“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

Mycroft said:
Why should anyone care what Max Stirner said?
Click to expand...

If you weren't so quick to jump to what can only be described as trollish comments, then you might have realized that I brought up Max Stirner in response to phiwum expressing surprise at the argument being made, which seems odd given that he has a degree in philosophy and could be expected to have at least some familiarity with individualist libertarianism. But perhaps this can be explained by the different philosophical tradition in the Anglophone world, I don't know.

Clearly I did not claim that anyone should care what Max Stirner said. Now please stop trolling the discussion.
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
If you weren't so quick to jump to what can only be described as trollish comments, then you might have realized that I brought up Max Stirner in response to phiwum expressing surprise at the argument being made, which seems odd given that he has a degree in philosophy and could be expected to have at least some familiarity with individualist libertarianism. But perhaps this can be explained by the different philosophical tradition in the Anglophone world, I don't know.

Clearly I did not claim that anyone should care what Max Stirner said. Now please stop trolling the discussion.
Click to expand...

Okay, why should one care about individualist libertarianism?
 
caveman1917 said:
Same thing, if the argument is based on acceptance of a certain belief system then it is up to the person promoting the belief system to argue for it.
Click to expand...

Again, laws are not "belief systems" as they exist independently of your belief.

caveman1917 said:
I'm not denying that these laws govern your society...
Click to expand...

Then please cease with this "belief system" nonsense.

caveman1917 said:
...at least not in the sense of what the consequences are to people who are caught by your gangs when they fail to behave in a manner consistent with the laws of your society.
Click to expand...

If we don't like the way these "gangs" behave we can change the laws and elect different people to supervise them. We don't have similar options with your gangs who run around breaking things and beating people up if they don't agree with them.

caveman1917 said:
However, that does not in any way entail that these laws should be accepted, or can be used as a valid basis for an argument.
Click to expand...

If your argument is that these laws should not be accepted, then argue that and cease with the nonsense of denying them or calling them a belief system.

caveman1917 said:
If you think it does, you should look up what an "argumentum ad baculum" means.
Click to expand...

It's a term that included all kinds of violence to get your way, including throwing bricks at police or through windows.

caveman1917 said:
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Feel free to prove otherwise.
 
caveman1917 said:
Laws do not exist independently of our beliefs and hence form a clear belief system.
Click to expand...
You're confusing belief with agreement.

You have already acknowledged that laws exist independently from your belief. Disbelieving in them amounts to profound ignorance, denial delusion or some combination.

If you don't agree with the law, or don't agree with the concept of law, and/or choose not to consider yourself bound by the law, none of that is the equivalent of not believing the law exists.

If the gang of thugs that represent the state (police) intervenes with your gang of thugs (anarchists) while they're making their "argumentum ad baculum" (throwing bricks at police and through windows), what happens after doesn't depend on what you or anyone else believes.
 
caveman1917 said:
P: "this window belongs to this person because the law says that is how things work"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then lawfully delegated representatives of the government 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...

You are incorrect. See added bits above.

With respect to medieval Spain, the piece you leave out is that heresy was illegal in Spain at that time. You and I don't believe in god, and find it ridiculous to force that belief... but at that time it was law, and a violation of that law was punishable by the representatives appointed to uphold that law.

Take actions to change the law. Don't just break the law and pretend the law is irrelevant and expect to get away with it.
 
sadhatter said:
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?
Click to expand...

So we need to clearly assume that Penn State and people who go there are fundamentally all hooligans and violent.
 
sadhatter said:
Going back to this tired thing because you sports rants are seeming silly even to yourself.
Click to expand...

Hey at least they closed down the beloved pumpkin festival because of it, no one will do anything about college sports riots. They money they cost is far to trivial to the revenue they bring in.
 
dudalb said:
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.
Click to expand...

Was it wrong then for CPAC to uninvite him and censor him because of his positions? No one seems to be condemning CPAC and breightbart.
 
Mumbles said:
You've obviously never listened to sports radio :D

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.
Click to expand...

Which is why it is forgiven when it is just some white kids having fun setting things on fire.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Was it wrong then for CPAC to uninvite him and censor him because of his positions? No one seems to be condemning CPAC and breightbart.
Click to expand...

I really can't believe that you don't understand the difference between:
  1. A speech being canceled because security can no longer guarantee the safety of the participants from nearby rioters
  2. A group inviting someone, then that same group later choosing that they don't want to hear the speaker and canceling the invitation.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Hey at least they closed down the beloved pumpkin festival because of it, no one will do anything about college sports riots. They money they cost is far to trivial to the revenue they bring in.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the desperate attempt to deflect from the subject, the insipid use of sarcasm, nor the grinding, repetitive, incredibly boring nature of these posts that REALLY takes them to the next level: It is all of them, plus the fact that they are built on a fundamental lie.
 
Newtons Bit said:
I really can't believe that you don't understand the difference between:
  1. A speech being canceled because security can no longer guarantee the safety of the participants from nearby rioters
  2. A group inviting someone, then that same group later choosing that they don't want to hear the speaker and canceling the invitation.
Click to expand...

You should see the post I was responding to, he was against canceling Milo's speech and peaceful protesting of it. He wanted Milo heard at Berkeley so why wouldn't he want Milo heard at CPAC?

His position seems to be colleges are required to give all speakers a platform.
 
Emily's Cat said:
How will students ever get to challenge and critique poorly-thought-out ideologies if they're never given the chance to interact with those who spout such nonsense?
Click to expand...

Students have every chance to interact with them, they have email accounts, they have speaking events in their own private venues where students can go to, etc. If these students are incapable of interacting with them through all those available channels then I question whether they'd be capable of challenging and criticizing that nonsense in the first place.

The real question is, why should proponents of "scientific" racism be given a veneer of legitimacy by being allowed to promote it in the form of lectures at universities?
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
You should see the post I was responding to, he was against canceling Milo's speech and peaceful protesting of it. He wanted Milo heard at Berkeley so why wouldn't he want Milo heard at CPAC?

His position seems to be colleges are required to give all speakers a platform.
Click to expand...
If the issue is free speech, it doesn't matter if you want the speaker heard or not.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You are incorrect. See added bits above.

With respect to medieval Spain, the piece you leave out is that heresy was illegal in Spain at that time. You and I don't believe in god, and find it ridiculous to force that belief... but at that time it was law, and a violation of that law was punishable by the representatives appointed to uphold that law.
Click to expand...

Any reason why you then don't add the rest of the bits? Like this:
caveman1917 said:
P: "this window belongs to this person because the law says that is how things work"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then lawfully delegated representatives of the government will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.

P: "God exists because the law says He does"
Argument: If you behave in a manner inconsistent with P then lawfully delegated representatives of the government will employ violence against you to make you behave in a manner consistent with P. Therefor P.
Click to expand...

Would you then, as a skeptic in medieval Spain, proclaim that God exists on the same basis that you now proclaim the window is owned by the bank?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom