Not everyone is social. Some people want to build what they want even if that means a group of people will be excluded.

This is simply saying that you do not have, and do not desire to acquire, the emotional capacity to be satisfied with the social trade offs of voluntary subordination of a portion of your own personal desires to benefit the desires of others who may also want to commune with you.

So if your proof claim is simply “I don’t want to” then it’s entirely ignoring the question with the idea that it’s not your choice anyway - you’re just born that way - which is not a relativistic statement.

In fact it’s a biological determinism argument and if you would like to go down that hole I think it would yield that your claimed antisocial “preference” is extremely rare historically - to the extent where as an outlier it’s questionable if it is an evolutionary fitness trait or if it’s ultimately supporting a genetic brick wall.

> Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?

This simplifies away some crucial details about the actual situation.

For example, I have limited time and opportunities. Spending 200 hours making a piece of software more handicap-friendly may mean 200 hours less of being a good parent to my kids. Or working at a homeless shelter.

We can probably agree that all 3 activities are "pro social" in some manner. But I can't tackle all of them. Part of growing up is accepting that you can't do everything.

I'm open to changing my priorities, but not without good justification.

Well I was actually responding to your assertion that (paraphrasing) you haven’t been convinced that you have an social obligation

That’s what I’m saying, if you can choose your philosophy, why choose one that is antisocial.

He’s saying it’s not antisocial because he’s a better judge on how he wishes to expend himself for society.

When in doubt: choose your kids. Hours in deficit only compound when stability and familial love is concerned.

> Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social[…]

Isn’t anti-social a very loose and subjective term? Using your own example, wouldn’t it be considered anti-social in Nazi Germany to oppose mainstream culture like military parades, Hitler-Jugend etc?

To be clear when I say “antisocial” Vs “prosocial” it is in the specific context of psycho-social evaluation where:

Prosocial: “benefit other people or society as a whole”

Antisocial: “considered to be disruptive to others in society”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosocial_behavior

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour

I think this is a false dichotomy.

It would be pro-social if I donated my wealth to charity, killed myself, and donated my organs... But I don't want to do that.

Does that make me antisocial? Is there no middle ground?

It’s more like, is each action you take as you go through life more antisocial or more prosocial?

I’m sure even Richard Kuklinski held a door open for someone, at some point

>Why would you actively choose a position that would be considered anti-social instead of a position that would be considered pro-social if they have the same objective grounding?

Because one positions imposes significant costs and restrictions, leaving your life significantly worse off.

Paying taxes to support the welfare of others is pro-social, but it means that I am laboring twice as much, instead of relaxing with my friends an family. It means that I am paying for the children of others using resources I would rather devote to my children. Why should I sacrifice my wellbeing for someone I don't know, and might not even like if I met them.

Many behaviors that fall under the Pro-social labor hurt the individual and benefit others.

If they are actually beneficial to the individual, they wouldn't need to be compulsory or the pro-social rhetoric.