A Proposal for the Classification of Unicorns

I’ve seen the entity called the Invisible Pink Unicorn bandied about here (SDMB and especially GD). And I think perhaps it is used a little too liberally. Hence I have devised my own modest proposal for the proper classification of unicorns.

The Common Unicorn -
This unicorn can be seen prancing around in many areas. Sometimes when you least expect it. Results from incomplete or invalid evidence. Candidates include UFO’s, Bigfoot, ghosts and the like but also may include your favorite “common sense” notions.

The Invisible Unicorn -

Something known only by faith. This obviously includes certain religious deities, and some other romantic notions some may find surprising: love, the existence of the ego, and the soul.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn -

Not only is it known by faith but it’s properties appear contradictory to the un-initiated (she is both invisible *and[\i] pink after all). This happens with certain religions, especially wherein beliefs have been amalgamated retroactively. This is a double whammy because it does not require proof and it is logically inconsistent with itself. Use it wisely.

Any reactions/critiques and counter proposals welcome.

Gee, and here I just thought they made a pretty picture. :slight_smile:

Ah, they’re 1920s-style Invisible Pink Unicorns - a triple whammy because it does not require proof and it is logically inconsistent with itself and it can turn you into a crispy non-believer faster than you can say “Jesus wept”. Use with extreme caution.

I have trouble sorting out my Invisible Pink Unicorns from my collection of generic Invisible Unicorns. Do you have any tips how to separate them?

Furthermore, should I also be wary for Invisible Blue Unicorns in my collection? Or do only the Pink ones appear contradictory?

I just figured that you’ve got black, gray, and white unicorns. You just don’t want to sacrifice a co-aligned unicorn or use a co-aligned altar. And it doesn’t hurt to let your pet kill it if you can.