• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Occupy campers shout down Oakland council members

I don't know, they didn't seem to do much here. Just shout over a group of people wishing to end their right to assemble.
Actually, at first I responded to your flippant comment that they were just shouting and you didn’t see what the problem was. I responded with it is a problem as the article points out that the group is taking measures to become violent.

But this incident has nothing to do with that, and how can they have "resolutions" and blah if they aren't to be organized?
Then you changed your argument to this incident has nothing to do with violence. Whereas I pointed out that in fact was a catalyst to start planning violent acts.

No, the article clearly states that a faction of OWS, not the whole thing, has expressed desires in keeping a violent option.
Then you decided to point out that it was a faction. Whereas I pointed out, this makes your first comment dumb, as you said you don’t see what the problem is. At first you said it was just yelling, and now you are committing a portion of this group becoming violent. As we point out earlier.

The article doesn't have anything to do with them committing violence as they had committed no violent act. They had shouted down government agents and nothing more. It went on to claim that a faction desired to maintain the violent option; not the whole.

This is correcting you people who think that somehow so long as a or a few OWS members do something, that you can then generalize it to the entire group. It's a very stupid and childish way of thought.

Again, your initial point was that there was just shouting, and you didn’t see a problem. Yet again you change direction to now say that this is just group within the group. Then you go onto a generalization diatribe which once again…had nothing to do with your initial diarrhea of the mouth (or in this case keyboard). Then I just pointed out that you aren’t reading the article, what other people write, you are just spouting out nonsense.

YOU need to learn to read



The OWSer's movement (general) will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They (general) can't have that. They (general) want the authorities to bust some heads [this is no way supported by any measurement or data, BTW, it's just assumption and supposition].

More violence on the part of OWS (general) is on it's way.

That's what was written. Sorry if you were blinded by your position on OWS to actually understand the words there. Please try better.

Once again, more of the same. So if you go back to the beginning, you can see, you have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you want to bring your argument now?
 
Actually, at first I responded to your flippant comment that they were just shouting and you didn’t see what the problem was. I responded with it is a problem as the article points out that the group is taking measures to become violent.

And this is your first mistake. The group is NOT taking measures to become violent. A faction of the group wanted to reserve the ability to become violent. The group did not agree to become violent in general.

Then you changed your argument to this incident has nothing to do with violence. Whereas I pointed out that in fact was a catalyst to start planning violent acts.

You have no proof of that, that's assumption. The most you can say is a faction of the group (not the group itself) may wish to engage in violent acts.

Then you decided to point out that it was a faction. Whereas I pointed out, this makes your first comment dumb, as you said you don’t see what the problem is. At first you said it was just yelling, and now you are committing a portion of this group becoming violent. As we point out earlier.

Because that's what happened. They didn't get violent, they overshouted other people. That's it. There was no problem with what they did. Now if they acted violently, then we could say something about actual intent for violence or bring up violence; but they didn't. The OP merely wanted to try to impress that, but that point is separate from the shouting, which was the title of the thread.

Again, your initial point was that there was just shouting, and you didn’t see a problem. Yet again you change direction to now say that this is just group within the group. Then you go onto a generalization diatribe which once again…had nothing to do with your initial diarrhea of the mouth (or in this case keyboard). Then I just pointed out that you aren’t reading the article, what other people write, you are just spouting out nonsense.

I was responding to your posts which brought up the violence aspect. This isn't changing direction, it was addressing your posts. For ****'s sake, can you not remember 5 minutes ago? There was no problem with the shouting, and the shouting wasn't violence. My original statement responded to the actual action given in the article, since OWS on the whole did not act violently. It then went into saying that the group would not vote to remain totally peaceful because a faction of it desired to reserve the capability to act violently. But that's not the whole, that's a part. And that was brought up in argument only after you brought it up. If you didn't want me to address it, you shouldn't have asked about it. But don't sit there and pretend I was "changing course" or whatever other stupid argument you want to make when I was responding to what you said.

Once again, more of the same. So if you go back to the beginning, you can see, you have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you want to bring your argument now?

I know exactly what I am arguing. You said there was no generalization, I pointed out the generalization. Again, response to your posts.
 
It is very tiring to argue with someone who won't acknowledge what they said. If your whole arguement is over group and faction...fine. I am responding your orginal comment. They shouted...you see nothing wrong with that. Fine. The article points out that they/members of the group or whatever you want it to be are making efforts to become violent in the name of OWS. That is the problem.
 
All I know is that I refuse to take part in a protest action that would do any of the following:

1. Inhibit the ability of private citizens to perform legal jobs.
2. Inhibit the day-to-day civic operations of my city, particularly police protection and fire/ambulance services.
3. Cause damage to local businesses, buildings, or structures.
4. Cause physical harm to any person.

No matter what the issue, taking actions that penalize innocent people or destroy property are just antithetical to my goals.
 
Ikari, you seemed to have missed a very important part of the article I quoted: "Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."

This faction that advocates violence may be only a part of this OWS crowd, but they are a part that has a major influence over the whole group in that they caused the general assembly to withdraw their commitment to remain peaceful.

It now remains to be seen just what kind of violence they perpetrate.
 
Ikari, you seemed to have missed a very important part of the article I quoted: "Later in the evening, Occupy Oakland protesters gathered for their general assembly meeting and withdrew a resolution calling for future demonstrations to remain peaceful. A faction of the protest group has advocated for violence as a "diversity in tactics" approach to demonstrating."

This faction that advocates violence may be only a part of this OWS crowd, but they are a part that has a major influence over the whole group in that they caused the general assembly to withdraw their commitment to remain peaceful.

It now remains to be seen just what kind of violence they perpetrate.

How do you know it has "majority influence"? Perhaps there was no reconciling the two groups and since they have no strict form of government, they just dropped it. You made assumption to apply to the group as a whole.
 
How do you know it has "majority influence"? Perhaps there was no reconciling the two groups and since they have no strict form of government, they just dropped it. You made assumption to apply to the group as a whole.

Because their actions (the faction, not the group) caused the general assembly to withdraw their commitment to remain peaceful. That seems influential.
 
Because their actions (the faction, not the group) caused the general assembly to withdraw their commitment to remain peaceful. That seems influential.

In so much that a conclusion could not be reached. But what sort of "government" do they have which passes resolution and such? Do you know or are you making assumption? Even in our government, a minority can sometimes shut down the desires of the majority.
 
do they passively allow their rights to be taken from them

or do they take whatever action is necessary to assert their Constitutional rights, when those in authority attempt to unlawfully deprive them of their lawful rights

do they listen to Malcolm X
or MLK/Gandhi?

Nope they're listening to the voices in their heads while they got them shoved up their aZZes.
 
In so much that a conclusion could not be reached. But what sort of "government" do they have which passes resolution and such? Do you know or are you making assumption? Even in our government, a minority can sometimes shut down the desires of the majority.

Off topic. Again.
 
Off topic. Again.

That's not off topic. You are making an assumption as to what it meant by the faction preventing the whole from passing the resolution. This is very much within your questioning.

I think we're done here. You have demonstrated yourself not intellectually honest enough to have an actual debate.
 
The Topic:

As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.

More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.

Your statement:
That's not off topic. You are making an assumption as to what it meant by the faction preventing the whole from passing the resolution. This is very much within your questioning.

I think we're done here. You have demonstrated yourself not intellectually honest enough to have an actual debate.

Your statement has to do with the structure of their government, not what members of the OWS are debating and their want to commit violent acts.
 
Last edited:
The Topic:



Your statement:


Your statement has to do with the structure of their government, not what members of the OWS are debating and want to commit violent acts.

Because YOU made assumption about their structure. YOU brought it up. I was clarifying that the assumptions you were making to comment on the faction and their interaction with the whole was an assumption since you don't know under what rules and structure they were using.
 
Because YOU made assumption about their structure. YOU brought it up. I was clarifying that the assumptions you were making to comment on the faction and their interaction with the whole was an assumption since you don't know under what rules and structure they were using.

No, my comment said nothing about structure.
Because their actions (the faction, not the group) caused the general assembly to withdraw their commitment to remain peaceful. That seems influential.

General Assembly was used in the article. My point stands.
 
[
QUOTE=Ikari;1059943607]And this is your first mistake. The group is NOT taking measures to become violent. A faction of the group wanted to reserve the ability to become violent. The group did not agree to become violent in general.


If any faction of the OWS group becomes violent then the other members should immediately disassociate themselves, or turn in those who are advocating violence.

There is no way that "some" members of a group can become violent without all members of the group being tainted, or even guilty through conspiracy to commit violence. Individual OWS members are going to have to make up their minds quite soon as to which direction they want to take.
 
Because YOU made assumption about their structure. YOU brought it up. I was clarifying that the assumptions you were making to comment on the faction and their interaction with the whole was an assumption since you don't know under what rules and structure they were using.

Sorry, but I've made no assumptions about their structure. I've read their own words about their structure.

Perhaps you should do the same. Here's a link: Enacting the Impossible (On Consensus Decision Making) | OccupyWallSt.org
 
Sorry, but I've made no assumptions about their structure. I've read their own words about their structure.

Perhaps you should do the same. Here's a link: Enacting the Impossible (On Consensus Decision Making) | OccupyWallSt.org

OK, so this is what I got out of it. Some self appointed committee decided to make a structure under which there could perhaps be a bit more cohesive movement. The idea they came up is rather ignorant of overall government construct and cannot actually operate large scale, but if they keep it isolated enough they can almost make it work. Each ideology gets a "spoke" and decisions are reached not through voting (the article is a bit confusing, I don't know if the people who wrote it themselves know what the hell they're doing with this) but rather through some general assent. "Consensus is not a unanimous voting system; a “block” is not a No vote, but a veto." is the interesting point. In that it further explains "That participants know they can instantly stop a deliberation dead in its tracks if they feel it a matter of principle,..." So what we see is that each block can stop any motion if they feel it is against their principles.

Now some of the group, probably the anarchist block, probably feels that violence is an acceptable form of revolt and wishes to hold onto it. The motion to commit to purely non-violent means comes up, which is ideologically opposed to this blocks philosophy. As such, they can essentially veto it. It looks as if this was the case here. The motion was withdrawn probably because consensus could not be reached because each little part has extreme power in preventing anything coming to light which may be counter to their full philosophy. It does not, then, represent any actual demographic of the overall OWS movement. These aren't elected officials, and there is no basis of proportional voting based on how big any one block may be. Each are represented in committee as equal, which further removes the committee from any actual demographic of the OWS movement.

So what does this mean? It means that we cannot infer ANY demographic information based on the way this self appointed committee operates. Thus the faction, the block, was able to make it so the resolution towards only peaceful means was blocked and that it ultimately then had to be removed from consideration. It doesn't mean that the majority wants violent action, in fact you cannot infer any amount of demographic from the act. The committee is not representative of the whole, it takes all blocks whether they "represent" a large population or small population, and give them equal weight.

So as I said, you cannot determine if this represents the majority of the OWS movement or not and thus cannot be generalized to mean anything about the whole. There is simply no information on the actual demographics since every different ideology is given equal weight and there is no voting on the committee members. So you cannot take this case and say "Look! They [meaning the whole of OWS] want violence!" The most you can say is that there is at least one block within the larger OWS movement which wishes to retain the ability for violent protest.
 
If any faction of the OWS group becomes violent then the other members should immediately disassociate themselves, or turn in those who are advocating violence.

There is no way that "some" members of a group can become violent without all members of the group being tainted, or even guilty through conspiracy to commit violence. Individual OWS members are going to have to make up their minds quite soon as to which direction they want to take.

I think it is certainly possible that part of the group acts violently without indicating the wishes and desires of the whole given the ass backwards make up of their "committee".
 
General Assembly was used in the article. My point stands.

It is influential in terms of the makeup of the committee, but by no means speaks to any larger demographics of the entire group.
 
OK, so this is what I got out of it. Some self appointed committee decided to make a structure under which there could perhaps be a bit more cohesive movement. The idea they came up is rather ignorant of overall government construct and cannot actually operate large scale, but if they keep it isolated enough they can almost make it work. Each ideology gets a "spoke" and decisions are reached not through voting (the article is a bit confusing, I don't know if the people who wrote it themselves know what the hell they're doing with this) but rather through some general assent. "Consensus is not a unanimous voting system; a “block” is not a No vote, but a veto." is the interesting point. In that it further explains "That participants know they can instantly stop a deliberation dead in its tracks if they feel it a matter of principle,..." So what we see is that each block can stop any motion if they feel it is against their principles.

Now some of the group, probably the anarchist block, probably feels that violence is an acceptable form of revolt and wishes to hold onto it. The motion to commit to purely non-violent means comes up, which is ideologically opposed to this blocks philosophy. As such, they can essentially veto it. It looks as if this was the case here. The motion was withdrawn probably because consensus could not be reached because each little part has extreme power in preventing anything coming to light which may be counter to their full philosophy. It does not, then, represent any actual demographic of the overall OWS movement. These aren't elected officials, and there is no basis of proportional voting based on how big any one block may be. Each are represented in committee as equal, which further removes the committee from any actual demographic of the OWS movement.

So what does this mean? It means that we cannot infer ANY demographic information based on the way this self appointed committee operates. Thus the faction, the block, was able to make it so the resolution towards only peaceful means was blocked and that it ultimately then had to be removed from consideration. It doesn't mean that the majority wants violent action, in fact you cannot infer any amount of demographic from the act. The committee is not representative of the whole, it takes all blocks whether they "represent" a large population or small population, and give them equal weight.

So as I said, you cannot determine if this represents the majority of the OWS movement or not and thus cannot be generalized to mean anything about the whole. There is simply no information on the actual demographics since every different ideology is given equal weight and there is no voting on the committee members. So you cannot take this case and say "Look! They [meaning the whole of OWS] want violence!" The most you can say is that there is at least one block within the larger OWS movement which wishes to retain the ability for violent protest.

In all my postings concerning OWS, I've never maintained that ALL of them condone violence. In fact, I've specified many times that those who started and continue to direct OWS are the ones who want heads to be busted. I have identified the majority of the protesters as being "useful idiots".

Regardless, I stand with the the words I offered in my OP:

As I've been saying all along...the OWSer's movement will die out if they take a peaceful protest attitude. They can't have that. They want the authorities to bust some heads.

More violence on the part of OWS is on it's way.


To be clear, when I reference the OWS movement, I'm not talking about the useful idiots...I'm talking about those behind them.
 
To be clear, when I reference the OWS movement, I'm not talking about the useful idiots...I'm talking about those behind them.

While that's a rather vague "clarification", it is not how your original comment is phrased. Your original comment refers to the overall OWS movement; not particular blocks are subgroups thereof.
 
I think it is certainly possible that part of the group acts violently without indicating the wishes and desires of the whole given the ass backwards make up of their "committee".

Then the smarter ones should disassociate themselves from the OWS as quickly as they can. Whatever points they have attempted to make should have been made by now, otherwise it's clear they are putting themselves above the law and the good of their country and fellow citizens.
 
Then the smarter ones should disassociate themselves from the OWS as quickly as they can. Whatever points they have attempted to make should have been made by now, otherwise it's clear they are putting themselves above the law and the good of their country and fellow citizens.

I'm not 100% sure about that. Assembly and protest are exceedingly important and this is just a consequence of freedom. I think we should have to see it and deal with it and understand what it means to be free.
 
While that's a rather vague "clarification", it is not how your original comment is phrased. Your original comment refers to the overall OWS movement; not particular blocks are subgroups thereof.

<shrug>

I'm not going to explain myself every time I make a post about OWS. You are free to read the many posts I've made in these forums in the short amount of time I've been here to understand my position...or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom