by Datechguy | December 26th, 2012
Daras: The Deputy Fuhrer is an authority on the genetics of racial purity. How do you classify this one?
Melakon: [regarding Spock] Hm. Very difficult. Note the sinister eyes… and the malformed ears. Definitely an inferior race.
Star Trek Patterns of Force 1968
“You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly.
Our programming does not permit us to acknowledge that any creature is superior to the Daleks
Doctor Who: Genesis of the Daleks 1975
Picking up from where I left off, when looking at some of the stories that I didn’t bother to write about in the last few days I find there is a common thread.
It is the idea that the people who are thus targeted or critiqued are not worthy of the same courtesy and standards of behavior that those making said declarations would hold for themselves.
Thus any critique particularly public critique of Professor Erik Loomas is beyond the pale but Professor Loomas’ connecting Sarah Palin with the Giffords shooting calling for the hunting down of Dick Morris to be skinned like a pig declaring for the world to see we need the heads on sticks of those who disagree is perfectly acceptable no matter what language he may employ or colorful metaphors used.
Now while members of the tea party, the conservative blogosphere and Republicans around the nation might object to this as a double standard, we obviously are forgetting that this type of thinking from our democrat friends concerning Republicans is simply an extension of science:
Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.
On the otherhand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.
It’s the very same principle that another Democrat echoed describing republican opponents on another critical matter:
All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity
Being fanatics with a species of insanity, we don’t understand why someone like Brandon Darby, who had the audacity to believe that bombing the GOP convention might not be the appropriate response to political disagreement, is clearly unworthy of standards of society, let alone the consideration for his acts that an Erik Loomas should expect.
And we of the right like Darby, being unworthy of the consideration for the standards or support of society due to our mental impairment, dare I say mental inferiority why stop there? After all, if conservatism is a form of irrational insanity that as some say, has “blood on their hands“, what rights do conservatives have that should be respected by he left and the media culture that support them, particularly if these opinions lead to the violent death of women and children?
If such insanity could somehow be restrained, then the enlightened could solve problems from the economy to gun violence unrestrained. There is a precedent. In fact there’s a whole Supreme Court ruling, one of the most famous rulings in American jurisprudence, made by some of the most educated and elite democrats of their time that can be looked to for guidance:
We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.
I don’t see a single line in the constitution protecting the rights of the insane fanatics. Do you?
I know some might object to Democrats being connected these opinions of their party. Their resentment to some degree is proper, after all the left goes after the right irregardless of race. So what is the actual driver here? Well that’s for tomorrow.
Update: Stacy McCain notes something at Occupy Rebellion that is relevant:
Andrew Breitbart was a career criminal who made it his mission to destroy people & their families. . . .
NO ONE linked to Breitbart has the right to ever claim their “victims” of anything. NO ONE linked to Breitbart has the right to ever “grieve” for anyone they know who died.
Stacy is stuck by this:
What is striking — and, in a weird ironic way, a tribute to Breitbart’s greatness — is how this obsessive hatred has persisted even after Breitbart’s death, so that now Rauhauser, “Occupy Rebellion” and others (most of them involved with the “Weiner Truther” cult) have transferred their “heroic hatred” to Breitbart’s associates.
Stacy Stacy Stacy, you just don’t get it. It’s not obsessive hatred, Breitbart obviously doesn’t have the right to be mourned because what he did and thought was obviously, as Dr. Stephens would diagnose, due to his insanity and any of us who wish to follow his example deserve no better.