Forum Post: To be logical or not to be logical-
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 27, 2011, 9:23 p.m. EST by justhefacts
(1275)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It has been my personal experience, that in many cases, whenever a poster expresses an opinion that demonstrates that they do not fully support OWS (or they many not support OWS at all) an OWS supporter will respond either with a comment or an argument or an insult that can be equated with, or closely resembles one of the following ideas:
“If you are not for us, you are against us”
“If you are not for OWS, then you ARE for the RICH”.
By definition and measurement according to the rules and principles associated with "Logic", both responses, and any variation of them, are examples of FALSE LOGIC and incorrect reasoning.
Now, there could be any number of reasons why someone would respond with false logic/reasoning-INCLUDING, but not limited to:
1) They don’t know they are not logical because they’ve never learned the basic underlying principles involved in making logical statements/arguments. (this isn’t about blame) 2) They do know they are not being logical, reasonable but have chosen to disregard the principles and parameters involved in logic and reason for some reason (there are many reasons)
I’m not posting this to debate the reasons WHY someone would respond this way. Such discussions are almost always fruitless because it’s nearly impossible to PROVE what someone else knows or does not know (knowledge) or exactly what motivates another person (agenda).
I’m posting this to establish that such conclusions ARE illogical, and WHY they are. There are literally hundreds of sources I could use, but for the same of brevity and simplicity, here is a simple, easy to understand explanation from wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)
“A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."
"False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice ("If you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception (e.g., "I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren't there").”
Because these aren't the only arguments I've seen used here, I've included a link to a list of some of the other most common logical mistakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
I personally WANT to know whether or not my arguments are reasonable and logical because I think logic and reason are extremely important skills to have. A definition of critical thinking is "the process of thinking that questions assumptions". I almost ALWAYS question assumptions when I see them in order to find out if something is true or not by determining whether or not it’s a little true or a lot true or always true or not. I don’t always respond with sound logic, and sometimes I even take the easy way out and respond with nothing more than sheer nastiness. It would be illogical not to admit that.
"Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions..."Critical" as used in the expression "critical thinking" connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. "Critical" in this context does not mean "disapproval" or "negative."
[Removed]
ModestCapitalist- You may indeed be correct here. (relish this moment)
I assumed that because he described what happened to the french elite and then followed it up with a comment that I interpreted as "flippant" that he/she actually was being flippant regarding the death of the french elite and the plundering of their belongings.
Logic would dictate that my comment should have been "The way you said that makes it sound like you are all for the killing......."
So, ineptcongress, I apologize for putting words in your mouth.
[Removed]
It's your claim. YOU have to prove it. And stating random statistics about the economy-that are true-doesn't PROVE that your conclusion is true. Check the list of the most common logical errors. Your theories involve MANY of them.
[Deleted]
First- it is a logical fallacy to assume that if I cannot "disprove" something-that it automatically PROVES that something.
For example-there is no way in Hades I'm going to give MC any personal information about myself-including a photo etc and he could just "deny" my evidence as real anyway. BUT-the fact that I am not going to "prove" to him that I am a woman does NOT PROVE that I am a man.
Second-the FACT is that one group is increasing their wealth (A) and another group (B) is decreasing their wealth. But that FACT doesn't tell us ANYTHING about why or how or what is causing either one or both. OBVIOUSLY they are "related" or they share a correlation-both are part of the same system. But their correlation does not PROVE that (B) is the direct result of (A). The "wealth" in the US is not static. It does not just shift back and forth WITHIN the microcosm of the United States. That wealth flows in and OUT of that microcosm into a bigger one, and that fact alone means that there are a whole lot of other letters (C,D,E etc) that impact both A and B so it would be ridiculous to state that the changes in (A) are coming SOLELY and COMPLETELY from the changes in (B).
The problem with MC's arguments is that the way the average American defines "wealth" is not necessarily the way ECONOMISTS define it. AND in economic discussions, the word "wealth" is broken into different categories that entail different criteria thus my "financial wealth" is different from my "overall wealth". In economic discussions words like "income" and "assets" are general terms under which there are SUBcategories (wage income, investment income, dividend income etc.) So applying a general term as if it PROVES something specific, or vice versa is a huge mistake.
[Removed]
Yeah!
Posting your endless, mind numbing essays here, again (what did you say-you've posted over 20 THOUSAND of them online...my hell) along with all of my responses will serve no purpose but to bore the SHIT out of all the readers AND I simply do not care to go over it again and again and again. The readers can and will make their own determinations about us both no matter what. Won't they?
But you really are insane. You don't get to say things like "you're pulling this crap when you don't think I'm looking" without normal, regular, intelligent people thinking "How the hell would he know what she's thinking....and that she's posting when she thinks he's not looking".
You remaining convinced of ANYTHING matters zero to me because I KNOW that they are nothing more than arrogant assumptions.
You totally obfuscated the whole conversation without saying anything substantial. Your logical analysis disjointed from your gut feeling leaves you spinning your wheels, while never gaining traction. We as a society buy the capitalist doctrine because of one premise: their greed lifts all boats. Once that statement can be proved wrong, the rest of the BS that makes Capitalism palatable no longer applies. For you to break up wealth into sub categories and say don't look behind the curtain, but shine your lying eyes on these smaller factors, makes you the Don Wan of bull shit. You are trying to convince people that because the rich hold a different brand of wealth that that wealth should not be accounted for. Buffet should not care that he pays a lower tax rate because his money is not gained by pay role taxes. This is the essence of your argument.
just the facts...it seems neither of you are moving, so sometimes "you gotta just build a bridge and get over it"
Did you read the Vanity Fair article or find any blatant fallacies there, is what I'm looking for.
I did not excell in logic, so I need help.
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 By Joseph E. Stiglitz
INEQUALITY Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%
I think it could help you guys reach some common ground?
Here's an even better, more relevant (to me) link YOU should read before we go any further-
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
A wickedly good little read. Thank you just the facts for a proper-system's descriptions analysis of the complex nature of problems, which we encounter. I like the part where the elevator designers work together and problem solve in non-linear attempts.
Have you read the 99 Percent Declaration, http://www.the99declaration.org/ a guideline, working document, which does have concrete proposals for seeking to address some of the issues being discussed by OWS. (the doc is actually a "splinter group" and OWS hasn't endorsed it) Although I am not 100 percent behind it's education component is completely hashed out. It has been out since October, but I didn't see it until recently.
I haven't. But unless or until the American people understand how complicated this mess is, and that it cannot be solved with simple problem solving methods we all know and use every day, we're NOT going to fix it. And I've got a feeling we're only going to get ONE shot at something this big. I want it done RIGHT.
We need to apply a problem solving method to OWS itself. It is hopelessly anarchistic. Unless and until OWS loses the anarchy, the results will continue to be anarchy.
The leaders, the people running this movement the structure of the movement, the decision making process (direct democracy) and organization is all based on anarchist principles. Solve that problem first. That is what is holding this movement back from becoming something bigger and better than the Tea Party.
Not to mention that little thing about OWS not needing "politicians" and wanting a "revolution". I consider those minor points that would take care of themselves though if the movement would finally do away with the anarchy.
very good point. the content of the 99 percent document is in official legalise, but it is plain for the common person to understand.
http://www.the99declaration.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Percent_Declaration
additionally, you gave me a chance to read a 25 page technical document on problem solving theory, and I read and responded. I think you should look at the declaration, because I was hoping to hear some constructive criticism of this or the article I gave you yesterday, so we have something to discuss.
And I do appreciate this post and it's intention to explore the practical uses of logic and understanding of complex problems. I think that is what this movement, in a non-linear and crazy-appearing way, is attempting to get there heads around. The protesters in the street may not appear appealing to all viewers. But they did form a community, as they were doing there protest, to discuss issues. I went down to a Occupy in Tacoma, yea there were mostly homeless, so it appeared at that site, but they were getting educated, and were there by choice, and it was wet and raining and cold, and they have like $20, no propane, and are working on problem solving, developing rules of conduct and respect, chores and responsibilities. And valuing each individual's worth, or at least giving them a chance to have more dignity and responsibility, at least, so maybe some good can arise from this movement that we may not see the whole picture. the 99 percent document actually hasn't been adopted by OWS. It is from a faction in Philidelphia. But the OWS movement is trying, as I view it, to bring in lots of viewpoints so they can systematically get to the root of the problems. you need to read the document, because it articulates and clarifies much of what the OWS is, although they don't admit it.
I'll try to look at it and get back to you ASAP. I'm being pummeled with replies and a very active family at the moment...lol
just the facts...it seems neither of you are moving, so sometimes "you gotta just build a bridge and get over it"
Did you read the Vanity Fair article: "INEQUALITY Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%"
I took logic, but just got a C. On my read, what fallacy am I missing?
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 By Joseph E. Stiglitz
didn't i just write to you about this - i thought you admitted that wealth is being transferred from the lower classes to the rich - did i read it wrong - what gives?
Wealth is being transferred between the rich and the rich, the rich and the poor, the poor and the poor, and the poor and the less poor etc all the time. AND it transfers from our country into other countries where it moves between THEIR rich and THEIR poor and all of their in betweens too.
BUT I have yet to see PROOF that that ALL of the "wealth" owned by, America's rich came directly and ONLY from the "wealth" of America's "other".
Wealth and income and assets etc can mean totally different things in economic discussions.
i guess that is a yes but spoken like a politician - not sure who is telling you that all wealth came from the lower classes but that is silly. pretty clear what has happened in the last 30 years to the different income brackets - you must know that. i assume you know also that wealth flows from poor countries to rich countries not the other way around
It's a long and incredibly futile story between MC and I. Which I'm ending.
Can I have your feedback on this though?-
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
good move ending the debate - i do not think you have answered me with much honesty - not sure what is going on with too many people here - debating society with points being awarded for winners and losers - very sad. as to the link - i skimmed it - no time now but i am sure there is some truth to what is being said - the author seems to ignore the political aspect and the power aspect of wicked problems - maybe i missed that part. there are big problems to be solved with some people winning and others losing (think strong dollar weak dollar) but who wins and who loses in society is determined by power relations to a large degree - should i go on?
That link-contains the SOLUTION-at least the best and brightest ones I've EVER seen for SOLVING exactly the social and economic MESS we are experiencing now.
The ONLY reason that "power relations" have been "winning" is because those powers have been MANIPULATING US all along and we have not known that the exact tools we NEED to solve that had been discovered and researched and in existence ALL ALONG.
If the tools and research of the EXPERTS in social sciences cannot help us, or we choose NOT to use the information I just shared with you, nothing will.
i will try to read more but i don't have lots of time these days - 2 grandkids 4 days a week and then work! seems to me that we know the solutions to our problems and have for 100's of years - the same thing that has always worked - organizing and educating the population. as to manipulation i send you this on the creel commission - ...[The Wilson administration] established a government propaganda commission, called the Creel Commission, which succeeded, within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and save the world.
That was a major achievement, and it led to a further achievement. Right at time and after the war the same techniques were used to whip up a hysterical Red Scare, as it was called, which succeeded pretty much in destroying unions and eliminating such dangerous problems as freedom of the press and freedom of political thought. There was very strong support from the media, from the business establishment, which in fact organized, pushed much of this work, and it was in general a great success.
