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 1st March 2017, 10:26 AM   #1441
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 phiwum View Post
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.
You're preaching to the choir. But in this case, we're dealing with someone who rejects the entire concept of property rights as a "belief" system. I don't think that will get us anywhere except to a headache.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Let's try a different approach and see if we can find common ground from which to discuss.
__________________
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 1st March 2017, 11:40 AM   #1442
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You're preaching to the choir. But in this case, we're dealing with someone who rejects the entire concept of property rights as a "belief" system. I don't think that will get us anywhere except to a headache.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Let's try a different approach and see if we can find common ground from which to discuss.
Better still, don't get involved with discussions with fantatics to begin with.......
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 1st March 2017, 11:48 AM   #1443
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
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.
The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.

Quote:
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.
I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial. I'm wondering whether you even understand your own convention, given your consistent failure to distinguish between the property of the company and the property of the shareholders. Are the shareholders personally responsible for the debt of the company? No? Then why would the company's assets be the personal assets of the shareholders?

Besides, those shareholders didn't build the window, they didn't install the window, they don't maintain the window. If anything, they seem to be the ones who have nothing to do with the window at all.

Last edited by caveman1917; 1st March 2017 at 12:17 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 1st March 2017, 11:50 AM   #1444
applecorped
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 20,145
applecorped 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 1st March 2017, 11:52 AM   #1445
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by OMGturt1es View Post

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.
By your logic communists, who are also for a stateless society, are not left-wing either?
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 1st March 2017, 11:54 AM   #1446
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 priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.
Now you're making a mistake when constructing your analogy: it takes willful ignorance to doubt that his belief exists and that it has real-life consequences. YOU are the one who called it a belief system. It's too late to move the goalposts now.

Quote:
I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial.
How can you have robbery when ownership is just a belief system? I don't think you've thought this through.
__________________
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 1st March 2017, 12:30 PM   #1447
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.
That's not a very good analogy. You can't prove the existence of a God, but you can certainly observe the existence of laws in that they are enforced and there are consequences if you're caught breaking them.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial.
Legalized class robbery doesn't sound trivial at all, but in order for there to be any kind of robbery, doesn't there need to be rules of ownership? After all, you can't be robbed of that which you do not own.

What in your opinion constitutes "ownership" and why should we accept your criteria over the general consensus?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm wondering whether you even understand your own convention...
I'm wondering whether you even understand the secret thoughts of my brain....tee hee, tee hee. Of course I won't bother to explain because people are paying attention to me because I'm making them try to guess.


Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...given your consistent failure to distinguish between the property of the company and the property of the shareholders.
Which isn't relevant to a discussion over another person's right to destroy that property.

Also, you're assuming there are shareholders. Why? Earlier I asked you if it made a difference if the shop was owned and run by a window maker who literally made and installed the window. Is that window off limits to protesters? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...
Are the shareholders personally responsible for the debt of the company? No? Then why would the company's assets be the personal assets of the shareholders?
Interesting if tangential question. How would you answer it?

Also, how does any of this justify protesters behaving like thugs, getting their way through violence?
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 1st March 2017, 12:49 PM   #1448
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
That's not a very good analogy. You can't prove the existence of a God, but you can certainly observe the existence of laws in that they are enforced and there are consequences if you're caught breaking them.
You mean the inquisition? Yes, the existence of such laws being enforced and there being consequences if you're caught breaking them doesn't prove the existence of God.

Quote:
Legalized class robbery doesn't sound trivial at all, but in order for there to be any kind of robbery, doesn't there need to be rules of ownership? After all, you can't be robbed of that which you do not own.
Yes, you've made a correct deduction, congratulations.

Quote:
What in your opinion constitutes "ownership" and why should we accept your criteria over the general consensus?
No, I think I'll just stick to negating your belief system rather than propose an alternative one.

Quote:
Also, you're assuming there are shareholders. Why?
If I can buy shares of the Bank of America and Starbucks then it stands to reason that others can as well, and hence there are shareholders.

Quote:
Earlier I asked you if it made a difference if the shop was owned and run by a window maker who literally made and installed the window. Is that window off limits to protesters?
It's certainly a different situation. Whether that makes the window off limits to protesters depends on which belief system about property you choose to adopt.

Quote:
Interesting if tangential question. How would you answer it?
It's pretty clear that in the specific belief system promoted by the people around here, which is the same belief system upheld by the ruling class and enforced by its state, the answer is that there is a distinction between the property of a company and the property of its shareholders.

Quote:
Also, how does any of this justify protesters behaving like thugs, getting their way through violence?
Something which never happened needs no justification. Heck, even things which did actually happen don't necessarily need a justification.

Last edited by caveman1917; 1st March 2017 at 12:53 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 1st March 2017, 12:56 PM   #1449
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 mean the inquisition? Yes, the existence of such laws being enforced and there being consequences if you're caught breaking them doesn't prove the existence of God.
It proves the existence of the law in question. That's where the analogy should be.
__________________
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 1st March 2017, 01:01 PM   #1450
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
By your logic communists, who are also for a stateless society, are not left-wing either?
But Communsim puts "the withering away of the state" in the future, after a long period of development toward it. Sort of like Christians and the Second Coming of Christ. It's a belief that has little impact on the way they actually behave.
Anarchists,on the other hand, want to burn everything down NOW and think utopia will rise miraculously from the flames. Both beliefs are crazy.IMHO, and based upon a incredible misread of Human Nature, but they are somewhat different.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 1st March 2017, 02:51 PM   #1451
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.
Well you know what they said, when God closes a door, he opens a window.

/hell, I am just about God's best pal on this forum, and even I think this analogy is about as weak as sauce can get.
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 1st March 2017, 03:21 PM   #1452
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.



I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial. I'm wondering whether you even understand your own convention, given your consistent failure to distinguish between the property of the company and the property of the shareholders. Are the shareholders personally responsible for the debt of the company? No? Then why would the company's assets be the personal assets of the shareholders?

Besides, those shareholders didn't build the window, they didn't install the window, they don't maintain the window. If anything, they seem to be the ones who have nothing to do with the window at all.
I was not aware that all the windows broken were owned by corporations, but let's presume so. How does that give a third party a right to break them?

Last edited by phiwum; 1st March 2017 at 03:36 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 1st March 2017, 03:37 PM   #1453
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
By your logic communists, who are also for a stateless society, are not left-wing either?
In a theoretical sense that has never existed, sure. They would share leftist social justice values and extreme anti-governmental rightwing values. But they would be radically, fundamentally completely different altogether. Statecraft cannot be evaluated without state.

In a empirical sense, not at all. From my understanding, communism has always included strong centralized planning and government control, which seems rather Hamiltonian and leftist. They may aim to eventually eliminate the State, but until they do, their statecraft seems leftish.

That said, I think many political systems are not best evaluated on a purely left/right continuum. Fascism is generally considered a rightwing system, but includes strong governmental rules, even combining aspects of socialism with authoritarianism. And libertarians tend to be considered rightwing, despite the fact that many hold social justice values more consistent with leftists.
__________________
“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
OMGturt1es 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 1st March 2017, 03:43 PM   #1454
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I was not aware that all the windows broken were owned by corporations, but let's presume so. How does that give a third party a right to break them?
To put out differently, we may well wonder whether the notions of corporations are a good thing. We might question limited liabilty.

But this has **** all to do with whether someone has the right to destroy windows to prevent someone else from speaking in a different venue.

If your grief is with the university, address it there. Even then, I think it doesn't warrant destruction of property, but at least the destruction is aimed appropriately.
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 1st March 2017, 04:42 PM   #1455
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
ARGGH! i forgot the Pumpkins too!

I hate whitey's perverse of pumpkins too!

Well shown, PT.

Now back to Berkely?

No kidding, what is this nonsense about who owns a window? I can't even figure out where the actual conversation went astray.

How about this - comparing peoples reactions to sports riots and the Berkeley thing is pointless.

Sports riots are spontaneous and driven largely by alcohol.

The Berkeley incident was planned. These protestors were largely outsiders specifically brought in to agitate. The masks were a clue that they weren't normal protestors. They pepper-sprayed people and broke stuff and yada yada.

Let's ignore the trolls and stay on topic.
__________________
Why bother?
mgidm86 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 1st March 2017, 04:50 PM   #1456
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
Except he says homophobic things. In other words, you are wrong.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yi...#Homosexuality
rationalwiki is as reliable as conservapedia
__________________
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 1st March 2017, 08:02 PM   #1457
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You mean the inquisition?
No.

It's very puzzling how you could have extrapolated that from anything I said, are you okay? Your perception seems to have been damaged.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Yes, the existence of such laws being enforced and there being consequences if you're caught breaking them doesn't prove the existence of God.
Thank you for conceding the existence of laws.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Yes, you've made a correct deduction, congratulations.

No, I think I'll just stick to negating your belief system rather than propose an alternative one.
Naysaying is not the same as negating. You know how a two-year old runs around saying "No!" all the time? The grown-ups find it annoying, but the two-year olds like the feeling of power it gives them. The attention too, which for a two-year old amounts to the same thing.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If I can buy shares of the Bank of America and Starbucks then it stands to reason that others can as well, and hence there are shareholders.
Does your argument depend on the window belonging to Bank of America or Starbucks? Why?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's certainly a different situation. Whether that makes the window off limits to protesters depends on which belief system about property you choose to adopt.
I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society, which says the protester is not allowed to break anything that is not his. I would need a pretty good reason to choose a different one, and you're not one who will suggest alternatives.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It's pretty clear that in the specific belief system promoted by the people around here, which is the same belief system upheld by the ruling class and enforced by its state, the answer is that there is a distinction between the property of a company and the property of its shareholders.
Yes there is. Emily's Cat explained it quite well in a post that you ignored.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Something which never happened needs no justification. Heck, even things which did actually happen don't necessarily need a justification.
Breaking things that don't belong to you is thuggish behavior.

My opinion is when you do harm you need to justify it. If you don't agree, then we will have to agree to disagree.
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 1st March 2017, 10:05 PM   #1458
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
No kidding, what is this nonsense about who owns a window? I can't even figure out where the actual conversation went astray.

How about this - comparing peoples reactions to sports riots and the Berkeley thing is pointless.

Sports riots are spontaneous and driven largely by alcohol.

The Berkeley incident was planned. These protestors were largely outsiders specifically brought in to agitate. The masks were a clue that they weren't normal protestors. They pepper-sprayed people and broke stuff and yada yada.

Let's ignore the trolls and stay on topic.
I was kinda with you until you said "brought in to agitate". Brought in by whom?

The protestors seem to have brought themselves in, as far as I understand it. You make it sound rather more conspiratorial.
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 2nd March 2017, 03:24 AM   #1459
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society, which says the protester is not allowed to break anything that is not his. I would need a pretty good reason to choose a different one, and you're not one who will suggest alternatives.
What he's doing amounts to saying "money is a belief system" as if somehow that means you don't need to pay for stuff anymore.

First of all, they're not belief systems. They're conventions, agreements. Second, they have power in the real world (through us), and so can be said to exist.

Not like God, but like religion. Caveman, get your analogies right.
__________________
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 2nd March 2017, 06:33 AM   #1460
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
First of all, they're not belief systems. They're conventions, agreements. Second, they have power in the real world (through us), and so can be said to exist.
He acts as though he's going to blow our minds by challenging these conventions, as though the understanding that our concepts of ownership, money and law are conventions and could be changed is secret knowledge he's revealing to us.

But he's stuck on could be different and can't get to how and why it should be different.

Yes, one could consider the window to be the property of the protester, but why would that be better? No answer.
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 2nd March 2017, 06:49 AM   #1461
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
He acts as though he's going to blow our minds by challenging these conventions, as though the understanding that our concepts of ownership, money and law are conventions and could be changed is secret knowledge he's revealing to us.
Yeah, as if none of us ever went to high school.
__________________
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 2nd March 2017, 01:45 PM   #1462
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 Argumemnon View Post
Yeah, as if none of us ever went to high school.
Or got high.

It's very similar to the "hey man, it's like, we're all part of the same thing man... ". Yes, it seems novel to you because you've never had that thought before. But the rest of us already had that though, got caught up in it for a bit, then realized it was irrelevant and moved on.
__________________
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 3rd March 2017, 02:02 PM   #1463
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Good news! It's not just Berkeley!
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessag...charles-murray
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 02:15 PM   #1464
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
He acts as though he's going to blow our minds by challenging these conventions, as though the understanding that our concepts of ownership, money and law are conventions and could be changed is secret knowledge he's revealing to us.

But he's stuck on could be different and can't get to how and why it should be different.

Yes, one could consider the window to be the property of the protester, but why would that be better? No answer.
And he is not getting that most of us have encountered his kind...the hardcore anarchist...before,and he is not nearly as daring and revolutionary as he thinks he is.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 3rd March 2017, 02:29 PM   #1465
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And he is not getting that most of us have encountered his kind...the hardcore anarchist...before,and he is not nearly as daring and revolutionary as he thinks he is.
Quite right. Some people own windows and others don't and the difference between the two isn't hard to figure out.
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 3rd March 2017, 02:34 PM   #1466
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Good news! It's not just Berkeley!
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessag...charles-murray
I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges. This particularly caught my attention:
Quote:
On Friday afternoon, Middlebury College president Laurie Patton sent a statement to all students, faculty and staff describing how "deeply disappointed" she was by the incident.

"I know that many students, faculty, and staff who were in attendance or waiting outside to participate were upset by the events, and the lost opportunity for those in our community who wanted to listen to and engage with Mr. Murray," she wrote, later adding: "I extend my sincerest apologies to everyone who came in good faith to participate in a serious discussion, and particularly to Mr. Murray and Prof. Stanger for the way they were treated during the event and, especially, afterward."
True. How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
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 3rd March 2017, 02:46 PM   #1467
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges.
The word is "eugenics", not "eugenetics". The rest of your post is even more ignorant.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 02:52 PM   #1468
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
No.

It's very puzzling how you could have extrapolated that from anything I said, are you okay? Your perception seems to have been damaged.
P: "this window belongs to this person"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

Unless you hold that God really existed in medieval Spain you've got nothing.

Quote:
I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society
Most people do. I, however, was under the impression this was a skeptics forum.
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 3rd March 2017, 02:53 PM   #1469
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The word is "eugenics", not "eugenetics".
True.
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 3rd March 2017, 03:04 PM   #1470
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
P: "this window belongs to this person"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

Unless you hold that God really existed in medieval Spain you've got nothing.
No. These are not logically equivalent propositions, and so the requirements for proof of each are not logically equivalent either. The existence of god is not equivalent to the existence of ownership. God is posited as something independent of humans, we cannot create him. Ownership is posited as something we do create, and we do so through enforcement. So enforcement of property does in fact prove property, even though enforcement of belief in god cannot prove god.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 03:07 PM   #1471
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
He acts as though he's going to blow our minds by challenging these conventions, as though the understanding that our concepts of ownership, money and law are conventions and could be changed is secret knowledge he's revealing to us.

But he's stuck on could be different and can't get to how and why it should be different.

Yes, one could consider the window to be the property of the protester, but why would that be better? No answer.
It is up to the one promoting a belief system to argue for it, not the other way around. If your case rests on the acceptance of a belief, which it does, then it is up to you to argue for it.
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 3rd March 2017, 03:10 PM   #1472
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No. These are not logically equivalent propositions, and so the requirements for proof of each are not logically equivalent either. The existence of god is not equivalent to the existence of ownership. God is posited as something independent of humans, we cannot create him. Ownership is posited as something we do create, and we do so through enforcement. So enforcement of property does in fact prove property, even though enforcement of belief in god cannot prove god.
A distinction without difference. Substitute "God exists" with "The positions of stars at your birth determine your personality and behaviour". Now it is not independent of humans.

Last edited by caveman1917; 3rd March 2017 at 03:11 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 3rd March 2017, 03:22 PM   #1473
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges. This particularly caught my attention:


True. How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
Should violence be the norm for every controversial speaker?
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 3rd March 2017, 03:24 PM   #1474
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges. This particularly caught my attention:


True. How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
I thought that Murray's views are controversial, but worth discussing. I'm not particularly familiar with him, but I think that he's a speaker worth hearing.
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 3rd March 2017, 03:30 PM   #1475
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
P: "this window belongs to this person"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

Unless you hold that God really existed in medieval Spain you've got nothing.



Most people do. I, however, was under the impression this was a skeptics forum.
This is a skeptics' forum. That doesn't mean that we pretend that long held conventions of ownership are magically doubtful.

I own my car, just as some corporations own their windows. You can't destroy my car to make a point. You can't legally destroy windows that someone else owns to make a point.
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 3rd March 2017, 03:38 PM   #1476
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
A distinction without difference. Substitute "God exists" with "The positions of stars at your birth determine your personality and behaviour". Now it is not independent of humans.
Wrong again. The assertion of astrology is that the mechanisms ARE independent of humans, meaning humans don't create or control them. That they act ON humans doesn't change that. The mechanisms of ownership are, in contrast, created and controlled by humans, by definition.
__________________
"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 3rd March 2017, 03:43 PM   #1477
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
This is a skeptics' forum.
I disagree. It is a forum where people assert whatever belief system the social group they happen find themselves in holds as true. If this forum were transported to medieval Spain it would be filled with people asserting the existence of God. This can be determined by the arguments used in support of the belief systems being promoted, such as...

Quote:
That doesn't mean that we pretend that long held conventions of ownership are magically doubtful.
Appeal to tradition?

Quote:
I own my car, just as some corporations own their windows. You can't destroy my car to make a point. You can't legally destroy windows that someone else owns to make a point.
Argument by assertion?

Also, one clearly can do these things, as the subject of this very thread shows.
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 3rd March 2017, 04:08 PM   #1478
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It is up to the one promoting a belief system to argue for it, not the other way around. If your case rests on the acceptance of a belief, which it does, then it is up to you to argue for it.
Then argue for your belief system. Why should we accept yours over the conventional norms we already follow?
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 3rd March 2017, 04:35 PM   #1479
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Then argue for your belief system.
Do you consider atheism a belief system? If not, why would non-acceptance of a specific belief be itself a belief system?

Quote:
Why should we accept yours over the conventional norms we already follow?
Again, it is up to the proponent of a belief system to argue for it. That would be you. Just because the belief your case rests on is considered "conventional" by some group of people doesn't change that.

If I find a group of people who conventionally believe in invisible elves in their backyard that doesn't mean that the burden is on someone not accepting that belief to argue against it.
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 3rd March 2017, 04:44 PM   #1480
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Caveman1917, the debate is not about your atheism,but your violent from of Anarchism.
__________________
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.
dudalb 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 09:45 PM.
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.