hil-A-riouslowing wrote:
speaking of court jesters........
There's 'lowing bashing' because, to be honest, you tend to come off on the acerbic side, and are willing to lower yourself into the gutter of debate to combat acidic responses, fueling a dozen pages of flame.lowing wrote:
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.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
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.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).
trolllowing wrote:
No actually I am arguing for the sake of amusing myself
Didn't take much research to show you are wrong, per the google page I linked for ya. How you can still deny that there is a difference between the 2 terms is what is so amusing.
I didn't trash this thread I challenged Varegg's ( an admitted capitalist) assertion that capitalists, (except him and a "few" others) does not have the capacity for empathy or sympathy because they have no "conscience". I also challenged his assertion that his paying taxes was a measure of that empathy. Then people like you come along and start trying to tell us that there is no difference between empathy and sympathy. Which has also been shown to be incorrect. Or didn't ya read the link? You said do research and it has been done,
here it is again.......
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source … 650bd26c01 and you are wrong.
I didn't trash this thread I challenged Varegg's ( an admitted capitalist) assertion that capitalists, (except him and a "few" others) does not have the capacity for empathy or sympathy because they have no "conscience". I also challenged his assertion that his paying taxes was a measure of that empathy. Then people like you come along and start trying to tell us that there is no difference between empathy and sympathy. Which has also been shown to be incorrect. Or didn't ya read the link? You said do research and it has been done,
here it is again.......
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source … 650bd26c01 and you are wrong.
No, I stand my ground, while they flame ( the vast majority of the time) If they want to spend 20 pages trashing me because of my opinion on religion, Islam, racism, socialism, entitlement, etc.....That is completely on them, not me. I can only address what is posted.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There's 'lowing bashing' because, to be honest, you tend to come off on the acerbic side, and are willing to lower yourself into the gutter of debate to combat acidic responses, fueling a dozen pages of flame.lowing wrote:
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.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
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.
You honestly think I lower myself to the gutter of debate? You have read the "lowing bashing" and can still accuse ME of lowering myself to the gutter of debate? You have got to kidding. and if you are not, oh well, sorry ya feel that way.
Your reading skills of other people's posts are shocking. I'm not going to repeat myself a 4th time, you've just become a joke.lowing wrote:
Didn't take much research to show you are wrong, per the google page I linked for ya. How you can still deny that there is a difference between the 2 terms is what is so amusing.
I didn't trash this thread I challenged Varegg's ( an admitted capitalist) assertion that capitalists, (except him and a "few" others) does not have the capacity for empathy or sympathy because they have no "conscience". I also challenged his assertion that his paying taxes was a measure of that empathy. Then people like you come along and start trying to tell us that there is no difference between empathy and sympathy. Which has also been shown to be incorrect. Or didn't ya read the link? You said do research and it has been done,
here it is again.......
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source … 650bd26c01 and you are wrong.
Not related to the thread - I frankly really don't care enough to be dragged into semantics - but sometimes you need to lay off the broken-record. There are a couple of topics, especially Islam related, which are to do with some specific thing but when you state your very-well-know views, they quickly turn into another generic thread.lowing wrote:
No, I stand my ground, while they flame ( the vast majority of the time) If they want to spend 20 pages trashing me because of my opinion on religion, Islam, racism, socialism, entitlement, etc.....That is completely on them, not me. I can only address what is posted.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There's 'lowing bashing' because, to be honest, you tend to come off on the acerbic side, and are willing to lower yourself into the gutter of debate to combat acidic responses, fueling a dozen pages of flame.lowing wrote:
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.
You honestly think I lower myself to the gutter of debate? You have read the "lowing bashing" and can still accuse ME of lowering myself to the gutter of debate? You have got to kidding. and if you are not, oh well, sorry ya feel that way.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
And that's all that ever happens, is argued semantics. It goes on for a while, a bunch of people tell him he's got his facts incorrect, then he whines about being "bashed" and somehow lots of people telling him he's wrong somehow proves he's right. Then he says noone's staying on topic when he's the one who initiates these semantic arguments. You don't see it happening to anyone else, hmmm wonder why??
Weird, just plain weird.
Weird, just plain weird.
Ok, so now I am arguing over semantics, and not the clear difference between the 2 terms. lol I guess ya read the differences after all. What you seem to fail to understand is, calling me names, and telling how stupid I am for my opinions ( and in this case for the facts) does not prove you right!Jaekus wrote:
And that's all that ever happens, is argued semantics. It goes on for a while, a bunch of people tell him he's got his facts incorrect, then he whines about being "bashed" and somehow lots of people telling him he's wrong somehow proves he's right. Then he says noone's staying on topic when he's the one who initiates these semantic arguments. You don't see it happening to anyone else, hmmm wonder why??
Weird, just plain weird.
As I said, this started out as calling out Varegg on his attempts to paint anyone that earns a living and turns a profit for themselves as heartless and without a conscience, except for him . That is a statement I could not get away with in this forum anywhere without a fight.
When people like you come in a thread and start with your condensending, belittling, arrogant bullshit, I am going to entertain myself with it, plain and simple. Although usually your posts are mostly dismissed do to your assertion that govt should be tasked with taking care of you from craddle to grave as I try not to pick on the handicapped.
I do not whine about being bashed. I report no one for it, never have, not once. never cared, but do not bash me then tell me I am the problem.
Now back to the OP. Explain to me how you are going to dismiss an enter internet, opinion, and book, that tell you there is a difference between empathy and sympathy.
No one has ever posted a topic like Islam, that has not been about the well known controversies surrounding Islam, and Spark, I read threads all the time that I am not a part of where, the same jack asses that are in this thread has done or said the same things to other members. Go look around a bit. I do not bring insults into a thread very often, and I rarely escalate topics where insults have been directed toward me. You might wanna recognize where the problem lies and with who. I have strong opinions that I express, this is a good thing for a forum, the responses to my opinions are less than cordial, this is not my problem and their lack of courtesy and respect for other forum members will not stop me from expressing myself.Spark wrote:
Not related to the thread - I frankly really don't care enough to be dragged into semantics - but sometimes you need to lay off the broken-record. There are a couple of topics, especially Islam related, which are to do with some specific thing but when you state your very-well-know views, they quickly turn into another generic thread.lowing wrote:
No, I stand my ground, while they flame ( the vast majority of the time) If they want to spend 20 pages trashing me because of my opinion on religion, Islam, racism, socialism, entitlement, etc.....That is completely on them, not me. I can only address what is posted.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There's 'lowing bashing' because, to be honest, you tend to come off on the acerbic side, and are willing to lower yourself into the gutter of debate to combat acidic responses, fueling a dozen pages of flame.
You honestly think I lower myself to the gutter of debate? You have read the "lowing bashing" and can still accuse ME of lowering myself to the gutter of debate? You have got to kidding. and if you are not, oh well, sorry ya feel that way.
LOL you are HILARIOUS!!!
I said not more than a page ago there are differences between sympathy and empathy. Now you're not only agreeing, you're trying to tell me I said otherwise. Anyone with simple reading skills can see this is just plain trolling.
Now you keep on by arguing semantics and have now only just recognised this. Talk about being behind the 8-ball. You come across as being arrogant in every thread you enter, yet call others on this.
You do whine about being bashed, you talk about it in every second post.
Anyway, this discussion feels like chewing over old meat, tasteless and not very appetising.
I said not more than a page ago there are differences between sympathy and empathy. Now you're not only agreeing, you're trying to tell me I said otherwise. Anyone with simple reading skills can see this is just plain trolling.
Now you keep on by arguing semantics and have now only just recognised this. Talk about being behind the 8-ball. You come across as being arrogant in every thread you enter, yet call others on this.
You do whine about being bashed, you talk about it in every second post.
Anyway, this discussion feels like chewing over old meat, tasteless and not very appetising.
Yup you did, however your assertion that you can empathize with someone when you have not experienced what they have experienced, IE the loss of a child, the emotions and after effects of combat etc... is wrong. It is arrogant and insulting to anyone you try and relate to, to suggest you know what it feels like to lose a child or be in combat, when you have experienced neither one. This makes you more of a poser than an empathizer. It also means you can do nothing more than sypathize with them, as you imagine what it must be like to experience their emotions.Jaekus wrote:
LOL you are HILARIOUS!!!
I said not more than a page ago there are differences between sympathy and empathy. Now you're not only agreeing, you're trying to tell me I said otherwise. Anyone with simple reading skills can see this is just plain trolling.
