8 ms·

Maybe that dog wasn't indifferent to yours.

robbiep 5y ago
That isn’t an answer to the question and doesn’t in anyway nullify the broader concept of nature as indifferent - animals are merely part of nature and my experience from truly being in raw primal nature is that, of course things react to you, as you are also in nature, but in those circumstances the forces of survival outweigh any anthropomorphism that humans would normally attribute to the interactions we more normally encounter in our garden environment
- seigando 5y ago
  My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other. Some people are very stuck in their perceptions.
  - robbiep 5y ago
    That’s not the point you’re making, in fact you’ve really failed to make any point except a poor attempt to anthropomorphise nature and not provide any examples of how nature ‘caring’ is a universal phenomenon
    - seigando 5y ago
      It's always a red flag when someone thinks they know what point I'm making better than I do.
      - robbiep 5y ago
        I haven’t assumed you’ve made it, I’ve asked you what it is. That you can’t detect that from my plain language is concerning as to your capacity to parse my sentences. But if that is what you’ve concluded, why don’t you make your point then, as opposed to jumping around it as though you’ve stated it (which you haven’t) or assuming it’s blindingly obvious (which it isn’t?) it’s a red flag when someone has the arrogance to assume that their view is so universally understood that their dismissive curt replies will suffice for what should ostensibly be an exchange of ideas
        seigando 5y ago
        * 1 point by seigando 1 day ago [–] My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other. Some people are very stuck in their perceptions. reply robbiep 1 day ago [–] That’s not the point you’re making,

That isn’t an answer to the question and doesn’t in anyway nullify the broader concept of nature as indifferent - animals are merely part of nature and my experience from truly being in raw primal nature is that, of course things react to you, as you are also in nature, but in those circumstances the forces of survival outweigh any anthropomorphism that humans would normally attribute to the interactions we more normally encounter in our garden environment

seigando 5y ago
My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other. Some people are very stuck in their perceptions.
- robbiep 5y ago
  That’s not the point you’re making, in fact you’ve really failed to make any point except a poor attempt to anthropomorphise nature and not provide any examples of how nature ‘caring’ is a universal phenomenon
  - seigando 5y ago
    It's always a red flag when someone thinks they know what point I'm making better than I do.
    - robbiep 5y ago
      I haven’t assumed you’ve made it, I’ve asked you what it is. That you can’t detect that from my plain language is concerning as to your capacity to parse my sentences. But if that is what you’ve concluded, why don’t you make your point then, as opposed to jumping around it as though you’ve stated it (which you haven’t) or assuming it’s blindingly obvious (which it isn’t?) it’s a red flag when someone has the arrogance to assume that their view is so universally understood that their dismissive curt replies will suffice for what should ostensibly be an exchange of ideas
      - seigando 5y ago
        * 1 point by seigando 1 day ago [–] My point is that when you pair a certain perception with a certain experience, it's possible for things to seem one way or the other. Some people are very stuck in their perceptions. reply robbiep 1 day ago [–] That’s not the point you’re making,