“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure the issue ought to be the function of windows so much as the rights of property owners. If it's my window and I want to break it, no problem. If it's your window and you don't want it broken but I do so anyway because someone I don't like is speaking at a third venue, then there's an issue.

So, let's not talk about what windows are for. Let's talk about the rights of property owners.

You're preaching to the choir. But in this case, we're dealing with someone who rejects the entire concept of property rights as a "belief" system. I don't think that will get us anywhere except to a headache.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Let's try a different approach and see if we can find common ground from which to discuss.

 

[dudalb]

You're preaching to the choir. But in this case, we're dealing with someone who rejects the entire concept of property rights as a "belief" system. I don't think that will get us anywhere except to a headache.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat. Let's try a different approach and see if we can find common ground from which to discuss.

Better still, don't get involved with discussions with fantatics to begin with.......

 

[caveman1917]

The shop owner pays for the glass to be installed as a window. It takes willful ignorance to doubt that he now owns that window.

The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.

Look, if you really want to pretend that you don't get the convention of property ownership, feel free, but don't expect others to treat intentional confusion as insight.

I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial. I'm wondering whether you even understand your own convention, given your consistent failure to distinguish between the property of the company and the property of the shareholders. Are the shareholders personally responsible for the debt of the company? No? Then why would the company's assets be the personal assets of the shareholders?

Besides, those shareholders didn't build the window, they didn't install the window, they don't maintain the window. If anything, they seem to be the ones who have nothing to do with the window at all.

 

[applecorped]

 

[caveman1917]

Sorry for the delayed response.

Much of the antifa folks are actually anarchists. I don't have time to dig up sources. But I have personal experience with this through music scenes. The anarchist folks tend to have social justice views that are consistent with the left, but they are also literally against government, which, if anything, is more consistent with far-right, anarcho-capitalist libertarians. From a policy perspective, however, they are distinctly neither left nor right, as no ideal they may advocate is even conceivable as policy absent government.

By your logic communists, who are also for a stateless society, are not left-wing either?

 

[Belz...]

The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.

Now you're making a mistake when constructing your analogy: it takes willful ignorance to doubt that his belief exists and that it has real-life consequences. YOU are the one who called it a belief system. It's too late to move the goalposts now.

I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial.

How can you have robbery when ownership is just a belief system? I don't think you've thought this through.

 

[Mycroft]

The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.

That's not a very good analogy. You can't prove the existence of a God, but you can certainly observe the existence of laws in that they are enforced and there are consequences if you're caught breaking them.

I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial.

Legalized class robbery doesn't sound trivial at all, but in order for there to be any kind of robbery, doesn't there need to be rules of ownership? After all, you can't be robbed of that which you do not own.

What in your opinion constitutes "ownership" and why should we accept your criteria over the general consensus?

I'm wondering whether you even understand your own convention...

I'm wondering whether you even understand the secret thoughts of my brain....tee hee, tee hee. Of course I won't bother to explain because people are paying attention to me because I'm making them try to guess.

...given your consistent failure to distinguish between the property of the company and the property of the shareholders.

Which isn't relevant to a discussion over another person's right to destroy that property.

Also, you're assuming there are shareholders. Why? Earlier I asked you if it made a difference if the shop was owned and run by a window maker who literally made and installed the window. Is that window off limits to protesters? Why or why not?

...
Are the shareholders personally responsible for the debt of the company? No? Then why would the company's assets be the personal assets of the shareholders?

Interesting if tangential question. How would you answer it?

Also, how does any of this justify protesters behaving like thugs, getting their way through violence?

 

[caveman1917]

That's not a very good analogy. You can't prove the existence of a God, but you can certainly observe the existence of laws in that they are enforced and there are consequences if you're caught breaking them.

You mean the inquisition? Yes, the existence of such laws being enforced and there being consequences if you're caught breaking them doesn't prove the existence of God.

Legalized class robbery doesn't sound trivial at all, but in order for there to be any kind of robbery, doesn't there need to be rules of ownership? After all, you can't be robbed of that which you do not own.

Yes, you've made a correct deduction, congratulations.

What in your opinion constitutes "ownership" and why should we accept your criteria over the general consensus?

No, I think I'll just stick to negating your belief system rather than propose an alternative one.

Also, you're assuming there are shareholders. Why?

If I can buy shares of the Bank of America and Starbucks then it stands to reason that others can as well, and hence there are shareholders.

Earlier I asked you if it made a difference if the shop was owned and run by a window maker who literally made and installed the window. Is that window off limits to protesters?

It's certainly a different situation. Whether that makes the window off limits to protesters depends on which belief system about property you choose to adopt.

Interesting if tangential question. How would you answer it?

It's pretty clear that in the specific belief system promoted by the people around here, which is the same belief system upheld by the ruling class and enforced by its state, the answer is that there is a distinction between the property of a company and the property of its shareholders.

Also, how does any of this justify protesters behaving like thugs, getting their way through violence?

Something which never happened needs no justification. Heck, even things which did actually happen don't necessarily need a justification.

 

[Belz...]

You mean the inquisition? Yes, the existence of such laws being enforced and there being consequences if you're caught breaking them doesn't prove the existence of God.

It proves the existence of the law in question. That's where the analogy should be.

 

[dudalb]

By your logic communists, who are also for a stateless society, are not left-wing either?

But Communsim puts "the withering away of the state" in the future, after a long period of development toward it. Sort of like Christians and the Second Coming of Christ. It's a belief that has little impact on the way they actually behave.
Anarchists,on the other hand, want to burn everything down NOW and think utopia will rise miraculously from the flames. Both beliefs are crazy.IMHO, and based upon a incredible misread of Human Nature, but they are somewhat different.

 

[The Big Dog]

The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.

Well you know what they said, when God closes a door, he opens a window.

/hell, I am just about God's best pal on this forum, and even I think this analogy is about as weak as sauce can get.

 

[phiwum]

The priest says that God exists. It takes willful ignorance to now doubt that He exists.



I understand your convention of legalized class robbery just fine, it is utterly trivial. I'm wondering whether you even understand your own convention, given your consistent failure to distinguish between the property of the company and the property of the shareholders. Are the shareholders personally responsible for the debt of the company? No? Then why would the company's assets be the personal assets of the shareholders?

Besides, those shareholders didn't build the window, they didn't install the window, they don't maintain the window. If anything, they seem to be the ones who have nothing to do with the window at all.

I was not aware that all the windows broken were owned by corporations, but let's presume so. How does that give a third party a right to break them?

 

[OMGturt1es]

By your logic communists, who are also for a stateless society, are not left-wing either?

In a theoretical sense that has never existed, sure. They would share leftist social justice values and extreme anti-governmental rightwing values. But they would be radically, fundamentally completely different altogether. Statecraft cannot be evaluated without state.

In a empirical sense, not at all. From my understanding, communism has always included strong centralized planning and government control, which seems rather Hamiltonian and leftist. They may aim to eventually eliminate the State, but until they do, their statecraft seems leftish.

That said, I think many political systems are not best evaluated on a purely left/right continuum. Fascism is generally considered a rightwing system, but includes strong governmental rules, even combining aspects of socialism with authoritarianism. And libertarians tend to be considered rightwing, despite the fact that many hold social justice values more consistent with leftists.

 

[phiwum]

I was not aware that all the windows broken were owned by corporations, but let's presume so. How does that give a third party a right to break them?

To put out differently, we may well wonder whether the notions of corporations are a good thing. We might question limited liabilty.

But this has **** all to do with whether someone has the right to destroy windows to prevent someone else from speaking in a different venue.

If your grief is with the university, address it there. Even then, I think it doesn't warrant destruction of property, but at least the destruction is aimed appropriately.

 

[mgidm86]

ARGGH! i forgot the Pumpkins too!

I hate whitey's perverse of pumpkins too!

Well shown, PT.

Now back to Berkely?

No kidding, what is this nonsense about who owns a window? I can't even figure out where the actual conversation went astray.

How about this - comparing peoples reactions to sports riots and the Berkeley thing is pointless.

Sports riots are spontaneous and driven largely by alcohol.

The Berkeley incident was planned. These protestors were largely outsiders specifically brought in to agitate. The masks were a clue that they weren't normal protestors. They pepper-sprayed people and broke stuff and yada yada.

Let's ignore the trolls and stay on topic.

 

[Noztradamus]

Except he says homophobic things. In other words, you are wrong.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Milo_Yiannopoulos#Homosexuality

rationalwiki is as reliable as conservapedia

 

[Mycroft]

You mean the inquisition?

No.

It's very puzzling how you could have extrapolated that from anything I said, are you okay? Your perception seems to have been damaged.

Yes, the existence of such laws being enforced and there being consequences if you're caught breaking them doesn't prove the existence of God.

Thank you for conceding the existence of laws.

Yes, you've made a correct deduction, congratulations.

No, I think I'll just stick to negating your belief system rather than propose an alternative one.

Naysaying is not the same as negating. You know how a two-year old runs around saying "No!" all the time? The grown-ups find it annoying, but the two-year olds like the feeling of power it gives them. The attention too, which for a two-year old amounts to the same thing.

If I can buy shares of the Bank of America and Starbucks then it stands to reason that others can as well, and hence there are shareholders.

Does your argument depend on the window belonging to Bank of America or Starbucks? Why?

It's certainly a different situation. Whether that makes the window off limits to protesters depends on which belief system about property you choose to adopt.

I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society, which says the protester is not allowed to break anything that is not his. I would need a pretty good reason to choose a different one, and you're not one who will suggest alternatives.

It's pretty clear that in the specific belief system promoted by the people around here, which is the same belief system upheld by the ruling class and enforced by its state, the answer is that there is a distinction between the property of a company and the property of its shareholders.

Yes there is. Emily's Cat explained it quite well in a post that you ignored.

Something which never happened needs no justification. Heck, even things which did actually happen don't necessarily need a justification.

Breaking things that don't belong to you is thuggish behavior.

My opinion is when you do harm you need to justify it. If you don't agree, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[phiwum]

No kidding, what is this nonsense about who owns a window? I can't even figure out where the actual conversation went astray.

How about this - comparing peoples reactions to sports riots and the Berkeley thing is pointless.

Sports riots are spontaneous and driven largely by alcohol.

The Berkeley incident was planned. These protestors were largely outsiders specifically brought in to agitate. The masks were a clue that they weren't normal protestors. They pepper-sprayed people and broke stuff and yada yada.

Let's ignore the trolls and stay on topic.

I was kinda with you until you said "brought in to agitate". Brought in by whom?

The protestors seem to have brought themselves in, as far as I understand it. You make it sound rather more conspiratorial.

 

[Belz...]

I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society, which says the protester is not allowed to break anything that is not his. I would need a pretty good reason to choose a different one, and you're not one who will suggest alternatives.

What he's doing amounts to saying "money is a belief system" as if somehow that means you don't need to pay for stuff anymore.

First of all, they're not belief systems. They're conventions, agreements. Second, they have power in the real world (through us), and so can be said to exist.

Not like God, but like religion. Caveman, get your analogies right.

 

[Mycroft]

First of all, they're not belief systems. They're conventions, agreements. Second, they have power in the real world (through us), and so can be said to exist.

He acts as though he's going to blow our minds by challenging these conventions, as though the understanding that our concepts of ownership, money and law are conventions and could be changed is secret knowledge he's revealing to us.

But he's stuck on could be different and can't get to how and why it should be different.

Yes, one could consider the window to be the property of the protester, but why would that be better? No answer.