At 12/2/2011 4:09:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
However, Gandhi's suffering did play some significant in fighting his cause. It had an impact.
Also a strawman that it would suddenly cause people to suddenly see their point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will do it, but it could cause people to gain respect for them more.
You're admitting that them willing to suffer more for their cause wouldn't make people suddenly take their cause more seriously. At best you can say they will be "respected more," but this isn't necessarily true. In fact I think people would call them stupid and/or nuts even more than they already do. Regardless, this is a moot point because unless their suffering would accomplish something (aside from respect - which isn't what they're after), then there's no point.
Part of the reason I'm anti-OWS is not necessarily the message but how they convey the message. Reports of vandalism, dumping on cars, leaving the area a mess, attacking others, blocking traffic, trapping people in buildings and occupying public parks are all things that show that they really are inconsiderate.
First of all, lol @ you listening to these so-called reports. Have you been to any Occupy events? Probably not. These people are peaceful and for the most part incredibly considerate. They specifically find ways to keep the camps clean; they have devised waste and other garbage removal systems.
Second of all, you're saying THEY'RE being violent? Are you joking? Turn off Fox News for a minute, go to YouTube and check out the dozens and dozens of videos of police brutality or other aggressive measures taken against these peaceful protesters.
Let's look at your complaints again for the lulz...
- Vandalism (show me evidence of this)
- Dumping on cars (okay... what?)
- Leaving a mess (so do concerts, so do carnivals)
- Attacking others (okay Bill O'Reilly, who do they attack?!)
- Blocking traffic (yeah, that's kind of the point of a protest...)
- Trapping people in buildings (lol, what? Accidentally maybe?)
- Occupying public parks (where the fvck are they supposed to protest if you can't do it on public property?!)
No, it's fallacious because you're saying that one's POV is weakened by their desire (or lack thereof) to suffer in support of that perspective.
Um. Are you serious? Debate me on it.
Your profile says you are against abortion. Are you willing to be homeless in protest to prove that abortion should be illegal? Probably not.
(a) I don't care that much about the issue
(b) Unless it was symbolic and there were multiple people involved, it wouldn't raise awareness.
(c) it is likely I would do more by giving money to politicians that are anti-abortion.
Not only does this do absolutely nothing to negate my point, but it's silly that you think giving money to politicians is the answer and suggest that's what OSW should do... are you joking?! You think they want to give more money to politicians? That is the OPPOSITE of what they think would be helpful, and in fact some think it's straight up immoral to do so!!! They want money OUT of politics.
The OWS movement hasn't really done more 'civilized' ways of protesting (contributing to charities that could help) and are a big enough crowd and would be symbolic enough to raise awareness.
I really, really don't want to insult you (not trying to be izbo here) but keeping my mouth shut is incredibly hard. Um. The most cordial way I could put this right now is that "contributing to charities" is about the most useless suggestion I have ever heard. And I think it's bullsh!t that they're considered "uncivilized." Absolutely bullsh!t with nothing to back it up except pretentious people thinking they sound superior by putting others down for presumed weakness (because anti-capitalists are always portrayed as weak, lazy hippies). Yawn.
As I said, it's not about the merits of the point, but persuasion others, which is not a matter of merits of a point.
But you already admitted that more people wouldn't see their point, just "respect them more," so you've already argued against yourself.
They [suicide bombers] do.......just not in the US.
No, that is not why they have support elsewhere. Do your homework.
The point of protesting isn't to engage in logic, but to get action done. If you want to appeal to the majority, you use emotions. If you want to engage in logic, write an academic paper.
You can use logic to appeal to the masses. Nonetheless, this point is boring me. Even if OSW wanted to appeal to people's emotions, sitting out in the rain isn't a good way to do it.
Strawman, I never said it was an argument against the cause, because protesting isn't about logical argument. It is however about affecting the behaviors of others to get action done.
"A lack of willingness to actually suffer and make sacrifices for their message undermines the seriousness of the cause
, yes." -- darkkermit
I'm sorry, what were you saying?
You also continue to contradict yourself considering you've already said - hold on let me quote it - "Also a strawman that it would suddenly cause people to suddenly see their point of view. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will do it, but it could cause people to gain respect for them more."
It seems you just like throwing the word straw man around. It's annoying when people name drop fallacies when they're not even being used correctly (most notably "ad hom" -- everyone loves that phrase lol they barely use it in proper context). Anyway, you admitted that people might "respect them more," but that doesn't mean they will support their cause. Respect without support is useless.
I don't hold too strongly to my beliefs because I change them a bit. I used to lean Austrian, now I lean more Keynesian. I used to believe in the non-aggression principle, now I don't.
If we suddenly because an authoritarian, communist nation, I'm sure you would have some gripes with the establishment.