|
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. |
28th February 2017, 01:40 PM | #1401 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
28th February 2017, 01:50 PM | #1402 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
|
|
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein |
|
28th February 2017, 01:54 PM | #1403 |
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 |
|
28th February 2017, 02:06 PM | #1404 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
No, I just attack the people who think rioting is okay. This is true regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.
I don't like sexist racists either. I think protesting this guy would have been entirely appropriate. It's getting violent and destroying stuff that I'm against. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
28th February 2017, 02:08 PM | #1405 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
|
|
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein |
|
28th February 2017, 02:18 PM | #1406 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
Actually in areas where it happens, pepole tend to stereotype fans of certain teams as hooligans, even going so far as to assume a geographical connection with hooliganisim.
Did you ever actually read up on it or are you assuming that no one else knows about this? |
28th February 2017, 02:24 PM | #1407 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
You are not arguing anyone's points. We all hate Milo and most are pretty vocal about that fact.
Doesn't it feel hollow to just regurgitate answers to points no one here is magnificent. Btw I hate sports, you trying to get a rise by insulting them isn't gonna work. |
28th February 2017, 02:25 PM | #1408 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
28th February 2017, 02:30 PM | #1409 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
28th February 2017, 02:35 PM | #1410 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
28th February 2017, 02:37 PM | #1411 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
|
|
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein. |
|
28th February 2017, 02:50 PM | #1412 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,083
|
|
28th February 2017, 02:54 PM | #1413 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
Is the whole playing dumb tactic of the regressive left. Usually combined with a healthy dose of "I know what I'm talking about". Leaving the only choice as pointing out their lack of knowledge, then they claim you are attacking them, and then in their mind they win.
Sad really. The goal isn't to change opinion but to feel attacked. |
28th February 2017, 02:58 PM | #1414 |
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 |
|
28th February 2017, 03:05 PM | #1415 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
28th February 2017, 03:09 PM | #1416 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,726
|
|
28th February 2017, 03:30 PM | #1417 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
28th February 2017, 03:40 PM | #1418 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
It's relevant because you jumped from A to Tau.
You've posited that the purpose of an object is whatever anybody wants it to be, and that ownership is a fluid belief system. So if a person owns a bank that has a window, their claim to the window is no less legitimate than the "claim" of the protester who throws a brick through it. You've further claimed that the window and the pile of broken glass are both legitimate since it was the protester's purpose that was most recent. I'm trying to actually take this step by step and figure out how you jumped to a different universe with this. So. We've established that the window was designed and engineered. Did the designer of the window design the window for a purpose? |
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2017, 04:02 PM | #1419 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
28th February 2017, 04:23 PM | #1420 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
No, quite the opposite.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
28th February 2017, 04:29 PM | #1421 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
Can everyone just agree that Sports riots are absolutely the worst and that ponderingturtles yeoman efforts have convinced everyone of that?
Well done pondering turtle! |
28th February 2017, 04:30 PM | #1422 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th February 2017, 04:42 PM | #1423 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
Do you believe that your computer serves no purpose?
Am I clear in understanding that you believe the person who designed the window designed it for the sole purpose of making money? Do you also believe that the person who designed your keyboard designed it solely to make money, and that there is no other intended purpose involved? |
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2017, 04:59 PM | #1424 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
My computer has no purpose indeed.
Do you believe objects have a purpose? If so, that train being used for spare parts, what is its purpose? Suppose some homeless person is using it for shelter at night. What then, is its purpose to be a shelter for a homeless person? What is its true purpose, which one is it?
Quote:
|
28th February 2017, 05:12 PM | #1425 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
I assume you have no objection to someone smashing it with a hammer then?
The purpose for which the window was designed is to be a window - to let light into a room without exposing the room to the elements. The purpose for which the keyboard was designed is to allow a human to translate verbal thoughts into written words for other people to consume. Do you disagree with those statements? |
__________________
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 |
|
28th February 2017, 07:48 PM | #1426 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
I'm not sure the issue ought to be the function of windows so much as the rights of property owners. If it's my window and I want to break it, no problem. If it's your window and you don't want it broken but I do so anyway because someone I don't like is speaking at a third venue, then there's an issue.
So, let's not talk about what windows are for. Let's talk about the rights of property owners. |
28th February 2017, 08:11 PM | #1427 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
Try to keep up: There's no such thing as property, so there's no such thing as property owners, and certainly no such thing as property rights. If an anarchist wants to rearrange "your" window, that's as much of a social good as anything else that might be done with it.
