4 ms·

> makes me think, given the implied negatives of child labor regulations and food inspection, that anyone reading that book should follow up with a quick read o

> makes me think, given the implied negatives of child labor regulations and food inspection, that anyone reading that book should follow up with a quick read of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, the same way that I found Oliver Twist a useful tonic after my first exposure to Atlas Shrugged. It's amazing how quickly you assume that the way those laws apply to Joel's farm is reasonable, or that what Joel is doing is the sort of thing the public were interested in interfering with when they supported those laws. Your reflex to defend the application of laws by their title is why no matter how much stink is made by people who actually read the US PATRIOT or EARN IT act for example, or any number of other brilliantly-framed pieces of legislation, there is always a gallery of opinionated people who will gladly judge a book by its cover with no less certainty, and with even more smug self-importance, than they would by its content. If it has never occurred to you: not everyone impacted by the law is a crook.

carapace 6y ago
Steady on my friend. OP just doesn't know who Joel Salatin is.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I commend you on your reading in English despite your having a full command of the language as yet, just keep your nose to the grindstone because education is its own reward. As an example, allow me to clarify some matters that might not be apparent to someone approaching English as a second language. Firstly, child labor regulations and food inspection are not the titles of laws, they are classes of laws; this is why they are in lowercase instead of capitalized like the USA PATRIOT Act. So you see, it was not defending the application of laws by their title but instead by their category, an easy mistake to make and you shouldn't be embarrassed about it but I thought it should really be corrected. After all it is nice to be able to understand the difference, as subtle as it is. Also as you will note I slightly corrected the actual title of the USA PATRIOT Act because, while also a minor quibble there are all sorts of jerks out there who will take up any arguable point and make it cause for battle! Especially when combined with the "who actually read the" bit right before. Another thing that has probably escaped you, not having a first hand familiarity with American culture is the little nuances of the blurb talking about child labor regulations etc. Perhaps it is unintentional but there are political forces in the U.S that would like to get rid of these and other classes of laws that exist to restrict some things that businesses might otherwise like to do, like having children work in factories and selling food that has been made in unsanitary conditions, and so when I see marketing for something that seems to argue against these classes of law I worry that the book being marketed actually argues against them - I suppose you can see why that might be, right? Anyway, as I haven't read the book, which you pointed out, I can't really say if it is like I suppose when I read the marketing for it, but as I said the marketing "makes me think" it is, if it shouldn't make me think that then the marketing is bad marketing but if it should make me think that it means that the book hopes to get people who are predisposed to side with those political forces to buy the book. Perhaps the book might even be so written as to even more convince people that these classes of regulation are a bad thing and for this reason I suggested anyone reading the book should read another book called the Jungle which was an initial cause in getting at least the food inspection class of laws passed. So the upshot of that bit of nuance was I was not actually judging the book by it's cover, which seemed pleasant enough, but by it's marketing which perhaps only incidentally implies the book is harmful in some way. Of course I was only being facetious when I suggested anyone read The Jungle because I don't think it was actually that good but I just meant that the people who subscribe to the theories that those classes of law are bad things seem to labor under some sort of ahistoricity and as that is a lack of knowledge it would be nice if the lack could be rectified somehow. Finally when you say "there is always a gallery of opinionated people who will gladly judge a book by its cover with no less certainty, and with even more smug self-importance, than they would by its content." oh boy, don't I know it! It really does seem some days that even the most passing and light-hearted of comments will bring some pretentious little martinet out of the woodwork, taking personal affront, and wanting to start a battle over it all. This is really why I wrote this overly long reply to correct some of what you wrote, as admirable as it otherwise might have been, because I would hope to keep you from being drawn into a confrontation with one of these combative types, who, as I noted before, seem intent on getting the smallest mistake or deliberate misreading as a tool to spitefully attack your character. on edit: minor grammatical fixes.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  > I commend you on your reading in English despite your having a full command of the language as yet, just keep your nose to the grindstone because education is its own reward. As an example, allow me to clarify some matters that might not be apparent to someone approaching English as a second language. Thank you for contributing your ridicule of ESL people, and then using that ridicule, as though you had trouble reading what was written, to say something smug about the medium of somebody's argument. > ...I was not actually judging the book by it's cover... By the way, since we're in the mood for making fun of people over insignificant matters of syntax, the "its" in "judging a book by its cover" isn't supposed to have an apostrophe in it. Now I could be charitable, and notice that if you wrote this on an Android phone, it could just be that GBoard was doing that thing where it inserts an apostrophe that you didn't type; but I'll adjust to your standards here and just take it as a sign that you're illiterate, which I guess explains why you stick to reading a book's blurb, and the cover more generally, rather than the content. > not having a first hand familiarity with American culture is the little nuances of the blurb talking about child labor regulations etc Dude, I'm American. It's not that your insinuations are too subtle, it's that they're unfounded, given the actual content of the book. > Perhaps it is unintentional but there are political forces in the U.S that would like to get rid of these and other classes of laws that exist to restrict some things that businesses might otherwise like to do, like having children work in factories and selling food that has been made in unsanitary conditions, and so when I see marketing for something that seems to argue against these classes of law I worry that the book being marketed actually argues against them - I suppose you can see why that might be, right? Still here impugning the guy's motives, and talking down to me as though you're the only one here who is aware of broad U.S. political themes, with zero knowledge of the actual content of the book, judging it by the blurb... the thing that goes on the cover; you know, judging a book by its cover. > ...the people who subscribe to the theories that those classes of law are bad things seem to labor under some sort of ahistoricity and as that is a lack of knowledge it would be nice if the lack could be rectified somehow. If you're so concerned about lack of knowledge, why don't you just read the book? It's about eight bucks on Kindle, it's not that long; maybe your nearest municipal library is open again and you can check it out there when you make your no-doubt-frequent trip. Replace your ignorance and smugness with information and.. well probably you'll keep the smugness, but at least you'll know what you're talking about. :+ ) > This is really why I wrote this overly long reply to correct some of what you wrote, as admirable as it otherwise might have been, because I would hope to keep you from being drawn into a confrontation with one of these combative types, who, as I noted before, seem intent on getting the smallest mistake or deliberate misreading as a tool to spitefully attack your character. Well we wouldn't want to go attacking anyone's character; for example by insinuating that their primary political motivation is to exploit vulnerable children for hard labour and produce unsanitary food to save money in a manner similar to the fictional characters of a novel about a child born in a 19th century British workhouse. We especially wouldn't want to do that by comparing a piece of mid 20th century philosophical allegory written for a broad audience, a fictional novel; to the genuine account of an independent farmer attempting to sell products that his customers are informed about and excited to buy, in a regulatory environment which restricts activities that no well-adjusted person would consider exploitative, fringe, or immoral.

