|
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. |
3rd March 2017, 05:33 PM | #1481 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
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. |
3rd March 2017, 05:35 PM | #1482 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
4th March 2017, 10:26 AM | #1483 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
4th March 2017, 12:59 PM | #1485 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
|
4th March 2017, 02:18 PM | #1486 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
|
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? |
|
4th March 2017, 02:28 PM | #1487 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,624
|
|
__________________
Why bother? |
|
4th March 2017, 05:44 PM | #1488 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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.
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. 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. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
4th March 2017, 05:47 PM | #1489 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
4th March 2017, 05:54 PM | #1490 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 13,384
|
|
4th March 2017, 10:15 PM | #1491 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
5th March 2017, 12:29 PM | #1492 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
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:
|
5th March 2017, 01:05 PM | #1493 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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:
- 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:
Originally Posted by Stirner
Originally Posted by Stirner
|
5th March 2017, 01:33 PM | #1494 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
|
|
5th March 2017, 03:17 PM | #1495 | |||
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!
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
|
|||
5th March 2017, 03:25 PM | #1496 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
5th March 2017, 04:19 PM | #1497 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Man, you don't just move goalposts, you make them dance.
The bolded part is a positive claim. Can you prove it? 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. Ooh! Pulling out the big guns and citing one of the prophets of your religion. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
5th March 2017, 05:11 PM | #1498 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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".
|
5th March 2017, 05:37 PM | #1499 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
5th March 2017, 06:01 PM | #1500 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
5th March 2017, 06:11 PM | #1501 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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. |
5th March 2017, 07:26 PM | #1502 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
5th March 2017, 07:41 PM | #1503 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
Again, laws are not "belief systems" as they exist independently of your belief.
Then please cease with this "belief system" nonsense. 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. 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. It's a term that included all kinds of violence to get your way, including throwing bricks at police or through windows. Feel free to prove otherwise. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
5th March 2017, 08:43 PM | #1504 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
6th March 2017, 09:15 AM | #1505 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
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. |
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
6th March 2017, 10:53 AM | #1506 |
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 10:56 AM | #1507 |
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 21,505
|
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 11:04 AM | #1508 |
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 11:06 AM | #1509 |
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 11:07 AM | #1510 |
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 11:09 AM | #1511 |
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 11:13 AM | #1512 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,049
|
I really can't believe that you don't understand the difference between:
|
__________________
"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 |
|
6th March 2017, 11:14 AM | #1513 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
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.
|
6th March 2017, 11:17 AM | #1514 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 12:20 PM | #1515 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
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? |
6th March 2017, 12:25 PM | #1516 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
6th March 2017, 12:37 PM | #1517 |
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. |
|
6th March 2017, 12:39 PM | #1518 |
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 |
|
6th March 2017, 12:45 PM | #1519 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 8,143
|
|
6th March 2017, 09:28 PM | #1520 |
High Priest of Ed
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19,871
|
|
__________________
Hamilton 68: Tracking Russian internet propaganda |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|