“This is what tolerance looks like at UC Berkeley”

[The Big Dog]

You're confusing determining if it can perform some function with determining its intended purpose. Depends on who you ask. The bank might have intended for it to have a certain purpose, yet the protester who broke it clearly disagreed. You can not objectively measure purpose.

who here sees the problem? Yes exactly, our stalwart correspondent is injecting his belief system into the protester.

The owner intended for the window to have a certain purpose and the protester understood that purpose and broke the window to deprive the bank of its intended purpose.

indeed the protester in doing so implicitly recognized that the window was the private property of the bank, and in fact that recognition was the reason for the action in the first place.

And thus endeth the lesson.

damn i am good

 

[Mycroft]

You're confusing determining if it can perform some function with determining its intended purpose. Depends on who you ask. The bank might have intended for it to have a certain purpose, yet the protester who broke it clearly disagreed. You can not objectively measure purpose.

You're equivocation now is with the word "purpose". The window was created to serve a purpose, that a protester wants to put it to a different "purpose" does not invalidate the original purpose.

How would the protester describe this purpose? What gives the protester the right to assert his purpose over the banks purpose?

 

[Belz...]

"You're only rejecting God because you don't understand him."

Bears no ressemblance to anything I've said.

Are you going to make an actual argument, and acknowledge those made by others?

I must have missed it, can you link to where you provide their identities?

The owners of the companies to which those windows belong. I said so already. This is the second time at least. Stop pretending that I haven't. EVERYBODY can read my posts.

Your belief system about who "owns" the things at the bank.

That's not an answer. Be specific.

No it doesn't. Stop lying.

I QUOTED YOU:

Your belief system about the window being the "property" of some group of people.

STOP LYING.

 

[Belz...]

As anyone can determine one alternative belief system to yours, which has been provided, is that the window was the property of the protesters. Since this clearly still has "people owning windows" it is obvious that the belief system you promoted is not just "people owning windows" in a general sense.

That makes no sense whatsoever. Why would the protesters be the owners of those windows?

As anyone can also determine you snipped the highlighted part from the post when you quoted it and set up your switcheroo with the "what belief system".

I quoted your words. Everybody can go back and follow the discussion. It's not my fault if you edited your post afterward.

Besides, even if your belief system was merely that things are "owned" by people it would still just be a random belief system without basis in fact.

Protip: just because you subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that everyone else does. Stop refering to everything as a belief system.

 

[caveman1917]

You're equivocation now is with the word "purpose". The window was created to serve a purpose, that a protester wants to put it to a different "purpose" does not invalidate the original purpose.

Invalidates? It, of course, remains the original purpose. Why should it have special status though?

Someone rearranges it for some purpose, then someone else rearranges it for some other purpose, then yet another person rearranges it for yet another purpose, and so on...

How would the protester describe this purpose?

How should I know?

What gives the protester the right to assert his purpose over the banks purpose?

For one, the protester is an actual person and the bank is just an idea you have in your head. Also the bank obviously, being an idea, has not mixed its labour with it.

What gives the bank the right to assert its purpose over the protester's purpose?

 

[Belz...]

the bank is just an idea you have in your head.

Do you or do you not acknowledge the concept of ownership?

And if not, can I smash your computer?

 

[caveman1917]

EVERYBODY can read my posts.

Correct. Everyone can see you frantically switch back and forth between saying that a specific group of people "owns" a specific window and saying that your claim is just that "property is owned by people".

Everybody can go back and follow the discussion.

They should, just two posts more than from where you conveniently chose to start your recollection.

It's not my fault if you edited your post afterward.

Are you claiming that I later edited in that part about an alternative belief system being that the protesters "own" the window, rather than that you snipped it out?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I never claimed that it's not "destroyed" because the molecules that composed it still exist.

What did you intend to say here?

If you meant the thing - say a window - then I disagree that it was destroyed. Empirically all one can say is that it was molecularly rearranged. Whether such state change consists of "destruction" or "creation" is a value judgement.

 

[caveman1917]

Protip: just because you subscribe to an ideology doesn't mean that everyone else does. Stop refering to everything as a belief system.

I'm not subscribing to an ideology, you are, fanatically so. And I'm not referring to everything as a belief system, you're just butthurt that your belief system was correctly identified as just some random belief system rather than accepted as fact by your mere assertion, so you're now just making crap up really.

Do you or do you not acknowledge the concept of ownership?

Neither.

And if not, can I smash your computer?

No.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The "belief" in the Christian God was one of the bases for the entire medieval Spain's legal and judiciary system. It is a fundamental element of the social contract that Spanish citizens were bound by. If you just randomly decide that you don't "believe" in God and start saying things expressing such disbelief...you're going to end up in jail for blasphemy or something similar pretty quickly. Any rhetorical arguments about whether or not God is "just a belief" or whatever it is you're spouting is completely irrelevant and without standing.

If you live in medieval spain, you are absolutely correct. That rhetorical argument is irrelevant and without standing.

Claiming that you don't believe in the basis of the law doesn't invalidate the law, and doesn't excuse you from the consequences of that law.

Legal persons, as in companies, could hardly be any more distinct from people.

Companies aren't people. Companies, as legal entities, have certain rights that are bestowed upon the organization as an entity, and which are not tied to the people working for that corporation. Thus if a CEO leaves a company, that company doesn't cease to exist. The company is a legal entity independent of the set of people that comprise it. But it's not a person, and never will be.

Entity <> Person

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't believe in ignore lists so that cannot be true.

Lol

 

[Mycroft]

Invalidates? It, of course, remains the original purpose. Why should it have special status though?

What's special about it?

Someone rearranges it for some purpose, then someone else rearranges it for some other purpose, then yet another person rearranges it for yet another purpose, and so on...

Can anyone do anything with anything? Can I break the window just because I like the sound of breaking glass? Seems wasteful.

How should I know?

Because you are the one who declared the protesters had their own purpose for it. What is that purpose?

Seriously, are you being tedious on purpose?

For one, the protester is an actual person and the bank is just an idea you have in your head.

No, both the protester and the bank are hypotheticals constructs. They're supposed to facilitate the communication of ideas, except for some unknown reason you are resisting being understood.

If you think ideas don't have their own reality, explain why we're talking about two things that don't really exist.

Also the bank obviously, being an idea, has not mixed its labour with it.

What difference does it make? Suppose instead of a bank it were a custom window store, and the owner had literally made and installed the window himself. Does anything change?

What gives the bank the right to assert its purpose over the protester's purpose?

In the real world the answer is they own the window.

In your world, what gives the protester the right to decide his "purpose" is more important?

 

[caveman1917]

What did you intend to say here?

Try not highlighting half of one sentence together with another. There is a reason the sentences are distinct from each other. I don't see how I can put it more clearly though.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're confusing determining if it can perform some function with determining its intended purpose. Depends on who you ask. The bank might have intended for it to have a certain purpose, yet the protester who broke it clearly disagreed. You can not objectively measure purpose.

A broken window isn't a window.

 

[caveman1917]

If you live in medieval spain, you are absolutely correct. That rhetorical argument is irrelevant and without standing.

In medieval Spain, saying that God doesn't exist is without standing. I thought this was a skeptic forum?

Claiming that you don't believe in the basis of the law doesn't invalidate the law

Of course it does.

Companies aren't people. Companies, as legal entities, have certain rights that are bestowed upon the organization as an entity, and which are not tied to the people working for that corporation. Thus if a CEO leaves a company, that company doesn't cease to exist. The company is a legal entity independent of the set of people that comprise it. But it's not a person, and never will be.

Entity <> Person

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

To have legal personality means to be capable of holding legal rights and obligations[1][2] within a certain legal system, such as entering into contracts, suing, and being sued.[3] Legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity, the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations. In international law, consequently, legal personality is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name.

A holder of legal personality is called as a person (Latin: persona). Persons are of two kinds: natural persons (also called physical persons) and juridical persons (also called juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious persons, Latin: persona ficta) – entities such as corporations, which are treated in law as if they are persons.[1][4][5] While human beings acquire legal personhood when they are born, juridical persons do so when they are incorporated in accordance with law.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Correct. Everyone can see you frantically switch back and forth between saying that a specific group of people "owns" a specific window and saying that your claim is just that "property is owned by people".

Pretty sure nobody but you has interpreted Argumemnon's posts as frantic anything, let alone switching. Argumemnon's posts have been consistent and reasoned.

ETA: Just in case there's some strange marxist lack of reading comprehension here...

"Property is owned by people" is a generalization of a relationship. It means that in the abstract, people - living human beings - are the ones who have ownership status with relationship to property - things. Things don't own things, people own things. An organization, such as a bank, may own things on behalf of the owners of the bank, but only because it is acting as a proxy. This leads directly then to specific things being owned by specific people. An apple is owned by the person who owns the apple.

Contrast this with "Property is owned by the people" which seems to be what you believe - that people as a collective entity have collective ownership of all things.

If this is the case, you are the only person in this thread who is misinterpreting Argumemnon's post in this fashion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No.

Why can't he smash your computer if he wants to? It's not like it belongs to you or anything. It's not like you own it or have some claim upon that property, right? Thus, he should be allowed to smash it if he so pleases.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Try not highlighting half of one sentence together with another. There is a reason the sentences are distinct from each other. I don't see how I can put it more clearly though.

I highlighted the parts to which I wished to draw attention, and which directly contradicted your post. You did indeed claim that the window was not destroyed. You supported that claim by arguing that the molecules were rearranged. Thus, you claimed that the window was not destroyed because the molecules were only rearranged.

That is what you posted, and what everyone here clearly read. And yet you then said that you did not make the claim that you clearly made.

Therefore, you are either unclear on how the time continuum, post history, the scroll wheel, and computers work altogether... or you intended something completely different from what you actually wrote.

If you intended something completely different, and you believe that did not say what you clearly said, this is your opportunity to correct that.

 

[caveman1917]

Pretty sure nobody but you has interpreted Argumemnon's posts as frantic anything, let alone switching. Argumemnon's posts have been consistent and reasoned.

Consistent and reasoned? Oh please...

 

[Emily's Cat]

In medieval Spain, saying that God doesn't exist is without standing. I thought this was a skeptic forum?

What does my skepticism regarding the existence of god in 2017 have to do with the laws of medieval europe?