quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Lame. "Oh, Tullegolar, I can't answer that question, there are too many facets, wah." Give me a break, I asked for comments on human nature. You've nothing to say about the subject? Are humans guided by society, greed, emotions, empathy? Nothing? I was expecting more interesting answers and viewpoints. Most of you would rather avoid saying anything, it seems.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Garrison:

As a final point, I defy anyone to argue that a human growing up in the wilderness will not be extremely selfish and have little compassion. This would imply a natural leaning toward evil, but this is in the pathologically unnatural case of seclusion. It is more natural for humans to grow up together in a community.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Some of you are actually agreeing with me? I shall offer an opposing argument as well, then. Aristotle explained what it means to be "good" and why humans naturally lean towards it rather than evil. It is a simple one word answer: empathy.

---

quote:

---

When you see someone else suffer, you feel a instinctual need to ease this persons suffering, even if it does not benefit you at all. Garrison was right when he said that the personal satisfaction people get from good deeds makes people naturally good. Even someone living in the woods does not like to see suffering, simply because it triggers memories of their own suffering, and thus a natural desire to remedy it.

One could even argue that that person in the woods would seek only to benefit others rather than themselves. After all, is it not society that teaches us the value of material goods and the importance of personal accomplishment?

And so, people are naturally good.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Delicious Vlish:

I would have to say that a vast majority of people find my point of view sickening to them. Personal responsibility, accountability, and strong straight forward moral convictions frightens them.

I am a loud, angry, outspoken, dreadlocked kilt wearing freak. People are frightened of me. I don't fit in. A great number of people would rather have nothing to do with me. People wish that I, and what I represent would just go away.

It scares me that one day, it might.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Zeviz:

Kel, if a third grader is getting beaten up by a sixth grader, it's pretty obvious that it's time to call in the teachers/parents/other authorities. However, if a third grader is constantly punched, pinched, etc. by a weaker second grader, it's the third grader's fault.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by ef:

Mmh...you know how diamonds are created, under high pressure and very high temperature. If you see the diamond as a symbol of a person's very essence, extreme adversity can be the forge that brings it forth, meaning: that makes you aware of what you most deeply are. But this is not a path that everyone can follow without perishing, DV. If you win through, you bring back something indestructable - but if not, than you have those who, if they survive will draw hurt to them, because they expect it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

We've been discusing lots of different political and economic theories lately. Most such theories operate under a large set of assumptions, most of them having to do with human nature.

So, humans: naturally good or naturally evil?

Granted, the answers will probably amount to little more than opinions, but I am curious. What do you think of our species?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by chasm of Sar:

-1.38, -3.54 (economic/social)

I agree with *I about the wording of the questions. It is important that my child's school instills religious values. What does that mean? If it was that the public schools instilled such values it would read differently. What if it read that the school instilled buddhist philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Or, that I wanted exposure to critical thinking with respect to religion?

---

quote:

---

And how are these interpreted anyway? So, validating the score becomes a (big) question for me.

That being said, I believe I am more of an economic conservative than the poll does justice to. Socially, I am small liberal so I am not too offended there.

I've always felt that PC is accurate enough that, where a man and his numbers disagree, the numbers are generally right. You might think you're an economic conservative, but the term is pretty broad and used very deceptively in the West. According to the test, your convictions put you a smidge to the left of the economic center. (If you're an American, that's a mainstream Dem position; if you're British, that puts you to the left of New Labour.) The issues of the day aside, that is where you will find the most ethically satisfying solutions for the economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Here's the problem. The corporation leaders you are talking about aren't greedy enough! If they really wanted more money, rather than give themselves pay raises, they would expand. They would use the extra money to hire more people and extend their reach. It's when people get to a point in wealth where they lose ambition that the problems arise. Now I am finally begining to see why my system might not work. I assumed people would be greedier.

---

quote:

---

Alorael, whose argument against trickle-down economics is that it gives exactly what it says: a trickle. As Alec says, helping the rich to help the poor indirectly seems backwards. Why not help the poor to give them more purchasing power so the companies who sell products indirectly benefit? What's wrong with trickle-up?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:

---

Originally written by Andraste:

I like being a sexy red slip. Now I need to go buy one.

---

I am trying to figure out if I've ever seen what you look like so that I can properly know whether to approve or be horrified. I'm fairly certain that I haven't. I'll default to being horrified.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Trickle Down: I think I said this before but no one responded. What is the argument against trickle down? I hear people whine about how it doesn't work all the time but I have not yet seen the argument for why. Please enlighten me.
I've run out of satisfying ways to call you stupid, so let's leave it implicit for a while. In the words of Galbraith, 'if you feed enough oats to a horse, some will eventually trickle down to the sparrows'.

The problem with trickle-down is that it's economic voodoo. There's a reason it's no longer particularly fashionable, and that's because every case in which it's been practiced has revealed the plain and simple truth: reducing the tax burden of the wealthy results in a richer upper-class and not much else.

You want to grow the economy? Demand-side economics works splendidly. (Witness the unprecedented economic growth and stability of the American economy in the 40s through 80s, after which it lapsed into a boom-bust cycle.) Supply-side or laissez-faire or trickle-down or whatever we're supposed to call it now results in an unstable economy which tends to periodically ruin anyone without a serious wealth base.

Einstein: I was under the impression this guy did well for himself moneywise. Is this wrong?
Yes, it is. He didn't do particularly well for himself; he lived comfortably, but he didn't retire a millionaire. Why would he have?

Happiness: You can be weak and still be happy. I defined weak and strong in terms of being successful economically. Someone can flip burgers their whole life and still be the happiest person in the world. Obviously, if your happy no matter what then suddenly this whole argument becomes inconsequential.
'Weak' and 'strong' in economic terms are meaningless unless you treat them as purely economic definitions. Unless you're seriously prepared to defend Paris Hilton, a woman whose sole talent is having Hilton as a last name, as stronger than a vast majority of Americans.

The Mystic, how to become a millionaire: I noticed you said spending less than you make is a good way to become a millionaire. Really, most obscenely rich people borrow lots of extra cash to achieve this. This is why one day you'll hear about Donald Trump being bankrupt and the next day he'll be back on top. It's all about taking educated risks (intelligence and ambition).
No, not really: Donald Trump came from a remarkable amount of wealth. His parents could bail him out whenever he took an 'educated risk' and failed miserably, and did. And now he's got enough money that an 'educated risk' won't ruin him. The best way to get wealthy is to get born wealthy; if that weren't true, why is it that so few people have gotten so very rich? You can't defend the idea that the degree of his wealth and success makes Bill Gates some kind of tiny God; he's just a normal man who was born into circumstances that allowed him to get lucky.
(If he had been born earlier or poorer, his education wouldn't have allowed him to do what he did. If he had been born later, he wouldn't have been able to do anything exceptional in the market he now reigns over.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Zeviz:

All that talk about elections must be making me pick more opinionated answers than usual:

-4.38 Economic, 0.62 Social

Usually my results range from -2 to -4 on economic scale and from -2 to 0 on social scale.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nioca:

quote:

---

Originally written by The Worst Man Ever:

I guess later he becomes a transhumanist so he can still be racist in public.

---

I was going to stay out of this, but I've never seen Tullegolar use any sort of racism. What makes you say he's racist?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Tullegolar Maximus:


*i: You keep telling me scientists are treated unfairly under capitalism. This may be true, but if you can not name something better then you can't keep saying capitalism is bad. The insurance analogy was interesting, but, like insurance, it wasn't the most convincing. Insurance companies screw people over all the time.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by [i:
Grimmsby [/i]]

quote:

---

Originally written by Tyranicus.:


To spam!

---

You've beat it to death, Tyran.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Alec: Are you trying to say that since government spending in defense is corrupt, it doesn't count? Are you going somewhere with any of this?
No; because it's corrupt, it counts for less than the funding numbers alone would indicate. If you could read, you would have discerned that.

If.


*i: I suppose I did say basic research was lame. I regret it, we were talking about something else at the time, and that statement was ignorant. I can't say I agree with you about offering incentives for scientists, however. They get paid well enough, as you said. Odds are most will not make a major breakthrough. Why reward something so fickle?
There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries; acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn nonetheless for the latter, dumbass.

Free Market: Do you think scientists would be better of under socialism?
Yes. I have tendered a prediction to Stareye as to your response, and a tentative line of reasoning to form the core of my own. Let's see how you do.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

What is your argument and where does it disagree with my own? I seriously am having trouble finding it in all those blind insults.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Finally, if you really are smarter and more charismatic than me, then so be it. I have no qualm about submitting to someone who has proven themselves to me. So far though... your not doing a very good job.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

quote:

---

Andraste:
Some people do research just for the joy of discovering new things.

---

This is fantastic. Good for them. Happiness is the most important thing. If they really don't do it for the money, I would be more than happy to not give it to them.

quote:

---

Zevis:
The definition of basic research is that it has no practical applications at the time. It took many decades for practical applications of Einstein's work to become apparent.

---

Sure, whatever. What exactly do you expect me to do about this? Should we have paid Einstein and those others for the future developments that would have been built upon their discoveries? Should we pay them retroactively? I don't understand what I am supposed to say to this. You had the same comments, *i. My question is, how exactly are we supposed to compensate these scientists for something that we won't even know will be useful until decades later? What does this have to do with the economy anyway?
Because your model of the economy is horrible for research. Without public-funded consortia (e.g. universities), there's literally no incentive to do the science thing.

As for government spending on research. Most of the time, including in your satellite situation, the government is researching these things in the name of national security. They would have done the same thing in my system, as national security is the primary duty of the government.
Bull****. The primary duy of the government is to fulfill its mandate to its components.

And no, most government research isn't primarily in national security. That is the one field in which government research should definitely predominate (see: private nukes, lack of).

Almost all research, great and small, is conducted with government grants, and rewarded with government-enforced patents and protections. Government is an inextricable part of every field of inquiry.

And yet Stareye insists I should molly-coddle you. I have but called a spade a spade, and pointed out that you appear to have **** in the stead of brains. Because, you know, you do.

MBA vs. PhD: The answer to why an MBA makes more than a PhD is simple, yet I must admit that even I am unsatisfied with this element of society. The answer is this: charisma is valued above intelligence in modern society. This is something I can not change. It is not my fault, it is a simple fact. Sorry scientists, perhaps there is some weight to the 'nerd' stereotype after all. I would like very much for scientists to have their rightful place in society, but it is not going to happen unless society itself reorganizes its priorities.
That's literally the dumbest response anyone has ever given to any question ever asked, and I'm deeply ashamed to have read it. MBAs don't make more money because they're 'charismatic'. They make more money because they're educated in a field in which they handle untoward amounts of money. An MBA is the highest degree in business; holding one makes someone desirable to companies large and small - because it represents knowledge of the theoretical underpinnings of business, marketing, and economics. 'Charisma' has nothing to do with it, you nitwit.

Dintiradan is drawing villain inspiration from me? Do you guys hate me that much? I'm not evil! I'm just trying to bring order and prosperity to the world!
And now, the vapid airhead hat-trick: getting impressed about Spiderweb celebrity. You truly are an imbecile for all seasons.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by -X-:

I'M A GODDAMN GIMMICK

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

An interesting argument, one I have thought on myself many times.

The conclusion I came to is this. If the people really want to murder to get ahead, they are within their rights to overthrow the government and put in place a new one where murder is legal.

The reason this doesn't happen is because most people, strong and weak, agree that killing is bad. Such feeling are weak, but they are also bred into humans at birth, since this moral viewpoint is probably based in a fear of death, something few people don’t have. These few people that would prefer a world where they can kill and be killed are more than welcome to destroy government if they want. But in the end, they can't, because its supporters are greater in number and consist of the strong and weak alike.

---