Re: Occupy Wall Street

I agree. He is like a left wing shock jock. He cannot put an argument together, just tear down straw men.

Re: Occupy Wall Street

I agree with vivakomeda in that a lot of these stories read like hyperbolic whinging. I think their own cases suggest a lack of personal responsibility and poor planning. For example, why doesn't the guy have a degree at 27 after forking out 40 grand?
I also dislike the inclusion of illness such as cancer in their list of complaints. Whilst it is very sad, it is not made clear why this is relevant. If a tea party person said "I have cancer and I pay too much tax" we would all ask why they mentioned the cancer. I don't want to award the prize for debating to the person with the worst illness.
My point is that I strongly agree with the complaints against Wall Street bailouts. I therefore dislike people making spurious arguments or attaching their own beef to this debate as it muddies a deductively valid argument that the payouts were obscene and wasteful.
People like Michael Moore with his scattergun approach and those with a poster blaming their woes on Wall Street are easy targets for anybody who is intelligent enough to see through their emotive and illogical arguments.

Re: Occupy Wall Street



Occupy Houston starts this weekend. Right wing radio is already telling the tea party to show up. lol It's on! :P

Re: Occupy Wall Street

apparently something similar is happening downtown Minneapolis just outside of the building I work in. I hope my bus ride isn't affected too much.

*shrug*

Re: Occupy Wall Street



Why don't you go? ha Mine's downtown-40 miles away. But, it might be worth it.

Re: Occupy Wall Street

I definitely plan on checking it out during my lunch break. Public unrest is always fascinating to watch from a safe distance.

Re: Occupy Wall Street

I guess the thing that annoys me about Moore is that he appears to subscribe to the theory that the truth is simply a battle of competing theories. It may have been Strauss or somebody like that who originally saw that the truth or reality was a competition between different points of view and the truth was established through these battles.

Now in part, I could agree with that if those who were competing were being honest in their own views and expressing what they truly believed. The problem is that people pretend that their intentions are one thing when they are really another. So rich people rarely say they are cutting wages so that they can be richer. Companies rarely say they are polluting the atmosphere or a river because it is cheaper than being environmentally friendly.

Moore has caught onto this propaganda model and decided that the way to battle half truths is to fight fire with fire. He manipulates, omits, emphasises and exaggerates to get his message across. In part, he has been very successful and managed to achieve left wing goals or get the left wing story out there.

The problem is, he has allowed the game to be played the same way and condoned the rules of the game. The problem of society as I see it is that it is not necessarily capitalism or communism that is right or wrong, they both might work. The problem is that a system built on lies will never work properly. If people are secretive, conniving, scheming and manipulating then there will always be a large part of the population that suffers and fights back against this dishonesty.

Equality through lies will never work, nor will trickle down, elitism, community, mutual obligation, survival of the fittest, libertarianism, humatarianism, humanism, liberal markets, free markets. None.

Re: Occupy Wall Street

we are all living in the mould.

Re: Occupy Wall Street

Re: Occupy Wall Street



Can you give us some specific examples of his manipulation, omissions, and exaggerations? I think the other one is acceptable: emphasis. Nothing wrong with emphasizing something to make your point. But in any case, some examples would be appreciated.