>Also, Smileys don't enhance a post no matter how much you believe that somewhat moronic belief. Maybe you had a little tantrum and wet yourself as soon as you saw a post that didn't like your blabbering to post such a thing.
I was only matching the level of dialogue coming from you, Mr. I Badly Summarize What I Didn't Read. "Long and boring", you misunderstand what you read, so my conclusion was that you must be a child or a complete imbecile. I was being charitable with the former, so I added something that might lighten up the text for a child. If you're merely an idiot, why not just start with a greentext "implying" next time so everyone knows you're just misrepresenting someone else's words? I mean, what were you thinking? Was it "I don't know what the writer's saying, but it's long, boring, and some of the words make me frustrated so I'm going to say something mean about it"? It sounds like a kindergartner's book report, and sadly that's the impression I get of the amount of thought that led up to your response. It just seems rather stupid to respond to something you haven't read and don't really understand.
>Not only did you not say anything helpful while trying to sound like a psychologist, but you tell him things that he most likely already knows and tell him to do what he thinks is right, which he did.
Closer than your first response, but no. If you read the original post, he did something he obviously believed wasn't exactly right, then externalized it as not his fault. By "very human", I'm saying he's not a bad person and he does the same thing that many people would do; that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do according to his ideals.
He might already know it, or he might not. Neither you nor I know that since we're not omniscient. He didn't seem to be aware he was externalizing culpability for his actions, though, and pointing that out along with ways to come to terms with his actions and himself without externalizing them formed the bulk of my original post. It's not about playing psychologist, but about being self aware of our defensive thought processes.
No matter what he chooses he values more, he still shouldn't delude himself into thinking mistakes contradicting his self image are just outside of his control, otherwise "following orders" becomes an excuse to do anything since, if an action contradicts his ideals, he can simply disown his actions and avoid taking responsibility for them.
As to the other thing you wrote that I ignored the first time around (or, rather, your defense thereof):
>I never said anything about NEETs being an exception to this.
But when you say:
>Normals are shit and they only look our for themselves.
You separate "normals" from non-normals. Why bother separating the two in the first place if you don't intend to distinguish between them? It's like saying "most Germans have two legs, two arms, and one head." Of course, but so do most people of every nationality. Why bother pointing this out if you're not excepting one group (Germans or non-Germans) for special treatment? Why say "normals" when you could've just said "people"? My guess is rank tribalism.