• Donkter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    115
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Shitass little kid can’t even think of what to turn a tree into. LMAO

  • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is something we really need to take on: not all value needs to be utility or monetary based. Things can have existential value, too.

    Unfortunately we take the former approach with just about everything. We willingly tie our worth as a human to our work performance or some other ridiculous metric. You don’t have to be the paragon of project management, or a world famous influencer to be deemed worthy. You are worthy just because you exist.

    Trees, frogs, and mosses all have inalienable rights to exist, too. Since they comprise the natural world, and actually perform functions to sustain said world, they have value. Moreso, I would argue, than an exemplar of project management, or bumping up a number on the NYSE. More value than the table we could make from the trees, or the extra bit of space we could use from destroying wetland (frog) habitat.

  • sir_pronoun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    …poor little Timmy later got lost and went on to die from exposure in that forest, unable to build shelter.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      He just couldn’t work out what to do with the sticks. Insisting the sticks not be moved from where they fell was ultimately the problem, if you ask me.

  • Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Dude in the third panel needs to go to the hospital. His leg is bending the wrong way.

  • stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    This implies that only children enjoy trees for their natural beauty, that is just dumb.

    • Track_Shovel@slrpnk.netM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      beuty

      That is just dumb

      Uh…

      That’s also not what this is implying. Go make a board game about jumping to conclusions. I hear red staplers are on sale at Walmart.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        5 months ago

        Then tell me what it implies when all adults in the comic wants to cut the tree down, and only the kid appreciate the beauty of the tree as it is?

        • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          Kids are often used as an allegory for the innocent/naive/uncorrupted/enlightened

          The kid sees the tree for what it is, not what it could be manipulated into as the other character do.

            • Maeve@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Go find your inner child. He/she/they are crying out for love, protection.

            • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Many of our words are the same, but you asked a question and I provided an interpreted answer.

              Edit: To say it specifically

              The fourth character was drawn as a character representing an enlightened perspective. Rather than having multiple panels or having text to describe this, the character was drawn as a child as a shorthand since children come with that association in most cultures.

              This is opposed to the other characters drawn in different walks of life’s who have their own unenlightened motives which we assume by default within the context of the forth panel.

                • cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  The issue is that you called it dumb because you interpret it as “only children” are enlightened enough to see the tree as a tree.

                  But I don’t believe that is the intent of the comic, instead, they simply drew a child as a shorthand representation for the concept of enlightenment.

                  I believe any person can be so enlightened to see something as it is, and not what it could be made into if they wanted to.

                  Therefore, I don’t think the comic is dumb as you stated. I think the comic is attempting to motivate people to see things as they are and be enlightened.

                  Also there was a little humor in the misspelling of a common word when calling something dumb, in the way of “kettle calling the pot black”

        • Alice@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          The child is someone who doesn’t have a financial stake in what the tree is used for. It’s narrative shorthand for innocence, but it doesn’t mean “only children think this way”.

          Otherwise it wouldn’t be encouraging the readers, presumably adults, to think that way, because it would be impossible.

  • Darukhnarn@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    All of these views are valid. A tree has to be seen for what it can provide. If it’s more valuable to society and nature as a tree, leave it be. If other trees can gain from it being removed earlier than its natural decay demands, I’d argue to remove it.