lowing, I believe Varegg explained that point.
Now stfu
Now stfu
actually he didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. He claims empathy= charity, and charity=taxes therefore empathy=taxes. go back and read it yourself. the fact is, empathy does not =charity, charity does not =taxes and empathy does not = taxes.Pug wrote:
lowing, I believe Varegg explained that point.
Now stfu
Empathy is feeling and or sharing in the pain of others. He did not share in the pain of the victims of Haiti ( as an example). He might have sympathized with them, but he did not share their grief. Period. therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong. Look it up. then you can stfu
Hell even John Galt agrees with me, as much as that hurt him, sometimes you have to bow to the truth.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-21 07:25:37)
lowing wrote:
therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong.
lowing wrote:
Look it up. then you can stfu
Wrong?Dictionary.com wrote:
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
Actually you just proved me right.........you can not EXPERIENCE the feelings thoughts or attitudes of events you have not been involved in. This is called sympathy not emapthyAussieReaper wrote:
lowing wrote:
therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong.lowing wrote:
Look it up. then you can stfuWrong?Dictionary.com wrote:
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
You have no idea what it is like ot lose a child UNLESS YOU LOST A CHILD. If you feel sorry or pity someone that has, this is sympathy, you are not sharing their pain, you sympathize with their pain.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-21 07:33:42)
Actually I did explain it lowing ... several times ... and in several different ways ...
And you keep nagging the point that I said paying tax=empathy even though I over and over again have explained that it's not the case, it was JUST an example of how it could be ... that it is empathy or that it could be are two very very different things ...
Sympathy and empathy are related, they does not mean the same but you can have both emotions at the same time or separate of eachother ... that is also explained several times ...
Haiti was just yet another example, I have no problems feeling both sympathy and empathy with the victims ... no problems at all, I could even have sympathy and empathy without giving any money or help organize a drive to collect other peoples money in addition ...
And you keep nagging the point that I said paying tax=empathy even though I over and over again have explained that it's not the case, it was JUST an example of how it could be ... that it is empathy or that it could be are two very very different things ...
Sympathy and empathy are related, they does not mean the same but you can have both emotions at the same time or separate of eachother ... that is also explained several times ...
Haiti was just yet another example, I have no problems feeling both sympathy and empathy with the victims ... no problems at all, I could even have sympathy and empathy without giving any money or help organize a drive to collect other peoples money in addition ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
you can have sympathy, you do not have empathy. Sympathy is you feel sorry for some ones plight.Varegg wrote:
Actually I did explain it lowing ... several times ... and in several different ways ...
And you keep nagging the point that I said paying tax=empathy even though I over and over again have explained that it's not the case, it was JUST an example of how it could be ... that it is empathy or that it could be are two very very different things ...
Sympathy and empathy are related, they does not mean the same but you can have both emotions at the same time or separate of each other ... that is also explained several times ...
Haiti was just yet another example, I have no problems feeling both sympathy and empathy with the victims ... no problems at all, I could even have sympathy and empathy without giving any money or help organize a drive to collect other peoples money in addition ...
empathy is you share their pain and their anguish and in every example you do not. You can't you haven't lost anything to experience such emotions.
'I didn't assert than everyone with capitalistic success are greedy and lacks empathy ... there are capitalists that have a conscience but they are few"
(capitalists are tax payers to varegg)
"I pay quite a lot of taxes lowing and am very concerned what the politicians spend it on ... agreeing on paying a higher tax is actually to be empathic about my whole countrys population and population elsewhere seeing as a quite a lot of money goes through the government into helping people in other countries to have a better life and again luckily the Norwegian government is into prevention ...
So taxes can mean both charity and empathy" ...
(No it can't. the words are not interchangeable in any way. No matter how stubbornly you want to claim they are.) and you didn't agree to pay higher taxes, you are FORCED to pay higher taxes.
look dickhead...lowing wrote:
actually he didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. He claims empathy= charity, and charity=taxes therefore empathy=taxes. go back and read it yourself. the fact is, empathy does not =charity, charity does not =taxes and empathy does not = taxes.Pug wrote:
lowing, I believe Varegg explained that point.
Now stfu
Empathy is feeling and or sharing in the pain of others. He did not share in the pain of the victims of Haiti ( as an example). He might have sympathized with them, but he did not share their grief. Period. therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong. Look it up. then you can stfu
Hell even John Galt agrees with me, as much as that hurt him, sometimes you have to bow to the truth.
...is it too fucking hard to make a leap in logic?
most people give money to charity because they feel empathetic.
after reading Varegg's posts I've come to the conclusion that you are the only one who is saying taxes = empathy. He only has said he cares where it is spent. You associated the rest.
galt is agreeing to YOUR point, but YOUR point is not what Varegg was saying. Hell, I even agree with YOUR point. But I also agree with Varegg...why? because you guys aren't on the same fucking page!
And for fucks sake, use a thesaurus! sympathy = empathy.
Why are you being such a douchebag?
then you did not read what he said.Pug wrote:
look dickhead...lowing wrote:
actually he didn't. Quite the opposite in fact. He claims empathy= charity, and charity=taxes therefore empathy=taxes. go back and read it yourself. the fact is, empathy does not =charity, charity does not =taxes and empathy does not = taxes.Pug wrote:
lowing, I believe Varegg explained that point.
Now stfu
Empathy is feeling and or sharing in the pain of others. He did not share in the pain of the victims of Haiti ( as an example). He might have sympathized with them, but he did not share their grief. Period. therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong. Look it up. then you can stfu
Hell even John Galt agrees with me, as much as that hurt him, sometimes you have to bow to the truth.
...is it too fucking hard to make a leap in logic?
most people give money to charity because they feel empathetic.
after reading Varegg's posts I've come to the conclusion that you are the only one who is saying taxes = empathy. He only has said he cares where it is spent. You associated the rest.
galt is agreeing to YOUR point, but YOUR point is not what Varegg was saying. Hell, I even agree with YOUR point. But I also agree with Varegg...why? because you guys aren't on the same fucking page!
And for fucks sake, use a thesaurus! sympathy = empathy.
Why are you being such a douchebag?
"I pay quite a lot of taxes lowing and am very concerned what the politicians spend it on ... agreeing on paying a higher tax is actually to be empathic about my whole countrys population and population elsewhere seeing as a quite a lot of money goes through the government into helping people in other countries to have a better life and again luckily the Norwegian government is into prevention ...
So taxes can mean both charity and empathy" ...
so you see, he has said more than "he is just concerned where it goes"
he tried to claim that he is not a capitalist, though he lives and thrives as one in a capitalist society. When called out on this he claimed the difference is he pays a lot of taxes and is concerned where his tax dollars go, and all but a few capitalists have no conscience.
He has pegged himself as something different than the rest of us ( except for a few) under bullshit pretences. He calls this difference empathy I have called him out on this.
None of this bullshit defines empathy. Period.
Bottomline is he is a capitalist just like the rest of us and is in no way any different than anyone else that pays their taxes and gives to a charity. None of this defines empathy and is certainly a life that is mirrored by more than just a few of us capitalists,
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-21 09:40:19)
No lowing, it's the democratic reasoning behind raising taxes. Democrats believe tax should fund charity, Republicans don't. I've pointed it out already.
His statement is that the democratic system is "more empathetic" than the current method in the US.
That is the meaning of the statement.
The Norwegians pay extra tax to fund these "charities", albeit when funded with tax they are federal programs not "charity". The act in itself is not considered "charity" or "empathetic"...unless it's compared to another method...
Do you understand? A comparison of two different types of systems...which one covers more ground? Since one side considers unfunded areas "contributions to charity" and the other is "government program"...which is better? Debatable.
But the bottom line is the NEED (homelessness, etc) is addressed differently. It's a comparison of funding from two separate means.
His statement is that the democratic system is "more empathetic" than the current method in the US.
That is the meaning of the statement.
The Norwegians pay extra tax to fund these "charities", albeit when funded with tax they are federal programs not "charity". The act in itself is not considered "charity" or "empathetic"...unless it's compared to another method...
Do you understand? A comparison of two different types of systems...which one covers more ground? Since one side considers unfunded areas "contributions to charity" and the other is "government program"...which is better? Debatable.
But the bottom line is the NEED (homelessness, etc) is addressed differently. It's a comparison of funding from two separate means.
Sympathy is not same as empathy.Pug wrote:
And for fucks sake, use a thesaurus! sympathy = empathy.
This post... this conversation would be over if even one of you guys had read what empathy is, how it is measured and how it can be measured. But I can understand how spending 10 minutes on a wiki article is sometimes just too much. Rather than doing that you can log in and "debate" couple days over nothing.lowing wrote:
Empathy is feeling and or sharing in the pain of others. He did not share in the pain of the victims of Haiti ( as an example). He might have sympathized with them, but he did not share their grief. Period. therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong. Look it up. then you can stfu
Hell even John Galt agrees with me, as much as that hurt him, sometimes you have to bow to the truth.
Besides, your last sentence is funny. How could he bow the truth (regarding this subject) when the whole "truth" is still blurry?
The meaning of empathy is not blurred, those that, as you have stated, refuse to look it up are the only ones that are blurred.BLdw wrote:
Sympathy is not same as empathy.Pug wrote:
And for fucks sake, use a thesaurus! sympathy = empathy.This post... this conversation would be over if even one of you guys had read what empathy is, how it is measured and how it can be measured. But I can understand how spending 10 minutes on a wiki article is sometimes just too much. Rather than doing that you can log in and "debate" couple days over nothing.lowing wrote:
Empathy is feeling and or sharing in the pain of others. He did not share in the pain of the victims of Haiti ( as an example). He might have sympathized with them, but he did not share their grief. Period. therefore empathy is bullshit and means nothing unless you are involved in the event itself, or have had similar experiences.
any other way of describing empathy is wrong. Look it up. then you can stfu
Hell even John Galt agrees with me, as much as that hurt him, sometimes you have to bow to the truth.
Besides, your last sentence is funny. How could he bow the truth (regarding this subject) when the whole "truth" is still blurry?
Problem is, because I said it, most on here can not bring themselves to agree with me. A fact that I find humorous and spare no expense exploiting for my entertainment, while online.
jesus christ guys all this arguing over sympathy vs. empathy
you coulda just pm'ed me, you know, and skipped all the douchebaggery
you coulda just pm'ed me, you know, and skipped all the douchebaggery
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Nope what got me was Varegg's setting himself as something special decreeing that capitalists were evil (except for a few) and has no conscience and no empathy. While although he had a job, worked in a capitalistic society, sought a paycheck and a better life, was somehow different than the rest of us. I found it to be very arrogant and stupid given his life mirrors most everyone elses in any capitalist society, yet he and only a few others have a conscience and empathy.Uzique wrote:
jesus christ guys all this arguing over sympathy vs. empathy
you coulda just pm'ed me, you know, and skipped all the douchebaggery
I showed where no one has empathy that has not experienced the trauma they may be trying to empathize with. We might sympathize but that would be about it. And most certainly more than just a few of us capitalists are capable of such compassion and goodwill.
Anyway, that was my stand on Varegg and his self righteous attitude toward the rest of us.
...lowing wrote:
The meaning of empathy is not blurred, those that, as you have stated, refuse to look it up are the only ones that are blurred.
Uzique, enlighten me, even though I am not part of the debate.
Funny how someone with no apparent empathy is arguing about the meaning of empathy.
*facepalm*
Charity has entered the argument and by making that somehow a point over empathy, you thereby display how you're missing the entire point. Stubbornly arguing back and forth just makes you look silly. Someone's got to tell you.
Having an occupation where I need to be fully aware of my own empathy towards others (respite support worker for people with psychiatric illness) and something that is constantly discussed between staff (though the word itself is rarely used). Just because you haven't experienced similar trauma to someone else does not mean you cannot understand the emotions they experience as they pertain to you. No, you can't understand fully their experience, but it's really not as black and white as lowing would like to argue, unless you're severely emotionally and intellectually retarded. Most of us have felt quite depressed, or overly anxious, or paranoid, or hurt, or sad, or happy at one time or another. Empathy is also understanding the experiences someone has leads to these emotions, and also allows you the foresight to understand how your actions may impact upon others. This is why women are traditionally seen as more empathic, as they tend to be more emotionally aware of others.
*facepalm*
Charity has entered the argument and by making that somehow a point over empathy, you thereby display how you're missing the entire point. Stubbornly arguing back and forth just makes you look silly. Someone's got to tell you.
Having an occupation where I need to be fully aware of my own empathy towards others (respite support worker for people with psychiatric illness) and something that is constantly discussed between staff (though the word itself is rarely used). Just because you haven't experienced similar trauma to someone else does not mean you cannot understand the emotions they experience as they pertain to you. No, you can't understand fully their experience, but it's really not as black and white as lowing would like to argue, unless you're severely emotionally and intellectually retarded. Most of us have felt quite depressed, or overly anxious, or paranoid, or hurt, or sad, or happy at one time or another. Empathy is also understanding the experiences someone has leads to these emotions, and also allows you the foresight to understand how your actions may impact upon others. This is why women are traditionally seen as more empathic, as they tend to be more emotionally aware of others.
you are right, I have no empathy for people whose experiences I do not share. I have never lost a child, had a house burn to the ground, had an earthquake destroy my town, my family and my life, or stuck in a psycho ward. To say you empathize with such people is an insult to them. Fact is, you have no fuckin idea how they feel and what they are going through. How do I know ya ask? Because at the end of the day when you are done helping or donating etc...they are still going through it, YOU are at home in your nice warm bed, getting refreshed for the next day. You have no idea what it takes to live with the memory of a dead child, or your home swallowed up by a tornado when your insurance wasn't enough to cover it, etc and neither do I. and to say you do, when you don't pretty much makes you an asshole. kinda like saying you have been in combat when really all you did was hand out basketballs at the gym. You can not empathize with those that have been in combat therefore you are insulting them by claiming you know exactly how they feel. You don'tJaekus wrote:
Funny how someone with no apparent empathy is arguing about the meaning of empathy.
*facepalm*
Charity has entered the argument and by making that somehow a point over empathy, you thereby display how you're missing the entire point. Stubbornly arguing back and forth just makes you look silly. Someone's got to tell you.
Having an occupation where I need to be fully aware of my own empathy towards others (respite support worker for people with psychiatric illness) and something that is constantly discussed between staff (though the word itself is rarely used). Just because you haven't experienced similar trauma to someone else does not mean you cannot understand the emotions they experience as they pertain to you. No, you can't understand fully their experience, but it's really not as black and white as lowing would like to argue, unless you're severely emotionally and intellectually retarded. Most of us have felt quite depressed, or overly anxious, or paranoid, or hurt, or sad, or happy at one time or another. Empathy is also understanding the experiences someone has leads to these emotions, and also allows you the foresight to understand how your actions may impact upon others. This is why women are traditionally seen as more empathic, as they tend to be more emotionally aware of others.
What you and I show is sympathy for them. We can ONLY IMAGINE what they are going through, we can not SHARE IT unless it has happened to us as well.
I already explained my reasons for going on with Varegg.
In fact I like that analogy...In your world who is better to relate with, deal with, and understand combat veterans seeking counseling, those that have been in combat before and can EMPATHIZE with the patient. Or someone that has never seen combat and can only SYMPATHIZE with them. there is your difference
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-21 14:11:21)
*sigh*
I'm trying to explain it to you, there was a link provided, do a research.
Here's one for you.
I'm trying to explain it to you, there was a link provided, do a research.
Here's one for you.
It's plainly obvious you're never going to budge so I'm not going to bother trying to enlighten you further. Good day.Empathy is an ability with many different definitions. They cover a broad spectrum, ranging from feeling a concern for other people that creates a desire to help them, experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions, knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling, to blurring the line between self and other.[5]
That is sympathy, any dictionary describes empathy as SHARING in their emotion. This you clearly can not do, becsause you can not relate to the emotion, you can only imagine because you have not experienced it.Jaekus wrote:
*sigh*
I'm trying to explain it to you, there was a link provided, do a research.
Here's one for you.It's plainly obvious you're never going to budge so I'm not going to bother trying to enlighten you further. Good day.Empathy is an ability with many different definitions. They cover a broad spectrum, ranging from feeling a concern for other people that creates a desire to help them, experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions, knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling, to blurring the line between self and other.[5]
Address my analogy on combat veterans, and tell me their is no difference between empathy and sympathy.
Why would I budge off of being right?
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-21 13:53:02)
I may have missed something in the past couple pages that I didn't read, but lowing is right. By definition, you have to be familiar with an emotion or condition before empathizing with someone suffering from it. This is not true of sympathy.
Edit: If you bring parapsychology into the equation, that's when it becomes 'blurred,' because you accept that it is possible to project or receive emotions onto or from another individual.
Edit: If you bring parapsychology into the equation, that's when it becomes 'blurred,' because you accept that it is possible to project or receive emotions onto or from another individual.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-21 14:09:10)
Well there ya go,
I wonder where the line will start for the several condensending posters in this thread that will be apologizing and acknowledging that they are wrong? Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breathe.
I wonder where the line will start for the several condensending posters in this thread that will be apologizing and acknowledging that they are wrong? Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breathe.
YOU are the most condescending person on the forums. Maybe you should start apologizing to BF2S! The only "line" should be the people waiting to here you say YOUR sorry.lowing wrote:
Well there ya go,
I wonder where the line will start for the several condensending posters in this thread that will be apologizing and acknowledging that they are wrong? Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breathe.
Last edited by nlsme1 (2010-05-21 14:30:01)
I am? Can I dispute that? lolnlsme1 wrote:
YOU are the most condescending person on the forums. Maybe you should start apologizing to BF2S! The only "line" should be the people waiting to here you say YOUR sorry.lowing wrote:
Well there ya go,
I wonder where the line will start for the several condensending posters in this thread that will be apologizing and acknowledging that they are wrong? Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breathe.
Thanks for proving my point. Grow up. The world does not revolve around you. You are NO expert on anything you speak of, yet when someone else posts something you disagree with, then you belittle them. STFU already.
LOL although I disagree with you, I am not the topic of this OP. It has been shown that you and the others are completely wrong regarding the discussion. Address the fact that you are wrong or stop posting and pouting.nlsme1 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Grow up. The world does not revolve around you. You are NO expert on anything you speak of, yet when someone else posts something you disagree with, then you belittle them. STFU already.
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.lowing wrote:
LOL although I disagree with you, I am not the topic of this OP. It has been shown that you and the others are completely wrong regarding the discussion. Address the fact that you are wrong or stop posting and pouting.nlsme1 wrote:
Thanks for proving my point. Grow up. The world does not revolve around you. You are NO expert on anything you speak of, yet when someone else posts something you disagree with, then you belittle them. STFU already.