Empathy

[Walgekaaren]

I didnt have empathy in the start either, but I overlived and emotional event called 'rebirth' and became a christian and now am able to have empathy. All the martyrs and grate persons have had they emotional events or encounters. - Peter renounsed Jesus 3 times that means entirely and binding by holy law. So he set himself outside of Christs kingdom, but survived because of the Lords mercy. Judas didnt make so well, but did the same thing by selling Jesus off. One bore the pain of realising your worflessness the other hanged himself. For he didnt want to suffer the pain and agony of living a thoughtfull life with empathy.

You can also learn empathy, if you have a emotional event there your inner core is challenged.

I have always had empathy and so have you. It is a normal human response to the recognition of our own species - able to imagine our place in the mind of others.
But you are confused if you think religion can give you an innate emotional response - such an idea of beyond preposterous - you would have to explain how elephants and chimpanzees have empathy but no religion.

Elephants and chimpansees have no empathy they dont even have a soul. They just respond upon theyr instincts and because it is easier to survive in a crowd as alone, they appear to have empathy.

You are correct that people think that they have empathy. But if your image of self and beliefs are reinstated or altered thus becomes altered your recognition of past and present, so you cannot call empathy what was in the past but doesnt fit in your new self and value-system...

As a Christian all other empathy outside of Christianity is lower to me. Just a mere instinct like with the remark of animals. Only he who is on high-ground can view what is on low-ground.

[Arising_uk]

...

As a Christian all other empathy outside of Christianity is lower to me. Just a mere instinct like with the remark of animals. Only he who is on high-ground can view what is on low-ground.

How very Christian of you.

[chaz wyman]

I didnt have empathy in the start either, but I overlived and emotional event called 'rebirth' and became a christian and now am able to have empathy. All the martyrs and grate persons have had they emotional events or encounters. - Peter renounsed Jesus 3 times that means entirely and binding by holy law. So he set himself outside of Christs kingdom, but survived because of the Lords mercy. Judas didnt make so well, but did the same thing by selling Jesus off. One bore the pain of realising your worflessness the other hanged himself. For he didnt want to suffer the pain and agony of living a thoughtfull life with empathy.

You can also learn empathy, if you have a emotional event there your inner core is challenged.

I have always had empathy and so have you. It is a normal human response to the recognition of our own species - able to imagine our place in the mind of others.
But you are confused if you think religion can give you an innate emotional response - such an idea of beyond preposterous - you would have to explain how elephants and chimpanzees have empathy but no religion.

Elephants and chimpansees have no empathy they dont even have a soul. They just respond upon theyr instincts and because it is easier to survive in a crowd as alone, they appear to have empathy.

Even if it is meaningful at all to use the word soul, which i doubt, your statement about our fellow mammals is either based on extreme ignorance, or a blind following of the sickest religion on earth, which demands from page one to dominate and disrespect all other living things.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself - your views are a sickness.
Far from giving you empathy, your religion has demanded that you loose what little you were born with.

[Walgekaaren]

I have always had empathy and so have you. It is a normal human response to the recognition of our own species - able to imagine our place in the mind of others.
But you are confused if you think religion can give you an innate emotional response - such an idea of beyond preposterous - you would have to explain how elephants and chimpanzees have empathy but no religion.

Elephants and chimpansees have no empathy they dont even have a soul. They just respond upon theyr instincts and because it is easier to survive in a crowd as alone, they appear to have empathy.

Even if it is meaningful at all to use the word soul, which i doubt, your statement about our fellow mammals is either based on extreme ignorance, or a blind following of the sickest religion on earth, which demands from page one to dominate and disrespect all other living things.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself - your views are a sickness.
Far from giving you empathy, your religion has demanded that you loose what little you were born with.

yeah right, then I ought to be a budhist who doesnt eat meat, coas everything has a soul... Empathy is not the mindless axeptance of everything as equal. People are not equal with mammals but they may still treet them with respect, not because they are something.

If I understand that something doesnt live, it doesnt make me a murderer, or if I see that something doesnt exist it doesnt make me blind. It only changes your views about me, to protect and preserv you and your mind and beliefs and thought-systems.
I dont have to 'love' everything to have empathy, for this would be hypocrasy to show before you what I have so you would accept me. I am not here to find acceptance. Dont get yourself confused...

If I seek something atall then its denial and utter destruction of self. So that the overman may be.

[Walgekaaren]

...

As a Christian all other empathy outside of Christianity is lower to me. Just a mere instinct like with the remark of animals. Only he who is on high-ground can view what is on low-ground.

How very Christian of you.

So you want to represent the oposite that there is a greater empathy than that of Jesus Christ who disregarded his godliness and died on the cross for the wicked to give them new life. How foughtfull and Christian of you...

Lets talk about it with this picture: if I get married and have a wife and say that she is the most beautiful wife in the world, than this is the truth, even if other men say the same about theyr wives. If I would say the oposite it would be offencive against my wife if there there somebody more beautiful. Wouldnt that be adultery?

How can you not understand that???

There is nothing else for me as Christ and his love and compassion. try to follow my thought and dont get cocky with me...

[chaz wyman]

I have always had empathy and so have you. It is a normal human response to the recognition of our own species - able to imagine our place in the mind of others.
But you are confused if you think religion can give you an innate emotional response - such an idea of beyond preposterous - you would have to explain how elephants and chimpanzees have empathy but no religion.

Even if it is meaningful at all to use the word soul, which i doubt, your statement about our fellow mammals is either based on extreme ignorance, or a blind following of the sickest religion on earth, which demands from page one to dominate and disrespect all other living things.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself - your views are a sickness.
Far from giving you empathy, your religion has demanded that you loose what little you were born with.

yeah right, then I ought to be a budhist who doesnt eat meat, coas everything has a soul... Empathy is not the mindless axeptance of everything as equal. People are not equal with mammals but they may still treet them with respect, not because they are something.

You seem to be having a conversation with your own confused views. THis statement is based on your false assumption that humans have souls, but animals are somehow excluded - which is stupid and banal.

If I understand that something doesnt live, it doesnt make me a murderer, or if I see that something doesnt exist it doesnt make me blind. It only changes your views about me, to protect and preserv you and your mind and beliefs and thought-systems.

You deny other mammals a soul so that you can feel free to eat them. How unutterably childish of you.
The other mistake you make is the idea of a soul, which is necessary for you and your co-religionist to deny the reality of death so that you can all promise yourself eternal life- denying it to others and the animal kingdom.
You have no idea how stupid you look.


I dont have to 'love' everything to have empathy, for this would be hypocrasy to show before you what I have so you would accept me. I am not here to find acceptance. Dont get yourself confused...

THis is as irrelevant as it is misguided.


If I seek something atall then its denial and utter destruction of self. So that the overman may be.

Overman - the idea of an atheist, which denies the existence of the soul and eternal life. I've told you before how ridiculous your confusion of Nietzsche and Xianity is.

Stay Happy in your confusion. You are a Prime example why I am not a Xian.

[Walgekaaren]

You seem to be having a conversation with your own confused views. THis statement is based on your false assumption that humans have souls, but animals are somehow excluded - which is stupid and banal.

You deny other mammals a soul so that you can feel free to eat them. How unutterably childish of you.
The other mistake you make is the idea of a soul, which is necessary for you and your co-religionist to deny the reality of death so that you can all promise yourself eternal life- denying it to others and the animal kingdom.
You have no idea how stupid you look.

THis is as irrelevant as it is misguided.

Overman - the idea of an atheist, which denies the existence of the soul and eternal life. I've told you before how ridiculous your confusion of Nietzsche and Xianity is.

Stay Happy in your confusion. You are a Prime example why I am not a Xian.

Yes, how relaxing if you can use the words stupid ignorant childish misguided etc. for that makes you wise thoughtfull illuminated and adult for you saw it on your high ground how I was not there Doesnt you feel better now then you let all that steam out on a stupid christian

Well you may call Nietzsche an atheist, because he was against Christendom. So there Kierkegaard; Jan Hus; and others before him atheists in the views of the church and its policys. So glad to see that you represent the politics of the church while claiming to be against xian. For you xian and christendom are one and the same but still you get confused, why is that so?

You are not a xian because God hasnt called upon you, and that is all. Only the Lord allmighty can make converts I may only talk and my words are nothing but my God gives them meaning.

Death is so real to me, I see it all the time, its just not the end.

Everytime you say something it makes me smile... you reminding me of miself before my conversion to xian

[chaz wyman]

You seem to be having a conversation with your own confused views. THis statement is based on your false assumption that humans have souls, but animals are somehow excluded - which is stupid and banal.

You deny other mammals a soul so that you can feel free to eat them. How unutterably childish of you.
The other mistake you make is the idea of a soul, which is necessary for you and your co-religionist to deny the reality of death so that you can all promise yourself eternal life- denying it to others and the animal kingdom.
You have no idea how stupid you look.

THis is as irrelevant as it is misguided.

Overman - the idea of an atheist, which denies the existence of the soul and eternal life. I've told you before how ridiculous your confusion of Nietzsche and Xianity is.

Stay Happy in your confusion. You are a Prime example why I am not a Xian.

Yes, how relaxing if you can use the words stupid ignorant childish misguided etc. for that makes you wise thoughtfull illuminated and adult for you saw it on your high ground how I was not there Doesnt you feel better now then you let all that steam out on a stupid christian

Well you may call Nietzsche an atheist, because he was against Christendom. So there Kierkegaard; Jan Hus; and others before him atheists in the views of the church and its policys. So glad to see that you represent the politics of the church while claiming to be against xian. For you xian and christendom are one and the same but still you get confused, why is that so?

You are not a xian because God hasnt called upon you, and that is all. Only the Lord allmighty can make converts I may only talk and my words are nothing but my God gives them meaning.

Death is so real to me, I see it all the time, its just not the end.

Everytime you say something it makes me smile... you reminding me of miself before my conversion to xian

Like I said - enjoy your own confusion.

[Walgekaaren]

In 1989-90 then I was of 8 years old, then I desired in the utmost deepness of heart to have bananas. A kilogram of bananas cost then 125-325 rubles (1-2euros in todays money) And we couldnt afford it. Today I may go to Eden (a supermarket) and buy me some or some grapefruit; ananas; kivi. What was out of reach to me for it was a luxury is now at hand. I can afford it. But I also realise, the richer the government and its people become in self-esteem and goods; money, the stingier they become in helping theyr neighbor. The belief that every man is its lucks smith becomes a narrative of selfrighteousness over the other there you dont have to help the stranger, for he can help himself - or is a fool for lack of abilities or brains.

The problem with Italy and Greece are that they lived over theyr abilities, but they learned it from the richer and more advanced. They now need the help of others to get out of the mess, populism created. Because they wanted to be good and not deny anything to theyr people. In the end that denies the future to Greece and Italy.

What is empathic about this situation cutting them off from europe like a dead limb or helping them out, in the hopes that they may get better?

While affording bananas, having a job and a home some in Estonia cannot afford a butterbread and glass of water; have no job and nowhere to live. - While markets frow away food that could be used by the poor. While 50% of eatable food is being frown away some are starving and freesing to death.

[chaz wyman]

In 1989-90 then I was of 8 years old, then I desired in the utmost deepness of heart to have bananas. A kilogram of bananas cost then 125-325 rubles (1-2euros in todays money) And we couldnt afford it. Today I may go to Eden (a supermarket) and buy me some or some grapefruit; ananas; kivi. What was out of reach to me for it was a luxury is now at hand. I can afford it. But I also realise, the richer the government and its people become in self-esteem and goods; money, the stingier they become in helping theyr neighbor. The belief that every man is its lucks smith becomes a narrative of selfrighteousness over the other there you dont have to help the stranger, for he can help himself - or is a fool for lack of abilities or brains.

To what do you attribute your new found ability to buy bananas and other fruit? How is it that the price is not within your reach and where does the money go that you spend on them?


The problem with Italy and Greece are that they lived over theyr abilities, but they learned it from the richer and more advanced. They now need the help of others to get out of the mess, populism created. Because they wanted to be good and not deny anything to theyr people. In the end that denies the future to Greece and Italy.

How does this relate to the above?

What is empathic about this situation cutting them off from europe like a dead limb or helping them out, in the hopes that they may get better?

No, it seems to be in the interests of a growing class of technocrats to seize control of all government finances.

While affording bananas, having a job and a home some in Estonia cannot afford a butterbread and glass of water; have no job and nowhere to live. - While markets frow away food that could be used by the poor. While 50% of eatable food is being frown away some are starving and freesing to death.

Welcome to capitalism! If they put all the food on the market the prices would crash. Then there would be no worthwhile market.

[Walgekaaren]

In 1989-90 then I was of 8 years old, then I desired in the utmost deepness of heart to have bananas. A kilogram of bananas cost then 125-325 rubles (1-2euros in todays money) And we couldnt afford it. Today I may go to Eden (a supermarket) and buy me some or some grapefruit; ananas; kivi. What was out of reach to me for it was a luxury is now at hand. I can afford it. But I also realise, the richer the government and its people become in self-esteem and goods; money, the stingier they become in helping theyr neighbor. The belief that every man is its lucks smith becomes a narrative of selfrighteousness over the other there you dont have to help the stranger, for he can help himself - or is a fool for lack of abilities or brains.

To what do you attribute your new found ability to buy bananas and other fruit? How is it that the price is not within your reach and where does the money go that you spend on them?


