Ah. you forget one thing, the racial and gender modifiers.

Females of all brands are superior to males, unless such males are homosexuals.

There is a hierarchy of race, from best to worst:
1) Blacks (even those with small percentages of African heritage)
2) Native Americans (again, even the smallest percentage of native heritage will do)
3) Hispanics (Oddly no distinction here)
3) Asians (foreign born over native born)
4)Whites, all origins.

So, a black gay person trumps a native person, unless the native person is female. Then they are more or less equal. Now if the native person is arguing for preserving the environment...

Liberals hate equality amongst people. It confuses and enrages them. This is because the liberal thought process is lazy. Decisions need to be pre-determined by the hierarchy. If everyone were equal, well then, you'd actually have to think about what would be best. That won't do.

Dafydd-

When Eskimos want to hunt whales, what gives?

That’s easy. Whales are obviously sentient beings, so men cannot kill them for any reason whatsoever -- much less for food.

Here are a few other creatures we clearly should find it morally repugnant to kill:

Mammals -- Obviously sentient
Birds -- Ditto
Fish -- Same
Crustaceans -- They sure move around like they’re thinking beings
Mollusks -- Them too
Jellyfish -- Why not?
Insects -- Remember how ants reacted when some kid (not you, of course) cooked ’em with a magnifying glass?
Worms -- They clearly don’t like it when stuck on fish hooks
Amoebas -- What makes them any less sentient than worms?
Bacteria -- What makes them any less sentient than amoebas?
Protozoa-- What makes them any less sentient than bacteria?
Algae -- What makes them any less sentient than protozoa?
Fungi -- What makes them any less sentient than algae?
Ferns -- What makes them any less sentient than fungi?
Fruits & vegetables -- Plants can feel too! They react to soothing music and speech, don’t they?

Anything else is fair game to kill and eat. (But I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.)

I of course exclude reptiles from the list because -- well, the thought is just too horrifying and obviously immoral.

Actually, I sort of agree with them. Most of the friendlier, more intelligent people I know have four legs. A dog or cat is almost always better to know than a democrat, and I've never met a horse that wasn't more honorable than any congresscritter. Shoot, even cattle are smarter than senators. Cows don't lie, or steal. Nope, I reckon It's better to stick with my true friends.

So, a black gay person trumps a native person, unless the native person is female. Then they are more or less equal. Now if the native person is arguing for preserving the environment...

I have a counter-example of that, where the native person argued for destroying the environment. While designing a Politically Correct water source for a Politically Correct individual of limitless wealth, a route had to be chosen for the piece of 2" plastic pipe that carried the return water back to the source (this was a desalinization plant that extracted drinking water from the Pacific Ocean).

The choice of location was a fierce battle, much like the gays vs non-gays at the UN. It could go through an old shell mound, where Indians had thrown their shells and garbage after eating clams on the beach. Or it could go though a sacred 'salt marsh', a wetland that big waves would occasionally enter.

[Months of time out here, for the cognoscenti and the tribal lawyers to reach an accommodation that, surprisingly, did not reflect a simple reactionary refusal to grant any permit whatever. Perhaps the wealth and legal staff of the proponent had some effect here].

Verdict: Indians trump the environment. The sacred shell mound prevailed, and the pipe went through the salt marsh. Ancestral garbage is more worthy of preserving than a living, growing, nurturing, beautiful piece of the sensitive earth.

When oh when can the UN be shipped over to the Middle East where it is the place it should be since it's run by Jihadi's anyway!

Dr. Sanity's post on the socialist food chain.

From the perspective of the socialist utopian, what matters more than Women's rights or Gay Righs are the rights of a designated culture. The dogma of multiculturalism trumps the dogma of women's superiority. This is probably because for the socialist utopian, might makes right and the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few--and the few better remember that fact, or else. In the socialist utopia, there is no room for individuality or personal preference; or tolerance for differences. You always must subsume yourself to the collective; and the bigger the collective, the more power victimization can be exploited.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)