Total Posts:111|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occupy Weakness

MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:03:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's is always something bothering me about the Occupy whatever-the-hell-city-I-am movement. And I realized tonight, that it is because they are weak.

Let me clarify, I am not asking for violence. In fact I hope they stay nonviolent. But allow me to dig into history real quick;

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Exactly 56 years ago. It was a Thursday as is today. She was arrested. Now again I'm not asking for anyone to go to jail. I've seen people be pepper sprayed. You are still weak. Let me get to the point. Rosa parks was not the first to refuse her seat to a white person but Parks' civil disobedience had the effect of sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, as you remember, is when blacks rode the bus and paid their fares whilst yelling out the windows about how unfair it was. Oh no wait....they stopped RIDING THE FRICKIN BUS! What's my point? You occupy idiots are still riding the bus. You complain about the corporations, the billionaires, the 1%ers but why on earth ARE YOU STILL USING THIER PRODUCTS!?!? Food, water and shelter i understand paying for but do you really need to use that iPad? Is apple not a billion dollar company? Do you need to post on Facebook? Doesn't Mark Zuckerberg not fit in the 1%? You are scum. I get angry every time i see an occupy photo and people are standing around with smart phones and laptops. Then you have to pay for internet, so Time Warner and Verizon here you go!! Don't give any bull about needing to keep in contact with other protesters. There was no internet and barely any phones 56 years ago and THEY GOT SH1T DONE. They were uneducated and much much poorer then you self-entitled brats are. They were a minority fighting a majority and they won. You, according to your own slogan, are a majority fighting a minority and you've accomplished nothing. You hate these corporations, make them pay. Not the other way around. Rant over. Apologize for any spelling mistakes.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:37:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hehe.

I think one of the main problem is though is that you can't really target every corporation, because you know, you'll kind of lose like all your supply of goods. A boycott doesn't really make much sense If your target audience is general.

That's one of my main problems with the OWS is their fixation with the 1% and corporations as evilz. It's too generalized. Your telling me that every person who is part of the 1% is an evilz? Give me a break. Pick a specific target or goal and focus on that.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 6:42:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, the fact is that if someone were to be as faithful to their beliefs as you're expecting the Occupy protestors to be, then they'd have to live something like the Unabomber, sans the attempts at mass murder.

The reason why large numbers of people can't do that is because it can be construed as subversive, which would then conveniently translate into terrorism.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 6:45:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 6:42:20 AM, Ren wrote:
Well, the fact is that if someone were to be as faithful to their beliefs as you're expecting the Occupy protestors to be, then they'd have to live something like the Unabomber, sans the attempts at mass murder.

The reason why large numbers of people can't do that is because it can be construed as subversive, which would then conveniently translate into terrorism.

That's not true...

The real problem is that they confuse non-violent protest with non-violent whining.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 6:54:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 6:45:00 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/1/2011 6:42:20 AM, Ren wrote:
Well, the fact is that if someone were to be as faithful to their beliefs as you're expecting the Occupy protestors to be, then they'd have to live something like the Unabomber, sans the attempts at mass murder.

The reason why large numbers of people can't do that is because it can be construed as subversive, which would then conveniently translate into terrorism.

That's not true...

The real problem is that they confuse non-violent protest with non-violent whining.

pro·test   [n. proh-test; v. pruh-test, proh-test] Show IPA
noun
1.
an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation.

whine   [hwahyn, wahyn] Show IPA verb, whined, whin·ing, noun
verb (used without object)
1.
to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger.
2.
to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.

I disagree. They are doing none of the latter and all of the prior.

Why so much dissent in response to the Occupy Wall Street Protestors? Can you truly find flaws in their premise?

You can criticize anything. It is possible to perceive anything as petty and meaningless. The time we spend here on this website is petty and meaningless. That doesn't stop people from spending hours and hours debating issues regarding it, such as pretend elections and "vote bombing." Why? Because they are issues that concern them.

The people at Occupy Wall St. don't strike me as outright poor. They strike me as dissatisfied. Perhaps ignorant. But, honestly, not any more so than most of the people that choose to discuss economics and politics on this site. Nonetheless, they are not simply whining or feeling sorry for ourselves. They represent everyone, including you and I, in an effort to highlight and begin to correct the misappropriation of this nation's resources. I personally am appalled at how much control people who just so happen to have money seem to have over my day-to-day life. And no, I'm not pleased. Everyone continuously complains about "the state of the economy" while these @ssholes eat their expensive food and drink their expensive alcohol all damn day without a care in the world.

We outcry for a voice, then deride those that use it? Disgusting.

They are exercising our right to indicate a dysfunction in our society, and in that regard, they are right.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 10:12:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The OP's argument is dumb. That's like saying everyone who has complaints about the government should just move out of the country if they hate it so much. Obviously we don't hold people to that standard even though this is completely analogous. People complain about the government all the time, and we recognize their right (and usually support it) to speak out and protest against perceived injustice.

Similarly, people don't have to stop buying products tied to corporations (which is near impossible) in order to be able to criticize policy they don't like and which affects them.

Further, not every OSW protester is opposed to corporations. The movement has support from a variety of camps, from socialists to communists to anarchists to liberals and probably every variation in between. You don't know specifically what each protester is advocating, so it's completely presumptuous and irresponsible to call them hypocrites (or scum, as the OP ventured to say).
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 10:13:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Marquis the blacks of yesteryear, and the whites no less, were more resourceful and self-sufficient than you or I. That is mainly because they relied on far less technology to sustain themselves.

I believe that it doesn't take a conspiratorial mastermind (I.e., conservatives, liberals, corporations) to decide "let's make the people dependent on us and bleed them dry" but people tend to follow the path to greatest profit, and guess what: getting people dependent on your stuff, especially what you don't need, is the best way to get "ahead." We are all wearing white gloves and carrying ketchup popscicles.
Rob
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 10:19:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 10:13:58 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Marquis the blacks of yesteryear, and the whites no less, were more resourceful and self-sufficient than you or I. That is mainly because they relied on far less technology to sustain themselves.

In addition, it's a lot easier to boycott something specific as darkkermit pointed out rather than something so general as corporations. It is near impossible. That's like saying Tea Party members should reconcile their resentment with government policy by living off the grid in order to avoid paying taxes (and utilizing government services). It's POSSIBLE, but near impossible and the sacrifice probably isn't worth it on a cost-benefit analysis. That doesn't give their point any less merit; it only shows that some people are only willing to go so far in order to get their point across.

Another thing to consider is that blacks during the Civil Rights Movement had a lot more support than the OSW people do. It was really only the South that wanted to continue racial segregation; attitudes in other parts of the country had changed. Plus, they had monetary support (such as when various businesses started vocalizing support for the Movement). Here OSW will absolutely not have monetary support -- for obvious reasons.
President of DDO
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 11:05:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well excuse me then because every ows person I talk to is against corporate greed and for the corporations having all the power. My argument is dumb? I said don't count out necessities as in if you need clothes, get clothes. But you don't need a fuckin iPad. Its almost 2012. Where's the money at today? Electronics baby. You cut profits in the electronics market, i guarantee mothafuckas will notice. I understand you can't cut out every corporation but fucck, at least try. You don't need your smartphone. If I'm Zuckerberg, why should i give a sh!t about your protest if all you morons keep jumping on Facebook. Is he not your enemy? Is he not your oppressor? Again its weak, its unfocused and if history is truly written by the victor, I'd hate to see how OWS is perceived in textbooks 100 years from now. You can not win a war by supplying your enemy with ammunition. You saying I'm dumb for suggesting you stop paying Verizon or Time Warner a hundred dollars a month? It is because you are weak.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 11:09:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 11:05:46 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well excuse me then because every ows person I talk to is against corporate greed and for the corporations having all the power. My argument is dumb? I said don't count out necessities as in if you need clothes, get clothes. But you don't need a fuckin iPad. Its almost 2012. Where's the money at today? Electronics baby. You cut profits in the electronics market, i guarantee mothafuckas will notice. I understand you can't cut out every corporation but fucck, at least try. You don't need your smartphone. If I'm Zuckerberg, why should i give a sh!t about your protest if all you morons keep jumping on Facebook. Is he not your enemy? Is he not your oppressor? Again its weak, its unfocused and if history is truly written by the victor, I'd hate to see how OWS is perceived in textbooks 100 years from now. You can not win a war by supplying your enemy with ammunition. You saying I'm dumb for suggesting you stop paying Verizon or Time Warner a hundred dollars a month? It is because you are weak.

And rape victims should stop wearing suggestive clothing, right?
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 12:23:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 11:09:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 11:05:46 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well excuse me then because every ows person I talk to is against corporate greed and for the corporations having all the power. My argument is dumb? I said don't count out necessities as in if you need clothes, get clothes. But you don't need a fuckin iPad. Its almost 2012. Where's the money at today? Electronics baby. You cut profits in the electronics market, i guarantee mothafuckas will notice. I understand you can't cut out every corporation but fucck, at least try. You don't need your smartphone. If I'm Zuckerberg, why should i give a sh!t about your protest if all you morons keep jumping on Facebook. Is he not your enemy? Is he not your oppressor? Again its weak, its unfocused and if history is truly written by the victor, I'd hate to see how OWS is perceived in textbooks 100 years from now. You can not win a war by supplying your enemy with ammunition. You saying I'm dumb for suggesting you stop paying Verizon or Time Warner a hundred dollars a month? It is because you are weak.

And rape victims should stop wearing suggestive clothing, right?

Good straw man! Good thing I've already knew someone would say this. Unfortunately your argument doesn't hold water. First off to compare your struggle to that of a rape victim's is arrogance to the highest degree. The fact that you bring that up lets me know just how high you think of yourself. When a woman is dressed in suggestive she probably just wants to feel good about herself. She doesn't expect to get raped. See that internet you paying for? You have a choice to not pay for it. To not be "raped" i guess. She doesn't have a choice. That guy is probably going to rape her either way. But you guys are paying to be raped. So i will go on record as saying " If there is any woman who doesn't liked to be raped, she should not pay her rapist to do so"
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 12:42:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
" If there is any woman who doesn't liked to be raped, she should not pay her rapist to do so"

Much more relevant to OWS crowd.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 1:00:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 12:42:05 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
" If there is any woman who doesn't liked to be raped, she should not pay her rapist to do so"

Much more relevant to OWS crowd.

hehehe..........

Hey, the hottest 1% should not hoard their vaginas to themselves. Spread the love around.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 1:34:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 11:05:46 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well excuse me then because every ows person I talk to is against corporate greed and for the corporations having all the power.

Most people don't know what they're talking about. The average citizen is completely ignorant. They basically repeat things that sound nice but don't understand all or other sides of the argument.

When I was at a protest, I saw some hecklers with video cameras debating fellow marchers. The protesters they talked to were not articulate in any way whatsoever. They were completely unable to respond in a remotely intelligible way to the people interviewing them, which would make the entire group look like a bunch of fools to the moron who would actually pass judgment on an entire movement based on who backs it instead of the aims of the movement itself.

Anyway, I jumped in and started responding and debating with the people doing the interviewing. Needless to say I kicked their fvcking a$s in verbal warfare. They were completely taken aback, presumably because articulate leftists are few and far between - or at least ignored and put down. Guess which one of us wound up being featured in local propaganda? The footage of me sparring with them was not shown; the footage of a clueless peer was used to indicate that the entire group/concept was dumb. For obvious reasons they didn't show me pwning them.

My argument is dumb? I said don't count out necessities as in if you need clothes, get clothes. But you don't need a fuckin iPad.

Yeah, the argument is dumb because it is stupid to say you cannot criticize something if you buy into it. I pointed out that sometimes it is worth it on a personal cost-benefit analysis to buy into it. I gave an analogy to the Tea Party not choosing to live off the grid or fight the government in other ways. You ignored it. I gave an analogy to people who complain about politics, yet continue to choose living in this country. You ignored that too.

Its almost 2012. Where's the money at today? Electronics baby. You cut profits in the electronics market, i guarantee mothafuckas will notice. I understand you can't cut out every corporation but fucck, at least try. You don't need your smartphone. If I'm Zuckerberg, why should i give a sh!t about your protest if all you morons keep jumping on Facebook.

I understand your point, and I agree it has merit (more on that later). But you are ignoring (again) what I said in a previous post about there being people of ALL ideologies at OSW, representing different POVs that are not necessarily anti-corporations. For instance, some people would simply like to see every workplace unionized. That would mean things could essentially be run the same way, except employees would have more collective bargaining power. That is not anti-corporation.

When people say they are anti-capitalism, they mean that in different ways. First, it could be argued that what they are fighting isn't even capitalism to begin with (since the government is involved, and pure capitalism would have no government). Second, people have different solutions or propositions. I know many people at OSW do want corporations to continue and thrive, making your point about them having Smartphones entirely useless. Instead they might just want to advocate more regulation to ensure banks don't drive the stock and housing market into the ground again. Again, they are protesting different things. And that's fine. They are mostly there to garner awareness and support for political change - nothing more!

We are the 1% is a general phrase. You are jumping to all kinds of conclusions and generalizations. You should work at Fox News or something.

Is he not your enemy? Is he not your oppressor?

Zuckerberg? Not specifically, no. I dunno why you'd think that.

Again its weak, its unfocused and if history is truly written by the victor, I'd hate to see how OWS is perceived in textbooks 100 years from now.

We see what's happening: OSW camps are being cleared out. The People are truly oppressed. This sad reality is being ignored. Even if you are completely against OSW, you (everyone) should be appalled and outraged at the fact that we cannot protest peacefully without being beaten, jailed or worse. If the government suddenly started taxing everyone 75% of their income, and the Republicans started flipping sh!t and wanted to take to the streets, I'm sure they wouldn't like it if they were bulldozed out of the way because they were "protesting on public property." Da fvck other place are you supposed to protest?! People's PRIVATE property?!

It's ridiculous.

You can not win a war by supplying your enemy with ammunition.

Actually you can but I digress ;)

You saying I'm dumb for suggesting you stop paying Verizon or Time Warner a hundred dollars a month? It is because you are weak.

You calling people weak doesn't make your point any stronger.

I could easily say you're retarded. Does that make my point stronger? No.

Anyway, I agree that keeping up with the Jonses is a mindset completely instilled in American culture, even without us realizing it. I forget the exact statistic, but it's something like 75% of Americans today are living as the top 5% would have years ago (in terms of luxury and whatnot, and by that I mean having a lot of nice clothes or electronics, etc.). Keep in mind how homes used to have 1 TV, and now we have about 6 in each house (at least mine does). Our standards have completely gone up and I agree that this is contributing poorly to our society...

However, your point becomes useless because these people (not all, because again they do not have a cohesive gripe - and that's okay) are advocating for and against different things. Some of them PROMOTE consumerism, so some of them think it's okay to buy into corporation provisions. I've explained this. They may just want say a much smaller income disparity, because the gap between the rich and the poor has only grown ferociously over the years. I think the average CEO to worker pay in this country is 475:1, whereas in Japan it's like 20:1 and in Europe it's like 50:1 or something like that.

I think a lot of these people are just against what they consider to be excessive greed, but don't understand the implications of their cries to rid of capitalism. I admit that many protesters are pretty friggen dumb. However just because there are Redneck retards in Louisiana saying "Kill dem der colored folks" and identify as Conservative, doesn't mean that Conservative ideology is automatically stupid. It just means it has a lot of stupid "supporters." The fact is most people simply do not have a good grasp on politics or economics. I also think there are a lot of really intelligent people who support OSW, even if you foolishly consider them all "weak."
President of DDO
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 1:46:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:03:52 AM, MarquisX wrote:
There's is always something bothering me about the Occupy whatever-the-hell-city-I-am movement. And I realized tonight, that it is because they are weak.

Let me clarify, I am not asking for violence. In fact I hope they stay nonviolent. But allow me to dig into history real quick;

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Exactly 56 years ago. It was a Thursday as is today. She was arrested. Now again I'm not asking for anyone to go to jail. I've seen people be pepper sprayed. You are still weak. Let me get to the point. Rosa parks was not the first to refuse her seat to a white person but Parks' civil disobedience had the effect of sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, as you remember, is when blacks rode the bus and paid their fares whilst yelling out the windows about how unfair it was. Oh no wait....they stopped RIDING THE FRICKIN BUS! What's my point? You occupy idiots are still riding the bus. You complain about the corporations, the billionaires, the 1%ers but why on earth ARE YOU STILL USING THIER PRODUCTS!?!? Food, water and shelter i understand paying for but do you really need to use that iPad? Is apple not a billion dollar company? Do you need to post on Facebook? Doesn't Mark Zuckerberg not fit in the 1%? You are scum. I get angry every time i see an occupy photo and people are standing around with smart phones and laptops. Then you have to pay for internet, so Time Warner and Verizon here you go!! Don't give any bull about needing to keep in contact with other protesters. There was no internet and barely any phones 56 years ago and THEY GOT SH1T DONE. They were uneducated and much much poorer then you self-entitled brats are. They were a minority fighting a majority and they won. You, according to your own slogan, are a majority fighting a minority and you've accomplished nothing. You hate these corporations, make them pay. Not the other way around. Rant over. Apologize for any spelling mistakes.

So according to your the occupy wall street movement shouldn't eat drink water wear cloths or have homes. Are you joking or are you just a retard?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:17:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 6:54:11 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/1/2011 6:45:00 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/1/2011 6:42:20 AM, Ren wrote:
Well, the fact is that if someone were to be as faithful to their beliefs as you're expecting the Occupy protestors to be, then they'd have to live something like the Unabomber, sans the attempts at mass murder.

The reason why large numbers of people can't do that is because it can be construed as subversive, which would then conveniently translate into terrorism.

That's not true...

The real problem is that they confuse non-violent protest with non-violent whining.

pro·test   [n. proh-test; v. pruh-test, proh-test] Show IPA
noun
1.
an expression or declaration of objection, disapproval, or dissent, often in opposition to something a person is powerless to prevent or avoid: a protest against increased taxation.

whine   [hwahyn, wahyn] Show IPA verb, whined, whin·ing, noun
verb (used without object)
1.
to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger.
2.
to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.

I disagree. They are doing none of the latter and all of the prior.

Why so much dissent in response to the Occupy Wall Street Protestors? Can you truly find flaws in their premise?

You can criticize anything. It is possible to perceive anything as petty and meaningless. The time we spend here on this website is petty and meaningless. That doesn't stop people from spending hours and hours debating issues regarding it, such as pretend elections and "vote bombing." Why? Because they are issues that concern them.

The people at Occupy Wall St. don't strike me as outright poor. They strike me as dissatisfied. Perhaps ignorant. But, honestly, not any more so than most of the people that choose to discuss economics and politics on this site. Nonetheless, they are not simply whining or feeling sorry for ourselves. They represent everyone, including you and I, in an effort to highlight and begin to correct the misappropriation of this nation's resources. I personally am appalled at how much control people who just so happen to have money seem to have over my day-to-day life. And no, I'm not pleased. Everyone continuously complains about "the state of the economy" while these @ssholes eat their expensive food and drink their expensive alcohol all damn day without a care in the world.

We outcry for a voice, then deride those that use it? Disgusting.

They are exercising our right to indicate a dysfunction in our society, and in that regard, they are right.

"They represent everyone, including you and I,"

There is not one thing on their list of demands that even remotely represents me or my political, fiscal or social positions. Don't attach my name to that whining, urinating ,defecating, rioting , looting, littering, pile of crap organization. They in no way represent me.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:20:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The thing I find funny about the Occupy movement here is that they inexplicably choose to occupy their tents when it's doing the normal Seattle mist. Also, they seem unwilling to actually go occupy someplace when the hill up to their camp is wet.
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:23:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
OK. So i get what you're saying. I think. Help me out here a bit though, Dani girl. So you're saying that the entire crowd has different views and opinions? Well i mean there's a percentage that believes this and a percentage that believes that, correct?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:26:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:37:00 AM, darkkermit wrote:
Hehe.

I think one of the main problem is though is that you can't really target every corporation, because you know, you'll kind of lose like all your supply of goods. A boycott doesn't really make much sense If your target audience is general.

That's one of my main problems with the OWS is their fixation with the 1% and corporations as evilz. It's too generalized. Your telling me that every person who is part of the 1% is an evilz? Give me a break. Pick a specific target or goal and focus on that.

That's not entirely accurate. The OWS (occupy whatever street) movement is not against corporations in general. They are against the corporations that have a primary focus on making money for only their upper management. Such as those that pay their CEO millions in bonuses, while the company is cutting benefits and jobs, etc.

While I agree with the OP that they are being weak because all they are doing is talking and not acting (not calling for violence, but taking action to not buy from companies that they disapprove of) and that will never get stuff done.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:27:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 1:46:59 PM, Willoweed wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:03:52 AM, MarquisX wrote:
There's is always something bothering me about the Occupy whatever-the-hell-city-I-am movement. And I realized tonight, that it is because they are weak.

Let me clarify, I am not asking for violence. In fact I hope they stay nonviolent. But allow me to dig into history real quick;

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. Exactly 56 years ago. It was a Thursday as is today. She was arrested. Now again I'm not asking for anyone to go to jail. I've seen people be pepper sprayed. You are still weak. Let me get to the point. Rosa parks was not the first to refuse her seat to a white person but Parks' civil disobedience had the effect of sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, as you remember, is when blacks rode the bus and paid their fares whilst yelling out the windows about how unfair it was. Oh no wait....they stopped RIDING THE FRICKIN BUS! What's my point? You occupy idiots are still riding the bus. You complain about the corporations, the billionaires, the 1%ers but why on earth ARE YOU STILL USING THIER PRODUCTS!?!? Food, water and shelter i understand paying for but do you really need to use that iPad? Is apple not a billion dollar company? Do you need to post on Facebook? Doesn't Mark Zuckerberg not fit in the 1%? You are scum. I get angry every time i see an occupy photo and people are standing around with smart phones and laptops. Then you have to pay for internet, so Time Warner and Verizon here you go!! Don't give any bull about needing to keep in contact with other protesters. There was no internet and barely any phones 56 years ago and THEY GOT SH1T DONE. They were uneducated and much much poorer then you self-entitled brats are. They were a minority fighting a majority and they won. You, according to your own slogan, are a majority fighting a minority and you've accomplished nothing. You hate these corporations, make them pay. Not the other way around. Rant over. Apologize for any spelling mistakes.

So according to your the occupy wall street movement shouldn't eat drink water wear cloths or have homes. Are you joking or are you just a retard?

Perhaps you should read carefully, moron.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:21:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 4:20:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
The thing I find funny about the Occupy movement here is that they inexplicably choose to occupy their tents when it's doing the normal Seattle mist. Also, they seem unwilling to actually go occupy someplace when the hill up to their camp is wet.

Well they can't get their thousand dollar laptops and 600 dollars smartphones wet can they?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 8:26:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Marquis I think she's saying that what the OWS have in common is anger, but if you actually handed each one the keys to the economy and told them to do whatever they wanted with it they probably wouldn't be able to agree about what to do, if they even had an idea for themselves.

This is basically the liberal version of the teaparty. Teapartiers will tell you about the ebil liberals and how the government "shouldn't be" doing all this stuff, but they don't have any actual ideas of what to do about it. They are an anti group. They exist only in relation to a specific problem, without any viability of their own merit.

Left-wingers are pretty much the same way. They can list all the atrocities of the US Military and ebil corporations, but they have no idea what to replace it with. There's not much use in just being against something, because being against the problem doesn't necessarily mean that you are for the solution.
Rob
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 8:34:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 12:23:50 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 12/1/2011 11:09:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 11:05:46 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well excuse me then because every ows person I talk to is against corporate greed and for the corporations having all the power. My argument is dumb? I said don't count out necessities as in if you need clothes, get clothes. But you don't need a fuckin iPad. Its almost 2012. Where's the money at today? Electronics baby. You cut profits in the electronics market, i guarantee mothafuckas will notice. I understand you can't cut out every corporation but fucck, at least try. You don't need your smartphone. If I'm Zuckerberg, why should i give a sh!t about your protest if all you morons keep jumping on Facebook. Is he not your enemy? Is he not your oppressor? Again its weak, its unfocused and if history is truly written by the victor, I'd hate to see how OWS is perceived in textbooks 100 years from now. You can not win a war by supplying your enemy with ammunition. You saying I'm dumb for suggesting you stop paying Verizon or Time Warner a hundred dollars a month? It is because you are weak.

And rape victims should stop wearing suggestive clothing, right?

Good straw man! Good thing I've already knew someone would say this. Unfortunately your argument doesn't hold water. First off to compare your struggle to that of a rape victim's is arrogance to the highest degree.

My struggle? What in the flying fvck are you talking about? I'm not talking about any struggle I'm having, ergo I'm not comparing any struggle of mine to that of a rape victim's. What I am doing is comparing your argument other "blame the victim" arguments that are commonly levied against rape victims. Why would I need to be arrogant to do that?

The fact that you bring that up lets me know just how high you think of yourself. When a woman is dressed in suggestive she probably just wants to feel good about herself. She doesn't expect to get raped. See that internet you paying for? You have a choice to not pay for it. To not be "raped" i guess. She doesn't have a choice.

She has a ton of choices! She could choose not to go to that part of town, or even to date or see any men at all. She could go join a convent, or live in complete and utter isolation. She doesn't have to go to the bar and get intoxicated or accept drinks from strange men. She could do a whole host of things to prevent getting raped.

But, do you want to know something? No matter how many of those choices ultimately contribute to her being raped... NONE of them are her fault. Bringing them up doesn't, in any way, undermine the fact that she is a victim, nor does it detract from the guilt of her attacker.

That guy is probably going to rape her either way. But you guys are paying to be raped. So i will go on record as saying " If there is any woman who doesn't liked to be raped, she should not pay her rapist to do so"
MarquisX
Posts: 925
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 2:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 8:34:04 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 12:23:50 PM, MarquisX wrote:
At 12/1/2011 11:09:31 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 11:05:46 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Well excuse me then because every ows person I talk to is against corporate greed and for the corporations having all the power. My argument is dumb? I said don't count out necessities as in if you need clothes, get clothes. But you don't need a fuckin iPad. Its almost 2012. Where's the money at today? Electronics baby. You cut profits in the electronics market, i guarantee mothafuckas will notice. I understand you can't cut out every corporation but fucck, at least try. You don't need your smartphone. If I'm Zuckerberg, why should i give a sh!t about your protest if all you morons keep jumping on Facebook. Is he not your enemy? Is he not your oppressor? Again its weak, its unfocused and if history is truly written by the victor, I'd hate to see how OWS is perceived in textbooks 100 years from now. You can not win a war by supplying your enemy with ammunition. You saying I'm dumb for suggesting you stop paying Verizon or Time Warner a hundred dollars a month? It is because you are weak.

And rape victims should stop wearing suggestive clothing, right?

Good straw man! Good thing I've already knew someone would say this. Unfortunately your argument doesn't hold water. First off to compare your struggle to that of a rape victim's is arrogance to the highest degree.

My struggle? What in the flying fvck are you talking about? I'm not talking about any struggle I'm having, ergo I'm not comparing any struggle of mine to that of a rape victim's. What I am doing is comparing your argument other "blame the victim" arguments that are commonly levied against rape victims. Why would I need to be arrogant to do that?
Because its not the same thing! Its not in the same ballpark. Its not even the same fuckin sport. You're arrogance comes when you even suggest that a person having financial problems even remotely compares to being raped.

The fact that you bring that up lets me know just how high you think of yourself. When a woman is dressed in suggestive she probably just wants to feel good about herself. She doesn't expect to get raped. See that internet you paying for? You have a choice to not pay for it. To not be "raped" i guess. She doesn't have a choice.

She has a ton of choices! She could choose not to go to that part of town, or even to date or see any men at all. She could go join a convent, or live in complete and utter isolation. She doesn't have to go to the bar and get intoxicated or accept drinks from strange men. She could do a whole host of things to prevent getting raped.
First off if you're going come at me, check your facts. Most rapes are by family members or friends of the victim not strange men. Most rape victims aren't sluts at the bar either. A thirteen year old girl gets raped by her uncle, what's her choice? Not have an uncle?

But, do you want to know something? No matter how many of those choices ultimately contribute to her being raped... NONE of them are her fault. Bringing them up doesn't, in any way, undermine the fact that she is a victim, nor does it detract from the guilt of her attacker.
Yes. Its not her fault but she didn't purposely go get raped did she? Otherwise its not rape. These occupy kids with their iPads, they made a conscious decision to buy that iPad. To put it in rape for it would be a woman literally paying a known rapist to rape her. Because they knew what they were buying and who there were buying it from. Yet they still gave their own hard earned cash, without a fight. Even now they are still using or paying for the materialistic sh1t they bought. They're still paying to be raped while yelling about how unfair it is. Don't compare rape to ows.

That guy is probably going to rape her either way. But you guys are paying to be raped. So i will go on record as saying " If there is any woman who doesn't liked to be raped, she should not pay her rapist to do so"

And i stand by this quote.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 2:39:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Argumentation for the purpose of arguing and trolling begin:

At 12/2/2011 2:31:03 PM, MarquisX wrote:

Because its not the same thing! Its not in the same ballpark. Its not even the same fuckin sport. You're arrogance comes when you even suggest that a person having financial problems even remotely compares to being raped.

that depends how much you are willing to prostitute yourself for sex. For me 1 butt fvck = $1000.

First off if you're going come at me, check your facts. Most rapes are by family members or friends of the victim not strange men. Most rape victims aren't sluts at the bar either. A thirteen year old girl gets raped by her uncle, what's her choice? Not have an uncle?

Hey a person can live a life of isolation to avoid rape. It's still a choice.

Yes. Its not her fault but she didn't purposely go get raped did she? Otherwise its not rape. These occupy kids with their iPads, they made a conscious decision to buy that iPad. To put it in rape for it would be a woman literally paying a known rapist to rape her. Because they knew what they were buying and who there were buying it from. Yet they still gave their own hard earned cash, without a fight. Even now they are still using or paying for the materialistic sh1t they bought. They're still paying to be raped while yelling about how unfair it is. Don't compare rape to ows.

And women make a conscious decision to have male friends and visit their family. All knowing while that will increase their chances of rape.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 2:51:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 4:20:45 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
The thing I find funny about the Occupy movement here is that they inexplicably choose to occupy their tents when it's doing the normal Seattle mist. Also, they seem unwilling to actually go occupy someplace when the hill up to their camp is wet.

So you're saying the fact that they don't feel compelled to get wet somehow undermines their POV? Uh, sure.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 2:54:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@ Marquix -- Lasagna pretty much summed it up...

At 12/2/2011 8:26:52 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Marquis I think she's saying that what the OWS have in common is anger, but if you actually handed each one the keys to the economy and told them to do whatever they wanted with it they probably wouldn't be able to agree about what to do, if they even had an idea for themselves.

This is basically the liberal version of the teaparty. Teapartiers will tell you about the ebil liberals and how the government "shouldn't be" doing all this stuff, but they don't have any actual ideas of what to do about it. They are an anti group. They exist only in relation to a specific problem, without any viability of their own merit.

Left-wingers are pretty much the same way. They can list all the atrocities of the US Military and ebil corporations, but they have no idea what to replace it with. There's not much use in just being against something, because being against the problem doesn't necessarily mean that you are for the solution.

What they have in common is that they know the way things are currently being run is wrong. They have different proposed solutions (and some don't have any, as Lasagna pointed out). They just want things to change; I've talked to people who admitted they haven't the slightest clue what to do, but believe other economists may have better suggestions. Indeed there are economists who support the OSW movement... http://presstv.com...

There are times when people with different views come together to protest a single enemy (in this case, the only identifiable enemy isn't "capitalism" or "Wall Street" or "corporations" -- it's just the current system).
President of DDO