Worldwide Occupy Movement?

Dr Galen · 17-02-2012 3:35pm

davoxx wrote: »

i like this approach ... very legal in laying down the understanding of words ...

the same way most people would, see wiki.
how so you define this?

i'd hope the same way most people would, see wiki.

if you are asking for the measure of excessive, well that's relative isn't it?

I'm not trying to be deliberately legalistic or combative tbh, just in case thats what you think. It's really just that I'm having a hard time following your responses.

For the record, I'm not asking for "most peoples" take on it. I'm asking for yours, and that also means I'm not looking for the Wiki definition either. I would like it in your own words.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 3:44pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Davoxx define "most" 60% 70%? in the words of Occupy (Not wikipedia not the English dictionary etc)

i can't speak for occupy in an official capacity, sorry.

what do you think it means?

davoxx · 17-02-2012 3:47pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

I'm not trying to be deliberately legalistic or combative tbh, just in case thats what you think. It's really just that I'm having a hard time following your responses.

For the record, I'm not asking for "most peoples" take on it. I'm asking for yours, and that also means I'm not looking for the Wiki definition either. I would like it in your own words.

my own words would not be too far off that of most people.
otherwise i or most people would be using the word incorrectly.

Dr Galen · 17-02-2012 3:58pm

Thats not an answer Davoxx and you know it

BluntGuy · 17-02-2012 4:06pm

davoxx wrote: »

once again you have misunderstood things, as you also do in other posts. do both words mean the same thing to me? do they imply the same thing? am i then inferring the same thing from them? well the answer is obvious, since i used the word 'and' ...

You suggest the "greed" is desiring wealth above:

a certain level

And yet when asked what this level is, you continue to evade clarifying it, instead giving a longer version of the same claim:

Cut and Paste wrote:

Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth, goods, or abstract things of value with the intention to keep it for one's self.

Which doesn't answer at all what this "certain level" is. Which leaves me to try and work out what this "certain level" is. Now in a previous post you state:

they are a good thing, for everyone but the greedy and corrupt people.
it's objectives are aimed at improving the lives of everyone, not just the rich elite.

the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.

So you have a clear distaste for the rich, and a clear distaste for "greed" and as your definition of "greed" as above, seems to be having wealth above "a certain level", one is entitled based on the evidence presented to assume that you associate being rich with being greedy. To be rich implies they are greedy, as by having the desire to "possess wealth" above a "certain level" which is necessarily implied by the fact they have said wealth (if you didn't in some way desire the wealth, why would you hold onto it?) they fit your criteria.

Where is the misunderstanding here?

thanks for making your point clear.
rebuttal: so you do not support closing the social wealth gap in our society because in your opinion, the occupy movement is not clear in their goals

In the context of a thread about the Occupy movement, when I stated "I am against this" I was referring to the general tone and ideal of your post (which I saw as representative of what you see opponents of Occupy as) rather than a specific claim, hence why I stated "I do not support the movement...". I quoted a line which I felt summarised the general attitude of your post and disagreed with that rather than quoting the entire thing.

If there was any confusion generated on my part, my apologies, however hopefully the situation is now clarified and you would now be polite enough to clarify the wealth redistribution question.

i did not fail to define it, you failed miserably to understand the concept of excessive and the 'rich elite' ...

"Rich Elite" changes definition depending on who you talk to.

"Excessive" is a way of rephrasing "certain level" whilst avoiding answering the question that was put to you.

we already have wealth redistribution in action. and since charity is part of wealth redistribution, i think it will always exist, regardless of the 'solution' chosen.

like i said it's not relevant to this discussion.

Yeah but... it... sort of... completely is. Are you saying that charity is enough wealth distribution? Does there need to be more, does there need to be less?

If I rephrase the question perhaps you would answer it?

You have stated explicitly, two premises:

(1) Rich people have excessive money.
(2) The social wealth gap needs to be closed.

Now what do you think logically follows, according to yourself/Occupy?

davoxx · 17-02-2012 4:07pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

Thats not an answer Davoxx and you know it

we both know it is an answer, it's not the one that you wanted for some reason ...

though me defining it as exceeding what is perceived as common or normal expectations, doesn't change anything now does it?

how do you define it so?

i'm kinda curious to see where this is going tbh ...

PeadarCo · 17-02-2012 4:08pm

davoxx wrote: »

i can't speak for occupy in an official capacity, sorry.

what do you think it means?

What do you think it means?(again no dictionary etc)

As for me what greed means depends on situation which is why it is important for Occupy to define what it means in their situation otherwise they open themselves to the aquisation that since they are greedly due to the fact they live in an developed nation and all that comes with that.

Most for me means 67%+

I would also like to point out unless you can point to official Occupy documentation I view anything you say as being from Occupy. As you say Occupy is a movement that has no leader so unless it produces clear documentation to the contary the views of its members are the views of the organisation.

Spudmonkey · 17-02-2012 4:12pm

davoxx wrote: »

we both know it is an answer, it's not the one that you wanted for some reason ...

Excessive is subjective and therefore not an answer.

Even those in the occupy movement would have differing opinions of what excessive is.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 4:18pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

What do you think it means?(again no dictionary etc)

with reference to "most people" ... it is the group with the highest number of people.

PeadarCo wrote: »

As for me what greed means depends on situation which is why it is important for Occupy to define what it means in their situation otherwise they open themselves to the aquisation that since they are greedly due to the fact they live in an developed nation and all that comes with that.

i think what it means is the same regardless, how you measure it depends on the exact situation.
greed implies desire to obtain more, despite having an excessive amount already.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Most for me means 67%+

that's a very specific percentage, one has to wonder if it 66% does that count?

PeadarCo wrote: »

I would also like to point out unless you can point to official Occupy documentation I view anything you say as being from Occupy. As you say Occupy is a movement that has no leader so unless it produces clear documentation to the contary the views of its members are the views of the organisation.

http://www.occupytogether.org/ is a close to official as can be ...

Dr Galen · 17-02-2012 4:21pm

davoxx wrote: »

we both know it is an answer, it's not the one that you wanted for some reason ...

though me defining it as exceeding what is perceived as common or normal expectations, doesn't change anything now does it?

how do you define it so?

i'm kinda curious to see where this is going tbh ...

I was hoping it would have led to a straight answer tbh.

Why do you find it soooo hard just to engage and answer things properly?

davoxx · 17-02-2012 4:24pm

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Excessive is subjective and therefore not an answer.

are you saying that is is unanswerable or that the answer is that "Excessive is subjective"?

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Even those in the occupy movement would have differing opinions of what excessive is.

true, they would have differing opinions about where the bottom cut off is.

PeadarCo · 17-02-2012 4:32pm

A number of questions Davoxx. Are you involved with Occupy at all? If you don't feel you can answer in an official capacity why can't you post links that point to specific pages(Not a general website homepage) that outlines the answers?

Why does the Occupy movement/supporters that I persume want transparency have difficulty answering simple questions pertaining to their movement in simple to easy understand terms.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 4:51pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

once again you have misunderstood things, as you also do in other posts. do both words mean the same thing to me? do they imply the same thing? am i then inferring the same thing from them? well the answer is obvious, since i used the word 'and' ...

You suggest the "greed" is desiring wealth above:

a certain level

And yet when asked what this level is, you continue to evade clarifying it, instead giving a longer version of the same claim:

Cut and Paste wrote:

Greed is an excessive desire to possess wealth, goods, or abstract things of value with the intention to keep it for one's self.

Which doesn't answer at all what this "certain level" is. Which leaves me to try and work out what this "certain level" is.

the level at which is becomes greed is when it becomes excessive. you are looking for a measure, and as i'm sure you'll agree that is very subjective and depends on the details of the situation.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Now in a previous post you state:

they are a good thing, for everyone but the greedy and corrupt people.
it's objectives are aimed at improving the lives of everyone, not just the rich elite.

the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.

So you have a clear distaste for the rich, and a clear distaste for "greed" and as your definition of "greed" as above, seems to be having wealth above "a certain level", one is entitled based on the evidence presented to assume that you associate being rich with being greedy. To be rich implies they are greedy, as by having the desire to "possess wealth" above a "certain level" which is necessarily implied by the fact they have said wealth (if you didn't in some way desire the wealth, why would you hold onto it?) they fit your criteria.

Where is the misunderstanding here?

no, i have a clear distaste for the rich and greedy. the and greedy is an important part of my point.
you fail to understand that having wealth does not equate to greed, your strawman is repetitive and annoying.
a key component is the excessive desire ... you know in the quote from wiki that you changed to cut and paste, though it actually is a copy and paste job ...

BluntGuy wrote: »

thanks for making your point clear.
rebuttal: so you do not support closing the social wealth gap in our society because in your opinion, the occupy movement is not clear in their goals

In the context of a thread about the Occupy movement, when I stated "I am against this" I was referring to the general tone and ideal of your post (which I saw as representative of what you see opponents of Occupy as) rather than a specific claim, hence why I stated "I do not support the movement...". I quoted a line which I felt summarised the general attitude of your post and disagreed with that rather than quoting the entire thing.

if you use "general tone and ideal" rather than the facts or content to base your opinions, that is your choice.
your laziness resulted in wasted time, but fair enough if you do not support the movement.
do you support closing the social wealth gap in our society?

BluntGuy wrote: »

If there was any confusion generated on my part, my apologies, however hopefully the situation is now clarified and you would now be polite enough to clarify the wealth redistribution question.

i think wealth redistribution is a good thing when it goes from rich to poor.

BluntGuy wrote: »

i did not fail to define it, you failed miserably to understand the concept of excessive and the 'rich elite' ...

"Rich Elite" changes definition depending on who you talk to.

"Excessive" is a way of rephrasing "certain level" whilst avoiding answering the question that was put to you.

unfortunately these do depend on context and are subjective. in terms of law, there is still great debate over the defining of excessive force ...

BluntGuy wrote: »

we already have wealth redistribution in action. and since charity is part of wealth redistribution, i think it will always exist, regardless of the 'solution' chosen.

like i said it's not relevant to this discussion.

