News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[FlexGunship]

You just changed an ad Hitlerum to an ad hominem.

I didn't attack anyone. Ad hominem means you attacked the debater and not his argument.

 

[MarcoD]

I didn't attack anyone. Ad hominem means you attacked the debater and not his argument.

Well, in essence, you attacked the OWS movement with a "guilty by association" fallacy; one could call that an Ad Hominem. Whatever.

 

[DaveC426913]

I got an e-mail indicating that someone likened my reasoning to "reductio ad Hitlerum." That's a fair criticism if Hitler were to lend material support and effort to something.

That was me, and I deleted it, for the reason you mention.

At first I thought you were mistaken, that this was, as Char.Limit claimed, a case of fallacious guilt by association. But you highlighted the key point: material support. If a group accepts support from an organization (somebody's got to be there to take the money), then they are willingly associating themselves with that organization.

To Char.Limit's claim: "anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself."

If the group accepts material support (such as money or goods) then it does indeed change the group itself.

-​

Put another way, guilt by association is a fallacious argument if the association only goes one way (organization associates itself with the cause, but cause does not associate itself with the organization).

But when it goes both ways (cause also associates itself, via acceptance of material support, with the organization), it becomes a real association, and a valid argument.

-​

 

[Char. Limit]

That was me, and I deleted it, for the reason you mention.

At first I thought you were mistaken, that this was, as Char.Limit claimed, a case of fallacious guilt by association. But you highlighted the key point: material support. If a group accepts support from an organization (somebody's got to be there to take the money), then they are willingly associating themselves with that organization.

To Char.Limit's claim: "anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself."

If the group accepts material support (such as money or goods) then it does indeed change the group itself.

We'll just see if the OWS movement accepts it.

 

[Proton Soup]

i remember when Reagan accepted money from the Log Cabin Republicans. his response was that by giving money to his campaign, the LCR were signing on to his agenda, not he to theirs.

 

[WhoWee]

i remember when Reagan accepted money from the Log Cabin Republicans. his response was that by giving money to his campaign, the LCR were signing on to his agenda, not he to theirs.

Yet none of the mainstream media seems to question this - perhaps this is why it's acceptable for the Occupiers to include ultra-left wing radical (yes radical - calling for revolution is radical) fringe groups?

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/04/communist-party-endorses-obama-2012

"Communist Party Endorses Obama For 2012"

 

[Evo]

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

 

[jambaugh]

I cannot help but compare the news clips of the "protest" to the "Die Hippie, Die!" episode of South Park: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e02-die-hippie-die"

 

[chiro]

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

There is a great deal of truth in what you are saying: it does seem to be rather highly unorganized with no central agreed to list of demands.

However not all people in this protest are just turning up for the hell of it. Some people have some specific ideas and at least make statements to support their argument:

 

[KingNothing]

I support the movement as a whole, but even moreso, I detest some of the overreactions by police forces, politicians, and political media.

 

[SixNein]

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

I spent a few hours in IRC @ freenode with some supposed supporters of the movement. I couldn't tell those people apart from tea party supporters. I wasn't in the channel for five minutes until I seen the same lame interest myth (fiat currency myth) pop up in the discussions.

A good idea for a sociology experiment would be to put a few smart blokes together to write some interesting conspiracy theories full of half truths then start a political movement based upon those theories. I'd bet a dollar it would take off.

 

[Evo]

I support the movement as a whole, but even moreso, I detest some of the overreactions by police forces, politicians, and political media.

What's the movement aside from a social media experiment? Also, there are laws with regards to peaceful assembly as far as where and how they can gather, if they need permits etc... if no one is taking care of these things and instructing the gatherers, it's no wonder they're getting booted and/or arrested.

 

[WhoWee]

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

What does that say about the credibility of the people and organizations (the unions and a few politicians for instance) that support them?

 

[Evo]

What does that say about the credibility of the people and organizations (the unions and a few politicians for instance) that support them?

It says a lot, although, nothing good, IMO.

I find that there is general apathy towards this movement (from my own informal poll) , people I've heard from range from "whatever", to "how much is this costing the taxpayers?". No one believes this is going to amount to anything.

 

[chiro]

I spent a few hours in IRC @ freenode with some supposed supporters of the movement. I couldn't tell those people apart from tea party supporters. I wasn't in the channel for five minutes until I seen the same lame interest myth (fiat currency myth) pop up in the discussions.

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.

 

[Char. Limit]

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.

The funny thing is that it somehow works rather well. Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar.

 

[WhoWee]

The funny thing is that it somehow works rather well. Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar.

It's doubtful printing $1Trillion+ dollars boosts confidence. Perhaps the protests should be in front of Bernanke's office - if that's your concern?

