“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[The Big Dog]

It's very simple. Is the window still there if we choose to stop believing it? Yes, hence it's a "thing". Is it still "private property" if we choose to stop believing it is? No, hence it's a "belief".

Your failure to grasp such rudimentary distinctions between empirical reality and whatever random belief system you adhere to is probably one of the biggest reasons why this discussion fails to move forward.

HA! fantastic example of irony.

One can believe in personal property (his iPhone 7 for example) but not private property (some other poor slob's window).

talk about your random belief system.

Great thread!

 

[Belz...]

It's very simple. Is the window still there if we choose to stop believing it? Yes, hence it's a "thing". Is it still "private property" if we choose to stop believing it is? No, hence it's a "belief".

Your failure to grasp such rudimentary distinctions between empirical reality and whatever random belief system you adhere to is probably one of the biggest reasons why this discussion fails to move forward.

I didn't fail to grasp the distinction. Your wording was so incredibly opaque as to warrant a request for clarification. In addition, the distinction is irrelevant, since the belief is there: it was those people's property.

The reason why this discussion fails to move forward is because you're playing games with words and meanings.

 

[caveman1917]

I didn't fail to grasp the distinction. Your wording was so incredibly opaque as to warrant a request for clarification. In addition, the distinction is irrelevant, since the belief is there: it was those people's property.

Which people? And do you have evidence that it "was those people's property"? How would you go about showing that your belief system is correct, exactly?

The reason why this discussion fails to move forward is because you're playing games with words and meanings.

No I'm not. If anyone it would be you, calling banks people and all that. Again, abject failure to grasp the rudimentary distinction between reality and *insert random belief system*.

 

[Belz...]

Which people?

The people who owned the objects in question. Stop playing games.

And do you have evidence that it "was those people's property"? How would you go about showing that your belief system is correct, exactly?

Again, what in the blue **** are you talking about? Do you seriously suggest that the objects damaged or destroyed didn't belong to anybody?

No I'm not. If anyone it would be you, calling banks people and all that.

I have never done this. I have already explained this to you. Stop lying about it.

Again, abject failure to grasp the rudimentary distinction between reality and *insert random belief system*.

Are you randomly typing words on your keyboard? What are you even talking about, AGAIN?

 

[caveman1917]

...

How would you go about showing that your belief system is correct, exactly?

Here's a bet for 5 internet points if you want:

This spoiler contains your first attempt at showing your belief system correct:

Scripture. It always starts with scripture first. As if writing some belief system down makes it correct.

ETA: oh, I see I was too late

 

[Emily's Cat]

And the difference between throwing a punch and setting off a bomb is just a matter of degree.

Yes it is. Just as the difference between a passionate discussion and an argument is a matter of degree.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seriously, what is it with posters here recently and pretending to not understand the most basic things?

I don't really think that's a recent phenomenon. I think it's just become more narrowly focused of late, given the volume and general emotional sentiment in the political discussions.

 

[caveman1917]

The people who owned the objects in question.

The workers at the bank? People in general?

Again, what in the blue **** are you talking about? Do you seriously suggest that the objects damaged or destroyed didn't belong to anybody?

You're the one promoting an apparently arbitrary belief system, it's up to you to defend it.

I have never done this. I have already explained this to you. Stop lying about it.

Are you randomly typing words on your keyboard? What are you even talking about, AGAIN?

You said that the objects were the property of people, yet even assuming for a moment the particular such belief system promoted by the majority of this forum, these objects would still not be "owned" by people but by "legal persons".

 

[Belz...]

The workers at the bank? People in general?

The owners of the bank.

You're the one promoting an apparently arbitrary belief system

Again, you're talking nonsense. I'm doing no such thing, and your posts are beginning to border on insanity.

You said that the objects were the property of people

Yes, that's usually what we mean by "property".

 

[caveman1917]

I don't really think that's a recent phenomenon. I think it's just become more narrowly focused of late, given the volume and general emotional sentiment in the political discussions.

It's hardly unexpected that people react emotionally to having their belief systems challenged.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You said that the objects were the property of people, yet even assuming for a moment the particular such belief system promoted by the majority of this forum, these objects would still not be "owned" by people but by "legal persons".

Before I go down the rabbit hole here... the "belief" of private property is one of the bases for the entire US legal and judiciary system. It is a fundamental element of the social contract that US citizens are bound by. If you just randomly decide that you don't "believe" in private property and start picking up or destroying objects around you... you're going to end up in jail for theft or vandalism, or something similar pretty quickly. Any rhetorical arguments about whether or not private property is "just a belief" or whatever it is you're spouting is completely irrelevant and without standing.

Now that I've got that off my chest... I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make between "people" and "legal persons".

 

[The Big Dog]

It's hardly unexpected that people react emotionally to having their belief systems challenged.

Is laughing an emotion? because your wildly fantastical and completely arbitrary belief system is hilarious.

 

[Belz...]

It's hardly unexpected that people react emotionally to having their belief systems challenged.

Except that this is YOUR belief system. You think that somehow I think that "property" isn't a social construct when it's in fact quite obvious. The problem is that the construct is actually in place, so there is no distinction. Now, please stop playing this silly game, which is nothing but off-topic personalisation.

 

[caveman1917]

The owners of the bank.

So according to your belief system the people who own the bank also own the things that the bank owns?

Again, you're talking nonsense. I'm doing no such thing, and your posts are beginning to border on insanity.

You most definitely are. You're just such an outright fanatic about your belief system that you can't even conceive of an alternative such belief system or simply not adopting any such belief system. Here's but one such possible alternative belief system: the window was the property of the protesters.

Yes, that's usually what we mean by "property".

Really? Do you have evidence for this? As far as I can see the people who usually adopt this particular belief system disagree that the "legal person's" property is the shareholders' property.

 

[caveman1917]

Except that this is YOUR belief system.

What is?

You think that somehow I think that "property" isn't a social construct when it's in fact quite obvious. The problem is that the construct is actually in place, so there is no distinction.

There is no distinction between a belief system and empirical reality if people adopt the belief system? Have you thought this through?

 

[Belz...]

So according to your belief system the people who own the bank also own the things that the bank owns?

What's this nonsense about belief systems? Is this some sort of rhetorical ploy with intent to equivocate or dismiss arguments? How about you drop this and actually say what you mean.

You most definitely are. You're just such an outright fanatic about your belief system that you can't even conceive of an alternative such belief system or simply not adopting any such belief system.

What belief system?

There is no distinction between a belief system and empirical reality if people adopt the belief system?

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It being okay to cause physical harm to others, cause destruction to certain classifications of property in certain instances, etc...that's also a belief system.

Hardly surprising that those deemed valid targets for harmful abuse 'react emotionally' to that. That's not really a reflexive objection to the introduction of another view itself, it's probably got more to do with the overt threat implied.

 

[caveman1917]

What belief system?

Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some specific group of people you've identified. You know, the one you've been asserting over and over and over again.

You really should learn about rudimentary distinctions between belief systems and reality, at least if you want this discussion to go anywhere other than:

"God exists."
"I don't have to accept that God exists, that's just your belief system that you're promoting."
"What is this nonsense about beliefs systems? God exists."
"Claiming that God exists is promoting a belief system. Are you incapable of understanding that other people might belief some other deity exists, or no deity at all?"
"No YOUR belief system is that God doesn't exist. God exists."
etc

That's not what I said. Learn to read.

Then what you said is nonsense. Learn to write something which is not nonsense.

 

[caveman1917]

It being okay to cause physical harm to others, cause destruction to certain classifications of property in certain instances, etc...that's also a belief system.

Hardly surprising that those deemed valid targets for harmful abuse 'react emotionally' to that. That's not really a reflexive objection to the introduction of another view itself, it's probably got more to do with the overt threat implied.

What overt threat? No it's just the expected emotional defense of deeply-held belief systems.

 

[Belz...]

Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some group of people. You know, the one you've been asserting over and over and over again.

Statements of fact aren't beliefs.

The rest of your post if just mindless personalisation. You need to get back on track and address the actual arguments that people make.