Evil S:

Realize that I am not trying to sway anyone's opinion towards anything, just stating mine. Either one of us could be right or could be wrong, we just don't know. Therefore, opinions formed are all we have.

Regardless, it seems that a rosy shade has been cast upon us and the allies with respect to WWII and I don't think that it was as rosy as some want us to believe

But certainly this is not grounds for trivializing evil? Or is your position simply that both sides did bad things and since all is relevant in this Truthless World, there is no such thing (objectively) as Good or Evil?

How can a rich person do what is in the best interest of the people when said person is so far out of touch with reality simply because of his/her wealth?

Albeit money and common sense do seem inversely proportional, they are not always mutually exclusive, are they? Can a rich man be a good man?

It makes horribly ironic sense that Evil S would have a good point about US hagiography of our "greatest generation."

Wow. I'm all a-tingle at this work of linguistic art! Bravo!

I'll go back to lurking now,
Cheers!

Can a rich man be a good man?

Something about a camel and the eye of a needle.

I am a firm believer in the saying that the winner writes the history of the event, therefore I cannot fully believe that what I am reading (or hearing/seeing) is the honest truth, unbiased and straightforward.

Which is the reason you need to read a lot of books,comparing them against eachother and preferably check what sources they have used to reach their conclusions.

It gets really interesting when you find books written about the same event,,but from different sides.

thank you Evil for the opportunity to enter this conversation on a good note. [Captain] [Third Place Empire] [Racial Victory] [5 Game Winner] [Yor] [Over 10 Battles] [Chaotic Evil] [Normal]

Well thank you for the thanks, heh, heh. When I said that my "views" affect how I rule my empire I might not have been totally clear. I've lived in PA/WV my whole life, so my upbringing is based on US values, if you want to call them that. But to clarify...
In all of my games I play as an evil custom race, and almost never, ever change my government from the default dictatorship. All of my decisions are based on what is best for my empire, and those choices all seem to be the most evil ones you can choose. In real life, despite my screen name, I could not have the willpower to suppress millions or even billions of people the way I do in this game. Now I could definitely do nasty things to those people who do bad things to others, which pretty much encompasses politicians, the rich, and most any leader that I read about these days. No one seems to have a "world civilization" mentality with regards to what is best for all of us, not the few. This game allows me to be one of those whom I despise tremendously, without actually joining their ranks.

politicians, the rich, and most any leader that I read about these days.

I agree to an extent Evil. Why do you include the 'rich' folks though? I am thourghly middle class and intend to remain so but I don't have any ill will toward those with more than me. I think its better for the poor to become richer than the rich to become poorer in monetary value and other areas.

Did I miss something? Government type is not dependent on alignment, is it? I do agree with Quixen with regards to leaving the default dictatorship government ASAP.

No, you did not miss anything. Evil made mention that he rarely if ever uses another form of government.

almost never, ever change my government from the default dictatorship.

I just responded on how I felt about how he plays the game.

Up until recently I was pretty much the same way. I find now that the influx of economic / social / military production is just too great to ignore and in my last few games, I have changed to the other forms of government, depending on how high my populations morale is.

Has nothing to do whether you are evil or good.

Ah, back to the philosophical, good. Too bad my time for a reply is so limited.

Quickly, then.

money is a medium or expression of power

Agreed, no argument there.

The quote above assumes that someone seeking boundless wealth has no interest in power, but I don't buy that

Neither do I. I must conclude that the error was on my part for not making myself clearer. There are two types of politician: Idealists and Careerists. Idealists want to change human nature or defend against those trying to change their nature. The careerists are in it for the money and power. The latter are despicable in their own way, but generally are far less dangerous than the former. My interest was to move beyond thinking in terms of just the dichotomy of "rich" is bad while "poor" is good.

very few people have a precise notion of what it means to be "rich."

This could get interesting. I agree.

greed is bad and that greed (or worse, mindless acquisitiveness) dominates US culture

Can't argue against the second half, but I would quibble about mindlessly throwing around the label of "greed" when describing success.

Gentlemen, my time is up. I will return after the Holidays.
Cheers!

Again, I do not see the point in demonizing success, if this success is gained with humility, charity and love for others.

I would challenge anyone to show me raw hard data with regards to someone achieving success like this. What, do you think that what Billy boy Gates did with his "foundation" is really going to help people? Do you think anyone who runs a Fortune 500 company has true ethics in mind when in the board room, or on their yacht, or maybe on vacation on their private island in some tropical paradise?
I am happy with what I have, and find no contempt for anyone who "has more" than me, especially in the material. It is when I see such a gross negligence on the part of people who could do so much to help those less fortunate. People who would rather fund lavish toga parties and claim them as business expenses than take a few thousand homeless off the street and provide some sort of education/training/counseling efforts to raise our society up from the cess pool that it has become.

I work in the nonprofit sector... the upside is that there are a LOT of good people with piles of money that want to help make the world a better place. Gates is one of those people.

When we talk about computer industry practices, Gates is evil. He bases his practices on Go and game theory in general. People who lose the games he sets up are, not surprisingly, upset. However, when it comes to human welfare, the man has big ideas and the money to make them work.

He's doing what governments consistently refuse to do. He's doing smart things (vaccination, sanitary infrastructure) alike that asshat from MIT with his $100 laptop idea for places that don't have fundamental legal mechanisms like zipcodes or streets.

Governments are only as strong as the people who keep them in power.

what governments consistently refuse to do

While I do think it is a govenrments responsibility to care for the masses who put them there I also think the masses have a responsibility to care for themselves. A hand up instead of a hand out. There are too many lazy folks who don't care to better their lot in life by taking action. They would rather sit around and blame someone else for it while collecting my taxpayer dollars for doing nothing.

Most of us in the US it seems, just try and get by with what we have and try to better ourselves and our families lives... I must ask you... Is this greed?

No. It is our responsibility to better ourselves in our own eyes. If a person thinks being a millionaire is better then more power to them. The problem lies in values and how they are applied to becoming better.

Enter social programs. While it may not apply to the folks mentioned, it certianly applies to some areas. The gov't writing checks each month to the aforementioned lazy folks in the post above.

Yes, it is sad that programs which were meant to actually do some good end up getting hijacked by what I like to call "welfare worms". My own brother in law is one of these prime specimens. He's all of 21 and just now feels that he "needs to live his life for himself" already. He's totalled two cars, which he never paid for, received HUD housing at some ridiculous rate of like 82.00 a month for his rent AND utilities, in a nice apartment to boot I might add. Oh, and food stamps too. All of this I pay for in some form, so he can lay around, whine to mom that he needs internet access and a cell phone, which she will have to pay for, and yet he finds the money to buy dope. Hmmmm?
Oh, and where is he now? In Ft. Lauderdale partying and living with his older brother, while mom sends money Western Union to support their "endless summer".
P.S.: He went to Florida to escape his fines which encompass two states up here. Maybe he figures if he puts his head in the sand long enough, they won't find him.

That seemed to do the trick... Now it gets all interesting...

Is it considered Greed to reach for something you do not have but would make your life better?

Not at all. Probably the line would be drawn somewhere around quality vs. quantity, I'd imagine. If I have a TV set that works and satisfies me, why do I crave another? (and I do) Is it because my neighbor has 3? Is it because my buddy has a plasma screen that rocks in his basement home theater and I want some of that fun myself? In choosing to have my second or third TV, what have I chosen not to do? I am reminded of the final scene in Schindler's List (not to be too pop-culture on this forum -- but Oprah has already been mentioned!  ), when at the end of the war, Schindler realizes how many more Jews he could have saved, if only he had sold his car or wife's jewelry, etc... Because he didn't sell these things, is he a bad person? Does it minimize the good he has done?

What, do you think that what Billy boy Gates did with his "foundation" is really going to help people? Do you think anyone who runs a Fortune 500 company has true ethics in mind....

Certainly not. And what, might I ask, does Billy Gates have to do with success? Oh, I see, you've bought into the fallacy that we're only in this game once and the one who grabs the most stuff before they dies, wins? Very short-sighted of you, if this is the case.

I am happy with what I have, and find no contempt for anyone who "has more" than me, especially in the material.

This is a good thing, for envy will always destroy those who indulge it, even for just a whisper.

It is when I see such a gross negligence on the part of people who could do so much to help those less fortunate.

Yes, that reflects very poorly on them, but does it justify a right on your part to compel "good" behavior on them by overt force (such as by government law)?
Evil S, you have justification to be angry at how others (your brother-in-law) abuse some folks good natures (his mom), but you must be careful not to let this indignation blind you to the innate humanity in each of us, and our duty to respond to it. Do not harden your heart against the fool who refuses to help themselves, but instead, in a spirit of charity, humility and compassion, seek to help them still. Sometimes with "tough love", but with love nonetheless. You do yourself no credit to love those who love you. It is how you treat those who don't like you that will measure your success.
It is sad that the only examples of "successful" people held up in this context were Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey (both modern Robber Barons). No mention of Mother Teresa or John Paul II, who arguably have had (and will continue to have) a far greater impact on the lives of many more people than anyone on any Four Hundred list. These two come immediately to mind, due to their fame, but how many others are there, equally "successful" but without the fame?
I am no saint. Merely another (hopefully humble) sinner trying to find my way.

And to change topics to one mentioned earlier that got my goat:

Think about it, when someone says "nazi" you think holocaust. I mean, nobody gets mad when you talk about Austrio-hungary doing all the things that lead up to the first world war. It's simply that the nazis did something waaaaaaaay over the top and now we act like they're the spawns of the devil. Now this isn't to say I support them, not at all, but simply how we react to certain words(i.e. "terrorist").

First, it is debatable whether A-H was solely responsible for WWI. It seems to me there was this little Serbian question and some Russian ambitions too... Not to mention a foolish German blank check given to the reckless Austrians... But these actions and the evil they spawned are different in scope/scale and aspect from what the Nazis did to the untermensch in their grasp (and the Ottoman Turks to the Armenians in theirs). Genocide is not foreign policy, regardless of how many sound bites you may have listened to on Air America or CNN.

Well, so much for lurking...
Cheers!

Oh, I see, you've bought into the fallacy that we're only in this game once and the one who grabs the most stuff before they dies, wins?

Sorry for not keeping all of this in one reply but work has called and you know how that is. Anyhow, in reference to your comment which I've quoted, it seems then that you would believe in reincarnation, correct? I myself have given up on that philosophical tidbit, merely because it has been a no winner of sorts. I believe that I myself was probably someone very wealthy, very powerful perhaps, who abused the hell out of their position. Hence the reason why I have come back around this time with much less of a position in the world, but with the thoughts and knowledge of someone who should be "higher" on the ladder in life. It is during reflection that I arrive at the reincarnation conclusion, and in my case it just might be so. Maybe what I will learn in this life will carry over so that if I must do it again, I may somehow "know" what path to choose based on some unknown little voice inside me that keeps nudging me towards whatever end. On the whole however, I can't really say that I totally buy in to the reincarnation. Not yet anyway.