Rogue-Ranger In reply to ArtByJenX [2019-10-01 05:59:26 +0000 UTC]

Wow, thank you! And I hope more people act on the words too, though I've never even considered the idea of submitting anything I've written to a journal for publication. I guess I think of that as something for professional writers and that's definitely not me. But I'll think about it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ArtByJenX In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-10-12 23:37:36 +0000 UTC]

I think you should. We writers all start from somewhere.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-06 06:03:58 +0000 UTC]

This essay is a defense of empathy as defined in the second paragraph, which according to the dictionary is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Simpler still: feeling what others do.

I point out that, as a species, we tend to be naturally empathic but many of us suppress it and I explain the reasons for that as well as the benefits of opening ourselves to empathy. Compassion is one of many benefits of empathy listed in the essay.

Since you asked what me writing about empathy has to do with empathy and feel I missed the context and importance of empathy altogether, maybe you can explain how you define empathy, its context and what about it you feel is most important? I'd be curious to hear your perspective, if you're willing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-06 06:49:35 +0000 UTC]

Why does empathy require a defense? If you know of the implications that come from empathy then you would not argue a defense for it but against it, namely how it is metaphorically a double sided sword; though in good intention and character it's usage, can cause emotional damage in the individual who is empathetic to others.

No, empathy is not an automatic attributed human characteristic; humankind by nature has the ability to be empathetic but it's also a cognitive choice, not to be confused with sympathy and compassion, which you have confused.

My definition of empathy is the lexicon definition.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-07 06:31:07 +0000 UTC]

Why does empathy require a defense? Precisely because of what you stated. In fact, the very same argument you made against empathy to say why I should be against it is addressed in the essay, as is empathy being in our nature. Once you read what you chose to comment on, I'd be curious for your follow-up thoughts.

According to lexico.com, the English lexicon by Oxford Dictionary, empathy is "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." That's actually word for word what I said, so perhaps you can let me know what specific definition you are using?

Also, here's the definitions of compassion and sympathy from the same source:

compassion (noun): Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

sympathy (noun): Feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.

Since you say I have confused sympathy with empathy, is it that you have reverse definitions for these concepts and that's why you think I have them mixed up? Or do you really feel that the ability to understand and share the feelings of others is the choice, that even infants cognitively choose to be affected by the feelings of others rather than it being in our nature?

If you read the essay, you'll notice that I advocate for empathy specifically, for not letting fear cause us to suppress that ability to feel what others do. Empathy opens us up to more than just things such as sympathy and compassion, but also to share in other's joy and love. Actually feeling the suffering rather than just detached pity means we have a stronger motivation to help, as their suffering is also our own, and we actually feel other's joy in overcoming it, as again it is also our own.

Will we be hurt? Yes. But I'll let the essay defend empathy against that particular excuse to be unempathic since I already addressed that and the other concerns quite thoroughly in it. I even discuss why pain exists.

Your replies have made it obvious that you once again didn't read what I wrote before commenting an objection to what you think I may have written. You should know very well by now how I feel about this as I was quite clear in the past every other time too. It's not going to ever stop bothering me, in case that's what you think. I hope you can respect this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-07 07:01:31 +0000 UTC]

Then "Defense" is the incorrect term, the correct one is "Precaution"; but for empathy to require a defense it must first be scrutinized as a negative, and as empathy is an act of selflessness, that is simply not the case; your usage of terms is factually invalid.

No. Your appeal is to compassion and sympathy, not empathy; and though you may have written into detail the existence of empathy and it's uses, your essay appeals to human compassion and sympathy towards others and alike decent actions, but not empathy. You have far skewed from the actual topic at hand.

I have worked with children for a very long time, and your saying: "infants cognitively choose to be affected by the feelings of others rather than it being in our nature" is factually incorrect. Children in the early years of development are not cognitively affected by the feelings of others; they are affected by stimuli and activities and the actions of those around them, but children are not cognitively aware of feelings or their repercussions, nor able to comprehend feelings in depth as adults do, even lesser so they have control over their own. It is in the later years of development to they gain a more thorough understanding.
Moving forward.

I respect that.

Pain is a great deterrent and an understandable one at that; but it is also no ones business but ones own if they wish to express empathy or not. There is simply no excuse to condemn another for being unempathetic, but it is disgraceful to demand they do. Such a demand is evil, with intention or not to cause suffering, it is for purpose of compassion, yet still results in another individual to suffer.

I see you still have not bettered yourself; however your final reply comes across not as someone offering a mild reprimand or condemnation of the actions of a secondary party but as someone who seems uninterested in the possibility of their own potential errors. I am disappointed, and I truly wish I was not, and in case you may not have come to be aware, I am in parts in agreement with your position.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-10 02:42:38 +0000 UTC]

precaution (noun) a measure taken in advance to prevent something dangerous, unpleasant, or inconvenient from happening.

Precaution would actually better fit with your position, as you've said that it's better to avoid empathy in order to avoid pain. Avoiding empathy would be a precaution to avoid "emotional damage" as you say. You're afraid that opening oneself fully can be dangerous because the other person's pain becoming one's own, like a sword with two blades cutting both people. Precaution, the precursor to caution, is holding oneself back and being partially apathetic to avoid the potential you see for harm. That's just not what I'm advocating.

Defense is the correct word precisely because of what you said: "If you know of the implications that come from empathy then you would not argue a defense for it but against it, namely how it is metaphorically a double sided sword; though in good intention and character it's usage, can cause emotional damage in the individual who is empathetic to others."

You argue that I should be against empathy because it can cause pain. In my defense of empathy, I actually cover the necessity of pain and how empathy is what allows us to use pain constructively and how intentionally trying to repress empathy prolongs suffering. This is obviously a different position than yours, but it is a defense of empathy. Even if the argument against empathy is that it means we will be hurt, which is a convincing argument to be sure, I stand by empathy.

I'm sorry, but telling me that an essay you have refused to read is about something different than what it is actually about is not helpful. While continuing to simply say an essay about empathy isn't about what it is actually about isn't as bad as last time, when you refused my repeated requests for you to read that essay just so you could continue to falsely claim I support pedophilia, necrophilia, racism and murder no matter how many times I tried to correct you, it is still rude nonetheless.

You actually quoted part of a question I asked you and said it's factually incorrect, which is I guess you answering "no" but then you go on to say why it's true, which is answering "yes." So, please forgive me if I get this part wrong: If if I understand correctly, you believe children are not capable of understanding their own feelings and are affected by various things but not other's feelings, which is why you believe empathy is not inborn? Is that correct? Perhaps you can elaborate a bit more on this and when you believe children become capable of empathy. Also, you didn't answer if you also define empathy the same way as I do (quoted from the English lexicon as you suggested), so at least let me know if we're on the same page as far as definitions.

I believe humans are naturally empathic because we have mirror neurons in our brains that make us feel tense when someone else feels tense, frustrated when someone else feels frustrated, yawn when someone else yawns, smile when someone smiles, etc. We can even feel an emotion simply by mimicking an expression, such as the well-researched fact that smiling can actually improve one's mood.

Since these traits are observable in infants and small children and can be recorded by brain scans, I see this as testable and provable. Research also shows that our relationship with the person effects how easily we empathize with them, so that's why I also advocate getting to know people in order to empathize easier.

Being Christian, I believe God made us this way to connect with others, which is why He calls us to rejoice with those who rejoice but also to cry with those who cry, to walk with others and make their joy and pain our own. We are called to love others as ourself, not separate.

When I summarized what I said in the essay into a paragraph, I notice that you replied that you respect that. Thank you. I respect your position too. While we may disagree in some parts, I know you genuinely believe what you do. I only object to when you start making things up about my position or written works. If something is unclear, please just ask. I will continue to do the same.

I believe I understand why you feel demanding someone be empathic is evil. We obviously disagree on how to weigh the pros and cons of empathy, but encouraging empathy and stating it's benefits and the ways apathy prolongs suffering isn't a demand people be empathic. It's just encouraging empathy. And I really do believe that sharing in other's suffering can actually help eliminate it. I understand you disagree, but I won't force you to agree.

You've made your disagreement very clear, but I can't find where you've agreed, so please let me know what part of my position you're saying you agree with.

Please don't attempt to patronize me with this whole fake disappointment over me not changing. You're the one who keeps coming to me and trying to start arguments about things you make up because you refuse to read what you comment on, not the other way around. I'm not the one coming to you and saying you don't talk about what you actually do. I'm not uninterested in the possibility of my own errors, but annoyed by you making up fake errors instead of reading and providing genuine feedback on real errors.

You never apologized for the trolling, call-outs, false rummors, bullying and lying from the past, but if there's something I have done to you that bothers you then please let me know. And, if you're ever willing to finally tell me why you did what you did, I still want to understand. There's a lot I still don't get about you, but I want to.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-10 07:33:28 +0000 UTC]

Then we agree that precaution is a suitable terminology.

So your position is to defend ourselves against empathy? Perhaps I misunderstood after all.

I never said you should be against empathy; those are not my words. My position is as it always was: That empathy, though an act of compassion carries risk and the potential for emotional and psychological harm and should be treated carefully. I am sure you more than understand and agree.

Of what relevance is pedophilia, necrophilia, racism and murder? If they're not correlating elements or some form of example, then perhaps you are appealing to the past, and if that is the case then these terms are irrelevant and I cannot understand their inclusion. Perhaps you lost your line of thought and added additional elements unintentionally?

Draw upon which ever dictionary that you wish, the definition of empathy is contextually the same regardless of release.

That is not my opinion; everything I say unless expressed otherwise is from medical and scientific literature; and it is factually correct that children in the early years of development do not understand their own feelings. Though you may believe that humans are naturally empathetic, a nice thought, but one that is factually incorrect due to human nature and potential inconsistencies such as psychosis and apathy. Although, the examples offered such as "Smiling" is not an act of empathy. I think you are looking too far into this and drawing conclusions made without evidence or upon guesswork alone.

These traits are actually not observable in children; the medical and pediatric literature is very clear on this; and as I stated previously, having worked in this industry, this position of yours is factually incorrect as I know from experience and years of study. You can trust me on this.
 
You claim to be Christian, though cannot be proved or disproved, is really not something to state as it draws attention away from the importance of compassion and onto yourself. A relationship with God is a private matter, and you should know this; I'm a little disappointed you made that appeal.
Anyways, in regards to Christian ideology, your appeal is one of human decency and compassion, certainly proper and good in nature without question but as is self sacrifice for loved ones but empathy which can cause self emotional harm contains risk and is also a private matter and should be very carefully considered before application.

There is no need to elaborate; if your position is sound then I will raise no objection, and I am sure you are the very same.

How does apathy prolong suffering? Empathy is not a treatment or a cure, certainly an act of kindness to share in the suffering as a form of self sacrifice but not an obligation whatsoever. One may argue that there is a moral obligation but such an obligation would apply to very specific individuals and not just any person, though any person can always be kind and helpful, if they're wanted. Though empathizing can help minimize certain pains, it is not a one and all cure to eliminate all suffering; some issues extend into the realm of medicine and psychology.

I am well within my rights to offer my objections or agreements, in which I have offered both; there is no need for an offensive front when I have done nothing more than treat you as you me. "Do unto others", as you should know, for this I am rightfully disappointed.

I would apologize if I had done any of those accusation, all of which no one I know would ever accuse me of, and that of which I am more than willing to accept are actions if they were committed by me. However, I have treated you as reasonably as you have I, though I am a different person with a different character and method of communication than your own, so instead of condemning me and accusing me, treat me as an individual with their own outlook and personality rather than a villain. You speak a great deal of understanding and compassion, yet you do not treat me like I am my own person and that rightfully unfair.
If you feel like I am mistreating you though, then I apologize; but I am not someone who apologizes when I know I am absolutely right, though if my position makes you feel victimized, that is most certainly not my intent so for that I shall apologize and call my own err.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-15 02:05:23 +0000 UTC]

The first part of your reply comes off as you just messing with me or something. Read over my previous reply and compare it to your response and you'll see what I mean. If it's because you're rushing, please don't. I can wait.

As for your first statement, sorry but that's actually the exact opposite of what I said.

Actually, no, my position is not to defend ourselves against empathy. Again, I said the exact opposite of that.

No, you literally said that I should not argue a defense of empathy but against it. That's actually in the part I referenced from you twice already and even quoted in the reply you're replying to. Please go back and re-read it if you doubt this. The rest of your stated position matches what I said was your position, so I think I understand that part of it, but let me know if you'd like to modify what you said.

No, I did not lose my train of thought. I could copy and paste what I wrote, but I'll bring it up again later. I'm just frustrated because you keep avoiding addressing this point.

I'm glad we can agree on the definition of empathy. Can we now agree the essay is about empathy?

I explained my position, tried to understand yours, and asked you to explain more about your position, but yet you spent almost all of your response to that part dismissing and mocking a caricature of my position and then just saying you're right.

If you don't want to even acknowledge the references to mirror neurons and empathy or do a quick internet search or even just read the full sentence with the reference to smiling and it's context, that's fine I guess, but you didn't even answer your conclusions about when children become capable of empathy, let alone expand on the rest of your position. Your focus on tearing down instead of building up reads as if you view our conversation not as a sharing of ideas but as some kind of an argument or debate or something. Is that really how you see this?

Look, I'm sure we can find common ground here. I'm going to go through what I understand of your position and mine and where they intersect. I'll even compromise for the sake of us progressing in our conversation. You can then expand upon that approach when presenting more of your position. I will not mock your position and gloss over mine, so please try to return this courtesy by not mocking my position or glossing over yours.

Not everyone always sees empathy the same way, so it's sometimes broken down into affective empathy (also known as emotional empathy), which is simply feeling what others do, and cognitive empathy, which is understanding the feelings of others. There is occasionally a third added, which is compassionate empathy, or taking action to help based on those feelings.

Some people contend that true empathy needs compassion and understanding of what others feel, rather than simply experiencing it, while others (like myself) see affective empathy as the base of all empathy and adding compassion and understanding simply builds off of it and makes it useful. In general, you'll find neurologists tend to use empathy in terms of affective empathy, whereas psychologists tend to use empathy in terms of it's social aspects, referring to cognitive and compassionate empathy. The general public tends to favor compassionate empathy, seeing empathy without action as not the full measure of empathy.

In neurological terms, mirror neurons are responsible for our ability to empathize with others. For example, if an infant hears another infant cry, they are more likely to cry in response than as a result of hearing other sounds or even a recording of their own crying. Infants may also smile when someone else smiles without even being fully aware they are even smiling themselves. If they see their mother hurt, they may respond with facial expressions and sounds showing concern. This is what I was referring to in my last reply, to the neurological response hardwired into most of our brains that makes us tense when others are tense, happy when others are happy, tired when others are tired, frustrated when others are frustrated, and so on.

Since this is a natural subconscious response, many people dismiss this as not being "real" empathy or "fully formed" empathy. They would say that true empathy requires a deeper understanding, self awareness and conscious thought. For example, they may say being distressed because someone else is distressed doesn't count until they are able to identify why they are distressed and relate that to the distress of the other who made them distressed. Based on what you've said so far, I believe that you probably agree more with this perception of empathy, which focuses on cognitive empathy.

As for me, since affective, cognitive, and even compasionate empathy are all governed by the right-hemisphere supramarginal gyrus as part of the mirror neuron system in our brains that governs our ability to perceive others and relate it to ourselves, I see it as all connected and part of the way God made us. People who share my view would say that feeling what others do is the basis of empathy, while understanding and self awareness takes it further as we grow toward our full potential but doesn't make it suddenly appear out of nowhere. The basic wiring existed already. Others see this as degrees or types of empathy, as mentioned above.

Since it's not until children become older that they begin to show signs of cognitive empathy and compasionate empathy, perhaps simply because of how it's measured, many psychologists don't consider children empathic in a social sense from birth, only a neurological sense. For example, most children may not identify the specific feelings of others until around 18 months or later, when they begin to show signs that they can relate what someone else feels to their own feelings and try to comfort them. For example, giving a sad playmate a toy that they found comfort in themselves. Before that, the general consensus is that they simply show affective empathy, which is the most prevalent.

So, in this sense, the strictest definition of empathy is not enough for many people. It needs to be the kind of empathy that involves a deeper self awareness and then using those empathic responses to show sympathy and compassion and not empathy alone. And, even though I see it all as empathy, I support yourself and others seeing empathy this way because it puts the focus on the results of the empathy and I'm fine with that.

While there is some debate over how broadly to define empathy in children, especially since autistic children tend to have lower cognitive empathy while maintaining affective empathy and so some people (wrongly I believe) label them unempathic, it's generally considered scientifically accurate to say most humans are born with the capacity for empathy and that, while some children are naturally more or less empathic, the majority can nonetheless be taught to be more empathic. In this sense, empathy, at least cognitive and compassionate empathy, can be taught or at least encouraged.

If you don't count affective empathy as empathy because it isn't broad enough to encompass the other aspects of empathy such as full cognitive understanding of what others feel and why they feel it that develop over time, that's fine. I support that too. The way you see the development of empathy in children isn't that different from how I see it, so I accept that children in general do not immediately show cognitive empathy and I'll compromise on the affective empathy point. I also think we can agree that there is value in teaching people of all ages to understand how their actions make others feel.

And, while we may disagree on if empathy in general should be encouraged or if it's a private choice limited to well-informed adults because actually feeling what others do may hurt, maybe we can at least agree in the value of expressing empathy through compassion? Based on what you've said of your position so far, I feel confident this is a common ground we share, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

As for your objection to me mentioning I'm Christian as an explanation for why I believe God made us to be empathic, please note that this essay that you chose to comment on is a Christian essay from a Christian perspective, with references to the Bible. I'm sorry if that comes as a surprise but that's what you clicked on.

I didn't object to you stating your background in child care and research because I understand that was to frame your point that children are not empathic, so please understand that I used my background as a Christian to explain why I believe God made us empathic by design. Also, you've been public with your criticism of me being Christian in the past, so please forgive me for being unaware you changed your belief and feel it shouldn't be mentioned now. If it bothers you, I'll try not to bring it up if I can help it, as I'd like us to respect each other's concerns.

I didn't say empathy is some cure-all for every situation, but you know what explains my point in great detail and even answers your question as to how I believe apathy prolongs suffering? That's right, the essay above that you chose to comment on. I will get into this further in this reply, but it's still there if you want a more thorough explanation of what I believe and why.

I'm sorry if me not believing you were really disappointed in me came off as rude. It's just that all I did was tell you that I don't like how you don't read what you comment on and just make things up. Instead of acknowledging a single word of that, you just deflect it to how I somehow let you down and am taking some offensive front by daring to mention that something you do bothers me.

So, is the disappointment genuine? If so, why keep deflecting from what I actually said no matter how often I repeat the same concern? And what did you expect of me, to not be bothered by you making things up or to keep it to myself? I want you to understand so you'll stop. That's why I tell you what you do and it's effects, not to be rude, but to convince you to stop. I'm sorry if my approach was hurtful. That wasn't my intent. I just want you to finally listen.

And you know, that's actually a lesson in the dangers of apathy. If you'd open yourself to empathizing with me for a moment, you'd stop doing this as you'd finally feel what it feels like for me. Avoiding empathizing with me prolongs your behavior and prolongs it's negative affects. Empathy could end that.

Am I asking you to experience pain? Yes, in a way I am. I understand you may see that as evil, but apathy allows one to distance themself from the effects of their actions. They just keep demeaning and mistreating others and don't feel a thing and so the pain goes on and on. Empathy means you'll be hurt by feeling the hurt you cause others. But, experiencing it yourself will mean you'll finally be affected directly enough to stop and then you'll experience the intense relief and joy I and others feel as a result of that closure. Imagine being happy because I'm happy and knowing you caused that. Won't that relief and joy be worth the momentary pain?

Although you deny everything you've done, thank you for your apology nonetheless. And I do see you as your own person. I'm sorry if I've had to be stern with you at times, but you've known me long enough to know that I don't like having to keep correcting assumptions you've made.

I care about all the encouraging messages I put up here on DeviantArt. They seriously mean a lot to me. So, when you come along to try to create conflict on them without even reading what I write and won't even acknowledge a word I say when I keep telling you to stop no matter how often I repeat myself, it annoys me and I become upset. I'm human like you. Just as you want to be treated with respect, so do I. Are we perfect? No. We'll make mistakes, but let's both continue to try. And, yes, I am well aware of those changes in how you treat me now vs a year ago and I do appreciate that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-15 03:23:51 +0000 UTC]

You offered four responses to my one response, but did not address my assertion of "Precaution". Please address my assertion directly this time.

I am not here to humor your complaints, please address the topic directly with facts.

Mirror neurons are not relevant. Empathy is a choice, mirror neurons are an automatic response. Empathy is a self chosen, selfless response to the suffering of others, it is not a smile returned for a smile; these things are mutually exclusive and you're trying to conflate two different things into one.
I have to assume that you simply do not understand empathy, or that you're projecting a hopeful position of your already limited understanding of empathy by appealing to different human attributes to build a case. No, they're mutually exclusive and you know this. Your appeal is subjective, not objective fact.

You said: "I will not mock your position and gloss over mine, so please try to return this courtesy by not mocking my position or glossing over yours"
I cannot think of a reason why either of us would mock or gloss over our own position, so I don't understand the relevance lest it hide a point.
Care to explain this unusual assertion?

Then you should have elaborate and made your position clearer; though common ground as a whole is irrelevant, the facts stand as they are, dictating the rules of empathy. So, I don't think "Common Ground" is the correct term of usage, merely it is what it is so any opinion is redundant to the facts. Even my own.

I'm sorry but your requesting my noting of this being a "Christian Essay" from a Christians perspective is redundant. A Christian writing it doesn't make it Christian; though your reference to it being Biblical is false: The references you gave: "where we're called to treat others how we'd want to be treated, to forgive as we've been forgiven, to not judge as we wouldn't want to be judged, etc. It's the idea that we are to love others in a very specific way, in an empathic way, and connect their circumstances and ours". This is not empathy. Empathy has nothing to do with this, nor is it calling for empathy. This assertion of yours is grossly incorrect and out of context. These are educational commands that instruct that, for there to be forgiveness, one must forgive and to receive the treatment that we would like, we must treat others how they like. There is not call for empathy.
I am sorry, but your application of empathy is simply wrong, and these scriptures are objective in their context, of which you have made subjective by applying non-existent empathy. That's gross.

You can explain your beliefs but beliefs are not facts. What I stated is fact; and for the most point, your essay does not appeal to only Christians; non-believers also want facts and are not interested in your beliefs, they want reason, facts and truth, and if you cannot appeal across the board then you have to make that clear. Otherwise, state whom you are appealing too. Atheists don't always care what Christians believe.

You'll try not to bring it up if you can but you did anyway, so..

You stated that I make things up. Burden of proof; get to it.

You said: "I want you to understand so you'll stop. That's why I tell you what you do and it's effects, not to be rude, but to convince you to stop. I'm sorry if my approach was hurtful. That wasn't my intent. I just want you to finally listen."
You want ME to understand so that I'll stop? My friend, is this some kind of moral high ground? You did not even address my disappointment, merely deflect away from it rather than address it.
Perhaps you should clean up your room before you tell me to clean up my own, metaphorically speaking.
Incidentally, you speak a great deal of compassion and understanding, more than most people I speak to, yet you ignored my disappointment entirely. Well, I now know that compassion is a facade; though I wonder if someone was to come to you in grief or anxiety, would you so kindly ask them if their distraught feelings are genuine too?

Why would I empathize with you? Of what benefit is that to you? What could you be suffering from that my empathy could assist you, and why not you empathize with me? Why is this only one sided? Why is this about you and not me also? How selfish.

You said: "Am I asking you to experience pain? Yes, in a way I am."
So you want me to experience pain: You are evil.
It is better to be uncaring than intentionally hurtful; though whilst there is no benefit from not worrying of others, it does prevent personal emotion harm BUT, wanting suffering and/ or pain in ANY form of others is evil.
There is absolutely, without any question, NO excuse or justification to cause pain in others; and if you can justify any intentional suffering, then you justify any intention immoral act; and there is a difference between self sacrifice for others, and encouraging suffering in others for yourself, which is an act of selfishness and evil.
Christ suffered for us. He died on the Cross for us; he did did not demand we suffer and die for Him; He came to serve, not to be served. You are not a Christian. You are a disgrace. This is worsened by the fact that you are justifying your evil intent.
Never, ever, ever would I ask, suggest or even hint for another to take any pain for me, not even you, not for any reason. I suffer for myself, but if others wish to suffer with me, or even for me, that is their actions of selflessness, and that is sacrifice, an act of humility and love. Above all else, love. That is selflessness, self sacrifice and the opposite of what you want. Vile.

I have denied nothing more than what I know I have not done.
You are not stern with me, you simply do not like that I disagree with you, and even though you repeatedly say that you're open to listen and learn, you have never once altered or changed any position that you have presented; though it goes without saying that you are argumentative and do not like contradiction, or perhaps contradiction that comes from just me.

I do not cause conflict (Intentionally). I bring facts and truth where they are not present, and if that is conflict to you, then so be it; but it is better to shine a light then wonder blindly in the darkness of ignorance.
It seems to me that you simply do NOT want to know if you actually ARE in the wrong; though you say you're open to knowing so, you never have proven yourself to be humble enough to admit that you do make error, or maybe you just do not believe yourself to be wrong at all. I cannot say. All I know is that I am human, and that means I am inconsistent and prone to error, of which I will ALWAYS admit, as I have several times throughout this exchange, but what of you? Your apologies are not that of admitting error but that you may have made an error; apologies for actions in response to my own actions but not apologies for wrong doing (I'm sorry if I've had to be stern with you at times), as you stated. There is no: "I am wrong, I am sorry". Nothing of the sort. All of you apologies are conditional, and that does not make them apologies.

Let's be frank: You still haven't given a reason why empathy requires a defense, and this is because it is not being condemned, it is not socially marked as an act of evil, it is not widely or even minutely condemned at all.
Empathy does not need a defense in any context, and you know this, and your justification is subjective in nature, without facts, proof and evidence. You made a title and essay and instead of considering if it's factual, or even coherent, went along with it, building a subjective argument to support it.
You really, really haven't thought your position out have you; just be honest.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-23 06:58:43 +0000 UTC]

I understand that you keep coming to my page because you genuinely want to talk to me. I get that, but communication is a two-way street and so I hope you can respect if I have some ways I'd prefer we communicate. Feel free to share what you'd like out of our conversations too.

The big one is that I don't like having to keep correcting misinformation about what I say or believe. If I say something, please don't ignore it and then claim I never said it. If you feel you may be skipping something, don't rush to condemn me for something I may have actually said or said differently. Please check first or just don't condemn me at all.

If you claim you and I said things or didn't say things and the other disagrees, since our conversation is all viewable at any time, just check and find out who is correct. Arguing so adamantly without taking a moment to even check if something is actually true can ruin an otherwise productive conversation.

Don't mock someone for their views or dismiss those views without even so much as doing a quick check to see if there is any validity to them. Saying that someone has arrived at their position through subjective guesswork without doing so much as a quick internet search can come off as being disinterested in a two-way exchange of ideas. Also, be respectful of people who have genuinely held beliefs.

Don't mock or deny someone's faith. If you feel that Christians shouldn't talk about their faith or promote empathy, explain that position rather than go on about someone not being a real Christian simply because they see things differently. You know I've never questioned your faith, so I'd appreciate this courtesy returned.

And lastly let's just try to be generally respectful of one another and listen. If something is unclear, we should ask. We should also try to address the concerns of the person who asked, especially if they are repeated, and feel free to repeat our concerns if we feel they weren't heard.

Again, if you have any other suggestions that might help, please feel free to share them. Also, I'm sorry if I come off as frustrated at times. Think of all those people who have come to your page making claims against you without even bothering to listen to your side or check if what they say about you is even true. I know it bothers you when they do that because you make call-outs calling them trash, so remember how that feels and you'll understand my frustration when you do this.

Now, as for your first statement, I actually addressed your assertion that "precaution" was the correct way to describe my position two replies ago: www.deviantart.com/comments/1/… (paragraph 2) As you can see, I explained why it doesn't match my position and explicitly stated it's not what I'm advocating. Yet in your reply to that you falsely claimed that I had instead agreed with you, which of course wasn't true, so I corrected you. Rather than check who said what, you instead now falsely claim I never addressed it at all, which of course isn't true either. This dismissing of my words and covering them with false accusations bothers me and I feel hinders our communication.

To be more factual, my "complaints" was to correct you since you had falsely claimed I said the opposite of what I really said. You even said you didn't say what I literally just copied and pasted from your own words. That's why I corrected you. The facts are easy to verify as our conversation is out in the open, but instead you just said "I am not here to humor your complaints, please address the topic directly with facts." If you want to address the topic directly, read what it is. If you want facts, please take a moment to check what each of us say and compare it to the facts.

What it sounds like you're saying is that you don't believe affective empathy is related to cognitive empathy because you believe empathy requires a choice. That's fine, but in your reply you skipped 10 paragraphs where I put a lot of effort into going over this and finding things we could agree on. Dismissing my position in such a mocking manner is rude irregardless, but doing so while ignoring such a large chunk of what I wrote and refusing to check to see why I believe what I do damages the possibility of an open exchange of ideas. Please go back and read the 10 paragraphs that you skipped that go through the science of empathy (www.deviantart.com/comments/1/… paragraphs 10-19) and then do a little research to see if any of it can be validated. You can still disagree, but please acknowledge it and do so in a civil and respectful manner.

In those 10 paragraphs, I researched your position for you and found ways to agree with you and never once dismissed or mocked your position. So, I don't feel it's unreasonable to ask you to at least Google mirror neurons or the right-hemisphere supramarginal gyrus or affective vs cognitive empathy or anything else I presented that you dismissed offhand without a second thought. You can still say you disagree or even that you have other science which contradicts it. It's the continuing to dismissing everything I present offhand as if I'm pulling it out of thin air from "guesswork" and being "subjective" while never even checking that I find rude and defeats any constructive purpose in communicating with me.

Carefully read what you quoted me saying again and then read the rest of what I wrote in that paragraph and you'll see you're reading it wrong and your question will be answered: You mocked my position and glossed over your own. I covered both our positions in great detail and didn't mock yours. I simply want us to share this approach.

Facts and common ground aren't mutually exclusive. I wrote paragraph after paragraph going through the facts about empathy and found common ground by agreeing that cognitive empathy is not innate in children from birth but visible as they become more cognitively aware, as well as other points. There are many facts we can find common ground on, but right here in your reply is where you suddenly skip all 10 of those paragraphs where I tried.

Technically speaking, it says to treat others how we'd like to be treated, not how they'd like to be treated, which is why it's dependant on us loving others the way we're commanded to, "as yourself." We can disagree respectfully if the Bible promotes empathizing with others or if it says we should avoid sharing in the feelings of others unless they're pleasant ones, but let's do so respectfully.

For example, in the rest of what I said, you'll notice the call that we mourn with those who mourn, which is sharing in the feelings of others even if it's painful for us. So, you could counter saying, "Here's how I define empathy and here I'll lay out exactly why I feel that the Bible doesn't promote being empathic" instead of the way you replied saying, "I am sorry, but your application of empathy is simply wrong, and these scriptures are objective in their context, of which you have made subjective by applying non-existent empathy. That's gross." Have I ever called your views gross? No. I tried to validate them.

The essay is a combination of facts, perspective and opinion, all of which lead to the same conclusion. And I have had people who aren't Christians read it and, although one did object to the use of the Bible, all agreed it talked about empathy and promoted a positive messsage. The only exception is you, but you've never once commented anything positive on any of the dozens upon dozens of my works you've commented on, even if I know for a fact you really agree, so it doesn't surprise me that you're the exception.

This really confused me, as you've said many times that you're Christian and you actively go around saying things are sinful based on that, so why do I need to hide my faith? You told me to keep my faith private and so I said I'd try to do that from now on with you, but yet you complain that I brought it up before even knowing you didn't want me to bring it up.

You've never shown any hint that my faith should be private. You've been the one to bring it up plenty of times and you publicly questioned my faith and said I'm not Christian in this very reply. You made a call-out saying I'm a fake Christian in an attempt to publicly shame me and on many occasions have tried to bully me out of my faith, said I appeal to Satan, should try Islam, can't prove Christianity is about love instead of hate, etc. I'm not ashamed to be Christian, but I will try to avoid mentioning it with you unless it's relevant or you bring it up. I do this out of respect for you, not because your efforts to try to silence me have been successful.

What I mean by you making things up is saying something that is not true and that is not based on reading my actual words. For example, saying I didn't write about empathy but then us both defining it the same way and even agreeing with each other that empathizing with others means we will be hurt. Or saying I didn't talk about or address something I really did and can be verified by checking our conversation, saying I arrive at my perspective on empathy based on guesswork when really I'm just going by the science even if it could be proven it's wrong or I'm misunderstanding it, ignoring what I write and claiming it was I who ignored you when of course I addressed it already, claiming you don't do what can factually be proven you did, etc.

When we each say different things are true, the burden of proof falls on both of us. For example, if I say you said something, I copy and paste what you wrote. When you keep saying you never wrote it, you have to somehow prove that. Likewise, if I say I addressed something and am able to link to it and give the exact paragraphs or again copy and paste, that is proof, whereas you constantly saying I never addressed it without anything to back up your claims is not proof.

I understand you have said many times that you don't have your own opinions but just speak objective facts and I admire your certainty, but have you considered that view may be preventing you from questioning what you believe and why you believe it? Neither of us know everything or are right all the time, so we should be open to learn.

That's not even close to what happened. How you're somehow a victim of me in this scenario as you claim is mind boggling. Here's what really happened:

I reminded you how I feel about you commenting without reading what you comment on first just so you can make up an argument. Your reply was that you're disappointed I hadn't bettered myself. There was no mention of the actual concern that I had. In fact, I kept repeating over and over again in each reply that same concern and you know how often you acknowledged it in this conversation so far? That's right, not once. Feel free to check. You could have at least said "I do read before commenting" but of course that would require addressing my actual concern.

So I doubted the disappointment was genuine. After all, why be disappointed that I dare to mention something that bothers me when the only result was the disappointment helped you avoid taking responsibility and deflect away from my real concern? Out if the seven times I brought up that concern, you never once directly addressed it. But, since you felt your disappointment over me actually caring how you treat me bothered you and how you treat me didn't, I apologized and asked what you wanted me to do. I laid out options and asked questions to prevent your disappointment.

But did you acknowledge any of that? No, of course not. Instead you claim that I never even addressed your disappointment, even though it's literally in the very reply you're replying to: www.deviantart.com/comments/1/… (paragraphs 23-24)

Look, if you genuinely feel I've missed something, check what I've written and then ask. Claiming that I ignored what you wrote when in fact you ignored what I wrote is not a valid justification for you to distract away from what you did. Even if I hadn't written what I actually did, saying I skipped something once doesn't make it somehow okay to keep skipping repeated concerns over your behavior, especially since the thing you claim I skipped is me addressing how disappointed you are over me actually caring how you treat me and my works.

I understand you don't want to empathize with me, but not empathizing with me is why you continue to dismiss what I say and make things up no matter how often I tell you it bothers me. If you could relate to how frustrating it is, even just by remembering how others have treated you the same way, you would change because it would bother you too.

And of course I try to empathize with you all the time. From the very beginning, my first reply was that I want to understand you. I even asked you to explain your position and, when you wouldn't, I took the time to research your position for you. I try to understand why you do what you do and how to reach you intellectually and emotionally. It's not selfish to ask you to at least try to meet me half way.

The part you quote is actually me agreeing with you that empathizing with someone means the empathizer will hurt and that me calling for you to empathize will cause you to hurt. As with much of my last reply, it was an attempt to see things from your perspective and find agreement. The problem is that you took that line out of context and ignored the rest so that you could make up things about me to insult me and of course again claim I'm not Christian for promoting empathy. It only goes to prove the essay, that some people who support the concept of empathy will still find any excuse to avoid it when it comes to them personally experiencing the suffering of others, even if they caused that suffering.

As I went on to explain in the part you skipped, pain is not some purposeless thing to avoid by withdrawing into ourselves. It serves a real purpose. We can try to avoid being hurt by avoiding empathizing, but that won't somehow make the pain go away. Pain exists to tell us something is wrong so we can fix it, be it mending a cut, avoiding what is hurting us, or stopping abusing others. If you are hurting others and you deliberately suppress your empathy because you think being called to empathize is evil, you don't stop hurting others and you not empathizing is why the pain persists.

And that's what we were really taking about. Although you are very careful never to actually address our real conversation in this part, the whole reason I was asking you to empathize with me was so you'd stop mistreating me and my works. I could have done what you did and went on about how you're not a Christian and are evil and vile for what you've done to me, but of course I'd never do that. Instead I simply asked you to empathize with me. Yet somehow it's not what you've done that's the problem but being asked to empathize so you'll stop that's so terrible? I countered your rude vengefulness with a call to empathy and compassion and you countered my call to empathy and compassion with rudeness and vengefulness. How does me being evil and vile make sense to you?

Look, we can disagree over whether the Bible tells us to suffer alone or to share in one another's suffering, if we're to take up our cross daily or avoid suffering at all costs, if we should love others as ourselves even if that means grieving with the grieving, or if it's evil to ask someone to empathize so they stop mistreating and deceiving you, but let's just do so without calling each other names and questioning the other's faith. Agreed?

I understand you believe you have not done what you have done, but all our conversations are out in the open, as is everything you comment on, so it's easy to check. So, when I object to you saying I said or didn't say something and it doesn't match my real words, that is what I object to, not to real feedback on my real words. I object to things you say that are untrue and can be proven so. So long as what you say isn't an obvious falsehood, I find ways to try to agree with you or find common ground. Again, read this conversation if you doubt this.

Once again, I have compromised my position to find common ground with yours. Just because you skipped those 10 paragraphs doesn't mean it never happened. That was me listening, learning and exchanging ideas. Yet you claim I am the one who is not open to listen and learn when I'm the one who researched your position to agree with you and you're the one who ignored my position and dismissed it without researching. It's like everything you say is a deflection from what you actually do and it's both confusing and frustrating. I want to understand why you think this way.

I'm sorry if you see me correcting what you make up about me and my works as argumentative. I just value truth. I don't go to your page to argue about your works as you do mine. Instead, I specifically try to find agreement to end arguments when you come to me to complain.

When we first met, you came to me to argue that I was wrong to talk about people on my own stamp about people and that you don't have any beliefs and so are innately right and therefore don't have to read what I really say or believe before making up false positions for me. You left comments all over my works, saying my memories of my own life are false, I don't understand love, falsely claiming I resubmitted things, accusing me of claiming to speak for all Christians while you claimed you somehow speak for all LGBT people, comparing my loved ones to trash and telling me to throw them away, mocking my faith and even my grief, making call-outs and spreading false rumors about me, accusing me of supporting pedophilia, racism, etc, and on and on and on. And what did I do? I dared to tell you to stop. I didn't go to your page and get even. No, the aggression has always been one-way. But have you ever once owned up to any of it? No. I constantly have to bend over backwards and try to find compromises to appease you, but yet it's all upside-down in your view. Nothing I could ever do seems to be good enough and I don't know why you feel this way about me.

Sure you may believe you just present facts when you make up things that aren't true. You may even feel certain that you always correct your errors even when you don't check the facts and double down on what you claimed. But believing that isn't a valid excuse to keep condemning me when every accusation against me can be so easily disproven just by reading our conversations. If we can't agree on basic things like who did what, we're going to have trouble conversing.

If you want me to say I'm completely wrong about empathy and don't get it's definition, context and importance as you claim, all you need to do is show me. I've modified things I've written before based on feedback, such as to make something clearer or correct an error, so if you want to help me, then explain how I'm getting empathy wrong. So far you've objected anytime I use it as the dictionary and you yourself define it, so I gave you options when I was trying to support your position for you in the part you skipped. Maybe start with those 10 paragraphs and of course the essay itself. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't help unless you show me what you define as right. When I tell you you're wrong, I explain what is correct and offer you to check for yourself. Please try to return this courtesy so I can learn.

How is me apologizing for any hurt I caused not enough if I don't say I'm wrong separate from the apology? You literally wrote "If you feel like I am mistreating you though, then I apologize; but I am not someone who apologizes when I know I am absolutely right, though if my position makes you feel victimized, that is most certainly not my intent so for that I shall apologize and call my own err." This is exactly the same thing that you are now condemning me for doing, for apologizing for how what I said made you feel without saying I'm wrong. I didn't condemn you the way you did me because you apologized without saying you're wrong. No, I thanked you for your apology. So, why, when I apologise the same way you did is it suddenly not enough and so terrible of me? Why are the rules for you always the opposite of the ones for me and only I try to follow them?

Continuing to falsely claim I didn't already answer why empathy needs a defense multiple times does not somehow make my replies or this essay go away. They're still there. Truth is verifiable.

Once again, empathy needs a defense because people, like yourself, argue against it. You may claim it's great in theory, but when it comes to the actual practice you'll make any excuse you can come up with against actually being empathic. That's why I promote it, not because people don't believe it's good, but because some people make excuses to suppress empathy toward others.

I'm going to close this with a quote you may have heard before: "It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all." While I may have doubted this in the midst of extreme grief, it's something I hold to be true nonetheless. When it comes down to it, joy is worth the pain. Because your username has empathic in it, people often point out how you don't show those with different views empathy and, in your anger at them for suggesting you should care about others, you only mention pain. But empathy involves joy too.

Sure, you don't have to accept that, but I want you to understand what I believe and why and I want to understand what you believe and why. That's what I want out of a conversation, an open and honest exchange of ideas. If we can agree on that, we can continue, but if not then perhaps we should move on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-24 07:25:57 +0000 UTC]

Relevance?

Relevance?

Relevance?

Relevance; Seriously, this is 5 points that have no point yet. If you're going to condemn something, provide evidence and the relevance, or just relevance.

Relevance?

You've stated this more times than I can be bothered to count, but relevance?

Come on dude. Relevance. :/

Then I stand corrected. "Precaution" is the appropriate term, not "Defense".

Then provide the facts if they exist, present them. There's no point saying this conversation is open and facts are there; great, so present them, and don't give me a link, give the actual details, I'm not going hunting.

I did not address your 10 points because there's nothing to address; I'm sorry if you feel dismissed but where there's nothing to refute or discuss then I am not obligated to reply, and considering it's irrelevant to the core of this exchange, ignoring it is not unreasonable as it's a waste of time addressing it. You may disagree, but that's not relevant or important to this topic regardless.

You're complaining. That is not a rebuttal or a reply.

And yet you did not address why empathy requires a defense. Irrelevant.

Actually no, you're being inconsistent:
You just said: "We can disagree respectfully if the Bible promotes empathizing with others or not", but you said in your very essay: "it's a call to be the empaths God made us to be". Why lie?

Relevance?

Relevance?

I didn't bring up my ideology unless it's requested or relevant. You did, so stop being a hypocrite.

Am I to tell you how to conduct your faith now? Are you unable yourself? If you are not going to conduct yourself as a Christian then I will make it known. I am not going to stay quiet and allow you to mislead others, intentionally or not. If you're not going to be humble and admit you're wrong and learn from your errors, then you have no business teaching or guiding others. Again, relevance?

Relevance?

I have to prove I didn't say or do something? Easy, I'll do nothing. Done. Again, relevance?

No. I understand that God speaks and teaches in His own way, and how that is is up to him, not me; but some things are certain fact and not up for discussion. Again, relevance?

If you'd do something thinking, your mind would not be boggled. It's very simply. Moving forward.

Relevance?

What business do you have questioning the disappointment of others; for someone who speaks a lot of compassion and understanding, you backflipped entirely and took the low position of diminishing my concern. Hypocrisy.

No you didn't, don't lie to me. You did not address my disappointment, merely passed on your doubt. That's not addressing, that's less than a comment in passing. Again, don't lie to me.

Relevance?

No, it would not bother me too. I'm here to talk about why empathy requires a defense. Your frustration is not my concern nor my problem to address. If you have problems, deal with them or talk to someone, but in the least you could be decent and address the core issue of why I initiated this exchange in the beginning rather than go off on subjective, irrelevant tangents. At least try.

I asked you a question, not to empathize with me. What is wrong with you? Are you unable to be objective?

That was actually my point but OK, take it as your own.

If someone doesn't want to be empathetic, that is their business, and I condemn you for treating that as a negative. If someone wrongs someone, empathy is not a requirement of forgiveness, repentance is. Don't you know this?

Irrelevant. The moment you wish or desire pain in others, you are evil. Justify away as much as you want.

The point of this exchange is to discuss why empathy requires a defense, which you still have not given any objective reasoning. I don't know what's wrong with you, maybe you have just never learned how to think objectively. I am sorry if this is true.

Does you being evil and vile make sense to me? You wished me to feel pain, so yes, that makes absolute sense.

Relevance?

Done what, and is this relevant?

No it wasn't, it was you going off on an irrelevant tangent on the psychological aspects of empathy. You did not address the point of this exchange, so your issue with how I handled the 10 points is irrelevant regardless if you don't like my not addressing or otherwise. If you're going to keep going off on irrelevant matters, then I will ignore them and too bad if you don't like it, you're only wasting your time, and I certainly wont let you waste mine. Once again, irrelevant.

I am sure you do value truth. Now, truth, why does empathy require a defense?

Forgive and forget mean nothing to you? The past is irrelevant; though if you feel I wronged you and you forgave me then you're a hypocrite for bringing it up again, proving you didn't forgive and forget, but if there's no need for forgiveness, then bringing up the past is irrelevant all together.

Relevance?

I want you to tell me why empathy requires a defense. Stop complaining like a child, it is unbecoming.

An apology that is based on "If" or "May" is not an apology. Again, irrelevant.

Then verify it and provide relevance.

That is not an answer, and promotion is not defense.
Also, you said: "because some people make excuses to suppress empathy toward others." That is none of your business, and how dare you condemn their choice. What someone does with their feelings is their business and you have no right to pass any comment on them. That is despicable.

I am pretty sure that verse has to with having loved someone and lost them rather than having never loved someone and never suffering the pain. That has nothing to do with empathy or why it requires a defense, and since I love and am loved by someone, I wonder if you are being subliminally narcisstic. Again, irrelevant.

Perhaps you should answer the question, but since the only answers you've given were either subjective, irrelevant or condemning of the choices of others, I can only assume that you just can't explain away your title and your essay is contextually flawed.

You could just admit that the title is contextually wrong, I mean come on, you lose nothing and it would show that you are at least humble enough to admit a minute human error.

M.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-27 02:59:35 +0000 UTC]

Your response to me asking you not to dismiss what I write and then claim I never said it was for you to systematically dismiss everything I wrote as irrelevant and then again claim I never said what you dismissed. I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, ironic or mean, because you only went to this far of an extreme after I was so specific in saying I don't like it.

Look, you don't have to reply at all. In fact, if you're going to keep mocking and insulting me, I'd prefer you don't. You can ignore everything I say so long as you don't then claim I never said it and demand I repeat it or lie about it. That is a waste of both our time and we're not even really having a dialogue because of it. We have lives and loved ones and we should focus on those instead.

You will find all your concerns addressed in the "irrelevant" parts. It's time to move on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-27 03:51:57 +0000 UTC]

You went off on more subjective tangents than you did give information.
I asked you a question: Why does empathy require a defense, and you ranted on about compassion and understanding like you always do instead of answering the question like any decent individual would. Yet despite that, you have given me one answer and ignored my own answer when I replied to it and here we are now; and now you're complaining like a child when I asked for relevance to a lot of topics, only to receive no information but complaints that you're being insulted and mocked, not to mention you're running away in stead of standing your ground and giving simple, straight forward answers.
Your victim mentality is embarrassing, as is your behavior.

Let's be honest, empathy doesn't require a defense and you messed up when you wrote a thesis, gave it a title and tried to explain it away despite it being factually incorrect, and instead of admitting that you may have made error, tried to justify your mistakes rather than be a mature individual and acknowledge these errors. Absolutely disgraceful.

Proverbs 11:2 - When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to EmpathicDesign [2019-09-29 01:44:47 +0000 UTC]

I know you don't want to move on. I empathize with you feeling a need for an answer and that the essay and our conversation can be a lot to take in, especially if pressed for time. Maybe you really didn't feel like all the times I've answered so far were thorough enough and I know the essay is long. So, because of that empathy, I will do this. But, if I repeat myself one last time, will that be it? Will you please move on then?

I wouldn't even have to ask if this conversation hadn't gone how it did: First you claimed I didn't write about empathy and had it confused with sympathy and compassion, so I laid out the definitions and explained my position and it was obvious we both agreed on the definitions and were talking about the same things. But did you correct your false claim or apologize for mocking and insulting me for something that didn't even turn out to be true? No. Instead you moved onto claiming my position was guesswork and not based on any research. So, I laid out the research I did, found agreement and offered you to check it. Did you correct your false claim and apologize for mocking and insulting me for something that also didn't turn out to be true? No. You just moved on to claiming I don't really believe empathy needs a defense. And, if I continue to show why I believe it does, rather than acknowledge that false claim and apologize for mocking and insulting me for yet another thing that isn't true, will you just move onto another excuse to criticize my works while calling me names? I honestly don't know. And it strikes me as incredibly ironic that you'd say I'm too prideful because I'm supposedly the one who won't acknowledge when I'm wrong.

Listen, if you honestly believe I'm too vague, just ask for clarity. Don't mock and insult me and then dismiss everything I say while demanding so rudely and insultingly that I repeat it. Did I say you're not a "decent individual" or that you need to "do something thinking" and "maybe you have just never learned how to think objectively" when you presented your position? No. Did I call you a child, evil, vile, etc? No, of course not. And, when you find out you were wrong the whole time, why do you keep doing the same thing again? At this point, forget the apologies for before. Just stop doing it again and again.

Now, I'll try to be as clear as possible. I'll even try to make it personal so you can relate better to what I'm saying. You don't have to agree, but please don't keep mocking and insulting me and claiming I don't believe what I write once you finally realize I actually do mean what I say. Agreed?

First off, the counter to defense is offense. If I'm defending empathy, someone is at least being critical of it, right? Since you sometimes make response stamps, I'll use those as an example.

Someone made a stamp that argues against spanking, saying it is not an effective form of punishment. That is an offensive approach, criticizing spanking. You made a response stamp that defends spanking from the specific arguments against it and argues it's merits. That is a defensive approach. They criticize spanking and you defend it from that criticism. Pretty straightforward, right?

Likewise, you began this particular line of questioning by saying, "If you know of the implications that come from empathy then you would not argue a defense for it but against it." You went on to explain why I shouldn't argue a defense of empathy but against it. You took an offensive approach against empathy and I took a defensive approach for it. You quite literally laid out for me exactly why empathy needs a defense by taking the counter position.

I explained that I had already addressed that particular argument against being empathic (that empathy brings suffering and suffering should be avoided so therefore empathy should be avoided) already in the essay since other people criticize empathy the same way. I also covered that same argument against empathy many times in each reply after that too and defended empathy each time. So, not only did I argue a defense of empathy in the essay, but in this conversation too.

The same is true for your stamp that says "empathy sucks," in which you advocate against empathy because of pain. There's no denying the stamp "empathy sucks" is a criticism of empathy. You even go so far as to advocate limits to empathy, such as saying not to care what others think or feel, only what they do.

On the other hand, I defended empathy from those exact criticisms of yours, even specifically when empathy causes pain. You more than anyone else should know why I believe empathy needs a defense, as you yourself criticize it.

In fact, you countered my defense of empathy with saying that asking someone to emapathize with the victim of their own actions is evil. That is an anti-empathy stance that I defended against. Because, once again, people love to talk about how great empathy is in this grand altruistic way and go on about it's virtues in vague meaningless ways that help no one, but ask some of those same people to be emapathic just long enough that they stop hurting others and suddenly empathy is too painful and asking them to be emapathic is evil. All that altruism goes out the window once they are the ones facing empathy head on. That's why I defend it.

Look, I didn't ask you to empathize with me to be mean, but so you'd feel what it feels like when you treat me this way and feeling that would make you stop. Because, not empathizing with me is causing you to continue mocking and belittling me, ignoring what I say to claim I never said it, and outright lying to me.

And this goes beyond just being apathetic. For example, if I say I don't like something or something upsets me, like dismissing my words and then claiming I never said what you dismissed, you intentionally do exactly what I just said bothers me. It's the same with you intentionally disagreeing disrespectfully by saying I'm lying when I say we can disagree respectfully, or me saying not to question each other's faith and so that's exactly what you do in response. In so much of what you do to me, it's like you purposefully look for what will hurt or upset me and do that. You know how much my messages of love and empathy mean to me and yet you always come here to attack them and never once say anything positive. But, if you felt what it feels like from my perspective, I feel certain that your eyes would be opened and you'd stop.

I really don't enjoy telling you what you do. In fact, I find it upsetting and annoying that I have to. But I tried ignoring you and you always left more comments and I tried telling you to stop and each time you explicitly said you'd never stop commenting no matter how much I asked. Since you always come back no matter what I do, I have no choice but to try to make you at least treat me better.

Over the course of the time we've known each other, I've asked you to empathize many times and you've always been against it, while I've always defended it. But what you never acknowledge is the very specific way I ask for empathy from you: to empathize with those you mistreat.

I didn't ask you to pity others. No, as we saw when I pasted the definitions of both, that's tied to sympathy and compassion. Instead, I called for emapathy and reminded you how you felt when others treated you how you treat others, like reminding you of people who come to your page refusing to see your side or listen but just make up random insults against you and your works. I know it bothers you because you make call-outs mocking them afterwards, so you really just need to remember what it feels like for you in order to understand what it feels like for me.

I really sincerely believe that empathizing with how you treat others is the only way you'll learn and stop. And the same is true for how you treat me.

Think about it: If me asking you to emapathize with how you treat me is so evil because it means I'm asking you to feel pain, then what does that say about how you make me feel? Where did the pain come from that you'd feel because I feel it? That's right, you caused it. Empathizing in this situation will cause you pain because you caused that pain. I'm only asking you to experience what you do so you stop. If what you do causes pain, the solution isn't to avoid empathizing so you don't feel that pain you caused but to stop causing the pain in the first place.

Look, you regularly refer to human beings as trash, reducing their human value to disposable. You mock people's maturity by calling them a child and their intelligence by calling them dumb. If they value their faith, you mock that or tell them to keep quiet about it. If they value the lives of other species, you say you hope they don't like cats and dogs because you have "an adventurous stomach." And, if they're famous or someone you especially hate, you talk about ways they should die, how lucky they are not to have been aborted or what a waste of existence they are.

All I'm doing is trying to encourage people to be more loving, empathic, caring and just better to each other, and all you do is keep coming to my page to criticize my efforts and attack me with negativity, insults and lies. You want to know why I have to defend empathy? From people like you who are so against it in practice that you cause misery and suffering when I honestly believe that's not even what you want to do. It's just a natural consequence of closing yourself off from how your actions affect those you don't like just because you're afraid of feeling the pain you yourself cause.

How do I know it's not who you want to be? Because you're only this way with people you hold strong negative feelings toward. You don't make call-outs of everyone. You don't mock and insult the works of everyone. No, you can be nice and even encouraging. I've seen you try to empower others many times. You are polite and helpful to people you like. You are downright respectful if you like someone and never call them the names you call me. It's just those you dislike that you mock and insult. That's how I know it's possible for you to change. You have proven you can be empathic, kind and respectful.

According to science, especially in males, it's harder to empathize with people you don't like. So, maybe at some point we got off on the wrong foot and you can't stop seeing me this way. Maybe I need a better sense of humor. Maybe it's because I value truth so much that I can't stand intentional misinformation. Maybe I'm just too thorough in my explanations. I don't know, but I can't make you like me. So, if talking to me is so frustrating and I'm so bad at thinking and so evil, why do you keep starting conversations with me? I'm not the one coming to your page. You keep coming back to me, even after I've told you not to on a number of occasions. If I'm a frustrating person to talk to, why bother? Why keep coming back?

I think you'll find that the answer to why you're drawn here is tied very much to your desire to be empathic, understanding and compassionate. If you recall what I wrote early on in our conversation, I said "There's a lot I still don't get about you, but I want to." And maybe that's true for you too. You don't have to like me to be curious about me or what I believe. Maybe it's genuine curiosity. But if we are just causing each other frustration, something needs to change.

Because if nothing changes, we really need to move on.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

EmpathicDesign In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-09-30 07:21:41 +0000 UTC]

You know I don't want to move on? I am seeking an answer but you keep ranting on, so your statement is redundant and irrelevant.

There you again, off on a subjective tangent, bringing up the past and stewing in self victimization. I'm shaking my head. This is completely unnecessary, this could all be prevent if you gave an objective, coherent answer.

I have asked for clarity. I keep asking for relevance and for you to explain how empathy requires a defense; you don't explain, then you sink back into self victimization. Dude, just answer the question.

"Personal" means subjective. I am seeking objective information and will settle for nothing less.

OK, that's reasonable. Please tell me who has taken an offensive position against empathy.

Yes? I understand the differences between offensive and defensive, I am glad we are on the same page. Proceeding.

Incorrect. I took neither a defensive or offensive against your position, and certainly not against empathy.
An individual can believe they are defending something whilst actually attacking it, but that aside, I laid a clear foundation that empathy, though an act of compassion is not one that requires a defense, rather a precaution.
Empathy is a personal act, not an entity; and although it is a moral act it should not be put into a light of perfection as the implications of being empathetic can have emotional and psychological repercussions. This is neither offense nor defense, this is precaution. What you are confusing is not an offense against empathy at all, as I have not attacked empathy.

Incorrect again, you cannot defend empathy as it's a personal choice; you can defend an individuals choice to be empathetic or apathetic but the actions are immaterial. Your position is not defense of the action but the choice to act or not. Empathy ultimately comes down to the choice of the individual, and whatever choice is made is theirs and theirs alone and no one has the right to judge their choice. Period.

I have the right to complain if being empathetic bothers me or not, just the same as someone I empathize with can choose to condemn or condone me for empathizing with them; but that doesn't answer why empathy requires a defense.

I criticize the repercussions. The actions alone are immaterial. So tell me, why are you defending the action and not the choice?

What are you talking about? You're treating this too subjectively, but I will try to understand.
If someone commits an act of evil against someone, the are not going to empathize with them, nor if the actions were one of condemnation or correction. Period. You said: "people love to talk about how great empathy is in this grand altruistic way and go on about it's virtues in vague meaningless ways that help no one". That is because that is what empathy is and does. It's a personal choice to be empathetic and it is altruistic, this goes without saying, though I have never known anyone to have said what you recited so I will take you on your word that this was apparently uttered.

I am not interested in complaints. If you want to complain, find someone who will empathize with you, otherwise I request that you handle this exchange more objectively.

In other words, I am not answering your questions and concerns and this bothers you, ignoring the fact they're all together irrelevant in the first place. Seriously, grow up and handle this like an adult.

You're complaining again. Either be objective or stop bothering me with this needless childishness. I came here for an objective exchange, and you're complaining.. Unbelievable.

It clearly has not sunk in that demanding others to empathize, with you or others is a demand for them to experience pain; that is evil, and it seems you just cannot understand that. You speak of empathy, but you don't understand compassion, you don't have the common sense to understand that wanting someone to do something that causes pain is wrong. It is objectively, morally wrong, and you just don't get that. It is clear to me that you are not thinking rationally, either that or you want others to suffer, and that is of Satan and I will have none of that.

What is the relevance?

The fact that I came here to discuss this essay objectively and have received complaints shows that empathy is devoid in your corner. I am here to speak openly and objectively, if you're unable to do so, at least tell me now before wasting any more of my time.

Completely and utterly irrelevant. It doesn't matter if me of my sister upset you, it doesn't matter if it's one of your parents or a friend, the moment that you said that I or anyone else should empathize with you or anyone else, you are calling for someone to suffer, so your complaint is a selfish strawman. At the end of the day when this is done, you and you alone called for someone to suffer, to feel pain, to hurt, and that action regardless of the intent is evil. What you want is evil, and there is no way you can walk or talk your way around evil. Disgusting.

Relevance?

Has it occurred to you that you may not as altruistic as what you believe you are?

Relevance?

Relevance?

No, I came here to have an objective exchange. I would like to know how empathy requires a defense. If any defense is necessary, then it's to defend the choice to empathize with others, and this is by offering a warning for the potential repercussions of being empathetic. That is not defending empathy.

Change what? I simply seek objective information.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rogue-Ranger In reply to dokta-whawee [2019-06-27 23:19:59 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome and I'm glad what I wrote can help in some way.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rogue-Ranger In reply to LexieHiveMind [2019-06-18 03:40:53 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I'm glad you liked it. And I don't think you have to be be Christian to get the message.

Though, if you don't mind me asking, why aren't you Christian anymore? You don't have to answer. I'm just curious, as I seem to come across a lot of people that are ex-Christians.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

LexieHiveMind In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-06-18 05:30:13 +0000 UTC]

1.Not a fan of colonialism.The Abrahamic religions were all born of colonialism.

2.I`m a feminist although I wasn`t,always.The Abrahamic religions are packed with misogynistic doctrines.

3.I`m not a fan of sexual repression nor limiting human choice.

4.I`m kinda an anarchist,pansexual and of Jewish,Iberian,Celtic,Scandinavian,Ukrainian,North African,Middle Eastern,Central and Southeastern Asian and Greco-Roman descent. 

5.The Vatican gave refuge to Nazi war criminals in the name of anticommunism and no,the fact that The Nazis later stabbed them in the back doesn`t make it okay!Especially since even after the Nazis stabbed them in the back,they still gave the fuckers a free ride to Argentina to escape justice!Also,The Templars inspired The SS`s symbolism and tactics in the first fucking place!

6.There is no historical evidence of Jesus and even less of Jesus as he is described in The New Testament.

7.The letter j didn`t even exist back then!

8.If there was a Jesus,he would have looked more like this:images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/se… or This:images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/se… and Less like this:images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/se… Also,isn`t idolatry supposed to be against The Commandments?

9.The Abrahamic religions claim to be about truth and yet throughout history they have suppressed often violently facts and traditions going against their official and often comparatively modern Church dogmas!

10.The Bible is full of anti-Capitalist and anti-colonialist teachings yet televangelists conveniently ignore those parts!

11.Being on The Asperger`s Spectrum,having Jewish features and having Neo-Pagan and Valentinian Gnostic sympathies,if I were alive in The Middle Ages or Colonial Salem I probably would have been burned or hanged as a witch!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Rogue-Ranger In reply to Greatkingrat88 [2019-06-06 21:49:38 +0000 UTC]

Well, as I say in this, most people support the concept of empathy but struggle with the actual act of empathy and that's why I wrote this. The references to the Bible can be ignored if you want. That's just my personal belief and in the US where I live most people are Christian and so may also get something out of that part.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Greatkingrat88 In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-06-06 21:56:33 +0000 UTC]

I don't think that's true. Empathy is core to, and universal to all humanity. We empathize with each other naturally; it's having empathy for your people outside your in-group that's trickier.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to Greatkingrat88 [2019-06-06 22:26:54 +0000 UTC]

I agree with you here. Your reply is pretty much exactly what I wrote in the essay, so I guess my reply before this wasn't clear. Sorry about that.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Greatkingrat88 In reply to Rogue-Ranger [2019-06-06 22:55:31 +0000 UTC]

Well, your contention seemed to be that people aren't emphatic enough, though?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Rogue-Ranger In reply to Greatkingrat88 [2019-06-06 23:01:49 +0000 UTC]

It's that people are naturally empathic but suppress that empathy at times.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0