Quote of the day—Joanne Mitchell‏@joannemsv

@FoxNews @seanhannity All life is precious. Their is no heirarchy of value. Animal life is as important as human life. #JusticeForCecil

Joanne Mitchell‏@joannemsv
Tweeted on July 29, 2015
[If she really believed this she wouldn’t defend her child against a predator intent on eating it. And what is her definition of “animal life”? Does it include parasites such as leeches and tapeworms? Does she wash her fresh fruit and vegetables before eating them? Does she carefully sweep the path ahead of her so she doesn’t step on any insects?

Sometimes you just have to shake your head and walk away. Someone this mind boggling stupid isn’t even worth arguing with.

One would have thought this sort of mindset would have been hardwired out of existence a million years ago. It certainly doesn’t exist in the wild. What sort of mental illness creates someone so ill adapted to reality?—Joe]


17 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Joanne Mitchell‏@joannemsv

  1. Modern society creates it when you no longer have to pursue survival activities as a daily function. When you have the luxury of time and leisure, the mind needs something to occupy it. Absent some kind of structured foundation for dealing with the world, emotional and fantasy stuff like this rules the day.

    The scary part is the fact mindsets like this outnumber the rational ones by a good margin. And they vote.

  2. Bacteria are alive, too. If “all life is precious” and “there is no heirarchy of value”, then I guess she opposes vaccines and antibiotics as well?

      • Animal life is a subset of “all life” in her quote. Besides, bacteria are microbial “animals” aren’t they?

        Progressivism, ultimately, is a death cult. The animal rights movement is a subset of this death cult. It starts out by exalting animals, which is to be seen as “sensitive” and “compassionate” and all the rest. It’s unfortunate followers are made thereby to feel superior to other people.

        The upshot is that people who ignore the murder of thousands of fellow human beings will call for the lynching of a hunter.

        If humans are no better than animals and humans regularly kill animals, then this sensitive, compassionate, superior movement will think nothing of regularly killing humans, and Bingo!

        That’s its motivating propose and goal, and very soon Progressives will be largely indistinguishable from head-chopping jihadists. One screams about Allah and the other screams about a lion, but the results are the same. Actually the animal rights jihad is open to killing everyone, while the Muslim jihad is, I assume, still protective of certain fellow Muslims.

  3. Nope. She said, “All life is precious. Their is no heirarchy of value. Animal life is as important as human life.”
    Perhaps she intended to say that only animal life is as important as human life, but that would establish a hierarchy of value which she claims does not exist.

  4. They seem to love most the carnivores that would happily eat their children. Why is that?

  5. Yet she tweets sympathy for the two teenage fishermen who disappeared at sea. Since their death saved the lives of innumerable fish, she should be happy about that, right?

    • She also follows “Major Dave’s Chicken” meaning that she is a meat eater, and obviously has no problem paying people to kill for her to be able to live.


      • The major difference is that she doesn’t eat lions. If she did, I suspect she probably wouldn’t have a problem with it.

        It’s very analogous to WEERD’s pointing out that liberals like the rights they use, but see no need for or hate the ones they don’t. Free speech? They use that, and want it (for themselves, if no others). Guns? Guns are icky, they don’t want it, and it’s therefore sinful and the WORST THING EVER.

        Fishing, raising eggs, eating chicken? Ms. Joanne Mitchell obviously enjoys the fruits of these, and wants the status quo to continue for her benefit. But eating a lion would be icky, and besides, lions are an entire ocean away, so no one should ever do it and it is the WORST THING EVER.

        It’s really not all that hypocritical if you look at it from the point of view of a self-centered, egotistical idiot…

  6. I have three pet snakes. (And they’re kind’a precious to me.) Know what I have to feed them? Other animals. Snakes cannot and will not change to being herbivores. They are carnivores to the core. Are they then cowards because they hunt and kill? Or are only the venomous snakes cowards because they use weapons?
    Reality bites, PETA! Nature is a harsh mistress. Man is a predator, and needs some meat in his diet. While it is true that some are irresponsible predators, does that justify you calling for this man’s death? How do you reconcile killing him with your statement that all life is precious?
    If you are the type who thinks Man is a scourge and ought to die, then I say, “You first.”

  7. Dang it! Comment went to wrong post. See newkirk’s PETA comments below, in previous post.

  8. From the Christian point of view she worships the “creation” and not the Creator. I bet she doesn’t even recognize the murder of abortion. A defective mind with messed up priorities lacking a moral compass.

  9. One wonders if, in ancient times, there were fire and chipped flint prohibitionists…

    • You bet there were, the chief/king/warlord dictated what you could and could not own. We just refined it with later generations, such as using the written word to codify it so everyone could know in advance what the was and was not allowed. Prior to that you would get a personal visit from the enforcers, and “regulated items” were a lot more arbitrary (consisting mostly of “I like that thing you have there, and I have the force necessary to take it. Resist and die.” It is a common thread throughout human history; men will seek to control others.

  10. I would like to point out that germs, you know bacteria and viruses et al. are also alive. Have they rights too ?

  11. “All life is precious. Their is no heirarchy of value. Animal life is as important as human life.”

    At the risk of belaboring the obvious, this isn’t even true for human life.

    We are taught that all human life is precious and is equally valuable. But that’s an oversimplification. All human life is equally valuable in potential, yes. But who is seriously willing to make the argument that the lives of the firefighter and the arsonist are equal? How about the drugstore armed robber, shooting out with the cops, vs. the cops being shot at by him? Who among us would say that, if one lives and the other dies, we truly don’t care which is which?

    Or, as someone memorably put it once, to claim all life is equally valuable is to say that, when one man pushes an old lady in the path of a speeding bus, and another man risks his life to push the old lady to safety, both men must be morally equivalent, because, you know, you just shouldn’t push old ladies.

    And if not all human life is equal, then how can one possibly claim that all animal life is equal? Trust me, if I have to run into a burning building, and only have time to save my child or my pet (but not both), I will save my child, without hesitation. (And if any parent says otherwise, I feel pity for that parent’s offspring.)

    All life is precious. Not all life has equal value.

Comments are closed.