The Leftist sales pitch: illogical, strident, obscene, and selfish

A gazillion of my liberal facebook friends have posted this little bit of wit and wisdom:

After seeing this post once too often, I cracked.  The last person amongst my friends who posted it got a message from me asking precisely how compelling an argument can be when it compares a human moral code to unreasoning animal behavior.  Even if one thinks the human moral position is wrong, it still makes no sense to compare a human’s view homosexuality, a view based on reason, faith, logic, hate, or whatever, to a cow’s or penguin’s approach, which is purely unreasoning and instinctive.  It’s a cute aphorism, but a lousy argument.

Clever aphorisms that are actually lousy arguments are the Left’s stock in trade.  One of the oldies but goodies is “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”  Hah!  Hah!  Hah!  Men are useless!  Except for pesky little things like making babies possible and, under ordinary, non government welfare circumstances, providing both the woman and their child with love, shelter, food, and stability.

Another cute, meaningless Leftism is “War is not the answer.”  Whenever I see that stupid bumper sticker, I always mumble to myself, “It depends what the question is.”  War is not the answer if your neighbor asks to borrow a cup of sugar.  War is a useful answer if a hostile power uses high impact explosives to kill thousands of your citizens — and threatens to repeat the performance until you are entirely subjugated.

Oh, and about this one?

Isn’t that a great idea? Who cares that the Islamic religion does not acknowledge the possibility of coexistence? Islam isn’t shy about touting the fact that it is predicated on absolute conquest and subjugation. So the coexistence is kind of Orwellian (“All animals are equal, but some are more equal that others”), or Tacitus-ian (“They make a desert and call it peace”).

This long harumph is my way of introducing a couple of posts that Zombie wrote, each of which tracks Leftist protests, all of which come complete with signs. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to review the images Zombie shares, and to spot the Leftist sales pitches in all their glory. They are, without exception, illogical strident, obscene, or selfish (or some combination of the four).

“Unite Against the War on Women” march, Los Angeles

Decolonize Oakland May Day Occupy Rally

Of course, when the logic of illogical slogans fails, Zombie’s other posts proves that war is indeed the answer:

Occupy Oakland May Day General Strike

SF May Day Occupier hurls bricks and iron bars at police, injures bystander—live video

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. SADIE says

    When I was about seven or so, one my classmates invited me over to her house - her cat had given birth to a litter. The two of us walked down the steps to her basement to see the little darlings. It was a real thrill for me since my mother would never allow a cat into the house. Dogs, birds, chickens fine, but no cats. Back to the story…we quietly approached the secluded area her family had arranged for the mommy cat to give birth under the staircase. Imagine, my face and reaction when I saw one of those little kittens being eaten by the mother. My little friend explained to me that it was possible that one of the kittens wasn’t “right”. I took that to mean that the kitten was either born with, what I would now call a disability or was born sickly.

    Must be me. I think aborting your baby before it’s had a chance to live is unatural. Then again, I always believed the LEFT behaves no better than 450 species.
        

  2. Mike Devx says

    I remember the ‘No Nukes’ campaign when I was going to college in the early 80′s.

    ‘No Nukes!’ made for a great chant among that crowd.   ‘No Nukes! No Nukes!’  A fine sentiment… but that wasn’t what they were about.  They weren’t trying to get Russia and China to get rid of their nukes, oh, no.  They wanted the United States, alone, to get rid of ITS nukes.

    Unilateral disarmament.  Leaving the bad actors, Russia and China, as the sole owners of… nukes.

    It would have meant complete surrender of the USA to them.  Luckily, instead, we got Reagan.  And ten years later, the Soviet Union was no more.

    These are not merely silly slogans.  ‘No Nukes’ was dangerous.  ‘CoExist’ is dangerous.  They’re dangerous because the left does not apply them to everyone.  The left only applies them to America (and Israel).  The bad actors out there always get a free pass, when they rather ought to be coming in for the harsher criticism (including the Palestinians).

    ‘CoExist’ is fine as a moral sentiment.  As a geopolitical strategy of unilateral disarmament – which it is – when radical Islam rules countries and seeks the subjugation and slavery of all the rest of us to them, it is dangerous.

      

  3. zombie says

    “Homosexuality is found in over 450 species.”
     
    Lies, lies, lies.
     
    I saw this so-called “statistic” some years ago, so I looked into its origins.
     
    Turns out that the definition of “homosexuality” was stretched to the extremes and beyond to generate that number of species on the list. In fact, almost ALL of the animal behavior classified as “homosexual” is in reality not homosexual at all, but is instead merely “gay”-ish as judged by retro human cultural standards.
     
    A few clear examples to drive this point home:
     
    Among the species included in the 450 “homosexual” species are penguins. Why penguins?  Because part of the time, the male penguin keeps the egg warm while the female goes off to eat.
     
    See? The man-penguin is acting all queer because he’s doing “women’s work”!! QED, they are a gay species.
     
    Another one of 450: Seahorses.
     
    Why seahorses? Because during part of the gestation period, the father seahorse protects the embryos by holding the egg-sacs in his mouth. How effeminate that is! Therefore: homosexuals, the lot of them!
     
    Now, upon closer inspection, neither penguins nor seahorses (nor about 440 of the other species on the list) ever actually engage in homosexual sex. In fact, the vast majority of them aren’t even physically capable of homosexual sex. The species just don’t have the organs that make it possible. Ever tried to get a blow job from a male termite? Not so pleasant. 
     
    A more accurate statistic is more like somewhere between 5 and 10 species very rarely engage in actual homosexual behavior. And most of time, that only happens in stressful situations, and does not happen where the environment and population is undisturbed. Excluding those, it’s just a tiny handful — human, bonobo chimpanzees, and maybe a couple others.
     
    Also left out of the statistic: even among those few species that do engage in homosexual “sex,” it not a form of erotic expression but is instead a way for the dominant males to establish the pecking order, by essentially raping and humiliating the lower-down males.
     
    Ron19′s comment above was on the right track, but was a gross underestimate: There at least 8 MILLION species on Earth. Possibly as many as 100 million. Even granting the ridiculously inflated 450 number, that’s .000056%, so small as to be statistically insignificant. When you calculate the percentage using the actual number (let’s just say 10), the percentage is tiny beyond imagining.
     
    There is an incredibly wide variety in the animal kingdom.  Animals do all sorts of crazy, amazing, repulsive, and bizarre things. Thousands of species have females that eat the heads of the males during sex. Thousands of species dine exclusively on feces. Thousands of species eat their own young. All these behaviors are vastly more “normal” in the animal kingdom than homosexuality, which is actually among the rarest of behaviors.
     
    So, on those points alone, the cutesy little liberal Facebook post is revealed as a total fraud.
     
    But even aside from that, the standard rebuttal still holds true: Just because animals do something, does not mean that humans “ought” to do it as well. In chimpanzee society, rape and kidnapping are also “normal.” Ant colonies spend centuries at war with each other. Most predators hunt and kill newborns and crippled prey.
     
    So, following liberal logic, should we thereby set up a human society in which we rape people at will, go to war for no reason, and murder and eat newborn babies and the disabled? I guess so! 
     
    As for the second half of the homily: The reason that no animal species exhibit homophobia is that no animal species has a class of homosexual members! There is no homophobia because there are no homosexuals. Even in the “gayest” of all animal species, bonobos, almost all of the chimps that sometimes engage in homosexual play ALSO engage in heterosexual play. Basically, they hump anything and everything. But I doubt that any bonobos think of themselves as “gay,” nor do other bonobos condemn each other as “gay.” They don’t refrain from homophobia because they’re “nice,” they refrain from homophobia because there are no homosexuals!
     
    Please feel free to forward this comment to any of your friends who still fall for this absurd and lazy cultural gimmick. 

  4. Ron19 says

    Zombie:

    You caught my mistake. 

    The 1.36 million species was supposed to be 1.36 million animal species, which I got from the Wolfram Mathmatica answers site.

    Several decades ago (70′s?), some researchers were investigating giant sea slugs, because they had very large neurons, but very few of them.  It is an ideal animal for studying limited cell-to-cell brain activity.

