Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

Don't let any students near the straw man, it'll be ablaze in seconds.

They are being asked to pay 18k for an education of that will - in most cases - see them in better / higher paid jobs, this is of course option, no one is making higher education / fee paying mandatory.

This sum will be paid back when and if the graduates can afford to do so, not immediately, perhaps not for many years, in some case never, and when or if they do cross the threshold of earnings the repayments will in no way be demanded in full, but rather paid off over time in smaller instalments.

I am not sure you can compare a hypothetical imposition (and presumably non-optional) charge of 18k with an optional and highly beneficial college education with fees being paid back over a prolonged period with various safeguards in place for those who are unable to pay it back - (earnings related thresholds and the outright cancellation of the debt after a set time and so on).

I agree that the non-optional immediate imposition of a 18k tax of some kind that needs to be paid by everyone and in one go wouldn't go down very well, but I can't see how it compares that well - as an example of how troubling this is for many students - to tuition fees.

Whoa, this gost lost in the ether.

You can compare a hypothetical imposition with an 18k charge to students. They are both impositions. A student is, by definition, a student. This is one of the terms of the argument I am making. Simply saying "they don't have to go to school" does not work, as you have discounted the entire group. And it is obvious that the protestors label themselves students and are taking it as an imposition.

That is to say, my argument is this:

Compare A when this happens to B when this happens (where "this happens" = the imposition of a fee which is identical).

You're response seems to be pointing to this: If B is not happy when "this happens," then they should be C.

Although someone is free to make this argument (and keep in mind, B does not become part of group A, because group A includes many graduates who had their education paid for, or those who paid the smaller fees, in addition to those who chose not to go to university. They will be part of a new group which only includes those who chose not to go to school because of the new fee system), it does not point out a fallacy in my argument.

Don't let any students near the straw man, it'll be ablaze in seconds.

I am sure one of them could put it out with some piss

But only Labour. The Conservatives are done with pandering to big business. That's why corporate taxes and tax loop holes are on the top of the agenda.

Oh, wait.

I didn't say Labour, i said Parliament

OK - A levels (or schooling beyond 16). Not mandatory, but currently provided 'free'

There she is ! Right now you can set her on fire.

Any way our friends in Rome are giving it their all at the moment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/riots-rome-silvio-berlusconi-confidence-votes

Any way our friends in Rome are giving it their all at the moment

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/14/riots-rome-silvio-berlusconi-confidence-votes

yeah that guy is a twat

You're response seems to be pointing to this: If B is not happy when "this happens," then they should be C.

No, I've not said anything even remotely like that.

"What I am saying" (I got that line off Tony Blair) is that I don't recognise the comparison between an 18k hypothetical tax that is immediately payable and presumably mandatory and presumably without obvious consideration/return/reward . . .

. . . with a tuition fee that ultimately is optional, pays for a college education of your choice, in most cases leads to higher earnings and can be paid off in a way that makes it affordable to everyone.

Going back to your original point - if we forcibly imposed a 18k tax of some kind we'd see a whole lot more people on the streets - I can't see how this (out hypothetical 18k tax) is comparable to the tuition fees, the dynamic of the two are so completely different.

Hmmm, I'm reading what you've written to say the same thing again.

I'm saying it is imposed and is not "ultimately optional" to students. You cannot be a student without paying the monies. My comparison is between students and "middle England." So saying it is optional is the same thing as saying there doesn't have to be students.

The people who are protesting are students or people who see themselves as potential students. People who will have to pay this free. It is not an option (less they decide they no longer want to be, or will be, students).

yeah that guy is a useless arrogant cunt.

.

Hmmm, I'm reading what you've written to say the same thing again.

I'm saying it is imposed and is not "ultimately optional" to students. You cannot be a student without paying the monies. My comparison is between students and "middle England." So saying it is optional is the same thing as saying there doesn't have to be students.

The people who are protesting are students or people who see themselves as potential students. People who will have to pay this free. It is not an option (less they decide they no longer want to be, or will be, students).

It's ultimately optional in this respect:

Our hypothetical 18k tax would be enforceable by law I presume, ie: if you don't pay up you will face whatever sanctions come with not paying - this sanction can only ultimately be prison as any intermediate fines or penalties can be rejected in the same way as the original - and if we want to avoid an infinite regress of some kind we need to see prison at some stage in the sanctions (otherwise we build an infinite regress of fines for not paying fines for not paying fines. . . . etc). On the other hand if there were no sanction, no threat of prison, people would likely not bother paying, and people are unlikley to take to the streets to protest something they can more easily ignore.

So logic tells me the 18k tax is enforceable by law - and non-payment ultimately carries with it the threat of prison.

In this respect, one is non-optional, whilst the other is ultimately optional, I understand your idea that we can define a student as a kind of creature in and of itself, rather than a person (like other people) who is studying and if we stick to that definition we can describe the fee as non-optional, I understand the idea but don't agree with it.

Not sure where the rather loaded term 'Middle England' came from - can we not stick to your original - and less emotive term - "everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich"

You're trying to change the terms of my argument, though. You are trying to look at it from a different perspective. I'm saying look at it from the perspective of the individual being asked for £18k.

Let me put it this way. Imagine you're a student or soon-to-be-student. You are about to start university just like everyone before you has. You will get the same services as everyone else before you (this isn't true, as you'll likely get worse services, but..). However, all of a sudden, you are being asked for 18k more than anyone else who has gone before you. In fact, many of the people who went before you paid nothing and they are the ones who want you to pay 18k more. This is to say, you are doing what you would have done anyway, but will be out 18 thousand pounds more than you would have been had you started a year before.

Now imagine you're you. You wake up tomorrow and the government has decided you will give them £18k for doing the same stuff, and getting the same services, you would have anyway. Sure, you can pay it back slowly, but pay it back you will. And you will get nothing out of it which you would have had you not paid the extra £18k.

For a student, situation a and b are identical. For someone who doesn't want or already has a university degree, situation b would be a real pisser. This is the basis of my original point:

"If more people were hit as hard as students are about to be financially, you would see a lot more protesting."

To add to the context, my original point was a response was to this:

Everyone is getting hit by cuts at the moment, yet you dont see people lobbing bricks at the police, smashing up public buildings and defacing national monuments.

Again, my point is, most people are not being hit as hard as students are. That's why you don't seem the out smashing shit up.

You're trying to change the terms of my argument

You think I am, I don't think I am.

You are trying to look at it from a different perspective. I'm saying look at it from the perspective of the individual being asked for £18k.

I am looking at it from outside, as I am neither a student, nor someone who is subject to our hypothetical 18k tax.

Let me put it this way.

Let's stick to the original argument, the imposition of an 18k tax on everyone (not 'middle England'), would see people take to the streets - and as such is comparable with student tuition fees and the protests against those fees.

That's the argument I am disagreeing with, I can't see a comparison.

To add to the context, my original point was a response was to this:

Again, my point is, most people are not being hit as hard as students are. That's why you don't seem the out smashing shit up.

I think that's where your wrong - the students are just one of many groups getting hit hard - that was my point.

This is getting silly. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you, but I'm beginning to fail to understand what it is you want from me. So.... Here's my response.

I am looking at it from outside, as I am neither a student, nor someone who is subject to our hypothetical 18k tax.

First, that was never my perspective. Mine was from an individual's response to being asked for £18,000 more money than they already give/planned to give. And the anger that individual would feel. So you've already misinterpreted what I'm saying.

Let's stick to the original argument

Yes. Let's.

Here is the "original argument":

If more people were hit as hard as students are about to be financially, you would see a lot more protesting.

So instead of insinuating I'm changing my position, read my last post as an example of what I meant, as an attempt to give a better understanding of what it is I'm arguing (believe). Do not take what you believe me to be arguing and throw it back in my face (again).

Again, I fail to see where I said "an 18k tax on everyone [...] would see people take to the streets - and as such is comparable with student tuition fees and the protests against those fees."

I did say this:

You said cuts are affecting everyone, and you don't see them protesting. I'm pretty sure, however, if you asked everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich (as there is no progressive payment scheme here), to fork out 18k, you'd see a whole lot more people on the streets.

This is the point I made above, which you ignored, restated in a different way.

I'm not sure what you are looking for from me? A argument in defence of a structural similarity between an 18k tax and tuition fee increases of 18k? I'm arguing that the experience, of being put in that situation is the thing that causes the anger, and this is what is comparable. One more time: "If more people were hit as hard as students are about to be financially, you would see a lot more protesting." Most people are not in a comparable situation in the UK today, and that's why they're not protesting. There is not something inherently inhuman or irrational about students that make them act like idiots. They are acting like humans.

I think that's where your wrong - the students are just one of many groups getting hit hard - that was my point.

Yeah. I can't honestly prove myself right (or you wrong) without doing a lot more research than I probably want to. I'd be surprised to find out that a majority, or anything creeping towards a majority were going to be hit as hard or harder than students, however.

What is certainly a big, fat lie is 'we're all in this together'.

At least you've got your bees, Oliver.

Did you mean 'fees'? ;)

That was your Christmas gift, just so you know.

Here is the "original argument":

"If more people were hit as hard as students are about to be financially, you would see a lot more protesting. <<

Let's stick to the thing I responded to:

horatio: I'm pretty sure, however, if you asked everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich (as there is no progressive payment scheme here), to fork out 18k, you'd see a whole lot more people on the streets<<<

My response was and still is that the two are not really comparable.

That was your Christmas gift, just so you know.

Das ist fies.

Let's stick to the thing I responded to:

horatio: I'm pretty sure, however, if you asked everyone in the UK, poor-to-rich (as there is no progressive payment scheme here), to fork out 18k, you'd see a whole lot more people on the streets<<<

My response was and still is that the two are not really comparable.

It is an example to demonstrate that asking what is being asked of students is going to piss any group of people off, across the board, and that there is nothing uniquely "bad" about students. I believe it is compatible/comparable. At least for my purposes. It is a thought experiment asking: if someone was asked for 18k more than they were expecting to spend (like a student), without getting anything more for it, how would they react? The answer (in my own brain-lab) is "pissed off."

The reason why it is compatible has been gone over more than once. You think because students can-opt out of being students, they are different from someone who cannot opt out of paying the tax. This is a non sequitur. If they opt out they are not a student and don't fit into the parameters of the debate.

If I am misunderstanding you, explain why I am wrong and it is not comparable. I'm happy to be corrected in my use of examples.

If I am misunderstanding you, explain why I am wrong and it is not comparable.

See my posts above, I think I have gone over the basic points.