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
Worldwide Occupy Movement?
Options
Comments
-
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.0 -
-
my own words would not be too far off that of most people.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.
otherwise i or most people would be using the word incorrectly.0 -
Thats not an answer Davoxx and you know it0
-
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
we both know it is an answer, it's not the one that you wanted for some reason ...Thats not an answer Davoxx and you know it
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 ...0 -
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.0 -
-
with reference to "most people" ... it is the group with the highest number of people.What do you think it means?(again no dictionary etc)
i think what it means is the same regardless, how you measure it depends on the exact situation.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.
greed implies desire to obtain more, despite having an excessive amount already.
that's a very specific percentage, one has to wonder if it 66% does that count?Most for me means 67%+
http://www.occupytogether.org/ is a close to official as can be ...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.0 -
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
are you saying that is is unanswerable or that the answer is that "Excessive is subjective"?Spudmonkey wrote: »Excessive is subjective and therefore not an answer.
true, they would have differing opinions about where the bottom cut off is.Spudmonkey wrote: »Even those in the occupy movement would have differing opinions of what excessive is.0 -
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.0 -
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.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:
And yet when asked what this level is, you continue to evade clarifying it, instead giving a longer version of the same claim:a certain levelCut 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.
no, i have a clear distaste for the rich and greedy. the and greedy is an important part of my point.Now in a previous post you state:
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.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.
Where is the misunderstanding here?
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 ...
if you use "general tone and ideal" rather than the facts or content to base your opinions, that is your choice.
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.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
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?
i think wealth redistribution is a good thing when it goes from rich to poor.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.
unfortunately these do depend on context and are subjective. in terms of law, there is still great debate over the defining of excessive force ...
"Rich Elite" changes definition depending on who you talk to.i did not fail to define it, you failed miserably to understand the concept of excessive and the 'rich elite' ...
"Excessive" is a way of rephrasing "certain level" whilst avoiding answering the question that was put to you.
not really, the implementation of it should not an indicative factor in whether you think the gap should be closed.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.
Yeah but... it... sort of... completely is.like i said it's not relevant to this discussion.
i've made no such claim.Are you saying that charity is enough wealth distribution?
charity? if there was more equality, eventually there would be no need for charity.Does there need to be more, does there need to be less?
only time will tell ...If I rephrase the question perhaps you would answer it?
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.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?
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 ...0 -
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.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?
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.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.
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.0 -
sorry to disappoint your expectations of a straight answer ... if you have no expectations, you will not be disappointed.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?
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?0 -
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.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.0 -
-
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: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.
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 ...0 -
to which question? how do i define excessive? that's not really in the scope of the thread ...If you can't give a straight answer when asked a question you're not welcome here. Cop on a bit please.
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?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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?0 -
.
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".0 -
okay ... how do you define world peace so?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.0 -
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.0 -
but it is still relative. ie how hot is hot? it needs a reference point, and that can change depending on context.Well that isn't very useful because it was apparently "a certain level", which as OscarBravo pointed out, implies a measure of quantifiability.
but not to accumulate more ...But someone who desires wealth will naturally hold onto it even if they just happen to have it.
do not understand the question.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"?
yes. and this stems from how they then go about to accumulate it.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 sure hope so, i really do not want to have to post more definitions ...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 don't understand the qualifier here, what do you mean by insofar as possible?I support giving everyone the opportunity to participate in the market insofar as is possible.
meaning the difference in wealth between the top and bottom in society is significantly smaller that it is now.Can you define "closing the social wealth gap"?
that would help.Do you mean, less disparity between top incomes and bottom incomes,
forcefully? no. via taxation, yesdo you mean wholesale wealth distribution, that is actual assets and capital being redistributed?
taxation, grants to the poor. stopping tax breaks.Could you propose the mechanisms by which this would be achieved, if so.
actually fining a company 10% of profit when it breaks the law rather than pocket change (with respect to the companies size)
i hope that answer it for you.Answering these questions would make it easier for me to frame a response that would result in a more satisfying discourse.
the wealthy elite.Remove tax breaks for whom?
why would they move? why can't a local company compete with this company that moved out?What if the removal of these tax breaks resulted in a company moving to somewhere where taxation laws are more generous for example?
yes. better to build on solid foundations than uncertain ones.Is it worth the loss in employment?
one that does not penalize the low earners while allowing high earners to write of tax.What is a "proper" progressive tax system?
the ones that mean there are food mountains stored in europe ...What barriers for trade?
these are all specifics and do not belong in this thread.0 -
i know you are not supporting world peace.I am not justifying supporting any organisation calling for world peace so I don't feel the particular need to define it.
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.0 -
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?0 -
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?
the ones that mean there are food mountains stored in europe ...
.
What food mountains?0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
i did, maybe you did not read mine?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 asked clearly "how do you define world peace so?"
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 ..."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."
ooookaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyy
i did already.Maybe you would present to me your definition of world peace as espoused by the Occupy Movement?
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.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?
so we disagree as you think world peace is a slogan ... i really think you fail to understand world peace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11216061What food mountains?0
Advertisement