[greggman3]

Hey, if being in nature makes you happy good for you but your outlook on the rest is kind of crap.

Me, best time in my life, commuting in Tokyo to my jobs working on a project I loved with people I loved. All the ads on the trains were eye candy to me. I didn't buy anything that I remember but I did find out about museums, concerts, and other events around town as well as various obscure services which I never used but was amused to read about.

Drinking with my buddies, including work buddies about once a week was great. Clubbing, going to restaurants, and going to events of the kind that generally only happen in giant cities was lovely.

I like the occasional trip to nature but as for me I'll pick the city and the public transportation. I love it!

[gauravphoenix]

>Hey, if being in nature makes you happy good for you but your outlook on the rest is kind of crap.

It reads like you are stating a fact, but really, it is a matter of opinion. Perhaps, you can just say what you like without invalidating what others prefer.

[greggman3]

They have opinions. One is nature rules. The other is the city sucks.

I think their opinion of that the city sucks is wrong, full stop, and that a change in attitude would see all the great things a city provides that nature does not so that then you can appreciate both.

To me, enjoying the good parts of both the city and nature is a better POV than shitting one one of them.

[throwaway_au_1]

Different strokes for different folks. At least the author of the OP had the humility not to call anyone else's perspective 'crap'.

[greggman3]

He did call it crap or did you miss it?

In so many words he said cities suck, nature rocks.

Vs me, who said both nature and cities rock, and that the attitude that one sucks is a poor attitude

[borski]

I mean, he did call them rats, which isn’t that far off.