Among those who participated actively and enthusiastically were the progressive intellectuals, people of the John Dewey circle, who took great pride, as you can see from their own writings at the time, in having shown that what they called the "more intelligent members of the community," namely themselves, were able to drive a reluctant population into a war by terrifying them and eliciting jingoist fanaticism. The means that were used were extensive. For example, there was a good deal of fabrication of atrocities by the Huns, Belgian babies with their arms torn off, all sorts of awful things that you still read in history books. They were all invented by the British propaganda ministry, whose own committment at the time, as they put it in their secret deliberations, was "to control the thought of the world." But more crucially they wanted to control the thought of the more intelligent members of the community in the U. S., who would then disseminate the propaganda that they were concocting and convert the pacifist country to wartime hysteria. That worked. It worked very well. And it taught a lesson: State propaganda, when supported by the educated classes and when no deviation is permitted from it, can have a big effect. It was a lesson learned by Hitler and many others, and it has been pursued to this day.
[Removed]
Good. Go read the entries. Tell me how many times I insinuated or outright accused you of coming to the conclusion that "ALL of" came from "ONLY ONE"...and then tell me why tonight is the first time you've denied it.
And please produce evidence that I INSISTED that you "failed to prove that wealth in general was being transferred from the lower 98% to the richest 1%". EMPHASIS on the word/idea/insinuation of "in general".
And find the missing 1% while you're at it.
[Removed]
pounds head on desk
YOU -"lower 98% to the richest 1%" Me-98+1=99% Insert joke about missing 1%. which would equal 100%
This is hopeless.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Question #1 to you- Do their statements/opinions SAY-in no uncertain terms-that they can prove that ALL of the wealth, or even the vast majority of the wealth that is currently concentrated in the top 1% of US citizens-came directly from the remaining 99% of American citizens-and them alone?
And Question #2-HAVE they produced that proof?
If you cannot answer either one in the affirmative, without any qualifications at all, I have ZERO interest in watching or reading what they have to say.
If you are using one or all of their statements of some fact or another, which I've agreed so far have been true-and then saying that because those FACTS are true-that YOUR CONCLUSION is ALSO true-you are USING FALSE LOGIC. See link to common logical errors.
[Removed]
And now ModestCapitalist now cuts and pastes the same, flawed, illogical, and mind numbing argument again. The one that continually demonstrates that he cannot prove his own conclusions.
Repetition has zero affect on your argument. It's still flawed. You're just providing more copies of those flaws.
Being logical here will get you banned and eraced.
Is logic threatening?
To the OWS thoughtpolice.
My question today is-why aren't the OWS thought police/leaders/governors etc teaching THIS CONCEPT-
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
Your write:
By definition and measurement according to the rules and principles associated with "Logic", both responses, and any variation of them, are examples of FALSE LOGIC and incorrect reasoning.
Does your same assessment apply to the following?
From Wikipedia: President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
Absolutely. That's a perfect example of false logic.
Dialectic (also called the dialectical method) is a method of argument for resolving disagreement. The word dialectic originated in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in the Socratic dialogues. The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments.
Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent's argument incorrect — thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate.
Justfacts - What are you proposing?
Your thread seems to blur the lines between debate and dialectic.
Are you proposing that all politics is logical?
Isn't that narrow-minded?
ANSWER my questions Justda.
Thanks!
Da Puzzler
The thread is about logical arguments. Nothing more, nothing less.
Logic can not always be applied easily to political issues. Period.
It does fantastic with mathematics!
...or to be something else.
Truth is not logic.
Logic is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
There is but one answer.
You are a fluke of the universe.
Give up.
Voting down the most logical post in a logic thread, is illogical, Jim.
fairness is not necessarily constrained by logic. it's your choice to frame the debate in logic, which will only take you so far.
And "fairness" can be completely relative unless it has parameters that constrain it.
Thru logic, I can justify and do horrible things. (you can't know all the facts)
Logic doesn't justify anything. The word you're looking for would be rationalization.
Thru logic, not logic
Logic is about whether or not an argument is SOUND, not whether or not a conclusion is right or wrong, good or bad, horrible or hilarious.
Logic does not, cannot provide "excuses" for actions of any kind.
It does for some. Examine your own emphasis on logic in this debate and where it takes you.
"It does for some".
Does logic actually "do" it, or do some just think, feel, believe that it does?
Where exactly has my emphasis on logic in this debate taken me?
