OCCUPY WALL STREET

[Corkey]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10...ng-unemployed/

From the horses ass mouth himself

[SoNotHer]

Well, at least he didn't tell the unemployed to "eat cake."

Or did he?

Originally Posted by Corkey

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/10...ng-unemployed/

From the horses ass mouth himself

[Corkey]

I think it was implied. Where a frenchman when you need one?
Wait Maddow made it official with the Marie Antoinette reference.

[SoNotHer]

Did she? Do you have that link as well?

Originally Posted by Corkey

I think it was implied. Where a frenchman when you need one?
Wait Maddow made it official with the Marie Antoinette reference.

[Corkey]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Did she? Do you have that link as well?

We're in the east, she's on at 9 pm on MSNBC, otherwise one would have to wait til tomorrow.

[SoNotHer]

OK. I actually heard an announcement about the Chicago protests on the classical radio station I listened to this morning. They quoted an organizer who said that they are asking for a permit for an even larger area to protest. They're expecting thousands.

Originally Posted by Corkey

We're in the east, she's on at 9 pm on MSNBC, otherwise one would have to wait til tomorrow.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by SoNotHer

Well, at least he didn't tell the unemployed to "eat cake."

Or did he?

And they can have ketchup for a vegetable.

[SoNotHer]

That was an interesting WP article, Miss Tick. The only television I watch (or am subjected to) is at the gym. But I actually would be interested in that series entitled "Revenge." I had not heard the term "prosperity gospel" before.

What a time we live in.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

And they can have ketchup for a vegetable.

[Cin]

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

[Novelafemme]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

Oh Hell YA!!

[SoNotHer]

Oh well said. Are you writing about this stuff in a blog or leading a group? If not, you should be.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

[SoNotHer]

And don't forget the applause Rick Perry got for standing up for the death penalty, the final statement on race, poverty and the economic rock tumbler otherwise known as the "free market."

Interesting choice the one percent has made in making a growing angry majority its enemy.

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

[CherylNYC]

I marched with my Union today here in NYC. It was huge and exciting. All of us were talking about how we hadn't felt this kind of populist energy in a looong time.

[SoNotHer]

Awesome! Just read that the unions are supporting a third week of protests.

Originally Posted by CherylNYC

I marched with my Union today here in NYC. It was huge and exciting. All of us were talking about how we hadn't felt this kind of populist energy in a looong time.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

You know when i read this crap about unemployment being the fault of the unemployed and I hear about people clapping and cheering at the possible death of an uninsured person or booing a gay soldier in Iraq I start to think it isn't just Wall Street we need to occupy. We need to occupy a moral high ground. Our nation's moral compass has lost the ability to find true north. We need a national conscience. We need to take back our humanity.

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

[SoNotHer]

I understand what you saying, and I am not a subscriber to an organized religion, nor do I often if ever use the term "morality" for some of the reasons you cite. I like logic very much, and whether or not I was an educator, I would believe profoundly in the power of education. But I think Miss Tick's points are well taken, and I wonder if we can simply agree to the term ethics or perhaps a phrase like "equality through justice" or "equality, justice, harmony" when we call for a different code of conduct.

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt....

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

hmn. That in it's self is an code of ethics. which, is: a form of decided morality. Deciding not to be judgemental is a moral decision, based on what you (general) hold to be the most important attributes to live by, which you (Ender) listed for yourself and wish others to adopt....

I don't disagree with what you wish to come about, but one's morals could dictate non-judgement without being smug or dogmatic.

If we put the destruction of homo sapiens sapiens on one side of the scale and the continued existence of that species on the other side of the scale, then yes we can certainly call it a code of ethics. I also see it as efficiency. If we want the species to continue in such a way that there is steady technological/scientific and economic progress, then we also have to realise that social progress must come with it, for oppression does not attain any of these things in an efficient way for the long run. History has told us this over and over again.

In that case, there is really a distinction to be made between this code of ethics which, one could argue, comes down to efficiency, and the traditional definitions of morality which places morality/the act of being moral itself as the objective. We should also note that there is a distinct way in which traditional morality holds anything which opposes it, and that's what I was getting at in the last post.

