1 2 3 4 5 10 14 | bottom
Quote# 123364

You are still caught in the religious idea of the 'ultimate' explanation. There is no ultimate explanation that we can possibly attempt to understand. The attempt here is only to understand immediate causes.

Ideas such as random variations, chance, emergent property etc. are not explanations. They are attempts to keep possible non material explanations at bay and to circumvent all such ideas. It is a fear of the non material. The God phobia!

What I am attempting is only to explain Consciousness, Self, Life and other phenomena that we experience everyday. For this, taking a cue from the way man made objects get created and how they evolve, is perfectly in order. As above so below!

Sriram, Religion and Ethics 18 Comments [12/31/2016 11:27:28 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 123349

America's law enforcement system has become over-reactive due to the feminist agenda. The police are over-reactive. The courts are over-reactive. Judges are often harsh, cruel and unjust. People often defecate on themselves in the courtroom, because of cruel judges who have no respect for others. Prison sentences are extremely long and unfair. Numerous private prison owners have lobbied lawmakers to greatly lengthen prison sentences, which means much more money for “the system.”

When people no longer care about the Holy Bible, all sense of fairness and doing the right thing are gone! Judges don't fear God, they fear the federal government. Lawyers fear the judges. The entire legal system operates on fear of the government, not fear of God. This is why murderous abortion is legal. This is why wickedly banning the Holy Bible from America's classrooms is legal. This is why same-sex perversion is legal. This is why wickedly quitting one's marriage is legal.

Many men are rethinking marriage these days, deciding that it is not worth the benefit-to-risk ratio. They see their fathers, older brothers, and friends suffering unjustly at the hands of a corrupt court system that caters to feminists. The court system goes after men! Perhaps you say, “Good, men ought to support their children and wife.” Ok, but now what about a man's right to expect his wife to cook, clean and care for the children? What about a man's right to sex on demand? The courts don't enforce a man's right to have a responsible, submissive and obedient wife. If a man works and the wife is at home with the children, she ought to cook for her husband. He has a right to expect a homecooked meal and a clean house. But that's not how the courts see it. The courts view what I just said as a form of domestic abuse!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Precious 18 Comments [12/31/2016 11:27:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 123329

The fact that it is from a stranger who doesn't know your personality and has no investment in you makes it not biased. The fact that the stranger knows that giving you this compliment won't do anything for them makes it sincere. It's just a perfectly objective evaluation of your looks that serves no purpose but aesthetic acknowledgment.

Edit: Also its very unconvincing to complain against catcalling but then posting selfies on your social media so that men can jerk off to you.

StAliaHarkonnen, r/Incels 12 Comments [12/31/2016 11:26:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 123309

[Reminder that the subtitle in the blog header is "Liberty in an unfree world"]

Liberty allows and encourages the highest human flourishing. But when your enemies seek your destruction, it is time for liberty to go.

The time approaches for the warrior ethic, wherein the highest good is to crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women.

It takes two to keep the peace, only one to start war. Every time that Muslims drive a truck into a bunch of Christians, or Black Lives Matter ethnically cleanses the neighborhood of whites and burns down a shopping center, people start panicking “Oh, the terrible white backlash is forcing Muslims and blacks to become radicals.”, though no one has seen any white backlash yet.

The way to respond to war, is with war. History shows us that only war works.

Let us try massacring some peaceful Muslim men and enslaving their women, and see what the effect is on Muslim radicalism. Let us try reenslaving those blacks that are causing the most problems. That would be backlash.

For liberty to exist, there must first be law. For law to exist, there must first be order. For order to exist, there must first be peace. For peace to exist, there must first be victory. And victory usually requires the most horrifying means.

Submitting to your enemy’s war making is not liberty, nor order, nor is it peace.

It is been too long since the last war, people have forgotten how terrible war is, and our enemies have become too used to easy victories, where they make war unopposed, and this war making is answered by generous concessions, which necessarily leads to more extreme war making by our enemies. The only way to real peace, is now through real war.

Jim, Jim's Blog 16 Comments [12/31/2016 11:25:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 123366

Science requires more faith than belief in Jesus Christ. :D

Sassy, Religion and Ethics 12 Comments [12/31/2016 11:23:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 123365

He created the English language, it is just men who are not strong on understanding the word of God, especially ATHEIST. :)

Sassy, Religion and Ethics 20 Comments [12/31/2016 11:22:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 123363

Yes I agree your conception of the word is not up to the job of describing the ''notion of sustaining''. Because it completely explains AWAY without tackling the nature of a hierarchical chain of derivation.

You have therefore played the intellectual fascist/pirate role again and deliberately fixed creation as a point in time.

I'm afraid if being can be eternal, something you and others have argued for then dependent being can be particularly when ability is observed to be derived.

In short nothing you have said addresses the derived power/actual power dilemma.

In maintaining eternal being without actual power your argument is going to remain illogical.

As I said, start polishing.

There is no ducking on my part. Just your avoidance of the logical.

Once again without the actual the derived cannot be. Energy is change and therefore derived.

If energy is eternally sustained then without God it ceases to be.

If it is eternal then a God who finds it clearly isn't and is derived.

That leaves all energy derived and that is illogical since where is your actual.

Actual power is unavoidable if derived power is observed and it is.

I'm afraid that rather leaves you as the naughty schoolboy of whom the teacher reports

''if only he spent time and his intellectual capabilities learning rather than on avoiding learning.''

As I said if the universe has a moment where it popped out of nothing that is a change and therefore that has to logically be derived power and therefore there has to be actual power.

If it doesn't then I'm afraid there is, has been and will be forever more only anything here because of actual power and the complete eternal dependence of it.

Emergence - The Musical, Religion and Ethics 11 Comments [12/31/2016 11:21:46 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 123362

You still aren't making the distinction between the two questions

Why is there anything and not nothing and how does anything pop out of nothing.

The context of the first question is that something is not dependent on time or finitude or infinitude.

That cannot be said of the second.

I think you have described my position as 'the polish plumber situation that God finds energy and tinkers with it.
Firstly actual power never finds anything least of all already realised potential. You assume actual finds something rather than causes something.

I think your model might have the derived power changing the actual power and misunderstands energy as essentially something static rather than a change or transfer. But i'm open to an alternative argument

Emergence - The Musical, Religion and Ethics 8 Comments [12/31/2016 11:21:24 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 123361

Even better, billions of billions of times better than having Trump sworn in, would be the Rapture occuring with Trump and family coming with us!!

sherrid, RR 21 Comments [12/31/2016 11:21:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: solomongrundy

Quote# 123358

[Question: Did God kill George Michael because he was gay?]

George Michael lived an unhealthy life.
regrets and sin caused him much grief.

I liked some of his earlier music,
but his lifestyle choices caused him much sorrow.

did you see his final photos?

unhealthy (spiritually & emotionally)

he had regrets.
I hope he repented before he passed.

if not?
that's upon him.

people who mock GOD each day
are unhappy people.

read here much?

GOD didn't kill George.
George killed George.

sin killed him

I think its sad myself
one reason I try and help here
so others wont feel this misery

how is your life doing?
since you bring this up?

I bet I know....

good people don't find enjoyment
in other peoples sorrow
you asking this is not to learn anything
just cause further pain

and I know my post will help you (*if you allow it to*)

a double edged sword this is
cuts deep at times.

truth hurts
its up to us to heal or bleed after

< ><

Donald, Yahoo! Answers 10 Comments [12/31/2016 11:20:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Scourge

Quote# 123357

When i look at people i don't see a person...i see looks, money and status.´

I dont believe in personality. Outside of differences between neurotypical and neurodivergent people are essentially the same with sliding scales of increasing or decreasing tendencies of behaviors.

This scale is determined by three things. It's the well established law of LMS, also known as the Law of Looks, Money and Status. The three pillars of life. These three things govern how you are perceived in live thus conditioning your behavior, thus determining largely your personality.

There are scholars across the manosphere that study different facets of the three pillars of LMS. I focus mainly on looks especially in regards to bone laws, the law that bones is what mainly determines your facial aesthetics and methods to improve bone growth.

nontrollingaccount, /r/incels 10 Comments [12/31/2016 11:20:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123356

Saudi Arabia is one of the few sane places left on Earth

Cornfed_, /r/incels 12 Comments [12/31/2016 11:20:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123350

[OP of "So why SHOULDN'T we treat women badly?"]

They have no virtues.

They don't build anything.

They're not sexually or romantically submitting to us as individuals.

Why is it the same normies who can't go five minutes without YOU CAN'T GET LAID.jpg can't muster half of that toward a woman who is nothing but problems?

I'll give you one post to raise a solid defense for women.

Then I'm reporting all your posts.

HookahArtillery, Reddit - r/Incel 12 Comments [12/31/2016 11:19:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 123360

A Brief Defense Of The Hereditarian Caste System

Returning to the topic of Indo-European mythology, there are two distinct ways that Indo-European societies organize themselves. The first is by means of caste, which Georges Dumézil defines as an order built on the concept of function. He argues that the Proto-Indo-Europeans organized themselves into three groups, the famous trifunctional hypothesis of Priests, Warriors, and Laborers, and that this caste system evolved into the various manifestations we see from India to Ireland. While there were numerous permutations of this system, each changing in some way the specific character of the castes, the same foundational rules applied across the board, namely that society should be divided along the lines of the function men play in the maintenance of order.

The alternative method of organizing society, also indigenous to Indo-European societies, is the class system which dominated the post-Medieval world. The major distinction between class and caste is that class system organizes people by socio-economic status rather than social function. What one does in society does not matter in a class system. What matters is the amount of wealth and status you can accrue from your function. Members of the upper class can be politicians, businessmen, or generals, but these roles are insignificant to the class system. It is certainly true that upper-caste members tend to be wealthier than lower-caste members in traditional economies, but the material differences are incidental to the caste system and central to a class system.

In Dumézil’s Mitra-Varuna and his two volume work on Ancient Roman religion, the author shows the conflict which emerged in the Roman Republic when the class system began to eclipse and replace the ancient religious caste system. Like most European religions, especially among the Germanic peoples, the priestly caste was largely absorbed into the warrior caste and retained only ritualistic significance, which Dumézil traces in the various priesthoods of the Monarchy and Republican period. What distinguished the Romans was the rise of a system where men were divided into socio-economic classes, such as the Senatores, Equites, Proletarii, and so forth. While there were hereditary roots to these classes, after the Republican period they were primarily economic, as the poet Juvenal tells us:

Would you not like to fill up a whole note-book [of satirical writings] at the street crossings when you see a forger borne along upon the necks of six porters, and exposed to view on this side and on that in his almost naked litter, and reminding you of the lounging Maecenas: one who by help of a scrap of paper and a moistened seal has converted himself into a fine and wealthy gentleman? – Satire 1

Juvenal’s complaint should sound familiar to modern ears: unscrupulous foreigners who lacked any respect for the Roman virtues or laws usurped the positions of power, authority, and wealth from the native Roman population. The openness of the Roman system, which transitioned toward the class structure after the Servile Wars in order to permit qualified plebians to serve in high military office, allowed the complete disenfranchisement of the Romans themselves.

…when a guttersnipe of the Nile like Crispinus —-a slave-born denizen of Canopus —-hitches a Tyrian cloak on to his shoulder, whilst on his sweating finger he airs a summer ring of gold, unable to endure the weight of a heavier gem—-it is hard not to write satire. For who can be so tolerant of this monstrous city, who so iron of soul, as to contain himself when the brand-new litter of lawyer Matho comes along, filled with his huge self; after him one who has informed against his noble patron and will soon despoil our pillaged nobility of what remains to them—-one whom Massa dreads, whom Carus propitiates by a bribe, and to whom Thymele was made over by the terrified Latinus; when you are thrust on one side by men who earn legacies by nightly performances, and are raised to heaven by that now royal road to high preferment—-the favours of an aged and wealthy woman? – Satire 1

As hard as it is to tear ourselves away from the masterful writing of Juvenal, let us return to the point; the openness of a class system, which reduces all social order to that of wealth and popularity (to which Juvenal has more to say, but I’ll desist), creates the opportunity for the erosion of social values and cultural goods by removing one of the core limits on superbia, the overweening ambition of the opportunist.

The rise of the low-caste man to a position of absolute power is bad enough, as history has demonstrated, but the greater danger is that such a society is a magnet for every two-bit con man and grifter across the globe. People with no attachment to the land, culture, or society can use class systems to free-ride on the cultural and social capital of a well-ordered society until even the greatest community is brought down under the overwhelming weight of parasitism. Rome became that magnet, attracting the scum of every corner of the Mediterranean to pull down the greatest civilization before our own. When wealth alone determines social status, anyone willing to violate the norms and unspoken rules governing society can elevate themselves, because when their actions transform society into a cesspit of corruption and despair, they can simply pick up again and move on to the next target. The weight of social disapproval, which ensures a functional society’s consuetudines et usus, the unwritten customs, values, norms, and beliefs which undergird social order and protect against anti-social disruption, does not function on the alien. Cicero declared the fundamental character of a community to be a common language, common “ius[1],” and common weal. There is no common language, “ius,” or weal in the Rome Juvenal is portraying to us, and that is largely due to the Roman class system.

Thus, we return to the notion of caste, in which function and heredity primarily determine one’s social position. I am under no delusion that I am a “secret aristocrat,” as the liberal slur goes. My heredity is pure redneck back over five hundred years. Under a strict hereditarian system, I would most likely be prohibited from receiving enough education to read Juvenal. Nevertheless, the reactionary in me says that my personal situation is irrelevant, and I ask of my reader to keep that in mind themselves as they read the following. If I must be a farmer in order that my people should be free and my children be assured a place, no matter how humble, in their own homeland, then that is a price I am willing to pay.

No functional society is possible without a hereditarian caste system. The arrogance and superbia of Man is such that there must be hard, unbreakable limits on personal ambition, along with strict disincentives to opportunistic parasitism. I am not saying that there cannot be any movement, or that every son of a farmer must be destined to farm forevermore. Even Plato did not suggest this. Every system has some level of flexibility, both ethnic and caste. It is no coincidence that English populations on the borders of the Danegeld, Wales, and Scotland show DNA markers for Nordic and Celtic genotypes. Nor do I deny the various Ciceros and Charles Martels who rose from middling ranks to preserve and protect their homelands. However, the flexibility inherent in any caste system is a weakness in the armor of a nation, and every exception to the rule justifies the waiting masses of alien grifters, who undermine the whole of social order for the material benefit of himself and his tribe.

Hereditarianism is perhaps the most important safeguard to any society because social stability rests on consuetudines et usus, unwritten norms and ethics tied to particular ethnic and cultural groups. It is no coincidence that Ethnic and Ethics arise from the same Greek root. One does not routinely scam one’s neighbors because they are kith and kin; their essential connection to you is the bond and guarantee of equitable relationships. We mourn the day when “a man’s handshake was his bond,” but that handshake wasn’t the true bond. The bond, (in legal terminology, the collateral of a contract) is the reputation one has in the community, which is built upon common heredity. Honor matters because it is the mark of approval from the community that one abides by the unwritten rules which make society spin. The alien neither has honor, nor cares for honor, because he does not care for the community with which he shares no blood.

In any caste system, the alien is either the lowest caste or outside the system altogether. The merchant, who surrenders his identity for a cosmopolitan existence, is also low on the scale, even when he shares blood with the community. This is because a caste system is a fundamental barrier to dyscivic practices and free-rider scenarios, and these two groups have the most to gain from undermining the system and replacing caste with class. When wealth replaces blood, who becomes the highest members of society? It is no coincidence that the word “liberal” was nearly always preceded by “bourgeois” until the 20th century; they are the beneficiaries of the replacement of the medieval caste with the capitalist class system. Likewise, the replacement of caste with class is the only means wherein the alien will be permitted to rise in status over the native-born.

Caste and blood are the only protection that native-born labor have against oppression and loss of self-determination–hence the traditional support of the rural working class for reactionary politics. The upper-castes, the priesthood and aristocracy, are limited in their oppression by those very customs which make society run, but the alien landlord or banker is not so constrained by the cultural limits on power and is free to grind the working classes into dust. When a reactionary says, “neither capitalist nor socialist,” it is a recognition that both are symptoms of the same social breakdown.

The destruction of social order epitomized by the English Whigs and the resultant socialist working-class backlash to an out-of-order bourgeoisie have their roots in the rejection of the role of blood and heredity in determining a social order. Bourgeois rebels against custom and order create socialist rebels by destroying the functional limits on power in society which rested in the hereditary aristocracy.

There is a price to be paid in personal liberty for a caste system, true. I would never be allowed to become a scholar in a society where heredity ruled. The other option, however, is this:

Then up comes a lordly dame who, when her husband wants a drink, mixes toad’s blood with his old Calenian, and improving upon Lucusta herself, teaches her artless neighbours to brave the talk of the town and carry forth to burial the blackened corpses of their husbands. If you want to be anybody nowadays, you must dare some crime that merits narrow Gyara or a gaol; honesty is praised and starves. It is to their crimes that men owe their pleasure-grounds and high commands, their fine tables and old silver goblets with goats standing out in relief. Who can get, sleep for thinking of a money-loving daughter-in-law seduced, of brides that have lost their virtue, or of adulterers not out of their teens? – Satire 1

[1] It can mean law, justice, or Right. In this situation, it probably means all three.

Arthur Gordian, Social Matter 18 Comments [12/31/2016 5:06:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123355

Saudi Arabia jails man for saying men shouldn’t control women

A Saudi man has been jailed for one year for calling for an end to the Muslim kingdom’s guardianship system that gives men wide controls over women, local media said Tuesday.

The man, who was also fined 30,000 riyals ($8,000) by a court in the eastern city of Dammam, was convicted of “inciting to end guardianship of women” in statements he posted on Twitter and in public posters, the Okaz daily said.

He was arrested while putting up posters in mosques in Al-Hasa district calling for an end to the globally unique system that subjects women in the ultra-conservative kingdom to male control.

During questioning, police found out that the man was also behind a wide online campaign to end the guardianship, the paper said.

The defendant admitted pinning up the posters in several mosques, saying he solely launched an “awareness campaign” after finding that some “female relatives were facing injustice at the hands of their families,” the daily said.

Thousands of Saudis signed in September a petition urging an end to the guardianship system following a Twitter campaign which the court claims was launched by the defendant.

Saudi Arabia has some of the world’s tightest restrictions on women, and is the only country where they are not allowed to drive.

Under the guardianship system a male family member, normally the father, husband or brother, must grant permission for a woman’s study, travel and other activities.

Activists say that even female prisoners have to be received by the guardian upon their release, meaning that some have to languish in jail or a shelter beyond their sentences if the man does not want to accept them.

Saudi Arabia, Raw Story 18 Comments [12/31/2016 2:33:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 12
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123354

We recently hired a new youth leader to our team a few months ago. She has been a believer for 6 years and seems to have zeal for her pursuit of the Lord and in time has formed great relationships with the girls in our group. Recently we had an annual indoor heated pool event for our youth group. The males are required to wear at least a tank top and the girls have to wear at least a one piece or a dark shirt over a two piece. The same rules obviously apply to the leaders. Quite to our surprise this particular leader obeyed in wearing a one piece but it was a thong in the back and extremely revealing so as to call unwanted attention and stumbling for the males and questions from the girls. She defended herself by stating she wasn't doing anything we weren't told to do which seemed like sliding by the rules because of lack of specifics. She doesn't seem to think her actions were wrong and unfortunately it seems we may have to remove her as a leader all because of this incident which will affect the girls she has already bonded with.

Kayla37, Christian Forums 22 Comments [12/31/2016 2:33:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 123353

Men and women are valuable in different ways. For the most part men have historically been the innovators, leaders, and geniuses of society because of their sexual drive and the fact that unlike women sex is not given to them but it is something that must be earned. Men's drive for sexual relations with women pushes them to succeed, innovate, and create. If women stop feeding the sexual fantasy that men desire or if men are able to get some form of sex without a relationship, men tune out, turn off, and drop out and civilization goes into decline. For the most part women don't need to work as hard to get sex by becoming well known for something you contributed for to get people to respect you. When men reach the height of their careers or elevate in social status and power more opportunities for relationships with women become available and this is an ego boost for men. Same with comedy, notice how female comedians are not as funny as male comedians. They don't need to be because they don't need to be admired or respected to get sex. It's evolution in action. If you are a guy and can do something amazing you have a greater likelihood of attracting females and siring more off spring. Women don't really need to prove themselves in this way to get sex because men just want to know if you're healthy, fit, and can bear offspring. In this day and age more jobs can be done by women, so many have decided to find a sperm donor and raise children on their own but their is no innate need or drive to go above and beyond because reproductively they're more conservative whereas men it's high risk and high reward because a man if very successful can sire far more children than a woman who is limited by her reproductive years whereas a man can potentially sire hundreds of children.

John McClain, Hbr 14 Comments [12/31/2016 2:33:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 123352

(Certain people on tumblr have begun calling their opponents RAT's)

Actually, I just had Radical Assimilationist, and was suggested Cishet Apologists and Cishet Lovers by an anon, and Radically Oppression Tolerant, Radical Inclusive Assimilationist, and then Radical Assimilative Tolerant by @lgbtkhaleesi.

Radical: trying to change the fundamental nature of the LGBT community.

Assimilative: Pretty self-explanatory. You guys want to include most people into the community, expanding it to straight people, therefore assimilate it into straight society.

Tolerant: Of cis straight people and the oppression they inflict on us.

Allobitch, Tumblr 18 Comments [12/31/2016 2:33:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Ivurm

Quote# 123348

We have alpha brains in beta bodies

I know plenty of ugly guys who get laid regularly. Most of them are in provider relationships, and content with their reality.

A lot of us here are only a little below average but still totally incel. That's where the mindset part comes into play. Many of us have "alpha" qualities; aggressiveness, high sex drive, and arrogance.

These qualities are actually FAVORED in good looking guys since they increase reproductive success in a guy who is already attractive to women. In an ugly guy they do the opposite.

Think of it like in the animal kingdom. If you're physically inferior, aggressiveness will hurt your chances of survival. It'll just get you killed by a physically superior male.

Not saying it's inherently better to be a beta provider, but nothing turns off women more than an ugly guy who "doesn't know his place."

screwedbygenetics, /r/incels 20 Comments [12/30/2016 9:17:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123344

[Automated message, triggered by "entitled"]

'Entitled' is a fairly meaningless word that does not accurately describe most of the incels on this sub or elsewhere on the Internet. On one extreme, the word 'entitled' is used to describe men how literally believe that they should be able to force women to date them. On the other extreme, the word 'entitled' is used to describe men who are merely frustrated or sad that they can't find anyone at all to date them. This type of frustration is reasonable, since sex and romantic relationships are regarded by many as one of the most fulfilling things in life. The problem with using the word 'entitled' for both categories of men is that it lumps them together, demonizing men in the latter category by comparing them to men in the former category. If you wish to criticize our views, please be more specific than merely calling us 'entitled

/r/incels, /r/incels 11 Comments [12/30/2016 9:16:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123343

Why women control the SMV (Sexual Market Value) - A normie's perspective

First off, like the title says, I'm pretty much a normie and by some definitions a "chad." This is my take on the sexual market. The reason women control this sexual market is because men, even chads, have little to no standards AND many women could careless about sex and go on with their lives perfectly content without having it. My first point, men have no standards. Often times, I browse this subreddit or go on the incel discord and hear many incels say they have no standards and they would fuck anything. Many of these incels are just your average looking dude, nothing wrong with them. Then what happens is many incels begin to looksmax and they turn out to look something like a "chad" but at heart they're still incel. So they go for women who are below their looks and mess up the market. These so called chads who fuck girls below them in terms of looks are what causes the existence of incels. If better looking men focused on getting with women who are on par with them in looks, the worse looking men would have a shot with the worse looking women. At the moment, women who are "ugly" or "fat" can often get men who are pretty good looking and in shape simply due to the fact men are extremely thirsty. Women know they have this benefit and take full advantage of it. If we take away this power from them, then in theory, they will have to seek men who are on par with them in looks. The reason why I said this works in theory feeds into my second point. Women can be perfectly content with not having sex their entire lives. Many women have the mentality that they're hot shit due to the thirst of males. You'll see unattractive or fat girls get tons of matches on tinder or many likes on a Facebook profile picture. Society is constantly validating women, even the ugly fat ones, so they get a sense of "high standards" and will not settle for a man under a 7/10. This is why, even if we fix the problem of men being extremely thirsty, it's not guaranteed women will get with incels. Because they already have a sense of superiority and feel entitled to men who are above them in looks. I also don't believe women are as thirsty as men so if we fix the market place and only ugly men approached ugly women and no one else, women would just not have casual sex. Side note, most of this only applies to casual sex and casual dating, nothing serious or long-term. I know for serious and loving LTR's, love works in mysterious ways and often times looks aren't a factor. But you can't deny in a casual hook up encounter, looks are almost everything. Anyways, I know a lot of normies might get triggered by this post and think everything about the sexual market place is a lie and shit, but no, it's not and it exists. I used to be an incel and climbed my way out and I believe it's possible to change but I've learned the realities of sex and dating and know that many normie's are in denial of the problem that is incels. It's a real problem and fixing the SMV of incels is a major step for a more equal hook-up culture.

incel5cuck, /r/incels 15 Comments [12/30/2016 9:16:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123345

Normies say they don't find their partners to be the most attractive people in the world to them

And being mature is being ok with not being the most attractive person to your partner, according to them.

Its amazing how much their relationships suck. They are conditioned to form relationships with the same consumerist mentality as when getting a new phone or something. Once something better is available you'll get it, until then just fantasize about it. If youll never be able to get it so it will have to remain a fantasy, that's normie relationship acceptable ("it's OK to have celebrity crushes, not like you'll ever meet them lol".)

It's depressing.

StAliaHarkonnen, /r/incels 17 Comments [12/30/2016 5:21:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123342

We were born on the wrong side of the industrial revolution.

We were the kings. We were the nobility, the clergy, the lords and dukes. We were the scholars of the Holy Roman Empire. We were the great painters and composers that fueled the Renaissance. Females were given to us simply out of charity, because everyone understood how our romantic needs powered us.

But look at us now. We're forced onto fucking reddit because society hates the beautiful and the noble, and loves the dirty and downtodden (notice how normos always get a hardon for "rebels taking down the empire" stories).

We're too civilized for females. Pluck a king out of his throne, put on normal clothes and throw him in a slummy tavern, yeah no shit the females won't think he's "confident" enough.

Such a waste. Us being incels is like a man taking several wheelbarrows filled with $100 bills and dumping them into a river one by one. You would think one of the female passerbys would go "HOLY SHIT!" and take some for herself, but she sees that no one else is doing it and decides against it.

The bad guys have won. At least we can take solace in the fact that they will destroy the environment and thus the planet. With the end of our genes, goes the end of humanity. Can't say we didn't war

Zen_Overlord, /r/incels 44 Comments [12/30/2016 4:23:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 123341

No, God created freewill. God created perfection, but as we all know perfection automatically requires the opposite to come into being for the idea to make any sense, and without making humans as robots, that had to be an possible consequence of creation. Ironically, God even built means of mitigating the impact of evil into the whole system.

Hooe, Religion and Ethics 20 Comments [12/30/2016 4:23:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 123340

Mobs can be orderly, and the reason that we have a representative republic instead of a democracy (as you pointed out) is because the founders deeply feared democracy as simply orderly mob rule. I might point out that income taxes were declared unconstitutional in 1894. The constitution was amended to add this, because it did not fit the founders plan. If you don’t think the income tax is confiscation at the point of a gun, try not paying it. Men from the government will eventually kick in your door, point at gun to your head and throw you in a cage. What I specifically get motivated about on this subject is people on the left singling out the 1% for hatred, blaming them for all their problems and declaring they pay no taxes. They already pay 50% of all income tax. This especially smacks of brown shirt fascist tactics to jin up hatred as a fuel for power. How is that not mob action? I agree about asset forfeiture without due process. It is wrong and unconstitutional.

I do willingly pay taxes, but still it is taking not giving. It maybe necessary theft at some level, but taking is theft. Spending someone else’s money without their consent is theft. Spending $20 trillion of an unborn generation’s wealth is theft. My primary challenge is to those who believe their calls for higher taxes on the rich are reflections of charity and virtue. Their calls reveal that their own hearts and motivations are theft not charity. Charity is a response from the heart not from fear, intimidation, coercion and force. If the numbers were small and the spending was rational these points would be moot, because few would object. It’s the greed and graft of government, it’s cronies and those who feel entitled to take from others that underlies these objections to taxes. Taxes are the fuel of this greed.

