Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Two Guys

Here's something to think about. I got this from Matt Bailey, who wrote:

Just going by the information here, Ted seems like the more sane individual to me. He spends his free time doing something he enjoys, instead of being guilt-tripped into spending it with unpleasant parasites whose misfortune he didn't cause in the first place. The cult of altruism is actually a more insidious side effect of Abrahamic religion than the homophobia which gets all the press. However, being implicitly a liberal, Ted here is likely in favor of actually stealing money from other individuals for handouts instead of paying up himself, while there is a slim possibility that George is not. In that case the advantage swings back to George, who possibly opposes socialism and probably at least doesn't initiate force against the person or property of individual gays. This is a complex bit of truthieness right here...
Now my comment:

I wouldn't be too sure about the sanity thing. It's a matter of taste, but I'm beginning to think that MMO's are not necessarily a sign of sanity, and I continue to think that atheists, or at least those who are quick to identify themselves as such, are at least a bit self-deluded as to their own intellectual scope. I'm sympathetic with Matt's criticism of altruism, but maybe George enjoys being altruistic even more than Ted enjoy's his MMO's and fun-making. I knew a guy who spent his spare time traveling to Africa with his church group and building houses for Africans. Now, that's altruism, and, to my mind, a horrible example of uncritical altruism. Altruism is like salt. A little bit is a good thing for society, too much, or too obsessive and uncritical the altruism, and the worse it gets.  I've always thought that missionary zeal was a little bit crazy anyway, so this part is a wash. I actually feel that supporting gay marriage is a case of being so detached from reality as to approach insanity, or at least irrationality, in that the very definition of the word "marriage" is meaningless, so why use it at all? As for "homophobia," I know the word is very popular now, but it has its own special craziness in that it sounds like a term for some sort of mental deviation instead of a sane reaction towards something that is a deviation.

But I agree that Ted is almost surely a liberal whether he realizes it himself or not, as he's following some very essential liberal dogma. And, as Matt says, chances are excellent that he also follows that liberal theft ethic. And I also agree that George very likely does not.

All in all, I can live with George, and would be glad to try to moderate his altruism a little, by appealing to his reason and common sense, and I might be successful. With Ted, I wouldn't even know where to start trying to ease him into rationality, because he thinks he already is rational, and would surely call me an ignorant, irrational bigot for disagreeing with me in any way.

Now it's your turn.


  1. The description of Ted applies to allot of Libertarians.

  2. Is it really altruism if you make other people pay the cost of having immigrants ruin your society?