Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14

 

2010-05-26 02:21:11
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bottom line Varegg, in order to have true empathy with a person you need to have experienced what they they are experiencing. Period. ( and your sources seem to back that up. Anything less is cheap talk
There is no period about that lowing, that's the whole point ... you don't have to have had the same experience, it's a clear advantage but not a must ...
You are not empathizing with a person when you can turn your empathy on and off. in the example of the combat veteran you want to council him claiming empathy, however when your session is over, you move on to the next patient, or ya go home to laugh and play with the kids, while the veteran you just left is still living with his nightmares, guilt, visions,ghosts or whatever else is going through his mind. This is why claiming empathy is cheap talk, or non-existent for a person who does not share the combat veterans same experience. You simply can not be empathetic for say an hour, then switch it off, while you move on and he doesn't. That is not truly sharing in a persons grief, and is more closely related to posing than to empathy. Sympathizing is what you are doing.

That is the best I can do based on the sources I have provided and yours as well. If that is not good enough, then fine, call for empathy on something you know nothing about and try and convince a person that has lost a child that you "know what they are going through", when IN FACT you don't.
So it is with you lowing ... if you can't have empathy in one possible scenario you most certainly can't in another either right?

I applaude your total lack of reasoning ...

lowing wrote:

In the vast majority of sources, a shared experience or related experience, has been the common denominator . It is the yard stick that has separated sympathy and empathy. It is the one true difference between the 2 terms, and how you can deny that is beyond me.
I don't deny that ... that is the point I and others have been trying to explain to you for how many pages?

So yet again: It's an advantage to have a shared experience or related experience but it's not a must ... it's a common denominator and common in this case implies it's not 100% necesary ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-05-26 02:45:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:


There is no period about that lowing, that's the whole point ... you don't have to have had the same experience, it's a clear advantage but not a must ...
You are not empathizing with a person when you can turn your empathy on and off. in the example of the combat veteran you want to council him claiming empathy, however when your session is over, you move on to the next patient, or ya go home to laugh and play with the kids, while the veteran you just left is still living with his nightmares, guilt, visions,ghosts or whatever else is going through his mind. This is why claiming empathy is cheap talk, or non-existent for a person who does not share the combat veterans same experience. You simply can not be empathetic for say an hour, then switch it off, while you move on and he doesn't. That is not truly sharing in a persons grief, and is more closely related to posing than to empathy. Sympathizing is what you are doing.

That is the best I can do based on the sources I have provided and yours as well. If that is not good enough, then fine, call for empathy on something you know nothing about and try and convince a person that has lost a child that you "know what they are going through", when IN FACT you don't.
So it is with you lowing ... if you can't have empathy in one possible scenario you most certainly can't in another either right?

I applaude your total lack of reasoning ...

lowing wrote:

In the vast majority of sources, a shared experience or related experience, has been the common denominator . It is the yard stick that has separated sympathy and empathy. It is the one true difference between the 2 terms, and how you can deny that is beyond me.
I don't deny that ... that is the point I and others have been trying to explain to you for how many pages?

So yet again: It's an advantage to have a shared experience or related experience but it's not a must ... it's a common denominator and common in this case implies it's not 100% necessary ...
Thus empathy without experience is nothing more than cheap talk. An understanding is a must and you simply can not understand what you have never experienced, if, for no other reason, you have no idea how YOU yourself will react to the experience..

This is not an unreasonable statement Varegg. What is unreasonable is you trying to say you know the emotions tied to experiences you have never dealt with and are likewise qualified to empathize with a person who has, through paying your taxes or whatever other tool you want to use other than the experience itself.
2010-05-26 03:13:01
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Thus empathy without experience is nothing more than cheap talk.
That is your opinion and it doesn't fit the terminology ... the terminology is fact, ever so much you like to think it's just cheap talk that is wrong according to all the sources that explains it ...

lowing wrote:

