' Life is cruel, and unnecessary , by our own definition of same '

So you listed a definition of altruism, and then simply asserted that all of the examples I gave before (Germany accepting refugees, foreign aid policies, etc.) were not altruism without actually providing an argument. So now we're talking about altruism. You don't say it explicitly, but I think you're leaning on an age old criticism of altruism: that people's motives are always ulterior and self-interested, and therefore it doesn't exist. Now, I'm not saying I believe that white-knight do-goody altruism happens all of the time, or that it ever looks like it's disney version. Perfectly shitty people can pretend at altruism. Even the best altruists have flaws on their own and aren't perfect. But: First of all, how does this usually begin? We look at a person's good actions, and then at all of the possibilities for why they are doing them. Undoubtedly, when a boy is walking a grandmother across the road, oh, somewhere, there is some faint logical possibility, what? Maybe he's doing it only on the off chance that she'll give him a dollar. Maybe he's just trying to make himself feel better and not help her. The problem I find with this method is that it's purely hypothetical and after the fact. One could conceive millions of reasons for a person's behavior and carry them unsubstantiated, corrupting a person's intentions (even when they already demonstrated good behavior) by playing with your own thought experiments and then applying them to someone else's thoughts. Two: it relies on a Freudian unconscious which is widely debunked by psychology. Why? For the same reason why what I'm talking about above is absurd. "The unconscious" those evil intentions secretly controlling you all of the time, cannot be verified. There is no way to verify any scientific claims based on that kind of psychoanalysis because there is no predictable way to actually observe the unconscious. So when we get into that thought experiment of, "well they were thinking" or "they could have been thinking" we can say literally anything ad infinium unless we realize that all of it will be useless because it can't be verified (unless you take a person's word for it, which has already been walked over by that point). And I have a third problem with this popular arguments against altruism. The next thing that usually comes out of that person's mouth then is, "well, since everyone is selfish, then really everything is permissable, so I can be recklessly greedy, decadent, etc.). This is really very sad. Because, not only have they walked over altruism with unfirm methods and conclusions, blackening the concept with poor reasoning, they then think that if there is a question to good behavior, then evil behavior should be fine. And do you realize the massive problem with this? What, so maybe a person could or did feign altruism in one instance. Therefore, you can be a greedy, careless pig whenever you want? This message which is almost at the heart of American secular thinking today is very insidious, doing a lot of damage to our society I think. Now and you're making other logical leaps heedlessly all over the place that you know are just pissing me off, right! You're saying, "we love our neighbors because..... x", "we.... this", "we that". Who is this we? Why do I have to take responsibility for this "we"? Why can anything these obviously few and select cases of people do be ascribed to some grand "we"? Sorry man, you're hitting a bit of a nerve here: very insidious and poor argument making, mucking up logic with a hazy use of the English language.... You say that, "it is both easy and self-defeating to be over-cynical and that is why I would prefer to be objective", right after you say the most possibly cynical things I have ever heard in my life. Here's the best one, "You say that Germany burned 6 million Jews and that is has now accepted..... Syrians many of whom are needed within it's economy". What you're obviously getting at and assuming is that, you know, a country does something terrible, and therefore it can never redeem itself with future behavior, or that different people living in a different time but in the same country can't do anything good since bad things were done by them in the past. Is there anything more cynical you could believe? That kind of attitude would condemn every nation and person totally if we were allowed to seriously carry it. After all, weren't the Bantu tribes of Africa actually marauders who didn't deserve the lands they settled in the first place? Didn't they practice slavery among themselves, which would have given slaves no cause to free themselves? Didn't the Jews kill Jesus, and blah blah blah. Your style of argument would bring down every nation and people if it were taken seriously... I'm honestly tired of arguing with you because your methodology is atrocious. I hope you consider that when you make cheap shot arguments, it gives other people the right to do so, a huge problem today which is making discourse more and more unintelligible, useless. But of course I will go on until there is a vote.