Age wrote: ↑Wed Jan 25, 2023 3:34 am
Okay. Do you think human beings, or some human beings, or no human beings would change their behavior as a result of being subjected to lectures?
And, if you think some or all human beings would, then would that be to all or just some lectures?
I think most human beings could be persuaded to change their behaviour to some extent under certain circumstances.
So, to you, do ALL species of animal behave according to 'their natures'?
It seems to me that they couldn't do otherwise, but perhaps you know differently.
Either way, what is the DIFFERENCE between the human beings animal's 'nature' and the hedgehog's 'nature'?
The main difference, I suppose, is the human being's ability to modify its behaviour through rational thought.
Was it only the 'very sadly' words, which 'implied' the 'criticism' here, or were there other indicators?
If the latter, then what were they?
No, it wasn't only 'very sadly' that implied criticism. It was the general feel of the sentence, for various reasons, that implied it. I don't think I am able to satisfactorily explain what those reasons are, as I am only aware of them intuitively, rather than analytically.
Also, is it possible to SHOW and REVEAL the FAULTS and FLAWS from the human being's 'nature' WITHOUT 'implying' a sense of 'criticism'?
If yes, then will you provide some examples of HOW TO?
Faults and flaws are subjective value judgements, and only have meaning as a comparison to something else. A fault is only a fault if it is contrary to a supposed preference. If your preference is for human beings to treat their environment with care, but they don't, then you will perceive that as a flaw in human beings. It might be possible to talk about faults and flaws without implying criticism, but not when they are being talked about in the way you were talking about them.
By the way, is it fair that you perceive that I am being so-called 'so critical' when, to me, I am just POINTING OUT and SHOWING the FAULTS and FLAWS in adult human behavior. Which, by the way, is just the VERY NATURAL WAY that Nature, Itself, WORKS.
I don't feel able to comment on the fairness of my perception that you were being critical. I have no idea what such a judgement should be based on.
I wonder if, let us say "david attenborough" for example, gets 'criticized' for 'criticizing' what animals do, when maybe "david attenborough" is just stating the facts of what animals do, according to 'their nature', without value judgment?
David Attenborough is just a TV presenter who tends to specialise in natural history programmes. He describes the behaviour of animals without projecting his own subjective feelings onto them. He comes to no moral or ethical conclusions about animal behaviour. David Attenborough sometimes has something to say about the way human beings treat their environment, where he does usually reach moral and ethical conclusions.
But I am now also wondering something: You have a practice of CAPITALISING entire words to give them particular emphasis. When you fail to give David Attenborough the capital D and A that English grammar would normally demand, are you making a statement about his significance?
By the way, are 'you' stating the fact of what you ASSUME I am doing here, without value judgment, OR, with value judgement, and thus really just criticizing me here?
I am suggesting that you are presenting a subjective view as an objective state of affairs, so yes, I suppose I am making a criticism.
And, could it be the case that I could just be stating Facts WITHOUT a value judgement attached FAR LESS than may come across.
Yes, that could be the case.
Have some people been ABLE TO 'master the art' of communication BETTER, with 'you', human beings, than I have, like "david attenborough"?
I find that some human beings are better able to communicate with other human beings than some other human beings are. David Attenborough, as I mentioned before, is a TV presenter, so being an effective communicator is an important part of his job.
Or, could it be the case because "david attenborough" talks about, or states facts about, OTHER animals and NOT the human being animal, like I do, and adult human beings do NOT necessarily like to be TOLD the Truth about 'them', nor have the SPOTLIGHT SHINED UPON 'them', and so being 'so critical' is PRESUME FAR MORE OFTEN?
Human beings tend not to like being criticised by anybody, or, if you prefer, they tend not to like having their 'faults' spotlit. I can't work out exactly what you are asking, so my reply might not be satisfactory, particularly as it contains no reference to David Attenborough.