The Pigs of Conservatism
This piece serves as somewhat of a riposte to the foregoing.
The differences are more striking than the similarities, and it is in the differences that the deficiencies of this piece lie.
As to the similarities: both pieces mark the hypocrisy in prominent representatives of their political opponents on the issue of the sexual culture of the 1960s. They share disgust at the way in which women in particular are harmed and dehumanized. Finally, they share contempt at the way in which principle is abandoned to pragmatism.
As to the differences: the piece attacking conservatives assumes the rectitude of the Sexual Revolution, the piece questioning liberals sees the social fallout as proof of its folly; the piece attacking conservatives sees a state-enforced ideal of female autonomy as a solution to the exploitation of women, the piece questioning liberals sees the state’s overreach into the family as an extension of the problem for women; and finally, the piece attacking conservatives makes an ad hominem argument imputing a power motive to every feigned assertion of pro-life principle, whereas the piece questioning liberals observes that the ethics of personal choice is woefully inadequate to the task of regulating a just society.
The one is an assault on character rooted in an unprincipled philosophy of pragmatism; the other is a reasoned appeal to the individual and common good.
You may be interested
Smartphones Are Weapons of Mass Manipulationadmin - Oct 21, 2017
“It’s so invisible what we’re doing to ourselves,” Tristan Harris says. “It’s like a public health crisis. It’s like cigarettes,…
When you die you know you are deadadmin - Oct 21, 2017
Every major religion claims that some sort of spiritual life continues beyond bodily death. Only the absurd scientism of the…
‘Un-Islamic’: Pakistani Senate body rejects bill seeking ban on child marriageadmin - Oct 20, 2017
One of the more challenging things for a person in a multicultural society to adjudicate is what constitutes a legitimate…