I am not excusing it. Liberals are very angry about the lax attitudes about the banking industry. The huffington post has started a campaign for people to start moving money out of big banks.
Well it's not exactly a reason either. And the huffington post isn't the first organization to do this sort of thing recently. Some righties down in texas started that about a year ago. Not that I subscribe to that left/right nonsesense...it's too devisive, in my opinion.
You sound like an agnostic to me, unsure about who is right and not wishing to offend either side. The truth is always offensive to someone and if you're on the side of truth you're going to have to take the position that what some others say is untrue. The difference between democrats and independents is that independents don't want to acknowledge how wrong the right wing is about pretty much everything.
I'm not unsure about anything. I simply believe on focusing on the issues instead of taking one side and blaming the other for everything that goes wrong.
But if you'd like to keep bickering about how republicans are responsible for this or that, go ahead. When they have the majority again, they'll do it to you too.
But if we keep taking sides, it's only a matter of time before we won't be able to call it a union any more.
A Great Public Service? A PUBLIC SERVICE? I just want to make sure I heard that right.
Oliver Stone isn't doing anybody any public services, he's a sensational film maker making outrageous films. It's what he does. He'll make a ton of money. I don't think he's trying to accomplish any capital "G" Good with his movies. I just don't believe it.
Last time I heard no one was resurrecting Alinsky except the conservatives. Why is that? We have yet to crucify your savior, Reagan, but we're working on it.
What is that some kind of clever comeback? Alinsky had sway when kids were being drafted to die in Vietnam. What ever happened to all those dominoes that were going to collapse and take the free world with it? Assholes just wanted to make money blowing things up. Reagan has done more damage to US than some puny third world country with a corrupt government.
Reagan threw away Carter's plan for energy independence and made a sweetheart deal with the corrupt Saudis. There is every reason to believe that Reagan made covert deals with the Iranians for the release of the hostages, which is pretty strong grounds for treason. Only in your world would you lionize CRIMINALS.
What you people here are confusing is that you do not necessarily have to empathize with someone to understand how he/she came to power. For example, I can see that Person A is paranoid because, for example, he had an insecure childhood or experienced an assasination attempt, but here I am not getting into his shoes to understand. The facts, coupled with everyone's unique personality, mostly speak for themselves.
1. You can understand how Hitler rose to power without having to empathize with him. All you have to do is go over his life records and do the brainwork.
2. You cannot explain Hitler's almost magical speaking ability by empathizing with him.
3. If you read E.H.Carr's "What is History?", you shall see that understanding the context in which dictators arose is more important than trying to understand the dictator himself.
thanks for this commentary. it drives me insane how often sympathy and empathy are confused with each other. sadly empathy became a talking point and politicized word because of Obama's thoughts on what he was looking for in a supreme court justice. Empathy has become a pejorative for those that somehow feel victimized by affirmative action and welfare.
you make an excellent point. judging by the oliver stone comments in htww's video, a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between empathy and sympathy. and judging his video, i doubt if mr. doren knows the difference either. assuming that he does, i guess this is just another case of him intentionally attempting to mislead his subscribers.
Oliver Stone said that he thoroughly despises these dictators. He was not equivocal about that.
He does not want to make heroes out of war criminals and mass murderers, he wants to understand what made them monsters.
He'll explore the environments, causes and effects that led to world wars. It's important to comprehend the past so that the same mistakes are not repeated again and again.
@ConservativeResponse, you obviously see no value in a documentary that seeks to understand brutal dictators. The realities is that such documentaries and books are churned out by the dozens every year, meaning there is value at least from a marketing perspective.
You say "Are you kidding me?", No. Why do you thing the League of Nations, NATO, NORAD, alliances, etc, etc were created? Have you been living under a rock?
Yes, the third rock on the left near the old oak tree.
You are opening a much larger can that quite frankly, I have little desire to discuss. I think the League of Nations, the UN, NATO, etc. are ridiculous and any global governance is a sham.
Understanding what makes someone a psycho is not empathy. Empathy has more to do with emotion than you are giving creedance. Why call it empathy? Call it analysis, call it in depth study...
@ConservativeResponse, "ridiculous and any global governance is a sham". Ever heard of "The Allies" and WW2? Or a little policing NATO action in Korea? Could go on.If it weren't for hundreds of years of "shames" you might not be here debating nuiances.
A terrorist blows himself up. You have no sympathy for their fate, but could have empathy as to why they did it, and yet disagree with their action.
Of course I get it, but have no desire to empathize with a suicide bomber. Empathizing would mean I would care about their perspective, which I don't.
I would, however, have no issue with analyzing the situation and understanding the reasoning without any emotional involvement.
I know you hate that I've brought the emotional element into the discussion. It destroys your credibility.
Correction, you "have no desire to" SYMPATHIZE (not empathize) with a bomber.
You can empathize with the fact that the bomber was brainwashed into martydom since he was an infant, and that he wanted revenge for innocent family/friends killed in the cross fire.
Empathy doesn't mean you agree with the bombing, only that you can see things from their point of view with or without emotion.
Perhaps it is you that is confused. I will not have an emotional connection of any sort with a suicide bomber. Maybe you can emotionally put yourself in their shoes and say, "Oh I understand. Your parents hate you, they were radicals, so I can feel your pain."
I cannot. You can't have empathy without emotion or an emotional connection. Once you admit that, your arguement is moot.
@ConservativeResponse, oh really? OK you've just learnt that that bomber was not a radical, they were a kidnapped muslim and had the bomb installed on them and told to go somewhere or their entire family would be murdered.
@ConservativeResponse, sorry bad intel, the bomber was a radical brainwashed to martyrdoom for 2 decades, wanted to avenge his family/friends and volunteered.
Bet you have no sympathy for their plight.
Do you have empathy for how they were trained for the job since being a toddler?
@ConservativeResponse, the is not a specific case I personally experienced in Iraq/Afghanistan. Obviously "bad intel" is meant to note the example has been switch around.
You've been cornered, hike up your skirt and answer yes/no to the three questions:
The bomber has 2 decades (since being a toddler) of martyrdom indoctrination, wants to avenge his family/friends and volunteered.
@ConservativeResponse, had to nudge you in a couple of PMs to reply back. Thanks for doing so.
Your answers regarding a bomber:
Do you have sympathy for them? No.
Do you have empathy for them? No.
Is there emotion with your empathy? No.
The first "no" is understandable.
"Going with" the other "no"s is telling.
The "lack of empathy" wikipedia[.]org/wiki/Sociopath and in your case the complete inability to see things from another's perspective is the "hallmark" of a psychopath.
@ConservativeResponse, you said you're "not smart enough to see where [I am] going". Must be painfully obvious now.
Didn't judge, you admitted, big difference.
An inability to extend empathy is a hallmark of a psycopath. Nothing to be ashamed of. About 1% of the population are psychopaths and an insignificant number of those become serial killers.
Discussing empathy further with you would be like explaining colors to a person born blind.
The inability to define a simple term and understand a meaning is idiocy. It's ok, most people are idiots and only a small percentage go on to be morons.
@ConservativeResponse, the inability to extend empathy is not idiocy but psychopathy.
You say "most people are idiots and only a small percentage go on to be morons".
You've just pwned yourself. Psychopaths typically have a "Grandiose sense of self-worth" and you can't get much bigger then declaring "most people are idiots" or denigrating large groups. Combine that with your "callous/lack of empathy".
You need to move on, as you've long since become a liability for HTWW's position.
Wow, you repeated yourself. Must be serious. I'm sure HTWW is confident enough in his position not to be worried about my "grandiose" ones. I'm not fighting his battles or speaking for him.
I was here because I think John is a pompous ingnorant liberal with a lack of perspective on reality. If you look back through his vids, I've posted previous to HTWW's response.
As for your claims, if they actually relied on more than your opinion, they might have merit.....
I only answered your questions because I knew you were trying to set an example. And again, I was correct. And again, you were wrong and continue showing your own ignorance. I would empathize with you, but I've never been that ignorant.
@ConservativeResponse, Having been backed into a corner, you didn't want to answer those 3 yes/no questions. You only did so because I called you out in two PMs.
You say "I knew you were trying to set an example". LOL! It's not a prediction when you make it after the fact.
Your last two sentences are nonsensical opinionated ramblings.
As for your other post, you've admitted (not my opinion) to 2 telling traits and were provided a link.
"Because I'm not smart enough to see where you are going with this question..." was blatantly sarcastic. I led, you followed. You couldn't wait to peg me by the way I answered your leading question. I could not care any less what you think of me. You and criscoballs can play liberal hide and seek all day on youtube. It doesn't make you right, clever, interesting, or important.
Yeah, in your world ZZ I guess I don't know the difference. And you're so right. Calling me out in those Private Messages makes you a genious of Barack Obama proportion.
Give me a break. You couldn't be twisting your arm fast enough to pat yourself on the back for setting up a series of bogus questions any moron could see coming a mile away and then jumping on the answers like you know what you're talking about.
@ConservativeResponse, my "world" as opposed to "your world"? The world doesn't revolve around anyone including you.
Calling you out in 2 PM's to take a second and respond to a few yes/no questions here is a fact. Accept it.
"Any moron" knows that answers would change the direction of the dialog. No prediction there. Declaring after the fact that you predicted that direction is asinine.
Don't need to pat anyone on the back. You weren't a debating challenge.
The world is as you see it... how can someone so wrong, see the world for what it really is?
You could have posted and I would have responded. The fact that you private messaged me shows that you're a sneaky coward afraid to actually put it out there. Accept that.
So be it in the world according to ZangaroZen.
No one can challenge you, nor would anyone bother. Your tactics are shady, second rate, and senseless.
And you still don't understand what empathy means to boot.
@ConservativeResponse, sent you another post, while you were replying back to this one.
Not anyone's world but a perspective, as in being able to step into someone's perspective is empathy. Thinking the world/everyone revolves around them is a psychopath trait.
You lie.
Posted the questions here first. You ignored them. I sent you a PM the next day. You replied saying you ignore repeat questions. I PMed again saying they weren't. Then you replied.
Stepping into someone else's world and understanding their perspective requires an emotional connection or emotional understanding of a similar experience.
Impossible to do for Stalin and Hitler unless you have walked in their shoes with a similar experience.
A psychiatrist does not need an "emotional connection" or "similar experiences" to treat a patient. Empathy however does help.
Replying to your second paragraph:
You say "impossible to do for Stalin and Hitler unless you have walked in their shoes with a similar experience". Go to amazon type in "Hitler" or "Stalin". Each result is an example that proves you wrong.
So writing a book on Hitler or Stalin means you can empathize with them?
Really?
One feels empathy when one has "been there" and sympathy when one hasn't. Whatever you say. All I know is that I'm glad I'm not a liberal. You guys are not only out there... but just clueless.
@ConservativeResponse, you said "Impossible to do for Stalin and Hitler unless you have walked in their shoes with a similar experience". LOL.
Very much doubt 99.9% of authors and film makers who've created works on Hitler/Stalin "walked in their shoes with a similar experience" and yet they offer "understanding [of] their perspective" without "an emotional connection or emotional understanding of a similar experience".
Yes... and as frustrating as it is to talk to you because of your sheer mental density, that just means they analyzed. No one, except for you is saying there is any EMPATHY there.
@ConservativeResponse, as shown in my other post, clearly psychiatrists, authors and filmmakers don't meet your critieria while successfully performing their work.
Writing a decent biography means perspective event without emotional involment or first hand experience. It could express empathy without sympathy or agreement. Clear? Probably not.
As for being a liberal or not, that's not relevant. If you must know (again) I didn't vote for Obama, and I'm a gun collector.
@ConservativeResponse, since you won't let go, please review 0:34-0:45 of this video. J0hnWi11iams contrast is an accurate one.
"The 2 are very different. OK? Empathize see how someone came to a set of conclusions. Sympathize adopt that set of conclusions. Do you see how they are different?"
If your up for it, modify the above few sentences in a way that's just as clear, non-circular, and without nuiances, so that they conform to what you think is correct.
Sympathy and empathy are separate terms with some very important distinctions. Sympathy and empathy are both acts of feeling, but with sympathy you feel for the person; you're sorry for them or pity them, but you don't specifically understand what they're feeling. Sometimes we're left with little choice but to feel sympathetic because we really cant understand the plight or predicament of someone else. It takes imagination, work, or possibly a similar experience to get to empathy.
They don't need modified, they need re-written. What you ask is impossible without almost completely overhauling the statement because it is inaccurate.
So according to you, human history has never corrected an "inaccurate" statement before.
J0hnWi11iam's comparison at 0:34-0:47 is clear and concise. If you feel it's inacurate then correct those few sentences in a clear and concise manner. This should be trivial for you, just a matter of correcting an "Inaccuracy" word here and adding a word there.
@ConservativeResponse, you say "human history has NEVER corrected an "inaccurate" statement... in a clear, non-circular and without nuiances". Obviously you're a die hard fan of HTWW bold statements.
Yeah, like anything I say, clear or not, you're going to agree with.
Are you kidding me? Like this has everything to do with my loyalty to HTWW. How about the truth. How about calling someone out when they spout half truths? Give me a break.
@ConservativeResponse, your "loyalty to HTWW". That's not an issue. Noting that you also make very bold sweeping statements about how the world works, just like HTWW does, is an observation on your close mindedness.
@ConservativeResponse, your defense of bold sweeping black and white statements is adament. That's not an assumption but your reality.
If Oliver Stone is not qualified to use "empathy" (by your definition) then the issue you/HTWW has is with an "improperly" used word and advocating a clarification (say substituting "understand"), but instead you denigrate Stone.
Based on your personal "empathy" definition, the word should be rarely if ever used which is clearly not reality.
I'm not really sure if you get it... This isn't about being qualified. This is about using a way of emotional connection with someone that murdered thousands of people. You assume that it harmlessly means to understand someone or step into their shoes (which is contextually incorrect). Or you just simply think it's ok to emotionally connect with mass murderers. And yes, Stone deserves denigration regardless of his latest liberal outburst.
@ConservativeResponse, you may "not really [be] sure [I] get it", but I'm sure you don't get it.
Sympathy implies shared emotion/feelings, empathy does not.
A psychiatrist's empathy for a convict, say due to their troubled youth, does not imply agreement, condonement, support, sympathy, etc.
By your own definition, Stone is not qualified to use the word "empathy" and as such that should be your sole focus, and by implication disagreement with HTWW's rant.
Sympathy doesn't rely on shared emotion. You can feel sympathy or pity for someone without sharing the same emotion. Hence a small flaw in your arguement.
I find the "but I'm sure you don't get it." a rather bold and arrogant statement for someone who is pointing an awfully big finger.
@ConservativeResponse, it's not sanitary to put words in someone else's mouth. Very "Weak" kneed.
Didn't say "rely on shared emotion", did say "implies shared emotion/feelings", unlike empathy.
You may find it "rather bold and arrogant statement" to conclude you still don't get it, but the reality is this has been a long dialog and your own reply proves the point.
Like HTWW you seem incapable of conceeding a painfully obvious debating defeat.
You are right, you said implies, not relies. Which means you're still wrong, just about a different aspect of your argument. Sympathy implies that you might feel bad for the person, but doesn't imply an emotional connection.
I would be happy to concede my point if I were wrong which certainly is more than I can say for you because you continue to be wrong.
You say "you might FEEL bad [or say depressed] for the person" while not necessarily having "an emtional connection". The reserve is also true. Sharing an "EMOTION connection" (say your father died too but years ago) and can sympathize on that common basis while not sharing the other's feeling of depression.
Do you realize emotion is a broad term for feelings, sorrow, fear, anger etc?
@ConservativeResponse, is this your final position summary? To unilaterally declare (3 times) that you're right and everyone else in the blog is wrong. LOL
I didn't vote for Obama, and am not a fan, remember? Answered your question 3 times now.
Declaring a political leaning by itself has no weight in a dialog other then prove you've got nothing left to counter with.
Now you're wanting a postcard from the real world to your delusional one.
After defending my position over and over again throughout this long (and painful) dialogue, you sum it up with asking me if I have an education and I'm the one who is delusional?
You're just going to have to do better ZZ. The insults, the shifting, the ignorning of facts... it doesn't do it for me.
There was no confusion of empathy with sympathy (not that it's really the overall point anyway). This is about John's boner for Conservatives.
@ConservativeResponse, you didn't address any points in my last post, but rather rambled on with more unilateral statements and opinionated nonsense.
Confusing sympathy with empathy is one thing. Confusing imply and rely is far more basic.
Sorry you feel reality and facts are insulting.
Don't consider your opinions as fact.
Now you're running for cover declaring "This is about John's boner for Conservatives". Lame. Take it up with John, or consult HTWW on what he wants you to think.
@ConservativeResponse, the dialog was on, sympathy versus empathy, imply versus rely. Basic English not a last second lame loser excuse regarding J0hnWi11iams' politics.
Unilaterally declaring J0hnWi11iams as "clueless" is irony lost on you.
Sure run for cover behind your opinions and unrelated nonsense, and have some more of HTWW's koolaid while you're there.
No one needs to stand on their head or send you a PM to have a "good laugh" at you.
Thin... very thin. The fact that you continue to drone on about things that you're not only wrong about, but only graze the surface of reality make you sound like a lunatic.
I'm not running for cover, just exhausted with your lack of comprehension skills. I could explain this to my 10 year old nephew and he'd get it faster.
Your lack of exhaustion is clearly evident here in your continued posting. Repeating pet arguments to others is not an indication of debating skill, but of a pwned sore loser.
Uncle is not doing his 10 year nephew any favors by filling his young impressionable trusting mind, with his baseless views.
Return to HTWW's bossom. He'll welcome you/your personal opinions as long as they continue to align with his fantasy world.
It's a prediction if you knew it was going to happen and it did. Just because I didn't say, "You're going to say..." before (which would have kept you from saying it anyway) doesn't mean I didn't know how you'd respond. I can live with the truth even if you can't.
I don't care if you voted Obama or not. There were moderates who did and I'm sure a few liberals that didn't. One does not rely or imply the other... right?
@ConservativeResponse, first sympathy vs empath, then reply vs imply, and now predict vs.indict. Predict comes before (pre means before), indict comes after.
You speak only one language yet your understanding is extremely poor.
Next you'll predict there was a major earthquake in Haiti.
Your after the fact predictions may fool your 10 year old nephew, but otherwise you're not trustworthy.
Your politics is not relevent to the dialog. Nothing more then your excuse to run for cover.
The only relavant arguement her eis sympathy vs. empathy which you lost.
The others are simply your way to smoke screen your own ineptitude.
I didn't realize that this was a biligual required conversation. But nice try with the subtle insult.
I can only predict the idiocy of a youtube poster. My intellectual prowess only goes so far... sorry, but nice try again with a weak attempt at an insult.
I just don't think you get it... which comes to no surprise.
@ConservativeResponse, if the relevant issue is sympathy vs empathy (ignoring rely vs imply and predict vs indict) then why are you continually running for cover behind political accusations, etc. Be a man, conceed defeat.
OK you win arguments all the time with your 10 year old nephew. Congratulations.
Who mentioned bilingual? Fact is a uniligual person such as yourself should have a better command of the English language.
I haven't talked politics, that's your smoke screen tactic.
Be a man, conceed defeat... heh.... silly statement. I would be happy to admit that I was wrong if I was wrong. (As I did in my last post that my politics have nothing to do with this conversation directly).
Irrelevant.
You brought up speaking one language, which you really don't know if I speak 1, 2, or 7 languages. It was simply a subtle way to throw a shot out on me. I get it.
Ah, bringing John & HTWW into the conversation gives it political undertones...
@ConservativeResponse, on political relevance you said "I agree, mine aren't", implying only other people run for cover behind politics. Fact is you continually accuse anyone that knows the difference between sympathy and empathy as being a wrong liberal.
Never expected you to be a man and admit being wrong on sympath/empathy, rely/imply, and predict/indict. We both know you're only fooling yourself.
The multi-lingual query allowed you an out for your ignorance, nothing more.
Well if you want to keep this arguement boiled to its simplest form, you failed to understand the real definitions of empathy and sympathy based on my posts days ago.
What more would you like me to say? I'm holding all insults at this point because quite frankly you are nothing more than a simple amusement at this point. When a better, more interesting conversation comes along, I'm sure this will just go away.
Until then I suppose I will await your pathetic, redundant response.
More stubstance than an atheist by the name of "Hellsadvocate"? Really? I would say that's substantial especially to those who believe hell actually exists.
So you thinking I'm pathetic is suppose to be hurtful? Not likely.
Touchy on the hair deal aren't you? It does a good job covering up your chub. Maybe you shouldn't cut it.
I'm sorry that now "conservative" is another word for "intolerant".
I'm sure you perfectly got what I meant as well as what Oliver Stone meant. It is so easy to take comments out of context in order to beat up people who you disagree with and the internet is the perfect place to play that game. People like you make me fear for America.
The entire problem with the arguement which starts with John is the use of the word empathy. You can investigate, research, analyze, and speculate why a dictator is a what he is, but empathize adds emotion to the equation. Once you add emotion, you disconnect anyone who is "normal". I guess it makes sense why the left doesn't see anything wrong with "empathizing" with mass murderers.
fair enough... allow to ask a different question in regards to ron paul. what do you think of the comment he made during the republican debates, when he said: "we need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us." this was in response to a question on why he felt we were attacked on 9/11. you don't don't see that response as being the least bit empathetic?
Looking from someone else's perspective only works if you truly understand where they are coming from. That requires an emotional connection of "feeling their pain".
This video is John simply pointing out what he believes as an error between sympathy and empathy.
I say you can't sympathize or empathize with psychotics, only analyze.
It's simply impossible to create an emotional connection with people that have a different belief system altogether.
you're making a number of assumptions. first off, i'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that these people are/were psychotic. are you simply being dismissive because you are unable to understand them, or is this based on an in-depth psychoanalysis?
also, you seem to contradict your "psycotic" argument by attributing the evils of people like hitler, stalin, mao, and the 9/11 hijackers to what you cite as "a different belief system", i.e. another religion. so which is it? are is it a mental disorder or is their religion?
for the record, hitler was a catholic, i believe stalin and mao were atheists, and the 9/11 hijackers were muslims. now, i agree, some people are just plain evil, and they will do whatever they want without care. in other words, they are psychotic. however, before one can arrive at such a conclusion, we must ask ourselves why?
if you're asking yourself without empathizing (putting yourself in that person's position), you not doing much good. and empathizing does not mean you have to be emotionally connected to that person. if you believe that hitler was psychotic and that his reason for the holocaust, then you are empathizing with him. you've put yourself in the position of a psychotic person and determined that you don't need a reason for killing.
That's just not accurate. Empathizing is exactly the understanding of how someone felt. Maybe you need to re-read the definition of empathize.
Not being able to make some justification for a murderers actions does not make you the bad guy... or at least not in my world. You can justify by empathizing with Hitler if you like. Not my deal.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
no where in that definition does it say an emotional connection is necessary. perhaps you can point me to the dictionary you're getting your definition from.
Identifying oneself completely with an object or person, sometimes even to the point of responding physically, as when, watching a baseball player swing at a pitch, one feels one's own muscles flex.
in this example, let's say the baseball player is either psychotic or someone of a different religion than you. is it necessary in knowing either of those, in order to empathize with the baseball player?
the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.
once again, i fail to see where you draw the conclusion that empathy requires an emotional connection, or more correctly, the sort of emotional connection you believe is necessary for empathy.
well, consider ron paul's response which i pointed you to earlier. you don't feel that gives you a better understanding of the 9/11 attacks than the idea that "they hate us for our freedom"?
but perhaps "better understanding" is a poor choice of words. how about in stead i say, "a more plausible explanation for why some people do certain things"?
And again, I simply ask, will it make you feel better to know that certain Muslims brainwash other Muslims into believing that killing infidels will get them into heaven?
How about if they attacked us for retribution for our presence in the Middle East?
Do you think we can negotiate peace through empathizing with them?
i think if you what you're dealing with, you know how to better prepare yourself. if we're dealing with brainwashed muslims, then we should handle them as such. if we're dealing with people who are angered at the same things we would be angered at, then we should take that into consideration as well.
I think we do know as much as we can. But I also think we are arrogant and assume because we can logically deduce certain aspects of the Muslim culture and historical reference that we can simply empathize (using an emotional connection) and better understand something we can't connect with or comprehend.
Just like I don't think they can comprehend what real freedom is.
if that explanation gives us a better understanding on how to deal with who we're up against in war, then yes, it will make me feel better. i will feel a lot better knowing that we're working towards a solution to a problem, rather than doing the same dumb things over and over again.
You assume that there is a logical solution, much like our President.
You can't use Western Logic to understand Muslim thinking. And you can't truly empathize with a people that have a totally different culture and thought process.
that's a racist statement. you're assuming that all muslims are inherently terrorists. it's no wonder with a mentality like that, that we have so many problems in dealing with them.
I guess the word radical should be inserted there to make clear what I'm saying. But I'm sure you're looking for a crack anyway.
Assume what you will. The reality is that you can't empathize without an emotional connection or an attempt to make an emotional outreach. Making one to a mass murdered is an impossibility and is insanity simply as the notion to do so. You must be insane to understand insanity.
"The reality is that you can't empathize without an emotional connection"
that is your own opinion, and it is one not based in reality. you haven't provided any evidence of such a claim, other than a dictionary definition, which did little to nothing to back your premise.
You're right. The definitions that I posted didn't support that.
You are in denial if you don't think empathy has anything to do with connecting on an emotional level. You have made no arguement that has undefined the word either. So we agree to disagree.
i think you're very vague in what you mean by "emotional connection". on one hand, i think we, as humans, share an emotional connection with every other human on this planet. now, what it seems you're implying that is necessary for empathy, is a much deeper emotional connection, and that, i do not agree with. but you're not going to see things my way, i probably won't see things your way. so yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Wow... you really don't want to admit that you might be wrong here. It's painful watching you flounder through some of these posts.
Here's some empathy for you. My cat just died. Maybe you have a cat or have had a pet in the past. You say, I'm sorry man, I understand how you feel. I love my cat too. Ta da! Empathy.
wrong. here's the def. of sympathy. it pretty much refutes what you just said:
1 a : an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other b : mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it c : unity or harmony in action or effect 2 a : inclination to think or feel alike : emotional or intellectual accord b : feeling of loyalty : tendency to favor or support
Ah... a breakthrough. So now you would need to empathize with me in order to understand those reasons at a deeper level. You say they are not valid, but how do you know they are not valid? Maybe if you got to know me better, or tried to think like I do that killing my cat was the right call.
Or maybe... just maybe, I was wrong. Killing my cat was wrong and I'm a little nuts for doing it. Maybe I had no good reason at all. Hmmmm... the plot thickens.
@cristoballs Sympathy and empathy are separate terms with some very important distinctions. Sympathy and empathy are both acts of feeling, but with sympathy you feel for the person; youre sorry for them or pity them, but you dont specifically understand what theyre feeling. Sometimes were left with little choice but to feel sympathetic because we really cant understand the plight or predicament of someone else. It takes imagination, work, or possibly a similar experience to get to empathy.
that's only part of the definition. you're only reading the part of the definition that agrees with your position, when the whole def. is much broader.
sweet vid brah
TannorBaker 1 year ago
If that's what this movie is about, then it should be interesting what happens when people who still support obama see this moving.
I wonder what they'll do when they realize that mao (figuritively) has become president of the united states...
romeosevendelta 2 years ago
My opinion is that Obama has trusted many of the wrong people, particularly in the banking industry and the military.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
That excuse sounds familiar...
romeosevendelta 2 years ago
I am not excusing it. Liberals are very angry about the lax attitudes about the banking industry. The huffington post has started a campaign for people to start moving money out of big banks.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Well it's not exactly a reason either. And the huffington post isn't the first organization to do this sort of thing recently. Some righties down in texas started that about a year ago. Not that I subscribe to that left/right nonsesense...it's too devisive, in my opinion.
romeosevendelta 2 years ago
You sound like an agnostic to me, unsure about who is right and not wishing to offend either side. The truth is always offensive to someone and if you're on the side of truth you're going to have to take the position that what some others say is untrue. The difference between democrats and independents is that independents don't want to acknowledge how wrong the right wing is about pretty much everything.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
I'm not unsure about anything. I simply believe on focusing on the issues instead of taking one side and blaming the other for everything that goes wrong.
But if you'd like to keep bickering about how republicans are responsible for this or that, go ahead. When they have the majority again, they'll do it to you too.
But if we keep taking sides, it's only a matter of time before we won't be able to call it a union any more.
romeosevendelta 2 years ago
It sounds to me that you have more in common with Obama than I do. I wonder if he is wasting too much time hoping republicans will change.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Again, blaming one side of the house isn't going to help anything but widen the divide.
And I'm nothing like obama.
I do what I say and i'm a terrible public speaker.
romeosevendelta 2 years ago
Truly brilliant video! I've been holding this very same argument with people for years.
Ignorance and Fear rule the minds/souls of the common man now-a-days (or so it seems anyway.)
unworld 2 years ago
A Great Public Service? A PUBLIC SERVICE? I just want to make sure I heard that right.
Oliver Stone isn't doing anybody any public services, he's a sensational film maker making outrageous films. It's what he does. He'll make a ton of money. I don't think he's trying to accomplish any capital "G" Good with his movies. I just don't believe it.
austinmichaelcraig 2 years ago
howtheworldworks doesn't care. oliver stone is the enemy; the goal is to smear the enemy's name since you can't destroy him.
franzpolak 2 years ago
That's a load of crap, that would be the liberals best friend, Saul Alinksy.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
what the fuck are you talking about?
liberal's best friend? dude, if you can't make any sense, then fuck off.
franzpolak 2 years ago
Last time I heard no one was resurrecting Alinsky except the conservatives. Why is that? We have yet to crucify your savior, Reagan, but we're working on it.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Last time you heard? The last time you were connected with reality was pre 1960, so no real surprise there.
Good luck with that (crucifying Reagan).
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
What is that some kind of clever comeback? Alinsky had sway when kids were being drafted to die in Vietnam. What ever happened to all those dominoes that were going to collapse and take the free world with it? Assholes just wanted to make money blowing things up. Reagan has done more damage to US than some puny third world country with a corrupt government.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
Skip right over what Carter did and go right to Reagan... only in your world John, only in your world.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
Reagan threw away Carter's plan for energy independence and made a sweetheart deal with the corrupt Saudis. There is every reason to believe that Reagan made covert deals with the Iranians for the release of the hostages, which is pretty strong grounds for treason. Only in your world would you lionize CRIMINALS.
j0hnwi11iams 2 years ago
What you people here are confusing is that you do not necessarily have to empathize with someone to understand how he/she came to power. For example, I can see that Person A is paranoid because, for example, he had an insecure childhood or experienced an assasination attempt, but here I am not getting into his shoes to understand. The facts, coupled with everyone's unique personality, mostly speak for themselves.
dodddd29383 2 years ago
this is just a play of words as well.
1. You can understand how Hitler rose to power without having to empathize with him. All you have to do is go over his life records and do the brainwork.
2. You cannot explain Hitler's almost magical speaking ability by empathizing with him.
3. If you read E.H.Carr's "What is History?", you shall see that understanding the context in which dictators arose is more important than trying to understand the dictator himself.
dodddd29383 2 years ago
@Gharalam, the titles of Lee Doran's 8 part series alone (don't even have to watch the videos) implies Lee Doran believes so.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
thanks for this commentary. it drives me insane how often sympathy and empathy are confused with each other. sadly empathy became a talking point and politicized word because of Obama's thoughts on what he was looking for in a supreme court justice. Empathy has become a pejorative for those that somehow feel victimized by affirmative action and welfare.
xxxxxxxwwxxxxxxx 2 years ago
you make an excellent point. judging by the oliver stone comments in htww's video, a lot of people don't seem to understand the difference between empathy and sympathy. and judging his video, i doubt if mr. doren knows the difference either. assuming that he does, i guess this is just another case of him intentionally attempting to mislead his subscribers.
cristoballs 2 years ago
It's always difficult to discuss matters with people who don't have a grip on basic English.
Another fine video, JW - keep it up.
geffel 2 years ago
Oliver Stone said that he thoroughly despises these dictators. He was not equivocal about that.
He does not want to make heroes out of war criminals and mass murderers, he wants to understand what made them monsters.
He'll explore the environments, causes and effects that led to world wars. It's important to comprehend the past so that the same mistakes are not repeated again and again.
hivernales 2 years ago
@hivernales
Good point hiv. Once we understand their "environment", we can try to control leaders "enviornments" in the future.
Are you kidding me?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you obviously see no value in a documentary that seeks to understand brutal dictators. The realities is that such documentaries and books are churned out by the dozens every year, meaning there is value at least from a marketing perspective.
You say "Are you kidding me?", No. Why do you thing the League of Nations, NATO, NORAD, alliances, etc, etc were created? Have you been living under a rock?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 2
@ZangaroZen
Yes, the third rock on the left near the old oak tree.
You are opening a much larger can that quite frankly, I have little desire to discuss. I think the League of Nations, the UN, NATO, etc. are ridiculous and any global governance is a sham.
Understanding what makes someone a psycho is not empathy. Empathy has more to do with emotion than you are giving creedance. Why call it empathy? Call it analysis, call it in depth study...
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, "ridiculous and any global governance is a sham". Ever heard of "The Allies" and WW2? Or a little policing NATO action in Korea? Could go on.If it weren't for hundreds of years of "shames" you might not be here debating nuiances.
A terrorist blows himself up. You have no sympathy for their fate, but could have empathy as to why they did it, and yet disagree with their action.
Get it? Probably not.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 3
@ZangaroZen
Of course I get it, but have no desire to empathize with a suicide bomber. Empathizing would mean I would care about their perspective, which I don't.
I would, however, have no issue with analyzing the situation and understanding the reasoning without any emotional involvement.
I know you hate that I've brought the emotional element into the discussion. It destroys your credibility.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, as expected the example went over your head.
Correction, you "have no desire to" SYMPATHIZE (not empathize) with a bomber.
You can empathize with the fact that the bomber was brainwashed into martydom since he was an infant, and that he wanted revenge for innocent family/friends killed in the cross fire.
Empathy doesn't mean you agree with the bombing, only that you can see things from their point of view with or without emotion.
Still don't get it do you?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 5
@ZangaroZen
Perhaps it is you that is confused. I will not have an emotional connection of any sort with a suicide bomber. Maybe you can emotionally put yourself in their shoes and say, "Oh I understand. Your parents hate you, they were radicals, so I can feel your pain."
I cannot. You can't have empathy without emotion or an emotional connection. Once you admit that, your arguement is moot.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, oh really? OK you've just learnt that that bomber was not a radical, they were a kidnapped muslim and had the bomb installed on them and told to go somewhere or their entire family would be murdered.
Would you feel sympathy for their plight now?
Would you feel empathy for their situation?
Would you have empathy with emotion or not?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 2
@ZangaroZen
Yes, yes, and yes because empathy is only empathy WITH emotion. You're not getting that.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, sorry bad intel, the bomber was a radical brainwashed to martyrdoom for 2 decades, wanted to avenge his family/friends and volunteered.
Bet you have no sympathy for their plight.
Do you have empathy for how they were trained for the job since being a toddler?
Do you have any emotion with your empathy?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 3
It is what it is. If the only intel I have is bad intel, then I'm pretty much certain to fail.
Just look at yourself. All you have is bad intel and you keep coming up wrong on every topic. Sucks doesn't it?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, the is not a specific case I personally experienced in Iraq/Afghanistan. Obviously "bad intel" is meant to note the example has been switch around.
You've been cornered, hike up your skirt and answer yes/no to the three questions:
The bomber has 2 decades (since being a toddler) of martyrdom indoctrination, wants to avenge his family/friends and volunteered.
Do you have sympathy for them?
Do you have empathy for them?
Is there emotion with your empathy?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 3
Because I'm not smart enough to see where you are going with this question...
I'm up for the challenge, I'll give you what you want.
Everyone has choices, so no sympathy.
Not really, because I wasn't trained since I was a toddler to blow people up.
No emotion, no real empathy.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
*that was sarcasm if you missed it....
"Because I'm not smart enough to see where you are going with this question..."
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, had to nudge you in a couple of PMs to reply back. Thanks for doing so.
Your answers regarding a bomber:
Do you have sympathy for them? No.
Do you have empathy for them? No.
Is there emotion with your empathy? No.
The first "no" is understandable.
"Going with" the other "no"s is telling.
The "lack of empathy" wikipedia[.]org/wiki/Sociopath and in your case the complete inability to see things from another's perspective is the "hallmark" of a psychopath.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago 2
Well thank God people don't bother to judge you on anything of importance anymore. It certainly helps explain how Obama got elected.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you said you're "not smart enough to see where [I am] going". Must be painfully obvious now.
Didn't judge, you admitted, big difference.
An inability to extend empathy is a hallmark of a psycopath. Nothing to be ashamed of. About 1% of the population are psychopaths and an insignificant number of those become serial killers.
Discussing empathy further with you would be like explaining colors to a person born blind.
If you must know, I didn't vote for Obama.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen
The inability to define a simple term and understand a meaning is idiocy. It's ok, most people are idiots and only a small percentage go on to be morons.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, the inability to extend empathy is not idiocy but psychopathy.
You say "most people are idiots and only a small percentage go on to be morons".
You've just pwned yourself. Psychopaths typically have a "Grandiose sense of self-worth" and you can't get much bigger then declaring "most people are idiots" or denigrating large groups. Combine that with your "callous/lack of empathy".
You need to move on, as you've long since become a liability for HTWW's position.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen
Wow... you're awfully bitter when you're wrong.
I was just trying to humiliate you with a clever use of your phrasing and you turn it into some type of "God complex" bs.
Good luck with that. And laugh more often, espeically at yourself. It's good for you.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, pulling a Leedoren? Say some nonsense and hope it counts for something more then nothing.
Your "clever phrasing" was quoted back to you verbatim, so address your complaints to yourself.
Early in this dialog you were called on your grandiose opinions and attempts to talk for everyone.
You've long since become a liability to HTWW's position. Do HTWW a favor and jump ship to LiberalViewer.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen
Wow, you repeated yourself. Must be serious. I'm sure HTWW is confident enough in his position not to be worried about my "grandiose" ones. I'm not fighting his battles or speaking for him.
I was here because I think John is a pompous ingnorant liberal with a lack of perspective on reality. If you look back through his vids, I've posted previous to HTWW's response.
As for your claims, if they actually relied on more than your opinion, they might have merit.....
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen
I only answered your questions because I knew you were trying to set an example. And again, I was correct. And again, you were wrong and continue showing your own ignorance. I would empathize with you, but I've never been that ignorant.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, Having been backed into a corner, you didn't want to answer those 3 yes/no questions. You only did so because I called you out in two PMs.
You say "I knew you were trying to set an example". LOL! It's not a prediction when you make it after the fact.
Your last two sentences are nonsensical opinionated ramblings.
As for your other post, you've admitted (not my opinion) to 2 telling traits and were provided a link.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen
yeah... you really are slow on the uptake.
"Because I'm not smart enough to see where you are going with this question..." was blatantly sarcastic. I led, you followed. You couldn't wait to peg me by the way I answered your leading question. I could not care any less what you think of me. You and criscoballs can play liberal hide and seek all day on youtube. It doesn't make you right, clever, interesting, or important.
Just lame. Then again, what do I know?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, "slow on the uptake" is you're not knowing the difference between sympathy and empathy, then or now.
You said you were being sarcastic in the original post (remember?), that wasn't missed, your prediction which came after the fact was.
Asking simple yes/no questions, wasn't part of a master plan to peg anyone. Did have call you out in 2 PMs though.
The world doesn't revolve around you; I certainly don't think of you.
Don't know criscoballs or see the relevance.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ZangaroZen
Yeah, in your world ZZ I guess I don't know the difference. And you're so right. Calling me out in those Private Messages makes you a genious of Barack Obama proportion.
Give me a break. You couldn't be twisting your arm fast enough to pat yourself on the back for setting up a series of bogus questions any moron could see coming a mile away and then jumping on the answers like you know what you're talking about.
Absolutely pathetic.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, my "world" as opposed to "your world"? The world doesn't revolve around anyone including you.
Calling you out in 2 PM's to take a second and respond to a few yes/no questions here is a fact. Accept it.
"Any moron" knows that answers would change the direction of the dialog. No prediction there. Declaring after the fact that you predicted that direction is asinine.
Don't need to pat anyone on the back. You weren't a debating challenge.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
The world is as you see it... how can someone so wrong, see the world for what it really is?
