Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

123468

Comments

  • #252
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge wrote: »
    I was claiming that there are structures in place - including the gardai themselves and the Garda Ombudsman - that deal with miscreants within the Gardai. I also pointed to how the Gardai have referred cases themselves to the Ombudsman. See below link to garda ombudsman report and extract. I provided these several pages ago but they were ignored. So the undisputed factual evidence is that there are structures in place to deal with miscreants in the Gardai and these, according to the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its own reports are actually used by the gardai. No amount of anecdotal she said this or he saw that or twisting the facts of a newspaper story can contradict the official report. So not only is there a commitment to dealing with miscreants, not only is there a structure in place to deal with them, but the official reports demonstrate that they have been used by the Gardai themselves.

    I pointed out that there are some cases where they help cover up their colleagues actions, just as there are some cases where they do not.
    What I'm tired of arguing is this part: "There are structures in place to deal with miscreants". They are INDEPENDENT STRUCTURES. The police force itself is the independent structure in place to deal with non police criminals, so does that not suffice as far as Occupy goes, for INDEPENDENT policing?
    My question is can the Occupy Movement demonstrate the same commitment, structures and reports that show they deal with their miscreants?

    Occupy is not an organization, so obviously they don't have reports and books, etc. I know the Dublin one doesn't tolerate actual crime, they don't even tolerate drinking on site and they WILL expel you from the camp for doing so, which I've seen happen numerous times.

    http://www.occupydamestreet.org/images/2011/11/SSPcolourblu.jpg

    "Occupy Dame Street endorses a policy of non-violent direct action. While recognizing the right to self-defence, the camp will attempt wherever possible to use non violent techniques to diffuse violent situations.

    "In the case of any physical or sexual harrassment or assault, we recognize the offended person's full right to immediately inform whichever authorities they see fit, or to have someone do so on their behalf.
    No alcohol or drugs are to be consumed in this space - out of respect for the camp and the wider public. working in any tole on the camp while under the influence of alcohol or drugs will not be tolerated. No smoking in indoor communal areas. Be aware that although you may be comfortable working under the influence of any such substances, others may not be comfortable with this. Any violation of these policies will be challenged, and people will be actively supported in challenging such violations."
    If they can, they are similar to the gardai, if not, they are different and they do not show any commitment to dealing with miscreants and are condoning violence through inaction.

    Condoning violence through inaction? I was about to agree with your general tone but this line killed it - are you therefore condoning fraud and bank bailouts through the "inaction" of not protesting against them? Ridiculous accusation to make.

    You can't apply the structure of an organization to Occupy because it's not an organization. I know I'd report a theft or assault if I saw one, and I'm pretty sure most other occupiers I know would as well.


  • #253
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Eradicate the government-corporate axis.
    I don't know how much more clear I can be. Numerous polls, opinion pieces and articles, which I have linked to in this thread, have showed that the #1 goal among occupiers is the ending of the political elite, or to borrow a phrase from the original wall street movement, simply "Get corporate money out of politics".

    Other goals may indeed be ambiguos, but if you look at the various worldwide occupy movements, this one is almost universal.


  • #254
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge wrote: »
    Maybe I am stupid but after reading all of these threads the only goals I am clear about are:

    (1) Give us back our oil
    (2) World Peace
    (3) Something incoherent about equality

    I will admit that at the start I thought they had no goals but that the posters on these threads have made me aware of the above three.

    Now I can understand where Permabear and others are coming from because my responses to the above three are:

    (1) What oil?
    (2) Who doesn't claim to want world peace (even if it is only their own definition of world peace)? I mean the Israelis think that bombing Iran may help preserve world peace but the Russians don't agree but they all state (including Iran) that they want world peace.
    (3) Equality of what exactly?

    Why do you continually ignore the issue of bank bailouts, and the general situation of government making policy to benefit their wealthy friends instead of to benefit the general population?
    I've almost had it up to here with this, you are ignoring the biggest issue, it was even part of ODS's original manifesto, "End the bailout of the financial sectors which got themselves into the mess they're in" or something along those lines.

    I'd be a bit more frank about it. "Bankers: Your f*ck ups, YOUR problems".
    ODS has a poster which says "Banks didn't share their profits, why should we share their losses?"

    As long as you continue to ignore this huge elephant in the room from your point of view, your arguments will look ridiculous.

    How about this. I will go home and stop protesting when the government burns Anglo's bondholders and takes the golden circle to court for breaking insider trading rules, and Seanie Fitz for misrepresenting the company's accounts each year to hide his spiralling loan book.

    Obviously it's about much more than that, but I'm going to take this one step at a time since you're so determined to ignore this aspect of Occupy.
    When those who made this mess in the banking sector are forced to pay for their own mistakes before turning to the rest of the population for help, and when those who committed genuine crimes are held accountable for them, I will consider Occupy a huge success, and provided this is a real and permanent change, I will strongly consider leaving. The broader question of revolutionizing the monetary system can come later, for the moment I would be satisfied with that.
    If you choose to ignore that aspect of the Occupy movement, I will start choosing to ignore your posts. Your choice.

    Get corporate influence out of politics.
    Stop bailing out banks which made their own messes through their own stupidity.
    Stop covering up abuses and turning a blind eye to them.
    Stop telling us we must "all pull together" unless that genuinely does mean ALL.


  • #255
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #256
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    If I go into a bookies and bet on a losing horse, I can't just go out and rob every bystander on the street, as bank bondholders are doing to the general public. It was their choice, their risk, THEIR loss. Why should I pay them back for their own decisions? Nobody bails ME out if I make a stupid investment decision...?
    Your stupid investment decisions don't have systemic implications for the wider economy. If they did, you'd probably get a bailout.

    You can argue over whether or not bondholders' decisions should be allowed to become systemic to the wider economy, but that discussion is taking a back seat to the rather moot question of whether or not we need to prevent the existing edifice from collapsing on top of us.
    Every single cent owed to Anglo Irish bondholders is something I had no involvement in creating and should have no involvement in repaying. It's their problem...
    No, it's our problem. Returning to the collapsing edifice metaphor, if you're trapped in a building whose foundations have been damaged by someone else's stupidity, you are entitled to refuse to contribute to the effort to re-stabilise it, on the grounds that it's a problem you had no involvement in creating. There isn't necessarily anything noble about such a stance, however.
    I'm not sure what you mean by this? Where did I suggest doing such a thing?
    On the first hand, I wasn't talking of national bonds but bank bonds. A bank is a private company, their problems are not my problems and should not be transferred to the taxpayer.
    Banks are systemic to our financial system. It's a convenient fiction to believe that you could allow every single bank to implode without any impact on the wider economy by drawing an arbitrary distinction between bank and national bonds, but - for better or worse - those lines have been blurred.

    If you want those lines to be sharply delineated again, a couple of steps are necessary: revoking all deposit guarantees by governments of bank deposits, and finding somewhere that governments can borrow money other than private corporate lenders. I don't know that the first is a good idea, and I have no idea where to start with the second.
    On the second hand, I'm talking about a radical reform of what money actually is and how it circulates, right down at the very lowest and earliest level. The whole concept that all money is debt, and more of it is "created" by borrowing more and storing up future repayment issues is complete lunacy. The only winners in that scenario are central banks.
    Yes, I've seen the argument against fiat currency before.

    The problem with that argument is that if you have a problem with the ability to arbitrarily create money, then you are arguing for a world in which there is a finite and fixed amount of money. In such a world, every transaction is a zero-sum game, and anybody who increases his wealth can only do so by making someone else poorer. It's also a world where economic growth is a logical impossibility.

    I'm not clear on why that's such a laudable goal.
    In exactly the same way as marching in the street would. It's a PROTEST. It's the first step to a drive for change. Would you ask Martin Luther King the same question? The function of a protest is (a) to raise awareness, and (b) to send a warning shot to those in power.
    A warning shot is effective only as a message that the next shot will be on target.

