Persuading You We Are Total Egoists

Well, for those who does not believe that the human kind is being total egoists and act for their own survival only, I'd like you to give me any reasoning of some humanistic action which is not pointing on egoism, and I'll analyse it according to my egoism theory and hopefully you'll listen and realize it.
Any argue!
This thread may be valuable for future topics, instead of start explaining myself whole over again, this is the place for you to say something we do which is not meant for ourselves, and for me to protest.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Infernity, I'm afraid you'll lose this one. To say that humankind is totally egoist permits the fallacy of composition. But that's nothing:

http://sl4.org/archive/0503/11076.html

http://sl4.org/archive/0503/11081.html

Well, for those who does not believe that the human kind is being total egoists and act for their own survival only,

I don't think everything humans do is based on their own survival only. Especially since I've seen someone kill themselves...
Maybe based on their emotional desires, more then survival instincts.

I don't think you are quite ready to draw a line in the sand on this issue, In...

Armrha, I definitely agree. In one’s perpetual quest for trying to be kinder, against generally great intrinsic resistance, one might arrive at fundamental guidelines supported by inherently permissible acts of self-organization. Mutually inclusive, these are:

[*] There is no better state of being than to be conscious.
[*] There is no better state of being than to have the perpetual opportunity to help enhance cognitive states.

From these guidelines, it doesn’t follow that each individual must have a goal system that is exclusively aimed at modifying their own internal states. Furthermore, to be enhancing cognitive states doesn’t entail that other minds will be developing goal systems that specifically aim to amass ownership of matter and energy. Enhancing cognitive states need only mean the perpetual minimization of existential threats for the preservation of being able to immortalize the fundamental guidelines for self-organization, which is primarily a modification of external states (including the enhancement of the internal states of others), not egoist.

To take egoism to its full conclusion, one would need to aim at becoming a utility fog (that is, an active, polymorphic material, a fluid being that can manipulate itself into anything, including dividing itself and manipulating its divisions into anything) that amasses ownership of all matter and energy, for its own sake, to incorporate them into one invincible and eternal being. But nothing in nature suggests that this is a necessary goal system to have, or that one is less wise for dismissing it.

[Edit: diction]

Edited by Nate Barna, 08 April 2005 - 11:17 PM.

What a eloquent way of putting it, Nate. I was trying to put this into words earlier, but just couldn't find the right ones. All and all, if socializing is a important health aspect of humans, we can't be egoist, as we depend on the well-being of others to give us at least a portion of well-being in ourselves. Social creatures...

I am actually undecided on this issue but I will take the opposite side because I believe there is room for dispute.

Armha

we depend on the well-being of others to give us at least a portion of well-being in ourselves. Social creatures...

Which brings us back to egoism. Our own well being is what is important to us. Even acts that are altruistic from a utilitarian perspective are still aimed at satisfying core - innate - desires that we hold dear to us. Our actions are entirely dependent on what we find satisfying. If our actions didn't satisfy one of our desires then we wouldn't commit to them.

I'm not sure, am I going into semantics with this line of challenge?

Which brings us back to egoism.  Our own well being is what is important to us.  Even acts that are altruistic from a utilitarian perspective are still aimed at satisfying core - innate - desires that we hold dear to us.  Our actions are entirely dependent on what we find satisfying.  If our actions didn't satisfy one of our desires then we wouldn't commit to them.
I'm not sure, am I going into semantics with this line of challenge?

It may be a circular argument. I was thinking more about the idea that maybe humans can't survive without some kind of social interaction; that would mean that your internal well-being would have to depend on other people, which allows you to look at a community more like an organism then a delta of individual islands. Then the 'care' is kind of distributed, the idea is that everyone is supporting each other. Does a brain cell care if the heart starts beating? No, not at all, but it does wither and die...

I'm not sure if the dependency is enough. If our own well-being depends on the well-being of others, the difference is mostly semantics, but it's still an interesting...

(Nate)
Infernity, I'm afraid you'll lose this one

We'll see about that...

(armrha)
Especially since I've seen someone kill themselves...

Let's analyse it!! give a me reason people kill themselves and I'll show you the egoism in it and the caring for self-survival.

(Nate)
There is no better state of being than to be conscious.

There is no better state of being than to have the perpetual opportunity to help enhance cognitive states.

Well, I suppose it is true... no contrary still.

Thanks Don

(armrha)
It may be a circular argument. I was thinking more about the idea that maybe humans can't survive without some kind of social interaction; that would mean that your internal well-being would have to depend on other people, which allows you to look at a community more like an organism then a delta of individual islands. Then the 'care' is kind of distributed, the idea is that everyone is supporting each other. Does a brain cell care if the heart starts beating? No, not at all, but it does wither and die...

I'm not sure if the dependency is enough. If our own well-being depends on the well-being of others, the difference is mostly semantics, but it's still an interesting...

Well, that means we are loving and caring for others so our survival chances will be greater. Less enemies, more people who will protect you, support, etcetera.......

Please guys, do not try to explain me why I am wrong or where, but simply try to prove it by a humanistic action which not pointing on egoism, and I will show you why it is...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 25 March 2005 - 12:04 AM.

Don Our own well being is what is important to us. Even acts that are altruistic from a utilitarian perspective are still aimed at satisfying core - innate - desires that we hold dear to us. Our actions are entirely dependent on what we find satisfying. If our actions didn't satisfy one of our desires then we wouldn't commit to them.

Don, in alluding to the arguments for altruism linked above, one can, for the moment, imagine a self-aware agent that exists and has internal (cognitive) states that quantitatively change positively or negatively with respect to external (relationally non-cognitive) states. One can then imagine that the agent deliberates in a fashion as to positively change the internal states of other self-aware agents (which are relationally external states) while experiencing no or negative changes in its own internal states. This agent is said to be altruistic, and humans can and do achieve this function. Then one can suppose the agent achieves the exact same thing in an alternative scenario, but in this one, the agent happens to experience a positive change in its own internal states. In both scenarios, the outcome of external states is exactly the same, except, in one, the focal agent is not or negatively internally affected and, in the other, the focal agent is positively affected.

Taking all that into consideration, one can formulate the question: “Why can’t the focal agent in the latter scenario be considered altruistic like in the first scenario?” There seems to be only one answer: “Because the beneficiaries are selfish.” But why should they be so selfish as to prefer benefiting from the other agent’s deliberations while at once preferring that the other agent doesn’t positively change their internal states in the process? It’s such a trivial desire by the beneficiaries, and one that easily can be intersubjectively weeded out in virtue of its triviality, that there’s absolutely no reason for it. Thus, altruism is possible; it has been achieved by some self-aware agents as in the first scenario, and the second scenario is trivially different; and minds-in-general can achieve it.

Hi Infernity,

Infernity Please guys, do not try to explain me why I am wrong or where, but simply try to prove it buy an humanistic action which not pointing on egoism, and I will show you why it is...

This is an appeal to ignorance, another type of fallacy. The burden isn’t on anyone to act, for you couldn’t accurately account for their actions regardless. However, there are already plenty of examples to observe or plausibly imagine from which to evaluate, so that you can make your case by referring to them, extracting instances of egoism from them, and explaining why you think that is so. You can start by showing that you can comprehend the arguments that have already been presented in this thread, and begin by trying to refute them.

Otherwise, you’re only showing that you’re more concerned about being right than you are about knowing what you’re talking about.

Whereas I don't necessarily believe in pure altruism, outside of mental illness that is, people can certainly act in ways that are not beneficial to their own survival. As Nate pointed out in his first link, complex entities like us have a great deal of self-organization. We do a lot of our own programming.

I would define altruism as committing an action that is completely unbeneficial to one's self. Giving one's life for something a person believes to be greater than themselves is not altruism. Giving your life for something you value less than your life is altruism, it is also insanity, but it does exist. Some people are crazy. Altruism as a concept is in no way "good".

The fact that people are willing to give their lives for anything at all does invalidate the original supposition here, which Infernity states that humans act for their own survival only.

Nate, heh simply a bit tired, will make efforts...

Justin,
Well survival, doesn't mean just physical, but mentally as well.
Some are subjugated to their values, all they do is what they believe is the best. And since they did it...

This thread has place to the "free will" thing too. We don't have. If we have a dilemma- our choice in the end- we always were going to chose it because we believe it is the best.

We are sacrificing ourselves for acquiring respect, for believing it will be hard enough to deal the situation of not sacrificing, for some lack of understanding death=oblivion.

We are multiplying for keeping supposedly ourselves. that's a comfort for not living forever. that evaluational. that's why we won't need kids when immortality will be received.

We are choosing mates according to the above paragraph. loving mates which we find alike us, or completing us, or simply loves us (that's a circle since he loves us back from the same reason)...

We are sacrificing our lives for them because if we wouldn't- people will become our enemies due disagreement- all due stigmas of prejudices. Simply forgetting/not understanding/ thinking for the present that it would be better to have a good memory on yourself to others, unawareness to that you like won't be able to any comment on anything sine you never /will *exit*/ed!


Gimme more!

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Elrond

Giving one's life for something a person believes to be greater than themselves is not altruism.  Giving your life for something you value less than your life is altruism, it is also insanity, but it does exist.  Some people are crazy.  Altruism as a concept is in no way "good".

Exactly Elrond. You've hit the nail on the head. Altruism can exist, but it is not logical. It can not be logical because in order to do so you would have to go against your vested interests -- which is a contradiction in terms.

infernity Gimme more!

There's already more than you can handle! [g:)]

Next time I will try to to read the links provided before I interject [lol] .

We are sacrificing our lives for them because if we wouldn't- people will become our enemies due disagreement- all due stigmas of prejudices. Simply forgetting/not understanding/ thinking for the present that it would be better to have a good memory on yourself to others, unawareness to that you like won't be able to any comment on anything sine you never /will *exit*/ed!

You said survival was the first thing. I don't think anyone would sacrifice their life just because 'otherwise my lover will try to kill me'. Trying to argue truthfulness or the falsehood of mental states can be tiresome, but the real effects of people doing stuff for other people can be seen and felt. However, here's a case of true altruism (in your definition)...

Someone who is insane enough to do something that hurts them (and doesn't give them any pleasure in helping someone) and helps someone else.

You can't make generalizations about the internal mental states of crazy people. They do not follow reason... though, neither do the internal states of sane people...

My friend killed himself out of a desire to have no existance; How can that be a motion for survival?

In my opinion, 'there is no altruism' is a very old, tired, and 'zero-sum' argument. People will still do stuff to help others. People will still receive help. The realization of the 'truth' or the 'falsehood' is totally meaningless. Regardless, read Nate's links...

Yep, I really should have read that link first. [lol]

Apparently, I was making a common mistake in my conceptualization of the issue of altruism vs selfishnes.

But to chide me as being "self-interested" for implementing my wants is confused. It mixes up the map and the territory.

That's basicaly what I was doing.

My goal system is made out of wants

Okay, that's what I said.

and the difference between selfishness and altruism lies in the referents of those wants.

This is where I slipped up.

It's like saying that I am "neuron-interested" because my goal system is implemented by a brain or "atom-interested" because my brain is made of atoms. Clearly, since all this wanting and goal-directed behavior takes place inside a brain, it isn't really about Jane getting a lollipop - it's about atoms. These notions of "self-interest" and "altruism" are equally incoherent; whatever you do, it *really* happens "because of" atoms.

oh boy, he's right. I feel silly now. I wonder why my logic failed me. Nate, where do you think my thought process derailed?

That's about how much sense I hear in saying that all goals have self-interested *referents*, just because, no matter what I achieve, it happens "because of" my goals. Of course. What else should it happen because of? But it doesn't follow that my goals' referents, the things I'm trying to achieve, are internal events.

Well survival, doesn't mean just physical, but mentally as well.

That's strange, taking a religious bent, Infernity? Generally I assume the mental body dies at the same time as the physical one does (or at least very shortly after...) There have been very reasonable, logical people with no religious bent that have sacrificed their lives before. For these people, this action cannot be considered acting in their own survival, mental or physical.

Don Nate, where do you think my thought process derailed?

Don, I think, as you already acknowledged, it was only a matter of making the distinction between two types of referents in a deliberate action: the enhanced internal states of others and that of oneself. Once this distinction made sense, it was then easy to appreciate what tends to be innocently overlooked: that an altruist must act somehow to even be an altruist. The egoist arguments claim that altruism doesn’t exist or is nonrational, but this is because they tend not to go as far as to try stipulating what altruism actually is. For when they have to admit that the altruist has to act at all to be an altruist, it begins to have devastating consequences to their position that altruism doesn't exist or is nonrational.

Incidentally, I agree, Armrha, with what you’ve begun to indicate, viz. that the higher the instances of egoism-in-general, the more the instances of belief that zero-sum outcomes are inevitable. I believe that with many egoists, the difference between having a positive-sum outlook (more than usual, since egoists do have a positive-sum outlook, but only nominally) rather than a zero-sum perspective, is simply understanding the nature of altruism.

Chew on this: I don't persist into the future, so I obviously can't be an egoist.

My consciousness can feel only the present, so any construct that my memory is trying to persuade me of is irrelevant to my consciousness. Consciousness is ephemeral. When my present consciousness initiates action to keep my body healthy in the future it is actually a different consciousness that I care about. It just so happens to share many of my present qualities and memories.

I thus have no more reason to care about my own future consciousness than about anybody else's future consciousness. Other questions are: Is there such a reason at all, am I de facto irrational, or just missing the point entirely? Can a point be missed that is not even there? Sweet nihilism awaits!

[quote](Nate)
There's already more than you can handle![/quote]
Well yes, but this is because of all of your general examples which I get to see all the time, and for explaining something general- I have to write here all the theory of egoism!!!
The reason I made this topic is to AVOID doing that because I have too much to say!
I would explain everything long ago in lots of other topics to let you know my point, but there is simply too much and it is all arranged well in my head, but when I try to explain- gee that's aspiring to impossible (reminds me I have to be present at the meeting, it will be easier!).
I wanted you guys to give specific examples so it will have order and I can possibly answer instead of writing it all as I would have done without the need to create this topic!!!

[quote](Don)
Next time I will try to to read the links provided before I interject   .[/quote]
Damn! did you switch sides? [huh]

[quote](armrha)
I don't think anyone would sacrifice their life just because 'otherwise my lover will try to kill me'.[/quote]
No but simply because thinking it is better for you. You may think that it will be easier to die than living with the fact you could save the one you love and he's dead because you didn't.
That's an outlook of "my mind won't survive such notion" and that's an inside-holding-on for an afterlife, even without really believing in it.
[quote]Someone who is insane enough to do something that hurts them (and doesn't give them any pleasure in helping someone) and helps someone else.[/quote]
Well you kinda answered here- INSANE. that means there is a problem in the rational mind. He still acts according to what he seem to find as best for him, but simply all his system is going wrong without being aware to that, so his choices may often lead wrong and so to make us think he is stupid as well.
If you want me to analyse this case more deeply- be more specific!
[quote]You can't make generalizations about the internal mental states of crazy people. They do not follow reason... though, neither do the internal states of sane people...[/quote]
Umm look above.
[quote]My friend killed himself out of a desire to have no existence; How can that be a motion for survival?[/quote]
Oh thank goodness for the first specific example which includes all the needed details!
Well then your friend gave his spiritual side overtake his rational. He argued that he wanna die because he want to not exist- but how can he decide that? the dead is nothing...
If he'd never been alive, he wouldn't be able to decide such thing! He wasn't aware to that, was he? He didn't include all the information, that's how lots of people get themselves to suicide.
Did he have a hard life so he didn't want to have them? that because inner notion he may survive better in another way of living. He might have "thought" (felt maybe can match here [?] ) that he is not surviving in the current life and wanna not have it! He is not total aware to death=oblivion so it seems. That's reasonable, since no one does because no one experienced it.
[quote]People will still do stuff to help others[/quote]
Yes! because they need to get respect and help from these others! if they wouldn't help, they won't receive help or respect and will have enemies, and enemies=more chances to die faster. Enemies will not give, will only take. That type of life will be very hard, and very hard to survive! In that case the strong will survive, but we- humankind are smarter than that. The wiser- will survive more usually.
He still acts according to what seem to HIM (only) as the best thing to do!

[quote](Don)
[quote]My goal system is made out of wants[/quote][/quote]
Yes! how's that a contrary?!
[quote][quote]It's like saying that I am "neuron-interested" because my goal system is implemented by a brain or "atom-interested" because my brain is made of atoms. Clearly, since all this wanting and goal-directed behavior takes place inside a brain, it isn't really about Jane getting a lollipop - it's about atoms. These notions of "self-interest" and "altruism" are equally incoherent; whatever you do, it *really* happens "because of" atoms.[/quote][/quote]
Well true, but that means nothing ever matter, since everything is made out of atoms, and atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons which are made of energy and everything is simply energy! That means all is an effect of energy on energy. You can simply say that nothing matters, the energy will divide someday at any rate.
But that would be stupid as a human to do such thing. Why giving it all up just like that? I mean if we are alive already, lets play. I mean we doesn't even know why the heck is our cosmos exists, for the sake of what?! Than lets give the energy turn into a condition that according to what called us (the supply of energy in some amount) to realize everything. That's what as humans we want and meant to do.
Nothing has point, than we must be part of it as we want NOW. I suppose somehow carpe diem does have a rational meaning, but that's not what the energy builds me wants, simply the energy is not as yours for example!
[quote][quote]That's about how much sense I hear in saying that all goals have self-interested *referents*, just because, no matter what I achieve, it happens "because of" my goals. Of course. What else should it happen because of? But it doesn't follow that my goals' referents, the things I'm trying to achieve, are internal events.[/quote][/quote]
Yes, that means- EGOISM!

[quote](armrha)
That's strange, taking a religious bent, Infernity? Generally I assume the mental body dies at the same time as the physical one does (or at least very shortly after...) There have been very reasonable, logical people with no religious bent that have sacrificed their lives before. For these people, this action cannot be considered acting in their own survival, mental or physical.[/quote]
Well no religion no, no, no!
True that mentality dies with the end of the physical body, but some don't totally understand that- and don't mind to die then.
Pity...
As for as long as it is so the death is generally and ultimate- oh well, you got my point.

[quote](John)
I don't persist into the future, so I obviously can't be an egoist[/quote]
Oh you are simply not aware...
[quote]My consciousness can feel only the present, so any construct that my memory is trying to persuade me of is irrelevant to my consciousness. Consciousness is ephemeral. When my present consciousness initiates action to keep my body healthy in the future it is actually a different consciousness that I care about. It just so happens to share many of my present qualities and memories.[/quote]
Well I suppose it is true, where does it contradictory my notion?
[quote]I thus have no more reason to care about my own future consciousness than about anybody else's future consciousness.[/quote]
Well that was an egoistic thing to say dear [lol]
You are so because you need the peers respect, and help you the same way. You are interested in their being alive because you need their help for you to survive.
Need their hand, their knowledge, them to have a great typical to humanistic life...
And also, you've said so for them to know
[quote]Is there such a reason at all, am I de facto irrational, or just missing the point entirely?[/quote]
Well good question, we cannot answer it for sure... I suppose there is a reason but since I am asking that question for all my life I suppose I have no answer to what is the reason. Maybe just energy in different funneling against each other doesn't have a reason... who knows.
[quote]Can a point be missed that is not even there?[/quote]
[thumb]
http://www.imminst.o...3&t=5260&hl=&s=
Heh well maybe, but that's quite not reasonable...


Gee and that was the longest post of mine ever thus far, wasn't it?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 25 March 2005 - 02:11 PM.

Oh you are simply not aware...

Are you postulating my persistence? That puts the burden of proof on you, my dear.

Well I suppose it is true, where does it contradictory my notion?

No outright contradiction. Merely saying that egoism is impossible for me, irrespective of whether I act like someone for whom it would be possible or not. Your argument suggests that I do - fine with that. Doing so need not even be irrational, it could be conincidence.

Need their hand, their knowledge, them to have a great typical to humanistic life...

Me? No, some future consciousness in my body. Even the appreciation by you other ephemeral selves may take so much time that not me, but a future self of mine will appreciate your appreciation. I'm happy to do them that favor, although they can never send anything back through time, and neither can anyone who reads this text. It's too late for me!
Now is my caring nonetheless egoism or what?

Man thats odd to read this message from my past self I tell ya. Thanks mate anyways, you're a great past...

infernity

(Nate)
There's already more than you can handle!

Well yes, but this is because of all of your general examples which I get to see all the time, and for explaining something general- I have to write her all the theory of egoism!!!
The reason I made this topic is to AVOID doing that because I have too much to say!
I would explain everything long ago in lots of other topics to let you know my point, but there is simply too much and it is all arranged well in my head, but when I try to explain- gee that's aspiring to impossible (reminds me I have to be present at the meeting, it will be easier!).
I wanted you guys to give specific examples so it will have order and I can possibly answer instead of writing it all as I would have done without the need to create this topic!!!

Infernity, I think that it's very commendable that you're multilingual. The above remarks exhibit only that you're running up against linguistic limitations somewhat sooner than when the native English speaker might. Also, you shouldn't think that you always need to write a whole treatise just to have a decent case in the forum.

(John)
No outright contradiction. Merely saying that egoism is impossible for me, irrespective of whether I act like someone for whom it would be possible or not. Your argument suggests that I do - fine with that. Doing so need not even be irrational, it could be conincidence

There's absolutely no nexus between caring and living the moment and between due that not being an egoist...
You are caring for the future if you want it or not, this is because we know nothing else. Don't tell me you are planning nothing, thinking nothing.
According to your notion, you may think so, but assuming you are different and more close to your assuming- you are an egoist of the moment, act for your own good of the moment.

Man thats odd to read this message from my past self I tell ya. Thanks mate anyways, you're a great past...

Well, we are changing every single second while being alive true, heh. Well but it shouldn't be odd, you are still the same and only person. If you are in such case that you feel like total different, gee you are in big troubles!

(Nate)
Infernity, I think that it's very commendable that you're multilingual. The above remarks exhibit only that you're running up against linguistic limitations somewhat sooner than when the native English speaker might.

Heh, thanks I suppose...

Also, you shouldn't think that you always need to write a whole treatise just to have a decent case in the forum.

Well sometimes I do since to explain something quite simple, those you explain it to have to know all the background, and that is the complicated thing which not everyone understands, and that's why I wanted to create the topic; to have the background with all stiff argues and my explanation connected to the egoism.
If all those who doesn't believe humankind=total egoism will cooperate, I won't have to try and explain it all in every second post of mine but simply put a link to that thread and add my addition which has to do with the current point of mine connected to the the specific thread...

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

We have given you everything you need, Inf. I don't think anybody wants to spend more time in a circular argument with you if you are not going to listen to us. We've all benefitted from sharing each other's information on this side, but you still just repeat: 'wait no, give me any single example and I will prove it egoist!', so there really isn't anything more to be done.

armrha,

We have given you everything you need, Inf. I don't think anybody wants to spend more time in a circular argument with you if you are not going to listen to us. We've all benefitted from sharing each other's information on this side, but you still just repeat: 'wait no, give me any single example and I will prove it egoist!', so there really isn't anything more to be done.

Not listening is one of the last things I've ever done and doing [!] [ang]
I don't think you have realized what I am trying to do on this thread.
If you simply oppose me and give me general examples, I'll still have to explain all the theory which is what I've been trying to avoid since it has way too much.
In contra to case which you will give me any humanistic action that in your opinion has nothing to do with egoism and I can simply tell you it is because of x, y, z...
Till you will have no more argues and will seem to agree.
An axiom can be broke only when something is counterbalancing it.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

infernity

(Don)
Next time I will try to to read the links provided before I interject

Damn! did you switch sides?

Don’s isn’t a claim to the affirmation or denial that altruism exists. It’s an expression exhibiting an honest assessment that the arguments that have been presented have some merit and deserve deeper consideration than what was given to them before.

infernity In contra to case which you will give me any humanistic action that in your opinion has nothing to do with egoism and I can simply tell you it is because of x, y, z...

Since your very first post, we already knew that your intention was to be given specific examples of acts so that you can give reasons why they are egoist. But at the very beginning, you were told that you were trying to claim something about the whole of humanity by reasoning from attributes of its individual persons. This kind of reasoning falls into the class “fallacies of ambiguity,” and, specifically, it’s the “fallacy of composition.” It’s irrational.

Like Armrha said, everything is already in this thread, and you can’t advance beyond all presentations and be expecting to be taken seriously, until you can begin being rational.

Nate,
[ang]
That's not fair what you guys are doing.
You're calming I have no way to response to all of your examples, but these examples are the kind of I've seen a lot over everywhere and never bothered trying arguing because I have too much!!!
Perhaps, if it will be arranged..................
Try to look at it as an axiom I've found and you are trying to break it for checking it is really true. Of course with the a skeptical approach [thumb] ...
Simply give a specific answer or as you guys are saying- I cannot react. which is the reason I made this topic!
Damn it! can't you understand?
TRUE, I CANNOT RESPONSE TO YOUR CALMING! I NEVER COULD! THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE TO COLLABORATE, JUST GIVE ME THE CHANCE TO ACT ACCORDING TO THE FACILE WAY TO ME. Is it so hard...?

Yours truthfully
~Infernity