4 ms·

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

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.

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.