EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2041
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
On January 18 2020 21:12 Nouar wrote: I'll offer a different perspective. What I see as threatening is the governor unlawfully banning guns (for civilians) on the capitol grounds for the protest. That and setting up the now-normalized caged protesting zones (or whatever they are called) has escalated the situation, as well as a representative saying they “may have to nationalize the National Guard to enforce the law”. The same representative suggested cutting off state funds for recalcitrant counties. I truly hope nothing bad happens on Monday. It's definitely a tense situation.You mean, what is threatening when the Capitol is under a state of emergency due to armed protest based on false claims, that people have already been arresting planning terror during this same protest, and you encourage those protesting by lying more that "they are going to take your guns, you're under attack" ? (there is a law being debated for background checks, and forbidding large magazines etc, nothing about taking back guns) If that's not encouraging the protesters to do more, what is it ? His job should be to call for calm, and to raise the issue at the polls. The phrasing itself during armed protests, exciting the protesters even more against his opponents, is what is threatening. Some people could take it as inciting them to take over the state congress. The bill that caused the most uproar (recently withdrawn) was SB16 banning assault firearms like the AR15, by far the most popular sporting rifle in the USA (no grandfathering). I suspect the Democrats will re-introduce it, once the media cycle has moved on. There are many more Virginia gun control bills outlined here https://keepva2a.com/2a-bill-tracker It's too bad that the gun issue has completely overshadowed other ridiculous bills, like removing photo ID requirements for voters (SB65). Anyways, the protestors can take some solace in the so-called second amendment sanctuaries. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
About that "unlawfully banning guns on the capitol grounds", you don't believe that designating the capitol grounds as "to the extent necessary to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or any other governmental entity as an emergency shelter or for the purpose of sheltering persons" in advance, when you have already caught several people planning terror, is going overboard ? Should they designate the pub across the street as a shelter for the whole legislative body then ? I mean... One could say that allowing weapons in a place where terror has been planned is pure idiocy... Also, there are probably airports in Virginia right. How come weapons are banned there ? It's going against that law !! You should have the right to bear weapons everywhere in the state ! I guess you can't carry a gun during an intra-virginia flight, why is that forbidden then according to your view ? The planes are not even an emergency shelter ! It is pretty rich of you to determine by yourself that this ban is unlawful, after courts and the supreme court of the state denied an injunction against it. Doesn't sound so clear-cut. Since you are arguing that a probably poorly written law should be fully upheld at every opportunity, even in risk of terror, then I sure hope that you will uphold the gun control laws that would go against your views with the same zeal since... it's law ! Every law proposal or established law can be seen in extreme views like that website you linked does. That's why there is a legislative process to work on a law so that it has it's intended meaning, and there are courts to execute it as it was expected and to keep it reasonable. Reading the constitution of the US and Virginia in the way that you should be able to openly have weapons of war everywhere, everytime, and on any occasion, even state of emergencies, is an extremist reading of the constitution and not its purpose. Not owning (or registering) 10 AR-15 or why not rocket launchers, is not stopping you from having "a well-organised militia". Nor is not organising a shooting range in your backyard. Nor is being forbidden to have a gun in a specific place on a specific day. Anyway, this was not even the topic. There is unrest, due to various reasons, and the president, instead of calling for calm, is calling for MORE unrest, inciting people that way. It's not the first time, it won't be the last, but at some point, I'd like for him to be held responsible. In other news, due to his aversion for everything Obama is, Trump's administration is rolling back the healthier eating standard for school children championed by Michelle Obama, on her birthday (pettiness as usual), with the following explanation : In 2017 the agriculture secretary, Sonny Perdue, claimed children were not favoring the healthier choices. "If kids aren’t eating the food, and it’s ending up in the trash, they aren’t getting any nutrition – thus undermining the intent of the program,” he said at the time. Because of course, letting kids eat what they want has always been good and healthy parenting. And of course, the US does not have ANY issue with obesity or healthy eating and schools can perfectly be trusted to auto-regulate in the best interest of the children, and not cheaper, bad quality food *wink, wink* https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/17/trump-administration-school-lunch-michelle-obama-rules-roll-back | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13818 Posts
Tanks are also legal to own. You may get into issues with the gun on the tank but if you can afford a tank you can afford to mill a cylinder of metal for it. I go to a gun fair type thing every year that this big gun shop runs and they have machine guns and modern sniper rifles for people to try out every year. #thisisamerica | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
But an illegal immigrant commiting a crime warrants all illegal immigrants to be booted out of the country. "What ? Our guns are killing hundreds of times more than these ? Yeah but they are not citizens so they don't have rights, who cares ?!!" | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9141 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
No, I am well talking about illegal immigrants (that are clumped in the minds of some with refugees). They ARE illegal, but the crimes (which ARE crimes, I'm not saying anything else here) of some should not mean all of them, plus refugees, should be denied human rights solely based on their immigration status. Guns though, no problem. Doesn't matter if they are used on a daily basis to commit mass murders, absolutely no issue with guns. It's the other thing the root of all issues in the US. Absolutely not our right to own dozens of assault rifles per person. It's the double standard in discourse that I can't bear. I also have the same issue with the 2nd amendment infringing on one of the "god-given rights" (that only apply to citizens it seems) : Life. Some of these people (usually the same), are pretty quick to deny rights to others (abortion) due to loss of life. However, they are not ready to give up a man-given right (2nd) to uphold the god-given one. Same for police action. Life should be protected at all costs, and law enforcement is supposed to protect the life of others, at its own cost. Not to initiate killings because "but he looked like he might have had a weapon in his trunks, I felt threatened though he was running from me, clearly afraid ! The 25 bullets to his skull were fully warranted !" (And I'm working more or less in that field) I mean, these guns look holier than *anything* else. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On January 19 2020 04:57 Sent. wrote: Them being illegal immigrants is enough to warrant booting them out. I don't see why you'd need a special reason to kick out someone you didn't want in your country in the first place. Are you sure you didn't mean immigrants in general? We definitely want them in the country. Lets folks like Trump (really the middle men he hires) keep leverage over their workers so they can pay them criminal wages and deprive them of workers rights without fear of them calling the authorities. We've seen this play out a couple times since Trumps been in office iirc. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9141 Posts
On January 19 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: We definitely want them in the country. Lets folks like Trump (really the middle men he hires) keep leverage over their workers so they can pay them criminal wages and deprive them of workers rights without fear of them calling the authorities. We've seen this play out a couple times since Trumps been in office iirc. Yes, but that's only what the baddies abusing the system want. Nouar said "our guns", so I thought he meant the pro-gun camp in general. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24542 Posts
On January 19 2020 05:21 GreenHorizons wrote: We definitely want them in the country. Lets folks like Trump (really the middle men he hires) keep leverage over their workers so they can pay them criminal wages and deprive them of workers rights without fear of them calling the authorities. We've seen this play out a couple times since Trumps been in office iirc. It’s almost as if a segment of society has been scapegoated for something! Quel surprise. The absence of a concerted effort in both public discourse and actual action in going after businesses big and small who hire illegals really tells it’s own story. Personally I’m not a huge fan of large-scale migration from less economically developed countries, illegal or otherwise, although on a systemic rather than individual basis. It’s a bit of a cop-out feel good thing for liberals in the West, which is why they continually advocate for it. It’s fine to sit atop the global order, established through (to be generous) unfair means if we let other people move there. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24542 Posts
On January 19 2020 05:19 Nouar wrote: Tell that to their employers : Trump, Nunes... Seems they are not always unwanted :-D No, I am well talking about illegal immigrants (that are clumped in the minds of some with refugees). They ARE illegal, but the crimes (which ARE crimes, I'm not saying anything else here) of some should not mean all of them, plus refugees, should be denied human rights solely based on their immigration status. Guns though, no problem. Doesn't matter if they are used on a daily basis to commit mass murders, absolutely no issue with guns. It's the other thing the root of all issues in the US. Absolutely not our right to own dozens of assault rifles per person. It's the double standard in discourse that I can't bear. I also have the same issue with the 2nd amendment infringing on one of the "god-given rights" (that only apply to citizens it seems) : Life. Some of these people (usually the same), are pretty quick to deny rights to others (abortion) due to loss of life. However, they are not ready to give up a man-given right (2nd) to uphold the god-given one. Same for police action. Life should be protected at all costs, and law enforcement is supposed to protect the life of others, at its own cost. Not to initiate killings because "but he looked like he might have had a weapon in his trunks, I felt threatened though he was running from me, clearly afraid ! The 25 bullets to his skull were fully warranted !" (And I'm working more or less in that field) I mean, these guns look holier than *anything* else. Politics is an odd thing. I can almost guarantee a large segment of the people complaining that they can’t bring guns to a protest will be the same people who wanted law enforcement to disperse other protests like the Dakota pipeline ones etc. Plus the gun nut crowd who need guns because government might get tyrannical are the ones flying ‘Blue Lives Matter’ stickers on their cars. Bizarre really. | ||
|
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
On January 19 2020 03:59 Nouar wrote:Since you are arguing that a probably poorly written law should be fully upheld at every opportunity, even in risk of terror, then I sure hope that you will uphold the gun control laws that would go against your views with the same zeal since... it's law ! The governor previously voted in favor of the bill, to prevent the misuse of power he now employs. It's unlikely that he, at least, thought it was poorly written. I don't like the strategy of using fear to justify removing rights (the Patriot Act.) It makes people more dependent on the government, among other consequences. I believe many of the new laws violate the second amendment "shall not be infringed" (reads perfectly clear to me), as well as the purpose of the amendment. I know many disagree. Additionally I haven't yet found a good argument for taking away rights on this issue in Virginia. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On January 19 2020 05:48 Wombat_NI wrote: Politics is an odd thing. I can almost guarantee a large segment of the people complaining that they can’t bring guns to a protest will be the same people who wanted law enforcement to disperse other protests like the Dakota pipeline ones etc. Plus the gun nut crowd who need guns because government might get tyrannical are the ones flying ‘Blue Lives Matter’ stickers on their cars. Bizarre really. They aren't worried about tyrannical government, they're worried about the existing tyrannical government turning against them instead of foreign countries, minorities, mentally ill, and poor people imo. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On January 19 2020 05:52 Xxio wrote: The governor previously voted in favor of the bill, to prevent the misuse of power he now employs. It's unlikely that he, at least, thought it was poorly written. I don't like the strategy of using fear to justify removing rights (the Patriot Act.) It makes people more dependent on the government, among other consequences. I believe many of the new laws violate the second amendment "shall not be infringed" (reads perfectly clear to me), as well as the purpose of the amendment. I know many disagree. Additionally I haven't yet found a good argument for taking away rights on this issue in Virginia. I really don't understand how limiting what kind of weapons you have, and having you register them, is infringing on "the right to bear arms". You can have weapons. Why would you need to have any and all kinds of weapons, flame throwers, rocket launchers, assault rifles (having one is probably okay), extra-large chargers, kits for full-auto, sniper rifles etc. Explain to me how those are necessary for a militia ? In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[6][7][8][9] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." The Supreme Court should be your argument for Virginia, don't you think ? It's job is to interpret the law and explain its limitations. That decision sounds reasonable to me. This right is here to allow yourself to defend yourself from others and the state. It's not a blank-check to do crazy things. It's expressly written that this right is important, since it's important to have a "well-regulated militia". Crazies buying dozens of weapons and being jackasses doesn't pass that smell test. Allowing to buy one firearm a month sounds reasonable (actually it sounds crazy to me, but I'm trying to place myself mentally in a US citizen's skin). Missing a promotion or not having an assorted pair for 30days is hardly limiting your right to bear arms. I am not for taking away weapons since that's in your constitution. However, having limits should not be an issue. Reading a sentence that has two parts should not be that complicated. And insisting on bringing weapons into a place when your fringe has decided that it should attack it is being a jackass. And the president encouraging even more (which again, was the topic, not the 2nd amendment itself), is borderline inciting to violence to me. | ||
|
Slydie
1913 Posts
On January 19 2020 05:19 Nouar wrote: Tell that to their employers : Trump, Nunes... Seems they are not always unwanted :-D No, I am well talking about illegal immigrants (that are clumped in the minds of some with refugees). They ARE illegal, but the crimes (which ARE crimes, I'm not saying anything else here) of some should not mean all of them, plus refugees, should be denied human rights solely based on their immigration status. Guns though, no problem. Doesn't matter if they are used on a daily basis to commit mass murders, absolutely no issue with guns. It's the other thing the root of all issues in the US. Absolutely not our right to own dozens of assault rifles per person. It's the double standard in discourse that I can't bear. I also have the same issue with the 2nd amendment infringing on one of the "god-given rights" (that only apply to citizens it seems) : Life. Some of these people (usually the same), are pretty quick to deny rights to others (abortion) due to loss of life. However, they are not ready to give up a man-given right (2nd) to uphold the god-given one. Same for police action. Life should be protected at all costs, and law enforcement is supposed to protect the life of others, at its own cost. Not to initiate killings because "but he looked like he might have had a weapon in his trunks, I felt threatened though he was running from me, clearly afraid ! The 25 bullets to his skull were fully warranted !" (And I'm working more or less in that field) I mean, these guns look holier than *anything* else. The problem is that psychologically, losing a right we have feels intrusive and abusive. It does not even matter if we earned the right or it is to the benefit of the many. I would almost compare it to having a child than lose it to never getting one by choice. The gun owners feel they need their guns, and some would defend their rights to carry them with their lives. No argument of double standards will ever change their minds, but they have far too much power for how many they are, mainly for being a super stable one-case part of the GOP voter base. Earlier in this thread, I read that the GOP does not even want to solve the immigrant issue. One problem is that their workforce is needed, but they are also the cheapest citizens due to their lack of social rights. If they send them all out, they would lose a "golden goose" vote machine. It is better to just do enough to show that they "take action" but never even try to solve the issue; both because it is impossible and to benefit future elections. | ||
|
BerserkSword
United States2123 Posts
The government of Virginia is throwing everything at the wall and getting whatever they can to stick. For now the more significant legislation hasn’t stuck but it could just be a matter of time. It won’t stop either. This same song and dance has been seen in other states like my own state of NY, where the upstate population got screwed in terms of gun rights among other things Virginia kinda of only became blue because of the small heavily populated area around DC. The fact of the matter is that the rest of Virginia is gun country. The two Virginians I know basically have armories (one of them is a plastic surgeon lol). The idea of vigilance against tyranny runs deep there. And now you got some governor waging a war against 2A rights and mocking/threatening civilian paramilitary groups. Good on the people of Virginia to resist this nonsense. Lest they turn into a liberal hellhole like NYS or California. Also lol@ Trump trying to capitalize on this, as if he isn’t anti gun Trump his low key anti 2a. He has been caught saying things like “take the guns first and give them due process later” | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
He went on the right to get elected, saw what worked with these people, and is looking the part. I have to admit he is a genius at that. But it's only ever for his own short-lived benefit. Couldn't care less about the country, and it's sad that his voters don't care either about the long-term rift this is furthering. This "vigilance against tyranny" is bullshit. It's not the 1700' anymore. The federal govt is not going to be a tyran, there's a democracy. If they lose votes (at the state level), tough luck, that means more people in their state are against that kind of shit and they are the minority. So it's not a tyranny. Rather, they are the ones being it. The government of Virginia can do things, and you've got a congress to pass it or cross it, and then courts to appeal to it. A few things are necessarily going to stick, nothing strange here. Again, it's Trump's behaviour the issue for me. Not a governor, after busting would-be terrorists, trying to ensure a protest can happen in peace (unlike another one that happened 2 years ago). Not the guys protesting themselves. It's absolutely allowed and encouraged. Just, try to understand what happened, beyond your fucking guns ? | ||
|
Gorgonoth
United States468 Posts
Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I had a couple of thoughts and questions regarding what you wrote about the role of greed in capitalistic societies. You said that you don't believe that greed is inherent in human nature and that it arises in human capitalistic societies. This seems to me to be a tenuous assertion. Isn't greed simply the motivating forces of self-preservation, and generally self or perhaps community-centered focus, which we can see working mightily in the earliest of human settlements and early tribes long before a formal capitalistic system? Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but doesn't this seem to be the question that we should be honing in on, because does the global economic system really matter that much if the individual's which we are basing the system on inherently flawed in a way which will lend towards destruction? Of course, we can judge and distinguish between better and worse. Capitalism has undeniably led, as you opened with, to an impressive surge in human quality of life. And I am inclined to believe, that socialistic systems where market control is centralized have tended toward authoritarian regimes that benefit few and are inferior towards allowing greater economic freedom and having free markets. Generally at least. But I don't want to make this seem like I am trying to reopen a discussion on capitalism or socialism. I have great faith others will do that for me. I'm curious what you think about the most basic element of a society, the individual. In short, I think it is not only tenuous, but dangerous to say that greed is not inherent, but external; because this implies if we only stumble upon the right formula, the right societal situations, we can produce people who are good. If you believe this it inevitably leads and has led to the conclusion that we must experiment, and make certain sacrifices to attain this, you have to break a couple eggs (Or millions of people like Stalin did) to achieve this perfect societal utopian omelet. + Show Spoiler + Richard Weaver alludes to this of course. To him, rejection of the transcendent truth of "original sin"; shaped the 20th century's genocides. Maybe talk of an Adamic nature or original sin is too religious to be approachable. Religion, I guess which we should input with "Christianity" from now on since that is the only one which I can converse on its theology, is fascinating to me because it can be percieved wildly differently depending on the particular niche you grew up in, and a lot of very smart people spend their entire lives in a ultra-narrow field of study that seems so insignificant to the untrained. Anyway, I will say what I was taught was Relational Christianity. Absolutely everything is viewed through the lenses of a view transcendent truths which are accepted, not always for the verifiability of the truths, but for the results of which their acceptance brings, or the way they offer a systematic approach to the world. I'll try to hone in on one. The trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection is a revelation of God's character but also of his design for what human relationships ought to be like. Jesus was crucified because it was a reflection of the character of God, not a payment or forensic transaction. Crucifixion represented utter humiliation, powerlessness, and was the most extreme end of human suffering which was endured to remind us that humans have their priorities wrong. The goal of life is not to move towards power, to gather popularity or riches; but to live relationally committed lives. We realize true love for God only to the extent that we love and live for each other. One key part of this is that humans in their natural state, are fallen. We do not possess within ourselves the power to be good except in the context of our relationships with others where we begin to work towards this. It's not as pessimistic as a Calvinistic theology for instance, but it's incompatible with the idea that humans are good and then corrupted by society because the core of what humans inherently value is wrong. E.g. We think that the goal of life is to protect and seek to save ourselves, not lose it for others. The main point I'd like to submit is that human greed is inherent in human nature and we have ingrained self-destructive tendencies. The corollary of this is that no matter what economic system you implement, you cannot get around the greed and pervasive self-seeking nature of man. Attempts like you say to move to a socialistic global system will run into this same insufferable problem. People will just exploit that system in new ways to benefit themselves, probably resulting in a global elite that prospers while the rest of the world gets hit by a massive recession and the nastiest depths of human depravity is exposed. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like a fast track to a dystopian Cormac Mcarthy-esque future. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23010 Posts
On January 19 2020 09:19 Gorgonoth wrote: @Drone Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I had a couple of thoughts and questions regarding what you wrote about the role of greed in capitalistic societies. You said that you don't believe that greed is inherent in human nature and that it arises in human capitalistic societies. This seems to me to be a tenuous assertion. Isn't greed simply the motivating forces of self-preservation, and generally self or perhaps community-centered focus, which we can see working mightily in the earliest of human settlements and early tribes long before a formal capitalistic system? Perhaps I am being too simplistic, but doesn't this seem to be the question that we should be honing in on, because does the global economic system really matter that much if the individual's which we are basing the system on inherently flawed in a way which will lend towards destruction? Of course, we can judge and distinguish between better and worse. Capitalism has undeniably led, as you opened with, to an impressive surge in human quality of life. And I am inclined to believe, that socialistic systems where market control is centralized have tended toward authoritarian regimes that benefit few and are inferior towards allowing greater economic freedom and having free markets. Generally at least. But I don't want to make this seem like I am trying to reopen a discussion on capitalism or socialism. I have great faith others will do that for me. I'm curious what you think about the most basic element of a society, the individual. In short, I think it is not only tenuous, but dangerous to say that greed is not inherent, but external; because this implies if we only stumble upon the right formula, the right societal situations, we can produce people who are good. If you believe this it inevitably leads and has led to the conclusion that we must experiment, and make certain sacrifices to attain this, you have to break a couple eggs (Or millions of people like Stalin did) to achieve this perfect societal utopian omelet. + Show Spoiler + Weaver alludes to this of course. To him, rejection of the transcendent truth of "original sin"; shaped the 20th century's genocides. Maybe talk of an Adamic nature or original sin is too religious to be approachable. Religion, I guess which we should input with "Christianity" from now on since that is the only one which I can converse on its theology, is fascinating to me because it can be percieved wildly differently depending on the particular niche you grew up in, and a lot of very smart people spend their entire lives in a ultra-narrow field of study that seems so insignificant to the untrained. Anyway, I will say what I was taught was Relational Christianity. Absolutely everything is viewed through the lenses of a view transcendent truths which are accepted, not always for the verifiability of the truths, but for the results of which their acceptance brings, or the way they offer a systematic approach to the world. I'll try to hone in on one. The trial, crucifixion, death, and resurrection is a revelation of God's character but also of his design for what human relationships ought to be like. Jesus was crucified because it was a reflection of the character of God, not a payment or forensic transaction. Crucifixion represented utter humiliation, powerlessness, and was the most extreme end of human suffering which was endured to remind us that humans have their priorities wrong. The goal of life is not to move towards power, to gather popularity or riches; but to live relationally committed lives. We realize true love for God only to the extent that we love and live for each other. One key part of this is that humans in their natural state, are fallen. We do not possess within ourselves the power to be good except in the context of our relationships with others where we begin to work towards this. It's not as pessimistic as a Calvinistic theology for instance, but it's incompatible with the idea that humans are good and then corrupted by society because the core of what humans inherently value is wrong. E.g. We think that the goal of life is to protect and seek to save ourselves, not lose it for others. The main point I'd like to submit is that human greed is inherent in human nature and we have ingrained self-destructive tendencies. The corollary of this is that no matter what economic system you implement, you cannot get around the greed and pervasive self-seeking nature of man. Attempts like you say to move to a socialistic global system will run into this same insufferable problem. People will just exploit that system in new ways to benefit themselves, probably resulting in a global elite that prospers while the rest of the world gets hit by a massive recession and the nastiest depths of human depravity is exposed. Maybe I'm way off here, but it seems like a fast track to a dystopian Mcormac-esque future. The idea that people are inherently selfish is a philosophical/practical one, not scientific. Since they've been investigating the claim scientifically, the research shows the opposite. Also that extrinsic rewards result in worse behavior rather than reinforcing good behavior. Such traits emerge so early in our lives that they appear to be innate. In other words, it seems that we have evolved to be this way. By the age of 14 months, children begin to help each other, for example by handing over objects another child can’t reach. By the time they are two, they start sharing things they value. By the age of three, they start to protest against other people’s violation of moral norms. A fascinating paper in the journal Infancy reveals that reward has nothing to do with it. Three- to five-year-olds are less likely to help someone a second time if they have been rewarded for doing it the first time. In other words, extrinsic rewards appear to undermine the intrinsic desire to help. The study also discovered that children of this age are more inclined to help people if they perceive them to be suffering, and that they want to see someone helped whether or not they do it themselves. This suggests that they are motivated by a genuine concern for other people’s welfare, rather than by a desire to look good. www.theguardian.com Noticed this at the end and think it makes an important point: Misanthropy grants a free pass to the grasping, power-mad minority who tend to dominate our political systems. If only we knew how unusual they are, we might be more inclined to shun them and seek better leaders. It contributes to the real danger we confront: not a general selfishness, but a general passivity. Billions of decent people tut and shake their heads as the world burns, immobilized by the conviction that no one else cares. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 19 2020 10:16 GreenHorizons wrote: The idea that people are inherently selfish is a philosophical/practical one, not scientific. Since they've been investigating the claim scientifically, the research shows the opposite. Also that extrinsic rewards result in worse behavior rather than reinforcing good behavior. www.theguardian.com I think you (and the Guardian article) are substantially over-selling the quoted research. For starters, "Inherently selfish" doesn't necessarily mean only motivated by selfishness or only performing selfish acts. For that matter, Gorgonoth's point remains valid even if only a minority of the population are "inherently selfish". | ||
| ||
