jeremyjr said that many people claim that butterflies are not animate objects:

It is really interesting that you mentioned that example, the "flying pattern" of many butterflies appear sometimes so "chaotic" that many will try to "debunk" such flying pattern as the movement of an inanimated object. Simplistic arguments are pervasive in people without real observational experience.

I thought this was interesting so I asked for some examples. Jeremyjr, quite reasonably, said this would be off topic but would be an interesting subject for a new thread.

 

I have never heard of anyone claiming that butterflies are inanimate objects. Do you have some examples? (It should be easy to provide some if "many" people claim this.)

That will be off topic and somehow we already know what will be presented, the "fun" will be spoiled. But that could be a perfect topic for a separate thread, if I am not suspended again for "bad behavior", people with "authority" are bound to use that "authority" and will not tolerate other people that appear not to "respect" such "authority", the "human" component is inescapable.

 

So here we are...

jeremyjr said that many people claim that butterflies are not animate objects:I thought this was interesting so I asked for some examples. Jeremyjr, quite reasonably, said this would be off topic but would be an interesting subject for a new thread.So here we are...

You really don't get it. I had never claimed that "many people claim that butterflies are not animate objects", go back and read my post, the "semantics" of your statements is all wrong, but that is not surprising.

 

I do not act on "command", I will touch the topic in the way that I mentioned, very likely you will not be aware that I am touching the topic as this post from you clearly show. This will be my only post in your failed try.

Clearly, I misunderstood you. I apologise.

 

Could you provide some examples of people who 'try to "debunk" such flying pattern as the movement of an inanimated object'?