[gobbomom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
god, I disagree totally. Contrived empathy? wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please, refer to me only by my 2+2 handle. Then maybe we can discuss empathy.

[/ QUOTE ]



lol, funny as that is, I don't think so. My intuition ( do you believe that that's a contrived attribute also?) tells me we couldn't be further apart in idealogies & I think it'd be a very fruitless discussion for both of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem is that you seem to have the idea that your "idealogy" is morally superior to mine, and then when you're probed beyond "zomg how can you say that??" you are unwilling to elaborate or open your mind to a different perspective. That's scary.

"You're [censored] CRAZY!" "I am?" "Let's just drop it." I agree we hold 2 very different mindsets, but the difference is I'm actually willing explain and defend my position.

IMO, empathy evolved because it had very real and practical benefits to us. How else could a trait evolve? So, giving to people who are of no consequence to you will be a misapplication of the instinct. It's an inefficient result based on instincts that come from a slightly different equation (we couldn't communicate with people on different continents until extremely recently).

If it makes you feel good, fine. Do it. To whatever extent we can observe inefficient instincts, we should expect to desire inefficient results, and obtaining them can certainly be seen as a good thing. But I just find it hard to reduce it to anything that is not ultimately self-interest. I don't think that makes me a bad person, just an honest person who's actually thought about these things and doesn't worry about coming off as palatable to someone who will claim a knee jerk moral high ground.

[/ QUOTE ]


edit: it's not a knee-jerk moral high ground to know that ingrained empathy is a superior quality. Sorry if you want to argue the point, but I really don't care what your position is because it's some b.s. defensive posture you've "contrived".