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
1…78101213

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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?


  • Options
    #273
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


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


  • Options
    #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.


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


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


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #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 ...


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #279
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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?


  • Options
    #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?


  • Options
    #281
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


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

    alright dont get personal please


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #286
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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 ...


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


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

    So are "hippy" and "communist".


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


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Quantify "a certain level".

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


  • Options
    #293
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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.


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #295
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 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?


  • Options
    #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


  • Options
    #297
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


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


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


    davoxx wrote: »
    sure, i can.

    a certain level => excessive

    How do you define excessive?

    How does Occupy define excessive?


  • Options
    #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.


  • Options
    #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
  • Options
    #301
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,915 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


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


Advertisement