Yeah but... it... sort of... completely is.

not really, the implementation of it should not an indicative factor in whether you think the gap should be closed.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Are you saying that charity is enough wealth distribution?

i've made no such claim.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Does there need to be more, does there need to be less?

charity? if there was more equality, eventually there would be no need for charity.

BluntGuy wrote: »

If I rephrase the question perhaps you would answer it?

only time will tell ...

BluntGuy wrote: »

You have stated explicitly, two premises:

(1) Rich people have excessive money.
(2) The social wealth gap needs to be closed.

Now what do you think logically follows, according to yourself/Occupy?

kill the poorest person? then all that is left are those that are richer. repeat until only one person remains. everyone is rich and happy.

ok seriously ... remove sanctions and open up barriers for trade, remove tax breaks. have proper progressive taxes ... there are plenty of logical answers, though they usually cost 'rich' people money, and they don't like that ...

davoxx · 17-02-2012 4:59pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

A number of questions Davoxx. Are you involved with Occupy at all? If you don't feel you can answer in an official capacity why can't you post links that point to specific pages(Not a general website homepage) that outlines the answers?

looking for the answers is more educational than being told where to find them. anyone can repeat what they were told, but in looking for it, we create out own answers.

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why does the Occupy movement/supporters that I persume want transparency have difficulty answering simple questions pertaining to their movement in simple to easy understand terms.

transparency is should not be confused with not providing the answers you want/expect. nothing is being hidden ... get involved and you should see that.

regarding the answers, sometimes when you provide an answer, people jump on it an try to destroy it, like how the whole bad cops analogy was attacked incorrectly by people who just wanted to attack the movement regardless of what answers they got.

i hope all answers are in simple to understand terms, but not all questions are relevant or even make sense.

i hope that clarifies somethings for you.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 5:04pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

I was hoping it would have led to a straight answer tbh.

Why do you find it soooo hard just to engage and answer things properly?

sorry to disappoint your expectations of a straight answer ... if you have no expectations, you will not be disappointed.

i felt my answer was straight and concise, but that is subjective. though i have been far more than willing to engage ... i just don't tolerate attempts to muddle/confuse/change a point lightly.

so you have not answered the question, how do you define it?

Godge · 17-02-2012 5:22pm

Godge wrote: »

Ok you believe the rich are rich because of dirty background or become rich from lying, cheating and stealing except for the lucky few who win the lott.

But wealth is not bad, despite you having described those who hold wealth (the rich) in terms that to a normal person would seem bad - dirty background, lying, cheating and stealing. I am confused.

I will post whatever I like, within the bounds of the charter. You are free to disregard it if you so wish but once I stay within the bounds of the charter I am free to quote your posts, reply to your posts or reference you either directly or indirectly.

As your misrepresenting your views, the problem, as I have clearly outlined it above in relation to two of your posts in this thread is that the post concerned are contradictory, inconsistent and lacking in coherence. In parsing them and asking questions, I am only attempting to come to an understanding. That is further complicated by the fact that I have now realised that you are presenting your own personal views on some occasions but on others are equating your views with those of the Occupy movement which you support (we are discussing Occupy on this thread, aren't we?). This makes it further confusing.

I post the above post and below is the response you give. you snipped everything from it except the Godge part but the arrow enabled me to identify which post you were quoting from.

davoxx wrote: »

ok, i can neither confirm nor deny any point made by you as we do not share the same definitions for world peace.

i will reiterate that occupy movement does not condone violence in any shape or form as from the press release on their website.

Where in the post you quoted from do I mention:

(1) World Peace
(2) Condoning violence

Your postings are getting erratic at this stage.

nesf · 17-02-2012 5:40pm

davoxx wrote: »

sorry to disappoint your expectations of a straight answer ... if you have no expectations, you will not be disappointed.

If you can't give a straight answer when asked a question you're not welcome here. Cop on a bit please.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 5:40pm

Godge wrote: »

I post the above post and below is the response you give. you snipped everything from it except the Godge part but the arrow enabled me to identify which post you were quoting from.

Where in the post you quoted from do I mention:

(1) World Peace
(2) Condoning violence

Your postings are getting erratic at this stage.

you mentioned them previously as your points of being against the movement ... i had thought that i addressed them, but i did not see you acknowledging that:

1) specific personal definitions of world peace is not world peace.
2) that i provided a link of them not condoning the violence.

Godge wrote:

Kim Jong-Il wanted world peace, so did Ronald Reagan

but since you purport that everyone has a specific special definition of world peace, i presumed that was what you were referencing when you replied.

thanks for your comments on the movement ...

davoxx · 17-02-2012 5:45pm

nesf wrote: »

If you can't give a straight answer when asked a question you're not welcome here. Cop on a bit please.

to which question? how do i define excessive? that's not really in the scope of the thread ...

i gave a straight answer, but what what was wanted was the answer to "how does one determine/measure if something is excessive?"

so how do you define a straight answer?

nesf · 17-02-2012 5:46pm

davoxx wrote: »

to which question? how do i define excessive? that's not really in the scope of the thread ...

i gave a straight answer, but what what was wanted was the answer to "how does one determine/measure if something is excessive?"

so how do you define a straight answer?

