2012-10-05, 08:14 | Link #1041 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-10-05, 08:30 | Link #1043 |
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.) |
2012-10-05, 08:33 | Link #1044 |
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.
|
2012-10-05, 08:40 | Link #1045 |
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. |
2012-10-05, 08:51 | Link #1047 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Quote:
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). |
||
2012-10-05, 08:56 | Link #1049 | |
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:
|
|
2012-10-05, 09:05 | Link #1050 | |
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
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. |
|
2012-10-05, 09:07 | Link #1051 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-10-05, 09:09 | Link #1052 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
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. |
2012-10-05, 09:24 | Link #1053 |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
@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. |
2012-10-05, 09:43 | Link #1055 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Quote:
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:
|
||
2012-10-05, 09:45 | Link #1056 |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
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: |
2012-10-05, 10:01 | Link #1057 |
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? |
2012-10-05, 10:05 | Link #1058 | |
I don't give a damn, dude
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In Despair
Age: 37
|
Quote:
jackiechan.jpg |
|
2012-10-05, 10:08 | Link #1059 |
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". |
2012-10-05, 10:16 | Link #1060 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
@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:
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 |
|
|
|