3 ms·

I read the whole thing, and am also quite disturbed. I also had the feeling that while there is a some discussion surrounding food, an awful lot of small jabs a

by hrktb 12y ago

I read the whole thing, and am also quite disturbed. I also had the feeling that while there is a some discussion surrounding food, an awful lot of small jabs are made at people's sexual views. There is a repeated point driven accros that people of this area are morally depleted, in difference to previous generations. It's summed up in the introduction statement: > * things we might signal by shorthand as mindful eating, and mindless sex* This goes along though the whole piece, a lot of mentions goes toward porn, some about drugs, and the main point is again summed up at the end: > [Nietzsch]He could not possibly have foreseen our world: one in which sex would indeed become “morally neutral” in the eyes of a great many people — even as food would come to replace it as source of moral authority. A lot of words and energy is spent presenting current people's sex life as mindless, morally depleted where as in "the good old days" it wasn't the case. It's so egregious that it feels like the food talk is just a red herring and this essay just really wants to grieve about people's sexual life. So I'd agree with you, the author talks about a lot more than just veggies, actually it would mainly be about her thought on sex. You can't fault anyone pointing out that it's written by a conservative think tank.

pdeuchler 12y ago
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, why would you assume either way? I think she's got some very interesting points but I'm more inclined to think the phenomenon she addresses has more to do with humanity's newfound ability to work their way up Maslow's hierarchy, and the issues we encounter while society evolves away from trying to reduce risks (i.e. stockpile this food so we have something to eat during the winter) to managing them (i.e. plan global agriculture infrastructure to be able to provide a constant level of food for the greatest amount of people). If my original point wasn't clear, it's dumb to pattern match based on supposed political affiliations and then make judgements without allowing the arguments to stand on their own. On the same note, I think you are projecting your stereotypes of "conservatives" onto her observations of society... I don't think she's necessarily advocating for one side or the other.
- dalke 12y ago
  There have always been people at the top of Maslow's hierarchy. I gave as an example the aristocracy of the 1600s. I gave as another example JFK, whose many affairs were well known, but never tut-tutted as much as, say, the teenager in high school who suddenly had to visit with family out of state for 8 months. One of my stereotypes is that that conservatives tend to not analyze history as an oppressive patriarchy where social structures are set up to reinforce certain discriminatory behavior. Do you disagree with that characterization of most conservative analysis? I think it's an important factor. I quoted another essay which goes into why those are important factors. Since the essay did not address them (that I could tell), I thought it was lacking.
- hrktb 12y ago
  Personally I don't really care if she is conservative or not (I'm not even in the US and am not sure to really understand the party system). What bothers me the most is that the article wants to tackle sex, and eventually food, but the claims on both subjects are peculiar, unrealistic and mainly unfounded. People aren't less moral than they were centuries ago, be it towards sex or anything else. Different people can now openly have different moralities, different POV have come to be tolerated and the law and society has changed in its view of sexual orientation and marriage. But these sexual behaviors or way of thinking didn't just become a thing now that they are legal or accepted, people were just doing them behind closed doors, were openly seen as exceptions, or got banned from society/killed/deported. Arguing that morality has gone south in two centuries is just an other way of saying "Society as a whole should have a single moral compass, the one of two centuries ago, let's bash any different moralities". And sadly the same goes for the food argument. There is so much "junk" food now because people produce and actually consume it. Arguying that we've become more morally concerned about food when literally thousands of tons of generic food is produced and eaten everyday is also delusional. Some peope care a lot more about what they it, of course, just as centuries ago rich people would also care about who makes their bread, what is their meat, if it's poisoned, and if it's nutritionous and tasty. There's no way a bourgeois would eat the same food as a farmer, and with choice comes educated behaviors, preferences and opinions. People didn't just judge with the same criteria, and it would be misleading to say that prefering organic vegetables to sanglier meat is a more moral choice.
ctchocula 12y ago
I agree with your opinion of the article. It reminded me of that Asimov essay [1] that talks about the English Lit student who wrote him a letter quoted Socrates to him, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing" and implied that there is no advancement in our knowledge when we thought the Earth was flat and we were wrong, and our modern understanding that the Earth is round and we are wrong (since it's not perfectly round). The upshot was that Asimov was foolish in thinking he knew something. The author of this essay seems to imply a similar idea. By passing off the moralities as a fad, the author seems utterly clueless of the fact that when more people have pre-marital sex, no one is harmed, but when people raise millions of animals to be eaten, there is a victim (the animal). [1] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

