03-12-2020, 07:38 AM
(03-10-2020, 10:07 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(03-10-2020, 08:48 PM)TheNomad Wrote: You are failing to listen. This is not about empathy. The non-empathetic are depending on others to invite their empathy, and it's through that same door they escape the issue. WHY must you be just as dogmatic and preaching as they are?
Prophets are 2 sides of the same coin. Put down your belief system and approach a problem with pragmatism?
I think anyone can get behind the idea of CONDITIONING. The idea one side wants to CONDITION the other with their side and their beliefs. Just a few short months ago, The Economy was considered as doing just fine, thank you, yet the number of homeless people (those without walls) had risen and plateaued from THE LAST economic collapse of barely 10 years ago.
Up until anyone knew what was Coronavirus, ppl without walls were being overlooked. YES it's unacceptable. But not due to empathy. We are all (every one of us) being CONDITIONED to think there are circumstances where that many people without walls is OK.
I am so gut-punched sick of hearing the phrase "this side" and "that side". No one CARES what SIDE you are on. Ppl are still without walls.
Somebody is not listening. That we could agree on.
I see a good number of people identifying with either the red or blue perspective, and caring a lot.
Now it may be you don’t care. In one way, that is the whole point. But I am with the red and blue, which is a heck of a lot of people.
I am as dogmatic and preachy as they are because I care.
Now you are projecting that all other people are like you. They are not. They have attributes that you lack, and vice versa. They have been conditioned in one way, and you another. If you try to continue to make all a copy of you, guess what? You are not going to get very far.
In Myers briggs land, I am an INTP. I am supposed to be the engineer / architect into logic and model building, in coming up with an explanation for what is. I don’t seem to be on that side of the conversation with you. That is because I perceive other modes of thinking and have included them in my model. You don’t seem to have. That does not speak well as to the completeness of your model.
Now some people may prefer the freedom of life without walls. An old song comes to mind.
Quote:It’s knowing that your door is always open
And your path is free to walk
That makes me tend to leave my sleeping bag
Rolled up and stashed behind your couch
And it’s knowing I’m not shackled
By forgotten words and bonds
And the ink stains that are dried upon some line
That keeps you on the back roads
By the rivers of my memory
That keeps you ever gentle on my mind
Such a person would value freedom and independence over commitment to other people. In some circles, they might be thought of as unable to make a relationship, to make a commitment. Such people do exist.
But I happen to believe that a lot more people are otherwise, and that they would rather live with walls if they could. They do make a commitment to a wife, a religion, a political party. The song describes a pretty rare bird.
Thus, your argument seems pretty irrelevant to me.
That song, although not really thought of that way, was popular smack-dab in the middle of the hippie era when free-spiritism was very much in vogue. Sometimes I think we could usu a little more of that today. Am now in my 70s and still would like as little responsibility as possible. Depressed that most of the bills never seem to go away. Probably won’t be able to retire until death, even though I never had substance abuse issues.