>If so, we should also have a word with 1.2 billion catholics.

Yes, we should

If that's the attitude you want to take then I wish you luck. It sure sounds good and principled to say such things, but there comes a point where you're no longer building a better society and simply witch hunting. Being guilty by association has a long, storied history in law.

That's indicative of underlying aggression and can't be extrapolated to other cultures.

I guess, but I'm curious what culture has no aggression at all.

Probably depends on how specific you get with the term aggression

It sounds like there's a suggestion that cultures where alcohol has no notable effect on overall violence. I'm curious what culture that is.

look at japan. Salarymen get shitfaced on the regular, but you don't hear about drunken street fights in Tokyo do you?

I don't hear about drunken street fights in the US either, probably because I don't consume the local media and street fights don't make it to the international news section.

idk maybe mormon culture?

Nothing where?

>not meaningful claims about the world as such.

Not meaningful to who?

Nature in South America's jungles, the Arctic, or Australia doesn't give a shit if you live or not. You have better chances of dyeing fast than being alive. You know, still nature. Harsh, but nature.

Stack plagues, bacteria-ridden water, parasites, funghi, predators and so on, and I'd say "nature" doesn't like you at all.

Yes, those are not examples of what I'm talking about.

Then you are under a confirmation bias.

First of all, lets not level accusations without some level of explanation. That's just rude.

Second, on what basis do you claim that I'm the one with a confirmation bias and not yourself?

What examples of nature are you talking about then? The time a dog was nice to you? Nature is literally indifferent to our existence

Maybe that dog wasn't indifferent to yours.

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

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.

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

It's always a red flag when someone thinks they know what point I'm making better than I do.

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

*

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,

Hell, a hundred people walking by a homeless guy don't give a fuck if he lives or dies.

Humans are on the same level as any other bunch of atoms to nature.

I think it is more complex than that. People can 100% care about the person in the street while still choosing not to help. They might believe that the person is insane and can’t be helped, they might believe that helping encourages the person to not self-help, or they simply prefer to spend their time/energy on people they love instead of strangers.

This is insane, antisemitic moral equivalency.

There's no reason for that to not be the case.

It is a form of blindly following it, in the same way that at some point for any legal system that people follow there's some level of blind following.

What qualifies you to know the spirit and letter better than those that adhere to and study this belief system?