posted 08-20-2001 06:38            

quote:

---

From Fen's post on the front page:

A: Humans are basically decent, and would rather do good than evil where possible.

B: In humans, as other animals, the instinct to self-preservation is powerful enough to override most other considerations...

What I'm wondering is, was the fallacy in Observation A or B?

---

Neither. What's missing is:

C: Humans are inherently lazy. Given the opportunity, they will do as little as possible to survive.

So for the poor, this means supporting liberal politicians who will keep the welfare dollars streaming towards them, and the rich will support conservative candidates who will work to keep them from having to pay taxes/pay a working wage/maintain environmental standards/etc.

posted 08-20-2001 09:46         

c. Humans have an inborn propensity towards
self enrichment.

Would we not still live in caves if we aspired to nothing? We all try to improve our lot in life. Some of us are crippled by lack of motivational direction (bad or no parenting), lack of education etc. The affluent or wealthy will always try to "protect" what is theirs by reducing taxes, reducing government program spending etc. The wealthy have less dependency on government, don't need it. The poor of course want more government aid, programs etc. Is it "EVIL" for the wealthy to protect what they have? I think not.

If you don't have much, things are not a issue. If you have things, it's hard to give them up.

posted 08-20-2001 10:37            

Humans generally wish to do good when raised in an environment that teaches them to do so. Otherwise, they simply wish to eat and get laid, and sleep occasionally.

(afterthought edit

Humans are creatures of habit, and habits are formed by reinforcement and repetition. Children learn that 'good deeds' (the whole spectrum, from rescuing babies from burning buildings, all the way down to picking up after themselves) result in rewards. (the whole spectrum, from tangible rewards to 'warm fuzzy' rewards.)

Hence, the majority of people raised this way get into the 'habit' of being at least semi-helpful and attempt to be decent, at least to the people they know.

I think Fen's mistake stemmed from his failure to take into account one man vs John Q Public. People are STUPID.

Bread and Circuses.

-3

posted 08-20-2001 12:01         

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:
Line A is complete and utter shit.
Humans generally wish to do good when raised in an environment that teaches them to do so

---

posted 08-20-2001 15:09            

Nature vs. Nurture!
Nature vs. Nurture!

The funny thing is that after all these years of debate, the only thing psychologists can seem to agree on is that its neither ALL nature, or ALL nurture. The actual roles each one plays seems to still be up for debate.

So... Go ahead and debate! I really doubt that the ONLY instinct people have is that for suckling... although I still like to

posted 08-20-2001 17:51            

I agree with most everyone here. But I thought it would be clear that (A) was the faulty proposition. I was trying more to illustrate that than to ask if it was true or not...

Nature-nurture always seemed like a bit of a dull debate to me.. without evidence everything is pissing in the wind, and without experimentation all evidence is suspect. The whole argument seems to degrade to looking for accidental evidence that supports your position and discrediting that which supports your opponent.

Mind you, I'm not advocating human experimentation for this sake.. just advising not to debate this one too heatedly.

posted 08-20-2001 19:01            

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
Nature-nurture always seemed like a bit of a dull debate to me.. without evidence everything is pissing in the wind, and without experimentation all evidence is suspect. The whole argument seems to degrade to looking for accidental evidence that supports your position and discrediting that which supports your opponent.

fen

---

I've always believed that 'man' as we know him is the sum of his experience... both individually and racially/genetically. I personally don't think it can be %100 nature, or %100 nurture. It's how the two interact, how one fucked up event in nurture can amplify or repress the behaviours that might have surfaced due to nature.

posted 08-21-2001 03:32            

quote:

---

Originally posted by InThrees:
I've always believed that 'man' as we know him is the sum of his experience... both individually and racially/genetically. I personally don't think it can be %100 nature, or %100 nurture. It's how the two interact, how one fucked up event in nurture can amplify or repress the behaviours that might have surfaced due to nature.

-3

---

could be..

hmmm..

..naaaaahhhhhhhh.

posted 08-21-2001 13:04            

B: In humans, as other animals, the instinct to self-preservation is powerful enough to override most other considerations.
Then we can surmise: It is natural to expect that rich people, having the resources to indulge in decent behavior, will presumably tend to be liberal and in favor of broader social programs and the like because they'll worry less about paying for it. In contrast poorer people, for whom resources are more dear, will tend towards conservativism, favoring smaller taxes and more limited government more in line with what they can support.
The falacy lies in the summery, not the postulates. The line that reads: It is natural to expect that rich people, having the resources to indulge in decent behavior, will presumably tend to be liberal and in favor of broader social programs and the like because they'll worry less about paying for it, SHOULD READ: It is natural to assume that the rich, having the resources to indulfe in decent behavior, will tend to NOT be in favor of broader social programs and the like because they have more to lose by paying for it.

The second statement raeds: In contrast poorer people, for whom resources are more dear, will tend towards conservativism, favoring smaller taxes and more limited government more in line with what they can support. It should read: In contrast poorer people, for whom resources are more dear, will tend towards liberalism, favoring smaller taxes, and a more limited government, more in line with what they can
support. This change should occur because of the realization of what being a liberal is. Remember that the idea was born in the sixties. It comes from people who wanted NO government, NO laws calling for legislation of morality, and nothing but love and peace for all mankind.
Kinda idealistic, but they were all on drugs at the time.

When studying the human race, it is necessary to know the three basic primal urges in the human instinctual relays.

1. Self preservation- I will protect myself and WHAT I HAVE from others. What is mone is mine. GIve me 1 Million years to live and I will ask for one more.

2. Preservation of species- This is what causes children to be foremost in our minds. Why parents will fight off 10 foot alligators. Why you or I would run into traffic to grab a three year old who has wandered away form it's parents. Why kiddy pr0n pisses us off so much.

3. Sexual urge- Duh.

Now, factoring in these ideas, the concept of the rich wanting to do anything for another is perposterous. The poor, having to share to get by, are more willing to share, thus making liberalism a "greater good".

It's also helpful to remember that being liberal is not what it once was. Today, conservatives and liberals are about as different as black and sable. ]

Hope this clears up your misconception.

posted 08-21-2001 18:10            

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Nameless One:
Hope this clears up your misconception.

---

I'm glad we got all this cleared up. I'd never noticed that rich people are stingy with their wealth-- that must have been my mistake.

After all, I certainly didn't just draw an obviously false conclusion from apparently reasonable observations to try and make people think about themselves.

posted 08-21-2001 23:07         

It blew my fucking mind.

posted 08-24-2001 05:47         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenomas:
After all, I certainly didn't just draw an obviously false conclusion from apparently reasonable observations to try and make people think about themselves.

---

One time my dick was on the floor, and I like stepped on it. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!