Now you keep on by arguing semantics and have now only just recognised this. Talk about being behind the 8-ball. You come across as being arrogant in every thread you enter, yet call others on this.
You do whine about being bashed, you talk about it in every second post.
Anyway, this discussion feels like chewing over old meat, tasteless and not very appetising.
Observing the bashing and recognizing and mentioning it as your debate tactic is not whining. If I cared or truly complained I would have reported you. Nothing you have said is worth the time.
You project far too much, you're making assumptions on things I haven't said.
I said I can empathise with the emotion people feel. I didn't say I do it all the time, I didn't actually pull up any of the gamut of human experience as an example. I said I can observe, question, listen and feel someone's story.
You're putting words into my mouth and then trying to argue against it. Very, very low form. I guess that's why you've picked that handle.
I said I can empathise with the emotion people feel. I didn't say I do it all the time, I didn't actually pull up any of the gamut of human experience as an example. I said I can observe, question, listen and feel someone's story.
You're putting words into my mouth and then trying to argue against it. Very, very low form. I guess that's why you've picked that handle.
Jaekus, you have used the term empathy to describe what you do in dealing with people whose experiences you do not share. That is not empathy, it is sympathy. I did not assume you said that, you DID say that.Jaekus wrote:
You project far too much, you're making assumptions on things I haven't said.
I said I can empathise with the emotion people feel. I didn't say I do it all the time, I didn't actually pull up any of the gamut of human experience as an example. I said I can observe, question, listen and feel someone's story.
You're putting words into my mouth and then trying to argue against it. Very, very low form. I guess that's why you've picked that handle.
If you did not experience the events, you can not empathize with the emotions people feel, you can ONLY sympathize with them. That is the one clear difference between the 2 words that has been found during all of the "research" .
and just to reemphasize, this all started before you and the others chimed in, with Vareggs assertions that anyone that makes money and actually works to better their lives is cruel heartless and lacks a conscience. This is something I would have been taken to task over, and I think you know that.
That is simply not true.lowing wrote:
If you did not experience the events, you can not empathize with the emotions people feel, you can ONLY sympathize with them.
/end
* You may post 3 minutes, 54 seconds ago
No, you're not a psychologist, therefore I can't take what you're saying on board when my manager has 2 degrees in psychology and talks about certain aspects of our work as empathetic, regardless of having directly experienced that or not.
If you read, like actually do more than a 5 second skim over some dictionary references, you'll find that empathy, in part, is experiencing the emotions of others. It's not experiencing the actual experiences themselves. If someone tells me a troublesome story and I feel sad, that's empathy, If someone tells me a story and I feel compassion, that's sympathy.
You're taking the minor examples that suit your argument, lumping that into a whole and then ignoring the rest that doesn't fit or attempt to blur the boundaries. And this argument is pretty old and I'm bored of it. Say what you like, adios.
If you read, like actually do more than a 5 second skim over some dictionary references, you'll find that empathy, in part, is experiencing the emotions of others. It's not experiencing the actual experiences themselves. If someone tells me a troublesome story and I feel sad, that's empathy, If someone tells me a story and I feel compassion, that's sympathy.
You're taking the minor examples that suit your argument, lumping that into a whole and then ignoring the rest that doesn't fit or attempt to blur the boundaries. And this argument is pretty old and I'm bored of it. Say what you like, adios.
and yet the entire internet disagrees with you. Don't really know what to tell ya about that..ruisleipa wrote:
That is simply not true.lowing wrote:
If you did not experience the events, you can not empathize with the emotions people feel, you can ONLY sympathize with them.
/end
* You may post 3 minutes, 54 seconds ago
Quite.Jaekus wrote:
If you read, like actually do more than a 5 second skim over some dictionary references, you'll find that empathy, in part, is experiencing the emotions of others. It's not experiencing the actual experiences themselves. If someone tells me a troublesome story and I feel sad, that's empathy, If someone tells me a story and I feel compassion, that's sympathy.
You're taking the minor examples that suit your argument, lumping that into a whole and then ignoring the rest that doesn't fit or attempt to blur the boundaries. And this argument is pretty old and I'm bored of it. Say what you like, adios.
and yet I am the one that posted an entire google search that supports the differences I laid out. In fact it is reversed, I am agreeing with the internet and its stated differences. I didn't invent them or decree them. Those differences are not minor, it is the essence of why the 2 terms are distinct.Jaekus wrote:
No, you're not a psychologist, therefore I can't take what you're saying on board when my manager has 2 degrees in psychology and talks about certain aspects of our work as empathetic, regardless of having directly experienced that or not.
If you read, like actually do more than a 5 second skim over some dictionary references, you'll find that empathy, in part, is experiencing the emotions of others. It's not experiencing the actual experiences themselves. If someone tells me a troublesome story and I feel sad, that's empathy, If someone tells me a story and I feel compassion, that's sympathy.
You're taking the minor examples that suit your argument, lumping that into a whole and then ignoring the rest that doesn't fit or attempt to blur the boundaries. And this argument is pretty old and I'm bored of it. Say what you like, adios.
See ya.
Spark is right. It's possible to state your views as unalterable, but because you repeat them so much (often several times in the same thread), it sort of gives folks the false impression that you're trying to convince yourself, and that they have a chance at changing your mind. And because they're often presented in a passive-aggressive manner, the tone of the debate becomes a malignant cancer upon whatever the thread was originally about.lowing wrote:
No one has ever posted a topic like Islam, that has not been about the well known controversies surrounding Islam, and Spark, I read threads all the time that I am not a part of where, the same jack asses that are in this thread has done or said the same things to other members. Go look around a bit. I do not bring insults into a thread very often, and I rarely escalate topics where insults have been directed toward me. You might wanna recognize where the problem lies and with who. I have strong opinions that I express, this is a good thing for a forum, the responses to my opinions are less than cordial, this is not my problem and their lack of courtesy and respect for other forum members will not stop me from expressing myself.Spark wrote:
Not related to the thread - I frankly really don't care enough to be dragged into semantics - but sometimes you need to lay off the broken-record. There are a couple of topics, especially Islam related, which are to do with some specific thing but when you state your very-well-know views, they quickly turn into another generic thread.lowing wrote:
No, I stand my ground, while they flame ( the vast majority of the time) If they want to spend 20 pages trashing me because of my opinion on religion, Islam, racism, socialism, entitlement, etc.....That is completely on them, not me. I can only address what is posted.
You honestly think I lower myself to the gutter of debate? You have read the "lowing bashing" and can still accuse ME of lowering myself to the gutter of debate? You have got to kidding. and if you are not, oh well, sorry ya feel that way.
You're not the only one who gets flamed. You've got to let it go sometimes, and it is quite possible to do so without conceding.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-23 14:47:36)
They are unalterable because I was not born yesterday, I have been around and my POV's are that of experience as much as anythnig else. When something is presented that is undenible and not full of emotion and ideology I can be convinced.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Spark is right. It's possible to state your views as unalterable, but because you repeat them so much (often several times in the same thread), it sort of gives folks the false impression that you're trying to convince yourself, and that they have a chance at changing your mind. And because they're often presented in a passive-aggressive manner, the tone of the debate becomes a malignant cancer upon whatever the thread was originally about.lowing wrote:
No one has ever posted a topic like Islam, that has not been about the well known controversies surrounding Islam, and Spark, I read threads all the time that I am not a part of where, the same jack asses that are in this thread has done or said the same things to other members. Go look around a bit. I do not bring insults into a thread very often, and I rarely escalate topics where insults have been directed toward me. You might wanna recognize where the problem lies and with who. I have strong opinions that I express, this is a good thing for a forum, the responses to my opinions are less than cordial, this is not my problem and their lack of courtesy and respect for other forum members will not stop me from expressing myself.Spark wrote:
Not related to the thread - I frankly really don't care enough to be dragged into semantics - but sometimes you need to lay off the broken-record. There are a couple of topics, especially Islam related, which are to do with some specific thing but when you state your very-well-know views, they quickly turn into another generic thread.
Calling me a racist, stupid, war monger etc does little to convince me that I am wrong. Vert little is presented other than other opinion as evidence that I am mistaken. In this forum, PC, emotion, ideology and anything except reality prevails most often. This thread is a perfect example of this. Even when googled to the ends of the internet what I have posted regarding the OP is correct, and still insults and name calling prevails. Thatis not on me, that is on them.
