[JasonTakeshi]

Originally Posted by iPhantom

Countless definition for 'selfishness'? I'd challenge you to prove me what you said. Anyways, yes dictionaries are used in debates or people like you would invent crap over and over about what selfishness means for you ONLY. Please, don't bring that again.

Either way, you did explain nothing here. And you're wrong about something, you don't protect someone dear to you because it makes you happy, but because you don't want them to get hurt etc.

Self-happiness is not the reason of your action, but it's the outcome. And even this happiness is happiness due to this person living. You're being altruist here.

Now let's see an example about altruism and you will understand better:

Donating to a charity is altruism. That makes you happy. But it's stil altruism.

See? I've been read, heard about the 'save another dear person's life' scenario as being altruistic in many places. you're the only one saying otherwise because you can't grasp the concept of selfishness and altruism, and you seem to have a self made dictionary for everything.

Buddhism says love is altruistic as well. Love and/or compassion, that is.

As for the last example you provided, yes they would, given if it was incurable. That has been done countless times. Lol.

In an ancient tribe, that you can easily find @ your friend, google, in their "language dictionary", selfishness was seen as the perservation of their tribesman (only among men), and therefore perservation of the human specie. (And no, those tribesman didn't procreate because they "loved",it was more for the pleasure)

Can't say the same about the women. But that didn't even apply to them, as their were seen as a mere instrument. (They were the ones raising the children)

If im not wrong, it was an African tribe (in ancient Angola). Or ask your history teacher.

To resume it: It was the same word with a different definition. One seen it as the perservation of the species, which is something "Altruist" according to you. (In this case they didn't care, but they were actualy doing something "good")

I did explain something here, but you're obviously oblivious. Why wouldn't you want them to get hurt? Because it makes you feel unhappy. That argument was totally pointless.

Regardless if its Altruism or not, you gave that money because you wanted to feel happy. Because it fulfills you to think that your doing something good, when your just trying to calm your inner feelings from what you are exposed to around the world (or Media). Such as hunger, illness, etc. It makes you unhappy, so you donate. It makes you less unhappy.

Ok, buddhism says it so. And so what? Many people dont belive in what they say such as reencarnation and karma and that same thing you said. (including me)

And why would they choose athanasia? Because the childs agonising pain will bring them unwanted emotions. Watching the childs suffering will make them suffer aswell. So, in order to avoid suffering of the child that reflects in themselves, they choose athanasia.

PS: Am I the only one saying the otherwhise? Look around. I mean, literally.