“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Emily's Cat said:
But the window was designed and engineered, would you agree?
Click to expand...

Sure. Before you go further with your argument, let me tell you about the posters in my living room :) They are behind glass windows in frames. My intended function for these glass windows is to keep the posters flat and in good condition, as well as being esthetic. Nothing about any blocking of the flow of air.

Similarly, there are some trains at my company where the company intends for them to have the function of providing spare parts. Nothing in their intended function about riding around on tracks bringing passengers around - even though that is what you might erroneously have deduced from looking at their design and engineering.

There is no such thing as an objectively determinable purpose. You can objectively determine that an object can have a function, the train can have the function of riding around on tracks, it can also have the function of providing spare parts, both of these can be objectively determined. What you can't determine is which function is its intended function (ie its "purpose") - that just depends on who you ask.

You're moving from a circular argument based on giving special consideration to the intention of the person you call the "owner" to giving special consideration to the intention of the person you call the "designer" or "engineer". It won't help your argument though.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Does caveman's view constitute silopsism?
Click to expand...

No.

Honestly,I get confused whenever we venture into "you can't prove that existence exists for really reals" territory.
Click to expand...

We didn't venture there, it just looks like that because you're incapable of distinguishing your belief system from reality. The window exists (or rather the molecules which make up the window exist) but whether the window is the property of person A or person B is a belief.
 
caveman1917 said:
We didn't venture there, it just looks like that because you're incapable of distinguishing your belief system from reality. The window exists (or rather the molecules which make up the window exist) but whether the window is the property of person A or person B is a belief.
Click to expand...

And what relevance does this have? By your silly logic, money is a belief system as well, but we still treat it as though it has value. That's not confusing reality with belief. The belief has real-world consequences. The distinction you're trying to make, as I've told you before, is irrelevant.

Now stop derailing the thread with this nonsense.
 
ponderingturtle said:
No one cares or seriously condemns much more serious riots than the ones at Berkeley. You will never see colege sports cancled for any thing as unimportant as a riot.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that sports hooliganism is even less justifiable than political hooliganism. At least the political hooliganism have a purpose in mind.

What is your opinion? Do you think rioting for political reasons is justified? Do you think it matters if peaceful and democratic methods are available? If you think smashing windows and burning things is okay to stop a political speaker you don't like, why not organize gangs to trash the offices of political parties you oppose?

ponderingturtle said:
Not likely. They are likely drunk young men looking for some violent fun just like the Pumpkin Riots. At least that got the pumpkin festival canceled for ever.
Click to expand...

Here are a few articles to introduce you to the topic:

http://balticworlds.com/conceived-football-hooliganism/

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...ll-ultras-spreading-to-the-premier-league-181

http://www.dw.com/en/crusaders-in-the-crowd-fighting-polands-right-wing-football-ultras/a-19330835
 
Mycroft said:
My opinion is that sports hooliganism is even less justifiable than political hooliganism. At least the political hooliganism have a purpose in mind.

What is your opinion? Do you think rioting for political reasons is justified? Do you think it matters if peaceful and democratic methods are available? If you think smashing windows and burning things is okay to stop a political speaker you don't like, why not organize gangs to trash the offices of political parties you oppose?
Click to expand...

No I don't think it is ok, why is using the actions of hooligans acceptable to attack those who's political actions they are using as justification?


Here are a few articles to introduce you to the topic:

http://balticworlds.com/conceived-football-hooliganism/

https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/...ll-ultras-spreading-to-the-premier-league-181

http://www.dw.com/en/crusaders-in-the-crowd-fighting-polands-right-wing-football-ultras/a-19330835
Click to expand...

Got anything on american sports or pumpkin riots? In america sports riots are viewed as apolitical so that when a college riots over their team it isn't taken to mean anything. Yet a much smaller riot tied to a protest of a truly detestable human being is vitally important and telling about people who don't like sexist racists.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Here is an article about how acceptable sports riots are on college campuses in the US.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/opinion/columnists/article_02ab736a-b9f5-11e6-9c2d-27bf0b3ab1e8.html

Penn state needs to close down their toxic football program. They already were fine with using it as a hunting ground for a child rapist and they have these constant riots, shut it down!
Click to expand...

Look, the posters HERE seem to agree that they're not acceptable. How about we move back on topic?
 
Argumemnon said:
Look, the posters HERE seem to agree that they're not acceptable. How about we move back on topic?
Click to expand...

And so all football fans need to explain why they find this acceptable, just like people who think being a sexist and racist is a bad reason to speak at a college need to explain how those riots were acceptable. It is simply taking the argument used here and using it more broadly.

Liberals are scum for because of this riot, but anyone who watches college football is super scum for the regular sports riots. Simple and direct logic.
 
caveman1917 said:
Sure. Before you go further with your argument, let me tell you about the posters in my living room :) They are behind glass windows in frames. My intended function for these glass windows is to keep the posters flat and in good condition, as well as being esthetic. Nothing about any blocking of the flow of air.

Similarly, there are some trains at my company where the company intends for them to have the function of providing spare parts. Nothing in their intended function about riding around on tracks bringing passengers around - even though that is what you might erroneously have deduced from looking at their design and engineering.

There is no such thing as an objectively determinable purpose. You can objectively determine that an object can have a function, the train can have the function of riding around on tracks, it can also have the function of providing spare parts, both of these can be objectively determined. What you can't determine is which function is its intended function (ie its "purpose") - that just depends on who you ask.

You're moving from a circular argument based on giving special consideration to the intention of the person you call the "owner" to giving special consideration to the intention of the person you call the "designer" or "engineer". It won't help your argument though.
Click to expand...

It's so nice to know that you can read minds. It's unfortunate that you don't read very well.

That said...

Given that a window has a designer, would you agree that the designer of the window has designed it for a purpose?

Note that I've said nothing whatsoever about an objectively determined purpose - that's a pointless discussion altogether. All I'm asking at the moment is whether the designer of the object designed it for a purpose.
 
ponderingturtle said:
And so all football fans need to explain why they find this acceptable, just like people who think being a sexist and racist is a bad reason to speak at a college need to explain how those riots were acceptable. It is simply taking the argument used here and using it more broadly.

Liberals are scum for because of this riot, but anyone who watches college football is super scum for the regular sports riots. Simple and direct logic.
Click to expand...

How about you address something that someone actually said here instead of your army of undead strawmen?
 
Argumemnon said:
How about you address something that someone actually said here instead of your army of undead strawmen?
Click to expand...

Using these thugs to discredit liberals is the entire point of this thread. How dare people question the rights golden boy Milo? If you discredit an entire group of people by a small group of troublemakers then anyone who likes football needs to account for these constant riots in college football.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom