BF2S Forums Empathy

Or you both could drop the issue and return the thread to its rightful track.

Surprising as hell but, I have to agree with lowing.
IF..... you ain't been there, done that.... you can sympathise, not empathise.

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

See, when was it "shown" I was wrong. I didn't even post on the OP. And even if I did, a "blurry line" is not a proving point for you Lowing. Loose definitions pretty much sums up the arguement to show YOU are wrong.

There is no loose definition or a blurry line. You agreed with Varegg and told me to stfu.
You and Varegg have been shown to be wrong in your belief of what you think empathy means and how it is projected. Period.

I used a combat veteran seeking help as an excellent analogy between empathy and sympathy.
If you have been in combat yourself, you can share in the emotion of it with the veteran. If you have not, all you can do is sympathize with him.
That is a clear analogy, and not blurred that is conveniently ignored. Get over it.


All of this ties directly to the OP John Galt wrote:

"Altruistic bullshit aside, what really got to me was her brazen exploitation of this girl. How could Ann possibly feel empathy for the girls plight? She could have absolutely no way of knowing what it's like to be chained to a tree and raped by dozens of men. How could she possibly even begin to understand what the girl went through. She had no way of sharing the emotional trauma the girl went through because she had no way of relating. Sympathy yes, empathy no. "


There is no empathy for those that do not share a common experience, and none of you that think there is, has a clue as to what you are talking about. Period.

I agreed with no one.I never even commented on the OP. I commented on your condescending tone that you always have. The reason I did that is you were pouting about others doing it to you. Now I will say it again. Nicer this time. PLEASE stfu already!

yer right it was one of the other village idiots in this thread I was referring. but if you are not going to contribute to the discussion other than flame, how about you just keep your mouth shut?

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

I agreed with no one.I never even commented on the OP. I commented on your condescending tone that you always have. The reason I did that is you were pouting about others doing it to you. Now I will say it again. Nicer this time. PLEASE stfu already!

yer right it was one of the other village idiots in this thread I was referring. but if you are not going to contribute to the discussion other than flame, how about you just keep your mouth shut?

Condescending again lowing. I "chimed" in on a comment you made. That comment did not pertain to the OP. Am I suppose to comment on what you state, when you state something of topic, and magically keep it on topic while still adressing your comment? YOU strayed from the OP. Nobody wants to hear you complaining about the "village idiots". You are the king there.

I have stayed completely on topic. That topic being empathy. this thread has gone 8 pages with people just like you trying to say it is something other than what it is, and trashing me in the process. then along comes you to join in that fun so if you have a commetn on the OP make it, if all you want ot do is lowing bash like the other jack offs in this forum do it when I am at least NOT right ( in your eyes) in a thread.

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

yer right it was one of the other village idiots in this thread I was referring. but if you are not going to contribute to the discussion other than flame, how about you just keep your mouth shut?

Condescending again lowing. I "chimed" in on a comment you made. That comment did not pertain to the OP. Am I suppose to comment on what you state, when you state something of topic, and magically keep it on topic while still adressing your comment? YOU strayed from the OP. Nobody wants to hear you complaining about the "village idiots". You are the king there.

I have stayed completely on topic. That topic being empathy. this thread has gone 8 pages with people just like you trying to say it is something other than what it is, and trashing me in the process. then along comes you to join in that fun so if you have a commetn on the OP make it, if all you want ot do is lowing bash like the other jack offs in this forum do it when I am at least NOT right ( in your eyes) in a thread.

You are an idiot. Not because you are wrong, but because you are blind to the fact that you are wrong.

Empathy is defined as the intellectual identification with OR vicarious experiancing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. Shall we go into what "vicarious" means? This thread has gone on for 8 pags of you not being able to comprehend the written defintion of one fucking word. Idiot.

King_County_Downy wrote:

Easy with the name calling fellas.

Thanks you!

mgt-

It was more to point out his broade use of the words "village idiots". He didn't even bother to look up the definition of a word he spent 8 pages arguing the meaning to.

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

yer right it was one of the other village idiots in this thread I was referring. but if you are not going to contribute to the discussion other than flame, how about you just keep your mouth shut?

Condescending again lowing. I "chimed" in on a comment you made. That comment did not pertain to the OP. Am I suppose to comment on what you state, when you state something of topic, and magically keep it on topic while still adressing your comment? YOU strayed from the OP. Nobody wants to hear you complaining about the "village idiots". You are the king there.

I have stayed completely on topic. That topic being empathy. this thread has gone 8 pages with people just like you trying to say it is something other than what it is, and trashing me in the process. then along comes you to join in that fun so if you have a commetn on the OP make it, if all you want ot do is lowing bash like the other jack offs in this forum do it when I am at least NOT right ( in your eyes) in a thread.

This is just yet another thread you argue and think you know what you're talking about, yet pages and pages on people are still telling you to look up and understand the meaning of what the topic is about.

Answer this: how can someone who, by their own admission has trouble having empathy, can argue like they think they're an expert? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Maybe people just get a little tired of having discussions and then having to put up with trying to educate you on the topic for pages and pages on end, hence your feeling of being "trashed" on these forums.

What you're trying to correlate is sharing an experience with sharing an emotion, which is simply not how it works. Then you're trying to correlate empathy as "cheap talk" because you're not out there feeding the homeless or giving all your cash away to charity. That's not how it works, empathy is understanding and being able to RELATE to someone's feelings and emotions. Taking a simple dictionary sentence of "it's sharing emotions" is not enough, especially because you're displaying limited understanding on the issue.

Here, read this: http://eqi.org/empathy.htm

To show empathy is to identify with another's feelings. It is to emotionally put yourself in the place of another. The ability to empathize is directly dependent on your ability to feel your own feelings and identify them.

See the word "identify"? It doesn't mean I have to feel exactly what they're feeling at the same time, it means I can relate through my own experiences to how they feel. If someone says they feel depressed because they have a medical condition of chronic depression, I don't need to have a similar illness to understand what it feels like to be depressed. I may not understand the depth of the particular emotion as they feel it, but I can relate and IDENTIFY with that emotion due to my own experiences with depression.

At my work we actually have a Viet Vet stay sometimes, we get along well and I can see when he's feeling anxious or happy or a bit down. No, I wasn't in Vietnam, no I don't know what it was like there, but yes I can empathise with his feelings at that particular moment because I can understand those emotions, can read his body language etc. Again, not perhaps exactly how he feels it but I can have a conversation with him about how things are going and statements like "gee, that must've made you feel pretty worried" or "I bet your daughters were happy to see you" shows I can empathise in my own way. It's not black and white, on or off, it's a gamut of varying shades.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-05-21 22:33:02)

Pug wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Pug wrote:

And for fucks sake, use a thesaurus!  sympathy = empathy.

Sympathy is not same as empathy.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/empathy
Main Entry: empathy
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: understanding
Synonyms: affinity, appreciation, being on same wavelength, being there for someone, communion, community of interests, compassion, comprehension, concord, cottoning to, good vibrations, hitting it off, insight, picking up on, pity, rapport, recognition, responsiveness, soul, sympathy, warmth 

http://thesaurus.com/browse/sympathy
Main Entry: sympathy
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: shared feeling
Synonyms: accord, affinity, agreement, alliance, attraction, benignancy, close relation, commiseration, compassion, concord, congeniality, connection, correspondence, empathy, feelings, fellow feeling, harmony, heart, kindliness, kindness, mutual attraction, mutual fondness, rapport, responsiveness, sensitivity, tenderness, understanding, union, unity, warmheartedness, warmth 

Now, there are several different words that describe the same type of idea.  For instance, the American Eskimo has 87 different words for "snow".  I'm pretty sure that if one "shares the feeling" and "understands" the situation then might "give a fuck" which is a synonym for "charity".

Semantic arguments are always awesome....

Did you read the notes? I have read several books that have something about empathy, I've read some articles about empathy (including wiki), I'm not a deep philosopher and I don't waste endless amounts of time pondering these things. But I know that this conversation could be over if you guys read even one wiki article about empathy.

One thing I find funny here is someone randomly popping in and saying how someone is right/wrong when the whole discussion would not even exist if people had bothered to read more about the subject (I don't mean OP, I mean "discussion" between Varegg and lowing).

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Condescending again lowing. I "chimed" in on a comment you made. That comment did not pertain to the OP. Am I suppose to comment on what you state, when you state something of topic, and magically keep it on topic while still adressing your comment? YOU strayed from the OP. Nobody wants to hear you complaining about the "village idiots". You are the king there.

I have stayed completely on topic. That topic being empathy. this thread has gone 8 pages with people just like you trying to say it is something other than what it is, and trashing me in the process. then along comes you to join in that fun so if you have a commetn on the OP make it, if all you want ot do is lowing bash like the other jack offs in this forum do it when I am at least NOT right ( in your eyes) in a thread.

This is just yet another thread you argue and think you know what you're talking about, yet pages and pages on people are still telling you to look up and understand the meaning of what the topic is about.

Answer this: how can someone who, by their own admission has trouble having empathy, can argue like they think they're an expert? Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Maybe people just get a little tired of having discussions and then having to put up with trying to educate you on the topic for pages and pages on end, hence your feeling of being "trashed" on these forums.

What you're trying to correlate is sharing an experience with sharing an emotion, which is simply not how it works. Then you're trying to correlate empathy as "cheap talk" because you're not out there feeding the homeless or giving all your cash away to charity. That's not how it works, empathy is understanding and being able to RELATE to someone's feelings and emotions. Taking a simple dictionary sentence of "it's sharing emotions" is not enough, especially because you're displaying limited understanding on the issue.

Here, read this: http://eqi.org/empathy.htm

To show empathy is to identify with another's feelings. It is to emotionally put yourself in the place of another. The ability to empathize is directly dependent on your ability to feel your own feelings and identify them.

See the word "identify"? It doesn't mean I have to feel exactly what they're feeling at the same time, it means I can relate through my own experiences to how they feel. If someone says they feel depressed because they have a medical condition of chronic depression, I don't need to have a similar illness to understand what it feels like to be depressed. I may not understand the depth of the particular emotion as they feel it, but I can relate and IDENTIFY with that emotion due to my own experiences with depression.

At my work we actually have a Viet Vet stay sometimes, we get along well and I can see when he's feeling anxious or happy or a bit down. No, I wasn't in Vietnam, no I don't know what it was like there, but yes I can empathise with his feelings at that particular moment because I can understand those emotions, can read his body language etc. Again, not perhaps exactly how he feels it but I can have a conversation with him about how things are going and statements like "gee, that must've made you feel pretty worried" or "I bet your daughters were happy to see you" shows I can empathise in my own way. It's not black and white, on or off, it's a gamut of varying shades.

everything you describe is sympathy. If you have not been there then you can not identify with the emotion of killing someone or getting shot at or getting SHOT, or watching your friend blown up. You listen to the story then you move on to the next patient and "empathize" with him and his story. You do not know what iti s like to live with their trauma daily. Sorry, you give yourself way too much credit if you presume to be on the same page with anyone that has experienced shit you have not. Personally, if you tired to tell me you know exactly what I am going through when you clearly do not, I would be insulted, label you a fraud and find someone else to talk to. Like a combat veteran. ( if I were in combat)

Jaekus wrote:

As I guessed, YOU STILL HAVEN'T EVEN READ WHAT EMPATHY IS ABOUT.

8 pages on and all, this is really embarrassing.

I can't take you seriously if you want to to take this line of discussion. Once you make an effort to not be so ignorant you may perhaps learn something and we may continue.

Example: I can empathise with you arguing a wrong point of view, only to realise that you're wrong and the feeling of "oh shit, I look like a douche" because I know what it feels like, I've had it happen to me before.

At the moment however I feel sympathy for you, because you don't get it, I feel for you and really do wish you could at least TRY to understand.

All this is lost because you'll attempt to twist anything to make it somehow mean in your head to be "right" when anyone with any kind of nouse to click a link and actually discover what empathy is will see you are just digging yourself a bigger hole.

did ya actually google the "difference between empathy and sympathy"? Or are you just going to insist it means the same thing because you have been grand standing so much, ya just can't back down now?

I am not embarrassed one bit, I am amused that you, and the other court jesters, flat insist you can empathize with a persons experiences that you have not experienced and have no idea what they have been through. You can't.

I am not twisting anything, There is a clear difference between emapthy and sympathy and your condensending approach to your being wrong will not change that.

lol, google the damn words, and do some reading for yourself for once.

here let me help you, but you are not going to like it. Enjoy it anyway.


http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source … 650bd26c01

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

I am not embarrassed one bit, I am amused that you, and the other court jesters, flat insist you can empathize with a persons experiences that you have not experienced and have no idea what they have been through. You can't.

just cos YOU can't empathise with anyone doesn't mean other people don't have the ability. now please, stfu before you embarass yourself even further.

speaking of court jesters........

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

BLdw wrote:

Did you read the notes? I have read several books that have something about empathy, I've read some articles about empathy (including wiki), I'm not a deep philosopher and I don't waste endless amounts of time pondering these things. But I know that this conversation could be over if you guys read even one wiki article about empathy.

One thing I find funny here is someone randomly popping in and saying how someone is right/wrong when the whole discussion would not even exist if people had bothered to read more about the subject (I don't mean OP, I mean "discussion" between Varegg and lowing).

I didn't get it right away at first either, but I've come to the conclusion that they aren't arguing for the sake of definition, but for the sake of argument.

No actually I am arguing for the sake of amusing myself for what has turned out to be the continuous onslaught of "lowing bashing" for the sake of "lowing bashing". It amuses me to watch such behavior even in the face of indisputable evidence that they are wrong. They will spare no expense, even the cost of agreeing with what is correct, to "bash lowing". Entertaining to say the least. Pathetic to say the most.

Jaekus wrote:

lowing bashing? It's just pretty irritating to have you enter ever thread and trash it for the sake of "your amusement".
Do a research, you sound retarded.