Your analysis of the 1% shows you have no idea how things work. When you reach that level of income the fact is deductions disappear. I don’t care what MSNBC and Bernie’s fantasy narratives are about tax dodges but they are crap. The 1% is who gets audited. They are watched like a hawk by the IRS. The payers often are actually small businesses like S-corps who pay taxes on net income which means income after expenses of creating the income are deducted. So if you sell a house as a builder for $200,000 but there’s $190,000 in labor and materials is your idea of fairness that he pays tax on $200,000 of net revenue or on the $10,000 of profit? It always is on the profit. Deducting cost of revenue is not hiding assets, etc. I’ve prepared a tax return for someone in the 1%; it’s part of what I do in business. Deductions vanish that lower income people can claim. AMT tax appears, new taxes that don’t apply to others in Obamacare magically appear. Don’t believe? Get a copy of Turbotax and just input dummy numbers and see what happens.

You comment about corporate taxes is incorrect. All corps pay a 35% tax. That’s 3.5 out of 10 dollars gone. Then when the corporation distributes the profit of the corp to shareholders it taxes that income a 2nd time. That money is owned by the shareholders and has already been taxed. But just by moving it from one account to another the government grabs more. This double taxation on corporate income raises the rate well over 50% in many cases. It’s higher than almost anywhere in the world and is making US corporations uncompetitive in the world economy. I know the meme’s out their about corps not paying taxes, but dig into any case cited and it’s bullshit. Give me a case, and I will show you.

Sales taxes, fees for service and tolls are optional taxes that can be avoided. They are not confiscatory in a manner like income taxes. Paying the cost of a service is much more likely to make the use of that service fit need rather than want. When costs are socialized demand goes up and supply goes down causing dislocations. When people have to pay for the cost of service they are more likely to make choices that reduce demand or raise supply. Saying such fees are harder on the poor is to suggest that I should stay poor and let daddy pay my bills instead of working harder like I have.

As far as the claim the US is not based on Christian values or is more moral than the Bible tht just seems to be a lack of understanding of history or is the result of being the child of progressive narratives of US history. The US constitution was born in the aftermath of the 1st Great Awakening that saw explosive movements in England and the colonies to deep acceptance of Christian faith. Many of the founders grew up at the feet of some of the great preachers of that time. Ben Franklin was, for instance, close friends with George Whitfield the best known of all 18th century evangelists. Whitfield was a rock star of his age. Even those who were not deep believers were knowledgeable and familiar with the concept of natural law. Perhaps the most foundational new idea of the founders was that rights came from God not man, and that government did not grant rights it protects them. That is why is says in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law.” It presupposes the right of religion and free speech as naturally flowing from the god of nature.

Covenants are voluntary acts. The writers of the declaration were dedicating to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. There is no more Biblical Christian act than to make willingly such a covenant. “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13 (most foundational words of Jesus). This all changes when you point a gun at someone and require them to do it. The first act is love the last one is theft. What a moral society does is create the environment where people willingly make such choices. The left does not accept this and believes it must force such choices. This simply leads to envy, hate and division.

1% are hoarders and not charitable? Where do you get this from? Investing is not hoarding. And the 1% are the most charitable among us. How many hospitals, museums, symphonies, food banks, etc would not exist if it were not for their charity and the charity of all else? If capitalism is not moral then what is? Socialism? So capitalism where two parties come to a mutually agreeable exchange that enriches them both is immoral but socialism where one party forcibly takes from the other is moral? In what universe? In a free market the key word is free. No one is forced in an exchange. Each party (buyer/seller) do so voluntarily. I’ve heard it even described as mutually shared altruism.

1%’ers pay 50% of all income taxes paid. The bottom 50% pay zero. So how the hell can you claim or imply that the 1% don’t pay their share? It’s the bottom 50 who don’t pay their share. They get most of the benefits and none of the cost. Most people in poverty in the US have homes with A/C, flat panel TV’s, cell phones, own cars, etc. Your narrative about the poor is something flown in from the 1930’s to inspire a new generation to once again be the power base for tyrants and thugs whose only gift is greed, graft and corruption that result from active community organizing into positions of power over willing dupes who will gladly make them rich for making all of us poorer.

bruce, hecatedemeter 12 Comments [12/30/2016 4:22:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
1 2 3 4 5 10 14 | top