Poor People's Campaign Readies Nationwide Mobilization

[sayak83]

You might want to Google the Bill of Rights. The first and foremost "right" of an American is freedom FROM the government. The government does not give you these rights, they are yours just for breathing. But these rights are not free, you have to be willing to fight to protect them. Is it the majority view? You bet your life it is. You're happy where you are, that's fine, but any time you want a taste of freedom just drop on by; we'll leave the light on for you.

I was in US for 10 years. Just returned back to India. Did not like US idea of government at all. Research was fine though.
We are free enough, thank you. The government is there to serve us, provide us with the goods that I mentioned in an efficient manner. We vote for or against various parties based on how good they were delivering these goods. We may be poor, but we are growing well and political participation is very high throughout the country. We are the Masters of our government and we have no reason to fear it.

 

[BSM1]

I was in US for 10 years. Just returned back to India. Did not like US idea of government at all. Research was fine though.
We are free enough, thank you. The government is there to serve us, provide us with the goods that I mentioned in an efficient manner. We vote for or against various parties based on how good they were delivering these goods. We may be poor, but we are growing well and political participation is very high throughout the country. We are the Masters of our government and we have no reason to fear it.

Good for you; I guess we can convince ourselves of just about anything.

 

[sayak83]

Good for you; I guess we can convince ourselves of just about anything.

Same applies to you I guess.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

'Poor People's Campaign' readies nationwide mobilization









FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES - Poor People's Campaign

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

1. 
   1. We are rooted in a moral analysis based on our deepest religious and constitutional values that demand justice for all. Moral revival is necessary to save the heart and soul of our democracy.

1. 
   2. We are committed to lifting up and deepening the leadership of those most affected by systemic racism, poverty, the war economy, and ecological devastation and to building unity across lines of division.

1. 
   3. We believe in the dismantling of unjust criminalization systems that exploit poor communities and communities of color and the transformation of the “War Economy” into a “Peace Economy” that values all humanity.

1. 
   4. We believe that equal protection under the law is non-negotiable.

1. 
   5. We believe that people should not live in or die from poverty in the richest nation ever to exist. Blaming the poor and claiming that the United States does not have an abundance of resources to overcome poverty are false narratives used to perpetuate economic exploitation, exclusion, and deep inequality.

1. 
   6. We recognize the centrality of systemic racism in maintaining economic oppression must be named, detailed and exposed empirically, morally and spiritually. Poverty and economic inequality cannot be understood apart from a society built on white supremacy.

1. 
   7. We aim to shift the distorted moral narrative often promoted by religious extremists in the nation from personal issues like prayer in school, abortion, sexuality, gun rights, property rights to systemic injustices like how our society treats the poor, those on the margins, the least of these, women, children, workers, immigrants and the sick; equality and representation under the law; and the desire for peace, love and harmony within and among nations.

1. 
   8. We will build up the power of people and state-based movements to serve as a vehicle for a powerful moral movement in the country and to transform the political, economic and moral structures of our society.

1. 
   9. We recognize the need to organize at the state and local level—many of the most regressive policies are being passed at the state level, and these policies will have long and lasting effect, past even executive orders. The movement is not from above but below.

1. 
   10. We will do our work in a non-partisan way—no elected officials or candidates get the stage or serve on the State Organizing Committee of the Campaign. This is not about left and right, Democrat or Republican but about right and wrong.

1. 
   11. We uphold the need to do a season of sustained nonviolent civil disobedience as a way to break through the tweets and shift the moral narrative. We are demonstrating the power of people coming together across issues and geography and putting our bodies on the line to the issues that are affecting us all.

1. 
   12. The Campaign and all its Participants and Endorsers embrace nonviolence. Violent tactics or actions will not be tolerated.

A good, righteous cause to get behind, for both religious and non-religious alike. I especially like #10: "This is not about left and right, Democrat or Republican but about right and wrong."

The poor and the lower classes will not be ignored or swept aside. What do you think?

But...but... that's SOCIALISM! !

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Same applies to you I guess.

No... American LMC Conservatives are different because reasons!

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Hell, I'm only comfortably well off and I agree with what you have said on the topic. This toxic "eat the rich piggies" has to end. Folks are not poor because of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, et al. They are poor because, for whatever reason, they do not have the necessary skill set to make it in our society. Address that shortfall and you will shrink the pool of poor people. If anything, the poor have to be inspired to raise themselves out of their own situation.

Assuming there is an accessible, practical path out of their situation, sure.

 

[sayak83]

Good for you; I guess we can convince ourselves of just about anything.

Well, we Indians do have a consensus on this. We have 84% satisfaction with our government. What the number in US again? Maybe you got your understanding of the role of the state wrong .

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, we Indians do have a consensus on this. We have 84% satisfaction with our government. What the number in US again? Maybe you got your understanding of the role of the state wrong .

Clearly, there's something wrong with a people who are so satisfied with their government.
Learn from us!

 

[sayak83]

Clearly, there's something wrong with a people who are so satisfied with their government.
Learn from us!

Nah. Only two parties is a horrible way to go about democracy. In India we have 7 national parties and 50 regional parties. Whatever your view, there is a podium for you and an opportunity to win seats in local, state or national parliaments.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah. Only two parties is a horrible way to go about democracy. In India we have 7 national parties and 50 regional parties. Whatever your view, there is a podium for you and an opportunity to win seats in local, state or national parliaments.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_India

I could live with that.
And you have elephants.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sure it is an informal fallacy that is so because if you were to draw out the argument you would find that it affirms the consequent.

First, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy, not an informal one.

If all people can escape poverty, then I can escape poverty.
I escaped poverty.
Therefore all people can escape poverty.

I didn't see anyone propose that sort of nonsense.

I [achieved x] via [method]
The opportunities that allowed [method] are similar to those available to [others]
[others] can [achieve x]

The truth or falsity of the conclusion isn't altered by attacking the second premise, and it is only a generalization fallacy if, in fact, you cannot generalize from the individual experience to the larger population.

No you commit a fallacy even if it is a proper authority.

No, you don't. Every source* (ha, authorities) notes that citing recognized relevant authority on a subject is proper, if weak. People aren't expected to have the necessary knowledge base for every area of knowledge, and mildly trusting experts in their field isn't a logical fallacy.

*
Appeal to Authority "Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate"
Argument from authority - Wikipedia "By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the "Fallacy of appealing to authority," even while noting that "this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious"

To further my original point, this entire discussion would be moot if people would simply point out where they think a particular line of reasoning is flawed instead of just declaring a logical fallacy. Instead of being on point, we have to have an instructional discussion on fallacies.

 

[BSM1]

I was in US for 10 years. Just returned back to India. Did not like US idea of government at all. Research was fine though.
We are free enough, thank you. The government is there to serve us, provide us with the goods that I mentioned in an efficient manner. We vote for or against various parties based on how good they were delivering these goods. We may be poor, but we are growing well and political participation is very high throughout the country. We are the Masters of our government and we have no reason to fear it.

No offense, but when I see the pictures of the miserable living conditions that the poor endure in your great cities, the abject poverty and hopelessness of the rural poor, the nightmare that is passed off as public transportation, and the religious ignorance that allows for cows to roam freely while children starve, it makes me think that if this is how your government provides for it's citizens then I'll stay where I am--thank you very much.

 

[sayak83]

No offense, but when I see the pictures of the miserable living conditions that the poor endure in your great cities, the abject poverty and hopelessness of the rural poor, the nightmare that is passed off as public transportation, and the religious ignorance that allows for cows to roam freely while children starve, it makes me think that if this is how your government provides for it's citizens then I'll stay where I am--thank you very much.

To each his own. We were much worse 20 years ago. Every year it gets better. Credit to the way the democracy and the government is conceived by our founders like Gandhi, Ambedkar, Nehru etc.

And there is nothing to be offended about.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Shouldn't this be on the "Communism" DIR?

You stole my post!