You could have posted and I would have responded. The fact that you private messaged me shows that you're a sneaky coward afraid to actually put it out there. Accept that.
So be it in the world according to ZangaroZen.
No one can challenge you, nor would anyone bother. Your tactics are shady, second rate, and senseless.
And you still don't understand what empathy means to boot.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, sent you another post, while you were replying back to this one.
Not anyone's world but a perspective, as in being able to step into someone's perspective is empathy. Thinking the world/everyone revolves around them is a psychopath trait.
You lie.
Posted the questions here first. You ignored them. I sent you a PM the next day. You replied saying you ignore repeat questions. I PMed again saying they weren't. Then you replied.
The rest of your post is nonsense.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Stepping into someone else's world and understanding their perspective requires an emotional connection or emotional understanding of a similar experience.
Impossible to do for Stalin and Hitler unless you have walked in their shoes with a similar experience.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, LOL. This is by far your most asinine post.
Replying to your first paragraph:
A psychiatrist does not need an "emotional connection" or "similar experiences" to treat a patient. Empathy however does help.
Replying to your second paragraph:
You say "impossible to do for Stalin and Hitler unless you have walked in their shoes with a similar experience". Go to amazon type in "Hitler" or "Stalin". Each result is an example that proves you wrong.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
So writing a book on Hitler or Stalin means you can empathize with them?
Really?
One feels empathy when one has "been there" and sympathy when one hasn't. Whatever you say. All I know is that I'm glad I'm not a liberal. You guys are not only out there... but just clueless.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you said "Impossible to do for Stalin and Hitler unless you have walked in their shoes with a similar experience". LOL.
Very much doubt 99.9% of authors and film makers who've created works on Hitler/Stalin "walked in their shoes with a similar experience" and yet they offer "understanding [of] their perspective" without "an emotional connection or emotional understanding of a similar experience".
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Yes... and as frustrating as it is to talk to you because of your sheer mental density, that just means they analyzed. No one, except for you is saying there is any EMPATHY there.
WTF?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, as shown in my other post, clearly psychiatrists, authors and filmmakers don't meet your critieria while successfully performing their work.
Writing a decent biography means perspective event without emotional involment or first hand experience. It could express empathy without sympathy or agreement. Clear? Probably not.
As for being a liberal or not, that's not relevant. If you must know (again) I didn't vote for Obama, and I'm a gun collector.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you've provided a concise definition "empathy when one has 'been there' and sympathy when one hasn't". LOL.
By your own definition, empathy is not possible unless someone's "been there", while sympathy requires not "been there".
Suppose you can handle your boss, but another coworker can't. You've "been there" and yet you can sympathize with your coworker.
Since Oliver stone has not "been there" by your definition he can't use the word empathy.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
He can use it improperly like you do. But the arguement is why would try?
How could you empathize with Hitler or Stalin based on the definition that I gave you? And again why would you want to?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, since you won't let go, please review 0:34-0:45 of this video. J0hnWi11iams contrast is an accurate one.
"The 2 are very different. OK? Empathize see how someone came to a set of conclusions. Sympathize adopt that set of conclusions. Do you see how they are different?"
If your up for it, modify the above few sentences in a way that's just as clear, non-circular, and without nuiances, so that they conform to what you think is correct.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Sympathy and empathy are separate terms with some very important distinctions. Sympathy and empathy are both acts of feeling, but with sympathy you feel for the person; you're sorry for them or pity them, but you don't specifically understand what they're feeling. Sometimes we're left with little choice but to feel sympathetic because we really cant understand the plight or predicament of someone else. It takes imagination, work, or possibly a similar experience to get to empathy.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, I don't recall that post. What a bunch of opinionated nonsense.
Since you're posting on this video, "correct" J0hnWi11iam's excellent contrast in 0:34-0:45 as quoted in my other post.
Modify his few sentences in a ways that's just as clear, non-circular and without nuiances, so that they conform to what you think is correct.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
They don't need modified, they need re-written. What you ask is impossible without almost completely overhauling the statement because it is inaccurate.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you say "what [I] ask is impossible" as it's "inaccurate".
How convenient.
So according to you, human history has never corrected an "inaccurate" statement before.
J0hnWi11iam's comparison at 0:34-0:47 is clear and concise. If you feel it's inacurate then correct those few sentences in a clear and concise manner. This should be trivial for you, just a matter of correcting an "Inaccuracy" word here and adding a word there.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, human history has never corrected an "inaccurate" statement following these rules:
Modify his few sentences in a ways that's just as clear, non-circular and without nuiances, so that they conform to what you think is correct.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you say "human history has NEVER corrected an "inaccurate" statement... in a clear, non-circular and without nuiances". Obviously you're a die hard fan of HTWW bold statements.
Teachers red-pen essays every day.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Yeah, like anything I say, clear or not, you're going to agree with.
Are you kidding me? Like this has everything to do with my loyalty to HTWW. How about the truth. How about calling someone out when they spout half truths? Give me a break.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, your "loyalty to HTWW". That's not an issue. Noting that you also make very bold sweeping statements about how the world works, just like HTWW does, is an observation on your close mindedness.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
My bold sweeping statements are simply observations of how the world works.
Why does that make me close-minded?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse "Why does that make me close-minded?".
Being married to "bold sweeping statements about how the world works" leaves no room for a greyer reality. That's close minded.
Now address the post regarding your concise definitions of sympathy and empathy.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Being married to... blah blah blah is your assumption. I never made a claim that I was married to or that my perspective is the absolute truth.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, your defense of bold sweeping black and white statements is adament. That's not an assumption but your reality.
If Oliver Stone is not qualified to use "empathy" (by your definition) then the issue you/HTWW has is with an "improperly" used word and advocating a clarification (say substituting "understand"), but instead you denigrate Stone.
Based on your personal "empathy" definition, the word should be rarely if ever used which is clearly not reality.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
I'm not really sure if you get it... This isn't about being qualified. This is about using a way of emotional connection with someone that murdered thousands of people. You assume that it harmlessly means to understand someone or step into their shoes (which is contextually incorrect). Or you just simply think it's ok to emotionally connect with mass murderers. And yes, Stone deserves denigration regardless of his latest liberal outburst.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you may "not really [be] sure [I] get it", but I'm sure you don't get it.
Sympathy implies shared emotion/feelings, empathy does not.
A psychiatrist's empathy for a convict, say due to their troubled youth, does not imply agreement, condonement, support, sympathy, etc.
By your own definition, Stone is not qualified to use the word "empathy" and as such that should be your sole focus, and by implication disagreement with HTWW's rant.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Sympathy doesn't rely on shared emotion. You can feel sympathy or pity for someone without sharing the same emotion. Hence a small flaw in your arguement.
I find the "but I'm sure you don't get it." a rather bold and arrogant statement for someone who is pointing an awfully big finger.
Weak.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, it's not sanitary to put words in someone else's mouth. Very "Weak" kneed.
Didn't say "rely on shared emotion", did say "implies shared emotion/feelings", unlike empathy.
You may find it "rather bold and arrogant statement" to conclude you still don't get it, but the reality is this has been a long dialog and your own reply proves the point.
Like HTWW you seem incapable of conceeding a painfully obvious debating defeat.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
You are right, you said implies, not relies. Which means you're still wrong, just about a different aspect of your argument. Sympathy implies that you might feel bad for the person, but doesn't imply an emotional connection.
I would be happy to concede my point if I were wrong which certainly is more than I can say for you because you continue to be wrong.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, imply verses rely?
Rely means required.
Imply suggests a probable connection.
You say "you might FEEL bad [or say depressed] for the person" while not necessarily having "an emtional connection". The reserve is also true. Sharing an "EMOTION connection" (say your father died too but years ago) and can sympathize on that common basis while not sharing the other's feeling of depression.
Do you realize emotion is a broad term for feelings, sorrow, fear, anger etc?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Do you realize that feeling emotion and sharing emotion are two diferrent things?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, to repeat:
"Sympathy implies shared emotion/feelings, empathy does not."
Didn't say "sharing", Did say "shared".
Sharing is a current, while "shared" means at one time but not necessarily the same time.
My last post was clear. Sympathy can be based on shared emotions while feeling or not feeling another emotion. Empath lacks shared emotion.
Just have to ask:
Is English your native language?
Did you go to college?
Was writing in English a requirement?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Your posts are clear... clearly wrong.
What ever tense or form of the verb you choose, you're still wrong.
Just have to say:
Is Liberal your native language?
Do you work in the real world?
Do you have any other skills than sit on youtube and be wrong all day?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, is this your final position summary? To unilaterally declare (3 times) that you're right and everyone else in the blog is wrong. LOL
I didn't vote for Obama, and am not a fan, remember? Answered your question 3 times now.
Declaring a political leaning by itself has no weight in a dialog other then prove you've got nothing left to counter with.
Now you're wanting a postcard from the real world to your delusional one.
Being wrong on youtube all day is your thing.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Wow, you keep hitting the nail on the head!
After defending my position over and over again throughout this long (and painful) dialogue, you sum it up with asking me if I have an education and I'm the one who is delusional?
You're just going to have to do better ZZ. The insults, the shifting, the ignorning of facts... it doesn't do it for me.
There was no confusion of empathy with sympathy (not that it's really the overall point anyway). This is about John's boner for Conservatives.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, you didn't address any points in my last post, but rather rambled on with more unilateral statements and opinionated nonsense.
Confusing sympathy with empathy is one thing. Confusing imply and rely is far more basic.
Sorry you feel reality and facts are insulting.
Don't consider your opinions as fact.
Now you're running for cover declaring "This is about John's boner for Conservatives". Lame. Take it up with John, or consult HTWW on what he wants you to think.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
So that's what losing an arguement looks like?
When you figure out that this video is bogus because John is clueless, send me another PM. We'll have a good laugh.
Until then, good luck standing on your head.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, the dialog was on, sympathy versus empathy, imply versus rely. Basic English not a last second lame loser excuse regarding J0hnWi11iams' politics.
Unilaterally declaring J0hnWi11iams as "clueless" is irony lost on you.
Sure run for cover behind your opinions and unrelated nonsense, and have some more of HTWW's koolaid while you're there.
No one needs to stand on their head or send you a PM to have a "good laugh" at you.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Thin... very thin. The fact that you continue to drone on about things that you're not only wrong about, but only graze the surface of reality make you sound like a lunatic.
I'm not running for cover, just exhausted with your lack of comprehension skills. I could explain this to my 10 year old nephew and he'd get it faster.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, yet another purely opionated nonsense post.
Your lack of exhaustion is clearly evident here in your continued posting. Repeating pet arguments to others is not an indication of debating skill, but of a pwned sore loser.
Uncle is not doing his 10 year nephew any favors by filling his young impressionable trusting mind, with his baseless views.
Return to HTWW's bossom. He'll welcome you/your personal opinions as long as they continue to align with his fantasy world.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
I knew you'd say that.
Add predictability to your watered down liberal personality.
blah blah blah... as long as I'm a loser in your world, that's all that matters.
Keep typing it, maybe you'll actually believe it eventually.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, "LOL! It's not a prediction when you make it after the fact". Second time calling you on this.
Fourth time telling you. "I didn't vote for Obama".
If it makes you feel any better, you're a big winner in HTWW's world, especially if you donate.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
It's a prediction if you knew it was going to happen and it did. Just because I didn't say, "You're going to say..." before (which would have kept you from saying it anyway) doesn't mean I didn't know how you'd respond. I can live with the truth even if you can't.
I don't care if you voted Obama or not. There were moderates who did and I'm sure a few liberals that didn't. One does not rely or imply the other... right?
Warm and fuzzy... thank you!
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, first sympathy vs empath, then reply vs imply, and now predict vs.indict. Predict comes before (pre means before), indict comes after.
You speak only one language yet your understanding is extremely poor.
Next you'll predict there was a major earthquake in Haiti.
Your after the fact predictions may fool your 10 year old nephew, but otherwise you're not trustworthy.
Your politics is not relevent to the dialog. Nothing more then your excuse to run for cover.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
The only relavant arguement her eis sympathy vs. empathy which you lost.
The others are simply your way to smoke screen your own ineptitude.
I didn't realize that this was a biligual required conversation. But nice try with the subtle insult.
I can only predict the idiocy of a youtube poster. My intellectual prowess only goes so far... sorry, but nice try again with a weak attempt at an insult.
I just don't think you get it... which comes to no surprise.
I agree, mine aren't.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, if the relevant issue is sympathy vs empathy (ignoring rely vs imply and predict vs indict) then why are you continually running for cover behind political accusations, etc. Be a man, conceed defeat.
OK you win arguments all the time with your 10 year old nephew. Congratulations.
Who mentioned bilingual? Fact is a uniligual person such as yourself should have a better command of the English language.
I haven't talked politics, that's your smoke screen tactic.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Be a man, conceed defeat... heh.... silly statement. I would be happy to admit that I was wrong if I was wrong. (As I did in my last post that my politics have nothing to do with this conversation directly).
Irrelevant.
You brought up speaking one language, which you really don't know if I speak 1, 2, or 7 languages. It was simply a subtle way to throw a shot out on me. I get it.
Ah, bringing John & HTWW into the conversation gives it political undertones...
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, on political relevance you said "I agree, mine aren't", implying only other people run for cover behind politics. Fact is you continually accuse anyone that knows the difference between sympathy and empathy as being a wrong liberal.
Never expected you to be a man and admit being wrong on sympath/empathy, rely/imply, and predict/indict. We both know you're only fooling yourself.
The multi-lingual query allowed you an out for your ignorance, nothing more.
[con't]
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
[con't]
@ConservativeResponse,
Never mentioned/brought J0hnWi11iam's into the dialog.
Noting that your views are identical to HTWW's is a fact, nothing more.
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
Well if you want to keep this arguement boiled to its simplest form, you failed to understand the real definitions of empathy and sympathy based on my posts days ago.
What more would you like me to say? I'm holding all insults at this point because quite frankly you are nothing more than a simple amusement at this point. When a better, more interesting conversation comes along, I'm sure this will just go away.
Until then I suppose I will await your pathetic, redundant response.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, your "real definition of empathy and sympathy" comes from between your ears, whereas I gave links.
You ask "what more [can you] say"?
How about something devoid of nonsense opinions, unilateral declarations and irrelevant political accusations?
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
@ConservativeResponse, noticed a typo, the second paragraph should read, completely:
"What more [can you] say?"
ZangaroZen 2 years ago
How are you holding all insults?
Did you even bother to read your own post?
-failed to understand the real definitions of empathy and sympathy-
-you are nothing more than a simple amusement-
-when a better, more interesting, conversation comes along,-
-your pathetic, redundant response.-
You failed to respond to anyone with substance, and instead laced your ENTIRE post with condescending words.
Just thought it was sort of ironic.
Hellsadvocate 2 years ago
Nothing more ironic than an atheist using a name like "Hellsadvocate".
That's the way to use the old noggin!
And get a hair cut hippie.... sheesh.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
You still fail to respond with any substance.
Pathetic? I would think so.
Also, why does my hair categorize me? It doesn't. Fail troll is a failure. Go get a real idea of how economic and social systems work, redneck ;D
Yes, if I am a hippie, then you are definately a redneck. Because ad hominem attacks should only be met with just that.
Hellsadvocate 2 years ago
More stubstance than an atheist by the name of "Hellsadvocate"? Really? I would say that's substantial especially to those who believe hell actually exists.
So you thinking I'm pathetic is suppose to be hurtful? Not likely.
Touchy on the hair deal aren't you? It does a good job covering up your chub. Maybe you shouldn't cut it.
Good luck with that by the way.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
Lol you're so brilliant.
1/5, troll.
1/5.
Hellsadvocate 2 years ago
Nice response...
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
There is nothing convenient about having to correct an inaccurate statement but adding a word here or there to make it correct.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
I'm guessing somehow you missed this post. I posted this earlier.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
Idiotic comment.
I'm sorry that now "conservative" is another word for "intolerant".
I'm sure you perfectly got what I meant as well as what Oliver Stone meant. It is so easy to take comments out of context in order to beat up people who you disagree with and the internet is the perfect place to play that game. People like you make me fear for America.
hivernales 2 years ago
Wow... another zinger.
The entire problem with the arguement which starts with John is the use of the word empathy. You can investigate, research, analyze, and speculate why a dictator is a what he is, but empathize adds emotion to the equation. Once you add emotion, you disconnect anyone who is "normal". I guess it makes sense why the left doesn't see anything wrong with "empathizing" with mass murderers.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
@conservativeresponse, what's your opinion of ron paul?
cristoballs 2 years ago
There are things I like and things I'm not fond of. I'm not a pure Conservative or Constitutionalist if there is such a thing.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
fair enough... allow to ask a different question in regards to ron paul. what do you think of the comment he made during the republican debates, when he said: "we need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us." this was in response to a question on why he felt we were attacked on 9/11. you don't don't see that response as being the least bit empathetic?
cristoballs 2 years ago
*allow ME to ask...
cristoballs 2 years ago
Looking from someone else's perspective only works if you truly understand where they are coming from. That requires an emotional connection of "feeling their pain".
This video is John simply pointing out what he believes as an error between sympathy and empathy.
I say you can't sympathize or empathize with psychotics, only analyze.
It's simply impossible to create an emotional connection with people that have a different belief system altogether.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
you're making a number of assumptions. first off, i'm curious how you arrived at the conclusion that these people are/were psychotic. are you simply being dismissive because you are unable to understand them, or is this based on an in-depth psychoanalysis?
cristoballs 2 years ago 2
also, you seem to contradict your "psycotic" argument by attributing the evils of people like hitler, stalin, mao, and the 9/11 hijackers to what you cite as "a different belief system", i.e. another religion. so which is it? are is it a mental disorder or is their religion?
cristoballs 2 years ago
for the record, hitler was a catholic, i believe stalin and mao were atheists, and the 9/11 hijackers were muslims. now, i agree, some people are just plain evil, and they will do whatever they want without care. in other words, they are psychotic. however, before one can arrive at such a conclusion, we must ask ourselves why?
cristoballs 2 years ago
You can ask yourself why without empathizing.
Which brings us full circle to the arguement that is being poorly made.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
if you're asking yourself without empathizing (putting yourself in that person's position), you not doing much good. and empathizing does not mean you have to be emotionally connected to that person. if you believe that hitler was psychotic and that his reason for the holocaust, then you are empathizing with him. you've put yourself in the position of a psychotic person and determined that you don't need a reason for killing.
cristoballs 2 years ago
That's just not accurate. Empathizing is exactly the understanding of how someone felt. Maybe you need to re-read the definition of empathize.
Not being able to make some justification for a murderers actions does not make you the bad guy... or at least not in my world. You can justify by empathizing with Hitler if you like. Not my deal.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
here's the definition of empathy.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
no where in that definition does it say an emotional connection is necessary. perhaps you can point me to the dictionary you're getting your definition from.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Identifying oneself completely with an object or person, sometimes even to the point of responding physically, as when, watching a baseball player swing at a pitch, one feels one's own muscles flex.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
in this example, let's say the baseball player is either psychotic or someone of a different religion than you. is it necessary in knowing either of those, in order to empathize with the baseball player?
cristoballs 2 years ago
The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
once again, i fail to see where you draw the conclusion that empathy requires an emotional connection, or more correctly, the sort of emotional connection you believe is necessary for empathy.
cristoballs 2 years ago
So what you're saying is that understanding and empathy is the same thing?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
to a certain extent, but they are not the same thing. with empathy, you may come to better understanding, but understanding is not guaranteed.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Better understanding how?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
well, consider ron paul's response which i pointed you to earlier. you don't feel that gives you a better understanding of the 9/11 attacks than the idea that "they hate us for our freedom"?
cristoballs 2 years ago
or do you just accept that's the reason why 9/11 happened?
cristoballs 2 years ago
but perhaps "better understanding" is a poor choice of words. how about in stead i say, "a more plausible explanation for why some people do certain things"?
cristoballs 2 years ago
And again, I simply ask, will it make you feel better to know that certain Muslims brainwash other Muslims into believing that killing infidels will get them into heaven?
How about if they attacked us for retribution for our presence in the Middle East?
Do you think we can negotiate peace through empathizing with them?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
i think if you what you're dealing with, you know how to better prepare yourself. if we're dealing with brainwashed muslims, then we should handle them as such. if we're dealing with people who are angered at the same things we would be angered at, then we should take that into consideration as well.
cristoballs 2 years ago
I think we do know as much as we can. But I also think we are arrogant and assume because we can logically deduce certain aspects of the Muslim culture and historical reference that we can simply empathize (using an emotional connection) and better understand something we can't connect with or comprehend.
Just like I don't think they can comprehend what real freedom is.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
Will a better explanation make you feel better? Will it give you pause?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
if that explanation gives us a better understanding on how to deal with who we're up against in war, then yes, it will make me feel better. i will feel a lot better knowing that we're working towards a solution to a problem, rather than doing the same dumb things over and over again.
cristoballs 2 years ago
You assume that there is a logical solution, much like our President.
You can't use Western Logic to understand Muslim thinking. And you can't truly empathize with a people that have a totally different culture and thought process.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
that's a racist statement. you're assuming that all muslims are inherently terrorists. it's no wonder with a mentality like that, that we have so many problems in dealing with them.
cristoballs 2 years ago
I guess the word radical should be inserted there to make clear what I'm saying. But I'm sure you're looking for a crack anyway.
Assume what you will. The reality is that you can't empathize without an emotional connection or an attempt to make an emotional outreach. Making one to a mass murdered is an impossibility and is insanity simply as the notion to do so. You must be insane to understand insanity.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
"The reality is that you can't empathize without an emotional connection"
that is your own opinion, and it is one not based in reality. you haven't provided any evidence of such a claim, other than a dictionary definition, which did little to nothing to back your premise.
cristoballs 2 years ago
You're right. The definitions that I posted didn't support that.
You are in denial if you don't think empathy has anything to do with connecting on an emotional level. You have made no arguement that has undefined the word either. So we agree to disagree.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
i think you're very vague in what you mean by "emotional connection". on one hand, i think we, as humans, share an emotional connection with every other human on this planet. now, what it seems you're implying that is necessary for empathy, is a much deeper emotional connection, and that, i do not agree with. but you're not going to see things my way, i probably won't see things your way. so yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Wow... you really don't want to admit that you might be wrong here. It's painful watching you flounder through some of these posts.
Here's some empathy for you. My cat just died. Maybe you have a cat or have had a pet in the past. You say, I'm sorry man, I understand how you feel. I love my cat too. Ta da! Empathy.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
uhhh... no, that's sympathy.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Sympathy requires no understanding or common ground. It's simply feeling sorry for someone.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
wrong. here's the def. of sympathy. it pretty much refutes what you just said:
1 a : an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other b : mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it c : unity or harmony in action or effect 2 a : inclination to think or feel alike : emotional or intellectual accord b : feeling of loyalty : tendency to favor or support
cristoballs 2 years ago
On the other hand, I tell you that I murdered my cat. You ask me why and I tell you because he was dirty and ate too much food.
You say ok I understand the reasons you are telling me, but you proceed to say I love my cat, I would never kill him.
Now you understood why, but you didn't empathize with me because you love your cat.
Do I need to draw you a picture?
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
actually, i wouldn't understand those as being a valid reasons for killing your cat. bad example. come up with something better.
cristoballs 2 years ago
Ah... a breakthrough. So now you would need to empathize with me in order to understand those reasons at a deeper level. You say they are not valid, but how do you know they are not valid? Maybe if you got to know me better, or tried to think like I do that killing my cat was the right call.
Or maybe... just maybe, I was wrong. Killing my cat was wrong and I'm a little nuts for doing it. Maybe I had no good reason at all. Hmmmm... the plot thickens.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
to take a quote from the pricess bride: "you keep using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means."
cristoballs 2 years ago
@cristoballs Sympathy and empathy are separate terms with some very important distinctions. Sympathy and empathy are both acts of feeling, but with sympathy you feel for the person; youre sorry for them or pity them, but you dont specifically understand what theyre feeling. Sometimes were left with little choice but to feel sympathetic because we really cant understand the plight or predicament of someone else. It takes imagination, work, or possibly a similar experience to get to empathy.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
that may very well be the case, but it still does not imply that any sort of emotional connection is needed.
cristoballs 2 years ago
@cristoballs
lol. ok. Have it your way. Even though it is self defined as understanding through similar emotional experience.
ConservativeResponse 2 years ago
that's only part of the definition. you're only reading the part of the definition that agrees with your position, when the whole def. is much broader.
cristoballs 2 years ago