What kind of reactionary would find fault with such common-sense statements? In hindsight it has now become evident that the implications of this seemingly harmless pronouncement were left unexamined as the “pursuit of Happiness” has become the sole end of Liberty in the modern age, in fact the righteous crusade to obtain absolute personal freedom has come at the price of Liberty itself. Individual liberty and natural rights became apart of the political metaphysics in the West when Thomas Jefferson wrote the following in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The pernicious idea of liberalism, the falso from which triviality explodes, is that individuals exist outside of the context of their social relationships, that the individual is autonomous and can be detached at will from social and historical roles and norms. This is the inevitable result of a society based on falsehood. What is good is simply what the individual desires and what is evil is that which inhibits those desires. The idea that the individual is the irreducible, atomic unit of society and that the protection of individual or natural rights is the highest good a society can aim to, necessarily creates the conditions for a “permanent social revolution” against the past because any constraints placed on the individual that would inhibit these inalienable rights must be abolished for the sake of progress. How did it come to pass that this libertine conception of morality has replaced moral traditions as old as mankind itself? As I said in “ The Decline of the Community“: Edmund Burke said “Society … it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.” Yet in modern times, the living exist autonomously, unconstrained by the traditions of a once great civilization and no longer beholden to family and community. The singular moral axiom is thus “Do what thou wilt, anything is permissible as long as no-one gets hurt.” In other words, the moral compass of the modern individual always points towards “me.” It’s not just libertarians (or whatever progressives like to call themselves these days) acting according to the Non-Aggression Principle, this is the dominant normative moral philosophy of millennials and boomers alike. If modernity had a bumper-sticker, this would be it. The profoundness of this statement may be lost on some but it perfectly encapsulates the moral attitude of my generation (millennials). Wisconsin regarding the feedback she received from the video that made her famous: What I do doesn’t hurt you. Well dear reader, let me bring your attention to a quote from Ms.
Why not discuss the serious issues of the day?” What is the purpose of pointing out individual cases of depravity? It’s not like there is an epidemic of girls sleeping with their dogs, it’s just one degenerate. Disapproves? We know Western civilization is circling the drain.
Wisconsin sitting on her bathroom floor while sinisterly petting her German Shepard as she delineates… well, the benefits of having sex with dogs, as the title of the video suggests. The take-home message being: ex f also quodlibet – “from falsehood, anything follows.”Īllow me to divert your attention momentarily to this lovely specimen of modernity who is named Whitney Wisconsin, who has recently gained worldwide notoriety as the result of a viral YouTube video called “ 10 Reasons Why Girls Should Have Sex With Dogs.” The video features Ms. In classical logic this is what is known as the principle of explosion, which demonstrates how any conclusion can be inferred from a contradiction. We have no choice but to infer from this that inconsistent premises imply all conclusions. There is no condition in which the premises are both true and the conclusion false, therefore the argument is valid regardless of its conclusion. Recall our definition of validity and glance over our syllogism again. You must be thinking this is patently absurd, Jews could never pull off Richard Spencer’s haircut, but let me assure you, this argument is in fact valid. Bear with me here, consider the following syllogism: In formal logic, an argument is considered to be valid if it is impossible for conclusion to be false if the premises are true.
0 kommentar(er)
