Wall Street Protests

[henry quirk]

"On behalf of monkeys, I'm offended by your characterization."

Your moniker aside: I think you're a swan...a lovely (cranky) swan...HA!

#

"Fuck the ferrets"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[infinite monkey]

Swans are mean!

Oh yeah, I can be kind of mean.

OK, back to your debate...

[henry quirk]

HA!

[Stormieweather]

Frankly, I don't care how many bananas the monkey's have, or don't have. I can't stand bananas.

What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid.

[classicman]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If one monkey has access to, say, 400 million bananas, I'm thinking he can afford to give the finger to all those impoverished, occupant, monkeys...after all, 20 million bananas buys a helluva lot of gorillas, each more than capable of dealing with anything the occupants monkeys can foist up.

Yes, Virginia: it really does come down to 'might makes the right'.

As I say up-thread, 'how they (the banana-having monkeys) got the bananas (legally, illegally; morally, immorally) is irrelevant.'



In the same way: the envy of the banana-less monkeys is morally neutral (amoral).

I don't decry the occupants for envy, only for their *dishonesty.

They dress up 'envy' in pretty clothes and call it 'right' and 'moral'.

Just pony up with the truth, for a change, that being, 'we want your bananas!'









*Also irrelevant...I'm just sayin'...

Ahh, the old reductio ad absurdum argument with a nod to class welfare thrown in without actually using the c w words. Then, just in case, you seal your argument with the statement that
" 'morality' and 'just'" are fictions and therefore, irrelevant.

I don't know if you actually believe this or if you are just applying that statement to monkeys. But either way, it allows you to never bother yourself with any thoughts deeper than the depth of that mirage out on the desert horizon.

I may be hopelessly optimistic, but I believe that the majority of Americans can find a little morality within themselves if they dig deep enough, and a few are even interested in what actions can be honestly claimed to be just.

The culture in which "morality" and "just" have no revelance is the corporate culture. The corporate culture has imposed its own amoral pursuit of profit and power on its minions on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

Thanks to the high cost of getting elected in the modern era, Congress has become a millionaire's club. Worse yet, they have to do what their major contributors want or else no money for the next round of elections.

It is both immoral and unjust to use taxpayer money to bail out institutions that were collapsing thanks to the criminal activities of their own CEO's. It is immoral and unjust to not only retain the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy and large corps, but to actively pursue even deeper cuts in taxes for this group. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and those Americans in poverty, the American Working Class, and the American Middle Class are asked to shoulder the burden of reducing the deficit through the curtailment of educational opportunities for their children, a crumbling national infra-structure, etc.,etc.

These reductions so that the rich can get richer have hit the states and public workers as hard as anything else. Imagine how much even worse 9/11 would have been without those brave fellow citizens - the fire fighters, the police, the port authority - these middle class Americans rushed to the scene and many gave up their lives in the attempt to save as many victims as possible.

What if the state and city of New York had been engaged in austerity measures at the time, and only half the normal amount of police, fire, etc. had been available to respond? This is the road our country is going down now, and I am not optimistic about the eventual outcome.

And since when did the term "social contract" become a dirty word? Since the corporations declared class warfare about 25 years ago. And Since when has it become unAmerican to feel compassion and act upon it? And since when has our government stopped helping the little guy in favor of getting payoffs from corporate bullies? Since when has "promote the general welfare" turn into a greed driven rape of our American land? Since when have profits for shareholders become more important than the air our children must breathe?

Since around the time of Reagan - that's when. Ronnie was little more than a cat's paw for big business and it went downhill from there to the reign of King W who blatantly favored his old oil and business cronies and ushered in the era of war for petroleum, obscene defense contracts for Halliburton (linked inextricably to VP Dick Cheney), tax cuts for the wealthy, granting "person" status to corporations, and disappearing all sorts of Constitutional freedoms use the guise of the "Patriot" Act.

While the Republicans are the in your face party of the rich, the Democrats have responded feebly, caving in at every turn and showing the most lackluster leadership ever from Obama on down. Now, why should that be. Check out who's starting to fill Democrat war chest, and even a 4 year old could see what's going on.

These things are indeed immoral and injust. American citizens have not only a right to assemble to protest these things, they have a DUTY to.

You sir, Mr. Quick, show a tendency towards arrogance and, worse yet, an indifference to the plight of your own country. I sentence you to a life among real chimpanzees in a real jungle. Chimps travel in family groups led by an alpha male. The male will sometimes steal food from a weaker chimp, but, in general, chimp society has evolved to further the survival of the group and the passing on of its genome. That alpha male would make quick work of YOU, Mr. Quick. Social Darwinism at its finest - something you seem to admire. Have a banana.

[henry quirk]

"What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid."


HA!

All: irrelevant.

I get that's what irks you (and many others): so what?

The banana-holders HAVE the bananas...if the non-holders were too stupid, too slow, or too trusting to stop them, then that's on THEM.

