|
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. |
25th February 2017, 02:14 PM | #1321 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
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:
Quote:
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:
The rules are not quite as arbitrary as your argument requires. Perhaps not as fair as we might like, but not totally arbitrary either. |
25th February 2017, 04:32 PM | #1322 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
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 |
|
25th February 2017, 04:38 PM | #1323 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
26th February 2017, 11:19 AM | #1324 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
|
And yet CPAC banned Milo from their conference.
|
26th February 2017, 02:13 PM | #1325 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
26th February 2017, 03:12 PM | #1326 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
|
|
26th February 2017, 04:30 PM | #1327 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th February 2017, 05:28 PM | #1328 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
26th February 2017, 05:30 PM | #1329 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
|
|
26th February 2017, 05:33 PM | #1330 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
|
26th February 2017, 05:36 PM | #1331 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,862
|
|
26th February 2017, 06:21 PM | #1332 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
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. |
26th February 2017, 07:55 PM | #1333 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
26th February 2017, 07:59 PM | #1334 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
26th February 2017, 08:56 PM | #1335 |
Penultimate Amazing
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. |
|
26th February 2017, 08:59 PM | #1336 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
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 |
|
26th February 2017, 09:00 PM | #1337 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th February 2017, 09:07 PM | #1338 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
26th February 2017, 09:11 PM | #1339 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
|
26th February 2017, 09:13 PM | #1340 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
26th February 2017, 10:07 PM | #1341 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
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. |
|
27th February 2017, 07:24 AM | #1342 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
27th February 2017, 07:41 AM | #1343 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
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.
|
27th February 2017, 09:33 AM | #1344 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
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 |
|
27th February 2017, 09:43 AM | #1345 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
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 |
|
27th February 2017, 09:44 AM | #1346 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
27th February 2017, 09:46 AM | #1347 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
27th February 2017, 11:08 AM | #1348 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
27th February 2017, 11:43 AM | #1349 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
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 |
|
27th February 2017, 12:13 PM | #1350 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
|
|
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison |
|
27th February 2017, 12:19 PM | #1351 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
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 |
|
27th February 2017, 05:45 PM | #1352 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
27th February 2017, 05:48 PM | #1353 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
27th February 2017, 05:49 PM | #1354 |
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 |
|
27th February 2017, 05:58 PM | #1355 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
27th February 2017, 05:59 PM | #1356 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
27th February 2017, 06:21 PM | #1357 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
27th February 2017, 06:24 PM | #1358 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
27th February 2017, 06:27 PM | #1359 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
27th February 2017, 06:36 PM | #1360 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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".
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|