“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[The Big Dog]

Belief system; private property does not exist, breaks window.
Reality; private property does exist, guy who breaks window gets arrested.

Fin

 

[caveman1917]

Statements of fact aren't beliefs.

Facts? That's interesting. Any evidence?

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

What arguments? You mean the endless sequence of "my random belief system is a fact"? Those are not arguments, just assertions. It's got the argumentative quality of continuously shouting "God exists!"

 

[Belz...]

Facts? That's interesting. Any evidence?

It's axiomatic, caveman. Property is owned by people.

Let's be honest with each other, here: the only reason you're engaged in this ridiculous rhetorical dishonesty of yours is because you want to be able to justify the destruction of property as an expression of disagreement against your political opponents. You are unwilling to back down from that and also unwilling to agree that the people who opposed Milo were wrong to do these things because -- let's face it -- you hate Milo and thus need to cheer his opposition no matter what they do.

And that's YOUR belief system.

What arguments? You mean the endless sequence of "my random belief system is a fact"? Those are not arguments, just assertions.

Can you quote me saying that? Of course you can't.

 

[caveman1917]

It's axiomatic, caveman.

Ok, it's axiomatic, God exists. And only the one specific God, all other deities axiomatically don't exist. And there ends our discussion. Have fun with your "axioms".

 

[Belz...]

Ok, it's axiomatic, God exists. And only the one specific God, all other deities axiomatically don't exist. And there ends our discussion. Have fun with your "axioms".

The claim was "property is owned by people". That is axiomatic because the question is one of definition.

"God exists" is not a definition. It is a claim.

Your constant pretense of being befuddled by basic language is tiresome and unconvincing.

 

[dudalb]

I keep on telling you people, arguing with a devout anarchist is just like arguing with a religious fanatatic......

 

[Belz...]

I keep on telling you people, arguing with a devout anarchist is just like arguing with a religious fanatatic [sic]......

Exactly like it, in fact. Both of them accuse you of having a belief system.

 

[caveman1917]

It's axiomatic, caveman. Property is owned by people.

Let's be honest with each other, here: the only reason you're engaged in this ridiculous rhetorical dishonesty of yours

Just so these random accusations don't go unanswered, even though I'm usually just ignoring them because they aren't worth wasting time with, but it's really getting out of hand:

Of course it's patently obvious that the dishonesty is yours. Notice how you went from claiming that the objects which you claim to have been destroyed belonged to a specific group of people, which you refused to identify. Then when pointed out that this was just random belief system you change to "property is owned by people" in a general sense. Is this why you refused to identify the people you claimed owned the objects? So you could later support your belief system by a generalization sleigh of hand?

"My God exists and all other deities are false."
"That's just your belief system."
"It is axiomatic that some deity exists."

Note how, even if we accept the latter statement, it still doesn't support the first one.

 

[caveman1917]

Exactly like it, in fact. Both of them accuse you of having a belief system.

You are the fanatic here.

 

[caveman1917]

The claim was "property is owned by people".

No your claim was that the things at the bank are the "property" of a specific group of people. Stop lying and misrepresenting the discussion.

 

[Belz...]

Of course it's patently obvious that the dishonesty is yours.

I'm not the one pretending to not understand the concept of ownership.

Notice how you went from claiming that the objects which you claim to have been destroyed belonged to a specific group of people, which you refused to identify.

Speaking of dishonesty, I have identified them.

Then when pointed out that this was just random belief system you change to "property is owned by people" in a general sense.

I didn't "switch" to anything. Your "pointing" out this is not only a lie, but a nonsensical one at that. My belief system are not "random", nor do they have anything to do with the definitions of the words used here.

"My God exists and all other deities are false."
"That's just your belief system."
"It is axiomatic that some deity exists."

No, this isn't how language works. You just have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You are way out of your depth, here.

You are the fanatic here.

Oh, really? What am I fanatical about, specifically? Let's see how deep your misunderstanding runs.

 

[Mycroft]

Private property is a belief, not a thing.

What do you base this belief on?

If you did mean private property, then yes I encourage people to argue against it and "destroy" it. If you meant the thing - say a window - then I disagree that it was destroyed. Empirically all one can say is that it was molecularly rearranged. Whether such state change consists of "destruction" or "creation" is a value judgement.

The logical fallacy you display here is called "equivocation", which means you substitute one definition for another. For a window to be "destroyed" in the common sense it only needs to be rendered unusable as a window, it's not necessary to break apart its molecules or atoms.

 

[Belz...]

No your claim was that the things at the bank are the "property" of a specific group of people. Stop lying and misrepresenting the discussion.

Ok let's have fun, shall we:

Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some group of people.

Statements of fact aren't beliefs.

Facts? That's interesting. Any evidence?"

It's axiomatic, caveman. Property is owned by people.

Ok, it's axiomatic, God exists. And only the one specific God, all other deities axiomatically don't exist. And there ends our discussion. Have fun with your "axioms".

There we go. Your first post above, highlighted, denies that windows are the property of people, so you agreed that this was my claim. You edited your post after I quoted you, which leads to this hilarious bit:

Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some specific group of people you've identified.

So now I've identified them? You just claimed that I refused to do so. Which is it?

Stop lying. Seriously.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm not the one pretending to not understand the concept of ownership.

"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand him."

Speaking of dishonesty, I have identified them.

I must have missed it, can you link to where you provide their identities?

No, this isn't how language works. You just have absolutely no idea what you're saying. You are way out of your depth, here.

Oh, really? What am I fanatical about, specifically? Let's see how deep your misunderstanding runs.

Your belief system about who "owns" the things at the bank.

 

[Mycroft]

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

What's really funny is that describes your belief system.

 

[caveman1917]

There we go. Your first post above, highlighted, denies that windows are the property of people

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

 

[caveman1917]

The logical fallacy you display here

There is no logical fallacy in what I said.

 

[caveman1917]

What's really funny is that describes your belief system.

 

[Mycroft]

I keep on telling you people, arguing with a devout anarchist is just like arguing with a religious fanatatic......

It's not "just like". Anarchism is a religion. Like Marxism or Scientology.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

What belief system?

As anyone can determine one alternative belief system to yours, which has been provided, is that the window was the property of the protesters. Since this clearly still has "people owning windows" it is obvious that the belief system you promoted is not just "people owning windows" in a general sense.

As anyone can also determine you snipped the highlighted part from the post when you quoted it and set up your switcheroo with the "what belief system".

Besides, even if your belief system was merely that things are "owned" by people it would still just be a random belief system without basis in fact. It's just moving from "my God is the only true deity" to "some deity exists".