I resent the implication that I think current social roles and gender norms are not fucked up. Or that I think incremental change is inherently more desirable than radical change.
I find Desrtopa’s paragraph that eridu quoted highly problematic—but it’s just too hard to articulate why to an audience that doesn’t think historical contingency of moral values is a vitally important issue in any moral discussion.
I am confused. I certainly didn’t intend to imply anything about your thoughts one way or the other, and looking at my comment now I don’t see how I did so, though I can see where eridu is doing so. (Were it not for your second paragraph, I would assume you’d meant to respond to them.)
Can you clarify where the implication you resent comes from?
FWIW, I disagree with Desrtopa, but I understand their position; it’s a pretty standard one. I’m not sure I understand eridu’s understanding of radicalism, which is why I asked about it.
I resent the implication that I think current social roles and gender norms are not fucked up. Or that I think incremental change is inherently more desirable than radical change.
I find Desrtopa’s paragraph that eridu quoted highly problematic—but it’s just too hard to articulate why to an audience that doesn’t think historical contingency of moral values is a vitally important issue in any moral discussion.
I am confused. I certainly didn’t intend to imply anything about your thoughts one way or the other, and looking at my comment now I don’t see how I did so, though I can see where eridu is doing so. (Were it not for your second paragraph, I would assume you’d meant to respond to them.)
Can you clarify where the implication you resent comes from?
FWIW, I disagree with Desrtopa, but I understand their position; it’s a pretty standard one. I’m not sure I understand eridu’s understanding of radicalism, which is why I asked about it.