@MrCropper You mean somebody selfish can't change? technical?, about what? a concept that does not reflect the reality. You act selfishly because of your Ego and this can evolve or get bigger, I don't know where you're going with this claim, I just can't find any truth in this, give me some practical application that clearly shows that, I get your point but it's not static... like you seem to claim.
Caring relationships can be built on mutually respectful intention. If you give and recieve, if you listen and talk. If someone is "one sided" on the extreme..he/she CANT build harmonius relationships . He becomes a "Black hole" which wants to succumb LOVE from the external world, and doesnt realize thet he/she is also a SOURCE of the very same thing what he wants. Sefish people are sad, and hurted persons within themselves, they want to compensate the their emptiness with external things.
and one more thing...if you miss the opportunity to help..that doesnt make you evil person...RIGHT! You just become neutral. But you just miss the opportunity to be positive. You just cut yourself out from loving people, community. For expample: If we are the body of God . If people are having christ counscuisness and linving accordingly...then people become the living god in earth. "Kingdom of god" But if you are selfish you CUT YOURSELF OUT. We are all one, sepearation is an illusion.
yes it true...becouse if you examine the life path..and the direktion of what they accumulate during their selfishnes...for exmple bodybuilders..they are selfish and they want to be bigger than you becuse subconsciosly he knows: He can beat you if he wants to!That gives him power!! A ritch person accumulates wealth, becouse he knows he can use you for work in exchange for his money. And he can think higher himself above you. ALL COMES BACK TO POWER! Its all about someone want to rule above you.
Because some of us are idiots, and some of us take everything for granted, some of us do not even really give a god d*mn care about others, and some like us are bunch of stuck up loser who don't want to grow up. Are we all selfish that we want everything ourselves.
Hmmm. I don't think that you (or Ayn Rand, at the time of her writings) have much to worry about. Selfishness is alive and well, and the world is functioning because of it. The label of "selfishness" will continue to vary from person to person, but the truth of the matter remains the same- by working for our own benefit, we are better able to benefit others. I do understand your concern as far as people's ignorance on that matter- but is that really something that you can necessarily change?
To me, you are arguing about the definition of a word that is not my own to begin with.
And with words like selfishness, you can't really define the word right now. Mainly because it is a human concept that can vary it's meaning from individual to individual.
Like for example; having an "open mind"
There is a very good chance that your definition of an open mind is far away from my own. Instead of doing all this, don't you think it's better to set priorities?
"Mr. Cropper, do you TRULY care for other people, or ONLY yourself? Answer honestly."
I care for those who contribute in some way to my happiness. This includes the unknowns in the future who may benefit from my actions - my actions mean more to me considering the fact that they will dramatically help someone like ME in the future.
My actions will ruin many people's lives and careers, but to HELL with them. I do what I do for others like me.
By ruining lives and careers, I refer to the total elimination of government funding for schools. If that doesn't happen, I'll at least massively expand private schooling before I die. That will reduce and eliminate public education jobs.
It's an unfortunate semantic game. Randian "selfishness" is not colloquial "selfishness".
You ask why is the colloquial "selfishness" attached to being "short signed and stupid". Maybe because people in general tend to be short sighted and stupid.
I know Rand advocated the heroic in man. But even in her own novels, the heroic were the minority!
So, is it any wonder that a populist "colloquial" definition would also ignore the heroic across the majority? Even Rand herself couldn't do it.
Benefiting one self does not have to derive from the development of society. But also does not automatically have to harm others like you said. People can be parasites on the larger society by doing what is against societies interest but in theirs, just as long as it doesn't lead to the destruction of their system. It could be in ones interest to keep society less developed if it means they can exploit society, they might not be narrow sighted just predatory.
id never considered this before, selfish (or selfate) people may hurt people because they may not care but maybe 'selfateness' is born of maybe ambition, or drive for self gain may be selfateness and maybe selfishness doesn't exist, im glad i have this question 4 myself
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ultimately very selfish individuals will lie to benefit themselves. Belief of the lie by the unselfish can cause their harm. The truly selfish must therefore stay only with their own kind. The truly selfish care only for themselves and will follow whatever regimen that benefits themselves either in the short or long term. The STS will be segregated from the STO because one is selfish and one is not. This is the way of the universe. Our Earth is a mix of STS,STO and undecideds, but not for long.
Now Mr.rayray2012 is getting close to reason - by startng with the accepted standard. Let's project from there:
Induction tells you to start from a specific principle which is: an intelligent man's thoughts within the context of working toward a benevolent universe. Which is Objectivist Philosophy.
Check the premise:
"Selfishness is defined as concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure or well-being without regard for others."...
A Objective Philosopher would replace 'excessively or exclusively' with *primarily or principlly* and then further on the word 'without' would be replaced by *subordinating*
thus we arrive at:
...concerned primarily or principlly with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure or well-being; subordinating regard for others."
There, that's more: Major/minor premise.
Once you're used to the reasoning behind that change you'll be ready for the next level-which is Selfful.
The Objectivist aesthetics is by definition Romanticist and thereby envisions and advocates a benevolent universe. This eliminates some of the malevolent-outlook-comments (do you hear me RonHull...?) and should calm the 'dumbfoundedness' of some others.
If you've noticed the various attempts of half-way minds to hi-jack Objectivism to their whims by claiming to be 'objectivish' well, that the same principle applies to 'selfish' as the suffix 'ish' in itself denotes a middle-of-the-road term.
Those of you that argue that: "It's the accepted word for it and we have to use it and change the implication". Why? because faculty and Miss Rand (may She rest in peace after this) said so. Those that don't or refuse to see this are guilty of an Argument from Tradition - acceptance of an evil because its always been that way.
I make this point often, for those who are able to see the error and the trouble that it causes, and who realize that to solve it, one must think more than one's teachers.
You are applying emotional context to something that has none. Selfishness is defined as "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others." If others are applying an emotional context to this, then that is an incorrect application. Perhaps they are referring to the emotional reaction to another person's selfishness.
you cant take without somebody or something being taken from. It is our very nature to take, impose, and seize from this planet, the only unselfish thing anybody could do is kill themselves. At least I can admit that I am addicted to selfisness, and not make wild justifications for behavior that I am emotionally invested in.
This is dangerous. There is much wrong with it. This comment severs the mind from values. It places some undefined, and not even mentioned (only implied) higher standard for morality above human action. It completely hollows out the concept "atruism." It degrades rationality by relabeling it as merely a subjective part of human existence. An emotion. A category we create.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I agree with your assertion that selfishness doesn't always hurt others. But your later point that theft is not to benefit of yourself because it decreases the productivity around you is perhaps even more stupid than the one you set out to refute. You hurt a collective not yourself.
MrCropper, as you know there's different scales of selfishness (& nearly everything), & there's people out there who are SO greedy & selfish, they make rape look tame.
Why don't you expose those people? You know your history MrCropper, (I think) you know the names. You know that some people out there know how to do something so incredibly evil, but also do something kind to cover their own asses.
You're evading the wider context. You're treating the action of "helping others" as if it's some disconnected, independent moral act.
People in AA help others because, as you said, they benefit from these people helping them. They are trading with them. That is the moral act. That is the selfish act. That is the context, which must always be considered.
Hey MrCropper I hope your school turns out to be fulfilling and successful for you and your future students. I would love to chime in here but "selfish" in my world is little more than a judgment, and all judgments tell us more about the unmet needs of the person making the judgment than they tell us about us. So there is not much I can add here. Happy holidays to yours. Cheers!
Hummm, No answers at any of my questions (which you must have read to have responded the the very recent latter ones)... I'll make a video response then... One Sec...
pyrhho asked why you are asking for donations, and wanted you to rationalise that behaviour based upon your objectivist ethics. There be much strawmanning a' going on in this video, yarr.
I do not think that selfishness hurts others by definition and neither do I think that selfishness is good by definition. It is possible for selfishness to either hurt or help others. I think there's a distinction between an overtly outward or extraverted selfishnes that imposes oneself onto others and a more balanced and inward or introverted selfishness that declares independance of thought and action from the imposition of others.
"I do not think that selfishness hurts others by definition and neither do I think that selfishness is good by definition."
The explanation that follows the above sentence is as clear as mud. Don't bother explaining it to me, because I understand it already; I'm just telling you that you are hopelessly lost.
The error here is that you think behaving selfishly means behaving towards ones PERCEIVED self-interest, as opposed to their actual self-interest. If a thief thinks he's being selfish when he robs a bank, it doesn't matter, he's wrong.
RodHull is posing good thought experiments, but let's take a real life example.
When America and other Western nations supported the genocide of East Timor by a) installing Suharto as dictator and b) supplying the Indonesian military with arms, they were acting "selfishly" in their own interests by opening the door to trade relations in the East and profiting directly from the sales of arms. The consequences? Millions of Indonesians and Timorese dead.
An example where you can violate someone and benefit (after a lot of thought),
Prevent an enemy from being able to consume a resource they have in abundance so they have no choice but to sell it to you which prevents their expansion and assists yours. It wouldn't be better to trade with them in this example as it is in your interest to be more powerfull than them for your own security.
They are certainly voilated and you certainly benefit.
An insane millionaire offers you an island and everything you need to live their happily for the rest of "your" life. The only catch is the entire planet, "nay universe" will be destroyed at the moment of your death...
I personally would say no... What objectivist reason would you give for not accepting...?
You are a dictator with a few months left to live. You "selfishly" redirect funds from your countries education system to pay for a machine that will extend your life by an extra month or two more comfortably...
Same question as before, "What objectivist reason would you give for not doing this?"...
Imagine you could only live if you murdered a million people, got raped by dozen martians shortly afterwards and then wore a tea cosy on your head every day for ten years.
WHAT WOULD JOHN GALT DO?
Probably tell you to put the bong away and stop making up ethical dilemmas that have no basis in reality or any applicability to objectivism.
Oh dear, do I really want to get into another discussion on selfishness?
"The essence of the problem is that people don't think you can be selfish without hurting others." That's not the essence of the problem; you're talking about what people *think* about selfishness, and what they *think* is that selfishness means harming others for one's own interest. It's not like they think, "Selfishness means pursuing my interest, but that can't be done without hurting others." (cont.)
Let me try to clarify. Your statement assumes that they define selfishness simply as pursuing one's best interest, and *incidentally*, i.e., not as part of the *definition* of the word, they come to the conclusion that they can't do it without harming others.
They have a concept which involves "Harming others in order to gain something." They use the word "selfishness" to denote that concept. It's a messed up definition, but that's their thought process.
No, that has nothing to do with the definition, and if someone says it does then they're simply saying an invalid definition. The thought process is that people haven't even thought about the definition before, and they just substitute in the connotations for the definition.
"They have a concept which involves "Harming others in order to gain something." "
How about the guy who burned his money before he died so nobody could use it? Everyone I've ever met would call that selfish, but the person who did the act gained no benefit at all - he died.
116 views... yet 23 comments! Why make this issue of donating to you school so complex (despite this seeming negative comment I love the vid). I would donate to the school because it saves a kid from a public school. The public schools must be stopped FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!! Err yea, this reminds me of Benthams egoistic hook a bit.
BTW the funny thing is that altruism reduces to psychological egoism, in the end. So it's in fact the reverse that is the case, i.e. "why run a school if there's no pleasure in it for you?"
Most people equate gratifying one's base desires with "egoistic". Says who? Aristotle dealt with this question 2500+ years ago, where he attacked the idea that one must be some pure hedonist to be an egoist...
This video reminds me that I was once told by a friend that I seemed just a little too self-centered. He could only laugh with agreement when I retorted, "Whose life should my attention be centered upon?" I am new to Ayn Rand but love your videos, Mr. Cropper. Good luck with your school and I fully intend to send you a small donation when my circumstances are better! BTW, loved that Ben Franklin series you did!
Yes, people applying their minds in order to figure out how to have a healthier, better-looking body is really something to laugh at. Just what kind of evil little turd are you? Do you even have the slightest clue of what High-Intensity Training is?
Yes, I do care about toughness, but I didn't make my original comment in order to look tough. I mean it, I don't care what the "social discourse" rules say, I care about what makes sense.
Yeah, that's high-intensity training, but in capital letters it refers more specifically to the exercise philosophy developed by Arthur Jones.
Do you think I want to cohere to the degenerate, aimless discourse of my culture? Of course not, but I do not at the same time deny that I'm a product of it. It doesn't just come down to what makes sense; it's rare for one to step outside the discourse, even when it's desired. You can claim all your ethical conduct is shaped by the philosophy you've read, but come on, that's pure bullshit. Sure its influenced, but you are still mainly regurgitating what you were taught as a child.
Perhaps its easier for you because American discourse perpetuates the same junk Rand advocated. But I'm sure you've experienced conflict between reason and action before, no?
A selfish person can help someone if they will benefit, it's like quid pro quo and by the way someone is not selfish all the time, there are times when we put other's interest into consideration. and being selfish is not negative and we are all selfish too but to an extend,.. do n't you think so?
There is absolutely nothing unselfish about "putting other's interests into consideration." Being unselfish means acting against one's own self-interest. This COULD mean acting towards someone else's interests, or it could mean acting towards no one's interests at all and jumping off a cliff. Helping someone else COULD be done selfishly, like by giving money to Cropper's school, or unselfishly, like by cutting off your hand and giving it to a hungry person (most obvious example I thought of).
So, your justification for the thesis that rape is of no benefit to a rapist is that it reduces the productivity and riches of the world around him? How, exactly, in the case of rape?
Sure it can... but if the only justification for rape being wrong is that it reduces productivity, why should a rapist refrain from raping, say, an unemployed hermit (assuming he can get away with it, which, statistically he probably can)?
More importantly, how on earth DOES rape benefit you? EVEN IF it could be shown that raping someone else does not hurt you (which, for the record, I don't think is true), how on earth is it supposed to benefit you in any irrational way? It going to contribute anything at all towards your ultimate long-term goal? In other words, your happiness?
"True, but even in that context, would you rape somebody? I mean, what the hell for?"
I suppose they see it consistent with gratifying your "interests"--one's depraved interests. They have all sorts of ~evil~ associated with the concept.
Well, of course I know why it's depraved... but if the definition of depraved is "working against one's own interests," then I don't see how rape could be considered depraved, if raping people is, in fact, in one's interest. That would be a contradiction.
An "interest" is not the same thing as being motivated to do something, or simply choosing one thing over another. An interest in the egoistic sense is that which is objectively established as a benefit toward your life.
In other words, to say something is ~in~ your interest, you have to prove, objectively, why and how that thing benefits or adds to your life, keeping in context the entire, long-term course of your life.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think raping is not in a rapist's interest, then, since I still don't see how it isn't, but for the moment, I'll assume it isn't. This would still beg the following question, and I humbly suggest that you read slowly and think carefully on this one; not because you're stupid - you aren't - but because you're passionate:
Why ~should~ one pursue one's own interests, even if they conflict with one's desires? What makes interests ~better~ than desires? And if the very ideas of "better" and "worse" have no meaning outside the context of preferences, what would it even mean for interests to be better than desires?
The long-term context of a person's life. You have to define your terms, otherwise we're playing linguistic games, which I do not do.
I'm not sure you telling me I'm not stupid means anything to me--for I have no idea who you are, how intelligent you are, or what makes you a legitimate judge of my intelligence (certainly not your YouTube ID; Russel was a ~terrible~ philosopher and there's no such thing as a ~real~ "paradox".)
"I'd be interested in hearing why you think raping is not in a rapist's interest..."
Raping is an egregious form of rights violation. You're clearly a concrete-bound mentality and unable to apply general principles to specific instances. The principle of "individual rights" tells you why raping isn't in your interest.
Because the philosophical issue is what gives you pleasure. If harming other people against their will gives you pleasure, then you are sick, and your values are wrong.
One may benefit from others but it is not egoistical. An egoistical person only does those things which are beneficial; he derives his pride from producing that which others value for by their valuing his product they are valuing him.
E1. MrCropper, I had heard reports of famines becoming so severe in North Korea that some people have resorted to cannibalism, but I had not heard of people actually being boiled. Where did you hear about people being boiled?
D1. MrCropper, what I particularly appreciate about this video is that it's a single, self-contained unit, & not part of a larger series. Both long video series & 1-shot videos have their merits, of course; & I wouldn't discourage any vlogger from doing either. The advantage of a 1-shot video like this is that it can be viewed in a single sitting, & so I have an easier time recommending that my friends watch it. :-)
C1. MrCropper, besides economics, another 1 of the few social science fields that recognizes that self-interest doesn't necessarily hurt people, is Evolutionary Psychology (EvoP). Evo Psychs understand that when 2 bizness people peaceably cooperate w/ ea. other, ea. person doing so in his own self-interest, & ea. person profits & no 1 is hurt.
Sadly, Evo Psychs mislabel this "reciprocal altruism," since they falsely associate "altruism" with "benefiting others" rather than "self-sacrifice."
C2. Auguste Comte, who coined the word "altruism," would be offended to hear Evo Psych people describing commerce as "reciprocal altruism." I borrowed his books from the library, & Comte himself said that entrepreneurship, by its nature, should not be called "altruistic," because he meant for altruism to mean not merely social beneficence; he said the most important part of "altruism" is the psychological intent to subordinate 1's own well-being to some Other entity, external to the self.
"Lol, 'reciprocal altruism' is a contradiction in terms. Haha I can't stop laughing at that. How silly are these people?"
"Reciprocal altruism" was coined by Robert L. Trivers. Richard Dawkins cites him and discusses the concept in *The God Delusion*, although I don't remember if Dawkins used the term (I do remember that he used "altruism" to describe voluntary trade).
B1. MrCropper, I hope my saying this isn't pedantic, since I hav very little respect for pedants: at the 1:21 mark, U say "Why is a selfish person necessarily not able to help other people by THEIR actions"? U used a singular "their." At 1:56 U say "It's not a fact of reality that a person who does something for themself..." That's a singular "them."
B2. People don't want to sound sexist, so this use of the singular "they" is becoming increasingly common. But I hav to admit that I still find it distracting & grammatically problematic.
Once I saw a game show where the rules required that all contestants be men, & the host still said, "The individual who wins should be proud of their progress."
I wish people would face that if U're talking about some hypothetical person who could be either sex, it's not chauvinist to say "his," as in: "I think a hard-working individual should be allowed to keep his own earnings." If people don't want to assume this person is a man, then 1 can say "her earnings" (I think Tara Smith does that).
I've even heard that "mankind" is sexist & shouldn't be said.
"Legendre, did you hear about what happened with the 'men at work' signs in Atlanta? Look it up."
Upon reading this text comment of yours, I googled it & came up with instant results. Hahahah! Oh my Galt, that story is both hilarious and disheartening at the same time.
Bring it down to selfish action and not selfish PERSON!
ferrisbueller9000 8 months ago
@ferrisbueller9000 There are no selfish actions, only selfish persons. To be highly technical.
MrCropper 8 months ago
@MrCropper You mean somebody selfish can't change? technical?, about what? a concept that does not reflect the reality. You act selfishly because of your Ego and this can evolve or get bigger, I don't know where you're going with this claim, I just can't find any truth in this, give me some practical application that clearly shows that, I get your point but it's not static... like you seem to claim.
ferrisbueller9000 8 months ago
Caring relationships can be built on mutually respectful intention. If you give and recieve, if you listen and talk. If someone is "one sided" on the extreme..he/she CANT build harmonius relationships . He becomes a "Black hole" which wants to succumb LOVE from the external world, and doesnt realize thet he/she is also a SOURCE of the very same thing what he wants. Sefish people are sad, and hurted persons within themselves, they want to compensate the their emptiness with external things.
itsAndrogyn 10 months ago
and one more thing...if you miss the opportunity to help..that doesnt make you evil person...RIGHT! You just become neutral. But you just miss the opportunity to be positive. You just cut yourself out from loving people, community. For expample: If we are the body of God . If people are having christ counscuisness and linving accordingly...then people become the living god in earth. "Kingdom of god" But if you are selfish you CUT YOURSELF OUT. We are all one, sepearation is an illusion.
itsAndrogyn 10 months ago
yes it true...becouse if you examine the life path..and the direktion of what they accumulate during their selfishnes...for exmple bodybuilders..they are selfish and they want to be bigger than you becuse subconsciosly he knows: He can beat you if he wants to!That gives him power!! A ritch person accumulates wealth, becouse he knows he can use you for work in exchange for his money. And he can think higher himself above you. ALL COMES BACK TO POWER! Its all about someone want to rule above you.
itsAndrogyn 10 months ago
this whole video is somewhat pedantic. your argument is what? that some people don't fully understand the concept of selfishness?
scar504 1 year ago
Because some of us are idiots, and some of us take everything for granted, some of us do not even really give a god d*mn care about others, and some like us are bunch of stuck up loser who don't want to grow up. Are we all selfish that we want everything ourselves.
DragonX7777 1 year ago
Hmmm. I don't think that you (or Ayn Rand, at the time of her writings) have much to worry about. Selfishness is alive and well, and the world is functioning because of it. The label of "selfishness" will continue to vary from person to person, but the truth of the matter remains the same- by working for our own benefit, we are better able to benefit others. I do understand your concern as far as people's ignorance on that matter- but is that really something that you can necessarily change?
rizz7604 1 year ago
@rizz7604 " The label of "selfishness" will continue to vary from person to person,"
Just like "inertia," "gravity" and "momentum"? If those three concepts can be defined scientifically, what makes you so sure selfishness can't?
MrCropper 1 year ago
@MrCropper
To me, you are arguing about the definition of a word that is not my own to begin with.
And with words like selfishness, you can't really define the word right now. Mainly because it is a human concept that can vary it's meaning from individual to individual.
Like for example; having an "open mind"
There is a very good chance that your definition of an open mind is far away from my own. Instead of doing all this, don't you think it's better to set priorities?
~Jkun~
Jkun 1 week ago
you are never selfish with your advice or help
marshalparshal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Mr. Cropper, do you TRULY care for other people, or ONLY yourself? Answer honestly. "
That question is loaded: what do you mean by 'truly' and 'only'?
CathySander 2 years ago
Most Republican politicians are selfish, right?
GameICY 2 years ago
Most liberal politicians are selfish too.
drew335533 2 years ago
Comment removed
DragonX7777 1 year ago
AWESOME VIDEO
hellgod666 2 years ago
Mr. Cropper, do you TRULY care for other people, or ONLY yourself? Answer honestly.
fingtyin 2 years ago
"Mr. Cropper, do you TRULY care for other people, or ONLY yourself? Answer honestly."
I care for those who contribute in some way to my happiness. This includes the unknowns in the future who may benefit from my actions - my actions mean more to me considering the fact that they will dramatically help someone like ME in the future.
My actions will ruin many people's lives and careers, but to HELL with them. I do what I do for others like me.
MrCropper 2 years ago
So the short answer would be no?
fingtyin 2 years ago
"fingtyin" the short answer would not be no, he cares for people who contribute to his happiness.
I don't think it's fair to call him selfish, because he cares for other people, if they contribute to his happiness.
I'm not sure exactly how he defines "contributing to his happiness", but I'm assuming here he means in a relationship or friendship.
An example may be in a relationship, with one person. If one person gives back to you, and the other does not, is it fair to call you selfish?
drew335533 2 years ago
@MrCropper "My actions will ruin many people's lives and careers."
How are you ruining many people's careers?
Inedible1 2 years ago
By ruining lives and careers, I refer to the total elimination of government funding for schools. If that doesn't happen, I'll at least massively expand private schooling before I die. That will reduce and eliminate public education jobs.
MrCropper 2 years ago
@MrCropper Delusions of grandeur.
Inedible1 2 years ago
It's an unfortunate semantic game. Randian "selfishness" is not colloquial "selfishness".
You ask why is the colloquial "selfishness" attached to being "short signed and stupid". Maybe because people in general tend to be short sighted and stupid.
I know Rand advocated the heroic in man. But even in her own novels, the heroic were the minority!
So, is it any wonder that a populist "colloquial" definition would also ignore the heroic across the majority? Even Rand herself couldn't do it.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
Why does every comment have a thumbs down...?
fratboyfrat 2 years ago
As with all questions which evade the scope of our finite understanding, there is no answer to this issue.
To cling to the black or the white is to be blind as the one or the other.
mesdeftool 3 years ago
" there is no answer to this issue. "
You contradict yourself - you claim to have the answer.
MrCropper 2 years ago
Not at all. My answer implies that the only certainty is uncertainty.
Hopefully that clarified...
mesdeftool 2 years ago
Does selfishness hurt others?
When engaged in productive relationships with others selfishness taken to an extreme will cause productive decline.
Persons in a productive relationship that have become corrupted by selfishness may try to say they are creating efficiency.
But their selfish corruption may be so ingrained that they may actually believe their own false propaganda.
In order to increase the productive capacity of all, the un-selfish producers must ignore the propaganda and collectivise!
CivysCare4Soldiers2 3 years ago
"selfishness taken to an extreme will cause productive decline."
If productivity declines, that is not a good outcome, so it cannot qualify as selfish. If it is taken to this 'extreme' it fails to be selfishness.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Don't you know! You have to be a Jedi or a Sith! You either worship Rousseau's God or Schopenhauer's will!
AnarchyIsForMe 3 years ago
The stuff about people boiling kid's heads in North Korea: It just points up one of my pet theories--that Kim Jong Ill is eating people.
42662113 3 years ago
Instant & ego gratification then. Still seems self-fish
TJae1 3 years ago
Benefiting one self does not have to derive from the development of society. But also does not automatically have to harm others like you said. People can be parasites on the larger society by doing what is against societies interest but in theirs, just as long as it doesn't lead to the destruction of their system. It could be in ones interest to keep society less developed if it means they can exploit society, they might not be narrow sighted just predatory.
b0b0maj0 3 years ago
There is nothing rational, beneficial or fulfilling, in becoming a pariah.
tsummerlee 3 years ago
The initiation of force is not an expression of rational self interest. Rational self interest is inherently "selfish."
tsummerlee 3 years ago
id never considered this before, selfish (or selfate) people may hurt people because they may not care but maybe 'selfateness' is born of maybe ambition, or drive for self gain may be selfateness and maybe selfishness doesn't exist, im glad i have this question 4 myself
Nicatroubadour 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ultimately very selfish individuals will lie to benefit themselves. Belief of the lie by the unselfish can cause their harm. The truly selfish must therefore stay only with their own kind. The truly selfish care only for themselves and will follow whatever regimen that benefits themselves either in the short or long term. The STS will be segregated from the STO because one is selfish and one is not. This is the way of the universe. Our Earth is a mix of STS,STO and undecideds, but not for long.
rollsthepaul 3 years ago
Deconstructivism.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
Stupid socialist leech.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago
Now Mr.rayray2012 is getting close to reason - by startng with the accepted standard. Let's project from there:
Induction tells you to start from a specific principle which is: an intelligent man's thoughts within the context of working toward a benevolent universe. Which is Objectivist Philosophy.
Check the premise:
"Selfishness is defined as concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure or well-being without regard for others."...
Selffulness 3 years ago
A Objective Philosopher would replace 'excessively or exclusively' with *primarily or principlly* and then further on the word 'without' would be replaced by *subordinating*
thus we arrive at:
...concerned primarily or principlly with oneself: seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure or well-being; subordinating regard for others."
There, that's more: Major/minor premise.
Once you're used to the reasoning behind that change you'll be ready for the next level-which is Selfful.
Selffulness 3 years ago
The Objectivist aesthetics is by definition Romanticist and thereby envisions and advocates a benevolent universe. This eliminates some of the malevolent-outlook-comments (do you hear me RonHull...?) and should calm the 'dumbfoundedness' of some others.
If you've noticed the various attempts of half-way minds to hi-jack Objectivism to their whims by claiming to be 'objectivish' well, that the same principle applies to 'selfish' as the suffix 'ish' in itself denotes a middle-of-the-road term.
Selffulness 3 years ago
Those of you that argue that: "It's the accepted word for it and we have to use it and change the implication". Why? because faculty and Miss Rand (may She rest in peace after this) said so. Those that don't or refuse to see this are guilty of an Argument from Tradition - acceptance of an evil because its always been that way.
I make this point often, for those who are able to see the error and the trouble that it causes, and who realize that to solve it, one must think more than one's teachers.
Selffulness 3 years ago
Indeed, and nonsensical or not the video challenged me to give an example where you can violate someone and benefit of which I gave three...
RodHullIOnceWasHim 3 years ago
You are applying emotional context to something that has none. Selfishness is defined as "concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others." If others are applying an emotional context to this, then that is an incorrect application. Perhaps they are referring to the emotional reaction to another person's selfishness.
rayray2012 3 years ago
Lol, I'm dumbfounded by the plethora of silly comments on this video. Where do all these idiots come from?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
you cant take without somebody or something being taken from. It is our very nature to take, impose, and seize from this planet, the only unselfish thing anybody could do is kill themselves. At least I can admit that I am addicted to selfisness, and not make wild justifications for behavior that I am emotionally invested in.
LordoftheJamesClan 3 years ago
This is dangerous. There is much wrong with it. This comment severs the mind from values. It places some undefined, and not even mentioned (only implied) higher standard for morality above human action. It completely hollows out the concept "atruism." It degrades rationality by relabeling it as merely a subjective part of human existence. An emotion. A category we create.
Who says Kant's influence isn't alive and well?
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
I didnt say all that stuff in my comment, jesus you would make a good lawyer
LordoftheJamesClan 3 years ago
not explicitly, no.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago 2
"you cant take without somebody or something being taken from."
What if I plow some unused, unowned virgin prairie and grow wheat on it? Who have I taken from when I harvest?
MrCropper 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I agree with your assertion that selfishness doesn't always hurt others. But your later point that theft is not to benefit of yourself because it decreases the productivity around you is perhaps even more stupid than the one you set out to refute. You hurt a collective not yourself.
jpbalkenende 3 years ago
You make a great point at the very end.
evilclownproductions 3 years ago
"You make a great point at the very end."
Best point of the video. I may do a follow-up later based on that single point alone.
MrCropper 3 years ago
so does altruism exist?
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago
MrCropper, as you know there's different scales of selfishness (& nearly everything), & there's people out there who are SO greedy & selfish, they make rape look tame.
Why don't you expose those people? You know your history MrCropper, (I think) you know the names. You know that some people out there know how to do something so incredibly evil, but also do something kind to cover their own asses.
ifurn0 3 years ago
aa is a selfish program,you have to take care of yourself before you can help others,by helping others you are saving your own life.
creten69 3 years ago
You're evading the wider context. You're treating the action of "helping others" as if it's some disconnected, independent moral act.
People in AA help others because, as you said, they benefit from these people helping them. They are trading with them. That is the moral act. That is the selfish act. That is the context, which must always be considered.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
Hey MrCropper I hope your school turns out to be fulfilling and successful for you and your future students. I would love to chime in here but "selfish" in my world is little more than a judgment, and all judgments tell us more about the unmet needs of the person making the judgment than they tell us about us. So there is not much I can add here. Happy holidays to yours. Cheers!
NLPNVC 3 years ago
Selfishness itself is not inherently bad or good because someone can be selfish for the sake of goodness and selfish for the sake of badness.
OblivionMon 3 years ago
Hummm, No answers at any of my questions (which you must have read to have responded the the very recent latter ones)... I'll make a video response then... One Sec...
RodHullIOnceWasHim 3 years ago
Selfishness = Enlightened self interest.
"And it harm none do what you will."
eventide925 3 years ago
pyrhho asked why you are asking for donations, and wanted you to rationalise that behaviour based upon your objectivist ethics. There be much strawmanning a' going on in this video, yarr.
gratex 3 years ago
The answer: The because his donors are selfish.
grantsinmypants2 3 years ago
I do not think that selfishness hurts others by definition and neither do I think that selfishness is good by definition. It is possible for selfishness to either hurt or help others. I think there's a distinction between an overtly outward or extraverted selfishnes that imposes oneself onto others and a more balanced and inward or introverted selfishness that declares independance of thought and action from the imposition of others.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
"I do not think that selfishness hurts others by definition and neither do I think that selfishness is good by definition."
The explanation that follows the above sentence is as clear as mud. Don't bother explaining it to me, because I understand it already; I'm just telling you that you are hopelessly lost.
MrCropper 3 years ago
Nothing muddled or lost about it.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
The error here is that you think behaving selfishly means behaving towards ones PERCEIVED self-interest, as opposed to their actual self-interest. If a thief thinks he's being selfish when he robs a bank, it doesn't matter, he's wrong.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
RodHull is posing good thought experiments, but let's take a real life example.
When America and other Western nations supported the genocide of East Timor by a) installing Suharto as dictator and b) supplying the Indonesian military with arms, they were acting "selfishly" in their own interests by opening the door to trade relations in the East and profiting directly from the sales of arms. The consequences? Millions of Indonesians and Timorese dead.
Why would an objectivist not do the same?
Mahlers7th 3 years ago
Rediculous bullshit. Blame the DEMOCRATES for this, not Objectivists.
tsummerlee 3 years ago 2
Those rediculous democrates!
Mahlers7th 3 years ago
Very interesting...
An example where you can violate someone and benefit (after a lot of thought),
Prevent an enemy from being able to consume a resource they have in abundance so they have no choice but to sell it to you which prevents their expansion and assists yours. It wouldn't be better to trade with them in this example as it is in your interest to be more powerfull than them for your own security.
They are certainly voilated and you certainly benefit.
RodHullIOnceWasHim 3 years ago
Here's another one,
An insane millionaire offers you an island and everything you need to live their happily for the rest of "your" life. The only catch is the entire planet, "nay universe" will be destroyed at the moment of your death...
I personally would say no... What objectivist reason would you give for not accepting...?
RodHullIOnceWasHim 3 years ago
And another,
You are a dictator with a few months left to live. You "selfishly" redirect funds from your countries education system to pay for a machine that will extend your life by an extra month or two more comfortably...
Same question as before, "What objectivist reason would you give for not doing this?"...
RodHullIOnceWasHim 3 years ago
You want us to speculate on the impossible? What's the point?
tsummerlee 3 years ago 2
Principles of ethics don't come from these types of nonsensical situations.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
Very funny. I can think of hundreds like that:
Imagine you could only live if you murdered a million people, got raped by dozen martians shortly afterwards and then wore a tea cosy on your head every day for ten years.
WHAT WOULD JOHN GALT DO?
Probably tell you to put the bong away and stop making up ethical dilemmas that have no basis in reality or any applicability to objectivism.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
Oh dear, do I really want to get into another discussion on selfishness?
"The essence of the problem is that people don't think you can be selfish without hurting others." That's not the essence of the problem; you're talking about what people *think* about selfishness, and what they *think* is that selfishness means harming others for one's own interest. It's not like they think, "Selfishness means pursuing my interest, but that can't be done without hurting others." (cont.)
nine9s 3 years ago
Let me try to clarify. Your statement assumes that they define selfishness simply as pursuing one's best interest, and *incidentally*, i.e., not as part of the *definition* of the word, they come to the conclusion that they can't do it without harming others.
They have a concept which involves "Harming others in order to gain something." They use the word "selfishness" to denote that concept. It's a messed up definition, but that's their thought process.
nine9s 3 years ago
No, that has nothing to do with the definition, and if someone says it does then they're simply saying an invalid definition. The thought process is that people haven't even thought about the definition before, and they just substitute in the connotations for the definition.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
"They have a concept which involves "Harming others in order to gain something." "
How about the guy who burned his money before he died so nobody could use it? Everyone I've ever met would call that selfish, but the person who did the act gained no benefit at all - he died.
MrCropper 3 years ago
"It's not like they think, "Selfishness means pursuing my interest, but that can't be done without hurting others." "
Actually, that is EXACTLY what they think.
Well, to be exact they don't think much at all...
MrCropper 3 years ago
good stuff
cyberspy034 3 years ago
116 views... yet 23 comments! Why make this issue of donating to you school so complex (despite this seeming negative comment I love the vid). I would donate to the school because it saves a kid from a public school. The public schools must be stopped FOR GREAT JUSTICE!!! Err yea, this reminds me of Benthams egoistic hook a bit.
FoxHatesMe 3 years ago
Applause!
tsummerlee 3 years ago 2
BTW the funny thing is that altruism reduces to psychological egoism, in the end. So it's in fact the reverse that is the case, i.e. "why run a school if there's no pleasure in it for you?"
Moragauth 3 years ago
Most people equate gratifying one's base desires with "egoistic". Says who? Aristotle dealt with this question 2500+ years ago, where he attacked the idea that one must be some pure hedonist to be an egoist...
Moragauth 3 years ago 2
nice to see a change of pace with your vids
gabrielevery 3 years ago 4
This video reminds me that I was once told by a friend that I seemed just a little too self-centered. He could only laugh with agreement when I retorted, "Whose life should my attention be centered upon?" I am new to Ayn Rand but love your videos, Mr. Cropper. Good luck with your school and I fully intend to send you a small donation when my circumstances are better! BTW, loved that Ben Franklin series you did!
jbfla2006 3 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mr. Cropper, it doesn't matter what names you chose to give your behavior, you operate within the social discourse, not within taxonomy.
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
The "social discourse" can go fuck itself.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
That's really tough of you.
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
Yea, Ima tuff guy.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"Objectivists should demonstrate their rejection of the mind-body dichotomy by exercising with High-Intensity Training"
lolz
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
Yes, people applying their minds in order to figure out how to have a healthier, better-looking body is really something to laugh at. Just what kind of evil little turd are you? Do you even have the slightest clue of what High-Intensity Training is?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
I said 'lolz'... hahahaha. Man you are super serious.
I quoted that just to illustrate how toughness is something you care about. I never said working out in general is laughable.
I'm guessing that high-intensity training is training at a high-intensity?
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
"Man you are super serious."
Thank you.
Yes, I do care about toughness, but I didn't make my original comment in order to look tough. I mean it, I don't care what the "social discourse" rules say, I care about what makes sense.
Yeah, that's high-intensity training, but in capital letters it refers more specifically to the exercise philosophy developed by Arthur Jones.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Do you think I want to cohere to the degenerate, aimless discourse of my culture? Of course not, but I do not at the same time deny that I'm a product of it. It doesn't just come down to what makes sense; it's rare for one to step outside the discourse, even when it's desired. You can claim all your ethical conduct is shaped by the philosophy you've read, but come on, that's pure bullshit. Sure its influenced, but you are still mainly regurgitating what you were taught as a child.
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
Perhaps its easier for you because American discourse perpetuates the same junk Rand advocated. But I'm sure you've experienced conflict between reason and action before, no?
BrianTheMusicMan 3 years ago
"you are still mainly regurgitating what you were taught as a child."
Here is an instance of psychological projection.
MrCropper 3 years ago
A selfish person can help someone if they will benefit, it's like quid pro quo and by the way someone is not selfish all the time, there are times when we put other's interest into consideration. and being selfish is not negative and we are all selfish too but to an extend,.. do n't you think so?
detriplea 3 years ago
There is absolutely nothing unselfish about "putting other's interests into consideration." Being unselfish means acting against one's own self-interest. This COULD mean acting towards someone else's interests, or it could mean acting towards no one's interests at all and jumping off a cliff. Helping someone else COULD be done selfishly, like by giving money to Cropper's school, or unselfishly, like by cutting off your hand and giving it to a hungry person (most obvious example I thought of).
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
So, your justification for the thesis that rape is of no benefit to a rapist is that it reduces the productivity and riches of the world around him? How, exactly, in the case of rape?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
Are you saying violence has no impact on productivity? Seriously?
tsummerlee 3 years ago 2
Sure it can... but if the only justification for rape being wrong is that it reduces productivity, why should a rapist refrain from raping, say, an unemployed hermit (assuming he can get away with it, which, statistically he probably can)?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
An unearned value is not a value.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Huh? ...so if you steal a Ferrari, it magically starts handling like crap? What do you mean?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
More importantly, how on earth DOES rape benefit you? EVEN IF it could be shown that raping someone else does not hurt you (which, for the record, I don't think is true), how on earth is it supposed to benefit you in any irrational way? It going to contribute anything at all towards your ultimate long-term goal? In other words, your happiness?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Their idea of selfishness amounts to: What would I do if I had 24 hours to live and 10 million dollars to consume?
qtronman 3 years ago 3
True, but even in that context, would you rape somebody? I mean, what the hell for?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"True, but even in that context, would you rape somebody? I mean, what the hell for?"
I suppose they see it consistent with gratifying your "interests"--one's depraved interests. They have all sorts of ~evil~ associated with the concept.
qtronman 3 years ago 2
Exactly.
Sick, huh?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
...Why is it depraved, exactly?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
Why is forcibly violating a person's most intimate aspect of their identity and self against that person's will, depraved?
qtronman 3 years ago
The fact that you ask this questions ~means you are evil and depraved~ assuming you're seriously asking this question.
qtronman 3 years ago
Well, of course I know why it's depraved... but if the definition of depraved is "working against one's own interests," then I don't see how rape could be considered depraved, if raping people is, in fact, in one's interest. That would be a contradiction.
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
An "interest" is not the same thing as being motivated to do something, or simply choosing one thing over another. An interest in the egoistic sense is that which is objectively established as a benefit toward your life.
qtronman 3 years ago
In other words, to say something is ~in~ your interest, you have to prove, objectively, why and how that thing benefits or adds to your life, keeping in context the entire, long-term course of your life.
qtronman 3 years ago
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere.
I'd be interested in hearing why you think raping is not in a rapist's interest, then, since I still don't see how it isn't, but for the moment, I'll assume it isn't. This would still beg the following question, and I humbly suggest that you read slowly and think carefully on this one; not because you're stupid - you aren't - but because you're passionate:
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
Why ~should~ one pursue one's own interests, even if they conflict with one's desires? What makes interests ~better~ than desires? And if the very ideas of "better" and "worse" have no meaning outside the context of preferences, what would it even mean for interests to be better than desires?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
"What makes interests ~better~ than desires?"
The long-term context of a person's life. You have to define your terms, otherwise we're playing linguistic games, which I do not do.
I'm not sure you telling me I'm not stupid means anything to me--for I have no idea who you are, how intelligent you are, or what makes you a legitimate judge of my intelligence (certainly not your YouTube ID; Russel was a ~terrible~ philosopher and there's no such thing as a ~real~ "paradox".)
qtronman 3 years ago
"I'd be interested in hearing why you think raping is not in a rapist's interest..."
Raping is an egregious form of rights violation. You're clearly a concrete-bound mentality and unable to apply general principles to specific instances. The principle of "individual rights" tells you why raping isn't in your interest.
qtronman 3 years ago
Why would a rapist rape if it didn't make him happy?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
"Why would a rapist rape if it didn't make him happy?"
You do not have a proper concept of "happy". What do you mean by "happy"?
qtronman 3 years ago
I mean "enjoying something, or showing joy or pleasure." What's improper about that?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
Because the philosophical issue is what gives you pleasure. If harming other people against their will gives you pleasure, then you are sick, and your values are wrong.
qtronman 3 years ago
Sorry, I don't understand what this statement is supposed to mean at all. Could you, um... clarify?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
"Why would a rapist rape if it didn't make him happy?"
You're obviously completely out of touch with any genuine sense of happiness, you're probably out of touch with your own emotions.
qtronman 3 years ago
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk...
And what does that have to do with anything?
RussellsParadox 3 years ago
One may benefit from others but it is not egoistical. An egoistical person only does those things which are beneficial; he derives his pride from producing that which others value for by their valuing his product they are valuing him.
marneedear 3 years ago
E1. MrCropper, I had heard reports of famines becoming so severe in North Korea that some people have resorted to cannibalism, but I had not heard of people actually being boiled. Where did you hear about people being boiled?
legendre007 3 years ago
he was creating an example not necessarily based upon trut
bmtimv 3 years ago
" Where did you hear about people being boiled?"
A video in my favorites, added recently.
MrCropper 3 years ago
D1. MrCropper, what I particularly appreciate about this video is that it's a single, self-contained unit, & not part of a larger series. Both long video series & 1-shot videos have their merits, of course; & I wouldn't discourage any vlogger from doing either. The advantage of a 1-shot video like this is that it can be viewed in a single sitting, & so I have an easier time recommending that my friends watch it. :-)
legendre007 3 years ago 3
C1. MrCropper, besides economics, another 1 of the few social science fields that recognizes that self-interest doesn't necessarily hurt people, is Evolutionary Psychology (EvoP). Evo Psychs understand that when 2 bizness people peaceably cooperate w/ ea. other, ea. person doing so in his own self-interest, & ea. person profits & no 1 is hurt.
Sadly, Evo Psychs mislabel this "reciprocal altruism," since they falsely associate "altruism" with "benefiting others" rather than "self-sacrifice."
legendre007 3 years ago
C2. Auguste Comte, who coined the word "altruism," would be offended to hear Evo Psych people describing commerce as "reciprocal altruism." I borrowed his books from the library, & Comte himself said that entrepreneurship, by its nature, should not be called "altruistic," because he meant for altruism to mean not merely social beneficence; he said the most important part of "altruism" is the psychological intent to subordinate 1's own well-being to some Other entity, external to the self.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
Lol, "reciprocal altruism" is a contradiction in terms. Haha I can't stop laughing at that. How silly are these people?
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
"Lol, 'reciprocal altruism' is a contradiction in terms. Haha I can't stop laughing at that. How silly are these people?"
"Reciprocal altruism" was coined by Robert L. Trivers. Richard Dawkins cites him and discusses the concept in *The God Delusion*, although I don't remember if Dawkins used the term (I do remember that he used "altruism" to describe voluntary trade).
legendre007 3 years ago
B1. MrCropper, I hope my saying this isn't pedantic, since I hav very little respect for pedants: at the 1:21 mark, U say "Why is a selfish person necessarily not able to help other people by THEIR actions"? U used a singular "their." At 1:56 U say "It's not a fact of reality that a person who does something for themself..." That's a singular "them."
legendre007 3 years ago 2
B2. People don't want to sound sexist, so this use of the singular "they" is becoming increasingly common. But I hav to admit that I still find it distracting & grammatically problematic.
Once I saw a game show where the rules required that all contestants be men, & the host still said, "The individual who wins should be proud of their progress."
legendre007 3 years ago 3
I wish people would face that if U're talking about some hypothetical person who could be either sex, it's not chauvinist to say "his," as in: "I think a hard-working individual should be allowed to keep his own earnings." If people don't want to assume this person is a man, then 1 can say "her earnings" (I think Tara Smith does that).
I've even heard that "mankind" is sexist & shouldn't be said.
legendre007 3 years ago 3
B4. I've caught myself using the singular "they"; I'm combing thru my book to eliminate every instance of it.
Am I the only 1 who thinks that there's nothing wrong with referring to a single hypothetical person as "he" or "she" instead of "they"? :-(
legendre007 3 years ago 3
NO! The standard is he and ought to be used as the singular when in an ambiguous context. Using she is silly and they is simply wrong.
marneedear 3 years ago 3
The rampant use of "there's" when the object is obviously plural drives me nuts, and it's definitely way worse than the they/their/them problem.
chris3443 3 years ago 3
Its just standard Enlglish.
marneedear 3 years ago 2
Legendre, did you hear about what happened with the "men at work" signs in Atlanta? Look it up.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago 2
"Legendre, did you hear about what happened with the 'men at work' signs in Atlanta? Look it up."
Upon reading this text comment of yours, I googled it & came up with instant results. Hahahah! Oh my Galt, that story is both hilarious and disheartening at the same time.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
Oh my Galt! Hah classic! *stores in memory bank*
chopsky 3 years ago 4
"Oh my Galt! Hah classic! *stores in memory bank*"
Ditto!!!
MrCropper 3 years ago
Hooray! MrCropper is back! :-D
legendre007 3 years ago 5