All over the internet, you will find people are up in arms about pears grown in Argentina, packed in Thailand, and shipped to the U.S., there are multiple threads of bad argument, but two in particular are standing out to me.
The in-season locavores who insist we should only eat what's in-season and grown locally. So, if no pears are grown in your area, you never get to enjoy pears. Maybe they'd accept what's grown in the U.S., but that means no tropical fruits, ever (I wonder if they apply their own standards to buying wine?) They explicitly complain that grocery stores that import food make - gasp! - profits. Their ideal, it seems, is that we only eat what is available at the local farmer's market.
The in-and-out-of-season locavores. Identical to the above, but they allow out-of-season food as long as you preserve it yourself (or get it from some non-corporate preserver who probably doesn't have full time quality control person to prevent botulism).
There's nothing wrong with their personal choices. If they never want to eat a banana or mango again in their life, that's no skin off my nose.
But they are insisting that this is how others should live and are calling imported foods "poison.". There is no reciprocal respect for others' food preferences, and no recognition that not everybody has locally grown pears (or whatever fruit they like available), and not everyone has room for keeping substantial quantities of canned goods.
Should all those people be denied the opportunity to enjoy fruits other people are happy to grow and sell indirectly to them?
True liberalism requires standing up against a myriad of moralistic busybodies who would organize your life for you against your will because they are sure they know better.
I don't even like mangoes, but you can rely on me to defend your right to eat them.
You've got a free upvote from witness fuli.
Peace & Love!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit