Similar posts

wwwarea #fundie wwwarea.deviantart.com

UPDATE 11/7/2015
Some people take offense that I shouldn't compare people with disabilities to animals.
The time I used them was to compare them (And now I will just consider the type of people who lacks certain abilities) only for the sake of the argument that it depends on 'how much we can do', and I thought it would be fair to compare a person who lacks an arm (for example) to someone who has that and can do more.. Only for the sake of that kind of argument of 'more'. So I thought it was fair. I did NOT intend to harm. I just thought one thing connected to an argument type, I am not saying some humans are like non-human animals (Or that depends, and yet, all humans are similar anyway).
Also, I may have lack of stuff that I can't control too. But I'm still standing up, and so can anyone else.
Also, all animals are equal to living anyway. Soooo.
UPDATE DONE

NOTE: It's completely fine to personally prefer humans over other animals, just like how it's fine to personally prefer other animals over humans.

But it pisses me off how humanaboos go act like humans are "more important", "special", and so forth.
It's just as bad as when a wolfaboo morally treats wolves as "superior".
After all, IF people are allowed to give the opinion that human animals are superior, then people are ALSO allowed to do the same with other animals then.
Or if it's considered "animalaboo, or whatever" to argue that a non-human animal is "superior", then the same concern (the term humanaboo) should be about treating humans as superior to other animals.

Anyway, treating humans as "superior" in terms of morality, and rights is one of the 3 main reasons why I have a general dislike on our own race. It disgusts me.

blog.burningman.com/wp-content…

Now I like to show some stupid idiotic myths.

"Not all animals are equal because humans can do more!!!"
In terms of what we do, it's kinda true that all animals (including animals) on this planet can't do everything (Though we do not fully know what each creature can do) humans can do. However, does that mean they are not morally equal, with respect, etc? NO.
Hell, even non-human animals can do things humans can't do. There really is no 'actual more' either.
Yet, what about all the humans that has disabilities? Are we going o say that people with disabilities are not equal? Because according to logic, if I had to agree based off what we do, then I would need to agree that humans with disabilities are not equal then.
faculty.webster.edu/corbetre/p…

"Animals don't have rights."
Humans are animals. If other animals do not have rights, then neither does homo sapiens.
Also, who gave out the illusion that it must depend on what humans do? Just because humans can build all this cool technologically, that doesn't mean other animals can no longer have rights. What we do, does not connect with nature fundamentals of other creatures.
blog.burningman.com/wp-content…
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6…

"But humans understand rights, therefor, humans can only have rights!"
The term "Human rights" it's self, is just an idea made up by humans.
But if a human said that we have super powers, does that mean we have them? No.
Human rights are 'real', because it's based off 'natural rights'.
A natural right is a basic nature fundamental thing. And you want to know also shares this fundamental thing?
Non-human animals.
All animals have rights. Natural Rights.
Humans have natural rights, and so does non-human animals.
Just like humans, other animals try to survive too.
eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers… - Don't know if I agree to all though.
Another interesting article: animalrights.about.com/od/anim…

"Animals don't have Free Will!"
Not even humans have free will. I mean what is 'Free Will'? Despite the fact that there IS evidence of free will in non-human animals, but humans don't have this special 'free' choice. I believe they are controlled by some part of their nature brain in a physical sense.
www.scientificamerican.com/art…
At the same time, I do believe it might exist, but the same can be said for other animals because of the evidence.

In the end kinda, it doesn't matter what we do, what matters is the fact that all animals consent to living, taking some action/behavior, and other.
If an animal is trying to live/survive, it's a natural right. It may not 100% be the same as what humans do (Humans saying words, etc.). But how does that somehow "change" it? Face it, the idea that it "does" is based off the egoist mind of some humans.
You do not need to 'say or reason' to show rights. You just have to show that you are trying to live.

Also, remember if we do depend on what 'humans do', then what about the humans that has disabilities?

All animals have rights, all has a soul, and all can possibly be unique with intelligence, which by the way exist in at least a lot of other animals.
Other animals feel pain too. I also wonder why people are against actual rape, but is fine with killing? Kinda odd.

Yet, to the arguments that "animal rights are made up"? The only thing that is completely made up is the idea that other animals don't have rights.

---------

There is other myths and possible facts. I do think I didn't write this very well much.
Here is some other links though!
speciesismthemovie.com/
www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news6…
lesswrong.com/lw/i63/arguments…
www.livescience.com/41601-spec…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesi…

_______________________________________

Other arguments - Free Will and Possibly Consenting

io9.com/5714341/even-animals-a…

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/a…

wwwarea #fundie deviantart.com

something and it was really stupid. Some people seem to argue that the act of having sex with a dog is "wrong" or should be illegal or is a good law if already a law becauseletting your dog be "the boss" is a risk to health between humans and stuff... and stuff like that.

Look, I am AGAINST abuse. However, consent is the only valid argument here, and if it's true dogs don't consent to having sex with humans, then it's bad, however if a dog goes right behind a human and does that toward the human, then I can't really say the dog was being raped, especially if the human didn't want that.
And that's a consent argument, and the debate about consent in this example is probably the only thing that matters.

But whenever I hear people use any argument OUTSIDE of that, I just cringe.
And let me kinda once again state this: I am against hurting any living being, and for example when you had sex with a dog without the consent of such dog for example, then I have a problem. Not sure about insects though, I might be fine with killing some with a napkin. Haha

But it's this dumb "fear" argument or "bad for your health" argument that pisses me off, and this argument alone is bad for anything involving law.

"It's good to have laws against sex with animals because letting a dog be boss could lead to problems to your health. And could make the dog and/or any similar behavior style non-human animal act crazy in the future!"
No, it's good to have laws if there is any abuse for example. And we should have laws against sex with any living being that lacks consent.
If a human WANTS to let their dog be boss, knows the risk of health toward the human person knowing, and allows it anyway, and the dog and human consents, then the person should have that right in privacy. It's not a legal excuse, but I'm trying to argue morally here. As for risk, there is MANY other ways that could lead a dog to being the boss, yet I have a feeling those are considered fine by many. That health and danger argument is just another bias argument that probably lacks any care about the non-human animal just so they can cause humans to suffer. I could be wrong, but this is ridiculous.
Yet, if a dog feels boss, does that mean it can't be handled? No! A situation like that could probably be control beyond such event, and one bad relationship is not evidence that it's bad for everyone.

That health and risk argument is one of the most dumbest and non-sense arguments I've seen, and even if I agreed that no non-human animal on this planet can consent with humans even though evidence may exist suggesting the opposite of such idea, that argument will always be a stupid argument in the same realm where "It's gross" or "it violates my religion" is used as if it's an "excuse".

Using ANY argument that has nothing to do with actual morality, means you're against freedom. And remember what I said about freedom, I think it's a right to enjoy life as long if no other creature is directly violated and isn't threatening to.
THAT'S WHY for this case, consent in awareness of sex should I think always be the the argument here and as long if such consensual act doesn't 90 to 100% lead to abuse in the future.

_______________

That being said, I remember seeing amazing arguments involving this taboo, and quite honestly, I think it was time to address these two arguments.
Again, this is about me having such a problem with people making up dumb excuses like this to decide something should be "wrong" and/or illegal. It should depend on consent for a case like this, and the same must be said for other sex stuff for example.
For example: Having sex with children is wrong because children can't consent. Using "Oh that is wrong because it's against a bible." is not a good argument to say it's wrong, however using "Children can't consent." and since it that statement is true is a valid argument. Get what I'm saying? Of course even if no one said the argument, it's still wrong because children can't consent.

I really hate it when someone who agrees a non-human animal has consented, but then decides to use a invalid argument after. That just shows they don't care about natural rights.
Again, as a person who questions popular beliefs a lot, this really needed to be said.


But what's the point? Even if I put out my damn disclaimers, some people are gonna go out and rant about this as a "WWWAREA DEFENDS BESTIALITY!" and will probably miss the point and promote false claims. Don't do that, it's really not cool. It's true, I do believe there is evidence of consent maybe, but still.

Aleskakolja #fundie aleskakolja.tumblr.com

You mentioned on PAH that you have your own opinions on the morality surrounding necrophilia and zoophilia. I'm curious, what do you think?


ok, hi there! So well, be ready for some little controversy, I guess :P

First of all I would like to state a general and short view of my moral conceptions. I’m a moral nihilist, in the sense that I don’t think that there is a superior moral system that rules them all and that is objective and natural and everyone should follow by the law of god or any other superior power. I think morals are a social construct, based in a specific culture and society and that changes over time, but that aren’t based in any objective source. The common things you can find in different societies are easily explained by some kind of “societies darwinism”. Mostly, the societies that follow a moral system where they take care of their own people and punish some stuff (as murdering of your own, for example) have more chances to survive that a society without morals where everything is fair game. That kind of society is self-destructive, so every human society groups towards some basics due to survival instintics, but not because those are the objective, good things. Some times a society morals can be, in fact, pretty harmful for some individuals even if they truly believe that is the right way to go, the logic and natural order.

So, going from this, I think a moral system is needed, of course. For the good of both, individuals and society survival and wellbeing. As I have said, an ‘everything is fair game’ society is a condemned society. But if we don’t have an objective moral, not a power superior to men to tell us what is wrong and what is right and traditional values are exposed as old constructs that can easily being wrong, what can we do? Well, my solution is created a moral of consense, a moral based in the best for everyone. And that is where my morals stands. My rules are easy. Every situation should be judged carefully and individually, they aren’t real moral statements or absolute truths aside a couple of things “every action should be consensual” and “something is wrong if it causes you or anyone else an involuntary harm”. And even these things have exceptions in some extreme or specific situations (I can provide you with examples if you want to, I love discussing morals!).

Now, making this clear (and if you have any question or don’t understand something ask me, no fear ^^) I’ll give you my thoughts around these two issues, that can be kinda out of the morals of our current society.

-Necrophilia: I don’t think this is inherently immoral in any way. I dont see corpses as people. They aren’t human beings, they are, in a strict sense, a piece of meat. Of course, there is a big taboo about this for different reasons. We have the obvious one, people who still see the bodies as their loved ones and feel it as an attack to them, a disrespectful action. We also have the fear of death and the general taboo that it has (people who don’t even want to talk about death, people who are scared to go for a walk into a cemetery, people who look at you as a weirdo for liking “dark” things and gothic literature… there are plenty of this). And adding to that, we have misconceptions about the problems it can give you (diseases. People associate corpses with disease and this is normal, since humanity has gone through a lot of epidemics and the cultural memory about it remains. But the reality is different. If someone wasn’t sick before death they aren’t dangerous as a corpse. People still don’t understand this).

So, summarizing, I don’t think there is something inherently immoral about necrophilia. I don’t think these actions are something wrong itself. However, we need to understand our context and the effect of our actions. I don’t have this taboo, I think it is absurd and just a norm that comes from a sex-negative, scared of the death society that I don’t agree with. But I understand that not everyone is like me. That for some people it would be harmful, that they wouldn’t want this for their loved ones, so, and since you live in a specific context and our actions have consequences in real people’s lifes, you can’t just have sex with random corpses. Not because it is immoral, but because it can harm someone else (not the corpse, the corpse is not a person anymore).

I think the best way to go over this is educating people about why it isn’t harmful or immoral, explain the taboo and maybe someday we get a society where this isn’t seem as terrible and awful and people can have sex with corpses (I have always thought in some kind of necrocard, you know, like for organ donations, consent to necrophilic sex before die so the problem of consent gets solved. I know from plenty of people who wouldn’t care to give their corpses for this. It isn’t such a crazy idea after all).

-Zoophilia: I can feel this one is going to bring even more controversy up. But well, here we go. I don’t think every action in every case of sexual interaction with an animal is wrong. Harming an animal for pleasure is wrong. I don’t support animal abuse and zoosadism in any way. I believe that animals are living beings with a sense of pain and they deserve to be respected and treated properly. You can kill animals for eating. That is understable and natural. Killing them for fun is something I don’t approve. Causing them pain for fun is something I don’t approve either.

But now, about sex. Sex with an animal is not always something violent or traumatic as we could think. Sex is not inherently harmful and wrong just because it is sex. Also, animals *can* consent in a way. Of course, they can’t tell you what they want, but you can understand their reactions. It is obvious when an animal is distressed or in pain, when an animal is scared or uncomfortable and then you know something is wrong. It is obvious too when an animal is happy and feeling good, when an animal is comfortable and wants something. This applies to sex too. If the sex is unwilling, painful, distressful or hurts the animal in any way I’m against it. But if the animal is comfortable, seeks it, it’s ok and doesn’t get hurt I don’t see the problem. For example (*cw: for explicit stuff*, maybe?), if a girl puts some jam on her genitals and let a dog licks it to get sexual pleasure, where is the harm? Or a dog topping a man, how does the dog suffer? (*end of cw*) Also, we have to remember that some animals are proved as being specially anthropophilics (dolphins and dogs are prominent examples), that means they are sexually aroused by humans. They want to have sex with humans. And interspecies sex is not that weird either (and we get hybrids from it).

So, the summary here, I think if the sex is not harmful for the animal (not physically, not emotionally, like causing pain, distress, angst, fear…) and the animal shows signs around it of being comfortable and fine then it isn’t wrong. Of course, the person would be the responsable and would need to pay attention to all the animal’s reactions and notify any problem and stop it that happens. But doing properly, I don’t think it is wrong. (Ah, and if someone’s argument is ‘but sex with humans/like that is inherently traumatic for the animal! They are rape victims in every case and they suffer trauma for it’ I have to say that no, animals don’t have that conception about sex that humans have. They are animals. They don’t have the psychological development to have beliefs about sex or cultural conceptions of it. That is purely a human thing).

Well, these are mostly my thoughts, if you want to ask something else or need I make something clear or any other thing, just go for it, I’m always happy to reply :)

Tags: #anon #asks #morals #zoophilia #necrophilia #opinions #answer #me #sex positivity

Ken Ham & Avery Foley #fundie answersingenesis.org

If Humans Are Just Animals Then . . .

Well, it’s important to first note the inconsistency of most animal rights groups. These groups claim to be against animal abuse, but are these same people against the abuse of millions of children who are brutally murdered in their mother’s wombs through abortion?

It’s rather ironic that in PETA’s evolutionary worldview humans are just animals, yet PETA does not petition against the “animal cruelty” of killing unborn children. And what about a Save the Tapeworms Society or People for the Preservation of Fruit Flies?

If all life evolved, shouldn’t these groups be against killing these creatures too? Yet most animal rights groups are not trying to preserve pests like these. This highlights their inconsistency. And if they are evolutionists, then all life, animals and plants, are related in the one big supposed evolutionary tree of life. So what about rights for plants too?

Now some animal rights people claim they are Christians. If so, then they need to understand that God gave man dominion over creation (Genesis 1:26), including over the animals. This dominion does not mean we can deliberately abuse, neglect, or harm creation, but rather, we’re to use what God has made for our good and His glory. In Genesis 1:29 and 30, God told man to eat plants/fruits. But in Genesis 9:3 after the Flood, God said we could eat all things (plants and animals).

Animal rights groups really want animals to have dominion over man. Yet, ironically, most would claim that man is just an animal. So if they want equal rights for animals, what rights should humans have if they believe man is just an evolved animal?

For example if animals kill other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just animals) should have equal rights to kill too? Why should we be held to some higher standard or different moral code from other animals?

If animals steal from other animals, do animal rights groups think humans (if we’re just evolved animals) should have equal rights to steal? What about incest, cannibalism, or infant abandonment? Why are these things wrong for humans but not wrong for “other” animals? If animal rights activists were consistent, they should argue that it is okay to steal from animals, kill them, and eat them—since this is what we regularly observe in sin-cursed animals anyway.

Where Do Rights Come From?

In an evolutionary worldview, what makes animal rights activists think that rights exist in the first place? Rights are an abstract concept that comes from a biblical worldview, which is denied by the evolutionary position. The evolutionary position, which comes out of naturalism and materialism, cannot account for the concept of rights, because they are not material. In other words, the evolutionary materialist must borrow the concept of rights from Christians to argue against the Christian position of man being superior and in dominion over animals.

If animals are no different from humans, then why aren’t ringworms making the argument for animal rights, instead of people? We don’t observe the organization of ringworms called the Ringworms for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or RETA. In the animal rights activists’ heart of hearts, they know man is above animals. What they don’t know is why. It is because man is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27).

Evolutionary Morality—Hopelessly Inconsistent

Those who start with an evolutionary view of mankind have no absolute basis for morality. Because they have no foundation, they are forced to construct a moral code that is “right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:25). This leads to all kinds of inconsistencies.

Evolutionists arbitrarily create or hold to a moral code for humans—which, in their view, includes not using anything that comes from or was even tested on animals—yet they believe we are just animals. So why should we be held to this arbitrary standard that no “other” animal is held to?

(...)

"Let Them Have Dominion”

Most animal rights groups start with an evolutionary view of mankind. They view us as the last to evolve (so far), as a blight on the earth, and the destroyers of pristine nature. Nature, they believe, is much better off without us, and we have no right to interfere with it. This is nature worship, which is a further fulfillment of the prophecy in Romans 1 in which the hearts of sinful man have traded worship of God for the worship of God’s creation.

But as people have noted for years, nature is “red in tooth and claw.”4 Nature is not some kind of perfect, pristine place. And why is this? Because mankind chose to sin against a holy God. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command, they brought death, suffering, and the Curse into creation (Genesis 2:17, 3:17).

Now all of creation groans, waiting for the coming day when Jesus will liberate it from the Curse (Romans 8:20–22; Revelation 22:3). Creation was never designed to live in disharmony. We, and the animals, were originally created to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29–30) and to live forever without any suffering or disease. But because sin changed all of that, we battle its effects every day.

But this doesn’t mean that humans are a blight or disease. Despite our sin, we are the only ones created in the very image of God, utterly unique from the rest of creation. We were granted dominion over the earth and it’s inhabitants (Genesis 1:26). This was part of our “very good” (Genesis 1:31), pre-Fall purpose and mission, and it stems out of our position as image bearers of the Creator.

Oracle Z #fundie returnofkings.com

Why Women Are Like Cats And Men Are Like Dogs

CATS:

Cats are beautiful creatures. So are women. Especially when it comes to their faces, and more so their eyes. Staring in a cat’s eyes for long, can mesmerize you. So can a woman’s.

Cats are manipulative, prodigal creatures that only want you when they want you. Try picking up a cat at any time, and see how it will scratch you. A cat’s affection for you is essentially an act of investment on it’s end. There is nothing more fake than the dishonest affection of a cat, irrespective of its type. Cats only need affection on their own terms.

Cats know how to insinuate themselves into your affection, even if they are useless creatures. “Aw, look at the poor cute little thing!” A cat is a master at turning its weakness into its advantage. It would meekly rub its soft fur against you to garner attention. It would purr softly and sensually as you stroke it. It snuggles softly into your body, making you believe that it needs and ‘loves‘ you, but what it actually needs is the warmth of your body.

Cats are opportunistic. Cats live on opportunity. They stalk their prey. Women are the same, for they are hypergamous.

Cats are practically useless creatures. On an average, Cats spent 16 hours sleeping and the rest eating and lazing around. Cats can’t defend your home. A cat will only fight to defend itself, but never you. A cat’s life is engrossed with itself, and trying to exploit the resources of its master, without being of use in return. Cats are basically domesticated parasites.

Cats enslave you. A cat’s often ‘purpose’ in your home is to act cute. As mentioned above, they’re practically useless animals. Any home having a cat will be forced to acquiesce itself to its feline member. Essentially humans are the pets of cats, and not the other way around.

Cats are cruel and merciless creatures. Observe a cat with its prey (e.g. with a rat or an insect). A cat will play around with its prey’s half dead body before devouring it, much like a psychopath. Women more or less exhibit the same tendencies.

Cats can fuck up your home. Cats are worst when it comes to your furniture. A cat will happily allow itself to sharpen its claws on your furniture and ruin it.

Cats are insensitive and selfish creatures. Cats don’t think of anything, except themselves. Cats are essentially selfish creatures, except when it comes to their offspring. But a female cat is again never so protective of its young as a bitch is.

Cats are thieving parasites. A cat’s habit of stealing is legendary. The stealth predator that they are, cats will not hesitate to help itself to your stuff without permission. It’s a cat’s entitled nature to your stuff, as you’ve honored yourself by adopting it.

Cats are narcissistic creatures. A cat spends most of its time eating, exploring (to hunt or steal), sleeping, lazing around and preening itself.

Cats have seductive and feminine allure. Look at the graceful movements of a cat. Observe the lazy seductive stretches of its body. Cats are the natural exhibitors of female sex appeal. Any woman wanting to learn seductive female body language could learn well from observing a cat, and carry herself in a similar fashion. Humans have always been seduced by this appeal of these creatures from history.

Cats make valuable pets — to feminists.

Cats are disloyal creatures. As explained above, cats are only loyal to themselves, not to their masters. Cats are essentially mercenaries.

DOGS:

Dogs are honorable and loyal creatures, exhibiting essentially masculine virtues. A dog’s greatest quality is in its loyalty and honor when it comes to their masters. Dogs will always stick with you watch your back.

Dogs are intelligent, versatile and useful creatures. From guarding your home, giving you company and giving hope to humans in a modern world where the word loyalty has just become a tattoo, dogs are versatile pets. You can train a dog like no other animal.

Dogs are brave creatures. A dog’s bravery is legendary. So much that they were employed in war and domesticated to guard homes and livestock .

Dogs are self sacrificing creatures. A dog may run away when it comes to personal safety, but rarely backs down from danger especially when it comes to the safety of its master. A dog will fight for you and can even die for you. A dog’s spirit is essentially that of self sacrifice.

Dogs love doggy style. And so do men. No brainer there.

Dogs are often ignored, in lieu of cats. This happens usually in households where both the creatures are adopted. The dog’s loyalty and value is often ignored for the parasitical, undeserving and useless cat’s seductive appeal. Dispensable beauty often beats indispensable efficiency. This is just like how men—the indispensable gender necessary for the building of civilization—have become dispensable in modern societies.

A master can fool a dog, but not a cat. Dogs are trusting animals when it comes to their masters. Men are the same when it comes to their women. On the other hand, cats don’t trust you, even if you’ve raised them for long. One act of admonishment is enough for a cat to act as if it’s not your pet. Dogs can be fooled, because they’re essentially forgiving animals. Cats rarely forgive, but expect to be forgiven.

Dogs are sensitive creatures. Especially to a lack of love from their masters.

Dogs are direct and honest animals. A dog’s efforts to gain your attention are direct, not a subtle gauged seduction of you like a cat. But the problem with dogs is that they can’t act feminine and cute like cats to gain your attention. Dogs will lick you, bark at you and act funny so that you notice them. That’s how men are. A man’s sex drive and affections are the same – honest and direct. There is nothing deceptive about his interest in a woman than an erection when he sees her.

Dogs bear responsibility and adversity with fortitude. Dogs were domesticated to guard homes. The role of a guardian is a life of responsibility and peril. Dogs are masters at handling both eventualities with fortitude.

Dogs need freedom. One of the worst things people do to their pet dogs is to tie them up. A dog needs to explore and see the world, or it howls and becomes very aggressive. Dogs live for freedom.

Dogs are patient creatures. Until pushed too far. Cats are essentially impatient, and don’t tolerate unwanted attention at all.

Dogs can be easily assuaged. Your dog’s howling for some fresh air and freedom? Give it some food. Rub it. Dogs can be easily assuaged, and usually settle for little from their masters. A cat will move over to your neighbor’s home to find what it’s not getting from you. Dogs are essentially slave-like, while cats are mercenaries.

Dogs need love, and are receptive to affection. Dogs are happy with little, and need your company all the time. A dog without a master is indeed a sad dog.

Dogs bear responsibility and adversity with fortitude. Dogs were domesticated to guard homes. The role of a guardian is a life of responsibility and peril. Dogs are masters at handling both eventualities with fortitude.

Dogs need freedom. One of the worst things people do to their pet dogs is to tie them up. A dog needs to explore and see the world, or it howls and becomes very aggressive. Dogs live for freedom.

Dogs are patient creatures. Until pushed too far. Cats are essentially impatient, and don’t tolerate unwanted attention at all.

Dogs can be easily assuaged. Your dog’s howling for some fresh air and freedom? Give it some food. Rub it. Dogs can be easily assuaged, and usually settle for little from their masters. A cat will move over to your neighbor’s home to find what it’s not getting from you. Dogs are essentially slave-like, while cats are mercenaries.

Dogs need love, and are receptive to affection. Dogs are happy with little, and need your company all the time. A dog without a master is indeed a sad dog.

The biggest analogy? Just like how dogs do all their life, men chase cats, i.e. women. Even with the reversal of gender roles and tastes in the modern world.

Being called a dog and being called a son of a bitch are two different things. While the latter is essentially offensive and derogatory, being called a dog is essentially honorable if you consider the above points. The Mongols honored dogs in their culture. Genghis Khan famously called his commander Subudei “one of his dogs of war” – not in a derogatory sense, but to compliment Subudei on his loyalty, bravery and honor. Calling someone a cat is derogatory when taking a cat’s parasitical personality into consideration. A dog is an honorable and loyal creature, very much displaying the essence of true masculinity. But like men, it ironically gets the flak despite all its usefulness, so much that it’s name itself becomes a curse word.

Beta programming of modern men has often made them to behave in feminine ways like cats, and feminist modern women are behaving like masculinized bitches. Considering that, this analogy could rather be modified as “Why women were like cats, and men were like dogs.”

Eugene McCarthy #crackpot #conspiracy #dunning-kruger macroevolution.net

Sheep-pig Hybrids

imageA sheep-pig hybrid? - As shown in a BBC article

EUGENE M. MCCARTHY, PHD GENETICS, ΦΒΚ

And so if, as you recently told me, a lamb with a pig’s head was born, then it is because a boar mated with a sheep.

—Polydore Vergil
Dialogues on Prodigies, III, xxvi*


Caution: This disparate cross needs further confirmation, particularly from controlled breeding experiments.

It’s well documented that sheep and pigs sometimes will mate (videos >>). Indeed, even the ancient Akkadians knew that pigs and sheep do sometimes engage in such activities (Freedman 2017, p. 6). It’s a common barnyard occurrence. And text-mining of old newspapers shows that hybrids occur as well, as indicated, for example, in the reports at right.

At one time, unusual births such as pig-sheep hybrids were regularly reported in newspapers as “freaks of nature,” an English translation of the older term lusus naturae. But at about the time of the first world war, a movement arose to suppress freak shows and news reports about such creatures as well. It was distasteful and offensive, even cruel, opponents argued, to put such things before the public. The movement was successful and after the twenties, freaks rarely came before the public eye. As a result, it has been forgotten even by biologists that strange hybrids do occur. This societally enforced ignorance results in people interpreting animals that look like sheep-pig hybrids, such as the animal pictured above, as a wooly breed of pig.

For example, in 2010 stories about woolly sheep-like pigs and sheep-pig hybrids surfaced on the internet because a zoo in the UK (Tropical Wings Zoo, South Woodham Ferrers, Essex) announced that it had imported rare “Mangalitza” pigs and that they planned to breed them. Many people thought they were sheep-pig hybrids. But a BBC story assured the public that the Mangalitza was only a breed of pig:

An extremely rare breed of curly coated pig is to be bred for the first time at a zoo in Essex.

The three Mangalitza pigs, which bear a striking resemblance to sheep, arrived at the Tropical Wings Zoo in South Woodham Ferrers, just before Easter as part of a programme to save the breed.

“At first sight people perhaps think they are sheep” said education co-ordinator Denise Cox.

“It’s not until they turn around and you see their faces and snouts that you realise they are in fact pigs.”

The breed is thought to be native to Austria and Hungary.

But how did this breed of pig obtain a fleece like a sheep’s? It seems it would take some very clever breeding to start with a near naked, bristly pig and somehow select for a dense sheep-like coat of hair. And it seems no genetic study of these “pigs” has been made. After seeing this story, a Spanish geneticist whose former lab sequenced the genomes of some Mangalitza pigs said that, although the results of the study had been compared to other breeds of pig, he did not think any comparison had been made to sheep. So it seems that it has not been shown that Mangalitzas are not sheep-pig hybrids, although it’s clear from comments on the various stories around the internet that many people think they are.

The BBC subsequently published two brief stories on “Mangalitza pigs” (in these more recent articles, by the way, they use the spelling “Mangalica”).

One of these articles, by BBC World Service broadcast journalist Lucy Hooker, is about efforts to save the breed. In that article she comments that

To the uninitiated it is a sheep-pig. In reality it is the Mangalica, a comical but appealing breed that is taking the food industry by storm.

What this comment fails to recognize is that it is well known that many breeds of domestic animals were originally produced from hybrid crosses. I discuss this fact at length, among other places, in my reference work on hybridization in birds (Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World, Oxford University Press, 2006) and elsewhere on this website. So really, it’s entirely possible that these pigs are not only a breed, but also of hybrid origin. The two are by no means mutually exclusive, as Ms. Hooker seems to suggest.

Since this is an old breed, which has apparently existed for centuries, its origin seems to be unknown. To determine the nature of that origin, it will be necessary to carry out investigations. One obvious way of gaining information about whether these animals might be sheep-pig hybrids is genetic analysis, as mentioned above. Another is experimental mating to see whether such hybrids can be produced. It is even conceivable that breeding records survive describing how the breed was produced (as is the case with many domestic breeds derived from hybrid crosses). Certainly, there are reports about sheep-pig hybrids being produced in Mexico (see below).

But the BBC’s implication that only the uninformed would suppose that these animals might be sheep-pig hybrids (i.e., “To the uninitiated it is a sheep-pig.”) seems premature. I am a geneticist and I know about hybrids, and yet I think they probably are hybrids of that sort. Moreover, I gently object to Ms. Hooker’s statement. It treats the unknown as known and therefore tends to dampen the spirit of investigation.

The other article, which is very short, was written by Tim Muffet, a reporter for BBC Breakfast. It’s really just a bit of text to accompany a video showing how these pigs are being used to restore heath land. From the standpoint of the sheep-pig question, this video is of interest primarily because it demonstrates beyond doubt that animals, such as the one pictured at the top of this page, do actually exist. Mere pictures can easily be faked. Videos, especially videos from a reliable source like the BBC, cannot.

The video evidence is also relevant because individual variation can be seen in the animals shown, with some looking identical to the very sheep-like animal shown above with its curly white fleece, to animals with sparser straight, black pelts more similar to that of European boars. This is exactly the sort of variation that occurs in a wide variety of hybrid crosses, where some individuals are more similar to one of the two parents that originally crossed to produce them, while others are more similar to the other. Such variation is especially characteristic of later-generation hybrids, the descendants of the first-generation, or F₁, hybrids produced by the original cross.

In the video accompanying Ms. Hooker’s article, it can also be seen that these animals have dark red meat like that of a sheep, not the light-colored meat typical of most pigs.

BlkPillPres #dunning-kruger #sexist incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

BlkPillPres #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Blackpill] Response To: "You're Not Entitled To Sex"

1. Nobody is entitled to anything

Entitlements are a figment of imagination, they exist only in the minds of humans, and function only within societies where they are allowed to function, and are facilitated (usually through tax collection to fund said "entitlement programmes")

Pension, welfare, clean water, education, nobody is really entitled to any of it if were being objective and honest.

2. Incels don't feel entitled to sex, they simply WANT sex

I keep seeing the "entitlement" argument repeated everywhere and it is literally just a strawman argument, propping up a stance so absurd that you can't help but be right being against it, heck even I agree with being against it, because its egotistical and illogical for anyone to think they literally DESERVE anything, a normies reasoning for being against it would likely be more emotionally based though, more like - "women are people too, this is so misogynistic, its so hurtful, etc, etc".

Are there a few incels actually going around saying and believing that they "deserve" sex and are entitled to it, yes, but those men are idiots, they are outliers, any logical person knows full well nobody "deserves" anything. Most incels adhere to the "black pill philosophy", and a key "tenant" of that is basing ones life choices and interpretation of observations, on cold hard logic, so I doubt most incels (or even 5% of incels) actually believe they DESERVE sex

Incels simply just want, just like every other human on this planet that wants, to try and paint incels as this collective of egotistical males, that all think they are entitled to sex (women's bodies) is a falsehood that is often peddled by the media and society at large.

You see because its much easier to simply create a false narrative that can be argued against, than to argue against the actual thing. Paint incels as malicious and egotistical instead of frustrated and suicidal, and its much easier to demonize incels and garner support against them.

3. Disenfranchised Males = Self Destructive Males

There's this african proverb that I think perfectly describes whats taking place between modern society and average/below average males.

"If the young are not initiated in the tribe, they will burn down the village just to feel its warmth."

Modern society is extremely sexualized, there is no escape from sex as a man in these times, which is why it feels like you're being trolled whenever people say the all too cliche phrase "sex isn't the most important thing in life", nice strawman argument, now simply wanting sex because its being shoved down your throat at every waking moment, is equal to thinking its the most important thing in the world. Statements like that are nothing but dismissive shaming and silencing tactics.

Sex is in the news papers, magazines, tv, movies, video games, its in advertisements, bill boards, the internet, etc. People need to try and understand how "dystopian" of a reality this would all seem to a man who is unable to acquire sex due to unrealistic and unfair female standards that only exist due to various societal changes that resulted from feminism. Its like a sick joke were forced to live through. Everyone is telling us to just "get over it" while ironically enjoying sex lives themselves and boasting/talking about it at every waking moment.

Imagine if you woke up and basically everyone on the planet had an expensive sports car, all you see are people around you driving it, everyone with a sports car gets treated differently than those who don't, they have higher social status, etc. For some reason you can't get one no matter how much you adhere to the advice suggested by sports car owners. Everytime you complain about the biased system that keeps you from getting one, someone tells you - "there are more important things in life than sports cars", they then later proceed to talk with their friends about all the awesome sports cars they drove, post about the current sports car they have leased, and make instagram and other media posts about how great their sports car driving life is and how great they are at driving sports cars.

Quite obviously these people are being disingenuous, they know your complaints are legitimate, they don't actually follow their own words and they glorify sports cars and ownership of it ad nauseum, really they just want people without sports cars to STFU and deal with it, live without having a sports car and stop ruining the experience for the rest of them. Its really fucked up but that is societys mindset towards men who can't get sex, they know that argument is BS, they know they are lying and sex is of the utmost importance to every human (its not the most important thing, but its really really up there on the list, some might argue 2nd or 3rd place). They only repeat this BS because its really just about shaming and silencing men for daring to make society even feel a tad bit guilty or responsible for our current state of being disenfranchised. They really just expect incels to "STFU and take one for the team".

Sex is clearly a vital part of every humans existence, a man doesn't even "become a man" in a sense within society until he has sex, in essence a lot of men have not undergone their "right of passage" to become part of the "tribe" that is modern human civilization.

This is why all of these mass shootings are taking place, its started to branch off into other things like the "Thot Audit", more and more things like this are going to keep happening until society finally acknowledges this problem and begins to make changes.

So as it stands we now have a significant and growing pool of sexually starved men, who due to this are angry, violent, irritable and suicidal, seriously how does society expect this to play out, the most dangerous animal is the one backed into a corner with nothing to lose, when someone doesn't care if they die, worse yet they want to die just so their sad existence can end, there is no reasoning with that person, they are on a "war path", you either kill them, give that person what they want, or you get out of their way as they proceed to claim what they want.

Society expects us not to burn the village down when it won't initiate us into the tribe, that's whats truly outrageous, not the violence of disenfranchised men, but the fact that society actually expects us to just remain docile and accept this reality that has been forced upon us.

4. Women aren't entitled to safety

People don't seem to understand the danger of looking the collective male populace in they eyes, and telling them they aren't entitled to something that not too long ago they would just taking by force as a norm.

Men reformed themselves and created societies with laws and codes of conduct because it benefited the collective, especially the collective male populace, this was the function of "patriarchal societies". To manage a safe and fair distribution of resources, and that includes sexual and reproductive resources.

Virginity was a prerequisite for a woman to be "marriage material" because men wanted to be sure that when they married a woman she would be less likely to cheat, as she'd be more likely to be satisfied sexually with her partner due to lack of "sexual experience". It also ensured that your investment would be worth it as you aren't footing the bill for "used goods", that may sound cruel but men have to basically invest a lot into a woman's very being, even more so today, get divorced once and half of your wealth goes to another person, and these days the women aren't even virgins, marriage is truly a raw deal in this modern era.

Marriage as an institution existed for various reasons, it was used to create familial ties, for political reasons, etc, but most importantly to give a sense of assurance to men that the children their wives gave birth do were indeed theirs (hence virginity being the key defining trait of "marriage material"), and they could pass down their name and wealth to their children.

For the same reason Female Promiscuity was shamed and led to social ostracization. Womens hypergamy had to be kept in check otherwise the relationship dynamics between men and women would fall apart and so would the "family unit" which is basically the "building block" of society.

Crimes like Rape were especially frowned upon because it made a woman unfit for marriage and ruined her entire life, it also went against the civility agreement between men who as a collective all wanted their respective women in their lives to be safe and remain "their women" and not be "tarnished" by another man.

I hope people get the point here, the purpose of these laws and societal norms were to ensure a code of conduct amongst men, so that we would as a collective agree to allow each other to pursue and court women in a safe and organized manner, unimpeded by other men in an "unfair" manner, we all had a fair chance. There was a "social contract" at play here.

In these modern times the social contract is no longer functioning, expecting men not to regress and go back to the days of rape and violence when the contract is no longer being enforced and/or adhered to, is what is truly outrageous, and not the acts themselves. Men aren't entitled to sex?, true I agree, but women aren't entitled to safety either, they never were entitled to it and they never will be, it was a "provision" offered by men to women for co-operating with men to facilitate the social contract. The safety resided within the rule set of the social contract, which is no longer at play here, so a significant and increasing number of males are seeing no reason to function as "civil" men, there's no logical reason too, why be civil when you essentially are not even part of civilization, civility its no longer to our benefit. Women's actions have thrown the entire system out of order, and the violent responses of men today are retaliatory. Society is basically trying to make average/below average males into somewhat of a "slave class" that offers their labor and utility, contributes to society, all while being barred from enjoying a basic pleasure that all the female citizens get to enjoy despite contributing less and having to risk their lives less.

Ask yourself who are really the crazy ones, the men who go out committing acts of violence or "opt out" of society, or the society that expected these men not to do this, despite significantly ruining the quality of life for the collective male populace, and having the gall to ask them to keep up their end of the social contract and be "good little boys and contribute to society as upstanding citizens" :feelskek:. Are you fucking serious, no wonder men are opting out of society, no wonder men are going out on murder rampages.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/03/09/american-men-are-giving-up-on-jobs/

There's no real motivation to bother trying, to be a "hard worker", to be "civilized", when your reward at the end of the day is to get married to used goods who is likely only settling for you because she's aged past her prime and has a ton of baggage, to top it off with no fault divorce laws she can easily just leave with half of your wealth, and modern society actually celebrates and endorses female promiscuity and cheating on men, so that great investment you made isn't even guaranteed to be solely yours to enjoy JFL. Men have literally no motivation to be "good people", anyone who thinks people should be "good" for the sake of "being good" is an illogical idiot that doesn't get how reality actually works.

In the bible there's heaven and hell, in human laws there are cash rewards for helping law enforcement with certain tasks, and there are fines and jail time for committing crimes or breaking minor laws.

GOOD AND EVIL CAN ONLY BE TRULY (OBJECTIVELY) DEFINED BY THE FACT THAT THERE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS ASSOCIATED RESPECTIVELY, that is how we truly distinguish a good act from a bad one, if we rely on subjective opinion based criteria then anyone and everyone is both right and wrong, good and bad, based on their own personal reasonings and whims. If the bible said that no matter what you do everyone goes to heaven, but "please still don't sin" nobody would give a fuck about the rules, most every Christian would be sinning without any restraint or repentance, rules mean nothing without a reward and punishment system in place.

To address another cliche statement - "where have all the good men gone", I ask "by what objective criteria are you ascribing the label "good" ". Reinstate a sufficient "rewards system" for males and you'll see all those men come running back.

Spice Boy For JESUS [aka Justin] #fundie forum.myspace.com

[To the tune of the Spice Girls song "Wannabe"]

Yo, He'll tell you what he want What He really, really want

I'll tell you what He want what He really, Really want

He wanna
He wanna
He wanna
He wanna
He wanna really, really, really wanna see lost souls saved!

If you want your future, forget your past,
If you wanna be with him, better repent your sins
Now don't go wasting his precious time
Get your act together, we could be just fine

He'll tell you what he want what he really, Really want


He wanna
He wanna
He wanna
He wanna
He wanna really, really, really wanna see lose souls saved ah!

If you wannabe His lover, You gotta go repent your sins!,
you'll live your life forever, Friendship never ends
If you wannabe his soilder, You have got to give (your life to CHRIST)
taking is too easy, but that's the way it is

What you think about that? Now you know how He feel
Say you can handle your sin, are you for real?
I won't be lying, Just give him a try
If you really love Him then He'll say good Job!

Yo, I'll tell you what He want what He really, Really want


He wanna
He wanna
He wanna
He wanna
He wanna really, really, really wanna see lose souls saved ah!

If you wannabe His lover, You gotta go repent your sins!,
you'll live your life forever, Friendship never ends
If you wannabe his soilder, You have got to give (your life to CHRIST)
taking is too easy, but that's the way it is

So here's the story from A to Z you wanna be with him, you gotta
listen carefully we got Love in the place and He loves you very much,
You got everybody here who loves you very much..
Easy sin doesn't come for free that will kill you.
and as for me, haha, i'm saved

get down on your knees and raise your hands up high
get down on your knees and raise your hands up high

If you wannabe His lover, You gotta go repent your sins!,
you'll live your life forever, Friendship never ends
If you wannabe his soilder, You have got to give (your life to CHRIST)
taking is too easy, but that's the way it is

If you wanna be his lover, you gotta, you gotta, you gotta,
you gotta, you gotta, repent, accept, his son, thats it

get down on your knees and raise your hands up high
get down on your knees and raise your hands up high (uh uh)
get down on your knees and raise your hands up high
la la la la la la la

If you wanna be his lover

pfta2a #fundie reddit.com

Being good with kids seems to be a trait commonly associated with pedophiles. It is likely that we pay more attention to kids (and treat them with more respect).

It is okay to be sexually attracted to children, there is no harm in that. It is wrong to hurt a child, but an attraction does not lead to harm. Plenty of adults are attracted to other adults and manage not to hurt them.

I am a very positive influence on the lives of multiple children. Other people tell me so, their parents tell me so, the kids love to spend time with me. My closest relationship is with a girl who I am attracted to. She loves me and would live with me if given the chance, she comes from a negative home and I give her way more opportunities to do things (and attention and positive encouragement) than she gets at home.

I don't look at her and think I want to have sex with her. That is a vast oversimplification; like saying a man sees a women and just thinks I want to have sex with her. I want to provide her a source of comfort, a safe place to come to and a safe person to talk to. I want her to be happy, I want to help her grow into a capable and confident women, I want her to be successful in her life and yes, I would also like to have sex with her. I won't do the latter, but all of the former things are things I can and do do for her.

Saying Pedophile = wanting to have sex with a child, is like saying being attracted to an adult = want to have sex with that adult. While it is technically true; it is far too simplistic of a view to have real meaning. Just like other adults we want a relationship, we want the comfort of knowing someone we love loves us back, we want to help that person be happy and safe. Sure sex is a part of it, but it is nothing close to the whole.


That's sadly why you're considered to be sick in the head. Because you don't understand that it is NOT okay to be sexually attracted to kids. There is something wrong with each and every pedophile out there. Your refusal to admit your sickness is what makes you dangerous to be around a child. To have sexual desires towards a child is exactly like saying "I want to have sex with a child". You simply aren't saying it out loud. You're keeping it in your own head(And that's the scary part).

This is my last reply to this discussion. I am just appalled by everything you sick and demented people are saying. You're a sick fuck and like I said to the other person. I pray for any child that comes in contact with you.

So if a person thinks "I want to kill that person" are they a sick fuck even if they never act on it?

If a person thinks "I'd like to rape that person", but never acts on it, are they a sick fuck?

If a person thinks "I'd like to hurt that person", but never acts on it are they a sick fuck?

Or does thought-crime only apply to those have a sexual attraction to kids? I can't choose not to be attracted to kids anymore than a homosexual can choose not to be attracted to their own sex (note: I wouldn't chose not to be even if I could, but that's another story). I can chose how I act though and everyone who knows me finds my actions to be acceptable.


Having a single thought when you're angry about killing the person you're mad at? No, this is normal.

Constant thoughts about killing someone every day of your life? Yes. That is a sign of a mental illness much like being a pedophile.

Having a single thought that you may want to hurt a person? Perfectly normal.

Having thoughts every day that you want to hurt people? That's a sign of another mental illness.

Struggling every day of your life because you're sexually attracted to kids? Yes. I am sorry. That's a sure sign of someone with mental issues.

These are all signs of mental illnesses. Which is what you have -- an illness. Which is why you shouldn't be around kids nor should any pedophile. There's a reason adults with severe mental illnesses have their kids taken away. Endangerment. What makes you and the others sick fucks is not that you have a mental illness. It's that you're trying to defend it and say there's nothing wrong with it. That it's "okay". When it's not it's very far from being okay. This is what makes you dangerous to be around a child.

I don't have a mental illness, I have a sexual orientation. I am not ashamed of it, but I know that people would judge me for it no matter what my actions are. So I don't tell them. I'm not hiding it everyday, I'm going about my life without really worrying about it; but knowing I will never tell anyone.

By your logic being gay and hiding it is/was a mental illness.

Almost everyone I know (including many kids/parents) trusts me absolutely around kids. And I have never hurt a kid. I'd rather have them be the judges and have them judge my actions. They don't need to know my thoughts to judge my actions.

I don't constantly think about my sexual attraction to kids. It's more like having a friend who you are interested in romantically, but who see's you platonically. Sure sometimes it is awkward, but you still get along well and are good friends. You aren't likely to suddenly rape that friend. There's no all consuming sexual urge, it's no different than a sexual attraction anyone else feels.

It's only likely to get awkward in the case of pedophiles if the child returns the sexual interest. Than you have two consenting people who must withhold their feelings due to social stigma.

A child by law can't give consent. So you don't have two consenting people. You have 1 consenting adult and 1 poor child being mislead by said adult.


Consent laws are dumb. Children can consent, if two children have sex according to consent laws they raped each other (which is why a large number of sex offenders are minors). There should be extra protections for child sex. But they can consent.
When you were a child it's VERY likely a pedophile talked to you, maybe even held you, or even hugged you. Did you get hurt by it? most liely no. Although if you have been sexually abused I'm VERY sorry :-( it's terrible I know.


various incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: r/Relationship_Advice: [25m] my girlfriend[24f] told me she had only slept with 3 guys, her best friend [24f] blurted out that they slept with a guy every city in Europe they visited

(SomeTurdInTheWind)

We were talking about some topic and it came to Europe and she told me that they slept with a bunch of super hot guys. It seemed that everyone tuned in then. I laughed it off and didn’t make it into a big deal.

"I laughed it off". Why do guys nowadays solve everything by grinning and smiling and laughing like chimpanzees when a bigger chimpanzee threatens to beat them up?

She had previously told me that she only been with three guys. Long story short she and her friend when they went to Europe would sleep with a hot local guy every city.

This always happens. No exceptions.

When we saw each other she didn’t even want to sleep with me for three months until we were official. And now hearing how she slept with guys hours after meeting them bugs the hell out of me.

Oh, look, the same thing as always.

(bcat124)
From the comments :

I know right now that's not the biggest priority in your brain. You're hung up on images of her fucking her way through Europe. That's just your lizard brain doing lizard brain shit. Set it aside for a moment. Difference in experience? Meh. Banging around in Europe? Meh. That's not the important shit here.

We live in a matriarchy where women have all the sexual capital and take full advantage of it. What a joke

(robfordscrakpipe)
Men, ignore your natural instincts that are hardwired in your brain to help you survive and pass your genes on, that's patriarchy. Ignore your repulsion towards promiscuous, overweight, loud, unattractive women, that's all social construction. Women, if you feel the urge to sleep with that stud at the bar, go for it! Do what feels right! Forget about your boyfriend! Anyone who tells you otherwise is a horrible person who hates women and has a fragile ego and small dick.

(elephant__dick)
If this stuff was meaningless women wouldn't freak out and lie about it. Also if it doesn't matter then why do they always make certain guys wait?

(arissiro)
Exactly - the crux of the issue here is why did her current boyfriend whom she supposedly loves have to wait 3 months, while randos all over Europe had to wait 3 seconds? Why could she make him wait and not them? Why did she feel compelled to make him wait?

(COPE_OR_ROPE)
A roastie inadvertently dropped a brutal blackpill in the comment section:

Also, many guys don't understand that women often wait longer to sleep with someone they really like and want to build something long term with. If the guy is just fun for one day of a trip it doesn't matter to wait. Quick sex doesn't equal a stronger liking of someone for women, though men seem to interpret it that way.

What's the blackpill here ?

She admits that women make betas wait months for sex while Chad get's to ravage her 10 minutes after meeting.

(Thrwwwwaway6)
The blackpill (hidden behind all that delusion) is that girls wait to sleep with guys who make good providers but aren't attractive.

(arissiro)
Yip, a lot of foid delusion there which soymales will fall for. Thing is the "reasoning" itself (if we can even call it that) is incoherent: if this sex thing is important enough for some men to have to wait for - why should it be the men the women "actually want to build something serious with" that wait, instead of random fucking strangers? That's like loaning money to random people immediately without doing credit checks whilst waiting three months on someone with a good credit rating.

You and I know what's going on of course.

(Magehunter_Skassi)
I like that one other roastie in the thread too. Honorary blackpiller. If you're going to be a slut, you may as well own it instead of lying.