An understanding is a must and you simply can not understand what you have never experienced, if, for no other reason, you have no idea how YOU yourself will react to the experience..
One can have a pretty good idea without the very same experience ... even trying to understand and interact can pass as empathy ... so it's not a must and all the sources and the terminology explains it ...

lowing wrote:

This is not an unreasonable statement Varegg.
Not unreasonable, somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect ... depends on the situation ...

lowing wrote:

What is unreasonable is you trying to say you know the emotions tied to experiences you have never dealt with and are likewise qualified to empathize with a person who has, through paying your taxes or whatever other tool you want to use other than the experience itself.
Depends on the situation lowing ... like mentioned now heaps of times the issue with paying tax was just one example and maybe a poor one but not as farfetched as you like to think ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-05-26 03:24:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Thus empathy without experience is nothing more than cheap talk.
That is your opinion and it doesn't fit the terminology ... the terminology is fact, ever so much you like to think it's just cheap talk that is wrong according to all the sources that explains it ...

lowing wrote:

An understanding is a must and you simply can not understand what you have never experienced, if, for no other reason, you have no idea how YOU yourself will react to the experience..
One can have a pretty good idea without the very same experience ... even trying to understand and interact can pass as empathy ... so it's not a must and all the sources and the terminology explains it ...

lowing wrote:

This is not an unreasonable statement Varegg.
Not unreasonable, somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect ... depends on the situation ...

lowing wrote:

What is unreasonable is you trying to say you know the emotions tied to experiences you have never dealt with and are likewise qualified to empathize with a person who has, through paying your taxes or whatever other tool you want to use other than the experience itself.
Depends on the situation lowing ... like mentioned now heaps of times the issue with paying tax was just one example and maybe a poor one but not as farfetched as you like to think ...
Yup my opinion, and probably the opinion of anyone you try to "empathize" with that you have no idea what you are talking about.

To have 2000 sources that mention experience as a key to emapathy while citing 1 or 2 that say it is preferred but not neceassary is not a strong argument on your part.



having a "pretty good idea" of what is like to lose a child is not losing a child and therefore does not qualify as empathy. It is cheap talk when the fact of the matter is, you really have NO IDEA what it is like to lose a child. Especially when you are done "empathizing" and you go home to your kids. You are posing you are not empathizing.


Sorry Varegg, paying your taxes as a "form of empathy "with a combat veteran or a person who lost a child, or ANY experience truly worthy and in need of empathy is as far fetched as I can think.
2010-05-26 04:18:51
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

having a "pretty good idea" of what is like to lose a child is not losing a child and therefore does not qualify as empathy. It is cheap talk when the fact of the matter is, you really have NO IDEA what it is like to lose a child. Especially when you are done "empathizing" and you go home to your kids. You are posing you are not empathizing.

Sorry Varegg, paying your taxes as a "form of empathy "with a combat veteran or a person who lost a child, or ANY experience truly worthy and in need of empathy is as far fetched as I can think.
fucking hell lowing only you could keep this thread going with endless nonsense.

Let's say you've lost a brother or a sister in a car crash. You think you can't then empathise with someone who's lost a child in a car crash? Because your experience isn't EXACTLY THE SAME? Bullshit. Of course you can. Newsflash - NO TWO EXPERIENCES WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME. you might as well say that if I lose a child in a car crash with a drunk driver where I was driving a Ferrari and they were in a Mustang, on a motorway, in daylight, at 70 mph, no one else who hasn't lost a child in a car crash with a drunk driver where I was driving a Ferrari and they were in a Mustang, on a motorway, in daylight, at 70 mph, can empathise with me.

Fact is, if you have kids, you can empathise with someone who has lost theirs if you can IMAGINE how terrible it must be to lose a child. That is empathy, whether you like it or can understand what it's like to empathise with people. Of course, since you're seemingly the most unempathic bloke on the planet you apparently can't...

Such a ridiculous argument it's getting kinda funny, although I'm getting more and more sure you're just trolling the hell out Varegg and everyone else right here.

Still, nice that you're here to judge which experiences will be 'truly worthy' of empathy. Jeezuz.
2010-05-26 04:38:32
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney
This thread is a classic example of the post here.
2010-05-26 04:44:42
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6808|...

Jaekus wrote:

This thread is a classic example of the post here.
lol exactly. I was curious why this thread had been going on and on. Sure enough it is always the same handful of people in come combination flaming each other like a couple of tarts pulling hair.
2010-05-26 04:52:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

having a "pretty good idea" of what is like to lose a child is not losing a child and therefore does not qualify as empathy. It is cheap talk when the fact of the matter is, you really have NO IDEA what it is like to lose a child. Especially when you are done "empathizing" and you go home to your kids. You are posing you are not empathizing.

Sorry Varegg, paying your taxes as a "form of empathy "with a combat veteran or a person who lost a child, or ANY experience truly worthy and in need of empathy is as far fetched as I can think.
fucking hell lowing only you could keep this thread going with endless nonsense.

Let's say you've lost a brother or a sister in a car crash. You think you can't then empathise with someone who's lost a child in a car crash? Because your experience isn't EXACTLY THE SAME? Bullshit. Of course you can. Newsflash - NO TWO EXPERIENCES WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME. you might as well say that if I lose a child in a car crash with a drunk driver where I was driving a Ferrari and they were in a Mustang, on a motorway, in daylight, at 70 mph, no one else who hasn't lost a child in a car crash with a drunk driver where I was driving a Ferrari and they were in a Mustang, on a motorway, in daylight, at 70 mph, can empathise with me.

Fact is, if you have kids, you can empathise with someone who has lost theirs if you can IMAGINE how terrible it must be to lose a child. That is empathy, whether you like it or can understand what it's like to empathise with people. Of course, since you're seemingly the most unempathic bloke on the planet you apparently can't...

Such a ridiculous argument it's getting kinda funny, although I'm getting more and more sure you're just trolling the hell out Varegg and everyone else right here.

Still, nice that you're here to judge which experiences will be 'truly worthy' of empathy. Jeezuz.
How do you know losing a child is the same as losing a brother or a sister? I do not know but I "have a good idea" losing a brother or sister, is no where near as devastating as losing a child. In fact by your assertion that it is the "EXACT SAME THING" is proof enough to me that you do not have kids.

I have kids, and I have friends that have lost theirs, and I tell you now, I can not imagine what it must be like to lose a child nor do I want to.
We were there for them, we held them we cried with them, I was a pallbearer at her funeral, and through it all, I did not grieve or suffer, or still suffer that loss anywhere near what my Friends who suffered the loss did. In other words, I did not SHARE their experience or their loss.

Not sure how you can say I am solely responsible for keeping this thread going when you are posting in it as well.  I mean really, doesn't it take a response to a post in order to keep a thread going?  and honestly, if you are tired of it, move your ass on down the road.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-26 05:14:33)

2010-05-26 04:52:38
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney
Yeah, I'm over it, though I keep having the urge to post further but I'd just be repeating the same thing I've said 5 times already. Feels like explaining something to someone with their hands over their ears yelling "waaah I can't hear you not listening I'm right waaah!"
2010-05-26 05:15:11
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

lowing wrote:

How do you know losing a child is the same as losing a brother or a sister? I do not know but I "have a good idea" losing a brother or sister, is no where near as devistating as losing a child. In fact by your assertion that it is the "EXACT SAME THING" is proof enough to me that you do not have kids.

I have kids, and I have friends that have lost theirs, and I tell you now, I can not imagine what it must be like to lose a child nor do I want to.
We were there for them, we held them we cried with them, I was a pallbearer at her funeral, and through it all, I did not grieve or suffer, or still suffer that loss anywhere near what my firends who suffered the loss did. In other words, I did not SHARE their experience or their loss.

