“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[caveman1917]

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

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Fin

Pretty much. I suspect that your post will be met with just as much resounding silence as mine was.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

Although most people think of religion in terms of belief in gods, I think that's too narrow. I like to define religion as a shared set of arational (not necessarily irrational) beliefs that provide strong motivation for a wide variety of behaviors. In that sense, you're absolutely correct, those are religions.

 

[Mycroft]

There is no logical fallacy in what I said.

Yes there is. A broken window is "destroyed". Your claim that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exists is an example of equivocation. It's destroyed in the sense that it's no longer useful for the purpose it was created.

But let's move forward.

Take "private" away from "private property".

What gives you the right to destroy property, and what purpose is served by it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes there is. A broken window is "destroyed". Your claim that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exists is an example of equivocation. It's destroyed in the sense that it's no longer useful for the purpose it was created.

Agreed: a broken window is not longer a window. A chopped down tree is no longer a tree. A burned down house is no longer a house. Regardless of whether the molecules themselves still exist, the item that the collection of molecules previous were no longer is.

A blown-up person is no longer a person.

 

[Ziggurat]

What gives you the right to destroy property, and what purpose is served by it?

Because he wants to, because it's fun. That's all the justification he needs, everything else is just rationalization. caveman isn't just an anarchist, he's a nihilist.

 

[angrysoba]

Private property is a belief, not a thing. 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.

" you are charged with murder, how do you plead?"
"Murder? Ha ha. No, I merely molecularly rearranged his body."
"You blew him up with dynamite!"
"That's a value judgment. I prefer to say I liberated him from state-worship."
"I sentence you to life imprisonment."
"Bare assertion fallacy! Your courts are mere social constructs!"

...
"Hey, let me out of this prison!"
"What prison? Why do you make such a value judgment?"

 

[caveman1917]

Yes there is. A broken window is "destroyed". Your claim that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exists is an example of equivocation.

I never claimed that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exist.

 

[dudalb]

Because he wants to, because it's fun. That's all the justification he needs, everything else is just rationalization. caveman isn't just an anarchist, he's a nihilist.

Hell just froze over. You posted something I 100% agree with.

I take that back a little. The individual in question is a Moral Nihilist,as opposed to other forms of Nihilism .

 

[Mycroft]

I never claimed that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exist.

You appear to be trying not to communicate any idea of importance while dragging out the exchange for as long as possible.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hell just froze over. You posted something I 100% agree with.

I take that back a little. The individual in question is a Moral Nihilist,as opposed to other forms of Nihilism .

I only recall him saying nihilist, the particular sub-categories don't interest me, I'll take your word for it.

 

[caveman1917]

I missed your post, and I'm not responding to TBD because of being on my ignore list.

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.

The "belief" in the Christian God was one of the bases for the entire medieval Spain's legal and judiciary system. It is a fundamental element of the social contract that Spanish citizens were bound by. If you just randomly decide that you don't "believe" in God and start saying things expressing such disbelief...you're going to end up in jail for blasphemy or something similar pretty quickly. Any rhetorical arguments about whether or not God 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".

Legal persons, as in companies, could hardly be any more distinct from people. Do you understand the distinction between deities and people? One being a belief (it goes away just by stopping to believe in it) and the other being reality (it doesn't go away).

 

[dudalb]

I only recall him saying nihilist, the particular sub-categories don't interest me, I'll take your word for it.

There are other forms of Nihilism,like the belief that the universe is basically chaotic, that are realitvely benign and harmless;moral nihilism is dangerous.

 

[The Big Dog]

I missed your post, and I'm not responding to TBD because of being on my ignore list.

I don't believe in ignore lists so that cannot be true.

 

[caveman1917]

You appear to be trying not to communicate any idea of importance while dragging out the exchange for as long as possible.

What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.

 

[Ziggurat]

What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.

Nope. Wrong. Wrongity-wrong-wrong. If a window is broken, then it cannot perform its intended purpose (ie, permitting light to pass through while obstructing the flow of air). This can indeed be measured empirically. Whether or not this destruction is a good thing or a bad thing may be a value judgment, but that it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed and built is indeed easy to determine objectively and empirically.

 

[Giz]

What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.

Yeah. Try that at trial.

"Your honour, the ice pick merely re-arranged his molecules. Empirically, he's still there."

 

[angrysoba]

There are other forms of Nihilism,like the belief that the universe is basically chaotic, that are realitvely benign and harmless;moral nihilism is dangerous.

No, you seem to have this backward. Moral nihilism is a philosophical position in opposition to moral realism. The assertion that there is no objective or absolute morality.

 

[Mycroft]

What I actually said was that whether it was "destroyed" is a value judgement. What I said about molecules being rearranged is that this is the limit of what you can determine empirically.

A distinction of no relevance to the discussion.

Again, you appear to be trying not to communicate anything of value while trying to drag on the exchange for as long as possible.

How about answering the question of what is accomplished with property destruction and how you determine you have a right to do it?

 

[caveman1917]

Nope. Wrong. Wrongity-wrong-wrong. If a window is broken, then it cannot perform its intended purpose (ie, permitting light to pass through while obstructing the flow of air). This can indeed be measured empirically. Whether or not this destruction is a good thing or a bad thing may be a value judgment, but that it can no longer perform the function for which it was designed and built is indeed easy to determine objectively and empirically.

You're confusing determining if it can perform some function with determining its intended purpose. Depends on who you ask. The bank might have intended for it to have a certain purpose, yet the protester who broke it clearly disagreed. You can not objectively measure purpose.