Reply to Re: blah
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
No. You choose not to argue.
The purpose of my question was to find out your definition of "want". Maybe I should've just said that.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
Since when has not feeling like doing it and not thinking their is personal gain been the same thing. I never said that not supplying evidence was not to my benefit, but that I didn't feel like doing it. The two are different. I simply had other things that I'd of preffered doing with my time.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it. "Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets. Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant. Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
The purpose of my question was to find out your definition of "want". Maybe I should've just said that.
Take people who do work they don't like, for example. You could say that they don't want to work, or that they want to work for the money they get from it but they don't enjoy the actual work.
Since when has not feeling like doing it and not thinking their is personal gain been the same thing. I never said that not supplying evidence was not to my benefit, but that I didn't feel like doing it. The two are different. I simply had other things that I'd of preffered doing with my time.
Your double negative confuses me but I'll just ignore it as a clever plot to make me look like a fool and treat it as bad wording.
"If I was to supply the evidence when I have no desire to prove myself (if I did then I would supply it by all mean - in fact I did recently with my Qt discussion with Merlin) would be forfeiting my desires to those of others, doing their bidding and not my own. And for no personal gain. That is the very definition of slavery. and that is why "social responsibility" is slavery."
This is what got me confused with your definition in the first place, now that I think about it. "Doing something you don't want to do for no personal gain" is something I can agree being close to slavery, but not just "doing something you don't want to do".
Anyway, people generally have to do things they don't feel like doing to avoid ending up as retards living on the streets. Doing unpleasant things is worth it when the reward is more pleasant than the unpleasant thing is unpleasant. Though I can understand someone viewing an online forum as not worth of ever doing anything unpleasant for.
