Hatred from the Left: An Epically Failed Argument for Hedonism, and Heroic Defense of Marriage

One thing that always pisses leftists off is holding them to task for ideological thinking when they claim to respect expertise and science.  In reality my experience has shown that many leftists are the farthest from honoring objectivity and true scientific thought.  It’s not that there aren’t right wingers who do the same – it’s just that typically right wingers do not purport the arrogance of "expertise” and pop “science” as a basis for their arguments.

Here is the paraphrasing of the conversation:

“Why do you do what you do as a business owner?”

“Mission, making a difference for people, making opportunities for people, making this business more effective and rewarding for employees and customers alike.  Advancing mankind.”

“Yeah right, it’s just about the money.”

“No, it’s not, and it’s offensive for you to call me a liar.”

“I’m not calling you a liar.”

“You would have to be.  I expressed my genuine motivation to you, then you reject my expression, and tell me that I really have motivation other than what I told you.”

“Okay, even if you’re not lying, most people who try to be business owners are just in it for the money.”

“Well, I haven’t found that to be the case.  I know many owners who brought themselves up from nothing, at great personal risk and expense, and great sacrifice to make a difference and eventually they get rewards that they deserve.  But there are many investors who got lucky on bets, and some owners who inherit family fortunes, and they are typically very wretched people.  You might be right about that. 

But then there are blue collar folks who have tons of money dumped into their laps without earning it – taxpayer money, healthcare, housing, food stamps, education, or gambling winnings who would be no different than a greedy and lucky white collar investor – in the way that they mismanage their money and do ridiculous things with it.  Easy come, easy go.  It doesn’t know class boundaries.”

“Yeah, but what if the money makes certain people happy.”

“It can’t.”

“How do you figure?”

“Well it will give them a quick fix.  But it won’t bring them lasting happiness and satisfaction.  Religion and good relationships can bring lasting happiness.  Never money.”

“I disagree.  I think that a lot of people can be really happy because of money.”

“Well just look around you for the evidence that refutes your belief.  Do you think that any of those Hollywood idiots and celebrities are very happy?  Why do they destroy themselves with drugs?  Why are they wrecking their families?  Why do rich people have a higher incidence of at-fault insurance claims?  Do you think that their sense of entitlement which makes them do evil, destroy, and harm things comes from a happy, noble, moral, and satisfied human being?  What about 60% divorce rate?  Do you think that with more money and comfort that we have enjoyed for the past 50 years in the USA, we are better off for it?  Do you think our families are better off for it?  Do you think our increased suicide rate shows a happy culture, with its increased wealth?”

“Well you can’t compare any of that because they didn’t have technology back then to know about suicide rates, and besides marriage was invented by the Catholic Church, men were made to procreate and have sex as much as they can, not to be married.”

“Woah, now there’s a whole bunch of faith-based ideas.  First who is ‘they’?”

“What?”

“This ubiquitous “they” who possesses technology.”

“Uh…I mean we as a society, that’s who ‘they’ is.”

“Well technology is just a tool.  Some specific people actually have to use it to generate a meaningful result.  Speaking in terms of ‘they’ have ‘technology’ is ridiculous.  Get specific.  So who in the world, is your ‘they’, the specific professionals or people wielding this mystical ‘technology’ and in addition what exactly IS this mystical ‘technology’ you speak of.”

“Ummm…I guess, like, the stuff you see on CSI.  They didn’t have any of that.”

“Okay, so by ‘they’ you mean authorities responsible for death certificates.  Coroners, yes?  Well I think we just proved your faith wrong.  Tell me what technology is needed to determine that a man hanged himself or shot himself in the head.”

“Well I could frame you right now if I wanted to, it’s not hard to do.  Back then they probably framed a lot of people and couldn’t tell the difference.”

“I don’t think you could frame me for suicide.  I think that everyone who knows me would contest the ‘suicide’.  If what you say is true – that a proportion of murder back then was counted as suicide thanks to ‘framing’ people, then that would actually make the historic rate of suicide be higher back then with all other factors held equally.  So we’ve just disproven that idea you have.

In addition, societies back then were closer knit and knew each other better.  Today, people living in metropolises don’t even know their neighbors.  In which scenario do you think it would be easier to make assumptions about ‘mystery deaths’?

Most of the time, suicide notes are left or signs leading up to the suicide were apparent, then and now.  There were mental asylums far back in time.  You can easily find the amount of money and resources required to keep crazy people out of the public back then compared to modern expenditures on psychiatry, psychologists, and mental health.  It would be very easily proven that mental health of the population is worse now than it was then, only difference being the amount of quick fixes and expensive chemicals and treatments that people have to deal with their unrewarding and ineffective choices and thought patterns.”

“Okay, I still think that suicide is easier to detect now than then, and so you can’t really compare statistics.”

“Why?”

“Science and technology.”

“What technology do you need to read a suicide note?  What technology do you need to figure out that a man who you see hanging, hung himself?  What proportion of indeterminate deaths do you really think there are, then and now?  What technology do you need for records keeping and death certificates?”

“I don’t know.  I just believe in science.”

“So you’re a man of faith?  Because that’s not objective thought.”

“Yeah, I guess so.  About the marriage thing, even animals show us the natural state of sexual relations.  We’re not supposed to be married.”  He glares at me.

“Anthropology proves you wrong.  Tell me, name a monogamous bird.”

“I don’t know.”

“The hummingbird.”

“Yeah but when they have offspring they’re done.”

“No they’re not.  And neither is mankind.  And it’s a non-point whether or not animals exhibit anything.  Mankind is different.  It’s like observing the natural state of an amoeba and saying that there is something wrong with the hummingbird for exhibiting different reproductive patterns.”

“Okay, whatever, but you only think that way about marriage because of a man-made thing.  The Catholic Church invented marriage.”

“No, it’s not, no offense but you need a serious education in history.  Monogamy is evident across tribal cultures before the Catholic Church and even up into modern days.  You will be hard pressed to find a culture all throughout anthropology where monogamy was not the norm.  In fact, you’re also ignorant of marriage.  Classical pagans including Egyptians had the institution.  The Catholic Church did not ‘invent’ it as you say.”

“Oh yeah, then what are mistresses all about?  People have always been cheating.  It’s natural to cheat.”

“Again, history proves that it is natural to remain monogamous, and also to hold destructive desires which harm the long-term monogamous state of man.  This is why legal systems of marriage were created across all cultures.  To promote the health of the family and natural, more benevolent outcome. 

A fleeting desire for instant gratification at the expense of long term wisdom and health is not unique to sexual relations.  You would have desires for dangerous stunts which are exciting and entertaining, but your long term interests of self-preservation would make you think twice or take safety measures before engaging in the short-term benefit activity. 

Systems of prostitution and mistresses were accepted to allow people to have their cake and eat it too.  It doesn’t mean that it is a good and natural state.  Cheating wrecks the rewarding bonds between the monogamous pair, in the name of hedonistic instant gratification.  This is never healthy for either person involved, nor the children of those eternally bound human beings, nor is it natural.”

“Well I think it’s natural to try and have sex with any chicks that I want.”

“Well I think you will find that sometime in your 30s, you will be a very unhappy person who doesn’t even know how to get rewards out of sexual relationships.  I think your experience of sexual relations will become like smoking a cigarette, something you need to do, but doesn’t give you lasting satisfaction and happiness.  I think you’ll always be desperately looking for the next ‘hot chick’ when you’ve used up your current fling.

I think the women you agree to ‘use each other’ with will also feel the same.  But then, this is what the liberal culture wants you to do, because this type of hedonism in the presence of abortion and birth control ensures that by the time it’s too late, chances will mean that you will not procreate.  And depopulation of the earth is a liberal agenda.  Simply read Agenda 21 – Sustainable Development.  It’s in black and white.”

“Well I guess I’ll find out for myself.  Besides who are you to tell me how to live?”

“I’m not telling you.  You’re sensitive because the liberal machine has brainwashed you to recoil in the presence of truth that conflicts with the ideology they stuck in your head.”

“What do you mean?”

“I’m simply stating inferences based on facts.  I never told you what to do.  You assumed that.  I could care less about what you choose to do.  If I did then I would violate my own Christian beliefs of free will.  I believe that you are responsible for yourself.  All I can do is help you discover the truth with discussion and debate.”

“Well I’m a Christian too.  Look at this tattoo.  I’m evangelical.”  (He shows a tattoo of a cross on his arm)

“Well then you should just listen to the bible you claim to believe in.  Jesus talked about how hard it would be for a rich person to enter heaven – not impossible, but hard.  Jesus talked about the decadence and hedonism as leading to unhappiness and dissatisfaction.  Jesus entirely refutes your idea that men are not naturally monogamous and are made to have sex as much as they can with as many people as possible. 

All of this wisdom is well known, and earned over centuries of human experience, and codified in the bible you claim to believe in.  Yet you reject it, and put faith in your own ideas that you came up with, or that which was inspired by a liberal brainwashing cultural machine, at the same time you claim to follow Jesus.”

“Well it’s just what I believe.  I just think that technology and science prove you wrong and that my experience with men and woman and married people prove me right.”  He glares at me.

“Fair enough.  Think about this conversation ten years from now when you have more money and more sexual encounters under your belt.”

He walks away, very angry.

Yuri Bezmenov, here is your useful idiot.  Here is the completely brainwashed and demoralized citizen that your disowned KGB so effectively manufactured.  The guilt and hatred in his eyes is so telling.  He is now even more angry than before, and confused.  He will use this hatred to separate himself from those who wield traditional wisdom and inclinations.  He will require a complete breakdown to rise above the failed liberal ideas stuck in his head.  Slim chance that will happen until it’s too late to do much good for his life.  A lifelong dependent, the goal of creating the secular-government ideological and physical dependency is complete.

Published in: on July 8, 2010 at 7:23 PM  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://ascendingintellect.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/hatred-from-the-left-an-epically-failed-argument-for-hedonism-and-heroic-defense-of-marriage/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: