|
Quote:
btw, I had read everything you said. |
Quote:
 And you still have no idea. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you want to argue that, we can make a new thread about it. Parents and Child's love relationship. Do they do it because of their happiness or because it benefits their child. Which is the primary reason? Happiness might be an unwanted emotion, but it's not the primary reason. So a parent is not selfish. Clear now? |
iPhantom: You don't understand what's JasonTakeshi's point. He's basically saying that parents wouldn't want their children to die because that would make them feel sad, and they want to avoid that emotion, so in that case that kind of love is selfish, it's not that they care for their happiness before their child's safety.
|
Quote:
Research on the definition of 'selfish' and 'altruism'. JasonTakeshi is making good points but he isn't realizing that his points prove parents are altruist, rather than selfish. There is no selfishness when real love is involved. Definition: "Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others." Unwanted emotions don't make you selfish, because they are just something that happens after you act. You didn't think beforehand that saving your child would make you happy, and that's why you're gonna do it. |
Quote:
It is almost instinctly to protect someone dear to you. Why? Because it's dear to you. (the bounds crap again) Knowning that your child is safe brings you happiness. Knowning that your child is unsafe brings you sadness. Knowing that your child turned into a mosquito but can still continue to "bound" with you brings you happiness. The child is now a mosquito. Your sad because she is a mosquito, but rather a mosquito than dead for you. But lets see it trough another point of the bottle... Would a parent (generalizing to much, i know...) perform euthanasia on his child if he knew it would relief the child's pain, assuming that that pain was incurable? Edit: And there you go with the dictionary crap again. Am i talking to you or to a dictionary? I don't take great consideration of what comes of a dictionary. Seen coultless of definitions of that same word, @ countless dictionaries. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
Your way of thinking is so funny, haha.
1. You brought me an ancient definition of a word. big deal, the real deal is today. The definition of selfishness tday, as I gave it is right. If you want to call something slefish, use that definition or don't clal it selfish because it isn't. 2. Where there is altrusim, there is no selfishness. =D think a bit of that and your big contradiction. 3. I don't know what else to tell you. You donate for the people, not to make yourself happy. You might be happy after you do it but you might not change at all. But that doesn't even matter. The main reason you donated was to help others. This is altruism, not selfishness. 4. Same deal with the child. You're a big moron thinking a parent would do it for themselves before doing it for their child. Altruism agian here, not selfishness. 5. Yeah, I looked around and there's only you making such odd explanations about something as clear as this. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 PM. |