Skip to main content

The Great Dragon, Smug

A friend shared this article, and I shared it myself on Facebook.  I wanted to start by mentioning the points that I believe the author got right.  It is true that liberals are often smug.  It is true that liberals wish to impose their views on other people in many ways.  When NYC banned soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, I'm sure they felt like they were doing what was best for its citizens.  Sugary drinks can cause health issues.  They can make you fat, they can inflame diabetes, and they can cause other problems as well.  This is an example of what I would call unnecessary meddling in personal lives.  I don't think it's the role of the government to do things like that.  I think it would be good to educate the public on the harms of consuming large quantities of sugars, but I do not believe it should be made illegal in this way.

However, this meddling in personal lives (the "hamburger problem" as the author calls it) is not unique to liberals.  Conservatives also meddle unnecessarily in people's private lives.  Both sides of the aisle do it, just on different issues.  Liberals want to tell you how much carbon you can produce and conservatives want to tell you who you can sleep with.  Conservatives want to regulate whom you're allowed to marry, whether you're allowed to use contraceptives, and which restroom to visit while in public.  So surely this meddling cannot be a deciding factor for voters.  It is the issues themselves, not the intrusion on personal lives which causes people to vote Right or Left.

Along those same lines, I would address not just the fact that each wing likes to meddle in personal lives, but the reason why they do so--the motivation behind it.  Conservatives oppose marriage equality and transgender rights on moral grounds--they believe that it will lead to an immoral society which will invite the wrath of god upon them.  Thus, for the good of society, they wish to do what they can to keep our country wholesome and god-fearing, which translates into no gay marriages and no transitions from male to female or vice versa.  Liberals oppose things because they too believe them to be harmful to society--perhaps not in a religious sense, but usually in an ethical sense.  For example, above I mentioned that liberals oppose over-consumption of sugar because it is linked with medical problems.  Liberals oppose carbon emissions because it has been proven to warm up the climate of the planet.  Thus, it is for the good of society that liberals oppose these things.

So, at the end of the day, yes, I will judge you for having a large carbon footprint and being unapologetic about it.  Not because I'm smug.  Not because I think I'm better than you for having a smaller carbon footprint.  Not because I think my way of living is the best and everyone needs to follow it.  But because scientific data have shown that the Earth will continue to heat up to the point where it can no longer sustain life if we continue to dump carbon into the air at the rates we have been doing.  Indeed, at this point, even if we stopped all carbon emissions we would still see an increase in global temperatures caused by the carbon we have already released.  We must act now and we must act aggressively to reduce emissions and to absorb vast quantities of carbon in the air.  It is for the sake of future life on the planet that I will judge you for polluting.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Co-efficiently Co-related

 I'm a fairly reserved person. I don't open up easily to people. I tend to hold my hand close to my chest, hesitant to lay cards on the table. However there have been a few times in my life where I have had a heart-to-heart talk with someone and I find them to be very rewarding. I've been seeing a therapist for over a year now. One thing that I have decided over all the chats I've had with him is that the people I want to spend the most time with are the ones that I feel the closest to. I have many friends (I use the term "friends" more loosely than some, since to me the term "acquaintance" feels very odd) who are fun to interact with, but our interactions are sparse or superficial. I think it's perfectly fine to have these kinds of friendships--in fact, I think they can be very beneficial. But I have decided that for my own well-being, I will not be putting any measurable amount of emotional effort into such a friendship. I want to reserve that