1357
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Obviously, you are biased in favor of those who paid for the windows. Those who broke them have a different purpose in mind. Duh.
Obviously.

I might as well complain about people destroying the property of the protester, when the cleaners broke the piece of art he or she created. It would have no less basis in fact than people's complaints 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 27th February 2017, 06:24 PM   #1358
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you suggesting that the earth was designed and engineered?
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 27th February 2017, 06:27 PM   #1359
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You think that the convention of private and public ownership us like belief in God?
Obviously.

Quote:
I own my car.
God exists.

Quote:
You haven't a right to destroy it in order to protest a speaker who has nothing to do with me.
You haven't a right to deny that God exists. Or, since you seem to like dramatic use of language, you haven't a right to destroy my belief that God exists.

Last edited by caveman1917; 27th February 2017 at 06:41 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 27th February 2017, 06:36 PM   #1360
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Human created artifacts are not like the earth. Sometimes they have intended functions.
Not everyone has the same intentions with them though, as shown clearly in the case under determination. The intended function is not a property of the object itself, but of the relation between a person and an object. It's not "this object has this intended function" but "this person intends for this object to have this function".
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 12:47 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.