    If this warning shot is ignored, what form will the shot on target take?
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Eradicate the government-corporate axis.
    I don't know how much more clear I can be.
    You can clarify what that soundbite means. I asked questions earlier of someone who proposed regulating lobbying, and I didn't get any answers.

    Can you put some flesh on those bones?


  • #257
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Why do you continually ignore the issue of bank bailouts, and the general situation of government making policy to benefit their wealthy friends instead of to benefit the general population?
    I've almost had it up to here with this, you are ignoring the biggest issue, it was even part of ODS's original manifesto, "End the bailout of the financial sectors which got themselves into the mess they're in" or something along those lines.

    I'd be a bit more frank about it. "Bankers: Your f*ck ups, YOUR problems".
    ODS has a poster which says "Banks didn't share their profits, why should we share their losses?"

    As long as you continue to ignore this huge elephant in the room from your point of view, your arguments will look ridiculous.

    How about this. I will go home and stop protesting when the government burns Anglo's bondholders and takes the golden circle to court for breaking insider trading rules, and Seanie Fitz for misrepresenting the company's accounts each year to hide his spiralling loan book.

    Obviously it's about much more than that, but I'm going to take this one step at a time since you're so determined to ignore this aspect of Occupy.
    When those who made this mess in the banking sector are forced to pay for their own mistakes before turning to the rest of the population for help, and when those who committed genuine crimes are held accountable for them, I will consider Occupy a huge success, and provided this is a real and permanent change, I will strongly consider leaving. The broader question of revolutionizing the monetary system can come later, for the moment I would be satisfied with that.
    If you choose to ignore that aspect of the Occupy movement, I will start choosing to ignore your posts. Your choice.

    Get corporate influence out of politics.
    Stop bailing out banks which made their own messes through their own stupidity.
    Stop covering up abuses and turning a blind eye to them.
    Stop telling us we must "all pull together" unless that genuinely does mean ALL.




    Sorry, if you feel I have ignored the points made on the bailout but I have made my views on this issue clear time and again. Below is a simplified version of events.

    The FF Government decided on 30 September 2008 to guarantee the bondholders and depositers in Irish banks. It did that by virtue of the deomcratic mandate freely given to it by the Irish people in a democratic election to act on their behalf in such matters. So, as a result, legally, morally and financially, we, the Irish people, took on that debt that day and promised to repay it. Nearly everything that has happend since follows on from that decision.

    Most of the bondholders have now been paid back. This is the bit that Occupy don't seem to get. The bank bondholders have got their money. They have been replaced by sovereign bondholders. What do we do? go after them to get it back? Is that possible or realistic? No. So, do we refuse to pay the sovereign bondholders and go into default? Seriously?
    Now a few bank bondholders do remain.

    It is arguable that these may not be covered by the original guarantee and should not be paid. However, it is also arguable that a failure to pay these few remaining bondholders would act as a destabiliser and put us in a position like Greece. On balance, I favour the latter argument. Read the article below which shows that paying bondholders is not the issue - for what it's worth, the article calculates the saving at €75m per year, which while not to be sneezed at, is not significant in the overall picture.

    http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-repaying-bondholders-still-issue.html


    From my point of view, listening to Occupy supporters calling on the Irish people to burn the bondholders is a bit like listening to Vietnam protesters calling on the US Government to end World War II. Eh, that was last week's protest objective.


  • #258
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    anishboi wrote: »
    What do you think of it and it's objectives?
    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.
    anishboi wrote: »
    Should it be done more throughout Ireland?
    definitively, they only people who are against this are those that have vested interests.
    anishboi wrote: »
    Personally I'm in favour of closing the social wealth gap in our society.
    only the rich and greedy are against this. you'll hear a lot of excuses like steve jobs made millions from nothing, but as with everything that those who oppose the occupy movement say, it's wrong.

    the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
    those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...

    closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...

    "the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"


  • #259
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    davoxx wrote: »


    the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
    those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...

    Did you mean to write something else here or do you actually believe this?


  • #260
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I've almost had it up to here with this, you are ignoring the biggest issue, it was even part of ODS's original manifesto, "End the bailout of the financial sectors which got themselves into the mess they're in" or something along those lines.

    The biggest issues are the deficit and job crises to which Occupy has no credible solutions. As Godge said, the bailout is done and dusted and Occupy need to move on. Instead of trying to get back money which won't be gotten back, they could suggest concrete ways in which this could be prevented in the future and more importantly; explain a viable alternative to the current policies that would lend even an ounce of credibility to the suggestion on their hideous and badly laid out website that: "the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stay out of our affairs".
    davoxx wrote:
    only the rich and greedy are against this.

    I'm not rich, and I'm not greedy, and I'm against this.


  • #261
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    davoxx wrote: »
    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.


    Definitively, they only people who are against this are those that have vested interests.


    Only the rich and greedy are against this. you'll hear a lot of excuses like steve jobs made millions from nothing, but as with everything that those who oppose the occupy movement say, it's wrong.

    The rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
    Those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...

    Closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...

    "the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"

    Have to admit to spinning-head syndrome at this stage...:o

    Perhaps it might be clearer to my po-folks brain if Davoxx or some of the Occupy spokespersons could just define the word "Rich" in an Irish context ?.....I'm kinda worried now that I might not be poor enough to matter ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    only the rich and greedy are against this. you'll hear a lot of excuses like steve jobs made millions from nothing, but as with everything that those who oppose the occupy movement say, it's wrong.

    the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
    those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...

    closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...

    "the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"


    Are you saying that this is the Occupy movement's objectives? Apart from being quite mad, they are communist in nature and I hadn't realised that was part of the Occupy proposals.


  • #263
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    Perhaps it might be clearer to my po-folks brain if Davoxx or some of the Occupy spokespersons could just define the word "Rich" in an Irish context ?.....I'm kinda worried now that I might not be poor enough to matter ?
    since the occupy is a global movement, the rich elite is defined on a global level.
    but truthfully, i'd be more worried that you're not rich enough to count ...
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I'm not rich, and I'm not greedy, and I'm against this.
    why?


  • #264
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    davoxx wrote: »
    Since the occupy is a global movement, the rich elite is defined on a global level.
    but truthfully, i'd be more worried that you're not rich enough to count ...

    why?

    Ah right...I see now....so this "Richness" is a worldwide problem (?) and not just something specifically Irish ?

    That itself is a relief to hear.

    One minor impediment to the popularity of "Occupy" and similar redistributive movements is the inherent tendency of Human Nature to seek self-advancement,ie..a better lifestyle,bigger house,more goats,newer car,younger wife/husband/partner....and .....dare I say it....MORE money and associated possessions.

    At some point,I fear,this "Worldwide" popular Occupy movement will find it necessary to impose it's peculiar view of how our societies organize themselves.....it's at this point that the fur (synthetic of course) will fly !


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #265
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    One minor impediment to the popularity of "Occupy" and similar redistributive movements is the inherent tendency of Human Nature to seek self-advancement,ie..a better lifestyle,bigger house,more goats,newer car,younger wife/husband/partner....and .....dare I say it....MORE money and associated possessions.
    ahh you mean greed ...
    that is a human trait alright, but then again so is the desire to eat meat, but somehow people are changing.
    it is possible to not be greedy, thought that depends if you want to change and/or want your offspring to change ...

    dismissing greed as being part of human nature is similar to the people who are sexist/racist/bigoted explaining human nature ... it's just an excuse for their own issues.


  • #266
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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?


  • #267
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    ahh you mean greed ...
    that is a human trait alright, but then again so is the desire to eat meat, but somehow people are changing.
    it is possible to not be greedy, thought that depends if you want to change and/or want your offspring to change ...

    dismissing greed as being part of human nature is similar to the people who are sexist/racist/bigoted explaining human nature ... it's just an excuse for their own issues.

    Greed is very much the wrong word.

    Aspring to better things, ambition, setting goals and objectives, seeking a better life for you and your family, hoping, dreaming, desiring, not standing still, anti-stagnation, there is something in us that drives humans on, it is not greed. It is this facet of human nature that I think AlexSmart was referring to and that I think he believes davoxx's version* of Occupy is against.

    *I am beginning to think that the defenders of Occupy have different views of the movement which is why it has been hard to get a sense of what exactly it is all about. For example, Hatrick's passionate defence of private property rights would be completely incompatible with Davoxx's views on resdistribution.


  • #268
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a very pejorative term.
    it's a correct term, though what would you prefer?
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Is there a particular reason you're trying hard to alienate people on behalf of the Occupy movement?
    that's a loaded question right there.
    do you enjoy making up fictitious requirements for movements that scary you in an attempt to discredit them?
    it this why you prefer using strawman arguments in an attempt to muddle the actual correct point?

    see loaded questions are not much fun now are they ...


  • #269
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    davoxx wrote: »
    ahh you mean greed ...
    that is a human trait alright, but then again so is the desire to eat meat, but somehow people are changing.
    it is possible to not be greedy, thought that depends if you want to change and/or want your offspring to change ...

    dismissing greed as being part of human nature is similar to the people who are sexist/racist/bigoted explaining human nature ... it's just an excuse for their own issues.

    SO....being rich (at whatever level you wish to define it) equates to being Greedy...is that an accurate reflection of your position Davoxx ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • #270
    AlekSmart
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,005 ✭✭✭✭AlekSmart


    Godge wrote: »
    Greed is very much the wrong word.

    Aspring to better things, ambition, setting goals and objectives, seeking a better life for you and your family, hoping, dreaming, desiring, not standing still, anti-stagnation, there is something in us that drives humans on, it is not greed. It is this facet of human nature that I think AlexSmart was referring to and that I think he believes davoxx's version* of Occupy is against.

    *I am beginning to think that the defenders of Occupy have different views of the movement which is why it has been hard to get a sense of what exactly it is all about. For example, Hatrick's passionate defence of private property rights would be completely incompatible with Davoxx's views on resdistribution.

    Correct Godge.

    I just find it somewhat stimulating to note the concerns of the various Occupiers for the State-of-the-Worlds-Nations.

    However I also note,as Davoxx points out,that changing what these humans and their offspring aspire to,which in the main is Wealth,will not be an easy task,and will I venture involve blood,sweat and tears as well as Force.

    If I were a hardworking poor person (and perhaps I am,as I still remain unaware of my Occupy wealth/greed score) in any part of the World,I might feel a tad patronized at some Occupiers on Dame Street/St Pauls/Wall st etc etc telling me that my aspirations were somehow threatening the Occupy vision of world order ....would that "poor person" be wrong to think that ?


    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    Charles Mackay (1812-1889)



  • Advertisement
  • #271
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    Are you saying that this is the Occupy movement's objectives?
    did i say that they were? that should answer your question.
    Godge wrote: »
    Apart from being quite mad
    that's your opinion, though i have no idea what is your criteria for your definition of the concept mad.
    Godge wrote: »
    they are communist in nature
    they are not communist in nature, though i have no idea what is your criteria for your definition of the word communism.
    Godge wrote: »
    and I hadn't realised that was part of the Occupy proposals.
    are they? you went from asking if they were to assuming that they are.
    Godge wrote: »
    Greed is very much the wrong word.
    depends on how you define greed, though you define world peace in a weird way ...
    Godge wrote: »
    Aspring to better things, ambition, setting goals and objectives, seeking a better life for you and your family, hoping, dreaming, desiring, not standing still, anti-stagnation, there is something in us that drives humans on, it is not greed.
    i never said that what you described was.
    Godge wrote: »
    It is this facet of human nature that I think AlexSmart was referring to and that I think he believes davoxx's version* of Occupy is against.
    i was referring to the greed aspect.
    Godge wrote: »
    *I am beginning to think that the defenders of Occupy have different views of the movement which is why it has been hard to get a sense of what exactly it is all about.
    it's a movement, there will be different interpretations of how to achieve the goals.
    Godge wrote: »
    For example, Hatrick's passionate defence of private property rights would be completely incompatible with Davoxx's views on resdistribution.
    you have no idea what my views on redistribution are. period.

    please do not bother replying to any on my posts, and please do not quote me, refer to me, reference me either directly or indirectly as you seem to make a habit of miss representing my views. thanks.


  • #272
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    it's a correct term, though what would you prefer?
    I would prefer not to see pejorative terms applied to a fairly basic human desire to improve one's station in life.
    that's a loaded question right there.
    Allow me to rephrase it, so.

    Are you conscious of the fact that insulting people who disagree with your rather extreme views is a highly effective way of generating antipathy towards a cause you claim to support?


  • #273
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    ahh you mean greed ...
    davoxx wrote: »
    ...you seem to make a habit of miss representing my views.
    Pot, kettle.


  • #274
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    AlekSmart wrote: »
    SO....being rich (at whatever level you wish to define it) equates to being Greedy...is that an accurate reflection of your position Davoxx ?
    having wealth does not equate to greed. i would have hoped that everyone would understand/agree on the concept of greed, i mean how would you explain it to innocent kids? i believe that this explanation when applied to 'real life' situations will result in the following:
    the desire for more personal wealth after a certain level is a valid description of greed.
    do you disagree with that?

    AlekSmart wrote: »
    However I also note,as Davoxx points out,that changing what these humans and their offspring aspire to,which in the main is Wealth,will not be an easy task,and will I venture involve blood,sweat and tears as well as Force.
    i'd hope force would not be required, though realistically force is always required in modern day society.


  • #275
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Pot, kettle.
    charcoal, pot ...


  • #276
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Are you in any sort of employment/education, davoxx?


    I'm pretty sure I can define what you mean when you say 'Greed'. Basically, it's anyone with more than you. They're greedy, right?

    What about your greed in comparison to people who have nothing?


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I would prefer not to see pejorative terms applied to a fairly basic human desire to improve one's station in life. Allow me to rephrase it, so.
    desire to improve is not greed. desire to acquire more that is needed is greed.
    while greed maybe a pejorative term to some, there are others who think it is a compliment.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Are you conscious of the fact that insulting people who disagree with your rather extreme views is a highly effective way of generating antipathy towards a cause you claim to support?
    as much as you aware of the fact that making incorrect comparisons between a policing force and a movement is a perfect way of proving that those who find faults with the movement are grasping at straws ...

    my views are my views, extreme is being used here in a derogatory manner, i'd like to say views are advanced or superspecialawesome ...


  • #278
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    Are you in any sort of employment/education, davoxx?
    that's a private personal question is it not?
    is it relevant? nope ...
    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure I can define what you mean when you say 'Greed'. Basically, it's anyone with more than you. They're greedy, right?
    well what do you know, you can't ... so that's a big NO.
    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    What about your greed in comparison to people who have nothing?
    my greed? have you assumed that i'm a billionaire that frequents boards for the lolz?


  • #279
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    the desire for more personal wealth after a certain level is a valid description of greed.
    Quantify "a certain level".
    davoxx wrote: »
    desire to improve is not greed. desire to acquire more that is needed is greed.
    So if I have a roof over my head and enough to eat, wanting to live in a more comfortable home and eat nicer food is greedy?


  • #280
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    that's a private personal question is it not?
    is it relevant? nope ...

    Well, no, we're all just 'assuming' you're on the dole anyway.


    edit: Which puts you somewhere in the top 10-15% of the worlds wealthiest. What do you do with your wealth? Tell me you aren't being greedy and spending it all on yourself?


  • #281
    Tanner Crooked Variation
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Tanner Crooked Variation


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    Well, no, we're all just 'assuming' you're on the dole anyway.

    alright dont get personal please


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    bluewolf wrote: »
    alright dont get personal please

    How is that a personal question? When we've someone preaching to us that wealth is bad, I would definitely lean to the side that says that they themselves are open to having their own personal wealth scrutinized to ensure there is no hypocrisy afoot.


  • #283
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    davoxx wrote: »
    having wealth does not equate to greed. i would have hoped that everyone would understand/agree on the concept of greed, i mean how would you explain it to innocent kids? i believe that this explanation when applied to 'real life' situations will result in the following:
    the desire for more personal wealth after a certain level is a valid description of greed.
    do you disagree with that?

    I thought your definition of "greedy" was anyone who disagreed with the nebulous aims of the Occupy movement.
    only the rich and greedy are against this.

    I then stated that I was neither rich, nor greedy and I was against it, to which I received no response. I'll simply take it you withdraw this claim.
    davoxx wrote: »
    you have no idea what my views on redistribution are. period.

    Outline your views on redistribution so we can have some clarity then.


  • #284
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I thought your definition of "greedy" was anyone who disagreed with the nebulous aims of the Occupy movement.
    nope
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I then stated that I was neither rich, nor greedy and I was against it, to which I received no response. I'll simply take it you withdraw this claim.
    i said rich and greedy.
    i replied in post #263

    your lack of reply was simply taken to mean that you withdraw your statement ...
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    Outline your views on redistribution so we can have some clarity then.
    it's not relevant. please don't go assuming i said something i haven't, i think that's fair enough.


  • #285
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    How is that a personal question? When we've someone preaching to us that wealth is bad, I would definitely lean to the side that says that they themselves are open to having their own personal wealth scrutinized to ensure there is no hypocrisy afoot.
    wealth is not bad, greed is ... there is a huge difference.

    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Quantify "a certain level".
    wiki 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. Greed is an inappropriate expectation. However, greed is applied to a very excessive or rapacious desire and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

    As a secular psychological concept, greed is an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs or deserves. It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    So if I have a roof over my head and enough to eat, wanting to live in a more comfortable home and eat nicer food is greedy?
    i don think that can be inferred from the conceptual understanding of greed.


  • #286
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Wiki wrote:
    It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else
    Davoxx, according to your own definition of greed, Occupy are the greediest fellows around.


  • #287
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
    those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...

    closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...

    "the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"

    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.
    davoxx wrote: »
    wealth is not bad, greed is ... there is a huge difference.


    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.

    davoxx wrote: »
    please do not bother replying to any on my posts, and please do not quote me, refer to me, reference me either directly or indirectly as you seem to make a habit of miss representing my views. thanks.

    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.


  • #288
    BluntGuy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭BluntGuy


    davoxx wrote: »
    ]i said rich and greedy.

    So you have to be "rich" and "greedy" to reject the aims of Occupy?

    But you just described greed as:
    the desire for more personal wealth after a certain level is a valid description of greed.

    In other words you have conflated the two together (as you also do in other posts). The emphasis on "and" is unnecessary if both words imply the same thing to you.
    i replied in post #263

    It wasn't much of a reply. I would've thought the point I had just stated in that very same post would've made it obvious. None-the-less, for clarity, in short: I do not support the movement because their goals are unclear, and that which can be ascertained from their vague list of objectives either borders on the fantasy or dives head-first straight into it.
    it's not relevant. please don't go assuming i said something i haven't, i think that's fair enough.

    No, I think it is relevant. If the problem, according to yourself and Occupy, is in the main caused by the fact that a number of people have too much money ("above a certain level" as you vaguely put it and then failed miserably to define), then that necessarily implies that some form of wealth redistribution would form part of the "solution".

    I'm asking you to clarify your views on wealth distribution, so that no assumptions have to be made.


  • #289
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Valmont wrote: »
    Davoxx, according to your own definition of greed, Occupy are the greediest fellows around.
    valmont, it's not my definition, it's from the wiki.

    i'm not sure that even in it's atypically usage that it follows that the occupy-ies are the greediest fellows around ...


  • #290
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    That's a very pejorative term.

    So are "hippy" and "communist".


  • #291
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    BluntGuy wrote: »
    So you have to be "rich" and "greedy" to reject the aims of Occupy?
    no, but it helps.
    i said that in context to closing the social wealth gap. obviously there are other reasons like being stupid/misinformed/following the crowd ... but that happens all the time for all opinions, so i disregard those reasons.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    But you just described greed as:
    are you disputing this?
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    In other words you have conflated the two together (as you also do in other posts). The emphasis on "and" is unnecessary if both words imply the same thing to you.
    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' ...
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    It wasn't much of a reply.
    it was a laconic reply to a flat denial on your behalf. you should have explained why you were against it ...
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I would've thought the point I had just stated in that very same post would've made it obvious.
    what point? you should have just explained why you were against it rather than confuse the explanation ... i'm sorry but this was not obvious.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    None-the-less, for clarity, in short: I do not support the movement because their goals are unclear, and that which can be ascertained from their vague list of objectives either borders on the fantasy or dives head-first straight into it.
    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?

    ok, i know understand why you are against closing the social wealth gap in our society and what category you fall into. you are correct, you do not fall into the 'rich and greedy' group.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    No, I think it is relevant.
    okay, but i think it is not, since we are not taking about wealth redistribution.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    If the problem, according to yourself and Occupy, is in the main caused by the fact that a number of people have too much money
    it is a problem, if you don't think it is, fair enough.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    ("above a certain level" as you vaguely put it and then failed miserably to define)
    i did not fail to define it, you failed miserably to understand the concept of excessive and the 'rich elite' ...
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    , then that necessarily implies that some form of wealth redistribution would form part of the "solution".
    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.
    BluntGuy wrote: »
    I'm asking you to clarify your views on wealth distribution, so that no assumptions have to be made.
    like i said it's not relevant to this discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Quantify "a certain level".

    Can you answer this question please Davoxx? in your own words please


  • #293
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So are "hippy" and "communist".
    I don't recall using those terms.

    Where communism has been mentioned in this context, it's usually by way of drawing parallels between views that people have expressed and matching tenets of communism, as opposed to simply labelling people "commies" as a pejorative term.

    By contrast, davoxx is labelling people who disagree with Occupy goals (insofar as he has managed to explain them) as greedy, which is explicitly pejorative.


  • #294
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    <snip>
    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.


  • #295
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    i said that in context to closing the social wealth gap.

    [...]

    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?

    ok, i know understand why you are against closing the social wealth gap in our society...

    [...]

    ...we are not taking about wealth redistribution.
    I'm genuinely confused. How do you close a social wealth gap without taking wealth from some and giving it to others?


  • #296
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    Can you answer this question please Davoxx? in your own words please
    sure, i can.

    a certain level => excessive


  • #297
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    davoxx wrote: »
    a certain level => excessive
    Exceeding what?


  • #298
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    davoxx wrote: »
    sure, i can.

    a certain level => excessive

    How do you define excessive?

    How does Occupy define excessive?


  • #299
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Where communism has been mentioned in this context, it's usually by way of drawing parallels between views that people have expressed and matching tenets of communism, as opposed to simply labelling people "commies" as a pejorative term.
    i think you'll find that this is not the case, communism is almost always mention as a derogatory term.
    oscarBravo wrote: »
    By contrast, davoxx is labelling people who disagree with Occupy goals (insofar as he has managed to explain them) as greedy, which is explicitly pejorative.
    that is not correct, i am labeling anyone against closing the social wealth gap as such, which is not necessarily a uncomplimentary term as opposed to a factual term. you are inferring that it is derogatory because you agree it is bad to have such a desire.


  • #300
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    i like this approach ... very legal in laying down the understanding of words ...
    Dr Galen wrote: »
    How do you define excessive?
    the same way most people would, see wiki.
    how so you define this?
    Dr Galen wrote: »
    How does Occupy define excessive?
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,958 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


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


Advertisement