It's an exercise for you. Examine why and where you demand logic.
That you seem to be implying something is evident. However, I cannot read your mind, nor do I want to assume anything. Please just state it outright.
I haven't done an examination and have no desire to do so. I do, however, know that you've approached the idea of OWS demanding logic. It might be in your interest to ask yourself why, when you think about OWS, that bias (towards logic) exists. It's really an exercise to be done only by you.
Do what you will with my suggestion.
I approached the idea of OWS long ago, and if you will show me where I demanded anything, I will gladly edit it to read otherwise.
I am a critical thinker, and as such, my bias is almost always "towards logic" rather than away from it. No matter what or who I'm thinking about.
Which is probably why I have no idea what your suggestion even really is, let alone what to do with it.
look at the title of your post
A Shakespearean play on words is a demand? HOW?
look at the rest of your post
"look at the rest of your post"
Is the demand moving around?
Does anyone else have a hard time with these? Ad hominems are easy but the rest can easily slip through the cracks. Arguments and debates can often be like walking through a minefield.... possible false analogy there (I can't tell! :S)
I think greater logical coherency could help OWS, at the very least by undermining rhetoric which occasionally comes from the 1%. Thats if we don't get tied up with the debates and lose sight of the bigger picture.
The problem is twofold...at least:
1)People can, and often do, get caught up in something that seems to echo what they 'believe in' and thus trust in everything that group "tells them is true" when it may not be.
2)Those people then start parroting the rhetoric they hear in that group as if it IS THE TRUTH to others without even knowing that what they are repeating is NOT the result of careful, honest, completely accurate study-but rather a carefully crafted attack that only needs to "appear to be" true.
These people are commonly referred to as "useful idiots". They are USED to promote whatever their handlers want them to. And it happens on ALL sides-not just OWS.
My objective here is to teach/help/inform those who actually CARE about whether or not what they are saying is "TRUE" and IF the ideas that they are promoting are FACTS rather than just assumptions/opinions/rhetoric.
I HATE seeing innocent people manipulated due to their own lack of information/knowledge almost as much as I hate someone who says their arguments are "perfectly logical/reasonable" when in fact, they are NOT.
[Removed]
I've admitted that the actual facts you have provided are indeed accurate all along.
I'm not arguing about your facts. Or any of your factual claims. I never have been. AT ALL.
According to the statistic, you cannot remove yourself from a percentile. These statements are illogical and irrelevant. I suspect trolls or an uninformed naivety. Tip of the hat to you, my dear good sir.
Which statistic/percentile are you referring to and who removed themselves from it?
I am referring to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjlvRoPvWI4
If OWS represents the 99%, then you can't remove anyone because they are anti-OWS if they originally are a part of the 99% unless they inherit a great sum of money.
THANKS! I feel like SOME (not all) people in "OWS" here want to discredit ANY thing they can. If they can pretend that "thing or idea or person" doesn't represent anything significant-it's even better!
Can I ask you for a favor? Can you read and comment on something I just put up? No problem if not-
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
This is why we are here this is why you are needed.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/inside-job-documentary/
Share, circulate, educate, inspire.
Where would being for the issues but not the actions stand?
Perfectly reasonable. :)
Why thank you
Before I answer can I ask exactly where you stand?
Outside of OWS but not FOR the 1% either.
Ok well then I think we fall relatively close together in our ideologies. To answer your question yes you present a logical argument, albeit from wikipedia.
Logic is logic. The source of the statement in this instance does not affect it's truthfulness.
logic only takes you so far.
I never said otherwise. But wherever you end up beyond logic-you can't call it Logic. Because it's somewhere else.
Oh I wholly agree with you. Sometimes allowances have to made concerning your audience. And that is not a bash on OWS I'm just saying that online it is sometimes hard to say exactly what you mean and is often times best to simplify the material.
“If you are not for us, you are against us” “If you are not for OWS, then you ARE for the RICH”.
Sorry brownshirt, that is illogical.
Thank you.
False logic. Not fact.
[Removed]
Mostly, I think if you bash OWS, or think OWS should support Mr. P., you are most likely against OWS.
And hey, let's face it. Three straight months of troll juggling, can lead to a short temper.
I don't wish it on anyone.
"most likely" doesn't mean true. You don't get to indict people based on probabilities and nothing else.
"And hey, let's face it. Three straight months of troll juggling, can lead to a short temper."
Same faulty logic- "If you're not for OWS-you are against OWS (a troll)" I can be not "FOR" OWS, WITHOUT being "against" OWS.
Most likely is accurate, as I can't speak to you face to face.
Even then, it might take some time to decide if you are baiting, or being honest.
So, are you for, or against OWS?
And "most likely" is probable. It is not absolute.
This is a public forum. There are no absolutes.
Exactly.
Sigh.......
Outside of OWS but not FOR the 1%. I'm in that gray area between the two extremes that you seem to want to refuse to believe exists.
[Removed]
Yes. Those appear to be statistics. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and even assume that they are accurate.
Statistics are just a numerical summary of evidence that has been collected. They don't make your conclusion "the truth".
[Removed]
See....that's your problem. You don't comprehend that GOD and all those men HANDING me the truth on a silver platter is COMPLETELY different from YOU handing me a paper plate and INSISTING that what you have placed on that plate IS THE TRUTH.
Logic is logic. You can list 10,000 physical, mathematical, economic facts if you wish. I've never tried to debunk ANY of the "facts" you've posted here. Go look. I'll wait. (You DO know that there is a difference between a "statistic" and an "opinion/statement" and an empirical right?) I'm focused solely on the FAULTY argument you keep placing those FACTS in.
Next!
[Removed]
I missed the evidence you provided to support your claims that-
I am a man
I am a husband and wife team
I am rich
I am a pig
I have more than one ID here
I refuse to admit a specific point (despite the fact that the evidence that I have admitted to that specific thing INCREASES every time I admit that thing to you)
I am stalking you
Logic is "crap"
Etc.
[Removed]
NO hon. No. Seriously?
Your personal ASSUMPTIONS about me are "circumstantial". They are "circumstantial assumptions". They do not constitute "evidence" of ANY kind in the world we currently live in. NEVER.
THIS IS WHY YOUR ECONOMIC ARGUMENT FAILS. ASSUMPTIONS are not FACTS! Do you really NOT KNOW THIS???
[Removed]
"Hey genius. People have been sentenced to life in prison on circumstantial evidence. Of course, there is a difference between circumstantial evidence and conclusive evidence but the circumstantial is STILL evidence. I made the distinction."
The question is, do you make any "distinction" between the word-assumption and the word evidence? I DO. Which is why I said:
Your personal ASSUMPTIONS about me are "circumstantial". They are "circumstantial assumptions". They do not constitute "evidence" of ANY kind in the world we currently live in. NEVER.
[Removed]
The question is, do you make any "distinction" between the word-assumption and the word evidence?
Answer the question.
That's a start.
What are you for?
I'm FOR a million things. Why do you ask?
Because at the end of the day the people in that gray area comprise a large enough majority of this country that even if we wanted to ignore it we don't really have a choice. As long as the debate focuses on "Are you for OWS or against it?" it's not a real debate because we're not discussing actual visions or policy goals for this country. He is, in effect, posing the same question to you that I posed last night: what goals do you figure America should be striving to meet over the next ten or twenty or fifty years, and what policy initiatives would you propose to help us get there? That's the question we need to be discussing with each other if we want any coherence or popularity of message with the non-OWS world.
I'm SO glad you popped in here. I just posted another thread (don't worry. I'm not thread happy like some people...I've just been trying to figure out the most accurate way possible to express myself here...)
http://occupywallst.org/forum/experiment-in-dialog/
Answering you questions is similarly difficult because any thoughtful, sincere, real answer involves all kinds of factors and knowledge and complexities that I'll readily admit I'm not anything close to an expert in.
