[Thomas Jackson]

Pretty sure he still got deported too right? This just massively inconvenienced people on that flight.

[C-Note]

I suspect the reason they allowed her to stay on the flight is that the airline operations crew checked to see if a seat was available on the next flight, and when that was confirmed, they radioed the crew to tell her that she could stay. So, he ended up being deported later that day.

[Vienna]

It’s now been revealed that the deported Afghan man had been found guilty of severe and violent assault. He and his Afghan family had also been living in Iran the last 20 years, and as such had zero reason for asylum.

Can we please make SJWisms a mental disorder and lock away these self-righteous pricks? They literally get rush in their central nervous system from their ”standing up to authorities”.

[Mr. D]

Same thing happened in Finland yesterday, at the Helsinki airport.

http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finl...enger.html

Quote:

Greens’ official draws criticism for protesting deportation of fellow air passenger

Aino Pennanen, the legislative secretary of the Green League, has raised eyebrows among lawmakers and citizens alike with her actions on a Finnair aircraft at Helsinki Airport on Tuesday.

Pennanen was escorted out of the aircraft that was awaiting take-off after refusing to sit down in protest of the deportation of a fellow passenger and demanding that the pilot not take off until the person being deported has been removed from the aircraft.

“Many police officers escorted me out of the aircraft and I was taken away in a police van. This [occurred] because the captain denied my request not to take off with a person who was being removed forcibly,” she described the sequence of events on Facebook.

“The Greens’ legislative secretary apparently doesn’t think she has to follow the law,” responded Timo Heinonen (NCP), a third-term Member of Parliament from Loppi, Southern Finland.

Pennanen justified her actions by arguing that “several experienced lawyers” have drawn attention to flaws in the asylum procedure, the crumbling of legal aid to asylum seekers and the stricter criteria for humanitarian protection in Finland.

“These are the major human rights issues of our time, and I feel I have an obligation to point out that no one should be sent to a place where their life is in danger,” she stated.

Jussi Halla-aho, the chairperson of the Finns Party, underscored in a press release that authorities are responsible for interpreting and implementing the decisions of the parliament in a country based on the rule of law.

“It is unsustainable for a country based on the rule of law if certain groups elevate themselves above the law and consider it their right to choose which laws, official decisions and court rulings they respect. It is particularly dangerous if people in a position of power are guilty of inciting such arbitrariness,” he wrote.

Pennanen received support from Touko Aalto, the chairperson of the Green League.

“Brave Aino Pennanen tried to prevent a person from being forcibly removed [from the country]. Drawing attention to blatant human rights problems can’t depend on the civilian bravery of individuals. The official Finland must wake up,” he tweeted.

Finnair, meanwhile, was asked in the aftermath of the incident whether its pilots have an obligation to participate in carrying out forced removals.

“We as a company or individual employees to not have the necessary information or expertise to evaluate the grounds for forced removals,” Manti Väätäinen-Pereira, a communications and social media professional at the state-owned airline, commented on Twitter.

Loopy broad.

[DarkTriad]

Quote:


“Many police officers escorted me out of the aircraft and I was taken away in a police van. This [occurred] because the captain denied my request not to take off with a person who was being removed forcibly,” she described the sequence of events on Facebook.

Sounds like the captain accepted her request, just not the way she expected it.

[nomadbrah]

[CaptainChardonnay]

The first time around, the staff and airlines were unprepared and did not have a SOP for what to do. Now they do so lets hope this trend goes away soon.

[Rossi]

(07-27-2018 05:36 AM)Thomas Jackson Wrote:  

Pretty sure he still got deported too right? This just massively inconvenienced people on that flight.

No, I think his papers are under second consideration. At least, thats what news said.

[ADEBISIGARANA]

was there any snakes on that motherfucking plane??

[SeaFM]

I just don’t get why people are so eager to give away their countries that their ancestors died building or protecting.

Why take a big shit on your own DNA like that?

[Mr. D]

(08-02-2018 04:18 AM)SeaFM Wrote:  

I just don’t get why people are so eager to give away their countries that their ancestors died building or protecting.

Why take a big shit on your own DNA like that?

Because they don’t know better and/or they no respect for it

[Roardog]

I can't believe that the airline didn't call the police or airport security and have her forcibly removed from the plane like they did for the similar situation in Finland.

People have a right to their opinion and to protest but not when it causes major inconvenience/disruption to others.
I wold have been majorly pissed off if I was a passenger on that flight.

To get deported from Sweden you have to have done something very bad so most likely this guy had committed serious criminal acts.

[The Catalyst]

The r selected mentality of betrayal is real. Progressives want to free all the criminals.

Story of Barabbas.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

What's repugnant about this woman is that she represents altruism gone haywire. So, I want to make a point about altruism that I think is long overdue.

People SAY the motive behind altruism is to do good deeds. But that's really a side effect, not the motive.

All motives are actually selfish. The real motives behind altruism are:

1). The glorification of the self. Altruism is people (mostly women and annoying clergy) saying "Look at me! Look how wonderful I am." These people do it so others bow down before them (including the people they "help"). This is called a Messiah Complex by the way -- and minorities who complain about White Messiahs are right on the money.

2). Revenge. Altruistic people champion the underdog. But they're not so much championing the underdog as they are sticking it to the mainstream by aiding people who the mainstream doesn't like.

In other words, what they say is: "I like to help refugees" but what they leave out is "...to upset people who have legitimate fears about them." There's also "I like to rehabilitate heroin addicts instead of sending them to prison." The rest of that sentence is "...so they can relapse and rob the houses of the people I'm jealous of."

What really bothers me about the woman in this news story is that I think she's altruistic toward minorities not because she gives a fuck, but because it's a way stick it to the mainstream men she resents.

Why does she resent The Average Man? Because in the past 40 years, girls have been taught that their role isn't to compliment men but to compete with them. This stokes massive resentment because MEN BUILT THE WHOLE FUCKING WORLD and this breed of women unconsciously know this and can't stand it.

Imagine trying to compete in a world someone else designed and constructed. You can never win. And eventually, you'd be hauling in the criminal refugees to destroy it out of jealousy too.

So there you have it. Next time someone gets high-handed and starts telling you "I'm standing up for underprivileged refugees" you can respond with "Why? To glorify yourself or stick it to the white men who you're not good enough to marry?"

[JohnKreese]

Gosh, where was Elin Ersson when Middle-Eastern man on a plane REALLY needed her???!!!

[nomadbrah]

(08-02-2018 04:18 AM)SeaFM Wrote:  

I just don’t get why people are so eager to give away their countries that their ancestors died building or protecting.

Why take a big shit on your own DNA like that?

Imagine a different world in which over the last 5 years, the government had been steadily importing young thai and filipino women.

This is the situation in reverse.

[azulsombra]

(08-02-2018 06:11 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(08-02-2018 04:18 AM)SeaFM Wrote:  

I just don’t get why people are so eager to give away their countries that their ancestors died building or protecting.

Why take a big shit on your own DNA like that?

Imagine a different world in which over the last 5 years, the government had been steadily importing young thai and filipino women.

This is the situation in reverse.

Interesting point.

I can't imagine a world where young European women are going to bat to stop big-breasted criminal Colombian, Dominican, Romanian and Ukranian prostitute "refugees" from deportation.

The European economic "refugee crisis" is overwhelming young, single Black and Brown males.

[SeaFM]

I kind of get where you’re coming from, except that generally speaking, Thai and Filipina women aren’t violent, aggressive and oppressive thugs.

The only thing negative and ultimately positive thing that would happen is that western women would have to elevate their game to compete in the sexual marketplace.

[John Silva]

We really must send these bitches back to the kitchen.

[debeguiled]

First you say this:

(08-02-2018 06:07 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

What's repugnant about this woman is that she represents altruism gone haywire. So, I want to make a point about altruism that I think is long overdue.

Then you say this:

Quote:

All motives are actually selfish.

Well which is it? We all know that virtue signalling crybullies are phony as hell.

So does that mean that all motives are actually selfish?

Either there is pathological altruism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Altruism

Quote:

The book comprises a collection of essays which discuss negative aspects of altruism and empathy towards others, such as when altruism hurts the altruist, is taken to an unhealthy extreme, or causes more harm than good. Examples given include depression and burnout seen in healthcare professionals, an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's own needs, hoarding of animals, and ineffective philanthropic and social programs that ultimately worsen the situations they are meant to aid. It is considered the first book to explore negative aspects of altruism and empathy.[2]

According to Oakley, anorexia, supporting addictions of other people (codependency), animal hoarding, depression, guilt and self-righteousness can be pathological altruism. Oakley has also stated that suicide bombings and genocides can be caused by pathological altruism, when perpetrators of these acts believe they are behaving altruistically towards those who share their ideology.[3]

Oakley further states that some people are naturally "hypersensitive" or they have an excessive desire to "help" others. According to Oakley, such people are convinced that they are helping others without considering the practical results of their "help".[3]

Or all altruism is fundamentally selfish.


I think that you are inching towards nihilism when you conflate pathological altruism with plain old altruism.

I can tell you how you can recognize altruism. It is when someone helps someone else at a cost to themselves.

With virtue signalling there are no costs.

Anyone who has ever been a parent knows that it is possible to well and truly give of yourself simply for the benefit of another without any benefit to yourself, in fact a lot of the time you get nothing but grief for the good things you do.

Once heard a priest talk of how when you give to your children, you give and do not get back, something is taken from you. He was speaking in the sense of a life force, he called it l'esprit d'attaque, your vital essence that is drained from you and you can't get it back.

But as a parent, you don't care, you are willing to take that "L," for the good of your children.

According to the philosophy that all motivation is selfish, you can argue that this person is merely trying to relieve the negative feelings that would result from not doing what needs doing.

This sort of reductionism is autistic and anti-human, and usually spoken either by a bad parent trying to make themselves feel better for their selfishness or someone who has never had kids.

It is fair enough and a good thing to point out the false humility and the hypocrisy of the bogus altruism without tossing altruism into the hopper as well. True altruism is one of the hidden engines of a healthy culture.

And if you can't agree with this on logical grounds . . .

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(08-03-2018 11:44 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

First you say this:

(08-02-2018 06:07 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

What's repugnant about this woman is that she represents altruism gone haywire. So, I want to make a point about altruism that I think is long overdue.

Then you say this:

Quote:

All motives are actually selfish.

Well which is it? We all know that virtue signalling crybullies are phony as hell.

So does that mean that all motives are actually selfish?

Either there is pathological altruism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Altruism

Quote:

The book comprises a collection of essays which discuss negative aspects of altruism and empathy towards others, such as when altruism hurts the altruist, is taken to an unhealthy extreme, or causes more harm than good. Examples given include depression and burnout seen in healthcare professionals, an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's own needs, hoarding of animals, and ineffective philanthropic and social programs that ultimately worsen the situations they are meant to aid. It is considered the first book to explore negative aspects of altruism and empathy.[2]

According to Oakley, anorexia, supporting addictions of other people (codependency), animal hoarding, depression, guilt and self-righteousness can be pathological altruism. Oakley has also stated that suicide bombings and genocides can be caused by pathological altruism, when perpetrators of these acts believe they are behaving altruistically towards those who share their ideology.[3]

Oakley further states that some people are naturally "hypersensitive" or they have an excessive desire to "help" others. According to Oakley, such people are convinced that they are helping others without considering the practical results of their "help".[3]

Or all altruism is fundamentally selfish.


I think that you are inching towards nihilism when you conflate pathological altruism with plain old altruism.

I can tell you how you can recognize altruism. It is when someone helps someone else at a cost to themselves.

With virtue signalling there are no costs.

Anyone who has ever been a parent knows that it is possible to well and truly give of yourself simply for the benefit of another without any benefit to yourself, in fact a lot of the time you get nothing but grief for the good things you do.

Once heard a priest talk of how when you give to your children, you give and do not get back, something is taken from you. He was speaking in the sense of a life force, he called it l'esprit d'attaque, your vital essence that is drained from you and you can't get it back.

But as a parent, you don't care, you are willing to take that "L," for the good of your children.

According to the philosophy that all motivation is selfish, you can argue that this person is merely trying to relieve the negative feelings that would result from not doing what needs doing.

This sort of reductionism is autistic and anti-human, and usually spoken either by a bad parent trying to make themselves feel better for their selfishness or someone who has never had kids.

It is fair enough and a good thing to point out the false humility and the hypocrisy of the bogus altruism without tossing altruism into the hopper as well. True altruism is one of the hidden engines of a healthy culture.

And if you can't agree with this on logical grounds . . .

I think you make a lot of great points. And I haven't completely worked out my theories on altruism, pathological altruism, virtue signalling, etc. I need to refine these thoughts further.

I will say, though, that I still think it all comes out of the glorification of the self. Regular altruists and virtue signalers want claps on the back. Pathological altruists -- who mostly seem to be women -- want to be considered "martyrs." There is an element of masochism that they seem to see as integral to what they do.

But either way, I still see the motives as stemming from a type of selfishness (or self-glorification), even if it seems nihilistic to say so.

Regarding parenting: I think the motives behind raising a kid are, in fact, selfish. Kids are an extension of their parents' ego and self-image. Parents feel that failed kids = failure as a parent. And if a kid does well, then that reflects well on the parent. So, there's your selfish motivation.

UPDATE: I just thought of a catchphrase that sums up what I'm trying to say: "If a woman doesn't become a mother, then she becomes a martyr."

In other words, society reserves its highest respect for mothers, and if a woman doesn't get that, she finds another way to get it. Maybe my whole theory on altruism needs to be refined to reflect only what women do, because that's what I'm really analyzing with the original topic of this thread.

[debeguiled]

I get your point and often it is completely true, even for parents. It's just that if everything comes down to glorification of the self, you not only get rid of altruism, you get rid of actual love, compassion, charity etc., as well.

I think I am just making a distinction between ego based actions and love based actions.

Love based actions take place no matter how the ego is affected, they are far more matter of fact than that. Something needs doing, you do it. You aren't even thinking about how others will see it or how it makes you feel.

I learned this raising some step kids.


I can understand though if you aren't willing to make this distinction. A lot of people aren't.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(08-03-2018 02:37 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

I get your point and often it is completely true, even for parents. It's just that if everything comes down to glorification of the self, you not only get rid of altruism, you get rid of actual love, compassion, charity etc., as well.

I think I am just making a distinction between ego based actions and love based actions.

Love based actions take place no matter how the ego is affected, they are far more matter of fact than that. Something needs doing, you do it. You aren't even thinking about how others will see it or how it makes you feel.

I learned this raising some step kids.


I can understand though if you aren't willing to make this distinction. A lot of people aren't.

Maybe the distinction that needs to be made is family vs. strangers (or animals).

I once heard this argument made on the TV show "House," where the main character distrusted a chronically altruistic patient. He dismissed the guy's actions in biological terms, saying it's unnatural to care about people 10,000 miles away (or something) because man was designed to care for his kin.

So, I'll make that distinction. And will say that you're right when it comes to family, including step-children.

If you're being altruistic about your own kids or even your wife, siblings, or parents, it usually is out of a sense of carring. But if you're doing it to load the country up with illegals you don't know, you're symbolically getting back at the frat boy who didn't look at you because he represents the norm you're trying to "smash." How's that?

[Rigsby]

(08-03-2018 11:44 AM)debeguiled Wrote:  

First you say this:

(08-02-2018 06:07 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

What's repugnant about this woman is that she represents altruism gone haywire. So, I want to make a point about altruism that I think is long overdue.

Then you say this:

Quote:

All motives are actually selfish.

Well which is it? We all know that virtue signalling crybullies are phony as hell.

So does that mean that all motives are actually selfish?

Either there is pathological altruism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_Altruism

Quote:

The book comprises a collection of essays which discuss negative aspects of altruism and empathy towards others, such as when altruism hurts the altruist, is taken to an unhealthy extreme, or causes more harm than good. Examples given include depression and burnout seen in healthcare professionals, an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's own needs, hoarding of animals, and ineffective philanthropic and social programs that ultimately worsen the situations they are meant to aid. It is considered the first book to explore negative aspects of altruism and empathy.[2]

According to Oakley, anorexia, supporting addictions of other people (codependency), animal hoarding, depression, guilt and self-righteousness can be pathological altruism. Oakley has also stated that suicide bombings and genocides can be caused by pathological altruism, when perpetrators of these acts believe they are behaving altruistically towards those who share their ideology.[3]

Oakley further states that some people are naturally "hypersensitive" or they have an excessive desire to "help" others. According to Oakley, such people are convinced that they are helping others without considering the practical results of their "help".[3]

Or all altruism is fundamentally selfish.


I think that you are inching towards nihilism when you conflate pathological altruism with plain old altruism.

I can tell you how you can recognize altruism. It is when someone helps someone else at a cost to themselves.

With virtue signalling there are no costs.

Anyone who has ever been a parent knows that it is possible to well and truly give of yourself simply for the benefit of another without any benefit to yourself, in fact a lot of the time you get nothing but grief for the good things you do.

Once heard a priest talk of how when you give to your children, you give and do not get back, something is taken from you. He was speaking in the sense of a life force, he called it l'esprit d'attaque, your vital essence that is drained from you and you can't get it back.

But as a parent, you don't care, you are willing to take that "L," for the good of your children.

According to the philosophy that all motivation is selfish, you can argue that this person is merely trying to relieve the negative feelings that would result from not doing what needs doing.

This sort of reductionism is autistic and anti-human, and usually spoken either by a bad parent trying to make themselves feel better for their selfishness or someone who has never had kids.

It is fair enough and a good thing to point out the false humility and the hypocrisy of the bogus altruism without tossing altruism into the hopper as well. True altruism is one of the hidden engines of a healthy culture.

And if you can't agree with this on logical grounds . . .

I'm going to be lazy and not properly quote the segments I'm responding to, sorry. But just wanted to quote this D. for reference. Not getting involved in the debate you have with DOBA. This is just for you and some thoughts I had while reading. In no particular order...

I used to have pathological altruism. I was prepared to take a cut in standard of living to buoy up the lower segments of society. Then I got to know people. I don't really want to help anyone any more. I am tired of men, the ways of men, I'm tired of life. I want nothing from life or anyone. There is nothing that a man can give me. Hell, there is nothing a woman can give me. I'm with the Gods now. Just searching for the right one...

Altruism. I helped some people at detriment to myself. Not only did I not get a 'thanks' (not necessary - wasn't why I did it), I got fucked over in the process (which again, wasn't the reason I did it).

I see the same music producers (just one example here) panhandling, playing on their victimhood, and it's a good dollar. It works. They sheister some people then move on. Whatevs. It didn't cost me that dear, but the lesson learned was invaluable.

My brother, rest his soul, was an absolute cynic. He believed that nobody helped anyone else for anything other than purely selfish motives. No exceptions. No true altruism involved. No need for pathology. Just the plain old art of self-deception and the skill necessary to deceive others.

He would not accept a single gift, or a smile from anyone. Not a kind word would he even accept. Because it would drain him of his life force. The person giving said compliment or gift would have one over on him. He was an island, you see. Apart from other men. Every interaction with another man (or woman) would drain him. This is the schizoid mindset in full effect. Some say it is a personality disorder and it is recognized as such, but those who 'suffer' with it just say it is another way of being. He was a Stone Buddha. All worked out. No God. Total militant atheist.

And he was happy, in himself. He shunned all men (and women). But here's the rub: people loved him, more, he was well liked. He could go anywhere and half an hour later he would have phone numbers, would have made friends. He was pleasant. But he had no interest in people.

I do have an interest in people, and it's true what they say: people who need people are the loneliest people in the world. I'm not a very likable person. I have no friends. I'm not unpleasant. But people don't like me. They don't want to know me. We were chalk and cheese my bro' and me. I could tell many stories, and maybe I will...

I'm tired now. I'm tired of men (and women). I want nothing more from life. From people. There is nothing that any man can give me now after my recent experiences. I'm not bitter though - I still like people very much. I wish no harm on them, and more than that, I take great joy in their successes and triumphs. Such is the way of the Boddhisatva - to take genuine joy and pleasure in other's good fortune.

I have a nice guitar sitting next to me here. I may open it later. I bought it off a fellow guitar nut. I considered him a friend. I think he considered me a friend. But when my bro' went through his last stages and I went off on one, I didn't have time to check in on him and comment on his youtube channel. He took this as a snub. It wasn't. I didn't want to drown him in negativity. I only wanted to give good things to him. And I wanted to be true to myself, so I just went my own way for a bit.

When I hooked up with him again I thought he would be happy to see me. I mentioned that my bro' had gone, but he ignored me, snubbed me in return for my perceived slight. This hurt. Apart from this forum I have not told anyone that my bro' has gone. I've kept it to myself. Only for friends. And he treated me that way because? I did not comment on his fucking youtube channel for a month or two. People...

And this is a big manly man too. Doesn't need friends. Isn't a girly man. A man's man. But yet, still in his heart, a little frightened boy. How people can disappoint eh?

I have his guitar here. Had it for weeks and weeks. I may open it later tonight, or next week or next month or next year or never.

Altruism.

People being nice to each other in the hope that they get something in return.

I want nothing from no one. There is nothing they can give. I've even reached a point where I don't want people's friendship any more. I have become my brother. Nihilistic. Cynical. But not bitter, and still seeking God. I have become somewhat schizoid I suppose if I was to self-diagnose. I am not even unhappy in myself. I am finding a kind of peace within myself.

I still like to do nice things for people though. But I am much more choosy as to who I interact with. And what I give. I find a kind word to some can be like water or food to the thirsty or starving. Some, it's just a fiver. Five pounds can make a man happy, and when it does, and when I can I give it, I do. Case in point, my taxi driver the other day. I did not tip him on my journey out to see how he would react. He did not expect. Was not offended that I did not tip. So I gave him a generous tip the time he took me back home. He did not do a song and dance, but it was gratefully received. And that gave me pleasure.

Was that selfish of me? Was I altruistic? Was I playing a wicked game? Or was I just making sure my little gesture would be a conduit for some kind of human contact (beyond transactional), or else, what's the point really?

He was a funny looking man. He had a 'hair lip'. No sense of bitterness. Just a very happy go lucky demeanor. I remember him because he took me on the final journey to see my brother. I tipped him then. He doesn't speak if not spoken to. But when spoken to he responds in kind with genuine enthusiasm. He is not needy. He is just very natural and self-contained. A true man I would call him. Is he alpha? Well, maybe.

I think he is the sort of man someone like Oliver Reed would have liked to drink with in the pub. Salt of the earth, you might say. Not many of them left.

But I don't mind my pretentious ponces too. As long as they really are pretentious ponces and true to themselves, and can see that they are pretentious ponces. Then again, I even like the odd pretentious ponce that really can't see it. Such is their glory and wonder.

What makes us like people? What makes us likeable? Can we bottle it?

And what of those among us that have no need to be liked? That need nothing at all from other men by way of approval? Where is their altruism? Do they still have it in such circumstances?

Well, yes, they do. My bro', again, a case in point. No need for people. Could pick up women like a total bitch-magnet. Disliked most women. Disliked most people. Loved by most people. But no interest in people at all. Study the Schizoid personality disorder all you amateur and wannabe psychs! It's a far more fascinating and much lesser known PD than the good old fashioned Narc!

Yes, my bro' was very altruistic. As cynical and as atheistic as he was. He loved to help those in need. To give of himself, even to his detriment. But he did it for very few. Again, some of us have tests, have limits, don't want to be mugs.

Without God. Yes. But at the same time, the true course of God ran through him. He was the original Samaritan. Altruistic? Yes. Pathologically so? Most certainly not. He would not piss on 98 percent of people, but if he thought you were 'alright', you had a loyal friend for life. Very few lived up to his expectations though.

His best friend from childhood turned out to be a right hard clever bastard. A proper player. My bro' still respected him, and the player respected my bro' - but he told me: He doesn't care about anyone but himself. Pretty funny coming from a Schizoid.

Then his other childhood friend who didn't turn out to be a hard clever bastard player, but did turn out to be a successful self-employed businessman, but also very vulnerable with mummy and daddy issues that drove him to drink. My brother's love knew no bounds. I genuinely believe he would have laid his life down for him. He got a job with him and ended up making some serious coin. Alas, his childhood friend succumbed to the demon drink and the great demon that is depression and ended up hanging himself. It was one of the final nails in my bro's coffin, while he was still alive. Or else, what's the point, eh?..............

Was my bro wrong with his outlook? Could he have been less cynical and lived life more fully and smelled the roses more? Undoubtedly yes. It's a nice trick if you can do it. Some people glide through life without a care or a question. And they are better for it. But we must remain true to ourselves.

..........


This idiot fucking Swedish bitch is so damaged by society that it borders on abuse. She needs deprogramming. Proper deprogramming. Not even cultural enrichment in the form of a gang rape would help her.

The hamster would just go in to overdrive and end up over-compensating by bringing in more fucking savages.

I believe everyone has a right to life. And a good life at that. The pursuit of happiness, even. More again.

My bro' used to call a spade a spade. He looked down on all men equally no matter the colour of their skin. But I remember once when we saw the news on TV - an Indian shop owner had been targeted by a gang of young white thugs, who made racial slurs and made it quite clear they didn't want this 'paki' in their neighborhood. He was fucking livid. I can still hear his heartfelt words now: I would put them all against the edge of the wall and fucking shoot the cunts. I'd pull the fucking trigger myself. He was boiling with rage. Such was his sense of fair play.

Altruistic?

Maybe. Maybe not. Depending on your viewpoint.

Altruism?

Man is a Wolf unto man. Some men hide the fact they are wolves better than others. That just makes them bigger and badder wolves. Ted Bundy would wear a fake plaster cast on his arm and target women in supermarket car-parks with a disarming smile and a 'excuse me, could you just help me put this bag in my boot (trunk)'.

[Disclaimer: this is not game advice. I am not advocating for any men on this forum to go pulling plaster-cast supermarket car-park game, but then again... Just don't try it in ASDA - the fuckers have cameras all over the place]

We need to be nice to each other to get along. It's logical. It makes sense. But never trust too much. Never trust anyone too much.

Except God, if you can find 'him'.

[debeguiled]

There's a lot in your post Rigsby that I can relate to, have experienced, can understand, but it will take more thought before a good response.

One thing to note is that you bring up the norm of reciprocity, which is an important concept, something that keeps civilizations going, but is not altruism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_of_re..._stability

Quote:

The norm of reciprocity requires that we repay in kind what another has done for us.[1] It can be understood as the expectation that people will respond favorably to each other by returning benefits for benefits, and responding with either indifference or hostility to harms. The social norm of reciprocity often takes different forms in different areas of social life, or in different societies. All of them, however, are distinct from related ideas such as gratitude, the Golden Rule, or mutual goodwill.

Quote:

An underlying norm of reciprocity is by itself a powerful engine for motivating, creating, sustaining, and regulating the cooperative behavior required for self-sustaining social organizations, controlling the damage done by the unscrupulous, and contributing to social system stability.

We could almost call this norm a more formalized, societal version of altruism, though it does, as you point out, stray from true altruism because of the obvious self interest involved.