I am happy to announce that the stench of your contorted reasonings and foul moral arguments has finally made it all the way to heaven. Thor used to grow orchids. It's the god's hobby. He has this huge glasshouse, or should I say spirit-of-glass-house with all the orchids you can think of (and many you can't). They vary in coloration, in carnation, in size, in feeding habits (some eat liberals, some eat democrats, some eat Clinton) but there's one thing they do have in common. They all stink. Horribly. The place smells so bad it's off limits to all gods that don't just happen to be a drunk smelly dwarfish type themselves.

Well, no more. The foul odors emanating from your shitty planet overpower everything, including vast expanses of stinky orchids that have been specifically bred for eons beyond remembrance. Thor is depressed, his orchids are wilting and he can't be bothered to care for them, he just sits and sharpens his hammer compulsively. And it's all because of your bullshit. By the time he's done sharpening you might get an axe up a certain hole.

But how has this come to be, you ask ? Well, obviously, I will have to chaperon your budding intellect. Consider the argument for gay rights. Essentially, it says people have rights above and beyond what is customary or acceptable in their community. No matter what a bunch of people think in some god forsaken Tennessee town, no matter the fact buggery has been a hangable offense last they checked (which just so happens to be 1735) no matter they all unanimously find it inherently abhorrent, foul and dangerous for their community standards and values, source and manifestation of evil and corruption and whatnot. The individual has certain inherent, inviolable, natural, sacrosanct and unassailable rights that can't be alienated. Including the right to uncommon sexual practices. They will be protected by federal law and the federal government, no matter what the community thinks, and community standards and values have no bearing on the issue. Further, community values will have to change to accommodate this prevalence of the rights of the individual.

Relatedly, the slave war (sometimes referred to as "secession war" or "civil war", although what was civil about that one is a fascinating question) was a branch of the same tree. The doctrine then on the issue of black slavery was that regardless what communities in the south thought, legislated and considered true, the individual had certain rights that take precedence, and so no negroes are rightfully slaves.

All well and good, but now consider the animal rights issue. Animals have no moral standing, not being moral agents. For the record, moral agency is a term used to denote somebody that has a capacity for making moral judgments and for taking actions consistent with those judgments. Animals do not have such a capacity. I don't care that you kiss your dog, love him very much, bought him a bowl, house, special food, collar, foot massage, French lessons, three hookers and a stripper. I don't care your dog fetches your newspaper, lifts innocent bystander girls' skirts, barks at people, looks lovingly in your eyes and squeals along with the radio. I don't care what tricks you can teach your monkey. They are not moral agents, any of them.

Yet, busybody idiots decided there must be some laws passed to protect this vague notion of "animal rights". In keeping with the above, let me point out that animals, not being moral agents, have no rights whatsoever, being exactly like a wooden plank, piece of asphalt or length of rope in this respect. However, one can argue that humans, being moral agents, have a right to have their pets protected, as they have a right to have their property protected. As such, the laws can be passed, and as such they were in fact passed. Legally speaking, it is not an issue of "animal rights". It is an issue of people's rights with respect to their animal property. Busybody idiots are of course quick to forget this, if in fact they ever had the intellectual wherewithal to understand the difference. Not that what they understand and what they don't understand matters to anyone else.

But now, here comes the interesting part. Forbidding violence against pets, people have also forbidden violence against one's own pet ! Strangely enough, the rights of the individual, such as property, are no longer inalienable, and community standards no longer have to change so as to fit with this superiority of the rights of the individual over "community standards and values". Instead, the individual has to accommodate the community's ideas about what is and what is not acceptable.

Relatedly, smoking has been forbidden indoors. All well and good, but wasn't it that the individual had rights and community standards had to change to fit ? Or no, wait, was it that in fact community standards are paramount and the individual has to change to fit ? What about gays then ? What about negroes ?

"Oh, I know, we can do it sometimes like this and sometimes like that." I can already hear the busybody busy at his normal busybodying. Well, sure you can. The only drawbacks are that it makes no sense whatsoever, and you will be in one hell of a pickle whenever you will try to convince anyone there does in fact exist something like "malum in se" as opposed to prohibitum. Further, it stinks, and you will end up with a sharp axe that used to be a hammer rammed up your snout. O no, wait, might be the wrong end. O well...