carapace 6y ago

Steady on my friend. OP just doesn't know who Joel Salatin is.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

I commend you on your reading in English despite your having a full command of the language as yet, just keep your nose to the grindstone because education is its own reward. As an example, allow me to clarify some matters that might not be apparent to someone approaching English as a second language. Firstly, child labor regulations and food inspection are not the titles of laws, they are classes of laws; this is why they are in lowercase instead of capitalized like the USA PATRIOT Act. So you see, it was not defending the application of laws by their title but instead by their category, an easy mistake to make and you shouldn't be embarrassed about it but I thought it should really be corrected. After all it is nice to be able to understand the difference, as subtle as it is. Also as you will note I slightly corrected the actual title of the USA PATRIOT Act because, while also a minor quibble there are all sorts of jerks out there who will take up any arguable point and make it cause for battle! Especially when combined with the "who actually read the" bit right before. Another thing that has probably escaped you, not having a first hand familiarity with American culture is the little nuances of the blurb talking about child labor regulations etc. Perhaps it is unintentional but there are political forces in the U.S that would like to get rid of these and other classes of laws that exist to restrict some things that businesses might otherwise like to do, like having children work in factories and selling food that has been made in unsanitary conditions, and so when I see marketing for something that seems to argue against these classes of law I worry that the book being marketed actually argues against them - I suppose you can see why that might be, right? Anyway, as I haven't read the book, which you pointed out, I can't really say if it is like I suppose when I read the marketing for it, but as I said the marketing "makes me think" it is, if it shouldn't make me think that then the marketing is bad marketing but if it should make me think that it means that the book hopes to get people who are predisposed to side with those political forces to buy the book. Perhaps the book might even be so written as to even more convince people that these classes of regulation are a bad thing and for this reason I suggested anyone reading the book should read another book called the Jungle which was an initial cause in getting at least the food inspection class of laws passed. So the upshot of that bit of nuance was I was not actually judging the book by it's cover, which seemed pleasant enough, but by it's marketing which perhaps only incidentally implies the book is harmful in some way. Of course I was only being facetious when I suggested anyone read The Jungle because I don't think it was actually that good but I just meant that the people who subscribe to the theories that those classes of law are bad things seem to labor under some sort of ahistoricity and as that is a lack of knowledge it would be nice if the lack could be rectified somehow. Finally when you say "there is always a gallery of opinionated people who will gladly judge a book by its cover with no less certainty, and with even more smug self-importance, than they would by its content." oh boy, don't I know it! It really does seem some days that even the most passing and light-hearted of comments will bring some pretentious little martinet out of the woodwork, taking personal affront, and wanting to start a battle over it all. This is really why I wrote this overly long reply to correct some of what you wrote, as admirable as it otherwise might have been, because I would hope to keep you from being drawn into a confrontation with one of these combative types, who, as I noted before, seem intent on getting the smallest mistake or deliberate misreading as a tool to spitefully attack your character. on edit: minor grammatical fixes.

microcolonel 6y ago
> I commend you on your reading in English despite your having a full command of the language as yet, just keep your nose to the grindstone because education is its own reward. As an example, allow me to clarify some matters that might not be apparent to someone approaching English as a second language. Thank you for contributing your ridicule of ESL people, and then using that ridicule, as though you had trouble reading what was written, to say something smug about the medium of somebody's argument. > ...I was not actually judging the book by it's cover... By the way, since we're in the mood for making fun of people over insignificant matters of syntax, the "its" in "judging a book by its cover" isn't supposed to have an apostrophe in it. Now I could be charitable, and notice that if you wrote this on an Android phone, it could just be that GBoard was doing that thing where it inserts an apostrophe that you didn't type; but I'll adjust to your standards here and just take it as a sign that you're illiterate, which I guess explains why you stick to reading a book's blurb, and the cover more generally, rather than the content. > not having a first hand familiarity with American culture is the little nuances of the blurb talking about child labor regulations etc Dude, I'm American. It's not that your insinuations are too subtle, it's that they're unfounded, given the actual content of the book. > Perhaps it is unintentional but there are political forces in the U.S that would like to get rid of these and other classes of laws that exist to restrict some things that businesses might otherwise like to do, like having children work in factories and selling food that has been made in unsanitary conditions, and so when I see marketing for something that seems to argue against these classes of law I worry that the book being marketed actually argues against them - I suppose you can see why that might be, right? Still here impugning the guy's motives, and talking down to me as though you're the only one here who is aware of broad U.S. political themes, with zero knowledge of the actual content of the book, judging it by the blurb... the thing that goes on the cover; you know, judging a book by its cover. > ...the people who subscribe to the theories that those classes of law are bad things seem to labor under some sort of ahistoricity and as that is a lack of knowledge it would be nice if the lack could be rectified somehow. If you're so concerned about lack of knowledge, why don't you just read the book? It's about eight bucks on Kindle, it's not that long; maybe your nearest municipal library is open again and you can check it out there when you make your no-doubt-frequent trip. Replace your ignorance and smugness with information and.. well probably you'll keep the smugness, but at least you'll know what you're talking about. :+ ) > This is really why I wrote this overly long reply to correct some of what you wrote, as admirable as it otherwise might have been, because I would hope to keep you from being drawn into a confrontation with one of these combative types, who, as I noted before, seem intent on getting the smallest mistake or deliberate misreading as a tool to spitefully attack your character. Well we wouldn't want to go attacking anyone's character; for example by insinuating that their primary political motivation is to exploit vulnerable children for hard labour and produce unsanitary food to save money in a manner similar to the fictional characters of a novel about a child born in a 19th century British workhouse. We especially wouldn't want to do that by comparing a piece of mid 20th century philosophical allegory written for a broad audience, a fictional novel; to the genuine account of an independent farmer attempting to sell products that his customers are informed about and excited to buy, in a regulatory environment which restricts activities that no well-adjusted person would consider exploitative, fringe, or immoral.