is it immoral?

then you are an objectivist.

i don't consider morals to exist

but they do.

morals define ethics which defines what we consider as good and evil.

they don't, morals is just a word used by people to define the line they consider fine, and bad

they are subjective, I agree.

but they do exist.

what you consider good and evil doesn't apply to everyone else

and they are important

I consider religion to be evil, in any form

but what **they** consider good and evil makes all the difference in the world

it does not, what societies consider good and evil changes over time

The problem is that Kant undermined the enlightenment, and the validity of reason, with the explicit purpose of justifying faith.

this paved the way for Christianity.

and then, later, Marx and Nietzsche.

yes, and thats what the left is doing today

yes

now you understand.

i always did

but its not just the left

the right considers altruism to be moral as well.

I agree with the end, just not your ideals of an "enligthenment"

they consider capitalism as a necessary evil at best, and still consider selfishness as immoral.

The way i see it, modern society just replaced God with Socialism

yes

because they are equally valid

they are not

they're both lies told to people to control them

because there is no place for reason in society.

we ultimately have just given up ourselves to faith somewhere along the line.

reason gimps control

If a leader can't have people removed on a whim, but instead be faced with "but theres no reason for it" they don't have power

right

its just a power play

this is why progressives only value "power", they consider facts to only be what the person in power declares to be true

yes, but it is only sanctioned because the intellectual elite fundamentally believe in altruism

If i say the sky is blue, but a person in power says its green, to post-moderninsts the sky is green

today, they just take it on faith that we have no free will.

no

the sky is a social construct

i like your thinking Ping 😛

close

and no the intellectual elite don't believe in altruism, if they did they'd remove all forms of welfare, and only opt for a real "safety net" and pure capitalism

becausei n the long run that will eliminate leeching/weak people and only create a strong society that advances through competition

```Is math sexist? One Vanderbilt University professor believes that it is.

Writing in an academic journal last month, the professor complained about the masculinization of math and how it causes the oppression of women.

Describing mathematics as a “white and heteronormatively masculinized space,” professor Luis A. Leyva insists that factors including teacher expectations and cultural norms “serve as gendering mechanisms that give rise to sex-based achievement differences,” per Campus Reform.

Leyva argues that a “gender gap” exists in mathematical ability due to these social constructs, and that there isn’t any inherent difference in male and female cognitive abilities when it comes to the subject. The differences, he says, give rise to the “myth of male superiority.”

Female underachievement in the field is highlighted, he argues, by teachers who point it out and reinforce cultural expectations.

In the article titled “Unpacking the Male Superiority Myth and Masculinization of Mathematics at the Intersection,” Leyva says that teachers “contribute to the masculinization of the domain that unfairly holds students to men’s higher levels of achievement and participation as a measure of success.”

In other words, being held to a high standard keeps women down.```

no, you're wrong, welfare systems are the **embodiment** of altruism

hahaha read the first sentence then the last one.

because people will learn to survive and learn they are strong enough to survive without a "nanny state"

I though the elite believed in votes

no, they're the embodiment of "ooh look at how nice we are aren't we good?" its the Kind person al over again, they don't do it for the person being helped, tehy do it to make themselves feel good

the nature of altruism is **neccessary sacrifice**. It is a sacrifice of value that is done out of duty. By paying taxes you are giving up something you value, in return for ultimately something you likely do not value.

if you do the sacrifice because you want to, i.e. out of charity, it ceases to be a sacrifice.

it ceases to be altruistic.

Give a man a fish / teach a man to fish argument

Altruism is just gaining favor by showing how nice you are

a true form of Altruism would be to teach people to be independent and strong so they can live their life, find a good partner, and hopefully get children to continue the species as strong as possible

no

that is teaching people how to be selfish.

teaching people to be strong so they can find a mate and sustain themselves is selfish now?

I thought it was selfish to keep people dependent, so they vote for you cuz they know they can't survive on their own

no, that is altruistic, because you are sacrificing to sustain them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51pMod2Aaso

yes, and then what happens when you die? they die too because they learned to need your help, not survive on their own once yuo're gone

this is why Africa is such a dependent and shitty place, because those people are dependent on our help, which in turn keeps them infantile, like children because they can't grow up and survive

why would they? they get free stuff if they're helpless

>when sheep are docile and hopelessly dependant

Altruism is selflessness, but there is nothing about it that says it needs to be necessary in anyway, it can be entirely inconsequential, what ocelot is talking about is moralism

The umbilical cord is palpable.

I have been trying to explain this for about half an hour now. The dominant morality of the entire world today is altruism.

I wont argue that that is what people want to believe

i'm arguing that theres no altruism in keeping people in a child-like dependant state where their only way to survive is by your graces

i reject your view of altruism so to speak

Altruism isn't a moral, morals are very discrete

Everyone should have equal opportunities is a moral

but it is, because you have to sacrifice your produced value in order to feed them.

Which is why deporting illegal immigrants and building the wall (whether or works or not is another matter entirely) is actually the humanitarian thing to do for Mexico.

yes, like a Parent does to its child

no, that is a principle.

but a parent values their child living.

so it isn't a sacrifice to look after them.

A parent also values their child be able to sustain themselves, A parent is not gonna be around forever

yes

they'll want their child to be strong enough to survive on its own

Listen. Do you want to know the true nature of altruism? Communism. Naziism. These are the enevitable extremes of altruism.

THAT is the true altruism for me

To sacrifice your time and life(work) to raise a child to be self-sustaining to continue the species

which is what soceity if its REALLY altruistic should do, not take someones hard earned money BY FORCE mind you, and give it to any random schlob that says "waah i can't survive on my own"

Wouldn't communism and naziism be a form of forced altruism, rather than what Jay is trying to describe?

sacrificing yourself for the greater good becomes sacrificing **everyone** for the greater good.

It is exactly that Jaden

altruism eventually neccessitates force.

Communism is putting a gun to peoples head and saying "you're going to sacrifice your work and time for someone else" you don't get a say in it

which is why i reject your altruism position Revolver

the ultimate altruistic act is to commit suicide.

The welfare state started with altruistic views, people agreed to help others until they could get back on their feet and then they were cut off, now; that's not the case. People are forced to have their taxes pay for people that sit on welfare their whole lives. So people aren't doing it because they feel charitable, they are being forced to, which takes away the altruistic nature of it.

I don't fancy becoming selfish or short-sighted. Or dependant on a rug that can be pulled out from underneath of me.

it is to give up your life.

Allowing others to go against your morals can be altruistic so that makes no sense

and there is such a thing as learned helplessness and it can start as early as the age of 2

O_Castitas, you rock 😛

no, its the other way around, taking the charitable nature away **increases** the altruistic nature of welfare.

because it becomes more dutiful

There is a difference between helping and having a person rely on something

but that is my view on it, Altruism is self-sacrifice for others, the best way to do it would be to teach people to be independent so they can be strong in times that need strength

and it means that you value your sacrifice less.

but that isn't altruism!!!

Anyhow, as much as i love arguing endlessly and repeating the same talking points, its 2:20 at night for me on a Tuesday 😛 i need some sleep