The True Root of All Evil...

[RKMBrown]

A potential third choice could've solved this before I dropped 4 more posts explaining the same point? Holy shit, why didn't I think of that? Lol.

Here: It is possible that each human's individual consciousness is a projection of that human's soul, and that human's soul is unable to experience the sensory input of any human except that individual of which that soul is the essence.

Thusly, that soul is only able to guide the consciousness according to its -own- values, and thus the soul is no more able to escape the selfish nature of all it does than is the observable human consciousness.

Next up, I was never trying to say that complex processing is magical. I was saying is that the soul is magical, and even without magic, complex processing is fucking amazing.

In absence of a magical essence, yes, we are just a biological machine, and in my opinion, the human mind can indeed be compared to a large, amazing collection of switches, albeit switches that each individual has an involuntary hand in developing. This doesn't mean we lack free will, it simply means that our will is guided by our experience. That will is still free to be directed at whatever values we acquire through our experiences.

Lastly, lemme save you some suspense: humans are indeed something that can be manufactured. Not sure if you've seen the birth rate lately, but we manufacture an awful lot of new humans on a daily basis. Okay, I say that partially in jest, but I seriously don't understand why you find the idea that we might be nothing more than a remarkable configuration of the same matter as the rest of the universe so depressing. I find the universe to be a pretty awe inspiring place just based on what can be seen, and personally, I have no problem being comprised of nothing more than what I can observe. Existence is still tops, in my eyes. Magic would be neat-o, but I certainly don't need it to appreciate what is.

ROFL... so again you agree either we have a soul or we don't. Your definition of the soul as magical essence merely shows that you are not yet able to see behind the curtain to the fact that it's not a magic act.

Obviously we either have a soul or we don't, that was never the argument. The argument was whether or not selfishness as an inevitability negated the possibility of a soul's existence. Holy shit, again you move the goal posts as though you're completely unaware of what we were just arguing about.

Also, I didn't mean magic as in "a trick".

I meant "magic" as a fun substitute for "supernatural". Mysticism is mysticism for all I care. When you tell me you've seen proof of a soul, you might as well be telling me you're a wizard. I would be equally compelled to believe either statement.

Yet, your all of your arguments hinge on the your assumption that there can be no soul because no one can prove there is a soul therefore there can be no proof that selfishness is not an inevitability. For if there is a soul then selfishness is not an inevitability by choice alone.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

ROFL... so again you agree either we have a soul or we don't. Your definition of the soul as magical essence merely shows that you are not yet able to see behind the curtain to the fact that it's not a magic act.

Obviously we either have a soul or we don't, that was never the argument. The argument was whether or not selfishness as an inevitability negated the possibility of a soul's existence. Holy shit, again you move the goal posts as though you're completely unaware of what we were just arguing about.

Also, I didn't mean magic as in "a trick".

I meant "magic" as a fun substitute for "supernatural". Mysticism is mysticism for all I care. When you tell me you've seen proof of a soul, you might as well be telling me you're a wizard. I would be equally compelled to believe either statement.

Yet, your all of your arguments hinge on the your assumption that there can be no soul because no one can prove there is a soul therefore there can be no proof that selfishness is not an inevitability. For if there is a soul then selfishness is not an inevitability by choice alone.

I don't assume that there can be no soul. Where are you getting this?

I keep telling you, I'm agnostic. I don't believe or disbelieve. I accept the possibility, but I don't feel like I know either way whether or not we have a soul. You get it?

Also, EVEN IF WE HAVE A SOUL, it is STILL POSSIBLE that the soul is possessed of the same individual nature as our physical consciousness, and as such would be bound by the same conundrum as our physical beings: that every one of its acts was inherently selfish. That no matter what choice it made, that choice would be a selfish one.

Personally, I'm not assuming anything other than that an individual consciousness is capable -only- of selfish choices (any choice it makes is by definition selfish).

You, on the other hand, are assuming a lot of strange things. You never have explained -why- you believe that the existence of a soul negates the nature of selfishness as it relates to an individual consciousness.

 

[RKMBrown]

Obviously we either have a soul or we don't, that was never the argument. The argument was whether or not selfishness as an inevitability negated the possibility of a soul's existence. Holy shit, again you move the goal posts as though you're completely unaware of what we were just arguing about.

Also, I didn't mean magic as in "a trick".

I meant "magic" as a fun substitute for "supernatural". Mysticism is mysticism for all I care. When you tell me you've seen proof of a soul, you might as well be telling me you're a wizard. I would be equally compelled to believe either statement.

Yet, your all of your arguments hinge on the your assumption that there can be no soul because no one can prove there is a soul therefore there can be no proof that selfishness is not an inevitability. For if there is a soul then selfishness is not an inevitability by choice alone.

I don't assume that there can be no soul. Where are you getting this?

I keep telling you, I'm agnostic. I don't believe or disbelieve. I accept the possibility, but I don't feel like I know either way whether or not we have a soul. You get it?

Also, EVEN IF WE HAVE A SOUL, it is STILL POSSIBLE that the soul is possessed of the same individual nature as our physical consciousness, and as such would be bound by the same conundrum as our physical beings: that every one of its acts was inherently selfish. That no matter what choice it made, that choice would be a selfish one.

Personally, I'm not assuming anything other than that an individual consciousness is capable -only- of selfish choices (any choice it makes is by definition selfish).

You, on the other hand, are assuming a lot of strange things. You never have explained -why- you believe that the existence of a soul negates the nature of selfishness as it relates to an individual consciousness.

Yes I did you were not paying attn.

The only way you could argue that a souless body is rendered incapable of choosing selfless acts over selfish desires is to argue that the body, brain included, makes all decisions there is no actual choice only reactive actions taken by the body on stimulus for the betterment of the body. If however you agree there is a soul, then what is the soul if not a free entity able to make a choice between selfless acts over selfish desires. To argue the soul is incapable of self-determination, no different than an autonomic reflex, is ridiculous. The entire concept of soul is centered on self-determination. Thus it comes down to whether you believe in self-determination or not. If you do, then you believe in the soul. If you don't, then you might come to the understanding that the body reacts on stimulus and self-determination is a myth perpetuated by the body to make itself feel good.

 

[KevinWestern]

Come on, can't we just all get along and conclude that everything I said in the OP is absolutely true and that everything else said in contrary is incorrect?

 

[RKMBrown]

Selfishness is the root of all evil, despair, hate, pain, suffering, etc in this world. The only way we are going to experience peace here on earth is if we learn (as a whole) to unselfishly love everyone and everything.

I'm a believer in the idea that everything in the Universe is ultimately One thing, and that duality (ie the illusion of separateness that we experience as physical beings here on earth) is the cause of all problems here on earth.

Separateness leads to selfishness.
Wholeness leads to unselfish love.

Here let me "modify" your OP into something I think you and I would both agree to.

Selfishness carried to the extreme is a root cause of evil, despair, hate, pain, and suffering. One way to improve peace on earth is if we learn when to unselfishly love and when to be selfish to the betterment of self and man.

Separation from social groups is also a cause of problems here on earth, because feelings of separateness can lead to selfishness. Whereas, feelings of being a part of a larger social group can lead to unselfish love and thus, unselfish desires.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Yet, your all of your arguments hinge on the your assumption that there can be no soul because no one can prove there is a soul therefore there can be no proof that selfishness is not an inevitability. For if there is a soul then selfishness is not an inevitability by choice alone.

I don't assume that there can be no soul. Where are you getting this?

I keep telling you, I'm agnostic. I don't believe or disbelieve. I accept the possibility, but I don't feel like I know either way whether or not we have a soul. You get it?

Also, EVEN IF WE HAVE A SOUL, it is STILL POSSIBLE that the soul is possessed of the same individual nature as our physical consciousness, and as such would be bound by the same conundrum as our physical beings: that every one of its acts was inherently selfish. That no matter what choice it made, that choice would be a selfish one.

Personally, I'm not assuming anything other than that an individual consciousness is capable -only- of selfish choices (any choice it makes is by definition selfish).

You, on the other hand, are assuming a lot of strange things. You never have explained -why- you believe that the existence of a soul negates the nature of selfishness as it relates to an individual consciousness.

Yes I did you were not paying attn.

The only way you could argue that a souless body is rendered incapable of choosing selfless acts over selfish desires is to argue that the body, brain included, makes all decisions there is no actual choice only reactive actions taken by the body on stimulus for the betterment of the body. If however you agree there is a soul, then what is the soul if not a free entity able to make a choice between selfless acts over selfish desires. To argue the soul is incapable of self-determination, no different than an autonomic reflex, is ridiculous. The entire concept of soul is centered on self-determination. Thus it comes down to whether you believe in self-determination or not. If you do, then you believe in the soul. If you don't, then you might come to the understanding that the body reacts on stimulus and self-determination is a myth perpetuated by the body to make itself feel good.

You're wrong in your opening assumption. I'm not saying that humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts. I'm saying that there is no such thing -as- a selfless act. I'm not negating choice from the equation, I'm negating the existence of selflessness. It's not even a thing. How is this so hard for you to comprehend? I'm not saying people don't make their own choices. I'm saying that whatever choice they make is inevitably a selfish one. All choices are selfish because selfish is all that exists. Selfless is an illusion we made so that we can assign extra positive value to acts that benefit others and feel nice and warm and fuzzy about those acts because, for some reason, the fact that they provide benefit isn't enough if we can't detach ourselves from the process. It's silly dogmatic bullshit and it doesn't exist. That's my argument.

Not that the selfless choices are out of reach of mankind due to a lack of free will, but that SELFLESS CHOICES DONT EXIST.

Get it? Holy shit. I don't know how I could put it into simpler terms. If you still don't get what I'm saying this time, I fuckin give up. Seriously.

Also, even without a soul, self-determination is still possible. The fact that we are sentient and able to control and deny our instinctive and emotional reactions to stimuli proves that only sentience is required for self-determination. If we were nothing more than biological reaction to stimuli, then our reactions would be pretty universal, no?

Or maybe your claim is that our sentience proves the existence of a soul? LOL! Logic that one out for me.

You still haven't illustrated how no soul means no self-determination. You've said that it is the case, then found another way of saying it (i.e. that without a soul we just react to stimuli) but you haven't actually backed up that claim with fact. You've got your claim, but you're missing the larger portion of what is required to make this a debate: Reasoning.

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm not saying that humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts. I'm saying that there is no such thing -as- a selfless act.

Sorry did not realize you were "mentally handicapped."

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I'm not saying that humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts. I'm saying that there is no such thing -as- a selfless act.

Sorry did not realize you were "mentally handicapped."

Lol. Is that you tapping out of the debate? Good argument, at any rate. I can see you're the type of open-minded individual who can eschew his dogmatic stance and really get into a deep, philosophical discussion.


Anyway, if you actually -are- capable of a more reasoned response, I've listed time and again throughout this post why I don't believe that selflessness exists for an individual consciousness. Or you can can call me dumb, assume you're right, and spare your intellectual insecurity. Do whatever feels right

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm not saying that humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts. I'm saying that there is no such thing -as- a selfless act.

Sorry did not realize you were "mentally handicapped."

Lol. Is that you tapping out of the debate? Good argument, at any rate. I can see you're the type of open-minded individual who can eschew his dogmatic stance and really get into a deep, philosophical discussion.


Anyway, if you actually -are- capable of a more reasoned response, I've listed time and again throughout this post why I don't believe that selflessness exists for an individual consciousness. Or you can can call me dumb, assume you're right, and spare your intellectual insecurity. Do whatever feels right

So basically you don't believe that selflessness can exist for an individual consciousness, and you don't know why it's just something you "feel."

The same as your statement that you are not saying "humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts", your saying "there is no such thing -as- a selfless act." You don't know why the lack of selfless acts results in not being able to choose selfless acts, it's just something you feel.

Not only have you denied that the result of there being no such thing as a selfless act is that humans are incapable of choosing a selfless act. You have completely denied the existence of selfless acts. And you call me insecure. ROFL I guess I'm just not feeling your feeling that for every selfish act chosen there were only other selfish acts to choose, because in your opinion all choices are selfish. ROFL

 

[RKMBrown]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Selfishness is the root of all evil, despair, hate, pain, suffering, etc in this world. The only way we are going to experience peace here on earth is if we learn (as a whole) to unselfishly love everyone and everything.

I'm a believer in the idea that everything in the Universe is ultimately One thing, and that duality (ie the illusion of separateness that we experience as physical beings here on earth) is the cause of all problems here on earth.

Separateness leads to selfishness.
Wholeness leads to unselfish love.

Anyone have similar views? Thoughts?

No. Love your neighbor AS yourself.

The root of ALL evil is a moral double standard. Name one immoral act that doesn't have the perp putting the value of his rights over the value of the rights of the victim(s)--never equal to them.

If you value your rights below others, you're hanging a sign around your neck saying "Ready-made Victim", but at least you're not being selfish.

 

[KevinWestern]

No. Love your neighbor AS yourself.

The root of ALL evil is a moral double standard. Name one immoral act that doesn't have the perp putting the value of his rights over the value of the rights of the victim(s)--never equal to them.

If you value your rights below others, you're hanging a sign around your neck saying "Ready-made Victim", but at least you're not being selfish.

Well, maybe I wasn’t clear. This isn’t about self-sacrifice at all costs, it’s about treating yourself as an equal part of a whole. You do things to serve the whole, vs just serving yourself and your individual pleasures. This doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself, because YOU are part of that whole that you are serving, and therefore your wellbeing/evolution is just as valuable as anyone else’s.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Sorry did not realize you were "mentally handicapped."

