Thursday, January 24, 2008

Will You Put Me In the Zoo?

My homeowners association committee meeting went a little far afield last night, and I found myself in a political discussion. I mostly kept my mouth shut. I learn more that way, even if I don't agree with what I learn.

For example, I learned homosexuality should be acceptable because 98% of all animals are bisexual. (Disclaimer: I believe homosexuality is as natural and wrong as fornication and adultery--and just as voluntary).

First of all, I highly doubt the validity of that statistic, as fish make up a large percentage of species. I also question the relevance.

You see, liberals want to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to animal behavior. They want us all to believe that we are animals and it is okay to act like animals. But they like to be selective when they invoke that excuse. Whenever animal behavior does not support an idea they champion they suddenly respond with "We are are rational, intelligent, thinking beings, not animals." So which is it?

If we are, as they argue, just animals doing animal things, then what does this suggest for political policy?:

- Very, very few species copulate for pleasure
- If an animal becomes pregnant they are committed to see it through, even if it costs them their life
- In many mammalian (and many other) species one parent cares for the children while the other obtains food.
- In most species the weakest are still allowed to languish and die
- In nearly all social species the animal most adept at obtaining food is rewarded and gets the greatest share
- Most species do not form social groupings - it's every animal for themself
- Even animals who form social groupings for protection will not make any effort to rescue those singled out by predators
- Many animals are territorial. If you threaten them or their territory you can expect to get attacked
- Very few species cooperate/negotiate with other species
- The prey does not attempt to "understand" the predator. The prey will defeat the predator any way they can
- The vast majority of animals spend each day in providing for themselves and their offspring rather than in the pursuit of pleasure

Just a few examples. It think it's safe to say that animals are not liberals. If the liberals continue to look to the animal kingdom to justify a few ideals, they should be willing to examine all their beliefs in the same light. I don't see that happening.

I don't believe we should emulate animals--at least not simply because they are animals. We are humans. We can reason. One of the main points of civilization is our ability to voluntarily give up some of our rights/options for the good of society. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. We have the ability to think things through and voluntarily behave contrary to our natural tendencies.

And that is why I just can't bring myself to be a liberal. In some areas they may have the right idea--if the wrong approach--but they are continually undermined by their constant reliance on "if it feels good, do it." They like to claim their mantra is really "if it feels good and doesn't hurt anybody, do it", but the reality is they aren't willing to do their research first to make sure it really doesn't hurt anyone before they push for its wholesale adoption. There is ample proof that some of their ideals do hurt society, but they prefer to ignore it.

They claim that it's not natural to deny themselves of sex before marriage, outside marriage, within their gender, etc.--but the reality is that they just don't want to. It has nothing to do with what is best for society and everything to do with lack of self discipline and self sacrifice. It's about letting someone else take responsibility--and then punishing them for being responsible.

They don't want to have to tell a poor, unwed, drug-addicted mother that she needs to take responsibility for herself. That might lead some to believe that those who advocate sexual responsibility are right, which might lead to people making them feel guilty for things they don't want to feel guilty for.

Instead, they turn to someone who has shown at least enough talent, self-control, and focus to make more money than they immediately need and take their money away from them and give it to the mother, with no strings attached. They punish the person who has overcome their animal tendencies and reward the one who succumbs to them. What incentive does that mother have to rise above being an animal? How will she ever learn that there is even another way?

Fortunately there are still enough people who resist their animal natures that they can even take that approach (though I'll admit that the pursuit of ridiculous wealth is animalistic/hedonistic in its own right). If enough wealthy people start to say "Oh, bag it! I'm going on government money, too!" then soon we have a society of animals with no one to save them from their beastly natures.

In a truly animalistic world, those who rely on others to save them would be completely unprepared to compete. They would not be rewarded for this--they would die.

Liberals want a world where everyone can freely indulge their animal natures while someone else takes care of them and keeps them from hurting each other.

We have a word for that. It's called a zoo.

Which, interestingly enough, many liberals are against.

No comments: