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 3rd March 2017, 05:33 PM   #1481
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
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...



Appeal to tradition?



Argument by assertion?

Also, one clearly can do these things, as the subject of this very thread shows.
Of course I appeal to tradition, or more precisely, convention when I refer to legal matters like ownership. Such issues are not like the color of the sky. Rather, they depend on the conventions of a society.

There could be, I suppose, societies in which windows are not owned by anyone, but that is not our social arrangement, and it is silly to pretend you don't know this.
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, 05:35 PM   #1482
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Do you consider atheism a belief system? If not, why would non-acceptance of a specific belief be itself a belief system?



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.
I suppose that if you insist on pretending not to understand the rules of the society in which you find yourself, good luck.
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 4th March 2017, 10:26 AM   #1483
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Do you consider atheism a belief system? If not, why would non-acceptance of a specific belief be itself a belief system?
Earlier someone pointed out to you the difference between the existence of God and the existence of religion. I recommend you consider that more.

Laws, customs and mores exist regardless of you or me believing in them. If you choose to disregard them for whatever reason, it's not my responsibility to change your mind.

If you think laws customs and mores should be different from what they are, then it's up to you to figure out how to change them. I would recommend you work on consensus building, but that doesn't seem to be your style.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Again, it is up to the proponent of a belief system to argue for it.
Recognizing that a system of laws, customs and mores exists is not the same as being a proponent for it, nor does it obligate me to explain/justify it to you.

Recognizing that they exist doesn't even imply that I agree with them. The real issue here is what methods are acceptable in changing them. You are a proponent of mob rule, arguing that breaking things, intimidating people, even hurting people are acceptable methods of change, while I prefer consensus building.

You prefer to pick up a brick and throw it at a police officer or through a window? I think that makes you as big of a problem as whatever social issues you're trying to fix. I'm going to gather signatures for my petition, and in doing so I will talk to people one on one.
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 4th March 2017, 12:39 PM   #1484
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I suppose that if you insist on pretending not to understand the rules of the society in which you find yourself, good luck.
GOTO 1352

And feel free to keep going in circles from that point as many times as you want, you clearly don't need my help with that.
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 4th March 2017, 12:59 PM   #1485
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Recognizing that a system of laws, customs and mores exists is not the same as being a proponent for it, nor does it obligate me to explain/justify it to you.
It does if you're going to use it as a basis for an argument for what should be the result of the protester's action, such as "he should be arrested" or something. I'm not sure if you personally made such argument, but plenty of people here in this thread have.

Quote:
You prefer to pick up a brick and throw it at a police officer or through a window? I think that makes you as big of a problem as whatever social issues you're trying to fix.
Just to be clear here, capitalism kills over 20 million people per year (and that's one hell of an underestimate if there ever was one) as well as leading us headfirst into environmental catastrophy, and you claim that a window being broken or a brick being hurled towards a violent thug is as big of a problem? That makes your opinion quite invalid.
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 4th March 2017, 02:18 PM   #1486
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
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.

What I meant was that a lot of protestors and rioters are from other places and are not necessarily students or from the area. They have appeared at other Milo events, such as this one in Seattle.

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prot...ds-in-gunfire/

Nobody knows the identity of any of the rioters at Berkeley so I admit I can't prove anything (or don't have time to try), but they appear to be from the same group that did the same thing in Seattle. Black masks, black hoods and clothing, wooden bats and bricks, same tactics.

There was a peaceful protest going on (Berkeley) when these masked rioters marched up in one group, made their way through the crowd to the barriers, then methodically cut through the barriers and began throwing them.

More about out-of-town protestors:
There were protestors at a Tom McClintock Town Hall my father attended last week. His friend knows Tom (R-CA) otherwise he would never attend such a thing. He talked with protestors that had showed up. He asked if they were from the county and if so he'd ask which city - just friendly conversation. Some admitted to being from out of the area, others couldn't name a city when asked and stopped talking.

These were peaceful protestors, not rioters. That's all I have for now, I suppose I am assuming a bit, but it fits a pattern.

I remember during the campaign seeing the same individual "protestors" burning flags in multiple cities at multiple events. They also had little URLs on their signs that were a bit of a giveaway. The URLs in this case were a link to a socialist party website.