Lol. Is that you tapping out of the debate? Good argument, at any rate. I can see you're the type of open-minded individual who can eschew his dogmatic stance and really get into a deep, philosophical discussion.


Anyway, if you actually -are- capable of a more reasoned response, I've listed time and again throughout this post why I don't believe that selflessness exists for an individual consciousness. Or you can can call me dumb, assume you're right, and spare your intellectual insecurity. Do whatever feels right

So basically you don't believe that selflessness can exist for an individual consciousness, and you don't know why it's just something you "feel."

The same as your statement that you are not saying "humans aren't capable of choosing selfless acts", your saying "there is no such thing -as- a selfless act." You don't know why the lack of selfless acts results in not being able to choose selfless acts, it's just something you feel.

Not only have you denied that the result of there being no such thing as a selfless act is that humans are incapable of choosing a selfless act. You have completely denied the existence of selfless acts. And you call me insecure. ROFL I guess I'm just not feeling your feeling that for every selfish act chosen there were only other selfish acts to choose, because in your opinion all choices are selfish. ROFL

I don't know why I think that, it's just something I "feel"? From what lightless portion of your asshole are you pulling that assumption? I have done nothing -but- explain -exactly- why I feel that selflessness doesn't exist for an individual conscience. Are you even reading my posts, or just assuming you know what I'm gonna say and responding to that?

Last Chance Summer Dance, if you don't catch on this time, I'm just gonna call you a retard and stop "debating".

Humans aren't capable of selflessness because, as an individual consciousness, a human is -only- capable of acting on its own accord. There is no Queen Ant remotely delivering initiatives that we mindlessly carry out.

Selflessness requires that the action lacks consideration for the self. This is the part that's impossible. No matter how "unselfish" my act is, I did it to perpetuate my values.

If I give you a lollipop and not only do I not expect to be paid, but I completely lack concern for any warm fuzzy feelings I might get out of it, I'm still doing it because I value you having the lollipop more than I value me having the lollipop. Even if I don't "gain" anything from it, I still "gain" the existence of a reality wherein you have a lollipop, which is what I wanted more than the alternative. The motive is immaterial, but there is -always- a motive. Don't get dogmatic and make that out to mean that everybody's got hidden agendas, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that even if you're not out for "personal gain", you're still acting from a motive, good or bad, and that motive is based on your values. Since your motives are always based on your personal values, your actions can never be anything but selfish.

I don't say this because I'm evil and insecure about it. I'm actually a very generous person as one of my highest values is that the people I care about are happy. I will go to great lengths to achieve this, and not often for the warm and fuzzy feelings or the gratitude I'll get back, but simply because my values demand it of me. I do a lot that dogmatists like you would consider selfless, but I'm not similarly afflicted with that misconception -or- the need to add extra moral value to my actions to compensate for a potential lack of reciprocity.

I'm fine knowing that I'm generous and selfish all at once. Can you say the same? That's why I call you insecure. Without being able to call some actions selfless, you can't feel like you're a good person because your dogma has you twisted up believing that if you get anything out of an action then it wasn't "good". Hate to break it to you, but you get something out of -all- of your actions. If you can't see that, it's because you're intentionally not acknowledging it.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

 

[RKMBrown]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb.

Again, I'll take that as you tapping out of the argument altogether.

Not even sure why, but I'll grant you one last retort. They are indeed both selfish acts. Does that mean I view them as both morally the same? No. You wouldn't feel so much undeserved contempt for my viewpoint if you could extract the negative connotations you've ascribed to the word, "selfish". If you could pry your head from your dogmatic asshole, you might see some daylight.

Anyway, from here on out, I'm only responding if you've got something to say, so say something substantive or shut the fuck up. You're -way- too fuckin stupid to be condescending anyone.

 

[KevinWestern]

Here let me help you.

1) steal the candy for yourself
2) steal the candy for your kids
3) steal the candy for everyone
4) don't steal the candy and walk away
5) buy the candy for yourself
6) buy the candy for your girlfriend
7) buy the candy for your kids
8) buy the candy for everyone
9) buy the candy for everyone but yourself

Order these by magnitude of selfishness. Then tell me how humans are incapable of choosing selfishness over selflessness.

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

Acting selflessly is doing the will of the universal whole - all the time, without exception.

Acting on behalf of the whole because it makes you feel good personally is a selfish act, but acting on behalf of the whole because you love absolutely everything and everyone - and see no separation from the needs of the self and the needs of others - that is acting (by definition) selflessly.

