Comments on: In Praise of Consistent Liberals http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/2004/09/13/in-praise-of-consistent-liberals/ The dynamic new way to bore you with stories about what I watched on TV last night. Or stuff about Macs, libertarianism, prog rock, cockatiels, mountains, travel, science fiction, the Web, and what a totally awesome guy I would be if I were anything like I would like to think I am. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:22:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Sandy http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/2004/09/13/in-praise-of-consistent-liberals/#comment-445 Sandy Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:46:35 +0000 http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/?p=153#comment-445 "Are you at war with basic biology?" Pretty much. Never have had the kid-desiring gene. It's either a) economics of child-rearing becoming much more expensive and not a source of wealth as they were in more labor-intensive periods in history (and prehistory), or b) a biological defect. But then it's partially because the little snot-nosed bastards do shit like throw used bandaids at me. “Are you at war with basic biology?”

Pretty much. Never have had the kid-desiring gene. It’s either a) economics of child-rearing becoming much more expensive and not a source of wealth as they were in more labor-intensive periods in history (and prehistory), or b) a biological defect.

But then it’s partially because the little snot-nosed bastards do shit like throw used bandaids at me.

]]> By: ajc http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/2004/09/13/in-praise-of-consistent-liberals/#comment-444 ajc Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:27:04 +0000 http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/?p=153#comment-444 "I've also seen some anti-meat types with no leather in their possession or on their person. Again, you're at war with basic biology (the large intestine is indeed evolved for meat digestion), but at least you're consistent." This seems contrary to your "desire to kill" post. "Now, let it be said that I hate children." Basic biology seems to favor us procreating. Are you at war with basic biology? “I’ve also seen some anti-meat types with no leather in their possession or on their person. Again, you’re at war with basic biology (the large intestine is indeed evolved for meat digestion), but at least you’re consistent.”

This seems contrary to your “desire to kill” post. “Now, let it be said that I hate children.” Basic biology seems to favor us procreating. Are you at war with basic biology?

]]> By: Nyk http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/2004/09/13/in-praise-of-consistent-liberals/#comment-443 Nyk Sat, 18 Sep 2004 00:00:47 +0000 http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/?p=153#comment-443 Hmm... 'anti-globalist' is a very fuzzy term. Not all protesters against corporate paradigms of globalisation are against global trade. There are many different agendas that are being promoted within a very broad activist network: environmentalist, labour, anticapitalist and even certain right wing racist agendas. Saying that someone who protests against globalisation is a hypocrite because they own foreign goods sounds like a strawman argument to me. I have a problem with the idea of freely labelling someone as a hypocrite because they are not engaged in consumerist forms of protest (product boycotting etc.) History shows very little positive change has been effected by so-called 'consumer power'. Apartheid in South Africa did not end because a few pampered middle-class students refused to buy South African oranges. It ended because of popular revolt , political organization and civil disobedience. So is it hypocracy or realism? Becoming anal-retentive about what products you buy and where they come from is hardly going to make a ripple in the vast oceans of history. Hmm… ‘anti-globalist’ is a very fuzzy term. Not all protesters against corporate paradigms of globalisation are against global trade. There are many different agendas that are being promoted within a very broad activist network: environmentalist, labour, anticapitalist and even certain right wing racist agendas. Saying that someone who protests against globalisation is a hypocrite because they own foreign goods sounds like a strawman argument to me.

I have a problem with the idea of freely labelling someone as a hypocrite because they are not engaged in consumerist forms of protest (product boycotting etc.) History shows very little positive change has been effected by so-called ‘consumer power’.

Apartheid in South Africa did not end because a few pampered middle-class students refused to buy South African oranges. It ended because of popular revolt , political organization and civil disobedience. So is it hypocracy or realism? Becoming anal-retentive about what products you buy and where they come from is hardly going to make a ripple in the vast oceans of history.

]]> By: Ginger http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/2004/09/13/in-praise-of-consistent-liberals/#comment-442 Ginger Fri, 17 Sep 2004 15:07:47 +0000 http://www.sfsmith.com/blog/?p=153#comment-442 I forgot to write a comment earlier, but I really liked this post. There is nothing worse than hypocrisy, and it's always the biggest hypocrites that yell the loudest, too. I forgot to write a comment earlier, but I really liked this post. There is nothing worse than hypocrisy, and it’s always the biggest hypocrites that yell the loudest, too.

]]>