AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-05, 08:14   Link #1041
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
I did answer you question: What you called protests were not true protests, so they are not worth protecting in any sense.

As for MLK, I'm certain even you have the soundness of mind to differentiate a true protest for human rights and the bratty short-sighted ignorant stupidity that "protests" these days are. Not being able to tell the difference is something I truly worry about when it comes to most people who are not doing their responsibility.
If you agree, they're true protests, if not, they aren't?
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:16   Link #1042
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Allow me to ask: Exactly what was OWS about?
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:30   Link #1043
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
General dissatisfaction with the place of finance in our societies.

Not much of a message, true, but here's the thing: I don't have to agree or think much of what people have to say to be extremely leery of censuring them. Frankly, they could have been begging for free Pokemon cards for all I care - I'd need a much better reason than "they're spoiled" to bring down the hammer. Because when it comes down to it, there's always someone to think any group of protestors are acting stupid and entitled. (And often, that someone is me. I don't like disruptions any more than the next guy.)
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:33   Link #1044
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Perhaps that's where most people and myself differentiate: I do not consider protests to be one of right, but of responsibility. Any protest without responsibility, and if it is disruptive for the sake of getting more of the pie (which OWS pretty much amounted to in the end), would never be a true protest in my mind, and thus I see no reason for it to be protected in any sense.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:40   Link #1045
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
I'd say the difference is that you think a person (you) can sit in judgment and decide which protest is valid and which isn't based purely on what you think their message is. I'm sorry to say, but I don't trust you that much. I wouldn't trust you for that even if you had a law degree, a robe, and one of those fancy wigs.

Most protest are for "getting more of the pie", one way or the other. That doesn't make them any less valid than paying a lobbyist to pester lawmakers.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:44   Link #1046
Zakoo
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Gensokyo
Life in your world must be good. You just need to talk and kindly ask to get what you want. Unfortunately in the rest of the world it wont get you anywhere. If it isnt disruptive nobody is going to listen to you.
Zakoo is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:51   Link #1047
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
I'd say the difference is that you think a person (you) can sit in judgment and decide which protest is valid and which isn't based purely on what you think their message is. I'm sorry to say, but I don't trust you that much. I wouldn't trust you for that even if you had a law degree, a robe, and one of those fancy wigs.
No offense taken, given that I am very cynical in trusting any individual with power. However, there is a core difference between sitting in judgement and having a strict standard, as will be mentioned below.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Most protest are for "getting more of the pie", one way or the other. That doesn't make them any less valid than paying a lobbyist to pester lawmakers.
Considering that I also do consider lobbying to be something of responsibility than right, I don't see much of a difference anyway.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakoo View Post
Life in your world must be good. You just need to talk and kindly ask to get what you want. Unfortunately in the rest of the world it wont get you anywhere. If it isnt disruptive nobody is going to listen to you.
Asking for what? Rights that any human being should have, or getting more of the pie or perhaps a better position than before? To me any protest that is not of the former is to be one of responsibility, and thus being disruptive is throwing away the principles of protesting. I'm cynical against ANY protest that is not of a matter of rights. That is why I use alternative measures (bearing pressure in a way that does not have to paralyze society or touch the right of people to be undisturbed).
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:53   Link #1048
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zakoo View Post
Life in your world must be good. You just need to talk and kindly ask to get what you want. Unfortunately in the rest of the world it wont get you anywhere. If it isnt disruptive nobody is going to listen to you.
Life in your world is certainly better; if it is disruptive we would get locked away because they have no interest in listening to you.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 08:56   Link #1049
Xagzan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Romney Says He Was Wrong on ‘47 Percent’ Comment
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012...cent.html?_r=1
Quote:
FISHERSVILLE, Va. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has described his disparaging remarks about the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes as "not elegantly stated." Now he's calling them "just completely wrong."
It's a swiftly tilting etch a sketch
Xagzan is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:05   Link #1050
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
No offense taken, given that I am very cynical in trusting any individual with power. However, there is a core difference between sitting in judgement and having a strict standard, as will be mentioned below.



Considering that I also do consider lobbying to be something of responsibility than right, I don't see much of a difference anyway.



Asking for what? Rights that any human being should have, or getting more of the pie or perhaps a better position than before? To me any protest that is not of the former is to be one of responsibility, and thus being disruptive is throwing away the principles of protesting. I'm cynical against ANY protest that is not of a matter of rights. That is why I use alternative measures (bearing pressure in a way that does not have to paralyze society or touch the right of people to be undisturbed).
And they're protesting for rights to more of the pie, so what's your problem?

More seriously, most or all protests are spun as being for "fairness" or "the betterment of society". For that matter, when the 0.01% come whining for tax breaks, they argue it'll be better for the economy. Nobody's organizing a protest with "I want a raise" as the main slogan.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:07   Link #1051
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
And they're protesting for rights to more of the pie, so what's your problem?

More seriously, most or all protests are spun as being for "fairness" or "the betterment of society". For that matter, when the 0.01% come whining for tax breaks, they argue it'll be better for the economy. Nobody's organizing a protest with "I want a raise" as the main slogan.
I'm against ANY disruptive protest that is not one concerning basic rights. There is no right to getting more of the pie.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:09   Link #1052
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Guys -- I saw the "Occupy" movement from both sides. While I wandered about in plain clothes and while I got harassed going to work in a suit.

The movement started as a way to bring attention to general dissatisfaction with the finance industry and income imbalances -- then just general dissatisfaction overall. The problem is, it basically amounted to people squatting in one place and whining. People started doing drugs and others treated it like a mini-festival or event. The big failure is that having managed to mobilized so many people in so many places all over the world -- their message got lost and they didn't actually get all these people to do anything.

They sat around and complained. They blocked traffic and harassed people going to work. They didn't get organized and actually go and "do" anything. I did read an article that the OWS "chapter" started renting an office in NY back in Dec 2011, and that they were basically trying to work on policy and start lobbying.
willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:24   Link #1053
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 26
@Sumeragi: We've fought long and hard in the west for the right to protest. So long as the protests are orderly, people should be allowed to protest about whatever they want. It's the bedrock of our system. It keeps our politicians afraid. Protesters have shut society down before, and we can do so again.

As for OWS, while I would criticise the movement for not trying to form more of a programme, I think the protesters as a whole had plenty of justifiable grievances. I am young and unemployed, and I feel I can understand why so many of the protestors felt agrieved. Our age group has horrendously high unemployment (it's even worse in Europe), sky-high student loans, little economic opportunity, and the laws have been changed such that even if we do get jobs we're basically treated like disposable commodities. The current economic order has been stacked against us. We're told "get a job", but what are you supposed to do when no one will give you one?

Now I don't think the government can really solve all these problems, and perhaps that's why OWS chose not to half specific demands. The aim of the movement was to draw attention to the issues facing us, and start a dialogue about it. And you know what, I'd say it's worked. A lot more has been done since OWS to try to address the needs facing young people. It's still not enough(and to be honest, it's not an easy problem to solve), but at least there's a realisation by the powers that be that there isn't much more we can do on our own to get jobs. We're not "lazy hippies" out of any kind of choice.

The only real option for us is to make our work, but we're stuck with the issue that most of us, fresh out of college, have no kind of seed capital (no rich parents to borrow money from...), and don't have sufficient workplace experience to know how to start one. We had a contract with society that if we worked hard completing all this education, we'd have a decent lifestyle at the end, and society has reneged on it's side of the bargain. We've been educated for the dole queue.

That's my interpretation about OWS. Everyone has their own view on it. But I'd say OWS was an improvement over staying at home and angrily typing on forums about how our lives suck. People at least are now paying some attention.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:28   Link #1054
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
So long as the protests are orderly, people should be allowed to protest about whatever they want.
And I see no problem with that. It's when people start defending protests (concerning non-rights) that are not so that I am more than being mere cynical.
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:43   Link #1055
Anh_Minh
I disagree with you all.
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
I'm against ANY disruptive protest that is not one concerning basic rights. There is no right to getting more of the pie.
So define basic rights. Is education a right? Is affordable housing a right? Or, to look at the problem from the other side, should a full time employee earn enough to pay rent and put some food on the table?

And anyway - we pay a lot of taxes, and expect our money's worth. Who are you to tell us we can't protest if we feel cheated? Why should it matter if it's not noble enough?

And any successful protest, even if it's orderly, is going to be disruptive. You just can't put that many people on the street without disruption of traffic. So you're going to have to clarify your position when you say:
Quote:
And I see no problem with that. It's when people start defending protests (concerning non-rights) that are not so that I am more than being mere cynical.
Anh_Minh is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 09:45   Link #1056
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
Regarding OWS: Here's the article about the tour of their office back in December 2011

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/01...y-wall-street/

So, I'm going to stir the pot here. As this is a specifically election focused thread and this or similar topics have come up in the past:

willx is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 10:01   Link #1057
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
@ Anh_Minh: As defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for paying taxes: I do not think enough is being paid, including everyone (and not just the supposed 1% or 47%), as I mentioned earlier about "big" government. That is connected to human rights: Human rights can only exist if it is being paid for.

@ willx: Aside from disagreeing with the assessment (I do believe someone who openly doubts the existence of heaven and hell could be elected president), I have to say that given humans are "unreasonable", why shouldn't "unreason" and "otherworldiness" be part of governing affairs?
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 10:05   Link #1058
Ascaloth
I don't give a damn, dude
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
@ willx: Aside from disagreeing with the assessment (I do believe someone who openly doubts the existence of heaven and hell could be elected president), I have to say that given humans are "unreasonable", why shouldn't "unreason" and "otherworldiness" be part of governing affairs?
"Given that humans are idiots, why shouldn't we govern our affairs like idiots"?

jackiechan.jpg
Ascaloth is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 10:08   Link #1059
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
My point is that "unreason" might in fact be reason, but under an atheist point of view the potential reason would be rendered "unreason". Basically, I'm rejecting the view that belief in the existence of deities (to simplify the definition) is automatically "unreason".

If it was difficult to get it, I put "" around "unreason" to show my disagreement with the assessment of "unreason".
Sumeragi is offline  
Old 2012-10-05, 10:16   Link #1060
willx
Nyaaan~~
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 31
@Sumeragi -

Well, the U.S. Constitution stipulates there be a separation of church and state. The Courts have also abided by this to a certain extent which has also set a history of precedent. I'm interested to see why you believe an atheist or agnostic president could be elected?

From Wikipedia (because I'm too lazy to find "first source" documents or quotes):
Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." The modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper. Echoing the language of the founder of the first Baptist church in America, Roger Williams—who had written in 1644 of "[A] hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world"— Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Hm, and with regards to Religion x Reason in general .. My core issue behind religion is that it requires "faith" which is fundamentally "believing in things without proof" .. which based on my personality is tough for me

Well this is a topic for another thread (are we grown up enough to have a "Religion & Spirituality" thread?) that I'm all too happy to discuss, with what I hope people consider is an open mind.

Last edited by willx; 2012-10-05 at 10:17. Reason: Punctuation
willx is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:16.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.