[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.

[Loocid]

Have you considered that they may not value the things the city is good for? For instance, I really don't care that much for any of the things you listed (museums, concerts, restaurants etc). I value what the mountains have to offer significantly higher.

[greggman3]

Yes, I did consider that. That's exactly my point. He stated he hates (A) and likes (B). I suggested that hating (A) is a poor POV. It would be better to like both (A) and (B) even if you prefer (B).

Let's put it another way. If someone says the France sucks, Germany rules. And someone replies "The France doesn't suck, here's a few reasons why". Why do you feel the need to jump in and defend the POV that "France sucks"?

I also listed spending time with people as a plus to the city. It's interesting that you left that out. I'd guess if the author had a job they loved with people they loved their attitude about everything else would change. The fact they're in a job they hate arguably taints everything else about their life. Commuting of course sucks if it's to a place you don't want to go in the first place. To me, commuting by public transport rocks because I got, on average, 50+ minutes of walking (25 each way) for free (added to the 20 minutes of standing on the train)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPUlgSRn6e0

[Loocid]

>Let's put it another way. If someone says the France sucks, Germany rules. And someone replies "The France doesn't suck, here's a few reasons why". Why do you feel the need to jump in and defend the POV that "France sucks"?

Because you're forcing your opinions on them. You literally said their opinion is wrong.

Saying France doesn't suck because they have good croissants is pointless for a person that doesn't like croissants.

You can't force yourself to like something just because "it would be a better POV".

[gauravphoenix]

Opinions are never right or wrong. That's by definition.

Facts on the other hand can be right or wrong as they can be independently verified.

There is no way to prove "great" things cities can provide. Different people value different things.

[seanbarry]

Hey, author here.

I actually don't dislike cities and I didn't generalise that they are terrible.

London is one of the busiest and largest mega cities on the planet. It's incomparable to a city of ~400k people where you can walk in 45 minutes from the city centre to the boundary where the urban environment becomes a more natural environment.

The mega city is not for me, and I regret sacrificing quality of life for income. This decision is about rebalancing those two.

[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.

[throwaway_au_1]

I'm not so sure that the meaning behind The Rat Race is that a human being participating in a rat race is a rat.

[borski]

> Around the 30 second mark is a scene where the protaganist rat is waiting for a train to arrive at a packed platform. I recently had a sobering realisation while standing waiting at the platform for the Waterloo & City Line: this had become my life.

He calls himself, and by implication those around him, rats in the rat race. Whether you agree with him or not, the clear implication is a negative one.