Recent USchess Statement

You make it sound like those groups of traits are mutually exclusive   Additionally, if you are guided by logic, you are rarely guided by empathy.  Emotional responses (i.e. empathy) tend to be illogical more often than not.

This is factually incorrect.  On the contrary, there were hypotheses that they were different, but every scientific study done so far has not found any evidence of that.  For example, there was a twins study (where 1 twin is heterosexual and the other homosexual) that came out about 6 years ago and their conclusion was (paraphrasing) "well, some people like broccoli, some people do not."

The irony is that the argument has shifted:  when I was younger, it was "they are born that way".  Now that studies have not found any proof of that, it has shifted to "let them choose to be what they want to be!"  Personally, I don't care what other people do with their lives (I have enough fun destroying my own life ... no need to worry about someone else destroying theirs!)  But I do find it interesting to see how people try to justify their choices in life.

Evidence that it is a mental disorder? How about the fact that a boy thinks he is a girl. A male thinks he is something that he is not. What happens if a 20 year old thinks he is 30, and starts identifying as 30? Do you need proof that he has mental problems there?

I understand that the video is kinda long, but when you get the chance you should really watch the whole video because he makes a lot of good points throughout.

What I meant is that you grouped logic with empathy in contrast to bigotry and fear.  The issue is that fear and bigotry are not mutually exclusive with empathy.  However, empathy is largely mutually exclusive with logic.  If you meant logic and sympathy, that is another story.  Good decisions are made when being sympathetic; horrible decisions are made when being empathetic.

The first thing you have said in the last hour that is 100% factually correct!

I would urge you to do more than 5 minutes of research on the topic before continuing such discussions.  You'll find that what you keep asserting is unproven (and in fact, evidence suggest the contrary).  The only thing dictated by your genetics is what your start out life as (i.e. do you have an X or a Y chromosome).  Everything you do after that cannot be blamed on genetics.

On a separate note...Also, what you said Preggo "If people are guided by logic and empathy then I don't fear whatever the future holds." We need to have sympathy for others in these types of subjects, not empathy. There is a big difference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMFabkPpgos

Again, you are mixing up sympathy and empathy.  You want to be sympathetic to the plight of others when making policy decisions; you do not always want to be empathetic.  For example:

A sympathetic policy maker will ask "How can I make this policy fair?"  An empathetic policy maker will ask "How can I make this policy better for X, Y, and Z people?"  It may sound subtle, but it is not.  The former leads to very simple policies that are easy to enforce and understand.  The latter leads to policies that have all sorts of exceptions that you eventually need a team of lawyers to understand properly.

So, I point out that your arguments are incorrect because you are stating them as fact when the truth is that studies into such matters have indicate otherwise and your answer is "well, you can't say it is obvious"?  I am not acting like it is obvious!  I am simply pointing out that your assertion of facts is incorrect.

The nature vs nurture argument continues.  I think you misunderstood what I was saying with the last part - I was not advocating for the blank slate hypothesis; rather, I was pointing out that trying to justify why you do or do not like broccoli by looking at your genetics is asinine.  Own your choices and you will be happy.  Trying to justify your choices by blaming genetics will make you miserable.

um alright maybe this is better: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkwiClimcJI

You may think it is a matter of semantics, but, contrary to what kids think these days, words have meaning and using the right word is important.

Sympathy is "I feel bad for you".  Empathy is "I feel you" (http://www.dictionary.com/e/empathy-vs-sympathy/)

You do not have to feel a person's pain (in fact, the notion that you think you can feel their pain is a presumptuous!) in order to sympathize with them.

And that is a very gross simplification of psychopathy - so gross that it is actually incorrect (or rather, incomplete).  The ability to demonstrate compassion is only 1 part of the psychopathic disorder (other parts include narcissism, anti-social behavior, and over-inflated ego, among others).

Having an open mind is fine.  I encourage you to read up on the current research!  Assuming that research is going one way or another due to the political winds of the time is another matter entirely (which is what it appears you have been doing up to this point).

Meh, I'm not very up to speed on politics actually... but just like some people live in an area with a lot of crazy liberals, I happen to live in an area with a lot of crazy conservatives, so my initial reactions to topics tend to be the other way from people around me.

I'm not sure where you are quoting that last part from

I only meant to compare the two, I didn't mean the quotes around the last part as if you said it.- as I do not recall saying that (and look back at my comments, I'm not seeing it).  What I said is to "own your choices" - meaning, take responsibility for the choices you make.  Looking at genetics to answer why you made a choice in your life is an attempt at shifting the blame for the consequences of that choice.

Yes, people should take responsibility, I agree. No one (or thing, like DNA) forces a person to commit an act. But again, this seems like an odd word choice. Liking broccoli isn't a choice, and I don't see how blame comes into the conversation if we're still talking preferences.

Contrary to what a small, but loud, group of people think these days, there are some absolute truths in life.  One of them is that your choices are made by you; not by your genes.

Ok, but both nature and nurture influence people. People are not indomitable absolute balls of will power.

"Anyway, my bigger problem with this is it seems like a silly cop out answer. Yes sympathy (and empathy) can lead to bad decisions... just like having none can lead to decisions we'd disagree with (like eugenics).
So the reality is not whether sympathy (or empathy) is good or bad, the real question becomes whether we have the right balance."

Well, I guess. As for sympathy, I am not really sure if you can have too much of it, (although you can certainly have too little), and having no empathy is not good. Ben Shapiro said himself, that empathy is good to have at a very basic level, but people will often use it as their base and that is where things go wrong. To make political decisions solely off of your empathy is a bad policy and that is what Ben is saying. In today's world, people will use empathy where they should use sympathy in politics. So I guess I agree that it is really about the balance, but Ben is saying that many people are tipping that balance and using way too much empathy and way too little sympathy.