Critiques of Other Sites/Sources

In this post, I will refute a sources that claim the Occupy movement is pointless because supporters of the movement do not know what they are talking about.

Read the full article here.


The first article, "Occupy Wall Street: An Utterly Pointless, Meaningless, Futile Exercise" from the International Business Times the author, Palash R. Ghosh claims that the Occupy Movement is a pointless and the supports, specifically the celebrity supporter Susan Sarandon, have not the credentials to essentially support the Occupy Movement. In addition, Ghosh claims that is apart of the wealthiest 1 percent and it does not make sense that she supports such movement and even if she some how had the credentials she could not be a loyal supporter.

I must respectfully disagree with Ghosh. First, I must refute this claim that since she is apart of the wealthiest percent, she cannot be a support or a loyal supporter. Such claim is extremely judgmental and does not have sound reasoning. If Gosh honestly believes this claim, then he must agree to the following claim as well, Abraham Lincoln was not a true support or advocate of abolishing slavery because he himself was not Black and on that matter, Anyone who is not black in the United States could not honestly be against the slavery of Blacks. This argument makes no sense and is obviously flaw. Furthermore, Ghosh claims that she does not have the background to be a supporter of such movement because she's an actress and her husband is also not involved with the economic system. This claim again is flawed. Ghosh essentially states one cannot be against an issues of which one does not hold “credentials” or “experience” in. Ghosh makes an additional error in generalizing one supporter with all supporters. Let's say that even if Ghosh flawed arguements was sound, he would only have evidence on one single person, not all the supporters. Ghosh, is wrong to use one supporter and generalize it with the thousands of supporters of the Occupy movement. Once again, if Ghosh actually believed in this connection then he must also agree with the following statement, Tina, a female failed her first time taking the drivers license test but passed the second time. Therefore, all females must fail their first test but past the second one. As one can clearly see, the reasoning of the argument is completely flawed and therefore it cannot be valid.