Wearing socks *is* a social construct
-
It's really social norms, not anything else. There are probably more sharp and pointy things in the wilderness, then where we walk day to day.
My dream would be able to walk around the office barefoot and have it not even be considered weird.
I don't think anyone's feet would enjoy walking on asphalt at noon at 35°+
Plus people who lived in the wilderness famously had long lives
-
This post did not contain any content.
Your mum is a social construct.
-
Wearing shoes is definitely not just a social construct. They protect your feet.
Protecting feet is a social construct.
-
A society is a social construct and there is a social contract to live in one.
You know, we’re living in a society! We’re supposed to act in a civilized way!
-
See, I dunno about that one. I have a very strange and almost primal urge to feed kids. I think it's generic programming.
I absolutely do not have that programming.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tell that kid that yes, everything is a social construct. But without social constructs he'd be dead. Wearing socks might be all that's keeping him alive.
-
Just because something is a social construct doesn't mean it's a bad thing to be ignored.
Being alive is a social construct. Humans decided that some things counted as alive, and other things did not. Nature doesn't care if a bunch of chemical reactions are happening inside a cell, or in a glass tube. It has no objective definition of "alive".
Why is everyone is this comment section saying the same thing? Did I miss the part where they argue it's a bad thing?
-
It's really social norms, not anything else. There are probably more sharp and pointy things in the wilderness, then where we walk day to day.
My dream would be able to walk around the office barefoot and have it not even be considered weird.
Not really. Socks used to be the layer of what you wore first if needed, and then wrapped your feet in animal skins as the extra outer layer we would now consider "shoes." Shoes and socks were just sort of a combined foot bag/bundle for thousands of years, and many cultures developed socks and/or shoes independently, meaning they are not a social construct if numerous cultures are inventing them for practical purposes.
-
Socks serve a practical purpose when combined with shoes. They prevent rubbing (blisters) and they keep the skin cells and oils from your feet from the insides of your shoes.
Shoes serve a practical purpose in that they protect your feet from rocks, glass, and hot pavement. Did our ancestors need shoes? No. But humans have made our environments less friendly to bare feet
Our ancestors DID need shoes. Footprints in South Africa dated to be between 75K and 136K years old show footwear in use. We invented shoes possibly 100,000 years before we invented written language.
-
It's really social norms, not anything else. There are probably more sharp and pointy things in the wilderness, then where we walk day to day.
My dream would be able to walk around the office barefoot and have it not even be considered weird.
Hookworm infections are definately in decline due to wearing shoes. Ill take shoes over hookworms.
-
Protecting feet is a social construct.
You are a social construct.
-
To some degree that's true. But these days the ground contains more dangerous objects than it used to. Specifically hazardous man-made stuff
If it was just nature and we still mostly had like forest floor and such, then probably for the most part it'd be safe yeah. Well, with the exception of plants or animals that could damage your feet or bite you
The cholla cactus:
-
This post did not contain any content.
Some social constructs serve a purpose.
-
Even if the argument doesn't persuade them at the time it still makes sense to point it out to them so that they are (hopefully) aware of it later.
Fully agree. Always verbalize your thoughts and intentions. Give the kids the ability to learn.
-
I think it's pretty clear they're referring to uncomfortable stuff, not dangerous stuff. Obviously don't let them do dangerous stuff.
Exactly. Always protect your little ones. It is okay if they experience negative consequences, as long as it doesn’t harm them.
Trying to drink from a glass of water and get fully soaked is okay, even if the experience is not entirely positive.
Touching a hot oven is not okay. Here you have to protect them. The best you can do is try to explain why it is not okay to touch it.
-
Not accepting every social construct isn't the same as rejecting every social construct.
This is a counter, specifically, to " because it is a social construct, therefore I won't do it."
-
Having a shit is a natural process, however doing it privately in toilets is nowadays somewhat of a social construct.
So, should I stop using the toilet and use your bed instead?(Edit: I didn't think I needed to add an /s but...)
With the added /s it still reads like you're using an example to explain why things shouldn't be rejected based on them being social constructs. The edit just reads like you're smug about it. If that's not what you're saying, can you explain what you mean?
-
This is a counter, specifically, to " because it is a social construct, therefore I won't do it."
It's more nuanced. It's 'this is a social construct, therefore I can just decide whether I want to accept it, and I dont'
-
This comment was written by Big Socks
We should call lemmy “reddit’s bottom of the barrel”.
-
It's more nuanced. It's 'this is a social construct, therefore I can just decide whether I want to accept it, and I dont'
Except in this example, it's a kid using the argument to get out of "anything and everything". This isn't a necessarily a nuanced situation, this is using their own logic against them because they think they found a cheat code to not doing what they don't want to do.
