I agree with your point tho.  The sense I have of the writer is that he has probably lived his entire life in a secure and stable society and would feel differently about the danger inherent in the situation if he hadn't.

But even if he is a bit of a poser, and anyway that's his job isn't it, and even if he lacks in experience, I don't.  I am genuinely phlegmatic.  He is correct, he is right to cop to not really feeling upset, it's only reasonable he is a human being.  If I had actually been upset about the starving child in Africa I would have been overwhelmed, the face of one million children in dire need - at my disposal one squishy plate of food to contemplate mailing to Africa.  Look it would have been easy enough, quite within my human capabilities if that starving child had been in my locality - I could have just passed my plate across the table.

So yes, I agree with your point.  Can you acknowledge and agree with mine please.  Either that or explain why they are incompatible because I don't believe they are.

or you could admit you have an opportunistic style of logic not a fair one.  I don't mind, you pick, I will believe you.  Oh actually no, come to think of it, I do mind.  I don't believe you're fair, you're right I do think that.  You insist on making your points and won't acknowledge anyone else's.  Like my brother.  He lined up his soldiers and cowboys on the building block ramparts.  I lined up my indians and cows along the fences and trees.  'Bang bang, you're dead', he'd go and knock over a horse.  So I tried that on him 'You missed', he said.  Don't you miss 13's posts?  I do.

I hope he comes back soon.  His ideas are just as good as yours.  Some of them are better.