If you are rewilding your lawn “because you like it” but signed an agreement to maintain the lawn and house to a certain specification, then complain about enforcement when you don’t keep up your end, YTA.
With respect to murdering, there is a social contract or a legal “contract” that says you absolutely can’t, so this argument obviously doesn’t work. “Because I like it” only holds up when there’s no contact at all and then it goes both ways. “Actual problem” has to be agreed in advance of complaining about taking action or not.
I imagine most people who are rewilding their lawn are doing so for environmental reasons, which I consider more valid than mere personal preference. If someone was doing so for mere aesthetics, maybe.
With respect to murdering, there is a social contract or a legal “contract” that says you absolutely can’t, so this argument obviously doesn’t work.
That’s kind of the point. The reason why you don’t murder isn’t merely because you like it. There are actual reasons. Personal preference alone is not sufficient to override reasons like social contracts and laws and stuff. So if one side of the argument is “this is good for the environment”, the other side saying “but I like it” should not be compelling.
It is compelling to some people when they consider stuff like the environment non-issues on the same level as personal preferences. Those people are assholes.
All well and good I suppose, but you realize you’re also projecting your value system onto other people, right?
Are you a vegan?
Do you have a car?
Have you voted in every possible election?
Ever bought Nestle products? Or something that was available locally but you got it from a super chain instead?
Etc etc.
Why?
If any of your answers are “because it is or isn’t convenient, or you just like it or want to” you’ve stepped into the same situation you’re arguing against. One side of each of those is that is is (or isn’t) good for the environment, for society, for community, or similar. Everybody does at least one thing that either isn’t good because of our priorities which are generally “things we want” when there are good reasons to do something else. If the worst thing someone does is has a lawn, well, the infractions could be much worse. Like killing others, to beat a dead zebra.
Sure it seems wonky when you spotlight it in isolation, but we are all fighting our “biggest issue” and rewilding doesn’t have to be that issue unilaterally.
I will admit when doing something like buying from an evil corporation that I’m making a trade off. I won’t pretend it’s fine. I try to acknowledge it.
It’s impossible to live in the modern world without participating in exploitation. This phone was probably made in ways that hurt the environment and labor. But I need a phone to participate in modern life. So I got one, and try to hold onto it as long as possible.
I think there’s a big difference between trying, and acknowledging tradeoffs and shortcomings, and just refusing to engage. “But I like it” is refusing to engage. I would respect “I know this milk comes from cruelty to cows, but I don’t care about cows” more. At least it’s honest.
This is also very easily flipped though.
If you are rewilding your lawn “because you like it” but signed an agreement to maintain the lawn and house to a certain specification, then complain about enforcement when you don’t keep up your end, YTA.
With respect to murdering, there is a social contract or a legal “contract” that says you absolutely can’t, so this argument obviously doesn’t work. “Because I like it” only holds up when there’s no contact at all and then it goes both ways. “Actual problem” has to be agreed in advance of complaining about taking action or not.
I imagine most people who are rewilding their lawn are doing so for environmental reasons, which I consider more valid than mere personal preference. If someone was doing so for mere aesthetics, maybe.
That’s kind of the point. The reason why you don’t murder isn’t merely because you like it. There are actual reasons. Personal preference alone is not sufficient to override reasons like social contracts and laws and stuff. So if one side of the argument is “this is good for the environment”, the other side saying “but I like it” should not be compelling.
It is compelling to some people when they consider stuff like the environment non-issues on the same level as personal preferences. Those people are assholes.
All well and good I suppose, but you realize you’re also projecting your value system onto other people, right?
Are you a vegan?
Do you have a car?
Have you voted in every possible election?
Ever bought Nestle products? Or something that was available locally but you got it from a super chain instead?
Etc etc.
Why?
If any of your answers are “because it is or isn’t convenient, or you just like it or want to” you’ve stepped into the same situation you’re arguing against. One side of each of those is that is is (or isn’t) good for the environment, for society, for community, or similar. Everybody does at least one thing that either isn’t good because of our priorities which are generally “things we want” when there are good reasons to do something else. If the worst thing someone does is has a lawn, well, the infractions could be much worse. Like killing others, to beat a dead zebra.
Sure it seems wonky when you spotlight it in isolation, but we are all fighting our “biggest issue” and rewilding doesn’t have to be that issue unilaterally.
I will admit when doing something like buying from an evil corporation that I’m making a trade off. I won’t pretend it’s fine. I try to acknowledge it.
It’s impossible to live in the modern world without participating in exploitation. This phone was probably made in ways that hurt the environment and labor. But I need a phone to participate in modern life. So I got one, and try to hold onto it as long as possible.
I think there’s a big difference between trying, and acknowledging tradeoffs and shortcomings, and just refusing to engage. “But I like it” is refusing to engage. I would respect “I know this milk comes from cruelty to cows, but I don’t care about cows” more. At least it’s honest.