And that's why there's nothing objectionable about asshats destroying the "property" of innocent bystanders, in a fit of pique over speech they don't like. /caveman |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
28th February 2017, 09:02 PM | #1428 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Sure, were I to give him this claim, then we'd be done. But giving him this claim is (1) asinine and (2) doesn't really justify talk about functions of artifacts.
It doesn't matter what an artifact is for. Either the owner gets to determine what is done with it (within certain limits) or he does not. The intended function is really not that relevant. And I say this as a person who has spent an unreasonable amount of time thinking about the functions of stuff around us. |
28th February 2017, 09:10 PM | #1429 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
|
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
28th February 2017, 11:41 PM | #1430 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
No less asinine than giving someone the claim that deities may not exist.
Quote:
Let P be the set of persons, and O the set of objects. Let PROP be a map P -> O denoting who owns what. Even if someone were to accept that property exists ("the owner gets to determine what is done with it" in your statement above) then it still doesn't follow that they have to accept your specific PROP. With |P| being 7e9 and |O| being, let's say, 7e11 that makes about 5e21 possible PROPs. And that's even a serious underestimation, given that an object could be owned by multiple persons, or that there might exist distinct types of property. Or in terms of the religion analogy, even if I were to give you the claim that a deity exists that doesn't mean that I have to give you the claim that a specific deity exists as opposed to any number of other possible deities. |
1st March 2017, 12:05 AM | #1431 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
|
[/quote]
Sorry for the delayed response. Much of the antifa folks are actually anarchists. I don't have time to dig up sources. But I have personal experience with this through music scenes. The anarchist folks tend to have social justice views that are consistent with the left, but they are also literally against government, which, if anything, is more consistent with far-right, anarcho-capitalist libertarians. From a policy perspective, however, they are distinctly neither left nor right, as no ideal they may advocate is even conceivable as policy absent government. |
__________________
“Science is an integral part of culture. It's not this foreign thing, done by an arcane priesthood. It's one of the glories of the human intellectual tradition.” - Stephen Jay Gould |
|
1st March 2017, 07:13 AM | #1432 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
The shop owner pays for the glass to be installed as a window. It takes willful ignorance to doubt that he now owns that window.
Look, if you really want to pretend that you don't get the convention of property ownership, feel free, but don't expect others to treat intentional confusion as insight. |
1st March 2017, 07:16 AM | #1433 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
1st March 2017, 07:43 AM | #1434 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
caveman1917:
In the example of the ownership of the window, everyone from the glass manufacturer to the end owner have agreed to exchange labor and materials in exchange for cash. They have all willingly agreed to these terms according to their agreed upon 'belief systems'. You, on the other hand, have introduced a different 'belief system' that ignores their arrangement. I've asked you a couple times earlier: Do you therefore believe, as you say, that anyone can unilaterally enforce their belief system on others without their consent? |
1st March 2017, 08:19 AM | #1435 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
Good question, by and large, but if I may edit it slightly:
Do you therefore believe, as you say, that anyone has a fundamental right to unilaterally enforce their belief system on others without their consent? It's obvious that anyone with the power to do so can do so, but that's not what you meant. |
1st March 2017, 08:20 AM | #1436 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
1st March 2017, 08:37 AM | #1437 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Where the Arrantly Roam
Posts: 26,169
|
You are quite correct, and in a rational argument your edit is much more appropriate. But the caveman insists that the concept of private property et al is only part of a 'belief system', and that he has another that he can impose on others. The follow-ups by using 'beliefs' as opposed to fundamental rights promise to be a whale of a lot of fun.
|
1st March 2017, 08:51 AM | #1438 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
1st March 2017, 09:29 AM | #1439 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 6,415
|
Ah, the age-old dilemma.
Any institution which has enough potential force that it can protect your stuff from those who would take or destroy it over your objections is also, by natural extension, capable of bringing enough potential force to take or destroy your stuff over your objections. The flaws in this thinking go beyond the theoretical, of course. Gene Sharp observes in "From Dictatorship to Democracy" that in order to wage violent struggle against a regime in the modern era inevitably means accepting either international assistance or the black market, both of which will involve 'strings attached' that immediately bring corruption to the new state being created and eroding its legitimacy before it even gets going. Of all the possible forms of conflict that can take place, choosing the one you are most outmatched by basically limits the possible outcomes to either failure or a new system just as abusive as the last, possibly even worse. |
1st March 2017, 10:22 AM | #1440 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Except Caveman1917 won't agree with the general consensus on property rights because it doesn't conform with his belief system.
How about instead we point out that rule by intimidation, breaking things when you don't get your way, may not be the best way to improve society? |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|