Message from @Rölli
Discord ID: 689487471377121335
No, because the starting point is different
In altruism you start from "I am a good person"
Selfishness is good
You do not have a right to demand charity of me by the threat of violence
With normal charity you start from "this person needs help"
I. A good person
The best way to help people is with true capitalism
We do not have capitalism today.
this is what I mean when I say it's impossible to argue such a point. the only difference is your own conception of what the word's inner nuance is, and there's no real meaning in fighting for such obviously mundane points
Not everyone is willing to satisfy the sexual desires of [REDACTED]
@Greasy That would be true if it were just a word and not a school of philosophy
that phrase you just uttered, that has no meaning
<:WaitWhatArmy:590858815189024778>
Yeah, okay
Phad is super autistic
Don't worry about the dumb shit he says
@NinjaQuick Or maybe I'm just smarter than you
yeah, I tried to interact before. got him marked in notes as "semantics" now.
can sit here all day and play the semantic philosopher game, or you could actually try to discuss issues of human experience and societal function - like philosophers must surely be supposed to.
Phad you're pretty fucking stupid though
You sound like a post modernist phad
Mired in semantics
not speaking english
Deal with reality. Evasion is evil like Rand said.
semantics-focused philosophers have been distracting academia for decades now, and it wrought the current state of societal norms. destruction. semantics is clearly not the way forward.
I barely ever talk semantics
But discussing A SCHOOL OF PHILOSOPHY
Isn't really semantic
Lol
We're not discussing the dictionary definition of altruism
Philosophy is really a stretch for someone that needs to be told what to think
That's what we were discussing
Lol stanford
No that's what you're discussing.
Individually