I do understand there are some mores (or taboos) that we commonly will find a rationality for, even when there isn’t a logical reason for it. A big one is the emphasis of high-contact sports programs in our education system. A lot of lives get ruined (and a few ended) every year to gridiron football injuries in the US, and yet it is difficult to imagine ending football programs in our high-schools and colleges (even if to switch to sports that involve less risk).
There was a study about instinctive mores, featuring the story of Julie and Mark (an adult sister and brother who go camping, have sex, decide not to do it again, but are not harmed by the encounter), and not only did subjects assert such a coupling was morally wrong, but would seek out reasons to justify their belief, even if it didn’t fit the specific circumstances. Similarly, it’s a common assumption that gay sexual relations between relatives is taboo, even though the commonly understood purpose of the proscription (to avoid conceiving children with birth defects) is not actually possible in the relationship.
For this reason, some social problems that exist (such as the social isolation of boys and young men that puts them at risk of turning to the alt-right) that we are disinclined to address (I’ve heard the sentiment before: sure, they’re suffering, but fuck those guys ) because we have a collective drive to see those issues in a specific way, such as holding contempt for teenage boys as a demographic, even when we know it will drive them into organized hate groups.
Your casual use of the word “our” suggests that you assume readers to be from the same nation as you, which is of course not the case but which, since it is implicitly taken for granted by what you assume is the “majority” yet barely challenged by what you would assume is the “minority”, makes a perfect point for this thread’s topic.
Not really. Our as I use it implies I, personally, am from the US and that I feel I have some responsibility as a participant in US society (at least, in my case, northern California society).
Contrast using it’s to refer to the US state or their indicating I’m on the exterior.
Just as your can mean possessed by you personally or possessed by you, collectively our pronouns can be versitile and ambiguous.
I was writing in good faith, but it is always up to you whether you can trust that.
ETA: I don’t know the injury rates or the school-to-professional pipeline of association football, which is highly celebrated in throughout the rest of the world. I do know FIFA experiences high levels of corruption and labor exploitation as NFL or AFL, so there are still reasons for society to regard its sports leagues less. Hominids be hominids, I guess.
There was a study about instinctive mores, featuring the story of Julie and Mark (an adult sister and brother who go camping, have sex, decide not to do it again, but are not harmed by the encounter), and not only did subjects assert such a coupling was morally wrong, but would seek out reasons to justify their belief, even if it didn’t fit the specific circumstances.
I just learned this is a criminal offence in the UK as well. Ridiculous. State absolutely should not get involved into what two consenting, non-vulnerable adults are doing. I could understand if conceiving a child in such relationships was a criminal offence but not the sex itself.
I do understand there are some mores (or taboos) that we commonly will find a rationality for, even when there isn’t a logical reason for it. A big one is the emphasis of high-contact sports programs in our education system. A lot of lives get ruined (and a few ended) every year to gridiron football injuries in the US, and yet it is difficult to imagine ending football programs in our high-schools and colleges (even if to switch to sports that involve less risk).
There was a study about instinctive mores, featuring the story of Julie and Mark (an adult sister and brother who go camping, have sex, decide not to do it again, but are not harmed by the encounter), and not only did subjects assert such a coupling was morally wrong, but would seek out reasons to justify their belief, even if it didn’t fit the specific circumstances. Similarly, it’s a common assumption that gay sexual relations between relatives is taboo, even though the commonly understood purpose of the proscription (to avoid conceiving children with birth defects) is not actually possible in the relationship.
For this reason, some social problems that exist (such as the social isolation of boys and young men that puts them at risk of turning to the alt-right) that we are disinclined to address (I’ve heard the sentiment before: sure, they’re suffering, but fuck those guys ) because we have a collective drive to see those issues in a specific way, such as holding contempt for teenage boys as a demographic, even when we know it will drive them into organized hate groups.
Your casual use of the word “our” suggests that you assume readers to be from the same nation as you, which is of course not the case but which, since it is implicitly taken for granted by what you assume is the “majority” yet barely challenged by what you would assume is the “minority”, makes a perfect point for this thread’s topic.
Not really. Our as I use it implies I, personally, am from the US and that I feel I have some responsibility as a participant in US society (at least, in my case, northern California society).
Contrast using it’s to refer to the US state or their indicating I’m on the exterior.
Just as your can mean possessed by you personally or possessed by you, collectively our pronouns can be versitile and ambiguous.
I was writing in good faith, but it is always up to you whether you can trust that.
ETA: I don’t know the injury rates or the school-to-professional pipeline of association football, which is highly celebrated in throughout the rest of the world. I do know FIFA experiences high levels of corruption and labor exploitation as NFL or AFL, so there are still reasons for society to regard its sports leagues less. Hominids be hominids, I guess.
I just learned this is a criminal offence in the UK as well. Ridiculous. State absolutely should not get involved into what two consenting, non-vulnerable adults are doing. I could understand if conceiving a child in such relationships was a criminal offence but not the sex itself.