Take it to PM rather than dragging this thread further off topic please.

BluntGuy · 17-02-2012 6:13pm

davoxx wrote: »

the level at which is becomes greed is when it becomes excessive. you are looking for a measure, and as i'm sure you'll agree that is very subjective and depends on the details of the situation.

Well that isn't very useful because it was apparently "a certain level", which as OscarBravo pointed out, implies a measure of quantifiability.

no, i have a clear distaste for the rich and greedy. the and greedy is an important part of my point.
you fail to understand that having wealth does not equate to greed, your strawman is repetitive and annoying.
a key component is the excessive desire ... you know in the quote from wiki that you changed to cut and paste, though it actually is a copy and paste job ...

But someone who desires wealth will naturally hold onto it even if they just happen to have it. If I won €1,000,000 in the "Lotto" and simply held onto it, or used to it buy material things with which to enrich myself, would I do not be desiring to have that wealth, even if it was beyond a "certain level", "excessive"? How is that any worse than desiring that €1,000,000 and earning it through work? You seem to be suggesting that having a lot of wealth isn't a problem at all, but wanting a lot of wealth is.

i think wealth redistribution is a good thing when it goes from rich to poor.

Okay well that's one concrete view.

if you use "general tone and ideal" rather than the facts or content to base your opinions, that is your choice.
your laziness resulted in wasted time, but fair enough if you do not support the movement.

There were no facts in your post, it was just rambling about "rich elites" and how the rich made their wealth from lying and how anyone who didn't support the suggestions made was "rich and greedy". Anyway, I think we've exhausted this particular avenue of conversation.

do you support closing the social wealth gap in our society?

I support giving everyone the opportunity to participate in the market insofar as is possible. Can you define "closing the social wealth gap"? Do you mean, less disparity between top incomes and bottom incomes, do you mean wholesale wealth distribution, that is actual assets and capital being redistributed? Could you propose the mechanisms by which this would be achieved, if so. Answering these questions would make it easier for me to frame a response that would result in a more satisfying discourse.

ok seriously ... remove sanctions and open up barriers for trade, remove tax breaks. have proper progressive taxes ... there are plenty of logical answers, though they usually cost 'rich' people money, and they don't like that ...

Remove tax breaks for whom? What if the removal of these tax breaks resulted in a company moving to somewhere where taxation laws are more generous for example? Is it worth the loss in employment? What is a "proper" progressive tax system? What barriers for trade?

Godge · 17-02-2012 6:13pm

davoxx wrote: »

.

but since you purport that everyone has a specific special definition of world peace, i presumed that was what you were referencing when you replied.

thanks for your comments on the movement ...

I have consistently stated that "World Peace" is an objective that everyone can sign up to because it is one of those motherhood and apple pie terms that mean different things to everybody but are noble enough in themselves that everyone can say they approve of it. Just like saying "eliminate poverty" or "economic justice". This essentially makes it meaningless. To many an Arab, wiping Israel off the map would be an essential contribution to world peace. To some Israelis, nuclear bombing Iran would be an essential contribution to world peace.

You have never defined world peace in either your terms or Occupy terms (remember I pointed out several pages ago that it was unclear at times whether you were representing your own personal views or Occupy's views or even your interpretation of Occupy's views). All I have done is point out the imprecise nature of the term and the fact that on the one hand nobody could argue with it but on the other hand nobody could sign up to Occupy's version of it without knowing what that means. Apart from telling me that it is not Ronald Reagan's version and indulging in some anti-American rant about that, you have not given me your version of world peace. The devil is in the detail of the definition, something you have refused to provide a straight answer to.

Ditto with economic justice or close the social wealth gap. You have to remember that most rich people are in agreement with a progressive tax system whereby income tax rates increase the more income you get. That essentially is social redistribution or economic justice. Where it breaks down is that some rich people would believe that the bottom rate of tax should be 5% and the top rate 10%. So again these are things that practically everyone in the world can agree with, it is the details of the positions that make them different.

The problem I have, and it is a problem that others on this thread seem to share, is that when we question the details of the terms such as world peace, social redistribution or economic justice, we get referred to the wiki definitions which are essentially more elaborate versions of the motherhood and apple pie terms when what we are really looking for is some detail about what exactly either you or Occupy actually mean when you say these things.

We could all stand around and shout slogans such as world peace or economic justice but without anyone understanding what they mean it would like a Monty Python sketch with us all shouting "down with that sort of thing".

davoxx · 17-02-2012 6:25pm

Godge wrote: »

I have consistently stated that "World Peace" is an objective that everyone can sign up to because it is one of those motherhood and apple pie terms that mean different things to everybody but are noble enough in themselves that everyone can say they approve of it. Just like saying "eliminate poverty" or "economic justice". This essentially makes it meaningless. To many an Arab, wiping Israel off the map would be an essential contribution to world peace. To some Israelis, nuclear bombing Iran would be an essential contribution to world peace.

okay ... how do you define world peace so?

Godge · 17-02-2012 6:45pm

davoxx wrote: »

okay ... how do you define world peace so?

I am not justifying supporting any organisation calling for world peace so I don't feel the particular need to define it. In general I see it as an empty slogan when used by many governments, organisations, protest movements or individuals.

Look at the wikipedia entry to see Geroge Bush and Leon Trotsky claim world peace as an outcome of their ideologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_peace

If someone wants me to support an organisation or movement that is calling for world peace, they will need to do more than just repeat the slogan, they will need to set out a vision for world peace and also how they expect it to be achieved. Otherwise it falls into the category of empty slogans.

So I would define world peace as espoused by the Occupy movement as an empty slogan as there is no vision of what it is they are trying to achieve and no idea of how to get there.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 6:46pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

Well that isn't very useful because it was apparently "a certain level", which as OscarBravo pointed out, implies a measure of quantifiability.

but it is still relative. ie how hot is hot? it needs a reference point, and that can change depending on context.

BluntGuy wrote: »

But someone who desires wealth will naturally hold onto it even if they just happen to have it.

but not to accumulate more ...

BluntGuy wrote: »

If I won €1,000,000 in the "Lotto" and simply held onto it, or used to it buy material things with which to enrich myself, would I do not be desiring to have that wealth, even if it was beyond a "certain level", "excessive"?

do not understand the question.

BluntGuy wrote: »

You seem to be suggesting that having a lot of wealth isn't a problem at all, but wanting a lot of wealth is.

yes. and this stems from how they then go about to accumulate it.

BluntGuy wrote: »

There were no facts in your post, it was just rambling about "rich elites" and how the rich made their wealth from lying and how anyone who didn't support the suggestions made was "rich and greedy". Anyway, I think we've exhausted this particular avenue of conversation.

i sure hope so, i really do not want to have to post more definitions ...

BluntGuy wrote: »

I support giving everyone the opportunity to participate in the market insofar as is possible.

i don't understand the qualifier here, what do you mean by insofar as possible?

BluntGuy wrote: »

Can you define "closing the social wealth gap"?

meaning the difference in wealth between the top and bottom in society is significantly smaller that it is now.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Do you mean, less disparity between top incomes and bottom incomes,

that would help.

BluntGuy wrote: »

do you mean wholesale wealth distribution, that is actual assets and capital being redistributed?

forcefully? no. via taxation, yes

BluntGuy wrote: »

Could you propose the mechanisms by which this would be achieved, if so.

taxation, grants to the poor. stopping tax breaks.
actually fining a company 10% of profit when it breaks the law rather than pocket change (with respect to the companies size)

BluntGuy wrote: »

Answering these questions would make it easier for me to frame a response that would result in a more satisfying discourse.

i hope that answer it for you.

BluntGuy wrote: »

Remove tax breaks for whom?

the wealthy elite.

BluntGuy wrote: »

What if the removal of these tax breaks resulted in a company moving to somewhere where taxation laws are more generous for example?

why would they move? why can't a local company compete with this company that moved out?

BluntGuy wrote: »

Is it worth the loss in employment?

yes. better to build on solid foundations than uncertain ones.

BluntGuy wrote: »

What is a "proper" progressive tax system?

one that does not penalize the low earners while allowing high earners to write of tax.

BluntGuy wrote: »

What barriers for trade?

the ones that mean there are food mountains stored in europe ...

these are all specifics and do not belong in this thread.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 6:53pm

Godge wrote: »

I am not justifying supporting any organisation calling for world peace so I don't feel the particular need to define it.

i know you are not supporting world peace.
i was asking for your definition of it.
if you feel no need to define your special understanding on it, how can you comment on the opinion of others?

thanks for commenting.

Godge · 17-02-2012 6:58pm

davoxx wrote: »

i know you are not supporting world peace.
i was asking for your definition of it.
if you feel no need to define your special understanding on it, how can you comment on the opinion of others?

thanks for commenting.

Did you read my post? I stated quite clearly

"I would define world peace as espoused by the Occupy movement as an empty slogan as there is no vision of what it is they are trying to achieve and no idea of how to get there."

Maybe you would present to me your definition of world peace as espoused by the Occupy Movement? I have defined it in those limited terms for you, maybe you could do me the courtesy of a straight answer and do the same for me?

Godge · 17-02-2012 7:04pm

davoxx wrote: »

why would they move? why can't a local company compete with this company that moved out?

.

This is an extremely naive statement. Which local companies will be able to compete with Google, Microsoft, Intel, IBM and Facebook when they move their operations out of Ireland following your changes?

Which local companies in the pharmaceutical industry are ready to step up and develop their own versions of Viagra and other top-selling drugs manufactured in Ireland?

davoxx wrote: »

the ones that mean there are food mountains stored in europe ...

.

What food mountains?

BluntGuy · 17-02-2012 8:09pm

davoxx wrote: »

but it is still relative. ie how hot is hot? it needs a reference point, and that can change depending on context.

Okay in the context of 2012 Ireland, say, what would you say is an "excessive" amount, roughly what would be this "certain level"?

but not to accumulate more ...

So wanting to accumulate more wealth beyond level X we'll call it, is bad... but simply having wealth beyond X is okay if it was gifted to you or you won it? What if someone wanted to have more personal wealth so they could give their children a better start in life, what if the only materialistic thing they desire is something that's very expensive and this requires the accumulation of wealth beyond X?

I just think this definition of "greed" doesn't work.

yes. and this stems from how they then go about to accumulate it.

But you dismissed the notion in an earlier post that someone could legitimately accumulate a large sum of wealth by running a business, for example. Being rich is okay according to you, but only if you didn't desire to get rich.

i don't understand the qualifier here, what do you mean by insofar as possible?

I mean within the constraints of the budget we have, and within the constraints of practical reality. People are not all the same, people have different strengths and weaknesses, disabilities, better/worse parents and guardians, etc. and people cannot all compete in the market was well as others might be able to. No matter what you do, you won't be able to give an equal opportunity to absolutely everyone. The ideal is to maximise the opportunity available to each individual, and then to provide for those who genuinely cannot take part in the labour market. There is obviously far more to it than this but I hope that provides clarity.

meaning the difference in wealth between the top and bottom in society is significantly smaller that it is now.

Okay.

taxation, grants to the poor. stopping tax breaks.
actually fining a company 10% of profit when it breaks the law rather than pocket change (with respect to the companies size)

Grants to the poor for what? And who would qualify as "poor"? Broadly what kind of tax increases would you be looking for, for "rich people" and above what threshold would they be applied? e.g. capital gains tax, income tax increase %?

i hope that answer it for you.

We might be getting somewhere.

the wealthy elite.

Who are "the wealthy elite". As far as I'm aware many of the tax loopholes are/have been removed. Could you give an example of a specific tax break that should be removed?

why would they move? why can't a local company compete with this company that moved out?

They'd move to avoid tax. Godge has addressed this point sufficiently.

yes. better to build on solid foundations than uncertain ones.

Seems more like burning down the foundations to me.

one that does not penalize the low earners while allowing high earners to write of tax.

The principle I agree with. However is this demonstrably the case, in the main, with the Irish tax system?

these are all specifics and do not belong in this thread.

Personally I prefer specifics that we can nail down in order to debate constructively.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 11:11pm

Godge wrote: »

Did you read my post? I stated quite clearly

"I would define world peace as espoused by the Occupy movement as an empty slogan as there is no vision of what it is they are trying to achieve and no idea of how to get there."

i did, maybe you did not read mine?
i asked clearly "how do you define world peace so?"

Godge wrote: »

"I would define world peace as espoused by the Occupy movement as an empty slogan as there is no vision of what it is they are trying to achieve and no idea of how to get there."

so you define it based as an empty slogan? i thought you were being evasive, but since you say you are not, all i can say is ...
ooookaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy

Godge wrote: »

Maybe you would present to me your definition of world peace as espoused by the Occupy Movement?

i did already.

Godge wrote: »

I have defined it in those limited terms for you, maybe you could do me the courtesy of a straight answer and do the same for me?

i think i can follow your terms and define world peace as endorsed by the occupy movement to be the best goal ever that we should all support regardless of what kind of stuffed plushie we prefer to snuggle up to at night.

so we disagree as you think world peace is a slogan ... i really think you fail to understand world peace.

Godge wrote: »

What food mountains?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061

davoxx · 17-02-2012 11:16pm

BluntGuy wrote: »

Personally I prefer specifics that we can nail down in order to debate constructively.

me too, but this is not the thread on "how does occupy plan on fixing individual issues in each country if they were elected to power".

i answered as i thought it might lead to somewhere other down a path of debating specifics in resolution of the worlds problems, and particularly ireland.

like i said before, make a new thread and i'll join you there, but i'm not going to get dragged into specific points especially about ireland in a thread about the gloabl occupy movement ...

davoxx · 17-02-2012 11:25pm

godge, you've been avoiding the whole condoning of violence by occupy.

i provided a link showing that they do not condone violence.
everything i mentioned that in a post you ignore it.

are you withdrawing your false claim that they condone violence?

just a yes or no answer ...

Godge · 17-02-2012 11:33pm

davoxx wrote: »

i did already.

I missed it so no harm in repeating it, is there? Look forward to reading it.

Godge · 17-02-2012 11:35pm

davoxx wrote: »

godge, you've been avoiding the whole condoning of violence by occupy.

i provided a link showing that they do not condone violence.
everything i mentioned that in a post you ignore it.

are you withdrawing your false claim that they condone violence?

just a yes or no answer ...

I have seen no evidence that Occupy deal with the miscreants in their midst.

davoxx · 17-02-2012 11:45pm

Godge wrote: »

I have seen no evidence that Occupy deal with the miscreants in their midst.

i see no evidence of you withdrawing your statement that occupy condones violence ...

Inclusion · 18-02-2012 7:28am

20Cent wrote: »

Really good documentary about the anti-apartheid movement on the BBC last night. The parallels with the occupy movement were startling. They were also called hippys and leftists at the beginning. Then it evolved when the serious media, academics and intellectuals got interested and started examining the subject. Occupy is at this stage now.
Next stage is the nexus where Wall St money becomes toxic and the thieves lose their political protection. Once they lose that its game over. There are signs of this happening in the US and worldwide already.

