All the arguments you say I could have made simply I've made:

An attempt at empathy is a necessity for understanding and empathy for the imperfection of the attempt is essential to bridge the misunderstandings inherent in any diverse society.

You either did not see them, did not understand them or did not acknowledge them until I brought up my six-year-old daughter. Why did I include it? To either aid, encourage or force you to acknowledge my point.

Your argument before is that I'm a meanie and I have no point. Your argument after is that I'm a meanie.

Fine.

The point stands that definitions proscribe behavior and whether or not mk wants to proscribe my behavior, his attempt at redefining words has that effect. More than that, I'm the only one arguing that empathy is not an inherently limited commodity despite the fact that mk offers no evidence or discussion to back up his assertion.

mk's core argument is that we must use emotions other than empathy to shape our behavior because there isn't enough empathy to go around. ilex is arguing that we should be nice to people, veen is arguing that other definitions are more important and katakowsj is bringing up a book on the Dalai Lama. I'm the only one making a counter-argument of mk's core point and now, in addition to attacking me for disputing his right to shape my behavior through definition, you're attacking me for not responding to your obscenities kindly enough.