Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'm an ass, sorry about that, I missed my syntax. I'm still curious as to why you advocate a rule system where innocents are killed first and the ones to blame are accidentally picked by chance.

[Mlamlah]

As for those statistics, that's quite true, but I'll point out that it'd have to hit 99% before the death toll hits the lower classes harder than the upper (proportionally). I'm counting the entire 99% in the "lower classes" here, though if you'd prefer I use a different identifier I will.

Now you're saying we need to kill 99% of people to have a chance at affecting the elite?

Now you're just trying to misinterpret.

[Putnam]

I'm an ass, sorry about that, I missed my syntax. I'm still curious as to why you advocate a rule system where innocents are killed first and the ones to blame are accidentally picked by chance.

He said repeatedly that he never advocated that, that it was a prediction. God damn.

Anyway, Whoops.

[kaijyuu]

(responding to your original post)
Indeed. The original argument was that the lower classes were getting hit harder than the upper ones, and I'm pointing out that in the worst case scenario that would not be the case (at least not proportionally, which I believe should be obvious).


How the fuck do you take that as "needing to kill more people"?


(response to your new post)

I'm an ass, sorry about that, I missed my syntax. I'm still curious as to why you advocate a rule system where innocents are killed first and the ones to blame are accidentally picked by chance.

I don't advocate it. I don't advocate anyone getting killed. I'd vastly, vastly prefer no one does. I hope these protests do something non-violently. I'm not a violent anarchist; I'm a peace loving hippie that would rather get shot than shoot someone else.

I'm not a blind idealist either, though. Just an idealist. I'm explaining how I think things will go down in certain scenarios, not how I want them to.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Now you're just trying to misinterpret.

No, I'm interpreting it as 'if >90% of those killed are innocent and we manage to get a couple bad people, it's a good thing' and reacting to it as it was posed as a situation better off than current conditions for the middle class. Bottom line is it's not.

I don't advocate it. I don't advocate anyone getting killed. I'd vastly, vastly prefer no one does. I hope these protests do something non-violently. I'm not a violent anarchist; I'm a peace loving hippie that would rather get shot than shoot someone else.

I'm not a blind idealist either, though. Just an idealist. I'm explaining how I think things will go down in certain scenarios, not how I want them to.

I'm simply explaining how any sort of thinking where 'conflict=better' is an especially bad thinking, especially when you say the conflict itself would be a better time for the middle class than our current living situation.

Indeed. The original argument was that the lower classes were getting hit harder than the upper ones, and I'm pointing out that in the worst case scenario that would not be the case (at least not proportionally, which I believe should be obvious).

Killing a million rapists/murderers/exploiters of the poor/etc is absolutely useless if even one innocent is harmed in the process.

[Mlamlah]

Did you just ignore the two or three explanations that were shot off your bow there?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

'Explanations' are a lot different then just trying to get your word in, friend.


Before you try to hand wave and ignore what I've said and state you didn't claim it [a "Reign of Terror-esque situation"] was a better alternative; I'll just repost this:

If the machine becomes so odious, you throw yourself on the gears until it stops working.

We've a machine here that needs to be stopped. It can then either be rebuilt or modified, whichever you deem more plausible, but either way something has to change and it won't change if the current situation is allowed to continue.
[snip]
Let's assume this escalates to violence (even though I don't think it will). Even with a 1 to 1 ratio of corpses, I don't think the working class will be on the losing end. Who will rebuild? Those feasting on the corpses of the rich, of course. The working class.


You seem to think the working class is harmed more than the upper classes by these protests. That is not the case.

Minor question: Why are you now talking about the middle class when previously we were talking about the working class? Those are separate.

(I'm pretty sure most the middle class is in the 99%, but it seems odd to point out them specifically regardless)

Heh, I predicted the handwaving before you even made the post, cute. I'm done here.

[kaijyuu]

Minor question: Why are you now talking about the middle class when previously we were talking about the working class? Those are separate.

(I'm pretty sure most the middle class is in the 99%, but it seems odd to point out them specifically regardless)


EDIT: Uh, okay. Bye. o.O

I had hoped to communicate that that was a minor question by calling it such, rather than something that pulls the pin from underneath your entire position (it wouldn't undermine your argument significantly no matter what you responded with, by the way).

[Mlamlah]

Now you're just trying to misinterpret.

No, I'm interpreting it as 'if >90% of those killed are innocent and we manage to get a couple bad people, it's a good thing' and reacting to it as it was posed as a situation better off than current conditions for the middle class. Bottom line is it's not.

I don't advocate it. I don't advocate anyone getting killed. I'd vastly, vastly prefer no one does. I hope these protests do something non-violently. I'm not a violent anarchist; I'm a peace loving hippie that would rather get shot than shoot someone else.

I'm not a blind idealist either, though. Just an idealist. I'm explaining how I think things will go down in certain scenarios, not how I want them to.

I'm simply explaining how any sort of thinking where 'conflict=better' is an especially bad thinking, especially when you say the conflict itself would be a better time for the middle class than our current living situation.

Indeed. The original argument was that the lower classes were getting hit harder than the upper ones, and I'm pointing out that in the worst case scenario that would not be the case (at least not proportionally, which I believe should be obvious).

Killing a million rapists/murderers/exploiters of the poor/etc is absolutely useless if even one innocent is harmed in the process.

In that case, you are engaging in reductio ad absurdum, conflict is neccecary for a person to survive, avoiding conflict accomplishes nothing but lining you up to be trod underfoot. I don't believe anyone here is advocating violence just now, nevermind violence against innocents.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

EDIT: Uh, okay. Bye. o.O

I had hoped to communicate that that was a minor question by calling it such, rather than something that pulls the pin from underneath your entire position (it wouldn't undermine your argument significantly no matter what you responded with, by the way).

I'm not engaging in semantics with someone who can't even realize they just directly advocated a Reign of Terror situation as a better alternative for the 'working class' [a synonym for middle and lower class since the beginning of the class system] than our current capitalist system.

[kaijyuu]

I don't know who you're arguing with, but it obviously isn't me.

[Mlamlah]

EDIT: Uh, okay. Bye. o.O

I had hoped to communicate that that was a minor question by calling it such, rather than something that pulls the pin from underneath your entire position (it wouldn't undermine your argument significantly no matter what you responded with, by the way).

I'm not engaging in semantics with someone who can't even realize they just directly advocated a Reign of Terror situation as a better alternative for the 'working class' [a synonym for middle and lower class since the beginning of the class system] than our current capitalist system.

That's *not* what was said, at all.

[SalmonGod]

This revolutionary, anarchistic, borderline destructive movement globally has not been working out so well. The countries that have tried it recently are showing that they are much worse off now. Perhaps 20-30 years from now things will have stabilized and become a utopia, or more likely they will follow the traditional course after a revolution, which is the new regime becomes as corrupt as the old.

As for # 4, I wholeheartedly agree.

And to be clear, I have no grievance with the protest on a whole, I just find it to be ineffectual and potentially more harm than good. I want the issues resolved as much as anyone, I just disagree with this course of action. I am however moved by your passion.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with "borderling destructive movement globally".  If you're referring to countries that have had violent revolutions or other sudden regime changes, then I don't think that's the ultimate goal of the Occupy movement here in America.

The way I see it, there's a growing number of people who see our problems as institutional in nature, and that superficial reforms are not good enough.  Individuals vary wildly among the actual population of the movement, but I think the general motion is towards a cultural revolution more than a legislative or regime change revolution.  People are getting together, conductive social experiments, challenging world views, and having serious discussion about different ways of life.

One aspect of this is what you're saying about the middle class and their ability to work.  Yeah, the individual benefits from being able to work in the short term.  However, no business pays an employee the full value of their labor.  If they did they would, by definition, not make any profit.  Employees are paid to generate profit for the business, and that profit is distributed among shareholders and executives, not employees.  This is the driving force behind consolidation of wealth, which causes economic hardship and severe disparity in the long term.  This is but one gear of the machine that needs to be stopped, and the working class will continue to contribute to their own dilemmas until that happens.  Profit as the underlying motivation for most participation in society is something that more and more people are realizing must be done away with, and that is a kind of change that can only happen culturally through widespread, sincere awareness and discourse.

Similarly, it's rather narrow-sighted to believe that the Civil Rights movement's victories were strictly legal in nature.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I don't know who you're arguing with, but it obviously isn't me.

Let's assume this escalates to violence (even though I don't think it will). Even with a 1 to 1 ratio of corpses, I don't think the working class will be on the losing end. Who will rebuild? Those feasting on the corpses of the rich, of course. The working class.

This is originally why I got upset with you. You directly stated that a conflict would be a good thing, in the long run, for the working class.

@Mictlantecuhtli
I'm thinking of a Reign of Terror esque situation, not a conventional war. Tell me, who died there? (well a lot of people did but still)

[snip]

As for the corpses thing; metaphorically, if something actually DOES get stopped, again the working class aren't going to be much worse off (especially compared to the upper classes). Literally, if there's violence, I think it'll be a reign of terror esque situation, again, and it's not the working class that will be put under the guillotine.

Then you said this to me, and being a violently-vehement-supporter-of-equality-no-matter-the-scenario-Frenchman I took offense as I actually know my history. I did get your afterwards explanation of it being a prediction, as I thought you were directly advocating that as a better situation then what we have here now; but it still doesn't make the statements less incorrect.

[Putnam]

I don't know who you're arguing with, but it obviously isn't me.

Let's assume this escalates to violence (even though I don't think it will). Even with a 1 to 1 ratio of corpses, I don't think the working class will be on the losing end. Who will rebuild? Those feasting on the corpses of the rich, of course. The working class.

This is originally why I got upset with you. You directly stated that a conflict would be a good thing, in the long run, for the working class.

Nowhere in that post was it "directly stated". It was barely implied if at all. He said that, in a purely hypothetical ("Let's assume...") war of attrition, the working class would win, and those who would remain would rebuild.