I WANT our government NOT to be corrupt. I'd make it a goal to clean house as much as possible, and institute some kind of oversight controls on them that have INSTANT consequences if they do certain things. I'd LIKE to see them prosecuted when sufficient evidence demands it AND put in jail when they do things that "regular" people get put in jail for.
Then we put the best-most MORAL people we can find in their places-people who do what WE want done, and stop and prevent the things WE would stop and prevent.
I want ONLY the people on Wall Street or anywhere else to pay for what they've done with but in manner that creates the LEAST amount of suffering and havoc for anyone else. I don't KNOW what that manner is yet. I hope someone comes up with it.
My greatest fear/worry right now is that passion/thirst-for-revenge/frenetic energy or something along those lines is going to result in the very WORST events happening in the very WORST way that only make things BAD in some other way. Does that make sense?
Those are good goals. I'd add, because it is what I'd like to see, that we do away with LLC status of corporations. This, as far as I'm concerned, is a license to steal. Might as well call it diplomatic immunity.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
Jesse...can I ask you to give me your feedback on that link?
[Removed]
"But you're fine with a global depression being caused by a relentless concentration of wealth"
Please don't put words in my mouth.
"When he asked you not to put words in his mouth, why didn't you apologize? Wouldn't that have been the right thing to do? "
According to your own words, the "right thing to do" would be to apologize to me.
"You can't even admit that its being transferred from poor to rich." That is your CONCLUSION. I never said I disagreed with your conclusion-I said I disagreed with the ARGUMENT you INSIST proves it. It does NOT. Learn the difference or shut up.
" Yea you rich pigs are real noble."
Pure ASSumption my friend. Just like everything else you produce as if all truth can be proven with a statement from you.
[Removed]
Where's my apology for putting words in my mouth?
I have acknowledged the transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Over and over and over again.Why do you keep lying and saying that I haven't?
What YOU will not acknowledge is that BECAUSE you said in your own words that you "cannot account for" the exact origins of ALL of the wealth that HAS been transferred to "the rich", that your conclusion can only be reached by ASSUMING something that the FACTS "cannot account for".
"That makes you fine with a global depression caused by a relentless concentration of wealth."
There you go AGAIN-putting words in my mouth!
Logical fallacy-Straw man – an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
Now you owe me TWO apologies!
[Removed]
You just proved what a hypocrite you are. Here are your words from this EXACT same thread-
Question: Was it logical for you to conclude that ineptcongress was "all for killing people and taking their stuff"? What in the name of all that is logical would cause you to make such a rash judgement?
"When he asked you not to put words in his mouth, why didn't you apologize? Wouldn't that have been the right thing to do? "
[Removed]
Absolutely, and I replied to your other thread as well. I understand why you'd be worried about OWS deciding to go on a witch hunt rather than attempting to address the issues at hand; your post pretty much spelled out the reasons behind that impulse. Witch hunts are easy; answers are hard. That said, I feel like fear of being on the receiving end of a witch hunt is even more powerful than the desire to start one; see my reply to your new thread for a better articulation of what I mean.
"I feel like fear of being on the receiving end of a witch hunt is even more powerful than the desire to start one"
Please provide a study of both witches and witch hunters that support your conclusions. I need facts. LOL
Just lemme get my time machine together and Cotton Mather himself will be able to discuss it with you... :trollface:
Time Lord? I loves me some Dr. Who! :)
I learned a poem about him in the 5th grade...."Grim Cotton Mather, was always seeing witches, daylight, moonlight they hovered round his bed. Pinching him and poking him with aches and pains and stitches".....that's all I can remember!!! Oh well.
Well if the logic is that "if you are not for OWS you are for the 1%" the logic is flawed.
Let's be generous and say there were 1,000,000 participating in OWS.
That would be 0.313% of Americans.
So you would be part of the 98.697%.
That is really math and not logic however it seems logical.
ROFL! Yes, in that sense OWS is part of 1%-just not the 1% the rich are in.