Like I said, I can't prove the Berkeley rioters were "outsiders" but there is evidence to suggest it.
__________________
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 4th March 2017, 02:28 PM   #1487
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
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.
Yep, I remember college too. We think we have the world all figured out, then most of us grow up

Or

__________________
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 4th March 2017, 05:44 PM   #1488
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It does if you're going to use it as a basis for an argument for what should be the result of the protester's action, such as "he should be arrested" or something. I'm not sure if you personally made such argument, but plenty of people here in this thread have.
The discussion is on how the protester should conduct himself, not what should happen to them after. Denying the laws, customs and mores that govern our society wouldn't change what happens to these people if they are caught and have to answer to them.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Just to be clear here, capitalism kills over 20 million people per year (and that's one hell of an underestimate if there ever was one) as well as leading us headfirst into environmental catastrophy...
Those people weren't killed by capitalism, they just weren't saved by capitalism. They weren't saved by communism, socialism or anarchism either.

That's a typical communist tu-quoque argument. Someone writes a book outlining how many people have been killed by communism, and someone needs to answer it with a tu-quoque rebuttal making a similar claim about capitalism. In typical communist fashion, they have to lie about it by just attributing every death to capitalism without justification.

If you want to save people from dying for lack of food, water and medicine, there is actually a lot you can do. Urging people to throw bricks through windows or at police so that Yiannopoulos can't speak at Berkeley or Murray can't speak at Middlebury isn't among them.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
and you claim that a window being broken or a brick being hurled towards a violent thug is as big of a problem? That makes your opinion quite invalid.
The window or the brick isn't the problem, it's the person who throws it. Particularly if their sense of reason is so messed up that they believe they're doing something about world hunger and poverty by preventing lectures at colleges.
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 4th March 2017, 05:47 PM   #1489
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Earlier someone pointed out to you the difference between the existence of God and the existence of religion. I recommend you consider that more.

Laws, customs and mores exist regardless of you or me believing in them. If you choose to disregard them for whatever reason, it's not my responsibility to change your mind.

If you think laws customs and mores should be different from what they are, then it's up to you to figure out how to change them. I would recommend you work on consensus building, but that doesn't seem to be your style.



Recognizing that a system of laws, customs and mores exists is not the same as being a proponent for it, nor does it obligate me to explain/justify it to you.

Recognizing that they exist doesn't even imply that I agree with them. The real issue here is what methods are acceptable in changing them. You are a proponent of mob rule, arguing that breaking things, intimidating people, even hurting people are acceptable methods of change, while I prefer consensus building.

You prefer to pick up a brick and throw it at a police officer or through a window? I think that makes you as big of a problem as whatever social issues you're trying to fix. I'm going to gather signatures for my petition, and in doing so I will talk to people one on one.
Well said.
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 4th March 2017, 05:54 PM   #1490
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
GOTO 1352

And feel free to keep going in circles from that point as many times as you want, you clearly don't need my help with that.
Continue your pretended ignorance if you want. You and I both know that these protesters didn't own those windows. They didn't have the right to break them.

I have often found you to be an insightful fellow. I don't get this ridiculous line of argument.
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 4th March 2017, 10:15 PM   #1491
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Yep, I remember college too. We think we have the world all figured out, then most of us grow up
I remember being stoned too, but then I sobered up. Honestly, I think that's closer to his level of thought here.
__________________
"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 5th March 2017, 12:29 PM   #1492
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The discussion is on how the protester should conduct himself, not what should happen to them after.
Same thing, if the argument is based on acceptance of a certain belief system then it is up to the person promoting the belief system to argue for it.

Quote:
Denying the laws, customs and mores that govern our society wouldn't change what happens to these people if they are caught and have to answer to them.
I'm not denying that these laws govern your society, at least not in the sense of what the consequences are to people who are caught by your gangs when they fail to behave in a manner consistent with the laws of your society.

However, that does not in any way entail that these laws should be accepted, or can be used as a valid basis for an argument. If you think it does, you should look up what an "argumentum ad baculum" means.

Quote:
Those people weren't killed by capitalism, they just weren't saved by capitalism. They weren't saved by communism, socialism or anarchism either.

That's a typical communist tu-quoque argument. Someone writes a book outlining how many people have been killed by communism, and someone needs to answer it with a tu-quoque rebuttal making a similar claim about capitalism. In typical communist fashion, they have to lie about it by just attributing every death to capitalism without justification.
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 5th March 2017, 01:05 PM   #1493
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Continue your pretended ignorance if you want. You and I both know that these protesters didn't own those windows. They didn't have the right to break them.
I know no such thing and they had every right to break them. You're the one making a positive claim, and in another thread you've agreed that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.

Quote:
I have often found you to be an insightful fellow.
Are you ever going to come up with a valid argument for your beliefs? Here's a short list of fallacious arguments so far, please don't use them further:

- Argument by assertion. Simply asserting that your belief is true.
- Ad nauseam. Doing those assertions post after post after post.
- Appealing to tradition. Just because you've traditionally held that belief doesn't mean it's true.
- Appealing to convention. "It is the conventional belief of my people/society."
- Ad baculum. "If you don't behave in a way consistent with my belief a gang will assault you."

Quote:
I don't get this ridiculous line of argument.
Ridiculous line of argument? It is basic individualist libertarianism. In the words of Max Stirner:
Originally Posted by Stirner
If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master
Or further:
Originally Posted by Stirner
Egoism takes another way to root out the non-possessing rabble. It does not say: Wait for what the board of equity will bestow on you in the name of the collectivity...and therefor according to the measure in which each was able to deserve it, to acquire by service... Take hold, and take what you require! With this the war of all against all is declared. I alone decide what I will have... The poor become free and the proprietors only when they rise.
Surely, as a student of philosophy, you've come across egoist/individualist libertarianism before?

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th March 2017 at 01:39 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 5th March 2017, 01:33 PM   #1494
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I know no such thing and they had every right to break them. You're the one making a positive claim, and in another thread you've agreed that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.



Are you ever going to come up with a valid argument for your beliefs? Here's a short list of fallacious arguments so far, please don't use them further:

- Argument by assertion. Simply asserting that your belief is true.
- Ad nauseam. Doing those assertions post after post after post.
- Appealing to tradition. Just because you've traditionally held that belief doesn't mean it's true.
- Appealing to convention. "It is the conventional belief of my people/society."
- Ad baculum. "If you don't behave in a way consistent with my belief a gang will assault you."
Name me one thing you can do I cannot based on your belief system.
sadhatter 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 5th March 2017, 03:17 PM   #1495
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Today in Berkeley, a fash pisses himself after getting his ass handed back to him when provoking and attacking left-wing counter-protesters. They never seem to like it very much when they actually get to encounter "leftist snowflakes" in real life

That calls for a song!
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


And an article on the event and on liberal hypocrisy about anti-fascism: Liberal Hypocrisy: Berkeley Clashes Should Serve As Warning

This paragraph in particular is interesting:
Originally Posted by article
Let’s understand the lesson of this latest round of clashes in Berkeley: that the far-Right is becoming more of a threat to autonomous social movements that are anti-capitalist and anti-colonial. In the face of this, the role of liberals in society is to police our actions, not those of our enemies. We shouldn’t expect them to kick up much of a fuss about their hypocrisy, but let us take note of it and push them farther and farther out of our lives, our struggles, and our movements.
What the hell were anarchists in America thinking, having liberals in their movements in the first place...

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th March 2017 at 03:23 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 5th March 2017, 03:25 PM   #1496
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Name me one thing you can do I cannot based on your belief system.
What belief system would that be?
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 5th March 2017, 04:19 PM   #1497
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Man, you don't just move goalposts, you make them dance.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I know no such thing and they had every right to break them. You're the one making a positive claim, and in another thread you've agreed that the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.
The bolded part is a positive claim. Can you prove it?

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Are you ever going to come up with a valid argument for your beliefs? Here's a short list of fallacious arguments so far, please don't use them further:

- Argument by assertion. Simply asserting that your belief is true.
- Ad nauseam. Doing those assertions post after post after post.
- Appealing to tradition. Just because you've traditionally held that belief doesn't mean it's true.
- Appealing to convention. "It is the conventional belief of my people/society."
- Ad baculum. "If you don't behave in a way consistent with my belief a gang will assault you."
Let's see:

1-2. So have you.
3-4. Appealing to tradition and convention is hardly a fallacy if what you're discussing is tradition and convention. The fallacy there was your denial of convention and tradition.
5. Ironically, you're the one arguing the appropriateness of assaulting people and property with gangs if they don't behave in a way consistent with your beliefs.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Ridiculous line of argument? It is basic individualist libertarianism. In the words of Max Stirner:

Or further:

Surely, as a student of philosophy, you've come across egoist/individualist libertarianism before?
Ooh! Pulling out the big guns and citing one of the prophets of your religion.
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 5th March 2017, 05:11 PM   #1498
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
The bolded part is a positive claim. Can you prove it?
Meh, I've just used the given framework of understanding to express my statement in. I'm perfectly fine with saying that he had no "right" to rearrange the window and that nobody else had a "right" to stop him from doing so. I'm even more fine with throwing out the entire rhetoric of "rights".
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 5th March 2017, 05:37 PM   #1499
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Today in Berkeley, a .... fash
time to first lie, new record?
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 5th March 2017, 06:01 PM   #1500
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Meh, I've just used the given framework of understanding to express my statement in. I'm perfectly fine with saying that he had no "right" to rearrange the window and that nobody else had a "right" to stop him from doing so. I'm even more fine with throwing out the entire rhetoric of "rights".
Dancing goalposts.

Why should anyone care what Max Stirner said?
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 5th March 2017, 06:11 PM   #1501
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Why should anyone care what Max Stirner said?
If you weren't so quick to jump to what can only be described as trollish comments, then you might have realized that I brought up Max Stirner in response to phiwum expressing surprise at the argument being made, which seems odd given that he has a degree in philosophy and could be expected to have at least some familiarity with individualist libertarianism. But perhaps this can be explained by the different philosophical tradition in the Anglophone world, I don't know.

Clearly I did not claim that anyone should care what Max Stirner said. Now please stop trolling the discussion.

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th March 2017 at 06:12 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 5th March 2017, 07:26 PM   #1502
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you weren't so quick to jump to what can only be described as trollish comments, then you might have realized that I brought up Max Stirner in response to phiwum expressing surprise at the argument being made, which seems odd given that he has a degree in philosophy and could be expected to have at least some familiarity with individualist libertarianism. But perhaps this can be explained by the different philosophical tradition in the Anglophone world, I don't know.

Clearly I did not claim that anyone should care what Max Stirner said. Now please stop trolling the discussion.
Okay, why should one care about individualist libertarianism?
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 5th March 2017, 07:41 PM   #1503
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Same thing, if the argument is based on acceptance of a certain belief system then it is up to the person promoting the belief system to argue for it.
Again, laws are not "belief systems" as they exist independently of your belief.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
I'm not denying that these laws govern your society...
Then please cease with this "belief system" nonsense.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
...at least not in the sense of what the consequences are to people who are caught by your gangs when they fail to behave in a manner consistent with the laws of your society.
If we don't like the way these "gangs" behave we can change the laws and elect different people to supervise them. We don't have similar options with your gangs who run around breaking things and beating people up if they don't agree with them.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
However, that does not in any way entail that these laws should be accepted, or can be used as a valid basis for an argument.
If your argument is that these laws should not be accepted, then argue that and cease with the nonsense of denying them or calling them a belief system.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If you think it does, you should look up what an "argumentum ad baculum" means.
It's a term that included all kinds of violence to get your way, including throwing bricks at police or through windows.

Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Feel free to prove otherwise.
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 5th March 2017, 08:43 PM   #1504
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
Again, laws are not "belief systems" as they exist independently of your belief.
Laws do not exist independently of our beliefs and hence form a clear belief system.
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 6th March 2017, 09:15 AM   #1505
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Laws do not exist independently of our beliefs and hence form a clear belief system.
You're confusing belief with agreement.

You have already acknowledged that laws exist independently from your belief. Disbelieving in them amounts to profound ignorance, denial delusion or some combination.

If you don't agree with the law, or don't agree with the concept of law, and/or choose not to consider yourself bound by the law, none of that is the equivalent of not believing the law exists.

If the gang of thugs that represent the state (police) intervenes with your gang of thugs (anarchists) while they're making their "argumentum ad baculum" (throwing bricks at police and through windows), what happens after doesn't depend on what you or anyone else believes.
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 6th March 2017, 10:53 AM   #1506
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
How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
How will students ever get to challenge and critique poorly-thought-out ideologies if they're never given the chance to interact with those who spout such nonsense?
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 10:56 AM   #1507
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
P: "this window belongs to this person because the law says that is how things work"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then lawfully delegated representatives of the government 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.
You are incorrect. See added bits above.

With respect to medieval Spain, the piece you leave out is that heresy was illegal in Spain at that time. You and I don't believe in god, and find it ridiculous to force that belief... but at that time it was law, and a violation of that law was punishable by the representatives appointed to uphold that law.

Take actions to change the law. Don't just break the law and pretend the law is irrelevant and expect to get away with it.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 11:04 AM   #1508
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
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?
So we need to clearly assume that Penn State and people who go there are fundamentally all hooligans and violent.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 11:06 AM   #1509
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Going back to this tired thing because you sports rants are seeming silly even to yourself.
Hey at least they closed down the beloved pumpkin festival because of it, no one will do anything about college sports riots. They money they cost is far to trivial to the revenue they bring in.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 11:07 AM   #1510
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
You don't seem to get that it's possible to despise Milo as a person, but still defend his right to speak and make his opinions heard.
Was it wrong then for CPAC to uninvite him and censor him because of his positions? No one seems to be condemning CPAC and breightbart.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 11:09 AM   #1511
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
You've obviously never listened to sports radio

But really, it does seem to me that sports riots, in the US, are more related to youthful stupidity than to any sort of politics.
Which is why it is forgiven when it is just some white kids having fun setting things on fire.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 11:13 AM   #1512
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Was it wrong then for CPAC to uninvite him and censor him because of his positions? No one seems to be condemning CPAC and breightbart.
I really can't believe that you don't understand the difference between:
  1. A speech being canceled because security can no longer guarantee the safety of the participants from nearby rioters
  2. A group inviting someone, then that same group later choosing that they don't want to hear the speaker and canceling the invitation.
__________________
"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
Newtons Bit 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 6th March 2017, 11:14 AM   #1513
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Hey at least they closed down the beloved pumpkin festival because of it, no one will do anything about college sports riots. They money they cost is far to trivial to the revenue they bring in.
It isn't just the desperate attempt to deflect from the subject, the insipid use of sarcasm, nor the grinding, repetitive, incredibly boring nature of these posts that REALLY takes them to the next level: It is all of them, plus the fact that they are built on a fundamental lie.
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 6th March 2017, 11:17 AM   #1514
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
I really can't believe that you don't understand the difference between:
  1. A speech being canceled because security can no longer guarantee the safety of the participants from nearby rioters
  2. A group inviting someone, then that same group later choosing that they don't want to hear the speaker and canceling the invitation.
You should see the post I was responding to, he was against canceling Milo's speech and peaceful protesting of it. He wanted Milo heard at Berkeley so why wouldn't he want Milo heard at CPAC?

His position seems to be colleges are required to give all speakers a platform.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 12:20 PM   #1515
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
How will students ever get to challenge and critique poorly-thought-out ideologies if they're never given the chance to interact with those who spout such nonsense?
Students have every chance to interact with them, they have email accounts, they have speaking events in their own private venues where students can go to, etc. If these students are incapable of interacting with them through all those available channels then I question whether they'd be capable of challenging and criticizing that nonsense in the first place.

The real question is, why should proponents of "scientific" racism be given a veneer of legitimacy by being allowed to promote it in the form of lectures at universities?

Last edited by caveman1917; 6th March 2017 at 01:27 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 6th March 2017, 12:25 PM   #1516
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
You should see the post I was responding to, he was against canceling Milo's speech and peaceful protesting of it. He wanted Milo heard at Berkeley so why wouldn't he want Milo heard at CPAC?

His position seems to be colleges are required to give all speakers a platform.
If the issue is free speech, it doesn't matter if you want the speaker heard or not.
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 6th March 2017, 12:37 PM   #1517
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 60,375
Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
If the issue is free speech, it doesn't matter if you want the speaker heard or not.
CPAC is a private group, not a public forum. If you don't get the difference, you are clueless.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 12:39 PM   #1518
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
CPAC is a private group, not a public forum. If you don't get the difference, you are clueless.
And colleges are not open to the public forums either. If you want speech that free get a soap box on the corner.
__________________
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 6th March 2017, 12:45 PM   #1519
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You are incorrect. See added bits above.

With respect to medieval Spain, the piece you leave out is that heresy was illegal in Spain at that time. You and I don't believe in god, and find it ridiculous to force that belief... but at that time it was law, and a violation of that law was punishable by the representatives appointed to uphold that law.
Any reason why you then don't add the rest of the bits? Like this:
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
P: "this window belongs to this person because the law says that is how things work"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then lawfully delegated representatives of the government will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists because the law says He does"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then lawfully delegated representatives of the government will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.
Would you then, as a skeptic in medieval Spain, proclaim that God exists on the same basis that you now proclaim the window is owned by the bank?
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 6th March 2017, 09:28 PM   #1520
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
 
Mycroft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
CPAC is a private group, not a public forum. If you don't get the difference, you are clueless.
Preaching to the choir, man. I'm on your side.
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
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 12:57 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.