Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

garret wrote:

Cairnius wrote: If you're someone who doesn't like the idea of paying more taxes, chances are you're rich and boo-hoo, if you don't like it move somewhere else...oh, what's that? Even if you pay higher taxes you're still living in the most enviable nation on the planet?

Yes because a teacher that make 35000 a year definatly wants more taxes on his income with about 1000 being take of already.
SHUT THE feth UP.

Two things.

One: Better to pay a little more taxes than have your insurance drop you to save a buck and lose all your money in one big go to an idiologic fever. Then you get out of the hospital to find you don't have money to pay for your car, your house or to make it to work tomorrow.

Two: Your fault for becoming a teacher. There are tons of them and they are paid poorly.

2) That explains a great deal. I detest Heinlein.

3) So, basically, people cooperate if they find themselves beset by a set of conditions which spur cooperation. There is no semblance of necessity in your argument.

4) Putting aside the fact that I completely disagree with your point about identity and communication: It seems to me you're falling into the standard trap of romancing history by simply removing all the negative components strict cooperation from your view of human nature.

5) I take it you've never studied the rhetoric of the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany, or the Crusades, or the initial Muslim conquest.

6) I only used the word 'warfare' once in the previous post. And that was in the context of 'class warfare', which was itself chosen so as to refer directly to your post. For someone so bent on not reading intent you seem awfully keen to do so.

7) So you do. However, you're ignoring the fact that othering shows every sign of being a natural component of the human experience as defined by experiential limitations. The statement 'if they had a communal identity' is useless if one does not address the driving force behind the lack of such a communal identity. Especially if you wish to further the notion that community as the natural state of man.

8) That isn't the argument I made, but don't let that stop you from believing otherwise.

9) No, I fully understand your point about class as the chief determiner with respect to one's political views. I simply disagree with it. People don't simply exercise political will as an extension of self-interest, but frequently as a manifestation of some ideological notion.

10) They are absolutely relevant. Unless you're going to attempt to define class as anyone with characteristic "X". In which case you're simply furthering an inversion of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.