Sympathy and Respect: Defining Definitions

[Kiddo]

You are the one who said brought the issue of sympathy and respect into the tolerance issue before.

Please point out in this thread where I said anything about "sympathy" or "respect" before you came in and mentioned it. Where in my OP does it mention how those are associated with tolerance? At what point in this thread was it even an issue? The fact of the matter is, you decided to come into this thread, not even bothering to read the OP, and drag dirt from an old thread into this one just to be condescending and rude. All you have managed to do is troll my thread from your first post because you apparently still held some sort of grudge from the our last thread. I find that to be incredibly immature.

When I said that I could sympathize with people but not tolerate their behaviors, you said that sympathy was the same as respect.

And what does that have to do with the definition of tolerance?

Now in this thread, you have the audicity to accuse others of making up definitions to words without regard for word meanings, which is seems sort of hypocritical based on our previous discussion.

Oh, so you came into this thread with an agenda. You felt I was making up words, even though I had a source for my definitions. And you felt it was your duty to come in and argue about how I am such a "hypocrite". This from a person who rejected the actual definition of "analogy" because you didn't like an analogy I used.

Your continued use of the word troll does not affect me one way or the other.

It usually doesn't affect trolls.

I could easily have sympathy for someone I didn't respect and I gave you an example. Furthermore I have already given you my definition of sympathy from the dictionary itself, which you disagreed with, saying sympathy meant respect instead. You said it was mere semantics.

And I provided my own definitions from a dictionary, which you outright ignored, and then had the audacity to accuse me of making up.


I have nothing else to say, as your behavior speaks for itself and you know it.

 

[heart]

I thought you wanted to use the Princeton site as your ultimate source of word definitions? You rejected my "Free Dictionary" definitions earlier.

 

[Kiddo]

I thought you wanted to use the Princeton site as your ultimate source of word definitions? You rejected my "Free Dictionary" definitions earlier.

:rolli:

*points to OP and goes to bed*

 

[heart]

Please point out in this thread where I said anything about "sympathy" or "respect" before you came in and mentioned it. Where in my OP does it mention how those are associated with tolerance?

I explained already why I brought it up. I felt you were being hypocritical.

At what point in this thread was it even an issue? The fact of the matter is, you decided to come into this thread, not even bothering to read the OP,

I did read the OP. That's where I got the idea you were being hypocritical from.

and drag dirt from an old thread into this one just to be condescending and rude.

You may well take it as being rude and condescending, but I responded because I felt you were being hypocritical and untrue to your previous interactions.

All you have managed to do is troll my thread from your first post because

No one else was responding here anyway. It's a Saturday night in springtime. People will come here later and discuss the tolerance vs. freedom issue into nitnoid detail I am sure.

you apparently still held some sort of grudge from the our last thread.

I found your attempt to redefine words as irritating as I find in anyone else. It's nothing personal.

I find that to be incredibly immature.

You've a right to your opinions.

And what does that have to do with the definition of tolerance?

When we previously discussed the issue of tolerance, when you were on your crusade against NFP's and their internal moral compass which you seemed to feel as a threatening affront, You accused me of being too focused on semantics when I attempted to use dictionary definitions in conversation with you.

So I found it extremely hard to swallow you posting here that people make up their own definitions and you attempt to use definitions from a dictionary as standard. I mean, so okay, when I do it, I am being too focused on semantics but when you do it is being precise?

Oh, so you came into this thread with an agenda. You felt I was making up words, even though I had a source for my definitions. And you felt it was your duty to come in and argue about how I am such a "hypocrite".

It wasn't my duty, but my desire and seeing no reason to deny it, I did gratify it. It is nothing personal.

This from a person who rejected the actual definition of "analogy" because you didn't like an analogy I used.

I never rejected the definition of analogy. I rejected your analogy as being suited to the subject at hand. I found it offensive and non-sequiter to compare human moral consciousness to the way animals adapt to changing seasons, as if morals had seasons. You countered by comparing human morals to monkey's sense of species survival.

People can criticize other people's analogies as being "bad analogies" without having rejected the whole definition of analogy.

It usually doesn't affect trolls.

lol

And I provided my own definitions from a dictionary, which you outright ignored, and then had the audacity to accuse me of making up.

There is no direct comparison between sympathy and respect. They have different meanings. To say that sympathy means the same exact thing as respect is to be putting one's own spin on the meaning of sympathy. That's all I said and I stand by it.

I have nothing else to say, as your behavior speaks for itself and you know it.

What's up with all the heavy judger type comments? Do you think you are going to trigger some sort of shame response in me because I have violated some external standard that you have decided on?

 

[Kiddo]

I don't really give a shit anymore. I provided the exact sources for my definitions. The fact that you choose to ignore them and call me a hypocrite demonstrates nothing but your condescending and immature attitude.

In fact, my exact arguments were...

The problem seems to be that many of these threads turn into petty semantics because everyone has their own definition.

Do you see how there are issues? Especially since I've seen three threads deteriorate into this argument in just this month. That is why I would like to see people adhere to a definition instead of just making up their own. Nothing bugs me more than seeing someone who is clearly intolerant justify their intolerance by arguing their own personalized definition of tolerance.

It's arbitrary redefinition. It's no different than if I argued that INFJs by definition have purple dots all over them and so I must not be one. Just because I can make up a definition doesn't mean it is true. That is why people need to adhere to a more widely accepted definition, otherwise we are all as bad as Ayn Rand.

So in your rush to condemn me, you never even realized that I didn't even exclude myself from people who have their own personal definitions.

So you are nothing but a pathetic troll, and I am gong to ignore you now because I am sick of watching you troll my thread. After all, people were posting in this thread before you. Obviously you have no shame and you came into this thread with the intention of being caustic, rude, and condescending from the very beginning with absolutely no intention of contributing to the discussion other than to blatantly accuse me of being a hypocrite, when I never even made the argument that you are accusing me of.

I made this thread with the purpose of keeping discussions from turning into arguments of semantics, but you are so blind you couldn't see that much. Honestly, I used to have a lot of respect for you, but after this, I see your true nature and I want nothing to do with you.

 

[Totenkindly]

Maybe it would behoove everyone to step back and actually determine what the topic of the thread should be.

I'm left feeling either like the thread was just an excuse to continue a personal conflict from elsewhere on site, or that the original concept motivating the thread was lost early on.

* * * *

If we have to, however, discuss the "practice/experience" (not just some abstracted definitions) of the two words, tolerance and sympathy, I experience them much more in the sense of:

- Sympathy is more a "feeling with" experience -- I resonate with someone's pain and feel sorry/bad for them.
(- Empathy, by contrast, is more an "N" thing for me, not an "F" thing; I can put myself in someone's shoes, imagine what they are feeling and thinking, etc. Like seeing the world from their perspective in a broader way than just "sympathy."
- Tolerance means that I allow others, within certain parameters, to exercise their free will, and I don't get in their way.
- "Respect" *could* be a synonym for this, although respect has a few shades of meaning; respect can mean, "putting distance between myself and another to give them freedom" but it could also mean a "feeling of reverence or appreciation for someone's choices, action, or POV because they are in accordance with my principles."
- I can sympathize with someone while not tolerating their choices.
- I can tolerate someone's choices even if I don't sympathize with their behavior.
- i.e., tolerance is not sympathy.

So what is the real question that we're seeking to answer, after these definitions are agreed upon?

 

[Kiddo]

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the difference between "freedom" and "tolerance".

Miss heart took it upon herself to bring a grudge from another thread into this one and make it an argument about the difference between "respect" and "sympathy." Since she knew that her argument had no place in this thread, she made the argument that I had said that tolerance is the same as respect and sympathy. When I confronted her on that, she quickly backed off and said she never challenged my definition of tolerance. She then argued that I was a hypocrite for having the "audacity" to accuse others of making up definitions when I had done so for the words "sympathy" and "respect". I then provided the source I had used for those definitions, and she then made it an argument that I was using one source over another. To which I pointed to my OP where I had pooled a bunch of definitions for the purpose of finding the best definitions possible for the words, "tolerance" and "freedom". And in my last post I even provided my exact words to demonstrate that I wasn't excluding myself from the people who had their own personal definitions. So heart managed to completely derail and troll my thread for several posts simply because she had an agenda to attack me and not contribute to the actual discussion. Hence why she now graces my ignore list and I now have 0 respect for her.

I had no other question in mind. In "The Great Christian Argument" thread, it was suggested there is a great difference between "religious freedom" and "religious tolerance" and so I was curious what precisely the difference would be.

 

[pure_mercury]

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the difference between "freedom" and "tolerance".

Miss heart took it upon herself to bring a grudge from another thread into this one and make it an argument about the difference between "respect" and "sympathy."

I had no other question in mind. In "The Great Christian Argument" thread, it was suggested there is a great difference between "religious freedom" and "religious tolerance" and so I was curious what precisely the difference would be.

I offered an explanation of the difference between "freedom" and "tolerance," and you were completely dissatisfied. I still think my contrasts hold water. You're just itching for an argument that is, by definition, moot.

 

[Kiddo]

I offered an explanation of the difference between "freedom" and "tolerance," and you were completely dissatisfied. I still think my contrasts hold water. You're just itching for an argument that is, by definition, moot.

No, I just wanted you to assert where you got those definitions. The problem the thread was addressing was everyone has their own personal definitions. Hence why I provided arguments I could have made against your definitions.

 

[Totenkindly]

Miss heart took it upon herself to bring a grudge from another thread into this one and make it an argument about the difference between "respect" and "sympathy." Since she knew that her argument had no place in this thread, she made the argument that I had said that tolerance is the same as respect and sympathy. When I confronted her on that, she quickly backed off and said she never challenged my definition of tolerance. She then argued that I was a hypocrite for having the "audacity" to accuse others of making up definitions when I had done so for the words "sympathy" and "respect". I then provided the source I had used for those definitions, and she then made it an argument that I was using one source over another. To which I pointed to my OP where I had pooled a bunch of definitions for the purpose of finding the best definitions possible for the words, "tolerance" and "freedom". And in my last post I even provided my exact words to demonstrate that I wasn't excluding myself from the people who had their own personal definitions. So heart managed to completely derail and troll my thread for several posts simply because she had an agenda to attack me and not contribute to the actual discussion. Hence why she now graces my ignore list and I now have 0 respect for her.

I'm getting a little lost trying to parse all that and hook it to some positive, practical response on my part in terms of contributing to the conversation.

I think that's the purpose of the Ignore function, though, and you are wise for realizing that Heart and you just do set each other off regardless of efforts to communicate, and it's okay to put up a boundary if you need it.

Your next part gave me something more concrete to respond to:

I had no other question in mind. In "The Great Christian Argument" thread, it was suggested there is a great difference between "religious freedom" and "religious tolerance" and so I was curious what precisely the difference would be.

When I read those two phrases, based just on wording, my understanding would be that:
- Religious Freedom means freedom to believe and practice whatever faith you want. It is centered on the individual practicing the religion.
- Religious Tolerance means giving others the freedom to believe and practice what they want. It's centered on those who live in proximity to the person practicing their religion.

So it's a locus of impact/control issue inherent in the terminology. (which, incidentally, seems to be what Pure_Mercury insinuated in his post.)

Emotionally? Tolerance is more negative to me than freedom (or love). I don't know how that impacts the topic tho.

No, I just wanted you to assert where you got those definitions. The problem the thread was addressing was everyone has their own personal definitions. Hence why I provided arguments I could have made against your definitions.

He probably got them through life experience, if I had to guess. That's where I got mine -- starting with a dictionary def, coupled with practical life experience.

I'm just still not sure why arguing about the definitions makes any sense. Doesn't it make more sense to agree on SOME sort of definition, in the process of addressing an actual problem? Rather than arguing about whose definition is more right? Since words and word sounds are arbitrary anyway and just signifiers?

 

[Geoff]

Well, screw all this, I'm still waiting for a definition of : SYMAPTHY (see thread title)

 

[Kiddo]

This thread was split from another thread. But here you go...

define: sympathy - Google Search

an inclination to support or be loyal to or to agree with an opinion
sharing the feelings of others
the association of sharing the feelings or interests of another
denotes fellow feeling or emotional identification with a person when we seem to share his experiences and feelings

 

[cafe]

Oh shoot! There's no spell-checker on the title thingy and I can't spell to save my life.

 

[Geoff]

No, that's sympathy. This thread is about SYMAPTHY dammit!

 

[cafe]

Hah! Now it's fixed.

 

[Kiddo]

I'm just still not sure why arguing about the definitions makes any sense. Doesn't it make more sense to agree on SOME sort of definition, in the process of addressing an actual problem? Rather than arguing about whose definition is more right? Since words and word sounds are arbitrary anyway and just signifiers?

I would love to agree on a defintion.

The problem is when we argue about various definitions. Especially when people make up their own. For example, when Ayn Rand made up her own defintion of the word "altruism", she was able to make a rational argument against her version of "altruism" that is the basis for her entire philosophy. Obviously, her "altruism" has very little to do with what most people would consider altruism, but by arbitrarily redefining the term, she makes it appear like she has a rational argument to make against the more universally agreed upon version of altruism. It's nothing but an equivocation technique, and it is insidiously annoying to encounter in discussion.