4 ms·

> every civilization has done things so far. For lack of better conditions. You are arbitrarily picking this as an example of being right because it was done t

> every civilization has done things so far. For lack of better conditions. You are arbitrarily picking this as an example of being right because it was done this way in the past. We changed so much for the better despite those things being done like that for generations. If you want a more technical analogy, this isn't about having a dedicated connection but about proper QoS. You can live in a mansion with family because you're still unencumbered. But reality is that for most living with their family is like having 3 Netflix streams on the same 128K line. And the fact that this is how every civilization has done things so far doesn't make it less of a pain. Makes it a traditional pain though.

maest 6y ago
> You are arbitrarily picking this as an example of being right because it was done this way in the past. Off topic: the opposite fallacy is called "chronological snobbery"[0]. I guess this could be called "historical snobbery"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery
- buran77 6y ago
  What civilizations did for ages has no bearing whatsoever on whether that was good or bad, either then or now. Not in and of itself. So I just took a hammer to the foundation of OP's statement. My argument was that it was always done like that due to lack of a better choice. Money aside almost everyone would choose better. As someone who lived in those conditions, surrounded by people in the same situation, I can say nobody wanted to live with 3 generations under the same roof. The lack of privacy, of space, the conflicts you can typically get from so many views cramped together, and all the social dynamics within that group are definitely not something to romanticize unless you've never actually lived it like most people did. It's easy to assume living in your parents' 6 bedroom house (or with the in-laws in the guest house of a 3000sqft main house, and the parents a mile away like one commenter though is a similar enough situation to the topic) is how "every civilization has done it" so far. Perhaps those insisting it's great (or that they're always right) might want to try it for themselves, the way those civilizations were actually doing it.

maest 6y ago

> You are arbitrarily picking this as an example of being right because it was done this way in the past. Off topic: the opposite fallacy is called "chronological snobbery"[0]. I guess this could be called "historical snobbery"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

buran77 6y ago
What civilizations did for ages has no bearing whatsoever on whether that was good or bad, either then or now. Not in and of itself. So I just took a hammer to the foundation of OP's statement. My argument was that it was always done like that due to lack of a better choice. Money aside almost everyone would choose better. As someone who lived in those conditions, surrounded by people in the same situation, I can say nobody wanted to live with 3 generations under the same roof. The lack of privacy, of space, the conflicts you can typically get from so many views cramped together, and all the social dynamics within that group are definitely not something to romanticize unless you've never actually lived it like most people did. It's easy to assume living in your parents' 6 bedroom house (or with the in-laws in the guest house of a 3000sqft main house, and the parents a mile away like one commenter though is a similar enough situation to the topic) is how "every civilization has done it" so far. Perhaps those insisting it's great (or that they're always right) might want to try it for themselves, the way those civilizations were actually doing it.