Walker wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:56 am
Age wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:34 am
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:43 pm
A dog will sacrifice it’s life defending its human, and it doesn’t even look for thanks.
Does this apply for ALL dogs?
Walker wrote: ↑Sun Dec 27, 2020 3:43 pm
Not many humans would do the same for a dog.
How many dogs would actually do what you implied in the first sentence?
And the word 'its' in your first sentence and the word 'a' in the second sentence puts things into two very different perspectives.
Not being a dog, I figure it applies to dogs whose pure dog nature is unblocked, and since dogs have lesser access to delusional concepts of mind than their hosts, most dog natures are unblocked.
Could the phrase "delusional concept of mind" be just a 'delusional concept' itself?
What about human beings whose pure human nature is unblocked?
Also, how many dog natures are there exactly? And which ones are, so called, "blocked" and which ones are, so called, "unblocked"?
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:56 am
But, just as a human can be corrupted, so can dogs since as perfect parasites, dogs begin to mirror their humans.
So, does this mean that if not many humans will sacrifice their life defending 'a' dog, or defending 'their' own dog as the case may be, could then this imply that many owned dogs could be corrupted as well and so then will do the same thing and NOT defend 'their' own human?
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:56 am
You raise an interesting point about words, and as I see it, it’s because you have the energy of mind fueled by the mind/body connection to notice the distinction between “its” and “a.” Also, the rule-book grammatical error of "it’s" in the first sentence puts a slightly different light than the proper "its" does, doesn’t it.
Being grammatically correct was and still is of NO real concern to me, because if it was, then I would say something about there being NO question mark at the end of your question here.
But anyway the answer is 'Yes' the incorrect "it's", which you wrote in the first sentence does put a VERY slightly different light than the proper "its", but it is of SO 'slight of light' that I perceived to be of ABSOLUTELY NO CONCERN at all, especially considering the fact that 'we' of age to have learned how to write ALL make these of NO real concern, grammatical errors.
By the way, the beauty of you making that grammatical error in that sentence meant I did not have to make further explanations of which 'its' I was referring to. So, as just now, some grammatical errors come in handy.
Now, back to the ACTUAL issue I was pointing out and highlighting, the intentional or unintentional deceptive nature of using 'its' in the first sentence and 'a' in the second sentence is of what is of REAL concern, to me.
See, if you wrote; "A dog will sacrifice defending its (corrected) life defending 'a' human", and also, "Not many humans would do the same for its [their] dog, then we do have TWO EXTREMELY DIFFERENT scenarios.
What you wrote above, and the 'picture' it painted, then many MORE human beings would agree with that compared to what I wrote, and the 'picture' I painted here just now. See, the subtleties of words, and their meanings, can influence people if the FULL extent of the words and their meanings is NOT recognized and noticed at first. This is the reason why I say the words that we say and use have far more bearing on us than we even FULLY realize YET, in the days of when this is being written. This includes, and maybe more especially so, to those words we say and use, internally, to "ourselves".
Now, of course, dogs do not look for 'thanks'. 'Thanks' is a human being concept and construct only. A dog, however, will look for a pat on the head or maybe just a rub under the chin and/or maybe just a bit of food instead. Which sometimes either of these can mean FAR MORE to 'a' dog than some of the 'thanks' human beings say and give to each other.
Furthermore could it actually be argued that for a dog to sacrifice its life for its human, then its dogs nature has actually been 'blocked' or 'influenced and 'corrupted' by living with that human being? For surely not many dogs would sacrifice their life for 'a' human, just like, and as you correctly pointed out and said, not many humans would sacrifice their life for 'a' dog.
And if we wanted to be even more deceptive we could have used the term 'just any' dog. But this deception would have be far MORE recognizable and noticeable than just the 'a' word.
Walker wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 7:56 am
I’ve heard that farmers see pets more in the “circle-of-life” frequency of light, and from that I figure a farmer would be less likely to sacrifice his one and only, precious and rare life for the life of a dog, not that I’m a farmer although I can grow tomatoes and hot peppers for pasta sauce. There could be farmers who trade their one and only precious life for a dog’s life … Timmy and Lassie’s dad was a pretty good guy but I don’t remember that episode.
If we want to DISTRACT to this length and go so far astray, then would you also like to talk about "flipper, sandy, and bud" and/or "mr ed and wilbur" as well?
