THE PACK Message Boards

Someone is badmouthing someone on a topic and someone who relates to the topic says that they need to be empathetic. Yet when it is a topic they do not understand they say that it should be expected.

I do not even have to relate to a topic to be empathatic.

For everytime someone is empathetic towards you and they do not relate to the topic, you should do the same for someone else.

You should always make an effort to understand something before you make any comments on it.

I mean you can't pick and choose what people should be empathetic about based solely on your own personal experiences. If you realize this you should also realize that there are no exceptions. No matter how weird or crazy something may seem to you, that will not change how weird or crazy something you have said or done may seem to someone else.

ah, what?

Lukas wrote:ah, what?

Furry Fandom= Crazy or Normal
Belief in Alien abduction= Crazy or Normal
Otherkin=Crazy or Normal
Belief in God= Crazy or Normal
Homosexuality=Crazy or Normal
Heterosexuality=Crazy or Normal
Disbelief in God=Crazy or Normal
S&M= Crazy or Normal

One individual from Group A tells one individual from Group B to be more sympathetic towards them. When the person from Group B asks the same of the person from Group A. The person from group A refuses to do so.

Simplify, Cumulus! You aren't dealing with Psych or Writing Majors here.

Eschew Obfuscation! Clarity is what's needed, not emoticons.

cumulusprotagonist wrote:

Lukas wrote:ah, what?

Furry Fandom= Crazy or Normal
Belief in Alien abduction= Crazy or Normal
Otherkin=Crazy or Normal
Belief in God= Crazy or Normal
Homosexuality=Crazy or Normal
Heterosexuality=Crazy or Normal
Disbelief in God=Crazy or Normal
S&M= Crazy or Normal

One individual from Group A tells one individual from Group B to be more sympathetic towards them. When the person from Group B asks the same of the person from Group A. The person from group A refuses to do so.

I edited it.

Crazy in the examples above can be replaced with stupid, dumb, and etc...

Normal could be replaced with ok, acceptable, tolerable, strange but not in a bad way, etc...

I try to put everything in the later or I keep my thoughts to myself. So far I have not had to keep any of my thoughts to myself.

Each can be either, or both simultaneously. Each person's intimate universe is just that; intimate to that person. How much they engage in the consensual universe can vary according to the relationship between that person's intimate universe and the consensual one-at that particular time.

Given (General Universe): The Majority will always be "sane". This is because Sanity is a relative measure of what the Majority allows without comment.
Given (Consensual Universe) Interaction is dependent on the degree of excitement in the intimate Universe at a given time...ie; just after someone's signifigant other has decamped, it isn't advisable to bring up that someone's shortcomings as the reason for said decampment, ie; don't poke someone's sore eye.
Given (Intimate Universe) one may wax hot and cold over things that are experienced externally, based on what's going on in said Intimate Universe at a given time.

People can change their minds, and do-frequently. What was a hostile subject can become an interesting subject under such conditions. Person A can decide to become responsive and considerate, based on experiences; or can become non-responsive for the same reason.
You are seeking a stable definition where one cannot reasonably exist...people change.

Your offering of a list with a simple duality of choices won't work. Things can be "Normal" and yet have "Crazy" segments. You might have better response with a "Normal-Unusual-Crazy-Indifferent-Don't know" spread of choices...because People will react that way. Some people just cannot be sympathetic to things because they have no basis for that sympathy, and aren't likely to develop such a basis where they are in the present.
That isn't rejection-that's just People being People...

Then am I the only person on earth who strives to tolerate everything? To be compasionate towards everyone despite my feelings(I hate hate) and inner struggles.


It would give you chills to know what I can tolerate.

People look at pedofillia as sick and perverted. I look at it as abusive, cruel, and soul crushing. If a pedofile could go their whole life without abusing a single child I would not have any problem with them (still keep a close eye one them though).

Easy now... Abusive, cruel, and soul crushing is far worse a thing to be than sick or perverted. Soul Crushing is why it is one of the worst things a person can be. It is soul crushing because it involves children. I find the act far more sickening than the attraction.

Concidering there are other abnormal attractions out there (do not make sense in that the attraction does not involve a women (or man)which is the whole purpose of an attraction to exist), I think whatever entity is responsible is even sicker.

You hate hatred? Then you do not tolerate everything; Q.E.D.

Striving for such a mental state is a good thing. Omnicompassion is a very good thing.
The next step is letting go. Striving for compassionate indifference to everything. Achieve that, and you will be free. Letting go of desires is hard, but doable over time. Realizing that whatever happens is what is meant to happen (including getting involved in things) sets your feet a little farther on the path to freedom.

Eventually, you'll get there.

Are you Stoic by any chance?

Cumulus, your topics are incredibly vague. If you want people to respond to these threads, you need to make a simple point. Don't be so abstract.

tolerance is a two way street. What may SEEM like the most righteous and noble path to some isn't necessarily that.

For example..


- you might tolerate illegal immigration, thinking it's a civil rights issue. There are people like me who are quite intolerant of it because we believe it's more an issue of cause and effect. ( IE , low wages, overpopulation, non-assimilation, breaking of laws )

- Some people think we should tolerate open sexual behavior and "open" relationships. There are other people who believe that kind of behavior is dangerous, not only to the body but to the mind and soul.

- Quite a few people think every government official ever elected in history is corrupt. But just because a majority rule thiks that is the case, it doesn't make it true.

I get the jist of what you're saying Cumulus, but there's really nothing that can be done about it. It's just the nature of opposing cultures. Do what i do and try to get involved in both on occation. (No, maybe not sexual orientation since that's subconciously driven.) At least try to further understand the way the "crazy" group thinks and why they act the way they do. Then you can relate to them more easilly. It's like studying foriegn religious beleifs. You can understand the concepts and culture to understand the people, but may not beleive in it yourself.

The furry fandom is a fetish, simple enough. Otherkin are actually quite spiritually advanced or at least have the possibility to advance, although mostly not in the online otherkincommunities strangly enough.

Morkulv wrote:The furry fandom is a fetish, simple enough.

Not cool. This may be true for some, but certainly not all. *points to avatar text*

See, I disagree here.

Life is short. Live it the way you want. So what if you argue and think other people are wrong? I've never been able to do that "love everybody" attitude. Sure, deep down everybody can be a really great person...but I think you should be more concerned about the ones you care about and just stay out of everybody else's business. Hate is an emotion too and I dont think its healthy to not have ANY. *shrugs* Maybe Im just a simpler creature but I cant just sit back and not interfere. Its a live fast and die hard kinda thing. I cant sit around trying to help people. Let the help themselves or get out of my way.

Selfish? Bratty? YES.

(Im not sure if that post made any sense... )

You can't just take the Yin and then make the Yang rain from out of the butt of your conscience. I know that there's going to be times where in many cases, a question is to be answered simply either "yes" or "no". Black or white. But tolerance is NOT something that's either black or white, but instead many shades of skewed grey. If you're really striving for so-called "tolerance", do you think you'd be able tolerate a muslim drawing a picture of a syphilitic Jesus having a one-night stand with a jewish prostitute, in retaliation to the fabricated Muhammad cartoons that pissed off so many of the moronic majority of my people?

MoonKit wrote:Life is short. Live it the way you want. So what if you argue and think other people are wrong? I've never been able to do that "love everybody" attitude. Sure, deep down everybody can be a really great person...but I think you should be more concerned about the ones you care about and just stay out of everybody else's business. Hate is an emotion too and I dont think its healthy to not have ANY.

I'll drink to that!

Kaebora wrote:

MoonKit wrote:Life is short. Live it the way you want. So what if you argue and think other people are wrong? I've never been able to do that "love everybody" attitude. Sure, deep down everybody can be a really great person...but I think you should be more concerned about the ones you care about and just stay out of everybody else's business. Hate is an emotion too and I dont think its healthy to not have ANY.

I'll drink to that!

*starts pouring drinks*

ah I see whats going on now

MattSullivan wrote:
you might tolerate illegal immigration, thinking it's a civil rights issue. There are people like me who are quite intolerant of it because we believe it's more an issue of cause and effect. ( IE , low wages, overpopulation, non-assimilation, breaking of laws )

You can be empathetic to illegal immigrants without being empathetic towards illegal immigration.

MattSullivan wrote: Some people think we should tolerate open sexual behavior and "open" relationships. There are other people who believe that kind of behavior is dangerous, not only to the body but to the mind and soul.

You can be empathetic to the person without being empathetic of open sexual behavior.

MattSullivan wrote: Quite a few people think every government official ever elected in history is corrupt. But just because a majority rule thiks that is the case, it doesn't make it true.

You can be empathetic to the person without being empathetic towards politics.


______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kaebora wrote:I get the jist of what you're saying Cumulus, but there's really nothing that can be done about it. It's just the nature of opposing cultures. Do what i do and try to get involved in both on occation. (No, maybe not sexual orientation since that's subconciously driven.) At least try to further understand the way the "crazy" group thinks and why they act the way they do. Then you can relate to them more easilly. It's like studying foriegn religious beleifs. You can understand the concepts and culture to understand the people, but may not beleive in it yourself.

Yes

Morkulv wrote:The furry fandom is a fetish, simple enough. Otherkin are actually quite spiritually advanced or at least have the possibility to advance, although mostly not in the online otherkincommunities strangly enough.

No. Thers is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the furry fandom is nothing but a fetish. Those who have backed this up with evidence have been commiting the fallacy known as a Hasty Generalization. I know it is a hasty generalization because there is no way a person could possibly collect sufficient evidence to make such a generalization.

One may argue "All you have to is look for it and you can find the evidence, if you dig deep enough you will find all sorts of preverted art." This is a hasty generalization because the art represents an incomplete percentage of the furry fandom.

(Let's just agree to disagree ok Morkulv?)

Ok, after reading all these post and Im still some what lost.

Lets see if I can reply and give my 2 cents based on what I understand.

I think its a good thing to have alot of tolerance because it shows your a patient person and a good at heart. But its bad to have too much tolerance because doesn't that mean your alot easier to walk over? I believe having too much tolerance looses self esteem. You got to draw a line a where people can cross fairly often otherwise you'll be abused due to the fact you wont fight for it unless they come within 2 miles of your territory.

Although its important to defend what you believe in, your right about being empathetic towards others opinion, I try my best to to respect what others say and believe.

Now another point you said about people say to be empathetic to others when they understand the topic but say it should be expected if they don't understand it. I totally agree with you, if it doesn't interest them then they dont give a hoot. But hey its hard to stop it.

Did I do alright responding?

100%


I guess arming people with fallacies is a more logical approach. It shows that I accept the fact that I can not change the way everyone thinks. It also helps you notice when it is time to leave an arguement. Arming people with fallacies is giving them tools to help them defend themselves in an argument.

this is almost sounding like my philosophy class...

Um er... That is where it is coming from (my class not yours).

I never did like philosophy.

Stay like this and you'll destroy yourself in time.

Short Tail wrote:this is almost sounding like my philosophy class...

Haven't seen you around too much lately.