    The researchers also wrote an article for Scientific American about something unusual they had noticed about their giant sea slugs.  If I remember this right, each individual had male genitalia on it’s front or stomach side, and female genitalia on the opposite side.  It was literaly a bisexual hermorphidite.  Not only that but it could have sex simultaneously on both sides.

    In the aquarium tanks where the researchers would keep several sea slugs in one tank, one pair having sex would, probably by sexual scents, excite others in the tank.  Instead of pairing off, though, they would line up back-to-front, back-to-front, back-to-front, etc.  The result would be a train or chain of copulating sea slugs stacked up together like Donettes in a vending machine package.

    Since the entire tankful would join in this activity, there probably wasn’t any homophobia.

    The article did not have photographs, but did have some very interesting, unusual drawings.

  5. DL Sly says

    I’ve always loved that Coexist bumper sticker.  I love to tell people who sport such inanity on their vehicles just how stupid their *statement* makes them look.  When they ask why it makes them look stupid, I remind them that we have been ‘coexisting’ with each other for thousands of years already, and they might as well put a sticker on there that says “Breath air” — it makes just as much sense.

    Zombie that was the best take-down of the “Animals do it, too!” insanity that I’ve ever read.
    0>;~}

  6. rwturney says

    Is this the inevitable end of modern prosperity? Maybe in earlier times, the tendency of self actualization to induce paranoia would usually whither in isolation. But now we that we have the internet, these nuts are able to cluster in one virtual place and feed each other’s delusions.

     

  7. says

    Also left out of the statistic: even among those few species that do engage in homosexual “sex,” it not a form of erotic expression but is instead a way for the dominant males to establish the pecking order, by essentially raping and humiliating the lower-down males.

    How else are the Leftist males going to exert their dominance? They only have so many female slaves to go around, you know.

  8. says

    So, following liberal logic, should we thereby set up a human society in which we rape people at will, go to war for no reason, and murder and eat newborn babies and the disabled? I guess so! 

    But… that’s exactly what they intend to do. All in the fullness of time. 

  9. ferninphilly says

    An oldie but goodie from our friend Andrew Klavan on your “War is not the answer” point: 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McwFYeQ5xek  

    As to the point about being gay- one thing that both sides are guilty of is consistently arguing to the extremes of the other side (All conservatives hate gays! All liberals are communists!!)
    A lot of the pithy quips that I see coming from libs on FB are responses to these straw men (unless you are friends with the Jonesboro Baptist church I’m guessing that there’s no one on your facebook page who is suggesting that we cease “Coexisting” with every other religion on the planet…or that gays should be destroyed for being “unnatural”… or whatever the argument is there (I mean- let’s say that we concede that being gay is perfectly natural. So what? That does nothing to advance any argument anywhere. Should we legalize and accept every ‘natural’ inclination we have strictly based on the fact that they are ‘natural’? There is no ‘age of consent’ in nature either…so NAMBLA would have a field day with this argument!  This goes back to the who Rousseau-ian view of the left- that ‘natural’ = ‘good’ which then extends to ‘acceptable’ which then extends to ‘legal’… whereas we Hobbesian conservatives see ‘natural’ = ‘nasty, brutish,  short’…unless it involves natural law, which can be derived using reason, and……
    …I need to come back from the Rabit hole here…)
    Anyways- my point was (several digressions ago) that the arguments are being made to a fringe element of the conservative movement that barely exists in response to a question that, essentially, has no substance and does nothing to advance the argument in our modern political climate. The questions of substance (i.e: “How would we deal with religious institutions who are opposed by doctrine to having gay marriage? Would such institutions be forced to perform these ceremonies under current civil rights legislation? What does that do to religious liberty? How do gays fit in to the Equal Protection Clause for things like: admission to seminaries?”). 
    None of these questions (that are being asked by main stream conservatives) ever seem, to me, to touch on the question of whether or not being gay is “natural”. It’s a meaningless question that libs are using pithy quips to answer….but it’s not one that any of us have ever asked…or stated.  

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply