Mattresses, maybe. Beds were beds. The basic design of beds hasn’t changed.
The point is that some things haven’t changed in centuries because they do the job just fine. So, the argument that “this is the way it was 300 years ago, therefore it’s bad” is a shitty argument.
Ok but lawns have always been bad. Their whole original purpose was so rich people could flex their ability to leave some of their land useless. The whole point was for lawns to be useless. So like, the argument of “this is the way it was 300 years ago therefore it’s bad” is actually valid in this case. They were useless then, and they’re still useless now.
Yeah you keep saying that, but that’s not really the argument being made. If you’d actually read all the text, you’d find the argument being made is that lawns are no longer environmentally sustainable, which is just true.
Just because something was done 300 years ago doesn’t mean it’s ok to do now. And acknowledging that isn’t saying that things that are old are necessarily bad. It’s just recognizing that things change.
Mattresses, maybe. Beds were beds. The basic design of beds hasn’t changed.
The point is that some things haven’t changed in centuries because they do the job just fine. So, the argument that “this is the way it was 300 years ago, therefore it’s bad” is a shitty argument.
The point is things need to change when they no longer do the job just fine.
Then say that, instead of saying “do you dress like this?”
Ok but lawns have always been bad. Their whole original purpose was so rich people could flex their ability to leave some of their land useless. The whole point was for lawns to be useless. So like, the argument of “this is the way it was 300 years ago therefore it’s bad” is actually valid in this case. They were useless then, and they’re still useless now.
I don’t care about lawns, I care about the bad argument claiming that if things were done a certain way 300 years ago, they’re necessarily bad.
Yeah you keep saying that, but that’s not really the argument being made. If you’d actually read all the text, you’d find the argument being made is that lawns are no longer environmentally sustainable, which is just true.
Just because something was done 300 years ago doesn’t mean it’s ok to do now. And acknowledging that isn’t saying that things that are old are necessarily bad. It’s just recognizing that things change.
That’s what’s in the tiny text at the bottom, but the actual argument as presented is “it’s the way things were done in the past, so it’s bad”.
Mkay well now you’re just stubbornly refusing to see reality lol. I hope you don’t do this with every piece of media you see
I’m seeing reality, you’re seeing what you want to see.
K