Well, as someone in the sociology field, I personally wouldn't go as far as making such assumptions. I think it's hard to comprehend how truely "strong" or "weak" people's feelings on a specific issue are; we only view the most vocal, or the feelings of the class we are exposed to the most, etc. We can sense certain patterns, but sometimes this is really tricky and we totally miss the bigger picture.
That actually applies to most social/societal commentaries. There is this historical example where it was assumed that eating potatoes was unhealthy because the people eating them were more prone to illness and other health issues; when in fact it was later found that the common denominator between "people who eat potatoes" and "people who have more health issues" was that both population were poor; potatoes were cheaper, and poor people don't have the income to access health services as much, it wasn't the food itself the problem and it wasn't indicative of the health status directly, only a possible (but not reliable either) indicator of a socio-economical status.
It's as much a fallacy to believe that liberal people necessarily care more about animals - it might be true to some extent, but it also may not be the case. And liberal people do not care *less* about their children, it's more likely that they just don't push the societal issues (or not the same issues) because they know X issue isn't a threat to their children (such as, gay rights). So the logic of "connecting animals with children to appeal to the conservative more because they feel most precious about children" is fallacious as well.
Here in France, which is a strongly agnostic/atheist country in comparison with the USA, you may think people would be more supportive of, say, gay rights, because they're less conservative overall, but that's not the case. People just find different reasons (such as "science", as in "it's not natural") to condemn something. Likewise, it's not because people do not hunt that they treat their pets better or "pruchase" them more ethically.
I do like your other post-its and I think they work more effectively and are not ambiguous! You're doing a great job, I just wanted to help about this specific issue, the "animals = children" ones may very well not be understood, or be totally misunderstood, by a part of the population you're trying to reach. :(
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2011-09-26 01:24 pm (UTC)That actually applies to most social/societal commentaries. There is this historical example where it was assumed that eating potatoes was unhealthy because the people eating them were more prone to illness and other health issues; when in fact it was later found that the common denominator between "people who eat potatoes" and "people who have more health issues" was that both population were poor; potatoes were cheaper, and poor people don't have the income to access health services as much, it wasn't the food itself the problem and it wasn't indicative of the health status directly, only a possible (but not reliable either) indicator of a socio-economical status.
It's as much a fallacy to believe that liberal people necessarily care more about animals - it might be true to some extent, but it also may not be the case. And liberal people do not care *less* about their children, it's more likely that they just don't push the societal issues (or not the same issues) because they know X issue isn't a threat to their children (such as, gay rights). So the logic of "connecting animals with children to appeal to the conservative more because they feel most precious about children" is fallacious as well.
Here in France, which is a strongly agnostic/atheist country in comparison with the USA, you may think people would be more supportive of, say, gay rights, because they're less conservative overall, but that's not the case. People just find different reasons (such as "science", as in "it's not natural") to condemn something. Likewise, it's not because people do not hunt that they treat their pets better or "pruchase" them more ethically.
I do like your other post-its and I think they work more effectively and are not ambiguous! You're doing a great job, I just wanted to help about this specific issue, the "animals = children" ones may very well not be understood, or be totally misunderstood, by a part of the population you're trying to reach. :(