wallym Wrote:1) Empathy has two applications.  There's understanding how and why someone feels a certain way by looking at things from their perspective.  That I enjoy doing, and partake in it as sincerely and fully as possible.  And then there's caring about those people/feelings, which I don't really do. 

Empathy is understanding and sharing other people's feelings. As a sociopath, you're not capable of understanding why your comprehension of other people's feelings is incomplete. What you're doing is intellectually mimicking a capacity you don't possess, at least not in full measure. Not your fault, you have bad wiring. I don't blame someone who's color blind for not being able to see nuance I can, you're in the same situation. I think you're probably high-functioning, like someone who is only partially color blind.

wallym Wrote:2) When the tangent started, the tangent wasn't about what we should do.  The tangent was about how I described what people do.  I said the reason arguments about refugees never go anywhere, is because people disagree on human life being valuable.  If you don't believe human life is valuable, then you can just kill the people in Aleppo, and that's fine.  

Folks didn't like that, because they personally don't think it's fine, and if they don't personally think it's fine, thems the rules for everything in the universe for all time.  I disagreed.

It's not a tangent. It's the topic. Someone said we ought to keep refugees out. Others say they ought to let them in. You say it's fine to kill people if that's your groove. Other people disagree, and possibly because you're a sociopath, you don't get why.

wallym Wrote:I kept trying to show how limited the scope of people's moral objections were via examples (in time and circumstance), but that's when everyone kept crying "Historical Fallacy" even though, I wasn't claiming anything was right or wrong.   Just that their moral objections were and continue to be mostly irrelevant to almost everything.

If you're not claiming anything is right or wrong, that's the tangent (and irrelevant), because this thread is about what's right or wrong.

wallym Wrote:What's crazy, is a big part of this forum, is just a big fuck you to the moral objections of religious folk.  Religious people say "You shouldn't do that!"   And atheists say, "Fuck off.  It's fine, because you're moral objections don't dictate our behavior."  It's almost creepy how exactly the same the two things are, and nobody seems to see it.  It's, frankly, surreal.

There's a big difference between 'You shouldn't do that because my scriptures say so' and 'You shouldn't do that because people will die because of it'.

wallym Wrote:3) I've seen you on here plenty.  The depression thing is anecdotal, at the same time, I've seen a couple times when someone posts "I'm depressed" and people pile into that thread like a clown car with their own "I'm depressed too" stories.

Funny how people who have the experience to empathize with someone's situation are the ones to chime in on those threads, eh? And are you separating the 'I'm depressed' comments from the 'I've been depressed' comments?

(December 7, 2016 at 10:34 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: 1) Empathy has two applications.  There's understanding how and why someone feels a certain way by looking at things from their perspective.  That I enjoy doing, and partake in it as sincerely and fully as possible.  And then there's caring about those people/feelings, which I don't really do. 

[..]

Why do you never use the quoting feature correctly, Mister Agenda?

Bella Morte Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:1) Empathy has two applications.  There's understanding how and why someone feels a certain way by looking at things from their perspective.  That I enjoy doing, and partake in it as sincerely and fully as possible.  And then there's caring about those people/feelings, which I don't really do. 

[..]

Why do you never use the quoting feature correctly, Mister Agenda?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem to be an example of me using the quote function incorrectly. Are you asking why I break up long posts into smaller chunks and address each chunk rather than make a lengthy post under another lengthy post?

(December 7, 2016 at 10:45 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Perhaps I'm missing something, but that doesn't seem to be an example of me using the quote function incorrectly. Are you asking why I break up long posts into smaller chunks and address each chunk rather than make a lengthy post under another lengthy post?

No, you're using it incorrectly because there should be an arrow in wallym's quotes in your post taking me to his/her posts. Like your quote above in this post. Instead you're just typing:


That means I have to trawl back through 17 bloody pages to try and find wallym's original post.

I think we have differing opinions on what constitutes 'incorrect', but I'll happily do you the courtesy of adding the extra feature you want if you explain how.

(December 7, 2016 at 10:53 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I think we have differing opinions on what constitutes 'incorrect', but I'll happily do you the courtesy of adding the extra feature you want if you explain how.

You click the 'reply' button and type your message under the quote without removing anything.

Fairly simple stuff, really.

Bella Morte Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:I think we have differing opinions on what constitutes 'incorrect', but I'll happily do you the courtesy of adding the extra feature you want if you explain how.

You click the 'reply' button and type your message under the quote without removing anything.

Fairly simple stuff, really.

Hmmm.

---

I had to change my settings in order to reply to lengthy posts point by point. That is likely the reason the arrow does not appear when I quote someone. If someone can point out a way to do both I will happily do so, but I won't be changing my posting style. It may irritate you, and I'm sorry for that, but it irritates me to have to do it the other way.

See the pid parameter in there? You need to maintain that in all quotes, so when you split your quote, copy the opening quote tag for each subsequent quote.

Here's a quick and simple guide:

Step 1.

Click 'reply'.



Step 2.

Insert bants or serious political argument.



Step 3.

You're done.

Aoi Magi Wrote:

Code:

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='1464650' dateline='1481122744']

[quote=Mister Agenda pid=1464650 dateline=1481122744]
[quote=Mister Agenda]
See the pid parameter in there?

Aoi Magi Wrote:You need to maintain that in all quotes, so when you split your quote, copy the opening quote tag for each subsequent quote.

That is how I do it normally. The pid parameter, and [/code] do not appear in the opening quote tag from my point of view.

---

Bella Morte Wrote:Here's a quick and simple guide:

Step 1.

Click 'reply'.

---

---

Step 2.

Insert bants or serious political argument.

---

---

Step 3.

You're done.

---

---

I can't see any of the content you've hidden, a common issue for me due to the security software on the station I'm using. Perhaps that affects the quote issue.

Is it that you don't believe that I'm clicking 'reply' that led you to provide these instructions?