Not sure how you can say I am keeping this thread going when you are posting in it as well.  I mean really, doesn't it take a response to a post in order to keep a thread going?  and honestly, if you are tired of it, move your ass on down the road.
lmao are you purposefully trying to misunderstand everything everyone says? Actually I do have one child. So your stupid assumption is..er..wrong. And if you bother reading what I said rather than imagining what you wish I'd said, you'd see I never said it WAS the exact same thing. My god you're slow sometimes.

you have kids and can't imagine what it's like to lose them? wtf is wrong with you?

Just cos you can't understand or don't want to try to understand or are incapable of imagining how other people's sadness might feel just means you're not empathic and has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

If you can't share the sadness of your freinds then it seems you're not a very good freind. Did you tell them how sorry you were, at all, or just shrug and move on? After all...you can't empathise with them. You didn't grieve at the loss of your friend's kid? FUck man yo're messed up.

ho hum...this is getting even more stupid than every other thread you get involved in...I'm out.

Enjoy yourself

Jaekus wrote:

Yeah, I'm over it, though I keep having the urge to post further but I'd just be repeating the same thing I've said 5 times already. Feels like explaining something to someone with their hands over their ears yelling "waaah I can't hear you not listening I'm right waaah!"
lol yep that's exactly what it's like. Like trying to reason with a five year old that it's time to go to bed but they wanna stay up and watch teletubbies.

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-26 05:16:28)

2010-05-26 05:33:29
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

ruisleipa wrote:

lowing wrote:

How do you know losing a child is the same as losing a brother or a sister? I do not know but I "have a good idea" losing a brother or sister, is no where near as devastating as losing a child. In fact by your assertion that it is the "EXACT SAME THING" is proof enough to me that you do not have kids.

I have kids, and I have friends that have lost theirs, and I tell you now, I can not imagine what it must be like to lose a child nor do I want to.
We were there for them, we held them we cried with them, I was a pallbearer at her funeral, and through it all, I did not grieve or suffer, or still suffer that loss anywhere near what my firends who suffered the loss did. In other words, I did not SHARE their experience or their loss.

Not sure how you can say I am keeping this thread going when you are posting in it as well.  I mean really, doesn't it take a response to a post in order to keep a thread going?  and honestly, if you are tired of it, move your ass on down the road.
lmao are you purposefully trying to misunderstand everything everyone says? Actually I do have one child. So your stupid assumption is..er..wrong. And if you bother reading what I said rather than imagining what you wish I'd said, you'd see I never said it WAS the exact same thing. My god you're slow sometimes.

you have kids and can't imagine what it's like to lose them? wtf is wrong with you?

Just cos you can't understand or don't want to try to understand or are incapable of imagining how other people's sadness might feel just means you're not empathic and has nothing to do with the meaning of the word.

If you can't share the sadness of your freinds then it seems you're not a very good freind. Did you tell them how sorry you were, at all, or just shrug and move on? After all...you can't empathise with them. You didn't grieve at the loss of your friend's kid? FUck man yo're messed up.

ho hum...this is getting even more stupid than every other thread you get involved in...I'm out.

Enjoy yourself

Jaekus wrote:

Yeah, I'm over it, though I keep having the urge to post further but I'd just be repeating the same thing I've said 5 times already. Feels like explaining something to someone with their hands over their ears yelling "waaah I can't hear you not listening I'm right waaah!"
lol yep that's exactly what it's like. Like trying to reason with a five year old that it's time to go to bed but they wanna stay up and watch teletubbies.
Nope I can not imagine what it would be like to lose a kid. I would be devastated, and I would be hurting. But those are mere words that do not describe the emotion fairly, accurately or to the extent of the experience That is why it is cheap talk. We truly have no idea what it feels like to lose a child regardless of all the adjectives you want to throw at it. It is not empathy. You must experience it to know what another is feeling.

You are right however I did mis-read your last post regarding this being the same thing. Sorry bout that.

As callus as you wish to make me appear, As I said, I was sad for them, I was sad with them, I helped bury their child, but at the end of the day, I went home to my kids and the joy they bring to my life, and they went home to an empty house full of despair that continues to this day, 15 years later. In fact until they moved 3 years ago, they kept her room exactly as it was the day she was killed.  I can not empathize with that, I can not imagine that, and honestly if you have not lost a child neither can you. That is something that would transcend all understanding and imagination by those not in their shoes,hence it is cheap talk to say you do know or can imagine, as well as borderline insulting
2010-05-26 05:42:31
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney

lowing wrote:

I was sad with them
Empathy.
2010-05-26 06:00:51
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Sorry Varegg, paying your taxes as a "form of empathy "with a combat veteran or a person who lost a child, or ANY experience truly worthy and in need of empathy is as far fetched as I can think.
So where did I say paying tax equals feeling empathy with a wounded combat vet?

Your arguments are wearing so thin now is laughable ... you have painted yourself into the mother of all corners and are constantly bringing up points you think the rest of us have posted to prove your version of the terminology ... 2000 of your sources DOES not prove that empathy requires experience, like mentioned so many times it's stupid it's an advantage but not a must ...

Empathy is as described by all sources, nothing more nothing less ... that you think it means something else than the terminology is your problem ...

I actually sympathise with your lack of reasoning ... and empathise with everyone that debates with you ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-05-26 06:13:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sorry Varegg, paying your taxes as a "form of empathy "with a combat veteran or a person who lost a child, or ANY experience truly worthy and in need of empathy is as far fetched as I can think.
So where did I say paying tax equals feeling empathy with a wounded combat vet?

Your arguments are wearing so thin now is laughable ... you have painted yourself into the mother of all corners and are constantly bringing up points you think the rest of us have posted to prove your version of the terminology ... 2000 of your sources DOES not prove that empathy requires experience, like mentioned so many times it's stupid it's an advantage but not a must ...

Empathy is as described by all sources, nothing more nothing less ... that you think it means something else than the terminology is your problem ...

I actually sympathise with your lack of reasoning ... and empathise with everyone that debates with you ...
You said paying taxes is a "form of empathy", in general, I guess a combet vet is not included in your generaliities. How about losing a child? Is your taxes a "form of empathy" for those people or are they not included either?

The most significant point made in all sources is to experience the event you are supposedly empathizing with. If you want to call my opinion that you are posing, and honestly have no idea what someone is feeling when you haven't honestly experienced the event yourself, and that your empathizing is nothing more than cheap talk that probably goes more toward making yourself feel better than the person you are supposed to be empathizing with, I can live with it.
2010-05-26 06:24:08
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

I said it could be ... I never EVER said paying taxes was feeling empathic towards dead kids of wounded combat vets ... that's your delusional assertion ...

It is a significant point that experience is linked to empathy but not a must ... as mentioned earlier several times ...

And empathy is not even close to being in a category called cheap talk ... that opinion is also yours alone ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-05-26 06:59:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Varegg wrote:

I said it could be ... I never EVER said paying taxes was feeling empathic towards dead kids of wounded combat vets ... that's your delusional assertion ...

It is a significant point that experience is linked to empathy but not a must ... as mentioned earlier several times ...

And empathy is not even close to being in a category called cheap talk ... that opinion is also yours alone ...
lol "it COULD be"...got it, well I guess we will file that bullshit in the round file were it goes, by the way,  with what source are you using to make that claim? I have read a bunch of them and paying your fuckin' taxes has never been mentioned.

Not just a significant point, but THE significant point that separates empathy from sympathy.  But hey, I guess it doesn't count more than your taxes does in your eyes.
2010-05-26 07:06:29
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7095|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I said it could be ... I never EVER said paying taxes was feeling empathic towards dead kids of wounded combat vets ... that's your delusional assertion ...

It is a significant point that experience is linked to empathy but not a must ... as mentioned earlier several times ...

And empathy is not even close to being in a category called cheap talk ... that opinion is also yours alone ...
lol "it COULD be"...got it, well I guess we will file that bullshit in the round file were it goes, by the way,  with what source are you using to make that claim? I have read a bunch of them and paying your fuckin' taxes has never been mentioned.

Not just a significant point, but THE significant point that separates empathy from sympathy.  But hey, I guess it doesn't count more than your taxes does in your eyes.
I stated it was a poor example so why do you keep bickering about that point alone?

Are you particularly daft today or are you being daft on purpose?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-05-26 07:24:34
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

I said it could be ... I never EVER said paying taxes was feeling empathic towards dead kids of wounded combat vets ... that's your delusional assertion ...

It is a significant point that experience is linked to empathy but not a must ... as mentioned earlier several times ...

And empathy is not even close to being in a category called cheap talk ... that opinion is also yours alone ...
lol "it COULD be"...got it, well I guess we will file that bullshit in the round file were it goes, by the way,  with what source are you using to make that claim? I have read a bunch of them and paying your fuckin' taxes has never been mentioned.

Not just a significant point, but THE significant point that separates empathy from sympathy.  But hey, I guess it doesn't count more than your taxes does in your eyes.
I stated it was a poor example so why do you keep bickering about that point alone?

Are you particularly daft today or are you being daft on purpose?
Fact is, it is not an example at all, not even a poor one. While you insist what i have posted, IE the difference betwen the 2 words empathy and sympathy is nothing more than bullshit trolling and is not a difference enough to distinguish what you feel for someone and HOW you feel for someone.

What is so hard in understanding that experience is the significant and really only difference between empathy and sympathy?
2010-05-26 07:29:36
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney

lowing wrote:

What is so hard in understanding that experience is the significant and really only difference between empathy and sympathy?
Because as it's been pointed out to you at least two dozen times, including links you yourself provided, it isn't the "only real difference" between sympathy and empathy, it's the feeling itself and the action upon it that defines between sympathy and empathy. That's why this ridiculous discussion has continued for so long.

Last edited by Jaekus (2010-05-26 07:30:42)

2010-05-26 08:08:13
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

What is so hard in understanding that experience is the significant and really only difference between empathy and sympathy?
Because as it's been pointed out to you at least two dozen times, including links you yourself provided, it isn't the "only real difference" between sympathy and empathy, it's the feeling itself and the action upon it that defines between sympathy and empathy. That's why this ridiculous discussion has continued for so long.
and what has been pointed out ot you several times including the links provided is, the feeling that you are referring to can only be had through experiencing the event ( or similar event). That is the point. What you "imagine" or what you "think" has got nothing to do with what the reality is when it comes to brass tacs and when you have not "been there".

You can only "imagine" what combat is like. Even if you feel something, it is only "IMAGINED" IE NOT real. You can not relate no matter how hard you try. You do not have it in you. None of us do. What the combat veteran feels is REAL and you have no way of knowing if what you are imagining is what he is feeling. That is why you can only feel for him ( sympathy) and you can not feel with him, empathy. Because he REALLY knows what he is going through and you REALLY can only imagine, ( another word might be guess).



Any combat vets care to chime in on the notion that someone that has never been to war, shot at, watched a friend get killed in front of you, or die in your arms or killed someone knows what you are feeling, can relate to you, can share in your pain as if he went through it with you? I will let it rest with them.
2010-05-26 08:11:18
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,816|6391|eXtreme to the maX
Some people can visualise and empathise.

lowing wrote:

share in your pain as if he went through it with you
Thats not the only form of empathy.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-26 08:11:50)

Fuck Israel
2010-05-26 08:14:07
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6827|Texas - Bigger than France
I've had friends shot in front of me, I've known people who've been robbed and shot in the process...but I have not been to war

So can I only relate to the people I know?  What if it was a carjacking instead of a burglary?  What if it was snowing outside but this happened in the summer?

I want to know what the rules are.  Because sympathy and empathy are polar opposites...like comparing David Hasslehoff to Bernie Madoff - totally different, even though they have German last names.

Last edited by Pug (2010-05-26 08:14:53)

2010-05-26 08:19:44
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5464|Sydney

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

What is so hard in understanding that experience is the significant and really only difference between empathy and sympathy?
Because as it's been pointed out to you at least two dozen times, including links you yourself provided, it isn't the "only real difference" between sympathy and empathy, it's the feeling itself and the action upon it that defines between sympathy and empathy. That's why this ridiculous discussion has continued for so long.
and what has been pointed out ot you several times including the links provided is, the feeling that you are referring to can only be had through experiencing the event ( or similar event). That is the point. What you "imagine" or what you "think" has got nothing to do with what the reality is when it comes to brass tacs and when you have not "been there".

You can only "imagine" what combat is like. Even if you feel something, it is only "IMAGINED" IE NOT real. You can not relate no matter how hard you try. You do not have it in you. None of us do. What the combat veteran feels is REAL and you have no way of knowing if what you are imagining is what he is feeling. That is why you can only feel for him ( sympathy) and you can not feel with him, empathy. Because he REALLY knows what he is going through and you REALLY can only imagine, ( another word might be guess).



Any combat vets care to chime in on the notion that someone that has never been to war, shot at, watched a friend get killed in front of you, or die in your arms or killed someone knows what you are feeling, can relate to you, can share in your pain as if he went through it with you? I will let it rest with them.
This is where you're obfuscating the discussion.

I'm not talking about what it's like to be at war, I'm talking about understanding how someone feels and sharing that feeling, whether they tell it through a story or you see it in their face and feel their pain/happiness/joy/confusion. Feeling their emotions. Not living their experiences.
2010-05-26 14:08:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Jaekus wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:


Because as it's been pointed out to you at least two dozen times, including links you yourself provided, it isn't the "only real difference" between sympathy and empathy, it's the feeling itself and the action upon it that defines between sympathy and empathy. That's why this ridiculous discussion has continued for so long.
and what has been pointed out ot you several times including the links provided is, the feeling that you are referring to can only be had through experiencing the event ( or similar event). That is the point. What you "imagine" or what you "think" has got nothing to do with what the reality is when it comes to brass tacs and when you have not "been there".

You can only "imagine" what combat is like. Even if you feel something, it is only "IMAGINED" IE NOT real. You can not relate no matter how hard you try. You do not have it in you. None of us do. What the combat veteran feels is REAL and you have no way of knowing if what you are imagining is what he is feeling. That is why you can only feel for him ( sympathy) and you can not feel with him, empathy. Because he REALLY knows what he is going through and you REALLY can only imagine, ( another word might be guess).



Any combat vets care to chime in on the notion that someone that has never been to war, shot at, watched a friend get killed in front of you, or die in your arms or killed someone knows what you are feeling, can relate to you, can share in your pain as if he went through it with you? I will let it rest with them.
This is where you're obfuscating the discussion.

I'm not talking about what it's like to be at war, I'm talking about understanding how someone feels and sharing that feeling, whether they tell it through a story or you see it in their face and feel their pain/happiness/joy/confusion. Feeling their emotions. Not living their experiences.
Then you are not "sharing" shit. You have sacrificed nothing for the emotion that you say you "share", that makes you a poser and your empathies worthless. Your sympathies however might remain intact. What is it about not being able to understand the on going anguish of a person who has expereinced trauma don't you get? Trauma they still endure long after you are at home in bed with the wife, or at the playground with your kids? You don't empathize shit, you feel sorry for them, you can not know what iti s like to BE Them.
2010-05-26 14:14:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6937|USA

Pug wrote:

I've had friends shot in front of me, I've known people who've been robbed and shot in the process...but I have not been to war

So can I only relate to the people I know?  What if it was a carjacking instead of a burglary?  What if it was snowing outside but this happened in the summer?

I want to know what the rules are.  Because sympathy and empathy are polar opposites...like comparing David Hasslehoff to Bernie Madoff - totally different, even though they have German last names.
You might be able to empathize with some of what a combat vet has experienced but not with other parts. If you can not related being shot at, or truly fearful for your life at the hands of another, then you truly do not know what those that have are feeling.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 14

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard