Two Officers Dead, One injured in Palm Springs Shooting–Suspect at Large

[Asclepias]

Wait, now unless you have a telepathic bond you cannot feel sympathy for another person's misfortune?

For someone in which you have no personal connection? Yes.

The most you can feel is empathy.

Can you prove that?

 

[Onyx]

Can you prove that?

Arguments from observation are valid in the face of a lack of contrary evidence.

Never mind that though, since I already supplemented the logical thought process. Read back and educate yourself.

 

[Asclepias]

When you said that people didnt feel sadness unless they personally knew the person.

I actually said someone cannot feel directed sympathy, but situational sadness (feelings of distress regarding the greater situation)

People do not feel directed sympathy over empty headlines and statistics.

That has been proven to patently false.

Where and how?

What junk psychology allowed you to reach that conclusion?

A deflection is when you substitute a false argument to avoid having to deal with facts.

Close.

Deflection is straying away from the argument in any form.

No junk psychology. Personal observation. You can even see it online. Fortunately I dont just swallow what people tell me. I use my own mind.

You strayed away from the argument when you mentioned telepathy. No one mentioned that.

 

[Asclepias]

Can you prove that?

Arguments from observation are valid in the face of a lack of contrary evidence.

Never mind that though, since I already supplemented the logical thought process. Read back and educate yourself.

Contrary evidence are made from observations. I'm going to believe mine before I believe someone elses.

 

[Onyx]

No junk psychology. Personal observation.

Why should personal observation be treated as substantive evidence in this debate?

You can even see it online. Fortunately I dont just swallow what people tell me. I use my own mind.

Either you are a poser which takes things at face value, or your own mind has strayed you wrong.

I excluded those not right in the head at the beginning of this conversation.

You strayed away from the argument when you mentioned telepathy. No one mentioned that.

Nope.

That is the only legitimate explanation for how you can feel directed sympathy for someone you do not know. Junk concepts like human telepathy or a collective holy spirit are the only other valid theories besides mine.

 

[Onyx]

Contrary evidence are made from observations. I'm going to believe mine before I believe someone elses.

Then read the logical thought process espoused earlier and educate yourself.

 

[Montrovant]

Sadness is deep and lasting distress? You seem to be either making up your own definition or cherry picking one of multiple definitions. Sadness need not be deep nor lasting.

Sadness is a synonym for sorrow, which means exactly that.

All emotions are lasting, which seperates them from feelings. The deepness is implied, considering sadness is an emotion.

You keep saying "directed sympathy". How does that differ from non-directed sympathy? Is it sympathy for an individual?

Symptathy for the individual in question, as opposed to situational sympathy.

The only way to be sympathetic for someone you do not know is to put yourself in their shoes, which is known as empathy.

Again with your definitions. Pity need not be deep nor lasting.

I am getting my definitions from Oxford, as I get all my non technical definitions.

Don't tell me to look all around myself. You said, "It is a proven fact that you cannot feel true directed sympathy without a personal connection to the victims.". Look around myself is not "It is a proven fact".

Then you are in denial. It is that simple.

Your cognitive dissonance disallows you from acknowledging that you are engaged in bullshit.

You are the one engaging in bullshit here.

You say something is a proven fact then refuse to provide proof, instead saying to look around.

You use cherry picked definitions not commonly used as though they are the be-all, end-all.

You confuse empathy and sympathy, which is probably not surprising given the way you use odd definitions for words. Empathy involves feeling the same things as another person, sympathy is feeling sadness or compassion for a person. You do not need to know a person to feel sympathy for them. Even if we use your deep and lasting definition, there is nothing that prevents a person from feeling a deep and lasting sadness for a stranger, even if it is likely rare that people do so.

Sadness need not be deep, whether you call it an emotion or a feeling. A person might feel a little sad about something. You want a similar word that implies deep emotion? Try despair.

I'd love to see the dictionary you use which defines sympathy and pity and sadness as having to be deep and lasting. The Oxford Living Dictionary and Oxford Learner's Dictionary don't have that in their definitions. Neither do dictionary.com nor Merriam-Webster, for that matter. I am unwilling to pay for a subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

[Asclepias]

No junk psychology. Personal observation.

Why should personal observation be treated as substantive evidence in this debate?

You can even see it online. Fortunately I dont just swallow what people tell me. I use my own mind.

Either you are a poser which takes things at face value, or your own mind has strayed you wrong.

I excluded those not right in the head at the beginning of this conversation.

You strayed away from the argument when you mentioned telepathy. No one mentioned that.

Nope.

That is the only legitimate explanation for how you can feel directed sympathy for someone you do not know. Junk concepts like human telepathy or a collective holy spirit.

My mind never strays me wrong.

Yep.
You dont determine what is legitimate or not. You have a woefully undeserved god complex and you refuse to use the dictionary.

 

[Asclepias]

Contrary evidence are made from observations. I'm going to believe mine before I believe someone elses.

Then read the logical thought process espoused earlier and educate yourself.

Thats already been done. I know there is a such thing as genetic memory and I know there is genuine sadness felt for those you dont personally know.

The Traumas of 9/11 and its Effects on the American Psyche

 

[Montrovant]

The feelings of anonymous message board posters, some of whom I'm going to guess you've had very little interaction with, are easily verifiable?

Through logical conclusions, as supplemented.

You aren't making this sound any less like magic.

Maybe I am a magician, but either way, I have an innate natural ability to see through bullshit.

Yes, but unfortunately for you, rather than seeing beyond bullshit, you appear to see the world through a film of bullshit.

 

[Asclepias]

Sadness is deep and lasting distress? You seem to be either making up your own definition or cherry picking one of multiple definitions. Sadness need not be deep nor lasting.

Sadness is a synonym for sorrow, which means exactly that.

All emotions are lasting, which seperates them from feelings. The deepness is implied, considering sadness is an emotion.

You keep saying "directed sympathy". How does that differ from non-directed sympathy? Is it sympathy for an individual?

Symptathy for the individual in question, as opposed to situational sympathy.

The only way to be sympathetic for someone you do not know is to put yourself in their shoes, which is known as empathy.

Again with your definitions. Pity need not be deep nor lasting.

I am getting my definitions from Oxford, as I get all my non technical definitions.

Don't tell me to look all around myself. You said, "It is a proven fact that you cannot feel true directed sympathy without a personal connection to the victims.". Look around myself is not "It is a proven fact".

Then you are in denial. It is that simple.

Your cognitive dissonance disallows you from acknowledging that you are engaged in bullshit.

You are the one engaging in bullshit here.

You say something is a proven fact then refuse to provide proof, instead saying to look around.

You use cherry picked definitions not commonly used as though they are the be-all, end-all.

You confuse empathy and sympathy, which is probably not surprising given the way you use odd definitions for words. Empathy involves feeling the same things as another person, sympathy is feeling sadness or compassion for a person. You do not need to know a person to feel sympathy for them. Even if we use your deep and lasting definition, there is nothing that prevents a person from feeling a deep and lasting sadness for a stranger, even if it is likely rare that people do so.

Sadness need not be deep, whether you call it an emotion or a feeling. A person might feel a little sad about something. You want a similar word that implies deep emotion? Try despair.

I'd love to see the dictionary you use which defines sympathy and pity and sadness as having to be deep and lasting. The Oxford Living Dictionary and Oxford Learner's Dictionary don't have that in their definitions. Neither do dictionary.com nor Merriam-Webster, for that matter. I am unwilling to pay for a subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary.

i wonder how he explains the thousands of people in therapy over 9/11 who lived in a different country than the US?

 

[Onyx]

You are the one engaging in bullshit here.

False.

Rarely do I engage in anything other than the truth..

You say something is a proven fact then refuse to provide proof, instead saying to look around.

I already provided a logical thought process not withstanding my arguments from observation. You deflected rather than countering.

You use cherry picked definitions not commonly used as though they are the be-all, end-all.

Nope.

I almost always use Oxford as a standard for semantics. What is your standard?

You confuse empathy and sympathy, which is probably not surprising given the way you use odd definitions for words.

Incorrect.

I never conflated or misconstrued terms.

Empathy involves feeling the same things as another person, sympathy is feeling sadness or compassion for a person. You do not need to know a person to feel sympathy for them. Even if we use your deep and lasting definition, there is nothing that prevents a person from feeling a deep and lasting sadness for a stranger, even if it is likely rare that people do so.

Never disputed the legitimacy of those definitions.

My point still stands.

Sadness need not be deep, whether you call it an emotion or a feeling.

I consider it an emotion, and all emotions are deep and lasting.

You understand the distinction. Stop meandering.

A person might feel a little sad about something. You want a similar word that implies deep emotion? Try despair.

I'd love to see the dictionary you use which defines sympathy and pity and sadness as having to be deep and lasting. The Oxford Living Dictionary and Oxford Learner's Dictionary don't have that in their definitions. Neither do dictionary.com nor Merriam-Webster, for that matter. I am unwilling to pay for a subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary.

It is called a thesaurus.

Take your war on synonyms to the scholars. You are certainly keen on semantical arguments that deflect from the point.

 

[Onyx]

Yes, but unfortunately for you, rather than seeing beyond bullshit, you appear to see the world through a film of bullshit.

Maybe I do not give myself enough credit.

The world IS a film of bullshit. 95% of our reality is composed of abstractions, otherwise known as social constructions.

 

[Onyx]

i wonder how he explains the thousands of people in therapy over 9/11 who lived in a different country than the US?

That they are not right in the head.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, but unfortunately for you, rather than seeing beyond bullshit, you appear to see the world through a film of bullshit.

Maybe I do not give myself enough credit.

The world IS a film of bullshit. 95% of our reality is composed of abstractions, otherwise known as social constructions.

How do these social constructs work if as you claim people do not feel as a group?

 

[Asclepias]

i wonder how he explains the thousands of people in therapy over 9/11 who lived in a different country than the US?

That they are not right in the head.

So you are saying they are defective instead of just admitting you were wrong? You are a small person. Its ok but just know I know.

 

[Onyx]

How do these social constructs work if as you claim people do not feel as a group?

We invent them and they are either accepted or conditioned into our minds. Most of the time they are conditioned.

The reason so many posers feign crocodile tears is because they were conditioned into believing that it is the socially acceptable thing to do, but since dishonesty contradicts other social constructions, they convince themselves that their feelings are genuine.

 

[Onyx]

So you are saying they are defective instead of just admitting you were wrong? You are a small person. Its ok but just know I know.

It is not a mutually exclusive scenario.

The reality is that they are defective. Human beings have been conditioned into being mere cogs in the social machine, and these cogs were churned into rust.

 

[Asclepias]

How do these social constructs work if as you claim people do not feel as a group?

We invent them and they are either accepted or conditioned into our minds. Most of the time they are conditioned.

The reason so many posers feign crocodile tears is because they were conditioned into believing that it is the socially acceptable thing to do, but since dishonesty contradicts other social constructions, they convince themselves that their feelings are genuine.

One such social construction is the concept of human unity. Know what one of the most bullshit songs in existence is?

I never asked if they were invented. I know they are invented. I'm asking how do they work if people dont have a connected consciousness?

 

[Asclepias]

So you are saying they are defective instead of just admitting you were wrong? You are a small person. Its ok but just know I know.

It is not a mutually exclusive scenario.

The reality is that they are defective. Human beings have been conditioned into being mere cogs in the social machine, and these cogs were churned into rust.

Stop Onyx. You are only showing everyone you will say anything to keep from admitting that you are wrong. Events that occur to others often evoke deep sadness in strangers. Its an instinct that is part and parcel of what it means to be human.