As bad as the shit is, this geeky looking dweeb will never be elected President—else I may become best friends with Alec B and high tail it to Canada or wherever else. :)
America still has a bit of sense and life in it. Santorum notwithstanding.
Also, don’t worry that I’ll go all political on you. I won’t. Election year, and I’ll simply not be able to resist ridicule from time to time. Last night was the kickoff, so this is to be expected. It’s just too damn hard to resist; and I do this just as much to poke fun myself, as to give commenters an outlet for their righteous ridicule. Detractors welcome, if you can take it. And if you have particular affiliations not accounted for this time, don’t worry even more: fuck Obama too.
So I guess that 30,007 Iowans—give or take zero—as so-called “representatives” of others, were just too fucking dumb to judge the essence of this evil depravity (it’s not long):
Did you actually get a load of that asshole?
Well, leave it to far-right, fundamentally religious Christians to come full circle, meeting up with commies—in true East meets West fashion—to declare that America is not really about the pursuit of happiness, and that freedom really means freedom to be responsible and subservient to the values dictated to you by on high (or Santorum, his Congregation and extended brethren). It’s about “others” and “society.”
Let’s then get to the essence of this. Once again, just like with diet and exercise (you eat too much, don’t exercise enough), it’s Original Sin played over and over. You, as a human being, are depraved. To the specifics of the video, notice the false dichotomy (Santorum, as a lawyer, knows what that means…not so sure about the congregation of 30 thousand). Notice how your desires, happiness, well being and so on, are naturally at odds with your so-called obligations and responsibilities.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t think there’s any inherent or intrinsic conflict between the rational and the practical (desirable) in non-emergency, non-life-&-death scenarios—at least not as a normal part of everyday life. Evolution simply doesn’t turn that way and it’s only due to the unnatural, forceful injection of subservience to authority into the equation that such Santorumesque ideas can even pass for something above the inexplicable rantings of a retard. Then again, he’s a Presidential candidate…
In my field of view, people don’t really want to be addicted to drugs—though they may like to indulge from time to time, irrespective of legality. And I also don’t think that the interest of having a generally wholesome and healthy family is in any way in conflict or at odds with natural individual desires and pursuits of happiness. And who really wants to take a shit on their own doorstep, or otherwise polute the neighborhood and breed acrimony amongst fellow humans? How could it be otherwise, on balance, globally and humanely? I guess Rick took a wife and had kids because his church, god, bible and social circle expected it of him. Who knows, he might otherwise me whoring it up, drunk in South America. Isn’t that what everyone wants to do without Rick guidance and authority in the world? On the other hand, he is a lawyer…
But perhaps Rick Santorum has simply led a life of solitudinous masturbation in a dark closet over his desires of the flesh…internal friend, but dangerous enemy. And he wants to be President so he can impose his repressive, fundamentalist, impotent hang-ups on you.
Misery loves company.
I’ll probably get heat over this, but nobody ever explained the essence of the evil depravity of the Doctrine of Original Sin better than Ayn Rand.
Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him—it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.
Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.
They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.
So have at it.