Quote:
Originally Posted by OccultHawk
Great thread and I will indulge.
I’m going to start with a friendly criticism
That reminds of in your WWII thread where you just assume that everyone should accept that violence and tribalism and warfare is indelibly hardwired into our DNA.
When I taught US History the textbook issued to my students stated southern plantation owners needed slaves. One of the key things I wanted to teach them was how to identify loaded language that serves to justify something that’s unjustifiable. I started the lesson simply by having the students distinguish wants from needs. I came up with a little theatrical thing where I’d take one of the biggest kids in the class and have him stand next to me and say if this kid wraps his fingers around my neck and chokes me I will NEED air. Then I would ask them why do you think this book says needed instead of wanted.
|
Nitpick all you want, man. Need, want: what's the difference really here? Someone has always been seen as having to be the one to do the work. Look at
The Time Machine: nobody did anything, they were all equal(ly lazy) and what happened? Big monsters from underground yummed them up. Someone has to do the work, so man as a race NEEDED someone to do that. Of course they also wanted it, but if the work wasn't done nobody could live in luxury, so I think need works well here. I don't mean to condone it, but it's the same as saying man has an innate need for conflict: he does. If everyone was ultra-peaceful you can bet it would only be a while before someone punched someone. We're hard-coded to survive, and you survive by being the strongest/smartest/fittest/biggest *******. That's just how it is.
Anyway, your little criticism aside, what's your view on the actual subject? It's all semantics, what you're saying there, but it's beside the point. Give us your opinion on poverty; I bet it'll be pretty revolutionary and shocking, something along the lines of "if we killed all the rich ...."
Don't disappoint me, now.