An Autopsy for the Keyenesians

[PaintMyHouse]

One is selfish if one cannot consider the other side of things.

I've considered the other sides for decades, and found them to be utterly moronic in most cases, but being dumb is a great way to be happy and most of you are both.

and makes you selfish and immoral I supposed in your little world.

That makes you selfish and immoral in the world I live in, the real one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, is the toddler alone? No adult with the toddler? Or is the toddler with me?

You are the only adult, but it wouldn't matter either way to a moral person. What do you do?

This isn't a difficult question, it just utterly defeats you so you didn't answer.

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

 

[jc456]

You are the only adult, but it wouldn't matter either way to a moral person. What do you do?

This isn't a difficult question, it just utterly defeats you so you didn't answer.

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

you're correct, it's over, you are indeed the most immoral human on the planet. your entire preference is immoral, then on top you propose child abuse on top of the already immoral piece of letting a toddler walk in front of a car. Then you want to beat the toddler after. Yep, you sir take the cake!!!

 

[bripat9643]

You have failed to explain your theory that being selfish is immature.

Moralists did that a few thousand years ago, you simply aren't moral so you reject their teachings.

you can't have a society without morality. there have to be laws, and there have to be leaders. there doesn't need to be government.

There are CEOs but they are in control by the authority of the stockholders to a company as a leader is to the flock

You are playing semantics and dumbass has no clue what that even is. Being selfish is human, but it ain't moral.

how is selfishness immoral? Explain.

It's been done time and again. Look it up, the education will do you good.

But you can see the problem in a simple question: A toddler, right next to you, and unrelated to you by blood, runs into the road and is about to be hit by a car. What is the moral thing to do, pull them back and swat their bottom or stand there and see what happens?

How much effort are you going to expend saving that toddler's life? Almost nothing. In exchange you prevented a huge tragedy. Anyone would view that as a sound exchange. It's purely selfish.

 

[bripat9643]

You are the only adult, but it wouldn't matter either way to a moral person. What do you do?

This isn't a difficult question, it just utterly defeats you so you didn't answer.

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

You can't explain why self-interest is bad, so all you can do is insult your interrogators.

Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[bripat9643]

Gluttony is self destructive, so it's obviously not acting selfishly. "Greed" and "lust" are just pejorative terms for "success" and "love." When we disapprove of someone's success we call it "greed."

So far you have failed to provide an example of how self-interest is immoral.

Dumbass, I already did provide them. As usual, you rationalize them away. It's what you're good at. Greed is not success, and lust is not love.

You only provided some pejorative terms for perfectly moral mature behavior. It couldn't be obvious that you can't explain why being selfish is bad.

You don't base a society on being out for number one but then again, you don't believe in society or anything else that matters. What you believe in is you, and that's all. The same as any infant.

then how did Obama become President if he wasn't out for #1?

Having the ego to think you can lead this shithole doesn't mean you are out for number one. If you were out for number one that's the last job you'd want.

Of course, the way Obama takes advantage of the prerogatives of being the President make it clear he is looking out for number one. He is the most sociopathic type of person there is: someone who craves power over others.

 

[bripat9643]

Gluttony is self destructive, so it's obviously not acting selfishly. "Greed" and "lust" are just pejorative terms for "success" and "love." When we disapprove of someone's success we call it "greed."

So far you have failed to provide an example of how self-interest is immoral.

Dumbass, I already did provide them. As usual, you rationalize them away. It's what you're good at. Greed is not success, and lust is not love.

You only provided some pejorative terms for perfectly moral mature behavior. It couldn't be obvious that you can't explain why being selfish is bad.

You don't base a society on being out for number one but then again, you don't believe in society or anything else that matters. What you believe in is you, and that's all. The same as any infant.

so, when someone receiving freebies from the government won't get off their butts to find a job, isn't that selfish? Again, there isn't one human being that isn't selfish. All of your posts on this thread are based off of selfishness. And if selfish is not moral, then how do we have a moral society? Why don't you just cut to the chase and simply state you hate bipar? Not that we all haven't figured that out with all of your selfish posts.

I hate humans and human stupidity. They don't get much dumber than he is. He is an infant and you aren't far behind.

You hate humans but you're telling us in this thread that your behaviour is motivated by altruism?

 

[bripat9643]

You only provided some pejorative terms for perfectly moral mature behavior. It couldn't be obvious that you can't explain why being selfish is bad.

You don't base a society on being out for number one but then again, you don't believe in society or anything else that matters. What you believe in is you, and that's all. The same as any infant.

so, when someone receiving freebies from the government won't get off their butts to find a job, isn't that selfish? Again, there isn't one human being that isn't selfish. All of your posts on this thread are based off of selfishness. And if selfish is not moral, then how do we have a moral society? Why don't you just cut to the chase and simply state you hate bipar? Not that we all haven't figured that out with all of your selfish posts.

I hate humans and human stupidity. They don't get much dumber than he is. He is an infant and you aren't far behind.

That's was predictable, it more demonstrates your selfishness than anything. You have proclaimed yourself as something you are not! But hey, it's just a message board, and you seem to take things personally on here.

Not at all. I just hate stupid people and that's who posts here.

You being the best case in point.

 

[bripat9643]

It's been done time and again. Look it up, the education will do you good.

But you can see the problem in a simple question: A toddler, right next to you, and unrelated to you by blood, runs into the road and is about to be hit by a car. What is the moral thing to do, pull them back and swat their bottom or stand there and see what happens?

So, is the toddler alone? No adult with the toddler? Or is the toddler with me?

You are the only adult, but it wouldn't matter either way to a moral person. What do you do?

If I were the only adult, then the kid never walks into the street in front of a car while I'm there. I'd ask him where the adults are that are supposed to be watching him/her and call the police and wait for them. It's a simple answer.

See I don't want to put my own life in danger because some other adult is too lazy to watch their toddler.

So, you, like him, are immoral, probably both sociopaths. We have lots of them. They think only of number one, period, and they can't deal with the obvious answer to this question that any moral adult would be able to answer without hesitation.

People who want to control others are sociopaths. That describes every liberal in this forum.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Moralists did that a few thousand years ago, you simply aren't moral so you reject their teachings.

you can't have a society without morality. there have to be laws, and there have to be leaders. there doesn't need to be government.

There are CEOs but they are in control by the authority of the stockholders to a company as a leader is to the flock

You are playing semantics and dumbass has no clue what that even is. Being selfish is human, but it ain't moral.

how is selfishness immoral? Explain.

It's been done time and again. Look it up, the education will do you good.

But you can see the problem in a simple question: A toddler, right next to you, and unrelated to you by blood, runs into the road and is about to be hit by a car. What is the moral thing to do, pull them back and swat their bottom or stand there and see what happens?

How much effort are you going to expend saving that toddler's life? Almost nothing. In exchange you prevented a huge tragedy. Anyone would view that as a sound exchange. It's purely selfish.

How many effort? I'm going to die trying should it be required. That is what a moral person would do but not you two.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So, is the toddler alone? No adult with the toddler? Or is the toddler with me?

You are the only adult, but it wouldn't matter either way to a moral person. What do you do?

If I were the only adult, then the kid never walks into the street in front of a car while I'm there. I'd ask him where the adults are that are supposed to be watching him/her and call the police and wait for them. It's a simple answer.

See I don't want to put my own life in danger because some other adult is too lazy to watch their toddler.

So, you, like him, are immoral, probably both sociopaths. We have lots of them. They think only of number one, period, and they can't deal with the obvious answer to this question that any moral adult would be able to answer without hesitation.

People who want to control others are sociopaths. That describes every liberal in this forum.

Society limits human actions. Only infants don't understand why.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Dumbass, I already did provide them. As usual, you rationalize them away. It's what you're good at. Greed is not success, and lust is not love.

You only provided some pejorative terms for perfectly moral mature behavior. It couldn't be obvious that you can't explain why being selfish is bad.

You don't base a society on being out for number one but then again, you don't believe in society or anything else that matters. What you believe in is you, and that's all. The same as any infant.

so, when someone receiving freebies from the government won't get off their butts to find a job, isn't that selfish? Again, there isn't one human being that isn't selfish. All of your posts on this thread are based off of selfishness. And if selfish is not moral, then how do we have a moral society? Why don't you just cut to the chase and simply state you hate bipar? Not that we all haven't figured that out with all of your selfish posts.

I hate humans and human stupidity. They don't get much dumber than he is. He is an infant and you aren't far behind.

You hate humans but you're telling us in this thread that your behaviour is motivated by altruism?

No, I am not, but unlike you two I can see the needs of others and not just my own.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This isn't a difficult question, it just utterly defeats you so you didn't answer.

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

You can't explain why self-interest is bad, so all you can do is insult your interrogators.

Who do you think you're fooling?

It has already been explained, by my example and eons of moralists.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This isn't a difficult question, it just utterly defeats you so you didn't answer.

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

you're correct, it's over, you are indeed the most immoral human on the planet. your entire preference is immoral, then on top you propose child abuse on top of the already immoral piece of letting a toddler walk in front of a car. Then you want to beat the toddler after. Yep, you sir take the cake!!!

Swatting a toddler's bottom for running into the street isn't abuse, and no moral person waits to see if they get hit by a car, but you two would.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

You can't explain why self-interest is bad, so all you can do is insult your interrogators.

Who do you think you're fooling?

It has already been explained, by my example and eons of moralists.

You haven't explained jack shit. All you've done is claim that certain pejorative terms are examples of "immoral" selfishness. You haven't proved that they are.

So let's consider one of your examples: "greed." That's just another we to say "selfishness." Your example is a tautology.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, so I wasn't logged on you selfish brat. I think you need to spend more time in front of the mirror throwing smootches at yourself. I think you miss you!!!

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

you're correct, it's over, you are indeed the most immoral human on the planet. your entire preference is immoral, then on top you propose child abuse on top of the already immoral piece of letting a toddler walk in front of a car. Then you want to beat the toddler after. Yep, you sir take the cake!!!

Swatting a toddler's bottom for running into the street isn't abuse, and no moral person waits to see if they get hit by a car, but you two would.

Hmmm, no, he specifically said he wouldn't wait for the toddler to walk into the street. However, that's the premise of your example: that you would wait until he wandered into the street. And swatting another person's child is abuse, especially when there's no need to do so.

 

[bripat9643]

You only provided some pejorative terms for perfectly moral mature behavior. It couldn't be obvious that you can't explain why being selfish is bad.

You don't base a society on being out for number one but then again, you don't believe in society or anything else that matters. What you believe in is you, and that's all. The same as any infant.

so, when someone receiving freebies from the government won't get off their butts to find a job, isn't that selfish? Again, there isn't one human being that isn't selfish. All of your posts on this thread are based off of selfishness. And if selfish is not moral, then how do we have a moral society? Why don't you just cut to the chase and simply state you hate bipar? Not that we all haven't figured that out with all of your selfish posts.

I hate humans and human stupidity. They don't get much dumber than he is. He is an infant and you aren't far behind.

You hate humans but you're telling us in this thread that your behaviour is motivated by altruism?

No, I am not, but unlike you two I can see the needs of others and not just my own.

So, are you motivated by altruism or self interest? You seem to be confused on this issue.

 

[bripat9643]

you can't have a society without morality. there have to be laws, and there have to be leaders. there doesn't need to be government.

There are CEOs but they are in control by the authority of the stockholders to a company as a leader is to the flock

You are playing semantics and dumbass has no clue what that even is. Being selfish is human, but it ain't moral.

how is selfishness immoral? Explain.

It's been done time and again. Look it up, the education will do you good.

But you can see the problem in a simple question: A toddler, right next to you, and unrelated to you by blood, runs into the road and is about to be hit by a car. What is the moral thing to do, pull them back and swat their bottom or stand there and see what happens?

How much effort are you going to expend saving that toddler's life? Almost nothing. In exchange you prevented a huge tragedy. Anyone would view that as a sound exchange. It's purely selfish.

How many effort? I'm going to die trying should it be required. That is what a moral person would do but not you two.

Sorry, I don't agree. If my death was almost certain, then I wouldn't risk it. However, I would never allow a child to get near a street. That's your modus operandi.

Following my moral code, no one is injured. Following yours, possibly two people are killed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You don't base a society on being out for number one but then again, you don't believe in society or anything else that matters. What you believe in is you, and that's all. The same as any infant.

so, when someone receiving freebies from the government won't get off their butts to find a job, isn't that selfish? Again, there isn't one human being that isn't selfish. All of your posts on this thread are based off of selfishness. And if selfish is not moral, then how do we have a moral society? Why don't you just cut to the chase and simply state you hate bipar? Not that we all haven't figured that out with all of your selfish posts.

I hate humans and human stupidity. They don't get much dumber than he is. He is an infant and you aren't far behind.

You hate humans but you're telling us in this thread that your behaviour is motivated by altruism?

No, I am not, but unlike you two I can see the needs of others and not just my own.

So, are you motivated by altruism or self interest? You seem to be confused on this issue.

Like all real adults I am motivated by many things and many of them don't serve number one.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You had plenty of time to answer, and couldn't. He won't be able to either but he'll say, eventually, that he run into the street to get the child because if he did he'd be rewarded, which is bullshit but he's been down this road. You however, were totally batfucked on how to answer. Normal and moral people don't have such issues.

most humans I know that see a toddler on a corner, don't let the toddler wander into the street. Who the f are you kidding? It is you with the immoral feelings. you let the toddler enter into harms way!! How selfish is that. You do want to save him for the reward!!

You no longer need to argue the point. Your answer is that of a sociopath, like Bripat. It was expected, let it go now.

You can't explain why self-interest is bad, so all you can do is insult your interrogators.

Who do you think you're fooling?

It has already been explained, by my example and eons of moralists.

You haven't explained jack shit. All you've done is claim that certain pejorative terms are examples of "immoral" selfishness. You haven't proved that they are.

So let's consider one of your examples: "greed." That's just another we to say "selfishness." Your example is a tautology.

This from the guy who calls lust love and greed success. Move along sociopath.