“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

caveman1917 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Some arrangements of molecules count for more than others. Fair enough, and let's leave living beings out of it.

Do you honestly assert that you have no right to demand that others leave their paws off your stuff? You own things, yes? Maybe a car, several books, whatever? Now, someone, let's say Sigourney Weaver, says things that piss me off and so I decide to torch your car and wee in your books. That's a reasonable act, yes? Because, after all, property is merely a matter of convention, so, you know, you can take a dump on your neighbor's lawn as an act of protest against a third party and he really has no legitimate beef.

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?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're getting at here. Far as I know, I'm not a fictional person. And also the persons who invested in the bank are not, for the most part, fictional and each of these investors suffer real (if fairly slight) losses.

He could say the same thing about you though.
Click to expand...

Right. He could say that it's his window, and I've changed it in ways he doesn't desire, but when he does so, there are two obvious points. The lesser point is that I haven't changed it and the greater point is that it really isn't his window if, in fact, it is my window.

See, that's the thing. Some things are mine and I get to use them (within certain constraints) and some things are yours and you get to use them, and I don't get to break your **** just because some other person says stuff I don't like and I want him to stop.

Really, not all that hard to understand.

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.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's not really how the rules work. I should think a full-growed man would have sussed this by now.

The rules are not quite as arbitrary as your argument requires. Perhaps not as fair as we might like, but not totally arbitrary either.
 
caveman1917 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't depend on who you ask. Glass windows (which is what we're talking about) all do the same thing: permit the passage of light, block the flow of air. This function fails when the window is broken. Pretending otherwise doesn't demonstrate sophisticated thinking, it merely demonstrates delusion.
 
Ziggurat said:
No, it really doesn't depend on who you ask. Glass windows (which is what we're talking about) all do the same thing: permit the passage of light, block the flow of air. This function fails when the window is broken. Pretending otherwise doesn't demonstrate sophisticated thinking, it merely demonstrates delusion.
Click to expand...
Obviously, you are biased in favor of those who paid for the windows. Those who broke them have a different purpose in mind. Duh.
 
Hercules56 said:
Conservatives shouldn't complain about a "lack of tolerance" from Liberals when themselves censor speakers due to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no. This simply isn't equivalent. Rescinding your own invitation really isn't the same as using violence to silence someone. The equivalent would have been if the Berkeley student group that invited him had uninvited him, but that's not what happened.
 
theprestige said:
You seem to be suggesting that I can't support freedom of association unless I also support using violence to suppress speech.

Is that really what you meant?
Click to expand...

You don't support Freedom of Speech if you can suddenly rescind a speeking invitation due to what someone said.
 
Hercules56 said:
You don't support Freedom of Speech if you can suddenly rescind a speeking invitation due to what someone said.
Click to expand...

Declining to allow someone to use a platform for increasing the reach of their message isn't diminishing their Freedom of Speech.

That's not how it works.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Declining to allow someone to use a platform for increasing the reach of their message isn't diminishing their Freedom of Speech.

That's not how it works.
Click to expand...

According to many on the Right, folks protesting on college campuses and preventing Right-wingers from speaking at their facilities, is an act that violates the principle of Freedom of Speech.
 
Hercules56 said:
According to many on the Right, folks protesting on college campuses and preventing Right-wingers from speaking at their facilities, is an act that violates the principle of Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...

A) I could care less what "many on the right" have to say.

B) Protests are free speech, too. One can protest a person speaking through a given platform, perhaps also protesting the platform owners' decision to allow its use in ways that do not infringe on the speech being so protested.

C) Preventing someone from using a third party's platform (especially through violent means) is another matter entirely and is not comparable to a venue/platform denying usage.
 
Hercules56 said:
You don't support Freedom of Speech if you can suddenly rescind a speeking invitation due to what someone said.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between deciding what speakers you want at your own event, and deciding someone else isn't allowed to have the speaker they want at their event.

The first is exercising you own rights of speech and association. The second is trying to prevent someone else from exercising theirs.
 
Mycroft said:
There is a huge difference between deciding what speakers you want at your own event, and deciding someone else isn't allowed to have the speaker they want at their event.

The first is exercising you own rights of speech and association. The second is trying to prevent someone else from exercising theirs.
Click to expand...
Well, I haven't invited hercules to an event hosted in my home, for him to express his opinions to all my friends and associates. So clearly I don't believe in his right to free speech.
 
I have to agree that dis-inviting Milo from CPAC isn't hypocritical. It is not a free speech issue at all.

However, it is telling that the CPAC love Milo's racist, homophobic, sexist bigotry but it was pedophilia that finally crossed their line.
 
Hercules56 said:
According to many on the Right, folks protesting on college campuses and preventing Right-wingers from speaking at their facilities, is an act that violates the principle of Freedom of Speech.
Click to expand...

Simply protesting a speaker is not. If the protests use force to prevent the speaker talking (as happened at Berkeley), then yes, it DOES violate the principle of freedom of speech. Again, as Mycroft already pointed out, there is a fundamental difference between deciding who you want to invite to your own event and deciding who someone else gets to invite to their event.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I have to agree that dis-inviting Milo from CPAC isn't hypocritical. It is not a free speech issue at all.

However, it is telling that the CPAC love Milo's racist, homophobic, sexist bigotry but it was pedophilia that finally crossed their line.
Click to expand...

Milo is homophobic? Yeah, um... no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom