Oh, I agree that it's a believable position and I do fully expect there to be people who hold similar opinions - but it was presented rather conveniently for the poster's argument, and in a real discussion I would expect more back and forth over it.
I believe the gin issue was very serious - or at least was considered very serious - but the basic human failings it was exposing haven't really changed, we just really don't have the same horrendous levels of urban poverty and unemployment. I don't agree with the poster's argument of a step change in society causing some kind of societal angst - yes, urbanisation caused poverty which led to the gin problem, but to characterise it as the shock to a generation seems naive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: June 5th, 2008 05:39 pm (UTC)From:I believe the gin issue was very serious - or at least was considered very serious - but the basic human failings it was exposing haven't really changed, we just really don't have the same horrendous levels of urban poverty and unemployment. I don't agree with the poster's argument of a step change in society causing some kind of societal angst - yes, urbanisation caused poverty which led to the gin problem, but to characterise it as the shock to a generation seems naive.