by hrktb 12y ago

pdeuchler 12y ago

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the article, why would you assume either way? I think she's got some very interesting points but I'm more inclined to think the phenomenon she addresses has more to do with humanity's newfound ability to work their way up Maslow's hierarchy, and the issues we encounter while society evolves away from trying to reduce risks (i.e. stockpile this food so we have something to eat during the winter) to managing them (i.e. plan global agriculture infrastructure to be able to provide a constant level of food for the greatest amount of people). If my original point wasn't clear, it's dumb to pattern match based on supposed political affiliations and then make judgements without allowing the arguments to stand on their own. On the same note, I think you are projecting your stereotypes of "conservatives" onto her observations of society... I don't think she's necessarily advocating for one side or the other.

dalke 12y ago
There have always been people at the top of Maslow's hierarchy. I gave as an example the aristocracy of the 1600s. I gave as another example JFK, whose many affairs were well known, but never tut-tutted as much as, say, the teenager in high school who suddenly had to visit with family out of state for 8 months. One of my stereotypes is that that conservatives tend to not analyze history as an oppressive patriarchy where social structures are set up to reinforce certain discriminatory behavior. Do you disagree with that characterization of most conservative analysis? I think it's an important factor. I quoted another essay which goes into why those are important factors. Since the essay did not address them (that I could tell), I thought it was lacking.
hrktb 12y ago
Personally I don't really care if she is conservative or not (I'm not even in the US and am not sure to really understand the party system). What bothers me the most is that the article wants to tackle sex, and eventually food, but the claims on both subjects are peculiar, unrealistic and mainly unfounded. People aren't less moral than they were centuries ago, be it towards sex or anything else. Different people can now openly have different moralities, different POV have come to be tolerated and the law and society has changed in its view of sexual orientation and marriage. But these sexual behaviors or way of thinking didn't just become a thing now that they are legal or accepted, people were just doing them behind closed doors, were openly seen as exceptions, or got banned from society/killed/deported. Arguing that morality has gone south in two centuries is just an other way of saying "Society as a whole should have a single moral compass, the one of two centuries ago, let's bash any different moralities". And sadly the same goes for the food argument. There is so much "junk" food now because people produce and actually consume it. Arguying that we've become more morally concerned about food when literally thousands of tons of generic food is produced and eaten everyday is also delusional. Some peope care a lot more about what they it, of course, just as centuries ago rich people would also care about who makes their bread, what is their meat, if it's poisoned, and if it's nutritionous and tasty. There's no way a bourgeois would eat the same food as a farmer, and with choice comes educated behaviors, preferences and opinions. People didn't just judge with the same criteria, and it would be misleading to say that prefering organic vegetables to sanglier meat is a more moral choice.

ctchocula 12y ago

I agree with your opinion of the article. It reminded me of that Asimov essay [1] that talks about the English Lit student who wrote him a letter quoted Socrates to him, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing" and implied that there is no advancement in our knowledge when we thought the Earth was flat and we were wrong, and our modern understanding that the Earth is round and we are wrong (since it's not perfectly round). The upshot was that Asimov was foolish in thinking he knew something. The author of this essay seems to imply a similar idea. By passing off the moralities as a fad, the author seems utterly clueless of the fact that when more people have pre-marital sex, no one is harmed, but when people raise millions of animals to be eaten, there is a victim (the animal). [1] http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm