“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, as if none of us ever went to high school.
 
Argumemnon said:
Yeah, as if none of us ever went to high school.
Click to expand...

Or got high.

It's very similar to the "hey man, it's like, we're all part of the same thing man... ". Yes, it seems novel to you because you've never had that thought before. But the rest of us already had that though, got caught up in it for a bit, then realized it was irrelevant and moved on.
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

And he is not getting that most of us have encountered his kind...the hardcore anarchist...before,and he is not nearly as daring and revolutionary as he thinks he is.
 
dudalb said:
And he is not getting that most of us have encountered his kind...the hardcore anarchist...before,and he is not nearly as daring and revolutionary as he thinks he is.
Click to expand...
Quite right. Some people own windows and others don't and the difference between the two isn't hard to figure out.
 
Ziggurat said:
Good news! It's not just Berkeley!
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessa...prof-and-controversial-speaker-charles-murray
Click to expand...

I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges. This particularly caught my attention:
On Friday afternoon, Middlebury College president Laurie Patton sent a statement to all students, faculty and staff describing how "deeply disappointed" she was by the incident.

"I know that many students, faculty, and staff who were in attendance or waiting outside to participate were upset by the events, and the lost opportunity for those in our community who wanted to listen to and engage with Mr. Murray," she wrote, later adding: "I extend my sincerest apologies to everyone who came in good faith to participate in a serious discussion, and particularly to Mr. Murray and Prof. Stanger for the way they were treated during the event and, especially, afterward."
Click to expand...

True. How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

P: "this window belongs to this person"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

Unless you hold that God really existed in medieval Spain you've got nothing.

I choose to stick with the "belief system" that is commonly accepted in our society
Click to expand...

Most people do. I, however, was under the impression this was a skeptics forum.
 
caveman1917 said:
P: "this window belongs to this person"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

Unless you hold that God really existed in medieval Spain you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

No. These are not logically equivalent propositions, and so the requirements for proof of each are not logically equivalent either. The existence of god is not equivalent to the existence of ownership. God is posited as something independent of humans, we cannot create him. Ownership is posited as something we do create, and we do so through enforcement. So enforcement of property does in fact prove property, even though enforcement of belief in god cannot prove god.
 
Mycroft said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is up to the one promoting a belief system to argue for it, not the other way around. If your case rests on the acceptance of a belief, which it does, then it is up to you to argue for it.
 
Ziggurat said:
No. These are not logically equivalent propositions, and so the requirements for proof of each are not logically equivalent either. The existence of god is not equivalent to the existence of ownership. God is posited as something independent of humans, we cannot create him. Ownership is posited as something we do create, and we do so through enforcement. So enforcement of property does in fact prove property, even though enforcement of belief in god cannot prove god.
Click to expand...

A distinction without difference. Substitute "God exists" with "The positions of stars at your birth determine your personality and behaviour". Now it is not independent of humans.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges. This particularly caught my attention:


True. How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
Click to expand...
Should violence be the norm for every controversial speaker?
 
caveman1917 said:
I didn't even know that "scientific" racial superiority and eugenetics was still taught at colleges. This particularly caught my attention:


True. How will students get to learn about the science of racial superiority if lectures are disrupted...it's an outrage!
Click to expand...
I thought that Murray's views are controversial, but worth discussing. I'm not particularly familiar with him, but I think that he's a speaker worth hearing.
 
caveman1917 said:
P: "this window belongs to this person"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then some people will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

Unless you hold that God really existed in medieval Spain you've got nothing.



Most people do. I, however, was under the impression this was a skeptics forum.
Click to expand...
This is a skeptics' forum. That doesn't mean that we pretend that long held conventions of ownership are magically doubtful.

I own my car, just as some corporations own their windows. You can't destroy my car to make a point. You can't legally destroy windows that someone else owns to make a point.
 
caveman1917 said:
A distinction without difference. Substitute "God exists" with "The positions of stars at your birth determine your personality and behaviour". Now it is not independent of humans.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The assertion of astrology is that the mechanisms ARE independent of humans, meaning humans don't create or control them. That they act ON humans doesn't change that. The mechanisms of ownership are, in contrast, created and controlled by humans, by definition.
 
phiwum said:
This is a skeptics' forum.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It is a forum where people assert whatever belief system the social group they happen find themselves in holds as true. If this forum were transported to medieval Spain it would be filled with people asserting the existence of God. This can be determined by the arguments used in support of the belief systems being promoted, such as...

That doesn't mean that we pretend that long held conventions of ownership are magically doubtful.
Click to expand...

Appeal to tradition?

I own my car, just as some corporations own their windows. You can't destroy my car to make a point. You can't legally destroy windows that someone else owns to make a point.
Click to expand...

Argument by assertion?

Also, one clearly can do these things, as the subject of this very thread shows.
 
caveman1917 said:
It is up to the one promoting a belief system to argue for it, not the other way around. If your case rests on the acceptance of a belief, which it does, then it is up to you to argue for it.
Click to expand...
Then argue for your belief system. Why should we accept yours over the conventional norms we already follow?
 
Mycroft said:
Then argue for your belief system.
Click to expand...

Do you consider atheism a belief system? If not, why would non-acceptance of a specific belief be itself a belief system?

Why should we accept yours over the conventional norms we already follow?
Click to expand...

Again, it is up to the proponent of a belief system to argue for it. That would be you. Just because the belief your case rests on is considered "conventional" by some group of people doesn't change that.

If I find a group of people who conventionally believe in invisible elves in their backyard that doesn't mean that the burden is on someone not accepting that belief to argue against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom