[RD] Berkeley Riots

[Timsup2nothin]

Well that's because I'm of the opinion that each argument, or thread, or whatever, should be treated on its own merit, not on the "reputation" of the poster in question. This isn't school anymore. Anyway, this is futile. You're making positive claims about the guy, which are the entire basis for supporting rioting to stop him talking. You refuse to provide any evidence of the claims. That's kind of all there is to it.

LOL...what does "this isn't school" have to do with your actions having consequences that you apparently don't like?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Right. This is stupid. Someone else can have a play with this thread.

 

[Hygro]

Well that's because I'm of the opinion that each argument, or thread, or whatever, should be treated on its own merit, not on the "reputation" of the poster in question.

If someone builds credibility, should we regard their posts with equal consideration to someone who repeatedly does not?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't know if I'd change my stance, I still think that there should be other options, but at the same time I would then see why people would see it as justifiable. If there's a danger of actual harm coming to people as a result of the talk then I could see why there would be more imperative to stop that from happening than if you just don't like his ideas, and why you might be compelled to go further in that case.

But that's jumping ahead again. The important thing is that if he were demonstrated to have said these things, then I would agree that he said these things. That's the bone of contention at the moment is it not?

But its not jumping ahead, in the sense that we are back to discussing substance... The bone of contention you mentioned is in-fact, not contended at all... as I've said many times, we flat out disagree, and have reached an impasse, that's why the discussion has turned completely tangential... but now at last we are back on track... and all the stuff that you (and I) are complaining about above, the tricks, dodges, wriggling, etc... I'm hand waving all that... because finally we are back to substance.

So back to the substantive argument... It seems that you can at least accept the merit of the thought process behind rioting, taking for sake of discussion that the claims that Milo is endangering people as true. But for you the key is whether the risk of harm is real or not... I get that.

But can you then see that for the people rioting, protesting, whatever... they have already crossed that threshold? In other words they believe, correctly or not, that Milo poses a real danger to their classmates, comrades and others. You might not believe, but they do. So you should be evaluating the morality of their actions from the standpoint of a believer, not a skeptic. Otherwise you are applying an unreasonable standard to their motives. Do you get what I'm saying?

You're saying "They should know Milo isn't there to hurt anyone, hes just there to talk trash" so rioting is an overreaction and immoral. But the flaw in that reasoning, is they don't "know" that. You believe that, you said as much... but they don't. they think Milo is coming to cause real tangible harm, and they believe they need to act to stop him. Does that make sense? Does it make you more sympathetic to their cause?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If someone builds credibility, should we regard their posts with equal consideration to someone who repeatedly does not?

As I keep saying, if the post in question is "can you show me this evidence that you claim exists", then there is nothing to find credible or otherwise.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But its not jumping ahead, in the sense that we are back to discussing substance... The bone of contention you mentioned is in-fact, not contended at all... as I've said many times, we flat out disagree

Yes we disagree. I think you should look at the evidence before forming an opinion, you believe that's not necessary and in fact you'll wilfully avoid doing so. That's what it boils down to and if you can't see the problem there then that's all there is to it. The end I guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As I keep saying, if the post in question is "can you show me this evidence that you claim exists", then there is nothing to find credible or otherwise.

Well, there is you.

As to your repeated requests to show you the evidence, I've responded the same way every time. Notice that the only one having a problem with my response is you. You want to make a big deal out of the fluff and rules of debate to avoid, as Sommerswerd puts it, getting back to the substance. Because from thread to thread, topic to topic, debate to debate, you've provided three thousand insights into your substance, and we all can guess what your answer would be if you were willing to up and give it.

 

[zxcvbob]

Well that's because I'm of the opinion that each argument, or thread, or whatever, should be treated on its own merit, not on the "reputation" of the poster in question. This isn't school anymore. Anyway, this is futile. You're making positive claims about the guy, which are the entire basis for supporting rioting to stop him talking. You refuse to provide any evidence of the claims. That's kind of all there is to it.

That should tell you a lot about the veracity of the claims.

 

[BvBPL]

But can you then see that for the people rioting, protesting, whatever... they have already crossed that threshold? In other words they believe, correctly or not, that Milo poses a real danger to their classmates, comrades and others. You might not believe, but they do. So you should be evaluating the morality of their actions from the standpoint of a believer, not a skeptic. Otherwise you are applying an unreasonable standard to their motives. Do you get what I'm saying?

The standard for acceptable behavior should require something beyond mere belief on the part of the actor.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well, there is you.

As to your repeated requests to show you the evidence, I've responded the same way every time. Notice that the only one having a problem with my response is you. You want to make a big deal out of the fluff and rules of debate to avoid, as Sommerswerd puts it, getting back to the substance. Because from thread to thread, topic to topic, debate to debate, you've provided three thousand insights into your substance, and we all can guess what your answer would be if you were willing to up and give it.

No actually I only requested it once and you declined. The "repetition" since then has just been endlessly restating what I did and what my position is because people keep misrepresenting it and talking as if I'm making non-credible claims, which is not true. I know you're not going to present the evidence and I'm not asking you to again.

As for "getting back to the substance". Well, I'm more interested in sorting out the foundations. The main susbtance of your house might be in the bricks and mortar, but if you've built it on quicksand then I'm not buying it.

That should tell you a lot about the veracity of the claims.

It does suggest that, but if I draw that as a definite conclusion then I'm behaving no better than those I'm arguing with. I'm open to the possibility that the evidence exists as it's described.

 

[Sommerswerd]

The standard for acceptable behavior should require something beyond mere belief on the part of the actor.

This statement is tantamount to a condemnation of all religion, which FWIW, I at least, can go along with in principle... however, it also condemns the religion-related behavior of all religious people, which I most certainly can't go along with in principle... it also forecloses the concept of extending, hospitality, kindness and trust to strangers, which I also can't go along with... so I don't know if you intended those consequences by your statement, or if you were just talking about Berkeley. If its just Berkeley, I will suggest to you that your statement is over-broad, and doesn't stand up to practical analysis.

 

[BvBPL]

I don’t think I follow your line of reasoning.

 

[Farm Boy]

I believe it requires the implication that "religion-related behavior" and the "concept of extending, hospitality, kindness and trust to strangers" are "mere beliefs" rather than "something beyond mere belief," such as "reasonable belief" or whatever wishy washy term we codify as a subjective standard when we excuse and justify incarcerating, punishing, or killing people for our beliefs. Or when we justify and explain why we do not.

Maybe? Am I parsing that wrongly? I'm sort of lost on this exchange, the conversation isn't making a ton of sense to me.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This statement is tantamount to a condemnation of all religion, which FWIW, I at least, can go along with in principle... however, it also condemns the religion-related behavior of all religious people, which I most certainly can't go along with in principle... it also forecloses the concept of extending, hospitality, kindness and trust to strangers, which I also can't go along with... so I don't know if you intended those consequences by your statement, or if you were just talking about Berkeley. If its just Berkeley, I will suggest to you that your statement is over-broad, and doesn't stand up to practical analysis.

Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but... actions such as extending hospitality, kindness, and trust require significantly lower levels of justification than actions such as punching people in the face, smashing up and setting fire to property, and public lynchings. In fact, I might almost go as far as to say zero levels of justification.

 

[Lexicus]

I don’t think I follow your line of reasoning.

Do you really not? Sommer will explain it better than I can, but basically the human condition is such that a great majority of our behavior, perhaps nearly all of it, is based on 'mere belief'. So saying the standard for acceptable behavior should be more than "mere belief" is to say that probably the bulk of human behavior is unacceptable.

 

[Farm Boy]

Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but... actions such as extending hospitality, kindness, and trust require significantly lower levels of justification than actions such as punching people in the face, smashing up and setting fire to property, and public lynchings. In fact, I might almost go as far as to say zero levels of justification.

I suppose there is that too.

 

[metalhead]

Maybe I'm alone in feeling this way, but... actions such as extending hospitality, kindness, and trust require significantly lower levels of justification than actions such as punching people in the face, smashing up and setting fire to property, and public lynchings. In fact, I might almost go as far as to say zero levels of justification.

Surely there are limits to when those actions are appropriate. Would you extend hospitality to a known pedophile and allow him to spend the night in your house with your children? Or heck, just to someone your roommate or spouse doesn't like and doesn't want in your house? Or to a stranger that knocks on your door in the middle of the night?

There are few actions beyond the most basic level of politeness and kindness which aren't in need of some level of justification. Absolutes are very difficult to find.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Extending trust certainly requires a reasonable level of justification.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Mere belief can (and does oftentimes) supply a reasonable level of justification.

@Lexicus - You got it right.

@Farm Boy - TL;DR Here is where we are. The self-defense/defense-of-others justification for protesting Milo is proving problematic for the anti-SJW perspective, because IMO while they oppose the who and thus instinctively reject the how, they cannot deny the self-defense/defense-of-others justification outright. So the argument turns to whether the self-defense/defense-of-others justification actually exists or not, with one side saying "Yes" and the other side saying "No, prove it", and the first side saying, "Look it up yourself" and the second side saying "I can't find it so I don't believe it exists". Then the argument wanders further into the nature and quality of evidence, relative credibility of the speaker, and the proper bearer of the burden of proof... I attempted to get us off that tangent by suggesting that if the actors subjectively believe that the self-defense/defense-of-others justification is present, then they are morally covered, whether the justification actually exists or not. Manfred is stumped by this, and as he can't bear to give any quarter to the SJWs, he is claiming righteous indignation and tapping out.

What just happened, is that BVBPL is trying to support Manfred, by claiming "Manfred's right, it's wrong to do things based solely on belief", to which I respond "That's untrue and demonstrably so." and here we are.

 

[Lexicus]

I attempted to get us off that tangent by suggesting that if the actors subjectively believe that the self-defense/defense-of-others justification is present, then they are morally covered, whether the justification actually exists or not.

And I can't agree with this as a blanket claim any more than I can agree with its counterpart, "mere belief can never be the basis for acceptable action."

This would give "moral cover" to all those SS troops who sincerely believed they were defending Germany by shooting Jewish people. On the other hand, we have a moral principle that would basically condemn you to near-total inaction due to the Cartesian problem (all knowledge is ultimately unreliable, or to put it another way, human knowledge is actually just beliefs all the way down).

There must be some middle ground between these two extremes.