Harvey Norman Tax Time!!

[b4zoomlens]

Two days to go. I hope you're looking forward to more $$$ to our Kakistocratic government. I believe Australian's love overregulation. Enjoy. x

Thank these fellas.

[countessalmirena]

It's a good point, brerrabbit. Not wanting money doesn't really make sense; our current society doesn't use the bartering system as in days of old, so how can we function without money? Money is not some abstract number; it's qualitatively our ability to obtain what we need in order to survive, as well as what we want (above and beyond the mere level of survival).

I don't know anyone who can live in any society without any ability to pay for things - be the currency furs, a promise to work, a few goats, a flock of sheep, a horse, etc. Coins / dollar bills / gold - they only represent the ability to trade.

ῥίζα γὰρ πάντων τῶν κακῶν ἐστιν ἡ φιλαργυρία

φιλαργυρία (love of money - rendered in Latin as cupiditas, expressed in English as cupidity, desire to be/become rich) is referring back to what's been discussed in sentence preceding it - summarising it or restating it.

Hence, it's not wealth itself which is problematic or which leads to falling into destructive and foolish desires; it's the greed for or love for money. A poor person is just as capable of φιλαργυρία as a wealthy one. Envy of the rich might well in many cases fall into the same class.

Of course, there's evidence that people who handle large amounts of money tend to become less empathetic and less concerned with the opinions of other people. Lacking in those studies, though, is the background and preexisting ethics of the people in the studies. That could - well, would - skew the results, if the people exposed to money were not particularly caring individuals or were predisposed to selfish behaviour before money was brought into the equation.

I believe that people who are extremely wealthy will have a harder time concerning themselves with the plight of people who are poor. That doesn't mean it's ineluctible and I'd be a fool if I branded all billionaires as uncaring greedy monsters.

[marwi5023]

Lecture me all you want. Your wasting your time. I was born immune to thought control whether administered verbally or physically.

I'll kudo whomever I want, especially if it's going to upset the clique.

[digital*ghost]

Thought control... that's an interesting one.

What is it to suggest that you cite sources and / or research the statements you've made?

[marwi5023]

The big difference between the three of you lecturers here and myself is that at no point have I lectured anyone on how they should live and think but some how you have the authority to tell me how I should live and think.
I made a statement based on my life experience.
Your life experiences is different. I'm pretty sure that you aren't a personal friend of Dick Smith so you probably only know him in exactly the same way I do and he does appear to be a nice bloke.
I'd love to see the list of nice billionaires.
Does it have Malcolm and Gina? Clive? Rupert?

Oh, and anyone else want to join in?

There's a few of the clique missing. You don't have me fully circled.

Wish I was a stupid fool
That listened to the bullies at school
And my my life as they wanted
My own thoughts and desires stunted
Because fitting in you see
Is better than being what you want to be
Because ultimately individuality is despised by those too weak and pathetic to stand out from the crowd and live life unconstrained by the tut tuting of those around them

So stop standing on my neck!

[digital*ghost]

---

@marwi5023 wrote:
The big difference between the three of you lecturers here and myself is that at no point have I lectured anyone on how they should live and think but some how you have the authority to tell me how I should live and think.

---

Challenging what you think does not = telling you what to think.

You made a blanket statement as though it was a fact that applied to every rich person that came into wealth in any way other than birth. One could also say since you don't know every single rich person personally, you have no basis whatsoever to make that claim, and the claim itself is easily debateable - debate is not lecture. 

As for wanting to see a list of "nice billionaires", if you're capable of defining nice, you're capable of researching it in a matter of seconds, since you clearly have access to the internet and can find out information beyond your own life experience. 

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

---

@marwi5023 wrote:
Lecture me all you want. Your wasting your time. I was born immune to thought control whether administered verbally or physically.

I'll kudo whomever I want, especially if it's going to upset the clique.

---

when you post something on a forum others can post dissenting views in reply.  I don't see that as lecturing if done in a respectful way.

As for the kudo bit . . . . . I will stand up to those who are offensive on these boards . . . . . and that now removed post that was offensive and disrespectful was given a kudo by you . . . . . and I called you out on that and I would do it again.

Yes, we have had different life experiences.  Mine taught me to be respectful of others . . . . and your admission that you would kudo a post just to upset others tells me a little more about you.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

**posted in error. Viewing boards from a mobile**

[c_mount]

Your ignorance?

[countessalmirena]

---

@c_mount wrote:
Your ignorance?

---

I don't perceive the context of this statement.

In fact, I am really at a loss to see how accusing digital*ghost of ignorance could have any place in an informative and lively discussion, let alone represent a comment based on fact. I'm sure digital*ghost would be the first to admit not possessing all the world's knowledge and the comprehension of all unfathomable secrets - but when it comes to how to manage on eBay (and being a well-informed person even in a general sense), there aren't many people who can offer as much as digital*ghost.

My best assumption about the reason for your post is that you are experiencing a great internal ball of anger and tension, and that you want to unleash that on these boards by posting groundless comments of a negative nature. I'm sorry that you are in that emotional, spiritual or mental place, and I hope that things improve for you.

[digital*ghost]

---

@countessalmirena wrote:

---

@c_mount wrote:
Your ignorance?

---

I don't perceive the context of this statement.

---

I believe I do, or I will make my best attempt at it, anyway - mounty has answered my question with a question.

In the post they responded to, I asked another poster (marwi5023 - who was posting statements but not supporting said stamements with anything at all), what it's called when they post something like that, in the face of rational argument that contests their statements being called "thought control".

I think c_mount was having a wild stab in the dark (hence the ?) by suggesting it was my ignorance that leads to wanting people to either research their assumptions before making bold, generalised statements, or support the statements they make with credible sources / evidence. 

I could be wrong, of course, and I'm sure they'll tell me if I am lol, but if not - better luck to them next time, I guess.