Traditionally (when we consider the moral systems of the late Romans or the Christians, though particularly of the Christians), when one is a "moral being" one then has a "moral/divine/whatever" right to accuse a supposedly "immoral" being of being just that. This accomplishes absolutely nothing and becomes a pointless argument of "no you!" ad nauseum. By calling for greater "morality" within society, we are only calling for another man-made system that should not be questioned. We should be doing precisely the opposite, and asking society to actually think and analyze why they think the Occupy Wall Street movement is made up of "horrid commies omg," and why they refuse to do anything when the government and government-affiliated bankers continue to abuse the common person. Ask them to think outside what they consider "moral" and "immoral." Instead of asking a person to follow a "moral compass," it demands that people think for themselves.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Morality is the last thing needed. "Morality" (an abstract concept at best, and subjective as hell) is part of what created a situation where people boo gay soldiers and cheer the death or misfortunes of the poor and the homeless. We need a little less "morality" and a little more logic and education. Because when it comes down to it there's no fact-based logic to hating someone based on their sexual orientation. No logic in leaving people to die, to be homeless, to starve. All these things are bad for any nation's economy in the long run, and people are finding that out the hard way. If you turn it into a battle of morals instead of turning it into a chance to educate, then you're just fighting the same "no we're right!" "no, we're right!" battle that the ruling class and the common people have been fighting since the dawn of time.

I don’t believe it is necessary to define logic alone as the measure by which we decide what is right or what is wrong. Morality or should I say the word morality has gotten a bad rap. I think it’s because it has always been found hanging around religion and religious people. We need to separate human morality from religious morality. And right quick too. We are faced with moral dilemmas and choices every day. I think we need to learn to make morally right choices based on equity for all. First do no harm works well when embarking on an ethical journey.
.
Personally I believe the last thing we need to continue to do is to leave morality in the hands of organized religion. To have the right wing religious fanatics, regardless of their geographic or geopolitical position, continue to define morality for human beings is, to me, the last thing we need.

You know it is quite astonishing to discover how we almost always conflate morality with the flawed ethics found at the core of organized religions.

Religious morality is problematic because the principles developed by the various organized religions were initially meant to apply to a particular group in order to increase cohesion and unity of said group while at the same time emphasizing the differences of other groups. This type of morality is fundamentally flawed. The potential is a hostile moral system. Not to mention a moral code that was in no way meant to be universal. For example when examining ‘holy books’ you quickly discover that do not kill really means don’t kill your own. Non believers, infidels, pagans and other various enemies are fair game. This quirky philosophy on murder has been passed down in one way or another through religious history and is ingrained in our collective religious psyche. Perhaps this might explain why some deeply religious people have no qualms with the death penalty or with killing their enemies (which in some cases can loosely be defined as those who believe differently.)

Another problem with religious morality is the distinction it makes between private morality and public morality. Leaders and governments answer to the beat of a different morality drum. Living with this kind of duplicity embedded in one’s morality means there is no dissidence for the moral when as leaders they order the deaths of thousands upon thousands of men, women and children while still understanding themselves to be deeply religiously moral. George W. Bush comes to mind as an example, but there are many, many more. This kind of morality no longer works for human beings facing global crises. It’s a new world where survival will hinge on our ability to develop global economic, political and cultural cooperation.

One excruciatingly immoral flaw in religious morality is the eternal hell threat. This need to intimidate believers and demonize non-believers with eternal damnation not only condemns without mercy or appeal 70% of humankind depending on which religious side you stand but it encourages persecution, religious wars and genocide. This ideology of hell and the hatred it encourages against “the other” is responsible for countless deaths.

A huge flaw of religion-based morality comes from the religious need to separate the human body from the mind. Negative, or dare I say, bad religious morality concerning the human body and what can or can’t be done with it by the human inhabiting it directly derives from this bizarre desire to see the body separate from the mind.

To me a moral code, to be judged useful, must treat others with dignity and respect. A moral code that reduces the quality of people’s life is no moral code at all.

