I deleted the Big Self-Serving Bionic post on accident

BBB claims to be this great lover of humanity but in truth he assumes the worst in everyone constantly. CIP: the people who run the country are evil

noooooooooooooooooooooooooo my 5 paragraph essay about bBB

basically

if you believe in your religion so much to write g-d you should maybe take into account the fact that your religion also believes that charity is blind. every time bbb does something nice for the less fortunate he turns around and negates the whole thing by taking advantage of them and bragging about it, making the act self serving.

the whole god thing is self serving too. im pious look at me i wont write god. hey, even if god did exist do you think he's such a jerk that he won't let you type his name? the whole writing his name thing is so you wouldn't crumple the paper and not crumple gods name. it makes no sense on the internet except to show people you're pious.

religion is self serving as a whole but at least in the jewish religion charity is supposed to be blind for a reason.

Tzedakah[pronunciation?], or Ṣ'daqah in Classical Hebrew (Hebrew: צדקה‎; Arabic: صدقة‎), is a Hebrew word literally meaning righteousness but commonly used to signify charity.[1] It is based on the Hebrew word (צדק, Tzedek) meaning righteousness, fairness or justice, and it is related to the Hebrew word Tzadik meaning righteous as an adjective (or righteous individual as a noun in the form of a substantive). In Judaism, tzedakah refers to the religious obligation to do what is right and just, which Judaism emphasises are important parts of living a spiritual life. Maimonides says that, while the second highest form of tzedakah is to anonymously give donations to unknown recipients, the highest form is to give a gift, loan, or partnership that will result in the recipient supporting himself instead of living upon others. Unlike philanthropy or charity, which are completely voluntary, tzedakah is seen as a religious obligation, which must be performed regardless of financial standing, and must even be performed by poor people. Tzedakah is considered to be one of the three main acts that can annul a less than favorable heavenly decree.

bottom line. i hate organized religion and don't consider myself jewish and i'm still a better jew than bbb.

Typical sociopath behavior.

He doesnt give a fuck about needles or others saftey, hes in it to make himself look good.

TSB

BTW I got power back last night around midnight. It felt like religious experience when the lights and heat went on. 13 days....I am survivor

jason helped with the relief efforts but then he posted all the pictures on his fb and liked them.

the one with him giving a thumbs up over a house that burnt to the ground really made me sick.

im a better jew than bbb and a better christian than jesus christ.

i am the superhuman american.

i am unstoppable.

harry im assuming you haven't worked in 2 weeks or did they have power at work? I lost power for one day which was bad enough and i just camped out at work cuz they had power.

He must be having some serious cognitive dissonance about possibly being a sociopath.

I got housing for 5 homeless people last week, do you see me running around seeking good boy points?

This is disgusting TSB from Jason.

jason informed me via text that he agrees with this post and knows he is a bad person who only does nice things to make himself seem like a good person but he will not be posting on this board until trevor the great is demodded.

i told him i wish him all the best with wonk, mr.v, geekboy and 85. i hope he find happiness there. it's like his new bcoughh only the low iq people have different names.

mean IQ dropped significantly over there this past week thats for sure

also got very very racist which of course is a sign of low IQ

True, especially of niggers and sand niggers

i wonder what he thought was going to happen when he sent that text? i was gonna break down and beg him to post here? this is a better brand of boarding. if you'd rather wade through wonk, 85 and barry wong posts be my guest. no one is chained to this board.

rip bbb.
Oct 27 2012 - Nov 9 2012

so basically i made him ftbp. i win

big self serving bennett

Of course, it’s one thing to explain why people in general are inclined to help others, and another to examine how it plays out in the mind of an individual person. Studying charitable donation has been a valuable window into that process for researchers, because it allows them to quantify the amount of good a person is doing, and how much he or she is giving up.

One dominant strain of thought among charity researchers is that our donations aren’t chiefly driven by concern for others, or a principled sense of altruism — that instead, it’s largely a way for us to indulge the desire to feel virtuous and happy about our role in the world. This theory was formalized in 1989 by behavioral economist James Andreoni, who described the rush of self-satisfaction and sense of purpose one experiences after committing support to a worthy cause as “warm glow.” The reason we give money, Andreoni wrote, is that it makes us feel good — regardless of how much it benefits the people we’re ostensibly trying to help.

Another prominent theory to emerge from the research is that people give because of social pressure. We want to avoid appearing selfish or coldhearted, especially in front of people who are suffering or people whose opinions we care about. We might feel this type of pressure when we find ourselves passing a homeless person on the street, or when someone at the office asks if we’d like to participate in the companywide campaign for United Way.

Those aren’t the reasons we like to think of ourselves as donating, but experimental research on charity tends to support the notion that donating and thinking occupy separate realms. Jonathan Baron, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, asked a group of participants which charity they’d rather give to: one that achieved its goals so efficiently that it could spend 20 percent of its money on advertising, or one that required more money to do the same amount of good, and thus spent less on promotion. Though the first charity was technically more efficient, people tended to favor the latter: What mattered to them was seeing more of their own money at work, Baron concluded, rather than the amount of good it did.

This conclusion is bolstered by the findings of John List, an economist at the University of Chicago, who tested the effectiveness of so-called matching programs, in which a major supporter agrees to match the contributions of individual donors. List expected to find that matching programs enticed people to give, by creating the (correct) impression that their money would go further. But List’s results were curious: While charities that offered a matching program did inspire more people to give than charities that didn’t, he was surprised to find that a higher matching ratio didn’t lead to larger donations. People whose donations would be quadrupled — a huge increase in the power of their gift — didn’t donate any more money than people whose donations would simply be doubled. “People get utility or satisfaction out of giving to a good cause. And they do not care how much public good is provided,” List said.

So very uneducated for a Jew