 

[RKMBrown]

I can't order them by magnitude of selfishness. That's like pointing to the Pacific and Atlantic ocean and telling me to arrange them in order of wateriness. In stead, I'll tell you why they're all selfish.

1) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted me to have it.
2) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
3) Selfish. I stole the candy because -I- wanted everyone (except, apparently, the store owner) to have it.
4) Selfish. I didn't steal the candy because -I- would rather walk away than steal it.
5) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- valued having the candy more than I valued having the money it cost.
6) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my girlfriend to have it.
7) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted my kids to have it.
8) Selfish. I bought the candy because -I- wanted everyone to have some.
9) Selfish. I gave out the candy because it was more important to -me- that others eat it than that I eat it.

Get it? No matter what your motives are, you can't remove the "I" and the "me" from the action. It's impossible. You're nobody's puppet.

Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb.

Again, I'll take that as you tapping out of the argument altogether.

Not even sure why, but I'll grant you one last retort. They are indeed both selfish acts. Does that mean I view them as both morally the same? No. You wouldn't feel so much undeserved contempt for my viewpoint if you could extract the negative connotations you've ascribed to the word, "selfish". If you could pry your head from your dogmatic asshole, you might see some daylight.

Anyway, from here on out, I'm only responding if you've got something to say, so say something substantive or shut the fuck up. You're -way- too fuckin stupid to be condescending anyone.

That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Lib thinks buying candy for everyone because you wanted everyone to have candy is the exact same level of selfish as as stealing candy for yourself.

Yeah libs are that dumb.

Again, I'll take that as you tapping out of the argument altogether.

Not even sure why, but I'll grant you one last retort. They are indeed both selfish acts. Does that mean I view them as both morally the same? No. You wouldn't feel so much undeserved contempt for my viewpoint if you could extract the negative connotations you've ascribed to the word, "selfish". If you could pry your head from your dogmatic asshole, you might see some daylight.

Anyway, from here on out, I'm only responding if you've got something to say, so say something substantive or shut the fuck up. You're -way- too fuckin stupid to be condescending anyone.

That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper.

Stealing is the same as giving? Taking is the same as providing? Rape is the same as consent? Just because they're all selfish doesn't mean they're all the same. That's my point. If selfishness is inevitable, then one would logically stop using it as the dividing line between good and bad. I don't use it as a dividing line, so the fact that all these acts are selfish does -not- make them the same. Again, pull your dogma out of the equation and you might actually understand what I'm saying.

I don't know how much more simple I could make this. IF selfishness encompasses all decisions, than good and bad aren't functions of selfishness, they'd necessarily be separated from the concept altogether. All evil acts are selfish and all good acts are selfish, but that doesn't make them morally equivalent. There are other factors to consider, obviously.

Anjd what's this libtard, satan worshipper shit? You realize that on political issues you and I see virtually eye-to-eye, yes?

I'm also an agnostic, not a worshipper of -anything-

 

[RKMBrown]

Again, I'll take that as you tapping out of the argument altogether.

Not even sure why, but I'll grant you one last retort. They are indeed both selfish acts. Does that mean I view them as both morally the same? No. You wouldn't feel so much undeserved contempt for my viewpoint if you could extract the negative connotations you've ascribed to the word, "selfish". If you could pry your head from your dogmatic asshole, you might see some daylight.

Anyway, from here on out, I'm only responding if you've got something to say, so say something substantive or shut the fuck up. You're -way- too fuckin stupid to be condescending anyone.

That's right libtard, stealing is the same as giving. Taking is the same as providing. Rape is the same as consent. No difference whatsoever, because they are all selfish. ROFL just have to see the evils acts as "good" things. Friggin satan worshiper.

Stealing is the same as giving? Taking is the same as providing? Rape is the same as consent? Just because they're all selfish doesn't mean they're all the same. That's my point. If selfishness is inevitable, then one would logically stop using it as the dividing line between good and bad. I don't use it as a dividing line, so the fact that all these acts are selfish does -not- make them the same. Again, pull your dogma out of the equation and you might actually understand what I'm saying.

I don't know how much more simple I could make this. IF selfishness encompasses all decisions, than good and bad aren't functions of selfishness, they'd necessarily be separated from the concept altogether. All evil acts are selfish and all good acts are selfish, but that doesn't make them morally equivalent. There are other factors to consider, obviously.

Anjd what's this libtard, satan worshipper shit? You realize that on political issues you and I see virtually eye-to-eye, yes?

I'm also an agnostic, not a worshipper of -anything-

ROFL your agnostic but you claim to be the decider of what is evil. ROFL