 

[Sha'irullah]

Blacks don't hold down jobs the same way whites don't like policemen. Blacks in the ghettos where I come from are lazy, rude and incapable of keeping anything worthwhile to enjoy. Any race that gets social support from a vague body like federal government is set for failure. And race is the issue nobody talks about. There is no systematic racism and its dead and in the dust. Nobody had given any proof in decades of this and I'm still waiting while I laugh my way to the bank and inform my white bankers how black I am.

Anybody who thinks they are helping us blacks with this its out of their minds.

 

[Nakosis]

If education, health and welfare are key considerations for all, what is your opinion about Finlands models in these areas, and to what extent do you see government dominance of them as problematic?

If they could sustain it. Seems they are running into problems with it though. I liked the Australian model. They provided health, welfare and education, and had a balanced budget when I lived there. Unfortunately they are also running into problems.

It seems to work for a while but the burden on the taxpayer seem to increase beyond their capacity to support such systems.

Ideally these programs should be self sustaining. Health, education, welfare should provide a competent workforce. Should increase economic revenue. While it seems to work for a while, especially in a small country like Finland it seems to eventually cause a problem of solvency for countries.

 

[Curious George]

First, affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy, not an informal one.


I didn't see anyone propose that sort of nonsense.

I [achieved x] via [method]
The opportunities that allowed [method] are similar to those available to [others]
[others] can [achieve x]

And "I didn't see anyone propose that sort of nonsense."

What I saw was a point that was supposed to entail the conclusion therefore they can.

It is precisely what I wrote without the first if then statement from which it derives.

The truth or falsity of the conclusion isn't altered by attacking the second premise,
and it is only a generalization fallacy if, in fact, you cannot generalize from the individual experience to the larger population.

No it is just a straight-up non sequitur the way you wrote it. Fallacious simply because the conclusion does not flow from the premises.

No, you don't. Every source* (ha, authorities) notes that citing recognized relevant authority on a subject is proper, if weak. People aren't expected to have the necessary knowledge base for every area of knowledge, and mildly trusting experts in their field isn't a logical fallacy.

*
Appeal to Authority "Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate"
Argument from authority - Wikipedia "By the mid-twentieth century, it was common for logic textbooks to refer to the "Fallacy of appealing to authority," even while noting that "this method of argument is not always strictly fallacious"

Yes you do...and your appeal to authority here is fallacious. If you can supplement your appeal to authority with one that actually fills the gap with a logical argument, then it would not be fallacious but you would still be guilty of committing the appeal to authority fallacy.

To further my original point, this entire discussion would be moot if people would simply point out where they think a particular line of reasoning is flawed instead of just declaring a logical fallacy. Instead of being on point, we have to have an instructional discussion on fallacies.

Oh it isn't moot, hopefully you can now see where it was flawed.

 

[Nakosis]

No. Meaning that I have already decided it doesn't always work. Not every story has a happy ending. And sometimes people don't get their just deserts.

IMO, you can't decide or judge this for others.

Personally I don't think there's ever been a time if I really believed I could do something I wasn't able to. There's been a few time I didn't believe something was possible for me to do but got pushed into finding a solution. What was stopping me was my own doubt.

Of course I don't know your situation or your life. So I can't judge for you. I can only rely on my own experience with it.

 

[Nakosis]

That is why citizens have to organize and be politically proactive so that governments survival is strongly coupled with how they serve the citizens interest. Political passivity makes extractive regressive states inevitable.

Ultimately I think people care about wealth and power. If you don't have it, you want it. If you do you don't want to share.

The only point of an advocacy group would be to accumulate enough of both to make a difference. Once they achieve it, they just become another political player looking out for their own interests.

 

[Curious George]

IMO, you can't decide or judge this for others.

Personally I don't think there's ever been a time if I really believed I could do something I wasn't able to. There's been a few time I didn't believe something was possible for me to do but got pushed into finding a solution. What was stopping me was my own doubt.

Of course I don't know your situation or your life. So I can't judge for you. I can only rely on my own experience with it.

I think that is great that you have had that experience. You should be aware that others are not all like you and have different circumstances. But please tell me you hear how patronizing it is to say "the reason you are suffering is because you don't believe strong enough." And, "the reason you failed at that task was because you did believe you would succeed at that task." Can you at least hear it?