That's fine.
First, I'm not questioning your unalterable opinions' validity. Second, insult-for-insult flame wars are almost never resolved satisfactorily for any party. You state unalterable opinion x, they state unalterable opinion y. Both sides are at fault (edit: for pursuing the matter). Since neither set of opinions can be budged, why does it need 50 more pages cyclical discussion?
First, I'm not questioning your unalterable opinions' validity. Second, insult-for-insult flame wars are almost never resolved satisfactorily for any party. You state unalterable opinion x, they state unalterable opinion y. Both sides are at fault (edit: for pursuing the matter). Since neither set of opinions can be budged, why does it need 50 more pages cyclical discussion?
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-23 15:04:58)
You say this as if, I am responding to myself, that I alone post 20 pages of thread. Why are you asking me this instead of the ones thatare actually posting 20 pages of "lowing bashing"? For the vast majority of my posts, I am really trying to engage in a serious debate, although harsh and void of any PC whatsoever, I enjoy a dabate with the bark left on. I do not start off insulting although to my shame a few in here have pissed me off enough that I have engaged in it. But I do not think you can deny that for the most part I am the level headed rational poster between me and the bashers, even if you disagree with what I post.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's fine.
First, I'm not questioning your unalterable opinions' validity. Second, insult-for-insult flame wars are almost never resolved satisfactorily for any party. You state unalterable opinion x, they state unalterable opinion y. Both sides are at fault. Neither set of opinions can be budged, so why does it need 50 more pages cyclical discussion?
I'm also addressing them indirectly through you since you are pretty much the eye of the storm. By your own admission, while you may not start off insulting (all the time), you all too often get sucked into it, and it carries on for pages and pages. I'm not telling you to change your mind about your views, but there's got to be a cut off point, mutual or no, at some point into the thread before it becomes too obfuscated.lowing wrote:
You say this as if, I am responding to myself, that I alone post 20 pages of thread. Why are you asking me this instead of the ones thatare actually posting 20 pages of "lowing bashing"? For the vast majority of my posts, I am really trying to engage in a serious debate, although harsh and void of any PC whatsoever, I enjoy a dabate with the bark left on. I do not start off insulting although to my shame a few in here have pissed me off enough that I have engaged in it. But I do not think you can deny that for the most part I am the level headed rational poster between me and the bashers, even if you disagree with what I post.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's fine.
First, I'm not questioning your unalterable opinions' validity. Second, insult-for-insult flame wars are almost never resolved satisfactorily for any party. You state unalterable opinion x, they state unalterable opinion y. Both sides are at fault. Neither set of opinions can be budged, so why does it need 50 more pages cyclical discussion?
I have done nothing but stay on topic in this entire thread. I view myself more of the wagon being circled by the indians to be honest. Not the center of the storm. As I said, I want to engage in no PC debate, of the real world, not some peter pan ideology of never never land and what should be.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm also addressing them indirectly through you since you are pretty much the eye of the storm. By your own admission, while you may not start off insulting (all the time), you all too often get sucked into it, and it carries on for pages and pages. I'm not telling you to change your mind about your views, but there's got to be a cut off point, mutual or no, at some point into the thread before it becomes too obfuscated.lowing wrote:
You say this as if, I am responding to myself, that I alone post 20 pages of thread. Why are you asking me this instead of the ones thatare actually posting 20 pages of "lowing bashing"? For the vast majority of my posts, I am really trying to engage in a serious debate, although harsh and void of any PC whatsoever, I enjoy a dabate with the bark left on. I do not start off insulting although to my shame a few in here have pissed me off enough that I have engaged in it. But I do not think you can deny that for the most part I am the level headed rational poster between me and the bashers, even if you disagree with what I post.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
That's fine.
First, I'm not questioning your unalterable opinions' validity. Second, insult-for-insult flame wars are almost never resolved satisfactorily for any party. You state unalterable opinion x, they state unalterable opinion y. Both sides are at fault. Neither set of opinions can be budged, so why does it need 50 more pages cyclical discussion?
you and I seem to be able to carry on a dialog without insults, what is missing? Me, you, Turqouise, Varegg, etc all seem to be able to disagree with respect. What is the common factor other than a few of the obvious members absence?
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-23 16:18:40)