I mean, make no mistake: the parent not only has no idea what he's talking about, his thinking also suffers from multiple logical fallacies. Let's go through a few of them.
1. Eating together civilizes people. It's emotionally and socially edifying.
Sure. Who said you need to consume your Soylent all by yourself? I told one of my coworkers that I ordered a week's worth, and guess what: she asked me if she could try it with me.
2. Eating real food persisted throughout human history because it's more than about eating.
No, eating "real food" (whatever that means) persisted throughout human history because we did not have any alternatives. It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal, or should be accepted as such.
Well, no one. But, you know, if you're kind of in a "I want the convenience of eating my food from a pre-mixed sack" mode, it's not illogical that you may be less social with your mealtimes. "Hey, bring your sack over to my place and we'll gulp them down in 5 minutes together!"
>It's kind of like aging: because it kinda just happens, we have accepted it as a normal thing. But that doesn't mean it is normal
I am trying to think of something that "kinda just happens" 100% of the time with no effort, but that's not normal. Isn't that the definition of normal?
[1] EDIT: as pasquinelli noted, I didn't actually mean "strictly" here, I meant >=. Also, pasquinelli, you've been hellbanned.
But this is not a new phenomenon.
I vote that we colloquially dub this the "fight makes right" fallacy. And yes, I find it more than vaguely troubling.
Does anyone else find this "first they ignore you" style of belief-reinforcement to be vaguely troubling? Don't get me wrong, you shouldn't just believe your critics without further inquiry, but the presence of critics shouldn't be used as supporting evidence in and of itself. You risk creating a kind of insular belief system where any threat can be transformed into reinforcement.