I follow the first 3 points, but not the latter 2.
1) employee / employer relations are not "human relations"; Actual human relationships involve transactions that are more than just monetary. A corporation offering jobs in a location is not otherwise involved in the economics of that place.
2) "The most effective techniques at causing change involve at least some appeals to emotion or outrage"
What techniques/changes? political?
Plenty techniques involving emotion or outrage are among the least effective too.
Just read the Wikipedia page for the dictator game. It'll fast-forward your understanding. I think this is the extent to which I am willing to tutor. But if you'd like more, I'll do it at $180/hr, email in profile. Should be 10 mins if you don't have further questions, 30 mins if you do.
Not even Wikipedia asserts that the experiment proves anything. And even if it did, the burden is on you to prove that "fairness in human relations" is relevant to this thread.
That's exactly why I said:
employee / employer relations are not "human relations"
Since that's what we are talking about - I'm asking why this is relevant.
But since you responded with smug condescension, it seems like your more interested in implying that I'm stupid (don't understand) and you're clever (I can tutor) than responding in good faith.
It isn't condescension. You're just living under the misapprehension that I am trying to convince you. You're welcome to believe what you want. If you don't think it's worth the money, it's okay if you don't want to pay.
When you have several users all brigading with the same propaganda (on the lines of "you always have a choice, ayn rand is my hero!") as if it was an undeniable truth, I have to face that. It's unavoidable, and not name calling. I precisely wrote about the argument, not the user.