The time has come for those who clearly revere and respect humanity, for those who see the need for equity and justice, for those who understand the dignity inherent in all life to take back the use of the term morality. We must overcome our initial revulsion to the term moral. Our reluctance to use the words moral and morality is understandable. There has been a bad taste left in our mouths because of what passes for moral behavior and what is done to other human beings in the name of morality by supposedly god fearing morally righteous people. But religious morality has little to do with our moral belief systems. What is acceptable moral behavior CLEARLY needs to be defined. We should not turn away from this task because of bitter experience with religious morality. For most of us who seek equity and justice for all, I would imagine our beliefs and choices are already inherently moral as well as deeply humane. Why not own the language? Why not take back morality from those whose actions are anything but moral. Why should they own this word that clearly does not fit them.

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

To me a moral code, to be judged useful, must treat others with dignity and respect. A moral code that reduces the quality of people’s life is no moral code at all.

The time has come for those who clearly revere and respect humanity, for those who see the need for equity and justice, for those who understand the dignity inherent in all life to take back the use of the term morality. We must overcome our initial revulsion to the term moral. Our reluctance to use the words moral and morality is understandable. There has been a bad taste left in our mouths because of what passes for moral behavior and what is done to other human beings in the name of morality by supposedly god fearing morally righteous people.

Except that if we're going to define a moral code as treating others with dignity and respect, then we need to define "dignity" and "respect." We also need to realise that there are people in this world who believe (from a moral perspective, at that) that treating certain groups equally is actually an afront to the "dignity" and "respect" of others. For example, allowing same-sex marriage, to some, is an afront to the "dignity" and "respect" of the "heterosexual institution of marriage." They believe that the "moral health" of a nation/people is at risk with allowing that form of equality, and, in fact, to them it is not equality at all. How can we sit there and call them "immoral"? How can we make a sound argument against them, morally? According to whom? To ourselves, of course. But we are almost always moral beings in our own eyes.

It's the same for everyone. Anders Breivik thought himself a rather moral chap. He even predicted that society would deem him monstrous and immoral. But he held the "moral high ground." He was a "martyr." The thing is, people like Breivik do not need to be incarcerated to the maximum because of "morality," but because they are a danger to the progress of society which they inhabit. I would like to quickly add, because when I speak like this people tend to think I'm a "monster" myself or something, that I am not reducing the severity of acts like Breivik's. When I see such things occur there are two "parts" of me at play. The one part, which is enraged that some 70 Norwegian youths had their lives taken because of some christian nutjob. The second part of me asks myself why I am outraged. It then asks why these acts should be condemned in society. Do they have a use? What would happen if we did not incarcerate murderers? What would happen when people live in a society where their family and friends (or themselves) are murdered without society persecuting such actions? It would leave us all feeling extremely unsafe, and violence in society would escalate to the "eye for an eye" mentality present in past ages. In such an atmosphere, modern progress cannot occur. It would cause society to regress, remain static or, at best, progress very slowly (with half a millennium between technological revolutions once more).

Now back to the debate

So what is "dignity" and what is "respect," and to whom should it apply? I ask this because there do need to be restrictions placed on those who would discriminate against others in society. They will be treated in a way that is not with "dignity" and "respect" by their own assertions.

And how do we define to "revere and respect humanity." What is "justice"? Justice to whom? Who defines it? The Westboro Church, for example, seems to think that it's out to save humanity from immorality and disrespect brought upon it by "the Gay Agenda (TM)." The politicians who toy with our futures every single day claim to be doing it to help humanity...and yet many of their nations' citizens live in squalor. Politicians claim to bomb other nations all the time out of "moral justification." It has nothing to do with what they claim is "respect for humanity," but their own greed.

You write "supposedly god-fearing morally righteous people." How do you know that they are not? If morality is a subjective/abstract concept, then how can they be "supposedly" god-fearing morally righteous people? These words are completely based on one's own discoursive vocabulary. If one were to take the bible word for word, these types would actually show themselves as pretty "good" christians, if a "good" christian is defined by how well they follow the bible.

There are more efficient and better defensible ways to assure that the common person is treated as an equal in a society run by bankers and politicians. I still maintain that morality is not the way to attain that goal, even though one's first reaction is to think that it is a matter of morality. If it came down to my own ethics, then yes I would feel that these people who oppress need to adopt a similar idea of equality and basic respect as myself. But it's very difficult to make any change or make an air-tight argument using a term that is subjectively defined. And I still maintain that if we want long term progress for society, we need to step away from immutable ideologies/morality, and take a step forward into a more analytical age where our "beliefs" are constantly mutating.