“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[phiwum]

Whose bias is it that allows sports related thuggery to be tolerated?

Isn't it true that the thugs who start riots after sports events are also related to hard right-wing, racist politics?

I am not sure that's so clear. It's hard to be too racist when your teams have a large African-American makeup. I think that it is garden-variety stupidity more than racist stupidity.

But it would be nice to have facts at hand, and I don't.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Sporters really are a problem.

I agree. They're bad, just like people who break **** and threaten violence when someone they don't like is allowed to speak.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree. They're bad, just like people who break **** and threaten violence when someone they don't like is allowed to speak.

I am still waiting for white leaders to address the perverse love of pumpkins that drove the pumpkin riots. But they are constantly silent.

 

[Mycroft]

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?

No, I just attack the people who think rioting is okay. This is true regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.

... vitally important and telling about people who don't like sexist racists.

I don't like sexist racists either. I think protesting this guy would have been entirely appropriate. It's getting violent and destroying stuff that I'm against.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I am still waiting for white leaders to address the perverse love of pumpkins that drove the pumpkin riots. But they are constantly silent.

You're waiting? What action are you delaying?

 

[sadhatter]

Because no one tries to blame all sports lovers as being equal to hooligans like they do when some hooligans crash a protest. It is almost as if there is a double standard about not holding white people accountable for their riots, unless they are left wing.

Actually in areas where it happens, pepole tend to stereotype fans of certain teams as hooligans, even going so far as to assume a geographical connection with hooliganisim.

Did you ever actually read up on it or are you assuming that no one else knows about this?

 

[sadhatter]

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 are not arguing anyone's points. We all hate Milo and most are pretty vocal about that fact.

Doesn't it feel hollow to just regurgitate answers to points no one here is magnificent.

Btw I hate sports, you trying to get a rise by insulting them isn't gonna work.

 

[sadhatter]

I am still waiting for white leaders to address the perverse love of pumpkins that drove the pumpkin riots. But they are constantly silent.

Going back to this tired thing because you sports rants are seeming silly even to yourself.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

Interesting juxtaposition. The following is my post you responded to with this tangent, is it not? I've highlighted a relevant part.

I've already explained this to you: being able to objectively determine that an object has a property is not the same as being able to objectively determine the "purpose" of an object. The Earth is round, therefor the purpose of the Earth is to be round?

 

[caveman1917]

Most of those isms give me headaches. This doesn't appear to be an exception.

It isn't sophism either.

 

[dudalb]

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 don't seem to get that it's possible to despise Milo as a person, but still defend his right to speak and make his opinions heard.

 

[Joe Random]

You don't seem to get that it's possible to despise Milo as a person, but still defend his right to speak and make his opinions heard.

QFT.

 

[sadhatter]

You don't seem to get that it's possible to despise Milo as a person, but still defend his right to speak and make his opinions heard.

Is the whole playing dumb tactic of the regressive left. Usually combined with a healthy dose of "I know what I'm talking about". Leaving the only choice as pointing out their lack of knowledge, then they claim you are attacking them, and then in their mind they win.

Sad really. The goal isn't to change opinion but to feel attacked.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting juxtaposition. The following is my post you responded to with this tangent, is it not? I've highlighted a relevant part.

You appear to have missed an aspect of my post: I am not trying to establish whether or not an "objective" purpose exists.

I am asking you whether the designer of the object has designed it for a purpose. Are you panning to answer that question?

 

[caveman1917]

You appear to have missed an aspect of my post: I am not trying to establish whether or not an "objective" purpose exists.

Then what does your tangent have to do with my post it was in reply to?

I am asking you whether the designer of the object has designed it for a purpose. Are you panning to answer that question?

Not until you give a reason why it's relevant.

 

[Mumbles]

I am not sure that's so clear. It's hard to be too racist when your teams have a large African-American makeup.

You've obviously never listened to sports radio

But really, it does seem to me that sports riots, in the US, are more related to youthful stupidity than to any sort of politics.

 

[phiwum]

You've obviously never listened to sports radio

But really, it does seem to me that sports riots, in the US, are more related to youthful stupidity than to any sort of politics.

Fair enough, I don't listen to sports radio.

But I agree with your second sentence. Youthful stupidity certainly explains a lot of my much earlier life.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then what does your tangent have to do with my post it was in reply to?



Not until you give a reason why it's relevant.

It's relevant because you jumped from A to Tau.

You've posited that the purpose of an object is whatever anybody wants it to be, and that ownership is a fluid belief system. So if a person owns a bank that has a window, their claim to the window is no less legitimate than the "claim" of the protester who throws a brick through it. You've further claimed that the window and the pile of broken glass are both legitimate since it was the protester's purpose that was most recent.

I'm trying to actually take this step by step and figure out how you jumped to a different universe with this.

So. We've established that the window was designed and engineered.

Did the designer of the window design the window for a purpose?

 

[Belz...]

Using these thugs to discredit liberals is the entire point of this thread.

Take it up with the OP. I don't believe that, and almost no one in this thread believes that, if any. Again, either discuss the issue and the actual posts of others, or leave.

 

[caveman1917]

It's relevant because you jumped from A to Tau.

No, quite the opposite.

You've posited that the purpose of an object is whatever anybody wants it to be

Not exactly, more that an object doesn't have a purpose.

and that ownership is a fluid belief system.

I have no idea what a "fluid" belief system is supposed to be, so I'm quite sure I didn't posit that.

So if a person owns a bank that has a window, their claim to the window is no less legitimate than the "claim" of the protester who throws a brick through it.

No.

You've further claimed that the window and the pile of broken glass are both legitimate since it was the protester's purpose that was most recent.

I've made no such claim. What the hell does it even mean for a window to be legitimate?

I'm trying to actually take this step by step and figure out how you jumped to a different universe with this.

I didn't jump anywhere. That would be you lot.

So. We've established that the window was designed and engineered.

Did the designer of the window design the window for a purpose?

Probably. Most likely their purpose in designing the window was so as to keep their job as window designer and make some money.