Dude, I think that was "Aint94." Lol.
by PhoelyssLel, when did I say half that shit... you like making up stories, don't you?
Sugar is a rape victim. It fucked with her head. She can't tell fact from fiction.
I believe it affected her comprehension skills as well (I'm pretty sure she got knocked in the head a few times during the rape). So, be sure to dumb things down for her when you respond to her.
you're just flailing in the dark like an amateur..just as stupid and arrogant as i initially thought lol. i wasn't trying to get on any 'side' i was asking if i had your story right. you've had quite the reaction though. the fact that you claim you aren't being aggressive just shows what a pussy (lol!) you are, pussy aggressive, does that work for you?
Defensive? Heh. Someone wants attention ;3
Not passive aggressive at all, if I wanted to show aggression towards you, I wouldn't feel the need to hide it. However, this isn't aggression. This is just being amused by your failing attempts at getting on anyone's bad side. I mean, any attention is good attention, right? Run along, kitty.
Lel, when did I say half that shit... you like making up stories, don't you?
All I said was I don't have empathy. I never claimed a title/label, and I certainly never said my boyfriend was abusive or antisocial. I said the relationship was abusive ('twas mainly me) and I said he's bipolar.
Hm, someone interjecting their opinion, thinking they know what the fucks going on without reading. Any of that sound familiar?
"Well, haha, that's what selfless is! Lack of self. Devoid of self. Ignoring self. Less of self. And that is how the extreme selfless end up: they do not exist in their own mind."
Doesn't the self become existent in their minds when something would stop them from doing it? Does their own ignorance of themselves really make it selfless if it still roots from a need to help themselves not feel worse than they already do?
"If they continued spiraling down in depression, they might have lost themselves forever."
And how does that make your life worse?
"It would sting for some time, but after all, I wasn't really doing it for myself."
That sting is undesirable, and arguably pushed you towards the good deed. Good deeds are good, and I see no problem with them rooting from selfishness since it's still helping others, but to call it "selfless" strikes me as a stretch from my current understanding. It helps both the one giving and the one recieving, even if the one giving gains something less material than the other.
I'm not saying it's empirical or anything, but from my own findings backing that theory, I've found that after enough questions there is a gain of some kind for the one giving something. Without a motivation to give, they won't. With a motivation, it must root from somewhere or it wouldn't exist.
It's closer to focusing on the opposite: Not doing it would displease the one who wishes to be charitable, and what person wants to feel bad about themselves?
by TurncoatThe argument roots from the notion of any "selfless act" being done really for a gain of the self, even if not consciously recognized. It's like those who give to charity to feel charitable, assuming that not giving would make them feel terrible. In that sense, it's being done so the one doing something nice doesn't feel bad, guilty, etc.
I lean towards the theory of there being no such thing of a selfless act, but I'd have argued it a little differently. The intent might appear selfless even to the one acting on it, but it's still ultimately for the one doing it instead of the one it's being done for or that person wouldn't do it in the first place.
I really don't get this. You put causality where you have no proof it exists. "and they do it TO please themselves since not doing it would be undesirable in their mind." You illogically assume that a simple consequence (please themselves) is a purpose, and I really disagree with this.
I mean, stop and think, do you have any proof that the feel good is the purpose? The old "it's like this but it's unconscious" thing sounds like a shitty cop-out argument. It's more likely that the "every act is selfish" theory spawns from a desire of the selfish to feel good about themselves and justify their own selfishness, because in the end "everyone is like them".