 

[Char. Limit]

It's doubtful printing $1Trillion+ dollars boosts confidence. Perhaps the protests should be in front of Bernanke's office - if that's your concern?

Huh? When did I say anything about anything boosting confidence? Or even that this had anything to do with the protests at all?

 

[ThomasT]

The way I see it, there should be perpetual protesting. I'm only half kidding. It seems obvious that some things wrt the financial sector, and the federal government, and the connection between the two could be improved. For example, there's questions regarding conflicts of interest, corporate influence on governmental decision making, regulation, etc.

If one thinks there's no problems, then of course one would be against the demonstrations. If one thinks there might be problems but isn't really sure what they are, then the demonstrations might serve to foster a dialogue about what the problems are and how they might be solved.

Personally, I'm one of those who thinks that things are still mostly ok in the US (compared to most other countries anyway) but that there's room for improvement (that is, I see some disturbing trends). So, why not talk about how things might be improved?

I think that one of the things that annoys an average member of the wage-earning or salaried (or unemployed) masses is the perception that a group of people (in the financial sector) that played a significant role in the economic downturn via somewhat questionable dealings has actually benefitted from, rather than being punished for, their actions. Maybe that perception is generally wrong, or maybe it's generally correct. I don't know. But there can't be anything wrong with looking at it very very closely, and at least discussing it -- which, it seems to me, is about all that any fledgling populist movement can hope for.

It's good to keep in mind, I think, that it wasn't so long ago that slavery was legal and women weren't allowed to vote. I wasn't around then, but I would guess that demonstrations against those practices were laughed at or regarded with indifference by lots of, maybe most, people -- at least in the beginning stages of the movements to end those practices. And it was the mass demonstrations against those practices that had a lot to do with changing them.

If something's wrong, but nobody complains, then it's likely that nothing will change. Or, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Whatever. Anyway, I support the demonstrations ... any demonstrations, as long as they're essentially nonviolent and orderly -- which these demonstrations seem to be.

 

[WhoWee]

Huh? When did I say anything about anything boosting confidence? Or even that this had anything to do with the protests at all?

Char, you said "Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar." My response is that Bernanke has been printing money - can you think of anything that will erode confidence in the Dollar faster than printing more? Last, this is the Occupy Wall Street protest thread.

 

[Char. Limit]

Char, you said "Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar." My response is that Bernanke has been printing money - can you think of anything that will erode confidence in the Dollar faster than printing more?

I said imagine it. Not "give me a reason why we are currently losing confidence in the dollar".

Last, this is the Occupy Wall Street protest thread.

I was responding to someone else's post with my own, rather whimsical one... you're really reading FAR too much into this.

 

[WhoWee]

I said imagine it. Not "give me a reason why we are currently losing confidence in the dollar".

I was responding to someone else's post with my own, rather whimsical one... you're really reading FAR too much into this.

WhoMe?

 

[SixNein]

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.

And the point your making is what exactly?

The myth goes that its impossible to pay off interest on debt in a fiat system; therefore, the currency is doomed to fail, and its nothing but a ponzi scheme ran by evil bankers.

 

[Proton Soup]

And the point your making is what exactly?

The myth goes that its impossible to pay off interest on debt in a fiat system; therefore, the currency is doomed to fail, and its nothing but a ponzi scheme ran by evil bankers.

the myth is that it is even necessary to create debt in a fiat system.

 

[Evo]

Back to the OP, please.

 

[OmCheeto]

Back to the OP, please.

drats! I had a funny thing to say about;"what if everyone decided gold couldn't be eaten"?

ows?... ows?... I read today that the communist party had 2000 members.

I decided that they were looking for publicity, by jumping on the ows bandwagon.

I mean really. The communist party is like 150 years old, and they only have 2000 members?

[toothless geriatric voice]what the hell do we have to lose!? hell! they might look at us![/toothless geriatric voice]

 

[chiro]

And the point your making is what exactly?

The myth goes that its impossible to pay off interest on debt in a fiat system; therefore, the currency is doomed to fail, and its nothing but a ponzi scheme ran by evil bankers.

The US government is issued credit in the form of dollars that has attached interest.

In 1913 an act called the Federal Reserve act that made the Federal Reserve legally able to issue your country's credit and effectively control the US dollar.

So tell me, how do you think this will end?

You should note that many empires based on this model, including the well known Roman Empire collapsed. Why do you think it will be different this time around?

 

[chiro]

The funny thing is that it somehow works rather well. Imagine if everyone lost confidence in the dollar.

Do you really think the rest of world likes watching your government go into higher debt, and have your central bank print money that would be unthinkable even to people a decade ago?

Look at what is happening around the world. Russia and China have signed bilateral agreements to do trade in their currency, and this includes oil. The US dollar is called the "petro-dollar" for a reason: it is used widely as the default currency for doing oil trading. This luxury that you guys have will cause a humungous shock when people stop doing all major trading in the US dollar.

Funnily enough Gaddafi was actually trying to create a platform for the African nation to trade oil in a manner different to that of using the US dollar, and Iran to my knowledge does not do oil transactions in dollars either.

China is also doing bilateral agreements with other countries like Turkey where they will stop trading in US dollars and use their own currencies.

Many major central banks around the world are buying lots and lots of gold. The price of gold is nearly 2000 US dollars an ounce. Gold has been considered a form of money for thousands of years, and one thing it has over paper money, is that 1) It is tangible unlike other forms of credit which can be created from nothing and 2) It is hard to counterfeit.

When I say counterfeit, one technique that can be used is to use Tungsten since the density with respect to gold is basically the same, and then coat the bar with real gold. This has been done before, and the only way to make sure the gold is real as far as I know is to drill holes in the bar and do a chemical analysis of the material.

Like I mentioned to an above poster, fiat currencies do not have a good track record. They often end in chaos, even in situations where the empire has a strong military like with the Roman empire did, just as you do (the US) now.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Do you really think the rest of world likes watching your government go into higher debt, and have your central bank print money that would be unthinkable even to people a decade ago?

Apparently they don't mind because EVERYONE KEEPS BUYING US DEBT. The price of bonds is determined by the marginal buyer, and the interest rates have never been lower. People are lining up to loan money to the US at negative real rates. With Europe in crisis, its one of the last safe havens. Gold is the other, but if everyone tries to hedge in gold you get a bubble (the supply of gold is limited, the supply of US debt need not be). Its weird to me that Austrians and hard-money people often extol the virtues of markets but don't actually look to existing markets to gauge situations.

Look at what is happening around the world...Russia and China have signed bilateral agreements to do trade in their currency, and this includes oil.

You are aware that China's currency is one of the most actively manipulated, right? Are you seriously arguing that China's currency might become a reserve currency?

Yes, the US enjoys a special place because of its world reserve status, and that will begin to fade, but that could ultimately be good for the US. A falling dollar relative to other currencies is the traditional remedy for trade deficits, but the reserve status of the dollar has kept that from happening.

The price of gold is nearly 2000 US dollars an ounce.

No, its down near 1600, and falling over the last month. Depending on what happens with funds that were hedging with gold and what happens with europe (if funds dump gold), it may fall further.

Like I mentioned to an above poster, fiat currencies do not have a good track record. They often end in chaos, even in situations where the empire has a strong military like with the Roman empire did, just as you do (the US) now.

The gold standard has an even worse track record. Every single empire in the history of the world either died out or abandoned the gold standard.

 

[SamirS]

I suggest you look into it.

Indeed.

You might want to start with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, and follow up with the Holodomor.

Communism has been tried many times, and in no case has it ever led to the promised worker's paradise.

Wait, what?

I read Marx' stuff (I also read quite some works about the other side). Coming with Pol Pot is, sorry, not a clever argument. It's in the same league as saying that Stalin murdered people because he was an atheist.

@Evo: As said I read Marx' main stuff. Please show me quotations from, say, Capital (I read it as the German original but I trust the translation is honest), which are so horrible.

Especially with V50's comment afterwards, and how Marx inevitably led to Stalin and the Khmer Rogue and why exactly this wouldn't have been possible with other systems?

I'm not a communist, and I don't voice my opinion on the current system because I'm gathering information from several sides and try to find out the most credible sources (so far, both main partners of the current discussion have good and true things to say, as well as things I do not follow logically), but I find those two statements I quoted to be unnecessarily judgemental and unsupported by evidence, because the main relationship between Marx' ideas and the doings of the Khmer is in name only.

Especially if you consider the situation of workers at the time Marx wrote what he wrote. If I'm wrong in assuming that Marx (who more or less invented this thing) crafted or at least channeled the ideology of Communism with his work (coincidentally one is called 'The Manifesto of Communism') and the Khmer Rogue are the actual inventors of 'Communism', please show me. Personally I suspect the latter where more involved in attaining power and stuff and were a wee bit corrupt*, but I'm open to correction.

If you find it more appropriate we can remove this into a new thread.

*The rather recent attention to the Khmer Rogue in light of trials compelled me to inform myself about what they did and it doesn't seem to go hand in hand with the vision of Communism (which I, again, I'm not a supporter of) as the founder, Marx, saw them, but a rather corrupted version of it twisted by totalitarian incline.