Human seraphim
The
ideology of leftism consists of many things and principles, but
internal consistency rarely seems to be one of them. This might be
intentional from the part of our moral superiors. Today, I have two
particular cases in point to illustrate this.
First, the post "Immigration Visuals" at "Two Blowhards" wonders, the same way that I have also many times wondered, why the very same leftists who normally complain about population growth and the sad fact that people in Western societies consume more energy and natural resources than the people in the enlightened and natural Third World countries, then go on to support wide open borders and mass immigration, trying their darndest to maximize the number of people living in the West.
The second case nicely illustrates both the classic principle of "No enemies to the left" and the leftist double standards that can make the exact same opinions either acceptable or unacceptable, depending solely on who expresses them. I was reading the local free leftist rag Eye during my subway trip today. The Canadian conservative government is planning to raise the sexual age of consent to 16 from 14, where it has been for over a century now. (As an aside, can you name any other aspect of sexuality where the social attitudes have become less permissive during the past 100 years? I sure can't.)
I noticed that Eye has an editorial "Criminalizing sin" that opposes this. This editorial is quite illuminating. As an interesting thought experiment, imagine what would have happened if some conservative had written the exact same editorial. For example, oh, I don't know, maybe John "Humbert Humbert" Derbyshire? You know, the man who earned his moniker from the left by having the nerve to point out the obvious fact that 16-year-old women are sexually vastly more attractive than middle-aged women?
We can also try to imagine what would have happened if some conservative had proposed that the age of consent of 16 is too high, and it should be lowered to 14. Objectively, this is the exact same demand as the one that Eye is making in its editorial. But I am pretty certain that their fellow travellers who would be crying blue murder if some conservative ever really made a proposal like that will not be tarring and feathering the editors of Eye as "pedophiles".
Oh come on, prove me wrong. And while we are at it and it is the Pride Week around here, somebody should ask those parading homosexuals what they think should be the appropriate age of consent, just to shut up the leftists once and for all. Otherwise the next time that they are in a Turkish Bath, the blond and naked angel might come to pierce them with a sword, even when they are committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication.
First, the post "Immigration Visuals" at "Two Blowhards" wonders, the same way that I have also many times wondered, why the very same leftists who normally complain about population growth and the sad fact that people in Western societies consume more energy and natural resources than the people in the enlightened and natural Third World countries, then go on to support wide open borders and mass immigration, trying their darndest to maximize the number of people living in the West.
The second case nicely illustrates both the classic principle of "No enemies to the left" and the leftist double standards that can make the exact same opinions either acceptable or unacceptable, depending solely on who expresses them. I was reading the local free leftist rag Eye during my subway trip today. The Canadian conservative government is planning to raise the sexual age of consent to 16 from 14, where it has been for over a century now. (As an aside, can you name any other aspect of sexuality where the social attitudes have become less permissive during the past 100 years? I sure can't.)
I noticed that Eye has an editorial "Criminalizing sin" that opposes this. This editorial is quite illuminating. As an interesting thought experiment, imagine what would have happened if some conservative had written the exact same editorial. For example, oh, I don't know, maybe John "Humbert Humbert" Derbyshire? You know, the man who earned his moniker from the left by having the nerve to point out the obvious fact that 16-year-old women are sexually vastly more attractive than middle-aged women?
We can also try to imagine what would have happened if some conservative had proposed that the age of consent of 16 is too high, and it should be lowered to 14. Objectively, this is the exact same demand as the one that Eye is making in its editorial. But I am pretty certain that their fellow travellers who would be crying blue murder if some conservative ever really made a proposal like that will not be tarring and feathering the editors of Eye as "pedophiles".
Oh come on, prove me wrong. And while we are at it and it is the Pride Week around here, somebody should ask those parading homosexuals what they think should be the appropriate age of consent, just to shut up the leftists once and for all. Otherwise the next time that they are in a Turkish Bath, the blond and naked angel might come to pierce them with a sword, even when they are committing no crime but their own wild cooking pederasty and intoxication.
There is less tolerance for adultery than there was a few decades ago, although any resulting divorce and remarriage seem to be accepted. After the Iranian revolution, the age of consent was lowered to 9 to follow Mohammed's example.
Posted by Anonymous | 7:55 PM