What's embedded in your post, Storm: the banana-holding monkeys are liars, greedy, manipulative, and zealous.

A good assessment, but: so what?

Righteous indignation is well and good but foundationless as morality is a fiction with no more 'umph' to it than the one or ones promulgating it can muster up (mustering up 'force', 'power', 'might', the fist, the stick, the knife, the gun, the bomb, etc.).

If Joe the monkey lies, cheats, steals, manipulates to get his bananas AND he has the craftiness to see his lies and theft are not only sanctioned by *'law' but largely applauded by the majority, then that IS the way it IS.

Arguing with Joe (or sitting on his doorstep, crying) will net the occupying monkey exactly what he or she already has: nada.

The lesson: if you want the banana-holder's goods then you will have to take them by way of a superior 'might', or though a more cleverly implemented lesser 'might'.

Now: the moral argument CAN work if understood AS an expression of might...in this case: the moral argument is meant to persuade (as in: cajole, confuse, manipulate, lie, cheat, etc.). The non-holder works to direct other non-holders to form an 'army' so that this 'army' can storm the tree and take the bananas...the manipulator will wax poetic and be oh-so charismatic and lay out a case for fairness and justice and whatever, but the argument is just the method, not the actual drive, which -- again -- is envy.

My point: your distaste is driven by envy...envy for bananas...envy for the quickness, and slyness of the banana-holder.

Your mistake is assuming your 'morality' is 'real' and shared ultimately by everyone...it's not.


As for "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!” no, not by a longshot.









*codified morality...equally absurd...another fiction...only as 'good' as the enforcement.

This is an amoral world and utopia is a (crack)pipe dream.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"No its not."

Yes, it is.

#

"You can't generalize all of OWS as that, not even close."

Yes, I can.

Funny. I agree with almost everything you said on a philosophical level but your application of it is pretty overly cynical. I agree that there is no such thing as economic justice no matter what. Economic status comes from an extremely complicated mix of external and internal factors which are not independent of each other (if you grew up in a hard working family you will most likely be hardworking, etc).

Yet, it makes no sense to state the lack of economic justice and then just assume that OWS is just about the 'much dumber than Quirk sheeple' complaining about an unjust system. You could twist everyone's arguments into making it seem like they're being envious, but that would be just as successful and practical as trying to convince every white person that they are racist.

Many people, including myself (while I don't associate with OWS) believe that a socioeconomic system that heavily favors the rich is bad for the country on multiple levels. I don't disagree with socioeconomic systems favoring the rich, that is reality, but there is a limit to where it hurts the country as a whole. I believe we are at/past that limit and our country is hurting because of the actions of a few (even though I do have an understanding where their actions come from).

That is not envy. That is practicality. Jump off the philosophical train and into reality.

[classicman]

All: irrelevant.

Not at all.

[henry quirk]

In its widest sense: you just described 'living' for any individual of any species, past or present, you care to name.

Those who own and run corporations just do 'it' better (in a very narrow context) than you...*shrug*.

The rest of your post: unfounded assessments (of me)...a tactic used by one who can't dredge up a cogent, opposing, argument.

You, therefore, are dismissed...


To everyone else: From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes this behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?

[henry quirk]

If you're an occupant: of course not!

Looking to justify actions founded in *envy (to him- or her-self, and others) is at least half the work of an occupying monkey. So: the 'reasons' the occupant foists are very relevant (to him or her, as justification).

On the wider scale (beyond the subjective and personal), however: everything is irrelevant.









*Envy, of course, needs no justification...wanting something is not 'good' or 'bad'...it just 'is'.

[classicman]

The only reason you feel her post is irrelevant is because it shows your perspective is incorrect. dismiss this.

[henry quirk]

I'm not cynical: just realistic.

Reality is amoral...implement 'fairness' as you can and like...I see the practicality of it (and the trap!)...I'm not, however, believing 'fairness' is anything other than another model that only works to the extent it's enforced.

As of today: 'fairness' has a less than stellar track record as model (useful fiction, but still fiction).

*shrug*

#

"dismiss this."

Done, and done.

[Stormieweather]

What I get from your posts, HQ, are the following three things:

* That someone (not you and not me), has the power and the money. We can't do anything about it, nor should we want or try to, so we might as well bend over and spread 'em.

* As well as...justice and fairness have no place in business (society?). Lying, cheating, stealing, and any other means of obtaining what you want are perfectly fine. Again, he who has the money has the power and those without need to STFU and get over it.

And lastly,

* Who cares? Everything is irrelevant and pointless anyway.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

I'm not cynical: just realistic.

Reality is amoral...implement 'fairness' as you can and like...I see the practicality of it (and the trap!)...I'm not, however, believing 'fairness' is anything other than another model that only works to the extent it's enforced.

As of today: 'fairness' has a less than stellar track record as model (useful fiction, but still fiction).

*shrug*

Haha, you really do not know how to read do you? I never said anything about fairness.