The selfishness of Toni

"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa.

"We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

What an ass.

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

But what we can expect from eco-religionists and Warmers. Yes? Proof that they don't REALLY think the world is in danger because they don't live as though the world is in danger.

If Toni really thought what she did mattered she'd be a childless vegan who *didn't* fly on airplanes because every little bit helps. One is tempted to think that she didn't want children *anyway* and that being a vegetarian isn't much of a sacrifice either. But missing out on conspicuous consumerism! Gasp!

Just like Gore jetting about or any of the others who chose to lecture the rest of us and tell us how to live, the excess is justified, the life-style, the luxury, because a trade off has been made.

Buy a few indulgences and sin guilt free!

We see through your excuses, Toni. Without the expense of children you'll have plenty of money to spend and lovely vacations long into your twilight years. So enjoy the end of your genetic line.

The rest of us, and our kids, won't miss it.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…

Just like Gore jetting about or any of the others who chose to lecture the rest of us and tell us how to live, the excess is justified, the life-style, the luxury, because a trade off has been made.

Or more like the tradeoffs they already have made are justified by their new religion. Sort of like how criminals and misogynists convert to Islam. A new religion for old beliefs.

More comfortable, you know.

1:25 PM

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it. This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice. If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

What Cancel Culture is NOT

Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott. It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...

Synova

Search This Blog