“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[caveman1917]

You did indeed claim that the window was not destroyed.

Yes, like I said, because the distinction between "destruction" and "creation" is a value judgement.

You supported that claim by arguing that the molecules were rearranged.

No I didn't. I said that the molecules being rearranged is all that can be empirically observed.

Thus, you claimed that the window was not destroyed because the molecules were only rearranged.

Not at all. The set of molecules under consideration goes from state A to state B. Whether this change constitutes "destruction" or "creation" depends on which state you value more.

It's not like this is difficult or anything you know.

 

[caveman1917]

What does my skepticism regarding the existence of god in 2017 have to do with the laws of medieval europe?

The validity of skepticism regarding the existence of god does not depend on the year in which it takes place.

 

[Mycroft]

The validity of skepticism regarding the existence of god does not depend on the year in which it takes place.

Neither does the existence of laws depend on your agreement to their foundation.

 

[Mycroft]

Not at all. The set of molecules under consideration goes from state A to state B. Whether this change constitutes "destruction" or "creation" depends on which state you value more.

That someone prefers the window broken doesn't change that it is broken.

If I think destroying your computer is an act of creation, creating a world with a little less idiocy on the Internet, why shouldn't I have just as much right to do that as your protester has to break a window?

 

[caveman1917]

Neither does the existence of laws depend on your agreement to their foundation.

Correct, they don't exist, irrespective of my or anyone else's agreement to them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Correct, they don't exist, irrespective of my or anyone else's agreement to them.

Snerk.

The fact that this poster has me on ignore is an honor.

Things I don't like don't exist.

 

[Mycroft]

Correct, they don't exist, irrespective of my or anyone else's agreement to them.

All laws? Or just some of them?

 

[caveman1917]

That someone prefers the window broken doesn't change that it is broken.

It does though. If everyone else also preferred it in state B rather than state A we'd say that it was fixed rather than broken. Heck rather than have a word for its specific configuration in state A (ie "window") we'd have a word for it in state B instead. You really should learn the difference between belief systems and empirical reality.

 

[caveman1917]

All laws? Or just some of them?

All laws. Unless you can actually provide evidence for the existence of a law - rather than just evidence of the existence of people who believe in the existence of a law.

 

[Mycroft]

It does though.

No it doesn't, but I've grown bored with trying to get you to communicate something of substance. If you want to claim breaking windows isn't breaking windows and you want to ignore the numerous questions that might clarify your reasoning, then my time is better spent clipping toenails.

 

[sadhatter]

All laws. Unless you can actually provide evidence for the existence of a law - rather than just evidence of the existence of people who believe in the existence of a law.

If ideas didn't exist we couldn't have this conversation.

Stop being silly, god does not exist because he is an idea that supposedly has form and agency and neither can be proven.

The law has neither form nor agency it is an idea that people enforce. The law exists unless that is you use a non standard version of exist, in which case you are acting like a child.

 

[phiwum]

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.

I see. In a similar manner, I might propose to rearrange the molecules that make up the person known as Caveman1917, but whether it consists of destruction or creation would be a value judgment.

On the other hand, if one breaks my window, I don't regard it as a mere difference of opinion whether he has caused me harm. It's my window, not his, and he has changed it in a way that I didn't desire.

I'm all in favor of saying that some things are mine, and some things are yours, and I get to choose what happens to my things within certain limits, and so do you. And arbitrary rearrangements of my stuff requires really good reasons which go beyond "this other guy says stuff that pisses me off. "

Because, honestly, he's not my problem.

 

[caveman1917]

The law exists unless that is you use a non standard version of exist,

From wikipedia:

Existence is commonly held to be that which objectively persists independent of one's presence.

I did not know this is a "non standard version of exist" - could you perhaps enlighten us as to the "standard version of exist".

in which case you are acting like a child.

Does any old crap you make up in your head "exist"? Sounds very child-like to me. For example, children tend to learn at some point that their imaginary friends don't exist, but apparently you haven't gotten to such point yet where you learn to make a distinction between what you believe and what exists.

 

[caveman1917]

I see. In a similar manner, I might propose to rearrange the molecules that make up the person known as Caveman1917, but whether it consists of destruction or creation would be a value judgment.

That isn't particularly similar, unless you're an animist? Or I guess unless you see no distinction between an inanimate object and a person. Are you somehow equating disagreement about some random belief system of yours with actual murder?

On the other hand, if one breaks my window, I don't regard it as a mere difference of opinion whether he has caused me harm.

For starters, are you a fictional person? If not, why do you substitute yourself for a bank which is a fictional person? Are you failing to distinguish between the property of the shareholders and the property of the bank?

It's my window, not his, and he has changed it in a way that I didn't desire.

He could say the same thing about you though.

I'm all in favor of saying that some things are mine, and some things are yours, and I get to choose what happens to my things within certain limits, and so do you.

Can we then agree that everything is mine and nothing is yours? It's an example of saying that some things are mine and some things are yours, so you should be all in favour of it, and I guess I'll go along with it as well.

 

[Belz...]

They should, just two posts more than from where you conveniently chose to start your recollection.

I quoted your own words back to you. Accept them. Stop lying.

Are you claiming that I later edited in that part about an alternative belief system being that the protesters "own" the window, rather than that you snipped it out?

I am claiming exactly what I wrote, nothing else.

I'm not subscribing to an ideology, you are, fanatically so.

There's nothing ideological or fanatical about understanding how ownership works. You are continuing to lie about what I am saying, and also continuing to pretend that you know better than I do what goes on in my head. Stop it.

Neither.

That is illogical. It cannot be neither nor both. It's either one or the other.

No.

Why not? You don't actually own it.

 

[caveman1917]

There's nothing ideological or fanatical about understanding how ownership works.

There is nothing ideological or fanatical about understanding how christianity or religion in general works. There is, though, a lot ideological and fanatical about continuously asserting as fact that the christian god exists and all other deities are false. Since we're just asserting random belief systems here, I'll assert that the window was the property of the protester.

That is illogical. It cannot be neither nor both. It's either one or the other.

Do you acknowledge the concept X which consists of the set of the following two sentences: {"the sky is blue", "the earth is flat"}? You really shouldn't be using these terms like "illogical".

 

[Mycroft]

From wikipedia:


I did not know this is a "non standard version of exist" - could you perhaps enlighten us as to the "standard version of exist".



Does any old crap you make up in your head "exist"? Sounds very child-like to me. For example, children tend to learn at some point that their imaginary friends don't exist, but apparently you haven't gotten to such point yet where you learn to make a distinction between what you believe and what exists.

Laws fit that Wikipedia definition; They persist despite your presence. When you travel from nation to nation, the law still exists in the jurisdiction you left.

But the real issue about the broken window is not whose rights you violate in breaking it, it's that the act of breaking it is a threat of violence. It's saying implicitly that if someone doesn't do what you want, they could get hurt or killed by a mob. Your strategy for improving the human condition is to utilize one of our most savage instincts to scare people to submitting to your will. It's a gangster tactic.

 

[Noztradamus]

You defended the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, IIRC. So why can't I nuke your house?
.

Because Argumemnon didn't sink your battleship

 

[Belz...]

Since we're just asserting random belief systems here, I'll assert that the window was the property of the protester.

You're carefully dodging every point: in all seriousness, and in actual reality, who did the window belong to?

Do you acknowledge the concept X which consists of the set of the following two sentences: {"the sky is blue", "the earth is flat"}? You really shouldn't be using these terms like "illogical".

Word salad again.

How about you address what's been said to you instead of trolling or lying?

 

[Mycroft]

Caveman could you clarify what seem to be contradictory positions?

You say that the rioting and vandalism that occurred is to be encouraged, even though it resulted in damage to property of people who weren't involved at all.

But when it's your property you are against it.

I can't imagine you're actually arguing that it's okay to destroy other innocent peoples property but not yours so please clarify.

He seems to believe that "ownership" is determined by usage and need.

For example, you can own your house because you occupy it and need shelter. Ownership of a house that you rent to someone else is more abstract, and therefore questionable. You can own your personal effects, tools of your trade, and also the product of your labor factors in somehow, but it's vague how ownership can be transferred from one person to another.

For whatever reason he's extraordinarily reluctant to just explain the rules he considers to be valid,