Empathy

[rambot]

No I'm saying the kinds of behaviors I'm describing are indulged in because of how it feels.

Physically yes....the senses. Not emotions (or often not)

They'll share that in that sentiment.

No they won't. I never have.....

But you think it's all okay because they do.

That is 100% incorrect.
Do you think empathic people have lost all sense of self? Sense of their own acceptable behaviour and decorum?

If you empathize with someone who tortures animals for fun, you share in their feelings about it.

LOL! Okay. This is actually really great.
I've worked with several kids who have tortured animals for fun (one of them had already convinced an FAS [fetal alcohol spectrum] kid to murder someone).
I can tell you RIGHT now the empaths do NOT share those kinds of emotions.


You seem to be confusing "emotions" and "feelings".

While you won't get into the practice yourself, you're okay with it and won't pass any judgement against it.

Well....that's a bit of an interesting observation. I'm hoping you'll let me explore that a bit.
Caveat 1: I would NEVER be "okay" with it. IT is always an abysmal and awful thing to do. And I would pass judgement on it...INTERNALLY if that led to a purpose (which I'll explore below).

A psychiatrist who has to work with a psychopath who DOES hurt animals would work to try to help him understand and get passed those feelings and any possible future feelings of killing humans that it may graduate to. A psychiatrist CANNOT do that if he's sitting there saying "You know that's an awful and evil thing to do right? Like, you are a bad person for doing that.".

Clinically you will get nowhere in taking that angle. You have to approach it from an angry of "Seek to understand". It's not hard to do that while still not accepting the behaviour or condemning it. It just means you would not condemn it to his face until there's some clinical movement and the clinicial would deem it appropriate.


But wow. Your understanding of empathy (leads you to have immoral sex, leads you to be okay with a psychopath killing people) is seriously misaligned with the experts. You will NOT find an expert on empathy who would argue ANY of these points your taking.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you think He shows or encourages empathy or sympathy?

Frankly, I don't remember. It's been a long time since I paid much attention to what he is alleged to have done or said.

 

[Sketcher]

A quote from Chuck Kirk.


Now I look at this quote and I get seriously confused. I cannot understand why a person would have a problem with empathy.

How would the Good Samaritan Help someone that thinks their terrible without it?

How can Jesus heal someone without it?

In my view, empathy connects us and allow people sympathy to flow more greatly. It creates stronger bonds between strangers.

So help me understand how and WHY empathy is bad.

To be fair to Mr. Kirk, he preferred "sympathy" to "empathy" when talking to people:

The abuse of the word "empathy" can be harmful, and the use of the word "sympathy" can be more honest.

Is it bad for me to genuinely have empathy for someone? I'd say it's good having come from a bad circumstance. At that time it has value, but for me to really have empathy, I would have had to have gone through what they did. I have sympathy for the Mormons in Grand Blanc. I don't want to have empathy for them because I don't want someone driving a vehicle through my church's front door, setting the church on fire, and shooting people I know and love. That shouldn't ever happen, not to my church, not to theirs.

 

[Servus]

Physically yes....the senses. Not emotions (or often not)

No they won't. I never have.....


That is 100% incorrect.
Do you think empathic people have lost all sense of self? Sense of their own acceptable behaviour and decorum?



LOL! Okay. This is actually really great.
I've worked with several kids who have tortured animals for fun (one of them had already convinced an FAS [fetal alcohol spectrum] kid to murder someone).
I can tell you RIGHT now the empaths do NOT share those kinds of emotions.


You seem to be confusing "emotions" and "feelings".

You're the one who said it's about feelings so that's what I went with.

Well....that's a bit of an interesting observation. I'm hoping you'll let me explore that a bit.
Caveat 1: I would NEVER be "okay" with it. IT is always an abysmal and awful thing to do. And I would pass judgement on it...INTERNALLY if that led to a purpose (which I'll explore below).

A psychiatrist who has to work with a psychopath who DOES hurt animals would work to try to help him understand and get passed those feelings and any possible future feelings of killing humans that it may graduate to. A psychiatrist CANNOT do that if he's sitting there saying "You know that's an awful and evil thing to do right? Like, you are a bad person for doing that.".

Clinically you will get nowhere in taking that angle. You have to approach it from an angry of "Seek to understand". It's not hard to do that while still not accepting the behaviour or condemning it. It just means you would not condemn it to his face until there's some clinical movement and the clinicial would deem it appropriate.


But wow. Your understanding of empathy (leads you to have immoral sex, leads you to be okay with a psychopath killing people) is seriously misaligned with the experts. You will NOT find an expert on empathy who would argue ANY of these points your taking.

The left goes on the most about empathy when it comes to embracing and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+. Especially when it comes things like males in female sports and children being taught about all the different genders they can be and giving them puberty blockers etc. They usually couple "empathy" with "judge ye not". It's all about acceptance of LGBTQQIP2SAA+ culture and ideology and mainstreaming it.

 

[rambot]

You're the one who said it's about feelings so that's what I went with.

The left goes on the most about empathy when it comes to embracing and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+. Especially when it comes things like males in female sports and children being taught about all the different genders they can be and giving them puberty blockers etc. They usually couple "empathy" with "judge ye not". It's all about acceptance of LGBTQQIP2SAA+ culture and ideology and mainstreaming it.

Meh bargle bargle...the left...They love their gay children...that makes them bad!

And that makes empathy evil!
Because empathy makes you less judgemental I suppose. I guess i
agree with you.

 

[Servus]

Meh bargle bargle...the left...They love their gay children...that makes them bad!

And that makes empathy evil!
Because empathy makes you less judgemental I suppose. I guess i
agree with you.

It's not a matter of gay children. It's about removing obstacles. If children are taught at a young age that there's this whole rainbow of genders and anything goes, future generations are going to be part of the LGBTQQIP2SA+ rainbow pride culture. Whether that means being trans, non-binary, pansexual, gender-fluid etc etc. Lots of young people have a long litinany of what they identify as. There's even a metaphysical aspect to it. As in "I'm a two-spirit non-binanay demi-sexual therian". The more colorful the better.

And if you're not on board with that, then you lack empathy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Could you expound upon this? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. Forgive me if you've already stated them in this thread... I haven't been paying attention.

There's really nothing to expand upon. I suppose from a certain limited angle, we could say that "compassion is a by-product of empathy" IF by that statement we merely mean that the act of caring can follow empathy. But conceptually and definitionally, compassion stands by itself because it's not simply doing something after feeling sorry for someone else. Compassion can actually be a thoughtful disposition towards others that already expects to encounter other people's pain and is determined to help them as much as possible when found. From this other angle of meaning, empathy is a nuance OF compassion and is already entailed by it.

Obviously, though, today's all so enlightened society can't get itself together because where ethics meets neuro-science, most people are so at odds with others and so disparate and discombobulated in their own attempt to find a coherent and consistent ethical position in life, healthy relationships and care are hard to come by. ........... and we're just left with "empathy" as a minor default request.

 

[Niels]

You're the one who said it's about feelings so that's what I went with.

The left goes on the most about empathy when it comes to embracing and promoting LGBTQQIP2SAA+. Especially when it comes things like males in female sports and children being taught about all the different genders they can be and giving them puberty blockers etc. They usually couple "empathy" with "judge ye not". It's all about acceptance of LGBTQQIP2SAA+ culture and ideology and mainstreaming it.

Perhaps, but attacking the concept of empathy comes across as unhinged. Explaining that empathy doesn't mean approval would be more accurate while also sounding less antisocial.

 

[Servus]

Perhaps, but attacking the concept of empathy comes across as unhinged. Explaining that empathy doesn't mean approval would be more accurate while also sounding less antisocial.

I'm pretty sure I've already explained that to the person I was replying to. In this case I was referring to "empathy" basically being used by some as a buzzword gimmick.

 

[zippy2006]

Empathy is pop psychology. It has to do with feeling what others feel, regardless of circumstance. It is the hallmark of a morally relativistic society. I don't know of any robust ethicists who promote empathy as centrally important. The correct answer to the question, "Should I have empathy?," is never simply, "Yes." It is always, "It depends on what is happening and what is ethically necessary."

The Biblical and ethical approach is sympathy or compassion, which involve an intellectual component.

The common example is that the empathetic person sees someone drowning in quicksand and jumps into to drown alongside them. The sympathetic person sees them drowning, recognizes their plight, and finds a constructive way to help. Note too that if "empathy" is utilized in order to effect some good end, then it is already something more than feeling what others feel; it is already something more than empathy.

Empathy has become popular in pop psychology because there is a lot of unnoticed loneliness and/or suffering, and there is a desire for this to be noticed. That's an interesting emotional fact, but it isn't grounds for anything like a robust ethics.

See also: "Empathy, feminism, and the church..."

 

[Yarddog]

A quote from Chuck Kirk.


Now I look at this quote and I get seriously confused. I cannot understand why a person would have a problem with empathy.

How would the Good Samaritan Help someone that thinks their terrible without it?

How can Jesus heal someone without it?

In my view, empathy connects us and allow people sympathy to flow more greatly. It creates stronger bonds between strangers.

So help me understand how and WHY empathy is bad.

There is nothing bad about empathy.

 

[rambot]

It's not a matter of gay children. It's about removing obstacles. If children are taught at a young age that there's this whole rainbow of genders and anything goes, future generations are going to be part of the LGBTQQIP2SA+ rainbow pride culture. Whether that means being trans, non-binary, pansexual, gender-fluid etc etc. Lots of young people have a long litinany of what they identify as. There's even a metaphysical aspect to it. As in "I'm a two-spirit non-binanay demi-sexual therian". The more colorful the better.

And if you're not on board with that, then you lack empathy.

You're still equating a sexual orientation (or "support of a sexual orientation" with an emotion.

That's incorrect.

 

[Servus]

You're still equating a sexual orientation (or "support of a sexual orientation" with an emotion.

That's incorrect.

I'm spelling out that "empathy" and "radical empathy" as it's being used by the left is really a euphemism for cooperation and support of certain ideologies and practices. Towards whatever group that has managed to get itself onto the list of victims in need of progressive advocacy.

 

[rambot]

I'm spelling out that "empathy" and "radical empathy" as it's being used by the left is really a euphemism for cooperation and support.

That doesn't preclude you from participating in empathy

 

[Servus]

That doesn't preclude you from participating in empathy

Participating in euphemistic "empathy" means cooperating with and supporting certain practices, ideologies, and agendas. Towards whatever group that has managed to get itself onto the list of victims in need of progressive liberal advocacy. Might as well have empathy for the devil who misleads Christians in this manner.

 

[rambot]

Participating in euphemistic "empathy" means cooperating with and supporting certain practices, ideologies, and agendas. Towards whatever group that has managed to get itself onto the list of victims in need of progressive liberal advocacy. Might as well have empathy for the devil who misleads Christians in this manner.

View attachment 370917

What about "weaping with those who weap and mourning with those who mourn"?

An AI generated picture like this is just dumb. That a topic like empathy gets co-opted into an evil shows how scared some people are of the world.

 

[Servus]

What about "weaping with those who weap and mourning with those who mourn"?

An AI generated picture like this is just dumb. That a topic like empathy gets co-opted into an evil shows how scared some people are of the world.

Those of the world are being deceived. That's why they unwittingly use scripture to promulgate the advocacy of sin and immorality. Satan uses God's words to persuade them, just like he did with with Eve and tried to do with Jesus. It's not a matter of being scared of the world, it's a matter of resisting the world, especially the prince of the world. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

 

[Servus]

There is nothing bad about empathy.

It's not really about actual empathy. It's really about capitulating to the leftist woke agenda. They just replaced "woke" with "empathy", because "woke" was co-opted as a pejorative for their agenda.

 

[Yarddog]

It's not really about actual empathy. It's really about capitulating to the leftist woke agenda. They just replaced "woke" with "empathy", since "woke" became a pejorative for their agenda.

Being "woke" has always been about an awareness of social justice until right wingers started adding things that they didn't like onto top of that. It is our place, as Christians, to express compassion for those being unfairly treated. Empathy and compassion are the same thing.

 

[Servus]

Being "woke" has always been about an awareness of social justice until right wingers started adding things that they didn't like onto top of that. It is our place, as Christians, to express compassion for those being unfairly treated. Empathy and compassion are the same thing.

Nope, the radical left way over expanded the scope of "woke" because they always go overboard. When the public recognized "woke" for what it had become, "woke" took on a new meaning that wasn't in their favor. So the radical left being a clever bunch, switched out the word "woke" with the word "empathy". What the radical left wants is for Christians to advocate radical worldly ideology and agendas that are ultimately dictated by the prince of this world.