Can you say 'hyperinflation' The time in 1989-90 and so on the normal payroll in estonia for ordinary people was 300 rubles a month so paying nearly half or even all was too much. Much to your expectation the capitalism didnt gave us that, but hardworking men and women who built up our country who believed that west would be better than the east and there willing to eat potato peels to get a free country. While others there saving theyr asses...


The problem with Italy and Greece are that they lived over theyr abilities, but they learned it from the richer and more advanced. They now need the help of others to get out of the mess, populism created. Because they wanted to be good and not deny anything to theyr people. In the end that denies the future to Greece and Italy.


How does this relate to the above?


Saying it bluntly Italy and Greece are paying the price for having a capitalist system. To have the banana at the fear price

What is empathic about this situation cutting them off from europe like a dead limb or helping them out, in the hopes that they may get better?


No, it seems to be in the interests of a growing class of technocrats to seize control of all government finances.


That would mean Matrix to me Technocrats only know whats infront of them and nothing else... art and literature would crumble before the needs of mashine and profit. Offcourse some private collectors may prosper... Wasnt the technocrats of the banks who lend too much money to Greece for they there greedy what started the problem? If there was no money 10 years ago then the fall wouldnt be so hard to them...

While affording bananas, having a job and a home some in Estonia cannot afford a butterbread and glass of water; have no job and nowhere to live. - While markets frow away food that could be used by the poor. While 50% of eatable food is being frown away some are starving and freesing to death.


Welcome to capitalism! If they put all the food on the market the prices would crash. Then there would be no worthwhile market.


Bullshit. The price would be affordable and we wouldnt have a nonstop 50-80% priceoff campaigns what noone believes anymore. Its the flashy sign what does the work, at home anybody know that they didnt get it cheap. For 20% of each priceooffing you may multiply the cost so for 80% off the price has been multiplied with 4. We also wouldnt have so many crisises and falls of economy.

Offcourse our leaders wouldnt be wearing Armani sipping Martini and driving Bentley, but who cares about those luxuries. We have too many cars and driving ways anyhow - the future is green like a reservate. A so tiny state like Estonia should find its place what is acheavable and not a phantom of a big states dream or nightmare. Our richness is agriculture and song not factories and large suburban cities, but our government is killing our wery root and legacy what gave us our culture and self-esteem.

Besides I was talking of giving food for free for those who cant afford it. Welcome to Communism

[chaz wyman]

In 1989-90 then I was of 8 years old, then I desired in the utmost deepness of heart to have bananas. A kilogram of bananas cost then 125-325 rubles (1-2euros in todays money) And we couldnt afford it. Today I may go to Eden (a supermarket) and buy me some or some grapefruit; ananas; kivi. What was out of reach to me for it was a luxury is now at hand. I can afford it. But I also realise, the richer the government and its people become in self-esteem and goods; money, the stingier they become in helping theyr neighbor. The belief that every man is its lucks smith becomes a narrative of selfrighteousness over the other there you dont have to help the stranger, for he can help himself - or is a fool for lack of abilities or brains.

To what do you attribute your new found ability to buy bananas and other fruit? How is it that the price is not within your reach and where does the money go that you spend on them?


Can you say 'hyperinflation' The time in 1989-90 and so on the normal payroll in estonia for ordinary people was 300 rubles a month so paying nearly half or even all was too much. Much to your expectation the capitalism didnt gave us that, but hardworking men and women who built up our country who believed that west would be better than the east and there willing to eat potato peels to get a free country. While others there saving theyr asses...

I would not say that capitalism gave you anything. I'm sure the changes around the fall of the Soviet bloc has meant suffering for millions.
The cheap fruit was simply the fact that markets opened. No more no less.


The problem with Italy and Greece are that they lived over theyr abilities, but they learned it from the richer and more advanced. They now need the help of others to get out of the mess, populism created. Because they wanted to be good and not deny anything to theyr people. In the end that denies the future to Greece and Italy.


How does this relate to the above?


Saying it bluntly Italy and Greece are paying the price for having a capitalist system. To have the banana at the fear price

Yes, they adopted a finance based economy. Such an economy runs on debt. For real wealth you need to make things. Production is the route to wealth, and the demand it supplies.

What is empathic about this situation cutting them off from europe like a dead limb or helping them out, in the hopes that they may get better?


No, it seems to be in the interests of a growing class of technocrats to seize control of all government finances.


That would mean Matrix to me Technocrats only know whats infront of them and nothing else... art and literature would crumble before the needs of mashine and profit. Offcourse some private collectors may prosper... Wasnt the technocrats of the banks who lend too much money to Greece for they there greedy what started the problem? If there was no money 10 years ago then the fall wouldnt be so hard to them...

The paradox is that it was technocrats that destroyed the fragile economies of Italy and Greece by creating financial products that generated the debt to destroy them. Now they are running both countries and cashing in on the debt by stopping all social programs and creating poverty. The poor are being asked to pay for the debt, they did not want and did not create.

While affording bananas, having a job and a home some in Estonia cannot afford a butterbread and glass of water; have no job and nowhere to live. - While markets frow away food that could be used by the poor. While 50% of eatable food is being frown away some are starving and freesing to death.


Welcome to capitalism! If they put all the food on the market the prices would crash. Then there would be no worthwhile market.


Bullshit. The price would be affordable and we wouldnt have a nonstop 50-80% priceoff campaigns what noone believes anymore. Its the flashy sign what does the work, at home anybody know that they didnt get it cheap. For 20% of each priceooffing you may multiply the cost so for 80% off the price has been multiplied with 4. We also wouldnt have so many crisises and falls of economy.

You simply do not understand how capitalism works. It is not bullshit. Capitalism runs on high prices. It makes economic sense to destroy food. WHy do you think they are doing it? For fun? Capitalism is sick. The market is not moral. It is amoral. It has no regard for the hungry. And it thrives on economic misery.

Offcourse our leaders wouldnt be wearing Armani sipping Martini and driving Bentley, but who cares about those luxuries. We have too many cars and driving ways anyhow - the future is green like a reservate. A so tiny state like Estonia should find its place what is acheavable and not a phantom of a big states dream or nightmare. Our richness is agriculture and song not factories and large suburban cities, but our government is killing our wery root and legacy what gave us our culture and self-esteem.

Besides I was talking of giving food for free for those who cant afford it. Welcome to Communism

I agree that food should not be destroyed. I am not in favour of uncontrolled capitalism.

[Walgekaaren]

Thanks for this thoughtfull reply, I agreed on the most you put out and will quote what I didnt agree on.

You simply do not understand how capitalism works. It is not bullshit. Capitalism runs on high prices. It makes economic sense to destroy food. WHy do you think they are doing it? For fun? Capitalism is sick. The market is not moral. It is amoral. It has no regard for the hungry. And it thrives on economic misery.

Well thats because I havent seen this real capitalism at work in Estonia or anythere like I havent seen humanistic communism what was wery popular at the prague-spring times.

How can I understand Capitalism then? And I still not think destroing food is economically mindfull while giving shorttime benefits to limited people and making the diplomacy between countries far more difficult. We are still reaping our 'rewards' from the african campaigns england and others had in theyr colonies. Have you seen the documentary about how is chocolate made, I think it was called Bitter chocolate or something cant quite remember. But it talked about chiled labor in african plantations who suply the big corporations. The 'reward' of thinking we know better what is good for others and may teach them democrasy and stuff.

the market is nothing what the man who created it is not If we want a better market who has the same values we claim to have, wether we call them Communism or Capitalism we should simply start implementing laws that aid in having a dignified and less brutal market what isnt sick but healthy. Its in our own pockets or shirt what stops that from happening...

[adge]

It's worth pointing out we've never had 'capitalism or 'socialism'.
The extent to which either might work is debatable, but lets not kid ourselves-capitalism has become a euphemism
for what is essentially state capitalism, that is the state intervening to prop up private business/industry.

[chaz wyman]

Thanks for this thoughtfull reply, I agreed on the most you put out and will quote what I didnt agree on.

You simply do not understand how capitalism works. It is not bullshit. Capitalism runs on high prices. It makes economic sense to destroy food. WHy do you think they are doing it? For fun? Capitalism is sick. The market is not moral. It is amoral. It has no regard for the hungry. And it thrives on economic misery.

Well thats because I havent seen this real capitalism at work in Estonia or anythere like I havent seen humanistic communism what was wery popular at the prague-spring times.

How can I understand Capitalism then? And I still not think destroing food is economically mindfull while giving shorttime benefits to limited people and making the diplomacy between countries far more difficult. We are still reaping our 'rewards' from the african campaigns england and others had in theyr colonies. Have you seen the documentary about how is chocolate made, I think it was called Bitter chocolate or something cant quite remember. But it talked about chiled labor in african plantations who suply the big corporations. The 'reward' of thinking we know better what is good for others and may teach them democrasy and stuff.

the market is nothing what the man who created it is not If we want a better market who has the same values we claim to have, wether we call them Communism or Capitalism we should simply start implementing laws that aid in having a dignified and less brutal market what isnt sick but healthy. Its in our own pockets or shirt what stops that from happening...

'humanistic capitalism' - call it what you will. Capitalism thrives on the control of supply and demand. If you over supply then price falls. Destruction of goods has always been a part of economics.