Another lesson form the documentary is that small actions alone look quite futile but when combined are very powerful. Awareness was the biggest hurdle for them also but when they got past that it started to snowball. Great quote from it: Each action is only a tiny drop but the ocean is made up of drops! Inherent unfairness never lasts too long it will eventually fall. Occupy is just one of many pushing to make that day come faster.

Was called the world against apartheid check it out!

LOL , Occupy Galway already have super inflated egos , but comparing their camp and members to the anti-apartheid movement is just hilarious..!

FreudianSlippers · 18-02-2012 8:59am

oscarBravo wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

ahh you mean greed ...

That's a very pejorative term.

Is there a particular reason you're trying hard to alienate people on behalf of the Occupy movement?

Agreed. It's interesting that occupy members are the first to turn around and cry foul the use of words like 'hippy' to describe themselves, but are perfectly happy to describe successful people with terms like 'greedy'

It makes me wonder, based on their further justification of 'civil disobedience', how long it will be before groups like this are justifying going to the homes of 'greedy' 'rich' people and forcibly redistributing.

Permabear · 18-02-2012 10:19am

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 18-02-2012 11:52am

davoxx wrote: »

me too, but this is not the thread on "how does occupy plan on fixing individual issues in each country if they were elected to power".

i answered as i thought it might lead to somewhere other down a path of debating specifics in resolution of the worlds problems, and particularly ireland.

like i said before, make a new thread and i'll join you there, but i'm not going to get dragged into specific points especially about ireland in a thread about the gloabl occupy movement ...

My apologies to davoxx's dancing partners here, but davoxx's persistent refusal to "debate specifics" long since passed the point of trolling. The last several pages of this thread are a trainwreck.

3 day ban for the brick wall - the rest of you should rest your heads...

moderately,
Scofflaw

AlekSmart · 18-02-2012 1:21pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And Permabear beag,is probably offering the most succinct reason why 20Cent's and others Occupy logic is doomed....repeat for effect,DOOMED (a lá Dad's Army) to failure.

We are Human beings,with millenia of Humanity all stored in our internal servers.

Much of the material allows for strange or abberant behavioural patterns,but those are countered by the other stuff which allows for compensatory beneficial deeds and thoughts.

Humanity is little more or less than a genetic balancing act,which we all can only hope remains in equilibrium during our lifetimes.

Occassionally,and more often than we like to admit,that Humanity Balance tips,and we find ourselves enmeshed in the blacker side of the entire Human existance.

The leap of faith being required by the Occupy movement appears to centre around the greater bulk of Humanity being asked to demonize Wealthy,or Weathier people simply because they have more than we have.

Life's not like that.

Inclusion · 18-02-2012 5:28pm

Why are OG restricting online communication from people who wish to debate their philosophies and idealogies?

Their website and fb page have banned and blocked people who have asked legitimate questions and raised valid points about their motives - how can they justify this and surely not recognise that it is not encouraging free and open society?

Corkblowin · 18-02-2012 10:09pm

davoxx wrote: »

anyone can repeat what they were told, but in looking for it, we create out own answers.

I assume he meant 'our' here, and so troll or not - he stumbled across the reason that neither I, nor 99% (ironic percentage!) of the people I know, can take occupy seriously. In short they seem to make a lot of s*it up.

Trying to have a discussion with people who refute statistics, facts and figures with comments about us not knowing where to look for the 'real' information is bad enough. However they then pop up with 'facts' such as the government is pumping billions into American companies enriching them at the citizens expense without any backup save to say I'm one of the sheeple if I don't believe it (this was a serious argument I was presented with). When the same people also come out with crap such as the twin towers was a CIA plot, that the US are placing bombers onto planes so as to have an excuse to restrict our freedoms and that governments are only a front for the super rich elite then it's time to back away slowly & never return!

Inclusion · 26-02-2012 12:33pm

It's a shame to see censorship alive and well here on Boards.ie.
I refer to the thread Occupy Galway in Galway city, the mod biko decided to close the thread, the amount of opposition in that thread to the camp in Eyre Square not being to his/her liking.

I P.Md the mod of that thread, Biko, regarding legitimate and well-founded concerns that Wearytraveller is in fact Hippygran, and Irishgoatman is her father.
I didn't even get an acknowledgement let alone an investigation into this matter.
If Hippygran was unable to come on here and debate in an intelligent manner, and unprepared to reasonably expect opposition to their encampment in a public square, then I suggest 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Her cowardly and deceptive actions in re logging in on Boards under a false identity has personified the hidden agenda in the OG camp.

FreudianSlippers · 26-02-2012 2:01pm

Inclusion wrote: »

It's a shame to see censorship alive and well here on Boards.ie.
I refer to the thread Occupy Galway in Galway city, the mod biko decided to close the thread, the amount of opposition in that thread to the camp in Eyre Square not being to his/her liking.

I P.Md the mod of that thread, Biko, regarding legitimate and well-founded concerns that Wearytraveller is in fact Hippygran, and Irishgoatman is her father.
I didn't even get an acknowledgement let alone an investigation into this matter.
If Hippygran was unable to come on here and debate in an intelligent manner, and unprepared to reasonably expect opposition to their encampment in a public square, then I suggest 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Her cowardly and deceptive actions in re logging in on Boards under a false identity has personified the hidden agenda in the OG camp.

In fairness to biko, s/he (I am almost positive he, but cannot remember :P) did flag that user to the Admins and they were unable to find a match. That's all the mod can really do in that regard.
I do believe that that thread was heavily biased towards the Occupy Galway movement but biko did act fairly in bringing that complaint to Admin attention.

K-9 · 26-02-2012 2:19pm

Inclusion wrote: »

It's a shame to see censorship alive and well here on Boards.ie.
I refer to the thread Occupy Galway in Galway city, the mod biko decided to close the thread, the amount of opposition in that thread to the camp in Eyre Square not being to his/her liking.

I P.Md the mod of that thread, Biko, regarding legitimate and well-founded concerns that Wearytraveller is in fact Hippygran, and Irishgoatman is her father.
I didn't even get an acknowledgement let alone an investigation into this matter.
If Hippygran was unable to come on here and debate in an intelligent manner, and unprepared to reasonably expect opposition to their encampment in a public square, then I suggest 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen'.
Her cowardly and deceptive actions in re logging in on Boards under a false identity has personified the hidden agenda in the OG camp.

Mod

Discussion of Mod decisions is against the charter. That Mod doesn't even Mod Politics. If you've a problem take it up on Helpdesk or the DRP.

hatrickpatrick · 27-02-2012 2:28pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

And Permabear beag,is probably offering the most succinct reason why 20Cent's and others Occupy logic is doomed....repeat for effect,DOOMED (a lá Dad's Army) to failure.

We are Human beings,with millenia of Humanity all stored in our internal servers.

Much of the material allows for strange or abberant behavioural patterns,but those are countered by the other stuff which allows for compensatory beneficial deeds and thoughts.

Humanity is little more or less than a genetic balancing act,which we all can only hope remains in equilibrium during our lifetimes.

Occassionally,and more often than we like to admit,that Humanity Balance tips,and we find ourselves enmeshed in the blacker side of the entire Human existance.

The leap of faith being required by the Occupy movement appears to centre around the greater bulk of Humanity being asked to demonize Wealthy,or Weathier people simply because they have more than we have.

Life's not like that.

For the bajillionth time, that's not what it's about.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with being wealthy if you earned it, and earned it honestly. Nobody is claiming this.
Do you regard those in charge of the financial system which has, through entirely artificial means, plunged our society into complete and utter havoc as being justified in running away with the money they should be using the pay back the absolutely gigantic sums they have effectively stolen directly from the pockets of the rest of us?

Why is the word "loan" not being used with regard to bailouts, anyway?
I'd be far less angry about Anglo if the bailout terms were "We'll bail you out, but you damn well use every cent of profit you make from now on to pay us back, before you give yourselves even one more 'bonus'".

There's a difference between genuine wealth, and the proceeds of dishonesty and corruption. It is the latter we are asking people to demonize.

FreudianSlippers · 27-02-2012 5:01pm

What does it mean to "earn it"? Are we just saying allowing banks to profit at all is inherently evil?

Godge · 27-02-2012 5:26pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For the bajillionth time, that's not what it's about.
There's nothing whatsoever wrong with being wealthy if you earned it, and earned it honestly. Nobody is claiming this.
Do you regard those in charge of the financial system which has, through entirely artificial means, plunged our society into complete and utter havoc as being justified in running away with the money they should be using the pay back the absolutely gigantic sums they have effectively stolen directly from the pockets of the rest of us?

Why is the word "loan" not being used with regard to bailouts, anyway?
I'd be far less angry about Anglo if the bailout terms were "We'll bail you out, but you damn well use every cent of profit you make from now on to pay us back, before you give yourselves even one more 'bonus'".

There's a difference between genuine wealth, and the proceeds of dishonesty and corruption. It is the latter we are asking people to demonize.

Reading that piece in bold, I am drawn to the conclusion that your views are that:

(1) Bankers who genuinely and legally earned bonuses under the terms of their contracts should be paid those bonuses;
(2) Bondholders who made a decision to invest in Ireland and purchase bonds that were guaranteed by the FF government should be repaid what they are owed as they have legally earned that return;

Or is there a difference in your mind between legally and honestly and how can you tell the difference and who decides if you are correct?

Corkblowin · 29-02-2012 11:52pm

I see a comment on the occupy Galway FB page from the London occupiers that money raised has gone missing - but it's claimed this was done by manipulators & outside interests...............right. :rolleyes:

Interesting as this was one of the issues raised about Galway previously.

As an aside, hatpatrick : while I fundamentally disagree with you on pretty much all youve posted (although you do have a point about the disconnect between the people and the parliament) I do admire the fact that you have stayed with all the threads & fought your corner tenaciously and without much rancour - unlike most of the others than ran away and now only post in places where they won't get any dissenting voices. Kudos.

01-03-2012 12:42am

They're about to talk about ODS on Adrian Kennedy. Will probably be hilarious

http://www.fm104.ie/boxtube/

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

Comments