I love sex. The idea of finding a different guy in every city I visit in Europe sounds exhausting, but also fun. That said, I’m not too worried about how that “makes me look”.

[...]

Like I get that some people will say shit. But why would you want to start a relationship with someone who judges you for your past anyway?

(PerfectCeI)
So basically the same as... I have a history of multiple arrests for workplace violence and thiefts, many companies wont hire me because of my criminal history but why would you want to start working for a company who judges you for your past anyway teehee

Foids really have the impulse control and accountability of a 4yo child, those Saudis are right in some ways

(mantrad)
Women are nothing, and I mean fucking nothing but cum holes, the more attractive and less used the cum hole the better, that's their only value

(GuacMerchant88)
whatever her claimed total is x by 7 to get an accurate body count. it used to by x 3 before tinder and other quick hook up apps, but modern tech has allowed instant hookups for average looking women to fuck chads at a moments notice. Although roasties are collecting a higher body count and are encouraged to do so by their fellow feminists, very few are willing to be honest with potential beta providers of their true body count. They know that even most betas will not want to finance a roastie who slept with 30+ men (which is more than 75% of women in their 20s today).

I am collecting data on this trend and will post back in a few months with charts/graphs. I will be banned when I report on it but will be good info. r/dataisbeautiful will downvote it to oblivion.

The data is indeed self-reported. The sample size as of right now is only 23 women who agreed to partake. My goal is 2000 women aged 18-40. This is just taken from Tampa. I will be in Boston, NYC, and DC in the next few months and will ask women there as well. The questions are simple:

How many men have you slept with?
Have you lied to your current partner or a potential partner about the amount of men you have slept with?
If so, what number did you tell them? (18/23 admitted lying about their number to current/potential spouse)
Why did you feel the need to lie about your number?

The first 20 responses indicate a 6.7x actual body count to claimed body count.

(arissiro)
Absolutely brutal blackpill mate. Remember this is what life's like for so many men who "aren't incel" - they get laid every now and then, sure - but it's like the homeless guy who sometimes gets to finish off some rich guy's leftover lunch at a restaurant.

(hopfield)
Ahahahhahaa look at this cope:

That's literally the opposite of how it actually is.

Like imagine you're hungry but you're too tired to do much so you just slap some baloney from Wal*Mart on dome bread and eat it. It ends the discomfort from your hunger but it still sucks and is unhealthy for you and not even very enjoyable.

But later on you get yourself together and decide to be healthier and decide it's worth it to do a bit of work to be able to eat actual good food so you learn to cook and start cooking really excellent cuisine for yourself, like 5-star restaurant stuff. It's s not only healthier but a million times more enjoyable than the stupid baloney sandwich which seriously wasn't even good at all, it was just easy.

That's how casual sex is for most women. It's the sucky baloney sandwich they didn't even enjoy, but it was just the easiest thing at the time. They know if they want an actual good meal, they have to put time and effort into it.

When a woman waits a while to have sex with you, she's not "making you wait," and it's certainly not because she thinks you're "beta," it's because she knows the only way the sex will be truly enjoyable and fulfilling for her is if she spends the time getting to know you and making a connection. Then there a chance the sex will actually be like a 5-star meal instead of a baloney sandwich. If she'd had sex with you sooner, it would have sucked for her and not even been enjoyable. She waits because she likes you enough that she'd actually like to have GOOD sex with you and maybe keep having good sex for a long time, instead of having bad sex that would make her want to never see you again.

Women aren't like men. They don't enjoy casual sex like men do. There are even numerous scientific studies showing women are unlikely to orgasm during casual sex and are likely to regret it and not really enjoy it. Putting the time in before having sex literally makes women enjoy the sex itself more, if they don't put the time in and just have sex right away the sex will be garbage like a Wal*Mart baloney sandwich.

They "make you wait" because they actually want the sex to be good and know it won't even be enjoyable for them if they just have sex right away.

"likely to regret it and not really enjoy it."

Then why the fuck do they willingly do it??? Almost as if these cucks are fucking stupid

Girls regret it so much that they go hunting for one-night-stands with Chad week after week after week.

Not even an incel. Just have to post and point out this guys a retard.

The making you wait is about making sure you've invested enough time and money into her so that you can't bail when you find out how much of a cunt she actually is.

This is some 'we wuz kingz' level coping right here. what a soy.

(Big_Iron_PP)
I wrote a poem for the OP:

Fish and dicks down in London

The two met near the Thames

He had a noble accent and

His name, I think, was James


In Paris, the Eiffel Tower

Wasn't what she tried to climb

Tho it was hard like ancient iron

Jaques was a stunning mime


In Amsterdam, where the smell

Of weed hung in the air

The dealer Daan van Dorn and her

Oh, they made a lovely pair


Madrid was hot and sticky

She siesta'd for a while

And after one bull fighting match

She dodged Juan's cum in style


In Venice on a galley

She nigh fell of and drowned

Cause it was all a shaking

When she the oarsman found


Berlin, she really loved to see

What a truly German city

She was a bit surprised when things

With Franz turned to shitty


Budapest of Hungary

She was eager to test

And Jànos did not disappoint:

He was well hung like the rest.


And finally, in Moskva cold

Her journey came to an end

She met you in a bar

And loved you as a friend

ChinoF #sexist getrealphilippines.com

Some Thoughts on LGBT Issues after the Colorado Baker’s Win

Lately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple isn’t liable for anything. The ruling left the question of whether it was bordering on religious discrimination. But for me, it isn’t. Establishments have the right to refuse to give service to customers for their own reasons. It’s not the same as hanging a “No Filipinos/no gays allowed” sign, which could be argued as more like discrimination. But this probably will get the LGBTs fuming, with the SJWs among claiming that it’s “oppression of the state,” or other baloney like that. I thus would like to consider the other side, something like the side of Zaxx’s article, where he discusses negative effects of some LGBT attitudes.

A couple I know in church who’d been traveling to other congregations related that pastors had asked them topic suggestions for sermons. The couple said, just look at TV. Broken families, switching partners, making crime look good, and more. And one example they talked of at length was a gay beauty pageant on TV. During an interview, the contestant was asked if he had a boyfriend. “Yes.” Where is he? “With his wife.” Oh, wait, isn’t there a problem with that? “No, because his wife is OK with it.” Jumping in is this famous actress acting as judge: “I’m so proud of you for standing what you believe in!”

Cringe.

Other gays are not that lucky. Some straight guys just flat out refuse. They’re straight, for crying out loud! But the gay person might feel slighted. Life’s wisdom tells us, it’s part of life to be spurned, but the gay will not accept it. So what might he do? Some gays might take revenge in some way against the straight guy. They might stalk or harass the straight guy, like immature spurned teens would do. Others might try to “out” the straight guy as a gay, although that’s a lie. But in doing so, he commits defamation and harassment.

Since suicide has become a topic in social media after Anthony Bourdain’s death, I’ll just give it a little controversial link to my topic. Let’s say an LGBT person commits suicide after they become spurned by someone. The reaction might be, “the spurner is a bigot,” “the suicide is his fault,” and all sorts of trolling and bullying. But no, these are wrong. Unless the spurner or another person was caught on record to have actually encouraged suicide, there is no fault with them. Better to research the person’s background for the complex web of reasons that led to it – including the person’s own decisions. I will also make that controversial point later – that people with mental illness are not always victims, but could possibly have brought it upon themselves. But back to the current topic.

Let me recall the case of Jeffrey Laude. One of the local ladyboys who was killed by a visiting American soldier, in a situation that our webmaster Benign0 likened to the movie Crying Game. The American was expecting his new sex partner to be a legitimate female. Of course. But he found out Laude was male (a transsexual or transgender if you will), and got mad. He was deceived. He snapped, lashed out and did wrong himself. But Laude’s deception would make him less free of fault than media would like us to believe.

I don’t expect most gays to be like this; I’m sure many of them disapprove of the above behaviors. But there are likely some who may defend wanting to be recognized as a woman while hiding their being a man. The problem is, it is still deception, and if all you are looking for is sex, you don’t deserve to be protected from the consequences. Hiding one’s real sexuality is not a right.

Such gays are working on the idea that, if I want something, I deserve to get it. Perhaps it can be forced by law. Entitlement operates in this scenario. Perhaps the agenda of these particular gays is, it shouldn’t matter whether you screw a man and woman, right? So everyone should be homosexual! They should be forced to be give sex to whoever wants it! People are entitled to this joy they want from others! But wait a minute, forcing someone to have sex… isn’t that rape?

Human rights is based on the precept that everyone is entitled to self-determination, which includes their sexual orientation. This could be seen as in favor of gays as well as against. But when they want something from others, that other person has the right to refuse them as part of their own self-determination.

The problem cited by opponents of laws in favor of gays is that such laws would grant unequal protection, or special treatment. It could also lead to ridiculous provisions that are not fair. For example, if one does not agree that someone is beautiful, it is considered “bullying,” or someone who doesn’t want to play along with one’s declared transsexual orientation (still referring to one as male even when dressed up and really looking like a female) should be punished.

Also, let’s look at these ridiculous genders some have tried to invent. Nature (which determines reality) only recognizes male and female, and these can’t be naturally changed. Or you have a sex change and want to be called the other gender. What if someone disagrees, and says, “you’re still your original gender.” They have a right to do that. You can’t sue them. They’re not oppressing you. That’s life. It’s not meant to obey you, and other people are not either.

The outcry of many LGBTs is mainly against harassment; that I agree with. But being harassed doesn’t give you the right to harass back. If harassment is a problem, you don’t need a new law or special treatment. Existing laws on harassment can be applied to that.

If some people return, what about heterosexual spurned lovers, the same should be true for them? I agree. There have been many women who made false rape charges against men (the story of Brian Banks who was wrongfully convicted because of a fake rape case comes to mind), many “spurned” who “take revenge” against their spurners. And I’ll repeat that example of our former maid’s brother, who was poisoned by someone who thought he was his rival over a girl. That attitude of “I must have what I want” keeps turning people into monsters.

Again, on that wish of people who believe “I deserve to be loved;” it likely means, they want sex. Sex and love are actually two concepts that have long been differentiated. And perhaps being pampered and being a freeloader can be the actual meaning of the “love” they desire. Sorry, kids, none of that is a right, and you don’t deserve it.

The saying, slightly worded, “I will defend your right to disagree with me,” comes to mind. That seems more appropriate if you replace the latter words with “your right to refuse to give what I want to take from you.” What we need is respect, especially respect of other people’s refusal of you. As well the acceptance that we sometimes don’t deserve to get what we want. That applies to even “love.”
If you’re a transgender, better reveal that you are, and there are people who will accept you for what you are. Deceiving other people means not only do you lack respect for others, but for yourself as well. If you feel you have to lie to get what you want, chances are, you want something that you should not have. If you want find the love of your life, you don’t steal someone else’s love of their life. And if you want something to validate yourself, don’t get it by force, like what a gay couple wanted from the Colorado baker. Get it fairly and honestly, and if refused, move on to the next. If there are other people who don’t accept you for who you are, there’s no point wasting time on them. Keep calm and carry on.

Jon Davis #fundie youtube.com

(=Progressive vs Homophobic Christian=)

Jon Davis: Still missed it!! Jesus addressed this DIRECTLY. Right here!
Matthew 19:4-5
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’
One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.

blind poet38: Not necessarily true. Translated into English, the Bible condemns homosexuality. But looking at the original text, the Hebrew word that is used is very vague. And Jesus never said that gay people couldn't get married, but it was just God's design that they don't get married.

Jon Davis: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable" is not a word, it is a description to eliminate the confusion.
Jesus didn't need to say that "gay people can't get married", he referenced the design and that settled it. One only need to reference THE DESIGN to understand THE PERVERSION.
Penis is designed for vagina. *blush* Vagina is for penis. *blush* Anus is for pooping. *pffrrt*
It's not homophobia. It's basic biology.

blind poet38: If it is basic biology, how is it that scientists have found over 1500 animal species that practice homosexual acts. You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin. But the Bible really does not say that. And I am a Christian by the way.

Jon Davis: It is basic biology because that is how we procreate, and to do things differently promotes bad health (bleeding butts anyone?) and is not conducive to humankind's continuity.
Animals do all kinds of disgusting things. Dogs eat poop. Cats pee on clothes. Are you just an animal? No. Mankind was made in God's image.
As for everything else you just said ("You are just assuming homosexuality is a sin" etc) you're obviously trolling. I just quoted the text that called it "detestable". And while neither Old nor New Testaments use the term "homosexual" (a term that modern English coined) they both describe the sexual act and describe it with disgust and contempt.

blind poet38: You can think I am trolling if you want to, but you have to understand that the original Hebrew uses terminology that is not as clear-cut as people think it is when it deals with condemning homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Read the OP. Matthew 19:4-5 has no dependency upon Leviticus 18:22; indeed it goes the other way around. You're barking at the wrong argument. I myself was trolled by actually responding to it.

blind poet38: Sorry dude, I don't get your point. All I am saying is that in the original Hebrew, the word that is used is not as clear-cut as people think it is to condemn homosexuality.

Jon Davis: Now you're spamming. Stop repeating yourself. Even if it was true, it's irrelevant, and I already explained why. Now go read Romans 1:18-32 (originated as Greek, not Hebrew), study it with an exhaustive study Bible which provides insight on the original language, and come back when you've studied more than the ridiculous false "truths" and FUD you've found on the Internet.

blind poet38: You can be dismissive all you want, and that is fine. But why is it irrelevant? We are talking about homosexuality and the Bible aren't we?

blind poet38: It is obvious you have no answers to anything. I have already done the research.

AskariStudios: But God Said that all sex outside of Marriage is wrong. Since Marriage is in between only a man and a women. this makes homosexuality wrong. in no way shap or form has marriage ben said to take place between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. ONLY a MAN and a Woman.this has been stated numerous times in the bible. Not only this but in Levitcus, it is clear stated that homosexuality is an abomination. clear cut. in Jude, it its written that Sodom and Gomorrah gave themselves up to sexual perversion (homosexuality) and where thus made an example of. So with Just Common Logic, and the fact that through multiple translations, the same wording has shown up., its clear that the bible is against homosexuality.

blind poet38: The Bible never says that sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" is quite elaborately spoken against. That you would say such a thing speaks volumes about modern society being so casually hedonistic; sex outside of marriage was universally taboo and expected to be everyone's struggle, it didn't need to be spelled out in detail like it spelled out homosexuality, it was simply referred to as "fornication".
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Fornication/
http://www.openbible.info/topics/fornication
http://www.gotquestions.org/sex-before-arriage.html

AskariStudios: 1 Cor 7 states : "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: t“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." Its clear that Paul(I do believe he wrote this) implies that Sex before marriage is sexual immorality and that do to this temptation, a man should marry.
want more proof? look up : (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7) and Hebrews 13:4.

blind poet38: The only sexual sins that are mentioned in the Bible are adultery, incest and sex with animals. Fornication means "sexual sin." Which sins? Adultery, incest and sex with animals. Premarital sex is not mentioned as a sin.

Jon Davis: "Fornication" does not mean "sexual sins in general". It means "extramarital sex". If you want to discuss Greek or Hebrew, say so, but you didn't. Look up the word and stop speaking assertions about our English words when you don't even know your own English language.

blind poet38: Fornication does not mean "extramarital sex." That is what someone told you it means. Fornication means "sexual sin." Learn the facts.

Jon Davis: There's a fine line between idiocy and trolling. That line is knowledgable intent. I'm not sure what you're doing in your case. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fornication

blind poet38: OK Jon, you are right. Translated into English, premarital sex is a sin, despite the fact that Solomon and David and Samson, etc etc etc all did it and were never punished for it in the Bible. But the question is in the NT,, what does porneia mean? That is not the Greek word for adultery or any specific sexual sin. It generally means any kind of sexual immorality. And what is sexual immorality in the Bible? Adultery and incest and sex with animals.

Jon Davis: what do you mean "they weren't punished for it"? OT figures who engaged in fornication took a pounding for it. Most of their stories are used as case lessons for the hell people go through when they do it.
To answer your question: Fundamentally, in the Bible there are only two types of sex: sex within marriage (one man and one woman) and sexual immorality, porneia. Read the OP in this thread if you don't understand.

Fake Fandom: Excerpt From Chapter 4; Anti-Humanity Countercultures | Paul's Passing Thoughts #kinkshaming #pratt paulspassingthoughts.com

In previous chapters, the attempted reformation of the Fandom by the Burned Furs, attempts directed squarely at Mark Merlino, reveal in vivid detail the beginning characteristics of the Fandom. Merlino passively or actively condoned all the characteristics protested against. As documented in the Burned Fur manifesto, a New Age-like anthropomorphic spirituality was prevalent in the movement and is even more prevalent today. Furries routinely refer to their true identities being found in an animal.

As noted in psychological studies that will be looked at closer in this book, the goal is not to become an animal, but to incorporate more and more animalism into the humanity of furries. This is because animals are not all hung-up on human barriers. Beagles relieve themselves on fire hydrants in front of all without giving it a second thought. If a beagle wants to mate with a poodle in someone’s front yard, the pair give the desire no second thought. Gee, if only humans were like that. After all, look at how hung-up we are about many things resulting in unnecessary expenditures for things like bathrooms. Humans spend a lot of money to prevent indiscretions; otherwise known as “hang-ups,” and being “overly serious.”

The list on this perspective can go on and on. Dog’s are man’s best friend and infinitely loyal. Pets never argue with you, and we can even speak for them with no protest by the pet. If only humans were more like that. This is where there is a fine line between philosophy and religion; anthropomorphism, in its most ancient forms, was a rejection of the human race. What better way to reject humanity than ascribing to being more like an animal? Biblicists point to the Apostle Paul’s indictment of humanity at its earliest stages: “they worshiped the creature instead of the creator.” We are speaking to an anti-humanity ideology. Remember, anthropomorphism personifies nonhuman objects, which includes animals, but does not exclude any nonhuman objects like trees, rocks, water, and clouds. People who worship trees are not nuts, they just think trees are better than humans, and if God created humans, He couldn’t be much better. Hatred for humanity will find a contending meaning in anything but humanity. After all, what else is there in the material world? The extreme depends on the degree of disdain. Never underestimate the power of preference by default and what one will do in choosing it.

As noted earlier in this book, the first fanzines of the Fandom were the Vootie APAs. Their stated manifesto was very clear: “No humans (or human logic) allowed.” Characteristics of the Fandom’s beginning followed as detailed by the Burned Furs: any behavior considered abnormal by society at large was vigorously pursued by furries including plushophilia (sex with stuffed animals), zoophilia (bestiality), necrophilia (sex with a corpse), and a list of behaviors becoming and unbecoming of animals who don’t typically masturbate in elevators. Countercultures are such because humans are responsible for culture.

Triweekly Antifeminist #fundie triweeklyantifeminist.wordpress.com

The esteemed commentator Chinzork wrote:

For one of the first posts on this blog, I think you should debunk all of the common talking points against abolishing the AOC. The talking points get repetitive after a while, so an article debunking all of them sounds good.

Alright then, you got it. Herein is a compilation of the 15 most popular Blue Knight arguments, each argument followed by a thorough dissection thereof.

#1: Teenagers only become sexually mature after completing puberty around 16.

This is a wholly metaphysical proposition; a statement of belief. The Blue Knight starts out from the premise that a “completion of puberty” is a prerequisite for this nebulous state known as “sexual maturity,” then makes the circular argument that, because a 13-year-old has not yet completed puberty, he or she are thus sexually immature. “Sexual maturity” is an altogether arbitrary concept, and there isn’t any way to measure it or test it.

The Blue Knight makes it seem like he or she has objectively examined the issue and reached the conclusion that the age of “sexual maturity” just so happens to start when puberty is over; but there has not actually been any such objective examination of the issue – it simply has been assumed (axiomatically) that this is the case, and the whole “argument” proceeds from this unproven, arbitrary, and essentially metaphysical assumption.

The Blue Knight argument posits that 1) without “sexual maturity” sex is harmful and as such should be illegal; 2) a full completion of puberty is a prerequisite for “sexual maturity.” You may well give the following counter-argument, accepting — for the sake of discussion — the former premise, while rejecting the latter, and say thus: “children become sexually mature after completing adrenarche around the age of 9.”

Fundamentally, however, I have seen no evidence whatsoever that a “sexually immature” person is necessarily harmed (or victimized) by sexual relations merely due to being, according to whatever arbitrary definitions one uses, a “sexually immature” person. I suspect that, as a matter of fact, “sexually immature” people often enjoy sex and benefit from it even more than the so-called “sexually mature” folks. And again, the very distinction between “mature” and “immature” is altogether metaphysical in this regard, like the distinction between “pure” and “impure” or “holy” and “unholy.” It is hocus pocus; theology not-so-cleverly disguised as biology.

According to Blue Knight “morality,” an extremely fertile 15-year-old female should be prevented from sex (because “sexually immature”), while a 55-year-old female who has no ovaries left should be free do get fucked however she likes. It is very clear that such a “morality” is really an anti-morality; it is against what is biologically natural, it is against human nature specifically, it is degenerate, and it is detrimental to the interests of civilization and the TFR.

#2: The Age of Consent protects young people from doing things (sex) which they don’t really want to do.

I have seen no evidence that young people “do not really want” to have sex. On the contrary, I have seen, and keep seeing, that young people greatly desire to engage in sexual activities. That is why they engage in them. If 11-year-old Lucy is a horny little slut who enjoys giving blowjobs to all the boys in the neighborhood (many such cases), the Age of Consent does not protect her from something which she is reluctant about doing; it prevents her — by deterring men from approaching her — from doing something which she does in fact desire to do.

The Age of Consent is simply not needed. Think for a moment about young people. Do you not realize that they are just as eccentric, and can be just as wild, as older people? Why is it that when a 19-year-old chick randomly decides to have an orgy with 3 classmates after school, that is okay; but when a 12-year-old chick likewise randomly decides to do just that, oh noes, she is a “victim” of a horrible crime? We accept that each person is unique, independently of age; and we realize that there are children –not to mention young adults — who are very much into X while others are very much into Y. Why, then, should it be so “shocking” when it turns out that some children, and plenty of young teenagers, are very much into sex? Being interested in sex is arguably one of the most natural things there are, on par with being interested in food; certainly it is more natural than being interested in physics and chemistry and mathematics, right? If we accept the existence of child prodigies, children who are naturally driven to pursue all kinds of weird and special callings, why can’t we accept that there are indeed lots of children who pursue the very natural thing which is called “sex”?

Young teenagers have extremely high sex-drives, and the idea that they “do not really want sex” is contradicted every single moment. This is all the more remarkable given that we are living in a puritanical, prudish, sex-hostile, joy-killing, pedo-hysterical, infantilizing society; yet teenagers manage to overcome this intense anti-natural social programming, and do what nature commands them to do. “Child innocence” is a self-perpetuating myth, which society shoves down the throats of everyone all the time since age 0, and then uses this self-perpetuating myth which has been forcefully injected into society’s bloodstream to argue that “oh gee, young people just don’t really want to have sex.”

The entire entertainment establishment is concomitantly brainwashing children to remain in a state of arrested development aka infantilization, while conditioning the consumers of this “entertainment” to only find old women attractive. That’s one reason why I believe that we must create Male Sexualist aesthetics – we must reverse the brainwashing done to us by the entertainment complex. The television box is deliberately hiding from you the beauty and the passion of young teenage women, and is actively engineering your mind to only find older women attractive. And yet, despite there being a conspiracy by the entire society to stifle young sexuality, young sexuality lives on and thrives. Well, not really “thrives” — young sex is in decline, which conservative total dipshits blame on pornography rather than pointing the finger at themselves for propagating a climate that is extremely hostile to young sexuality — but it still goes on, to the consternation of all Puritans and Feminists everywhere.

Blue Knights claim that young teenagers are “peer-pressured into sex.” This assumes that your average teenager is asexual or close to being asexual, and thus would only engage in sexual activities if manipulated into it by his or her environment. The reality, meanwhile, is that those 12-year-old sluts who have orgies after school time (or during school time) are often as horny as a 16-year-old male. They are not being pressured into sex – they are being sexually restrained by a society that is terrified of young sexuality.

#3: Young people who have sex grow up to regret it.

First of all, when the whole of society is determined to portray young sex as a horrid thing, it is no wonder that people — especially women, who possess a herd mentality — arrive at the conclusion that they’ve been harmed by it. If young sexuality were presented in a positive light by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, people would be more inclined to remember it fondly than regretfully.

The second thing is that it doesn’t even matter. People feel regret about doing all kinds of things – so what? Does that mean that for each and every case of such “regret,” society needs to go on a witch-hunt for “victimizers” in order to inflict punishments upon them? It’s time to grow the fuck up and accept the fact that people sometimes do things which later on they regret doing, and that this is an integral part of life, and that the state has no business protecting the civilians from “bad feelings.” That’s literally what this Blue Knight argument boils down to – “the state should punish men because women experience negative feelings due to their own behavior.” No, women should learn to deal with their bad fee-fees without demanding the state to find “abusers” to penalize. We are living in a totalitarian emotocracy (rule by emotions) and I’m sick of it.

Also: what is the difference between feeling regret about fucking at 13 and feeling regret about fucking at 17? Women generally feel bad about promiscuous sex (hence the phenomenon of “regret rape” false accusations), and they feel it at the age of 21 as much as at the age of 11; actually, older women may be even more regretful than young ones about sexual activity, because they’v been longer exposed to Puritan-Feminist brainwashing, and because their biological clock ticks much faster. So, according to the victimization-based morality of Blue Knights, men who sleep with 23-year-olds should also be punished. Again, the Blue Knights want men imprisoned solely due to some vague negative fee-fees felt by some women. This is emotocracy in action. No wonder that testosterone and sperm counts are in sharp decline – society is ruled by catladies, and is structured according to catlady morality.

The state simply should not protect people from the consequences of their own behavior – and here “protect” means “punish men,” and “consequences” means “vague negative fee-fees.” Our society is severely infantilized by the victimization-based morality, and infantilization is degenerate.

#4: Young sexual activity is correlated with many bad things.

That may or may not be so, but what are the implications? Generally, people who are natural risk-takers will do all kinds of things, some of which may be positive, others negative, and still others just neutral. The conservadaddy making the “correlated with bad things” argument implies that punishing men (and women) for young sex would somehow reduce those negative things supposedly correlated with young sex. That, of course, is bullshit. If a risk-taking 12-year-old decides to have an orgy with her classmates, she will remain just as much of a risk-taker whether or not her classmates or other people are punished. Depriving her of the opportunity to take “sexual risks” won’t diminish whatever other risk-taking behaviors she is prone to.

The thing about Blue Knight arguments is that they aren’t arguments at all. There is no logic in stating “young sex is correlated with X, and X is bad” and then using that to support the criminalization of young sex. This is the same logic used by pedagogues to justify pedagoguery, only in reverse: the pedagogues argue that education is correlated with intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), then use that claim to imply that education makes people smarter, and therefore everyone should undergo education. This is a wholly fallacious argument. At the risk of sounding like a spergtastic redditor goon – correlation does not imply causation. The Blue Knight argument is not an argument at all. It’s plainly illogical.

By the way, I’d say that there are plenty of negative things correlated with young sexlessness – such as growing up to be a school shooter, for instance. You’ll never hear Blue Knights discussing that.

#5: Some Statutory Rape legislation allows teenagers to have sex among themselves, and only prohibits older people from predating upon them.

This argument typifies what I call the “victimization-based morality” aka “victimology.” The people making it assume — against all the available evidence — that within any relationship between a young person and an old person, the former is necessarily victimized by the latter.

The individuals making this argument (usually you’ll hear it from women) will often tell you that it is “creepy” for older men to be interested in young women. They will pretend that young women are exclusively attracted to young men, when in reality they are attracted to men of all ages – to men as old as their father as well as to their classmates. My own life experience confirms this, as I personally, in-real-life, know of women who fucked significantly older men when they were aged 14-15. It was all passionate and voluntary and enthusiastic, believe me. And the many accounts you can find on the internet leave no doubt that it’s common for young women, pubescent and even prepubescent, to be sexually attracted to significantly older men.

It is important to stress the point that the women themselves pursue and desire those sexual relationships, because the Blue Knights have created the false impression that the entire argument for abolishing the AOC rests on our attraction to young women, an attraction which according to the Blue Knights is completely unreciprocated; whereas in reality, it is incredibly common for young women to initiate sexual relationships with men as old as their father. It takes two to tango – and the tango is quite lively indeed. Given the sexual dynamics elucidated by Heartiste, wherein women are sexually attracted to “Alphas,” it makes perfect sense that young women would be sexually attracted to older men even more-so than they are sexually attracted to their peers, since older men possess a higher social status than young ones, relatively speaking. Again, life experience confirms this.

Thus, there is no sense in punishing old men who fuck young women, unless, that is, one embraces the whole “taken advantage of” argument, an argument which relies on a denial of the biological and empirical reality on the ground, and simply defines (as an axiom) all relationships in which there is a “power imbalance” as “exploitative.” That is, there is no evidence that any “exploitation” is taking place in such relationships, and Blue Knights assume its existence because they refuse to believe that young women can be horny for older men.

Also, the Blue Knights will bring up argument #1 to “substantiate” argument #5, and argue that due to the “sexual immaturity” of the younger party, the older party must be forbidden from being in a sexual relationship with it altogether – because otherwise there may be “exploitation.” Again, the moment you realize that a 12-year-old female can be as horny as a 16-year-old male (who are, needless to say, extremely horny), the idea that the slut is prone to be “sexually exploited” by a sexual relationship with a man who is statistically likely to be high-status (and thus naturally sexually attractive to her) become absurd. And as we’ve seen, the whole “sexually immature” line is ridiculous – it has never been shown that maturity, for whatever it’s even worth, is reached at 16. In saner, de-infantilized times, 12-year-olds were considered to be mature, were treated as such, and evidently were mature. Hence my saying: “child (and teen) innocence is a self-perpetuating myth.”

#6: You only support abolishing the AOC because you’re a pervert.

A common ad hominem. Now, it is expected that possession of a naturally high sex-drive would be correlated with sexual realism (i.e. being woke about the reality of sex), because a high sex-drive individual would be much likelier than a low sex-drive individual to spend hours upon hours thinking about the subject of sex in its various and manifold aspects. But that only goes to prove that it is us, the “perverts,” who were right all along about sex – and not the catladies and the asexuals who haven’t ever thought about sex in realistic terms because they never had any incentive to do so. Our “bias” is a strength, not a weakness.

There really isn’t anything else to add here. When they accuse you of being a pervert, just agree & amplify humorously: “oh yeah, I jerk off 8 times each and every morning before getting out of bed – problem, puritan?”

#7: You only support abolishing the AOC because you are unattractive and trying to broaden your options.

Also known as “projection.” Well, actually, there also are men who make this argument and not just dried-out wrinkly femihags, so let’s address it as if a man said it. Again, this is an ad hominem that presupposes that your motivation to engage in sexual politics of the Male Sexualist variety is merely your desire to improve your personal situation in life. Now, even if it were true, that 1) wouldn’t matter, because what matters is the arguments made and not the ostensible motivation behind them; 2) there is nothing essentially wrong with trying to improve one’s situation in life – and “there are no rules in war and love.”

By the way, abolishing the AOC, by itself, is not going to get all of the incels laid over-night. There are other measures that must and will be taken to ensure sexual contentment for all of society. Abolishing the AOC is a crucial part of the program, but it’s not the single purpose of Male Sexualism, in my view. What I personally would like to see in society is maximal sexual satisfaction for everyone. There are many ways to try reaching that point.

Anyway, the point is that “you are motivated by a desire to increase your options” is not even true regarding most of the prominent Male Sexualists. Presumably. I won’t speak for anyone else, but I’m married, and very satisfied with my great wife.

14376_7
Big Beautiful Women are not for everyone, but I’m cool with it. In this scene from the Israeli film “Tikkun,” my wife — who is an actress — plays a prostitute. Sorry, Nathan Larson, I’m not sending you her nudes; this one should suffice.
As a matter of fact, as I wrote in one of the last posts on DAF, my own kind of activism would not be mentally possible for me if I were not sexually satisfied. I’m not driven by a personal sexual frustration; on the contrary, as I keep saying, what drives me is essentially a spiritual impulse, which has awoken to the extent it has as a result of getting laid.

#8: If you support the abolition of the AOC, it’s because you’re a libertine who believes in “everything goes.”

Some Male Sexualists are, unmistakably, libertines – and proud if it. However, others are faithful Muslims. The notion that opposition to the AOC must necessarily be tied to libertinism is nonsense. Look at traditional European societies 350-300 years ago – almost none had an AOC at all, yet they were hardly “libertines.”

This Blue Knight line is somewhat related to the “LGBTP” meme – they think that we are Progressives trying to advocate for pedophilia as part of a Progressive worldview. I think that it’s safe to say that no one in Male Sexualism belongs to the Progressive camp, which is the camp where Feminists and SJWs reside. That said, some versions of libertinism (sexual libertarianism?) aren’t so bad, anyway. As TheAntifeminist said in a comment at Holocaust21:

[M]y utopia as a male sexualist would be somewhere like 1970’s Sweden or Holland.

This is a legitimate view within the movement.

#9: If young people are allowed to have sex, their innocence will be ruined; sex is exclusively for adults.

Here we see the Enlightenment-spawned Romantic idealization of “childhood” as a period that, due to whatever values one attaches to it, must be preserved against encroachment and incursion from the “fallen world of adults.” This is the Romantic basis of modern-day infantilism.

It used to be understood that the purpose of “childhood” is growing up into adulthood. The so-callef ‘child’ should be made into an adult, should be given adult tasks, adult responsibilities, and — all the sooner — adult rights. Today, society does just the opposite, and infantilizes people with a historically unparalleled intensity. That’s the result of elevating “childhood” into an ideal form. No wonder that now, it’s not just teenagers who are called “children,” but people in their 20s. That’s the process of infantilization which society goes through.

As usual, conservative dipshits, addicted to their own Romantic conceptions, claim that “actually, children are not nearly infantile enough these days.” They don’t see the pervasive “kid culture” that has completely zombified kids into being basically a bunch of drooling retards; no, what the prudish-types care about is “MOAR INNOCENCE,” as usual.

Fact is, kids today are not shown anything about the real world; a whole culture of idiocy, blindness, silliness, and clownishness has been erected like walls all around them. It is the culture of the TV channels for kids, the culture of Toy-Shops, the culture of child-oriented video games. Muh “birds and bees.”

Look, I get the temptation to indulge in infantilism. In fact, I’m probably a hypocrite, because I haven’t yet begun doing anything to de-infantilize my own 19-month-old son. He, like most toddlers, also watches the stupid TV shows and has all of these damn toys all over the place. It’s not easy resisting the ways of the system. But the real problem is that society is not structured in a way that allows children to be de-infantilized. When people only get a job at 18 or at 21 or they are NEETs, and there is an age-ist Prussian School System that is mandatory and which brainwashes its prisoners to believe that “school is good,” and Feminist careerism is pushed on all potential mothers by the media-entertainment-state bureaucracy-academia complex, it’s no wonder that people are very immature nowadays. That only goes to show how radically modern society must be transformed, in my opinion.

To get back on point: “childhood” and “adulthood” are both fictional concepts. These may be useful fictions, but they are still fictions. The telos of childhood is adulthood. It’s a transitional state, and if we must choose an arbitrary age when childhood should be officially and finally over, that age should be 9. That is, if we discover that 10-year-olds behave in an infantile manner nowadays, it’s because their parents — and, crucially, society at large — have not properly de-infantilized them. It’s a wholly artificial state of affairs, rooted in Romantic delusions.

Young people should have sex, because young people should experience real life in order to become functional adults; and an integral part of real life is — and should be — the sex life. Far from constituting a “problem” for young people, sexual intercourse is one effective way for getting young people to see the broader picture of reality. Deprived of sex, ‘kids’ grow up with warped and unrealistic notions about reality, and suffer dysfunction as adults. They don’t get to learn what’s important and what’s unimportant in life when they should learn it – young. Getting laid gives you a mentally clear vision of priorities in life, gives you a clarity of mind which allows you to deeply reflect on what’s actually going on in the world. Sex is necessary for young people, whose one and only task is to — repeat after me — become adults. Sex is a fundamental part of a fulfilled adult life.

#10: Young sex leaves young people traumatized.

No, it doesn’t. The ‘trauma’ stems entirely from being repeatedly and incessantly told by Blue Knights (Puritans, Feminists, Conservadaddies, Catladies, etc.) that a horrible crime has been committed against you by a wicked individual, that you have been “taken advantage of,” “deprived of innocence,” “ruined forever,” “sexually exploited,” “abused,” and the rest of the victimological jargon. The sex itself and the relationship itself feel good, and are indeed good biologically and psychologically; they bring fulfillment to one’s life and a satisfaction for one’s fresh and burning biological needs. The whole “trauma,” such as it is, is inflicted by society on the younger party, due to society’s strict adherence to a victimization-based morality.

That’s why I call for a Moral Revolution. This is not a troll. As long as people adhere to a victimization-based morality that sees “power imbalances” as inherently and fundamentally victimizing, people won’t be able to think logically about young sexuality. The current prevailing system of social morality must be replaced with a new one. Once that is achieved, all of this “trauma” — which is inflicted by the Blue Knights on horny young people — will dissipate and evaporate altogether

Young people greatly enjoy sex, and will go to great lengths to achieve it, overcoming the very many mechanisms of sexual oppression established by Blue Knights.

#11: Young people don’t know what’s good for them, and therefore need to be protected from risky situations.

If young people don’t know what’s good for them, it’s because society itself has successfully destroyed their ability to know what’s good for them. I mean, by the age of 10, a person should have a basic idea about what life is all about. If that’s not so for most or all people, something is deeply rotten in society.

And the reason for this indeed being the modern state of affairs is exactly because the protectiveness of parents, combined with wholesale cultural infantilization, has rendered young people incapable of independent thought. Thus, instead of “MOAR PROTECTION,” young people need infinitely less of it – so that they will learn to deal with reality.

And at any rate, sex is not as risky as the Blue Knights claim it is. They scare people about STDs, but then the solutions to that problem are well-known, and are completely independent of age – if instructed properly, and possessing a responsible personality, a 10-year-old can behave just as carefully — if not much more carefully — than many 40-year-olds.

Then there is the issue of pregnancy. First of all, what I wrote in the above paragraph about responsiblity applies here as well – the pregnancy-avoidance methods are well known. Secondly however, there’s a great differences in here: pregnancy is not a disease. It’s not a bad thing, but a good thing. I support young pregnancy and young parenthood. That is the primary “risk” which Blue Knight scare-mongers warn about, and I don’t see it as a risk at all. Instead of being protected from reproduction, people need to be instructed about how to reproduce. I once wrote, trollishly as usual, that if there should be any schools at all, then the “homework” of young females should be getting impregnated. The essence beneath the statement is on-point: pregnancy is good, because reproduction is good; fertility is good, while sterility is bad.

So, in my view, young people should not be protected from the “risk” of pregnancy. They should be instructed about it, made to comprehend the how’s and why’s of it, and then allowed to use their mind-faculties to figure-out what should or should not be done. That’s the gist of any de-infantilization program.

#12: Young people don’t desire to have sex.

Young people do, as a matter of actual fact, very much desire to have sex; much more-so, even, than many old people.

#13: If the AOC is abolished, parents will no longer be able to control their children.

What is the purpose — the very raison d’etre — of parental control over children? To turn children into functional adults, so as to allow them to form families and continue the bloodline. This cannot be achieved by hindering the ability of children (or “children”) to engage in the one thing that marks the arrival of maturity – sexual activity. Sexual activity is the thing that most unequivocally transforms an un-developed person into a developed person. Since the purpose of parenthood is the creation of adults, parenthood should serve to (at the very least) give-way in face of the natural maturation of children, rather than artificially prolonging “childhood” in order to extend the period of parental control. Parental control is only good insofar as it allows parents to facilitate the de-infantilization of their children; when, as in our deplorable times, parental control is used to exacerbate the infantilization of children, it is in the interest of society to tell parents to fuck off.

Since parents these days abuse their parental power and authority by artificially prolonging the infantilization of their own children, the abolition of the anti-natural AOC is exactly a thing that is needed in order to put parental control in check. The power of parents vis-a-vis their children must be drastically reduced when the child reaches the age of 8. That’s usually the age when sex, reproduction, and marriage all become relevant. If you want to argue that 8 is still too young, perhaps (maybe) we can compromise on 10. Point is, between 8 and 10, parental power should be dramatically restricted.

As a 23-year-old father, I can tell you that parents and family in general continue to significantly shape your life long after you cease being under “parental control.” An abolition of the AOC won’t result in all teenagers running away from home never to be seen again. But it will, God willing, result in the establishment of many new young households. That is something that we should strive for – getting teenagers to form families. That is the meaning of creating adults.

#14: Without an AOC, there will be grey-zone situations of child prostitution.

Child prostitution should be legal.

#15: Abolishing the AOC will increase pre-marital sex, which is a bad thing.

First of all, I couldn’t care less about whether or not sex is “pre-marital.” I had fucked my wife and impregnated her before we were married; so what? What matters is the bottom line: the creation of a patriarchal and stable household.

The second thing is, people today marry extremely late, and many forgo marriage altogether. This is related to the war against young sexuality: not reproducing when young, people struggle to reproduce when old; and living in sexlessness until the late teens or early twenies (or until later than that), a total sexual dysfunction takes over society, and people find it difficult to form long-lasting relationships at all. Young love shines the brightest, the younger the love, the brighter it shines; couples who start young last longer than those who start old.

Puritanical Blue Knights have brought about the plummeting of the TFR in Western Society. In my view, pre-marital sex should be accepted, as long as everyone involved understands that the purpose of any “romance” is the formation of a household. Early teenage marriage should be encouraged, and if early teenage sexual intercourse facilitates that, so be it – it’s all the better. It is not sex that is harmful to young people; sex is good for them. It is sexlessness that is the central and overarching problem of our times.

In conclusion
Man, that was exhausting, I gotta say. But hopefully, this post will serve as a guide to answering Blue Knight talking points. All of you must remember this: before you can annihilate Blue Knightism, you must mentally internalize what it is that we Male Sexualists believe in. In moments of uncertainty and doubt, consult this post, and you may find the core idea needed for you in order to formulate your own Male Sexualist position about any given issue.

There is a new revolution on the horizon. I don’t know how long I personally have left in this world. Perhaps the intelligence operatives threatening me will decide against killing me, or maybe they’ll slay me this very night. Who knows. What I want you to do is to take the ideas provided on DAF and now on TAF, understand them, and spread them. This is not a cult of personality or a money-making scheme. This is a political movement that has its own ideas, ideas that may initially appear groundbreaking but which in reality may also be primordial, ideas which we hope will be implemented in reality – be it 30, 80, or 360 years from now. At some point in the future, somewhere on the face of our planet, there will be a Male Sexualist country.

If during the next half-decade we manage to bring into the fold both edgy 4channers and 8channers (“meme lords”), and serious, intelligent, competent, affluent, deep-thinking, and strategizing supporters, we will be able within several decades to achieve our political objective.

washington214 #fundie tvtropes.org

I was just thinking; if we ever met intelligent aliens, would it be right to count them as people? I mean, OK, so they're smart enough to communicate with us, so what? They're still not human, and thus pretty much the same as any other animal, just smarter. And what is it about intelligence that should automatically give you more rights anyway? What makes humans, human? If it is intelligence, what of babies, kids, and mentally challenged adults?

Also, given the way we humans love to play God and tamper in DNA for shits and giggles, what if one day we managed to genetically engineer an Earth animal to be intelligent? Like, say, pigs. Would we have any obligation to grant smart pigs rights on par with a human? And what of their dumber counterparts? No more bacon? Although, I recon the regular, dumb pigs would be to smart pigs like chimps are to humans, which doesn't really help. A lot of people give certain protections to chimps, and it's argued that they're so similar to humans. But they're also endangered. Would smart pigs have compassion for dumb pigs because of their similarities, or nothing change, since they're so plentiful?

And what would give a robot any rights, regardless of how smart it is? In the end, it is still nothing more than a well programmed machine, even if the hypothetical technology existed to let it feel emotions.


[ I think that "personhood" is an artificial concept that most of us subconsciously redefine to our own ethical convenience. For instance, if you own a pet piglet, you are probably going to think of pigs as "persons", because your relationship with your pet is more emotionally satisfying that way. But if you're eating bacon, then you probably won't subconsciously grant pigs personhood, because in that context to do so would be emotionally distressing and dissonant. ]


Yeah, this is why I believe animals don't have souls. Any worth any given animal has, only has that value because another human put it on them. Everybody cares about their pet, but nobody cares about the stray that was put down (at least most people don't) or that gazelle that got shot. People who oppose hunting for stupid reasons seem to care about cutesie animals like deer and such, but will still gladly buy butchered cattle at a grocery store.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

[Categorical BS. I'm a blatantly feminist (GASP) conservatively dressed intj woman and I still get more male attention than I can handle. I've mentioned this before on here, but if you need others to pretend to be weak in order to allow you to feel powerful, then what you need is psychological help, not a girlfriend]


This is what feminists says all the time, 'heard this response millions times.
But men like women this way, it's not because we're scared, weak or something. It's our natural dominance/male ego that don't want to be "challenged" (like that would happen with an other "man").

If women want men or her husband to "feel" good, acting feminine is definetely the solution. The longer marriages are the ones where women are traditional.

Men have to "conquer" to have sex with women (and only want that from women), so it's logic that they go to "submissive/weak/fragile" women (Like a war strategy). It incousciously means that their chances to reproduce are higher.

There are also the motherhood qualities that are feminine (caring, nurtiuring, sensitive etc.. )

Women pretending to be men are the ones who need psychological help (aka feminists). But you can't, so now feminists try to turn men into females. Your "gender equity" obsession has no limit.


[I also think that in matters such as rape, women are indeed victims (as are some men) and rape prevention is a feminist issue.]

If rape victimes are also men, why is it a "feminist" issue ? It seems to be about man-hating (99% rapists are men).

["no, her skirt doesn't mean she wanted to get raped"]

If feminists care about women safety, feminists should also say to women that dressing in a certain way can lead to problems.


[We already talked about it at length, so let me summarize : 1, the clothes a woman wear doesn't "lead" her to getting raped, 2, even if it did, it wouldn't mean women have to change something but that men should change their mentality (just because her clothes were sexy doesn't mean she wants sex or that you are entitled to sex), 3, it's a problem if victims are discredited because of the clothes they wore at the time of the rape. I won't go into more details. Read the topic about the slut pride again if you want to.]


Really ? What's the point of dressing sexy then ? Men won't change, yes we want sex 24/7/365 and we have to go for it. It's part of Nature. I think women got it now. You can't shake fresh meat in front of hungry dogs, and then cry because a dog ate your hand.
Not it's not, I think it's good argument. I can't let the door of my house open all night, and then blame people that robbed it. There are certain dangers in our society, you can avoid them or provoke them.


[I find this degrading and insulting to men. As a civilised man, I have self-control and decency which prevents me from acting like a wild animal. How is it that you, yourself, are not in jail for sexual assault by now?]


Because I behave in a civilized manner most of the time. But asking men to stop wanting to have (forceful) sex with provocative women, or hoping that rape will disappear completely tomorrow is useless.


[If you rape a woman because of her clothes, the truth is that you didn't do it because you got so horny you couldn't stop yourself. You did it because you though that because she was clothed that way, she wanted sex, or couldn't refuse sex. It's not biological, it's sociological.]


It's both. If a man is "not" horny and see a woman dressed like a slut, he won't care.


[So he was horny before and just happened to see a convenient victim ?]


Yes, so ? I'm just saying that women have responsabilities in the way they dress. You can't put it all on men and just say to women dress like sluts if you want.

[yes you can. Adults are either responsible for their own actions or they're not.]


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

[
By saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men around her, just by dressing a certain way, you are saying that men should be treated the same as young children and the mentally handicapped when it comes to the subject of rape: incapable of rational self-determination.]


No, if you go to a shitty neigborhood, with all your expensive clothes, you're are provoking danger. It doesn't mean robbers aren't responsible, but you can attract even more danger by your actions.


[If you start justifying rape that way and restricting the way woman's wear, where does it end ? You'll find people who tell you veils are necessary because hair are too sexual, and then other people who think even hands or ankles are sexual so all women need to be dressed in integral veils. I say, you can control your penis.]


Showing all your legs, most of your boobs is universally seen as sexual. Women know it. And when showing it, they definetely want to (or they, at least, accept) men to have "horny" thoughts. Horny thoughs can lead men to rape.


[Also, do you suppose women have no sexual needs ? If I see a beautiful man without a shirt on, and I threaten him with a gun to rape him, is it his fault ? Or is that scenario impossible because men can't get raped ?]


Women can rape men (when they have weapons), but rarely do. Men (that are physically stronger) can do it more easily. So, it's so rare that there's no need for men to do anything. And when women rape, it's most of the time for other reasons than sexual attraction.


[There's a difference between saying "be cautious, don't go there alone at night" and saying "be cautious, never wear a short skirt".]

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


[But by definition it is not her choice to be robbed, assaulted or raped - it was somebody else's, and that person bears the entire fault.]


I never said women dressing like sluts were making "the choice to be raped" or that it's natural that men could rape them in that situation. But, in some situations, women have a (moral) responsibility.

And women dressing sluts are sexualizing themselves, and making them appear as sex objects. Why would a feminist defend the right for women to "dress like sluts", is this how they want women to appear ?


[It is not the woman's fault if she was raped, any more than if you were to go to the gym locker room and got raped by another guy, it would be your fault. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.]

Not comparable. When a woman is dressing like a slut, is drunk, and/or barely conscious when going outta a nightclub, she's putting herself in a situation that could lead to rape. I never said this is how most rapes occurs, but this is also a reality.

Elim Sanctuary #fundie psa91.com

As a human who considers the idea of sex with aliens as abhorrent, I am writing to applaud the Singapore censors for banning the video game that included a sex scene between a female human and a female alien. In fact, I contend that the Singapore authorities have not gone far enough.

Given that sex between 2 humans of the same sex was recently evaluated and deemed criminal (Penal code Section 377A), it's clear that we also need a law criminalising alien-human sexual acts -- which in the unnatural order of things, surely ranks higher (or is that 'lower'?). Not criminalising alien-human sexual acts (which I will henceforth call aliensexual acts) could potentially send Singapore society down a slippery slope to where just because it was legal to have sex with an alien, some might eventually come to find it acceptable for all humans to engage in indecent acts with any other human. Our society must send a strong message now that it will not tolerate such behaviour.

This new law should criminalise ALL aliensexual sex, meaning both heteroaliensexual and homoaliensexual acts. This is important since humankind has never actually encountered any actual extra-terrestrial life and we need to take into consideration that beings from outer space might have more than one sex (even earthworms from Earth do) or some might even have no definable sex (yet still want to have sex for some alien reason). This would certainly confuse matters. Thus a blanket law criminalising ALL human-alien sex would thus be the most pragmatic. Not to mention suitably ‘kiasu’. We can call this law Section 377A-L-I-E-N.

I would urge the MPs and NMPs who spoke so eloquently on the topic of not repealing Section 377A to take up the 377A-L-I-E-N cause. Since it is a cause with obvious parallels to the principles they have already so passionately expressed in Parliament. After all, aliens might actually have straw-like appendages for noses from which they might deliver liquids to their stomachs. Thanks to the fiery speech of one very convincingly human NMP, we know that is something we never, ever want to see... or for that matter to hear about ever again.

Religion has been a very useful partner in ensuring that sexual behaviour other than the norm is deemed abhorrent. It will be harder for us to evoke 2000 year-old Christian values in this fight, since aliensexuality isn’t specifically mentioned in the bible as being a sin, let alone mentioned. But this should not stop us. After all, Jesus himself never once said that sex between 2 men was a sin but churches from Zambia to Korea still consider it a sin of the highest order. And for those (potential) pushy aliensexual activists who might contend that His immaculate conception was by it's nature a form of conception between a terrestrial female and a extra-terrestrial being, that is sacrilege. God is not, I repeat 'NOT', an alien! He is a higher being who does not need a spaceship or a teleportation device to fly from one wild wild west-end of the galaxy to the other like real aliens do.

As for other religions, I am afraid I cannot speak in a qualified manner about them as they are alien to me.

Finally I would like to add that we should not condemn any human or alien who fall in love. 'People Like Them' will surely tend to be creative, talented and of course, adventurous. They would, after all be experiencing something quite literally 'out of this world' on a regular basis. These are qualities we want in our worlds to make them better places and so we should treat these aliensexuals with a mixture of pity and compassion. And while the saying "they are born this way and we are born that way" may take on a whole different meaning once we actually know how aliens are born, it would behove us to put up a straight face, look them in the eye (or all 8 if necessary) and say with conviction that "we are all the same, but you could go to jail if we decide you are too uppity".

Bottom line is we need to make space and outer space for these aliensexuals, while (of course) keeping them branded criminals. That would be a neat 'social contract' which will surely ensure that human-to-human heterosexual sex remains universally (and here we really so mean the whole universe) the only accepted kind of sex until the end of time.

Sheila Wray Gregoire #fundie tolovehonorandvacuum.com

[Post title: "Why God wants us to wait until marriage for sex"]

“Wait until marriage”. If you grew up in the church, you heard that ad infinitum. At every youth retreat. At every youth group activity. It was drilled into us.
Yet few of us did it. In the surveys I took for The Good Girl’s Guide to Great Sex, I found that only about 40% of Christians were virgins on their wedding night. That means that 60% weren’t. And from their responses to the surveys, and from emails I get, it can have profound consequences on your sex life within marriage.

[...]

1. Sex Has A Different Meaning
Here’s the central issue: sex within marriage and sex outside of marriage are two very different things. Within marriage, sex is the combination of a spiritual, emotional, and physical union. It’s everything we are, because we’re committed to one another, and it’s expressing the sum total of that commitment. Outside of marriage, though, sex is primarily physical. It isn’t a spiritual union in the same way because there isn’t real commitment present–even if you are engaged. And so sex takes on a flavor that it really wasn’t intended to have.

[...]

2. Sex Feels Dirty
The other extremely common problem is that sex feels like it’s somehow wrong. When you have sex before you’re married, you know you’re not really supposed to. And so it’s something forbidden. Then, when you do get married, you feel as if you’re always getting second best. It would be so much better if we had waited. And, if you have any sexual problems or sexual issues, you start to feel like it’s all because you had sex beforehand. It would be bliss and we wouldn’t have all these problems if we had waited.

[...]

3. Sex Just Isn’t Good
When you have sex before you’re married, chances are it wasn’t a long, drawn out affair. There likely weren’t candles and flowers and lots of romance, the way you may picture your honeymoon or romantic interludes after you’re married. It was likely rather quick. It wasn’t necessarily something planned; it was something that “just happened”.

But if you both have experienced sex primarily in that way–when it is rushed, and hurried, then it likely became far more for him than it is for you. After all, for women to feel good, we tend to need a lot more time and care. It doesn’t really go well with the whole “getting carried away in the moment” thing.

[...]

4. Sex is No Longer Exciting
One last problem that many people encounter: sex is no longer exciting. I received an email from a man recently who said this:

"Before we were married, my wife (then fiancee) had sex with me all the time. She loved sex! We had a great physical life. Then we got married and it slowly stopped, to the point now where she has completely shut off. I feel as if she sucked me in under false pretences. She was saying, “look how great it’s going to be”, and then she turned into a cold fish. She lied to me!"

I understand the man’s comment, but I have to admit that I was a little perturbed. The man was a Christian, and he was saying that all of this was his wife’s fault, because she advertised something to him that she didn’t then follow through with.

However, sin is exciting. The forbidden has an allure. And so before you’re married, sometimes sex is very exciting. Then you get married, and it’s no longer forbidden. And you start to feel guilty for what you did. So you can begin to shut down.

RejectedDreams #fundie rejecteddreams.deviantart.com

How many times have you heard someone say:"I'm a Christian but..." and then say something unbiblical?
While in their own mind this person might feel the belief they hold is correct, but when compared to what the Bibles teaches-they are in serious conflict and error. So if you are a Christian, yet any of the following sounds like something that you would say;then you need to start paying more attention to what God tells us in His Word and not what the world and its popular opinions say.

Here are a few of the more common "I'm a Christian but..." statements:

-I believe that God used evolution to create life slowly over time.
-I believe that humans evolved from apes or had an ape-like ancestor millions of years ago.
-I believe humans are animals.
-I believe the great flood of Noah is just a story, and never actually happened.
-I believe the Bible isn't to be taken literally.
-I believe the Bible is just a book of stories or fairy tales.
-I believe the Bible is not actually the words of God.
-I believe the Bible was written only by humans;God was not involved.
-I believe the Bible has been rewritten so many times we can't trust it.
-I don't think the Ten Commandments apply to us today.
-I think the church needs to be more "tolerant".
-I believe the Bible has to be updated to fit our modern society.
-I believe some words/messages in the Bible have been changed or "mistranslated".
-I don't think that homosexuality is sin.
-I support homosexual rights.
-I support homosexual "marriage".
-I believe "love is love", regardless of gender.
-I don't have a problem with abortion.
-I don't believe that hell is real.
-I don't believe that God would send anyone to hell.
-I don't believe Satan or demons are real.
-I believe in Wicca.
-I believe in a "mother earth" type of spirit.
-I believe in reincarnation.
-I believe in ghosts("spirits" of dead humans).
-I don't have a problem with witchcraft.
-I think Halloween is just harmless fun.
-I think certain books/movies/games/TV programs that involve witchcraft are harmless fun.
-I don't have a problem with TV programs that blaspheme the name of God or Christianity.
-I think all pornography is normal.
-I think the ACLU is a good organization.
-I believe there are "many paths" to God.
-I believe there is more then one way to find salvation.
-I believe all religions/beliefs serve the same god.
-I think all religions/beliefs are equal.
-I believe God is whatever you want Him/her/it to be.
-I think truth is whatever you want it to be.
-I don't know if God really exists.
-I believe everyone is going to Heaven in the end.
-I believe there is no actual "right" or "wrong".
-I think having sex outside of marriage is perfectly fine.
-I think having sex with someone is okay, just as long as you "love" them.
-I think it's okay to live together with a person and not be married.
-I think divorce is a good thing.

BrendioEEE #sexist #crackpot incels.co

[Experiment] What Exactly Is Losing Your Virginity?

From data I have read, personally, I think a man loses his virginity when he participates in physical sexual relations with a human being, and a female loses her virginity when she loses her sexual innocence, period, in any capacity, because whenever that happens we can correlate negative effects, but how about some hypothetical questions i'd like the answer to.

Question 1: So, obviously you can lose your virginity to a female who doesn't love you or want to be with you, whether that be pity sex, prostitution, rape, etc, but sex toys don't count as losing your virginity because it lacks sentience, or is the fact that it's not a human female? If a fleshlight/sex toy existed in the future that was a genetically cloned part of a females body, fully functioning, whether it be a mouth, a vagina, an ass, etc, but it's not actually a sentient human being, just a cloned body part kept alive and functional for sex using advanced technology, is that losing your virginity?

You would be having sex with a human females mouth/anus/vagina/breasts/etc but there would be no sentience. If the answer is no that doesn't count then let's move onto Question 2.

Question 2: Would having sex with a dead body count as losing your virginity? This is not a cloned human, this is a dead body, a real human body, does it not count because the person is not alive, and if it doesn't count because they're not alive, wouldn't a cloned body part created for sexual purposes count because it actually is alive? Or does it need to be both alive and sentient for it count, and obviously there is no sentience in a dead body.

Question 3: Does having sex with someone who is asleep/passed out/in a coma count as losing your virginity? What if they aren't dreaming and lack sentience? Such as being brain dead? If the answer is yes having sex with someone in this scenario counts, what is the difference between having sex with flesh that is unconscious that is cloned specifically for sexual purposes and having sex with someone who perhaps is passed out and there is minimal brain activity/sentience.

Question 4: Does having sex with an animal count as losing your virginity? If the answer is no, why? Is it because it is not human, or because it is not intelligent, or both? Would having sex with an intelligent animal/an animal that might have an IQ similar to the most lower ends of the human IQ spectrum, such as a dolphin, gorilla, or elephant, etc count? What about a genetically engineered animal that looks exactly like an animal, and has the genetics of an animal, but has been genetically modified to not only have an intelligence similar to ours, but be able to talk and communicate with a voice and your language?

Question 5: Does having sex with a robot/artificial intelligence count as losing your virginity? If the answer is no is it because it's not a human? Is it because it might not be as intelligent as a human? What if it was simulated intelligence and not actually real intelligence (As in an algorithim advanced enough to trick you into believing what you are talking to is intelligent but in reality it isn't), What if it was as intelligent and had a synthentic body that was almost identical to that of a human? If the answer is no this doesn't count, why would you say that when in some cases/scenarios, you may be having sex with a synthetic AI female, and might not even realize it is a synthetic AI female? If you didn't know it was a synth/robot, and genuinely thought it was a human, does that mean you lost your virginity?

What if you thought you lost your virginity in the future and posted about ascending on a future Incel forum, only to find out years later what you ascended with was actually a synthetic AI female, would you be allowed to get back on the forum, @Staff can chime in on this.

Question 6: If the reason why a robot/artificial intelligence/synth doesn't count as losing your virginity is because it is artificial and not real, what about a genetically modified/genetically engineered human/humanoid created from the ground up? This has DNA and, in some cases it may be 100% human? What would be the difference? What about a catgirl/other genetically engineered humanoids? Would they count? Would they only count if they weren't genetically modified to be open to having sex/loving anyone? What is the criteria here?

Question 7: If other intelligence life exists, such as Aliens/Demons/An intelligence species of this realm we are not aware of exists, but they are not human, and you have sex with them, does that count as losing your virginity? If the answer is yes, what would be the difference between that and having sex with an intelligent animal, or an intelligent artificial intelligence/genetically engineered species? What if we find out they we were created through genetic engineering by another species, or other beings that exist were created by a separate species/god like being?

Question 8: If you had sex in Full Dive VR, as in Virtual Reality that is neurally linked with your brain at such a level, that any simulation you experience within it will be in many cases indistinguishable and in some cases even better than reality itself, would that count as losing your virginity? If the answer is no, is it because you would likely be having sex with artificial intelligence and not other humans? Is it because you're not having sex with your own body? What if you meet an actual female in virtual reality, who is connecting to it from somewhere else on earth, and she actually has sex with you in the virtual world and it feels exactly like it would in real life, if not even better? Would that count?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could probably come up with some other scenarios, but I think we might be regurgitating a bit and not discussing anything of worth, please I would love to discuss this further, this may be important philosophically, especially for Inceldom.

Winston #fundie google.com.au

Sweet Sarah: Should 'rape' legalized for married couples?

No offence here, what i mean is say a guy your married to, that you promised yourself too; wants to have sex when he wants, and a woman is not really feeling like she wants sex at that moment.

should the guy be allowed to have sex if she doesn't want?

Winston: Absolutely, women you all need to jump off that special little pedestal you think you belong on. The fact is, is that you're a worthless woman whose entire purpose in life is to breed children and have sex.

A Man doesn't need you for anything else but SEX, that's the agreement so stop fooling yourselves and do what you were made to do or get the eff out.

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Denying God takes effort. So the claim that atheists/evolutionists make that there is no proof of God is bogus. In order to deny God atheists/evolutionists have to:

1) Make up another story for the origin of man such as apes just turing into humans or breeding human descendants when they haven't done that since the beginning of recorded history. That entails volumes and volumes of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole that can't be proven to occur in reality.

2) Changing history and inventing a new history of the Jews to claim that the first man wasn't Adam. That takes a great amount of effort.

3) Making up new events that happened in Jerusalem to claim that Jesus didn't show his divinity through his words and actions.

4) Spending thousands of hours trying to figure out how the earth was formed, particularly since it took, according to evolutionists, man millions of years to think up the "Big Bang."

5) Trying to figure out why all the disciples and apostles would give up their lives for a lie.

6) Claiming there is no intelligent design using contradictory claims that chance causes cause-effect in the universe.

7) Claiming that energy can be converted into mass when energy doesn't contain mass.

8) Claiming that sex between humans is bestiality because they claim that humans are animals; or claiming that bestiality is sex between humans and animals, but denying that sex between humans is bestiality even though evolutionists claim that humans are animals!

9) Atheists claiming that they know better than eye-witnesses what happened at an event that atheists themselves didn't witness.

10) Trying to explain the sedimentary rock layers all over the world in any other way than a flood including a world-wide tsunami.

11) And even with all their effort, no one has still been able to explain the existence of the first living organism, the first plant, or living being. Yet atheists refuse to admit God's existence.

So the above scenarios are deliberate denial of God because they take a tremendous amount of effort to conjure up. Some people spend their whole lives trying to find explanations that deny God. So this shows that not only do humans know that God exists because of the effort they have to put into trying to refute God, but the irrational and contradictory arguments they have to endorse to deny God!

Valerie Bright #fundie exfamily.org

Sex in Heaven!

By Marilyn Monroe

(This message from beyond was received through Valerie Bright.)

(Marilyn Monroe speaking:) Hello, Doll! My name is Marilyn Monroe! Have you seen any of my pictures? Did you like them? I did that all for you, Honey! And I'd do more for you if I had a chance! There isn't anything I wouldn't do for you, my fans, my loved ones, my friends, my family, all those wonderful faces, all you wonderful people, you gorgeous men, all of you who were so good to me and who loved me. I still love you! Can you feel my love? Come on over here a little closer. You remember me -- Marilyn Monroe. Remember some of my pictures? Well, just imagine I'm right there beside you right now, because I am that close to you in the spirit!

Maybe you're feeling lonely, or down, and at the end of your rope. Maybe you just had an argument with your wife or your husband, or you've just received another bill in the mail and there's no way you can pay it. Did you just have a flare-up with your next-door neighbor? I know how you feel, Honey, because there were many days in my life when I was so down and so lonely and at the end of my rope. Every day was so empty of hope, so mundane, so dry. I was so very unhappy, and it seemed that nothing could ever help.

That's why I'm reaching out to you now. That's why I'm speaking to you now from over here, because I know what it's like to be in your shoes. All I can tell you, folks, is to just hang on! You're going to find that Heaven is a place where no one will ever look down on you again. No one will ever hurt you. In Heaven you never hear the words "dumb," "stupid," "slob," or "lazy."

I had a wonderful life that many girls would dream of having, and they would give anything to be like me -- a beautiful star, a glamorous movie actress. But I was a sad child. I missed my mother and father. I really wanted to be a mother and have a family and a happy married life. I wanted a pretty house and a beautiful garden and a dog and a cat. I wanted so much to be loved and understood and cared for by a man who would love me and take care of me and watch over me and protect me. I wanted it so much. But because of my selfishness, my career, my goals, my desire for fame and attention, my desire to have people applaud me and praise me, I didn't give my heart to being a loving mother and wife.

When you have the chance, don't miss the opportunity to put your arm around your wife and tell her she's pretty; or put your arms around your hubby and tell him you love him. Our lives are so short; they're over before we even know it. Any one of you could die today. So if you have a family, a wife, a husband, parents, friends, even your boss, even those at work, I want to tell you that it's time to put down your grudges and your differences and put your arms around one another. If you can do that, a lot of your sadness, your loneliness, your sorrow, your bitterness and your emptiness will disappear. In its place you will find happiness and a renewed joy!

I spent so much of my life alone, in my hotel room, drinking and smoking and mooning and pining over the mistakes I made and the problems of life. I'd hate to see that happen to any of you. Life doesn't have to be like that for anyone, because no matter what anyone tells you, and no matter what anyone does, and no matter what happens in your day, there is Someone who loves you very much. Jesus wants you to know that He is real and that He loves you! Jesus wanted me to tell you that. He said, "Marilyn, you tell them. They know you, Marilyn. They've loved you, they've adored you, they've watched your films, they know you, and they think you're great."

Well, if you thought I was great before, you should see me now! If you thought I was sexy before, you're going to really like what you see when you get here! And you don't have to worry about "unsafe sex" in Heaven, because there are no diseases or hurts or earthly problems here! You won't have to worry about your loved one getting jealous either, because that doesn't happen here. Here we can love each other without envy or jealousy. We can share our love with each other and show our love to each other freely. I promise you, I'm going to give you a lot of love when you get here!

Has that been your dream? Well, I want to make it a dream come true! I can! I can be your dream come true! For those of you who believe in the spirit world and who know it's real and it exists, you know we will meet one day. For those of you who aren't sure, just look at a picture of Jesus and tell Him you love Him, tell Him you need Him in your life, and He won't fail you. He'll bring you safely home to Heaven, home to His arms -- and to my arms, too!

I love you and I'm glad I had a chance to talk to you. I want you to know that I'll be thinking about you. I can see you and I can watch over you, and I'm closer to you than you can imagine. So how do you like having Marilyn Monroe for your guardian angel?

Keep hanging on through life's ups and downs. Think about me and picture me if things get too tough. Jesus is right beside me. I'll pray for you and He will help you. And don't worry about how you picture me. I'm not dressed in a nun's outfit, so don't worry! I've got something on that you will really like! So let your imagination go wild, boys! That's the way I like it, the hotter the better! I'll warm you up when you're feeling lonely and sad. And when you feel that warmth and you feel that smile on your face, just know that it's God's love for you, and thank Jesus for it.

Don't worry, don't be ashamed, don't feel guilty, there's nothing wrong! I want you to be very, very happy, and Jesus wants you to be very, very happy. So let's really have a good time! Let's have a good time living! Just be happy and keep smiling so that I'll know that you're all right. Then I won't have to worry about you.

Are you going to be all right? Is everybody going to be all right? That's good. Here's a big kiss goodbye! And don't forget my promise. I'll see you one day soon and take you in my arms and fulfill all your wildest dreams. That's one of the things I do in Heaven, I keep the boys happy!

I love being sexy and I love sex, and there's no reason why you shouldn't too. But you do have to be more careful there in your present life than you will here in Heaven. Here you won't have any worries or fears about sex, and it will be so wonderful for you. You won't have any inhibitions or problems. You're going to be so happy. And the One you can thank for that is God, because He made it all! He created us to need sex, to want sex, and to enjoy sex.

There is sex in Heaven! That's the good news! That should be the news of the century! That should make headlines in all the newspapers, don't you think?! There is sex in Heaven, folks! We all need sex, you know, because God made us to feel that way.

You won't have any trouble here with impotence or frigidity; those things don't exist here! This is a world of love and loving sex, good and Godly, wonderful, beautiful, thrilling, ecstatic, gorgeous sex! I know, because I've been having sex with these wonderful men up here! You'll have sex too! If you don't think you can understand or accept what I'm saying now, well, don't worry, because like I said, you won't have any problem understanding it once you're here. It's divine and it's wonderful, just the way it should be. It should be that way for you now in your present life, but there has been so much propaganda against sex that hardly anyone can enjoy it to the full without feeling fearful and guilty.

I want you to know that in Heaven sex is looked upon without fear or guilt. It's looked upon as a beautiful, loving communication between a man and a woman. And if you have any problems or inhibitions or just don't know how, well, we'll be able to teach you. That's one of my jobs, I'm happy to say, and there are other very pretty women here who are very willing to be your new sex teachers, and handsome men for you women! Isn't that fun? Won't that be a fun course to enroll in?!

I know you're all interested in sex, so don't pretend you're not! That's why you men all spent so much time looking at me, and at all the other beautiful women! God's creation in the form of a female body always gets top billing. Wait till you get here and see some of the beautiful movies that artistically feature God's creation. We're not inhibited here about our bodies, about being naked, about touching one another and caressing one another.

You won't have any trouble having an erection and keeping it up for as long as you like! You may see a beautiful woman and that's just what might happen! There aren't any inhibitions here! It's a re-learning process -- re-learning that there isn't anything wrong with feeling those sexy feelings. That's why I told you that you're going to be so happy here and it's going to be so wonderful for you. You're going to be able to explode in beautiful orgasms of loving sex with others without fear or condemnation.

You're going to have a beautiful life in Heaven, a beautiful life after death. You're going to have a brand-new life, a brand-new body, and you won't become tired or weary. You women are going to feel so young and so sexy, like you've never felt before. And the men are going to all want you! And you're going to want all the men! That's just the way it's supposed to be. God meant us to love each other and show each other our love by good, Godly, loving sex. You will even be able to fulfill some of your beautiful sexual fantasies! You can make love under water, and in many new and beautiful ways that you don't even know about yet.

If sex feels so good to you now on earth, can you imagine how much better it's going to feel in Heaven?! You can go dancing and romancing and love your honey all night long! You're going to feel so young and virile and sexy, and people here won't condemn you.

Isn't love more wonderful when you feel someone loves you enough to make love to you? Aren't your days brighter and more cheerful, and don't you feel happier when you know someone cares enough and loves you enough to caress every inch of your body? And if you haven't experienced that yet, I want you to know that I'm your girl! I won't let you down, because I love you! You're going to be thrilled to find that not only me, but all the girls and women here are very loving. Like I said, we have a very sexy God!

But don't worry, there isn't going to be any pressure on you. No one's going to expect you to do anything you don't want to do or don't feel like doing. Perhaps you won't even be that interested, and that's just fine too. It's not a competition.

The reason why I've taken this time to talk to you about sex is because not many people have told you that there's sex in Heaven. Hardly anybody knows that, so I thought you'd want to know!

So are you surprised you have a sexy God?! Well, He is sexy, and that's why you feel sexy, too, because He created you in His image! But that's a fairly small part of life in Heaven and the spirit world; there are many more thrills here that are greater than sex. They're waiting for you, and all you have to do is just say "yes" to Jesus! Believe in Him, talk to Him, love Him, need Him and want Him, and one day soon you'll be here with Him. I love you!

Much love, Marilyn.

TimothyRed1990 #fundie youtube.com

"Its a slippery slope, when you start legitimizing sexual perversions in culture, where will it end? there are women who have sex with dogs. So what will be next, animal human marriages? Will animal-human sex be the next thing they want legalized?! and what about the whole NAMBLA/LGBT thing? and after that pedophilia/pederasty rights?! NO! stop it now!"

"look up pederasty on wikipedia, its totally sanctioned by the LGBT! its even a LGBT portal!"

Carico #fundie christianforums.com

Bestiality

Since evolutionists believe that humans are animals, then they must believe that sex between humans is bestiality. Is that correct?

Sorry evo's but everyone knows what a human has to mate with in order to engage in bestiality. So you're not fooling anyone except those who are also fooling themselves, by claiming that humans are animals. Even children can tell the difference bewteen animals and humans and deep down inside, I think evolutionists really can also. So your game is exposed.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

“Equal Rights” for All But Christians"

The Tri-State Freethinkers atheist group in our area of Northern Kentucky-Greater Cincinnati, who say they are “advocates for equal rights,” continue to make it very obvious they don’t want equal rights for Christians.1

Both Christian and secular media outlets have reported on these atheists’ plans that the Tri-State Freethinkers describe this way:

"We have launched an IndieGoGo campaign to fund our billboard that will counter the Ark Encounter grand opening in July. The replica of Noah's Ark is the newest project by Answers in Genesis to promote creationism. While they have a legal right to celebrate their mythology, we find it immoral and highly inappropriate as family entertainment."

Now in the first place, an atheist group has no basis for accusing anyone of being “immoral.” They have no basis for absolute standards—only subjective fallible opinion!

The billboards they plan on putting up in our area will look like this:

image

Note the wording, “Genocide and Incest Park.” Again, how can atheists, who have no basis for any absolute standards accuse anyone with such a moral judgment, such as genocide and incest?

Atheists believe that all life arose by natural processes and that man is just an animal related to all living things. Because they believe humans evolved from some ape-like ancestors, evolving humans, just like animals, would have mated with whomever they wanted, whenever, with no restrictions except whatever they could accomplish for their own desires. And really, from a truly consistent atheistic perspective, that belief would not change for modern humans.

Christians, however, believe that all humans—back to Adam and Eve—are related but only to each other. Also, biblical Christians build relationships according to what our Creator God, the only absolute authority, has determined. Thus marriage, which was invented by God as recorded in Genesis, is for one man for one woman. (Genesis 2:18–25; Matthew 19:4).

Now I encourage you to watch the promotional fund raising video produced by the Tri-State Freethinkers and their president, Jim Helton, who is also the regional director for the American Atheists:

(Video on site)

First, it should be very obvious that ultimately they are not against the Ark project but Christianity and the God of the Bible. They are just using the Ark project as a way of shaking their fist at God. Note how the president of this group throws the Bible, treating it as a contemptible object. I wonder if he would ever do that so publically with the Koran?

Secondly, note his reference to what he calls the Ark Encounter’s “discriminatory hiring practices” and “tax incentives.” He forgot to mention that a federal judge recently ruled that Christian organizations do have equal rights with other organizations under the First Amendment and its free exercise clause. The judge ruled that Answers in Genesis could not be discriminated against to receive Kentucky’s facially neutral tourism tax incentive program.

By the way, Helton does make a point at the end of the video of reminding people that donations to the Tri-State Free Thinkers are tax deductible, and they do state on their website that they are a 501(c)(3) tax deductible, non-profit organization. In other words, they receive benefits from the government by the very nature of their non-profit legal basis!

Helton also failed to mention that the federal judge also ruled that as a religious organization, the Ark Encounter can use religious preference in hiring as legally allowed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’m also sure the American Atheist organization (also non-profit and tax-deductible), which he represents, would discriminate against employing a Bible-believing creationist.

In 2007, an atheist group in Kentucky organized a protest outside the gates of the Creation Museum when it was opened. Their protest only brought more publicity to the Creation Museum and an increasing recognition of these atheists’ intolerance to anything Christian and their rejection of equal rights for Christian groups. I’m sure their latest proposed protest of the opening of the Ark Encounter will likewise bring more attention to this world-class, themed attraction.

THIS GROUP HIGHLIGHTS THE OPEN HOSTILITY AND GROWING AGGRESSIVENESS OF ATHEISTS IN ATTACKING THE BIBLE AND THE GOD WHO REVEALED HIMSELF THROUGH ITS HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS.

Really what these atheists are doing is summed up by one verse of Scripture where we read about those “who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (Romans 1:18).

By exhibiting their intolerance of the Ark Encounter this time, this group highlights the open hostility and growing aggressiveness of atheists in attacking the Bible and the God who revealed Himself through its historical accounts. This particularly highlights the intolerance for the Bible, which itself was the moral framework and foundation of Western political philosophy of liberty and equality.

In 2 Peter 3, the Bible speaks of such scoffers who deliberately reject Creation and the Flood. What we experience from these modern scoffers, must be just a fraction of the scoffing Noah must have endured. All but his own family had rebelled against a Holy God who had every right to mete out righteous judgment because:

"Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." (Genesis 6:5)

The life-size Ark will be the largest timber-frame structure in the world—an engineering and architectural marvel. The scores of exhibit bays inside will be filled with world-class exhibits that I believe will receive rave reviews. This family-friendly facility will open July 7, 2016. For more information on this themed attraction and to purchase tickets, go to ArkEncounter.com.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

Dexter Dawson #fundie youtube.com

(This is a comment on a video titled "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter - Jesus Christ vs The Atheists. I did not bother to read it all, why not you read it?)

Theists and atheists alike are so retarded!
Honestly, all people belonging to both groups are so arrogant, they actually believe they hold the truth of the universe and reality in their hands, they honestly believe they grasped the most important knowledge of all.
Why are there theist and atheist people?
Are they so unbelievably arrogant, that they somehow know anything, anything at all?
First of all, the universe itself may be just a hologram, you have no proof that reality exists, furthermore you have no proof that reality is "real".Think about it.Just think about it for a minute, any creature capable of thinking, of reasoning, of understanding its surroundings, automatically assumes that reality is real, that we can understand all of our environment based just on our senses and concepts, but we don't even have all the tools or the right tools for this.There are animals who can see better than humans, seeing more colors and so on and so forth.
Basically it all comes down to this, what if reality is not real?What if reality is ever changing?Who says that reality is real?What does it mean for reality to be real and why is it important?Who has definite proof that even though reality is real, that is also constant?For all you know, reality constantly changes its own physical laws.
Gravity still can't be explained, actually there are some good arguments that gravity may be not real and it doesn't work the way we assume.If something like gravity may not be real, than what does it say about our lives, about our reality?
Do you have proof that you're real?No you have none.You may think that you have, but is nothing more than an imprinted bias to instantly accept that somehow you are real.Prove to me that you're real.You can talk to me, but for all I know I may be hallucinating, you can touch me, but that can be easily a hallucination too, an optical illusion, people often imagine all sorts of things.You may punch me in the face, but I may be just as easily punch myself in the face while I assume there's someone in front of me doing it(you), while that someone(you) may be just a side-effect of multiple personality disorder(now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder).
See?You can't prove to me that you're real, just like I can't prove it to you that I am real.What reason and proof do you all have to believe that you're real?None, you just instantly buy it, you never even question it?What if I am not real?What reason and proof you have to believe reality exists, that your personal version of reality is real?None, you just immediately accept the reality you see, feel and experience through your senses as being genuine, but you have no proof of that and that's why you never ask yourself?Does the universe exists?Let's assume it does.If it does exist, does the universe still exist as of this moment?What if the universe disappeared and got replaced with a Fake Universe?What about that?And what would that imply?That we are also just as fake as our Fake Universe?How do you know space exist?Have you been outside the planet Earth?If not what is your proof, cause people indoctrinated the idea in your head your whole life, from your family to your school teacher to literally everyone in your life.For all you know, the entire universe may be just a hologramic projection made by some people on earth to make fun of every gullible soul here?Maybe the universe is just planet Earth, you have no definite proof otherwise.And even if you went to space, how do you know it's real?What basis did you have to claim that is genuine?What?Your senses?You mean those senses that are so easily fooled by any optical illusion?Those senses shared by all humans who have and had hallucinations and claimed they meet Satan and other fictional creatures.Are you real?What if you're fake?Maybe you don't exist, or maybe you were replaced with someone who looks exactly like you, thinks exactly like you and acts exactly like you, someone who has the exact same number of atoms and molecules building their body?Do you have any proof that didn't happen?What if it did?Would you be a fake?Would you still be real?What if you were a fake from the moment you were born and only now you've been replaced by the real you?Would you be real then, or a fake?And what does it mean to be real or fake?Can someone be real and fake at the same time?What if you're someone's dream?What if someone else's existence is your dream?Are there real or fake or both or none of those options?
Can you prove that you have a brain inside your head?You can't prove it to yourself, because you have to take your brain out of your head and show it to yourself, can you do that?For all you know you may have shit in your brain and just believe that you have a brain?I can see your brain if I cut you up, if I drill into your head, but you can never do it.So?No human ever can prove to themselves that they possess a brain, they just falsely believe it based on a stupid and fallacious assumption, if everyone has a brain, I must have one too, right?And it's not only stupid and fallacious, but also biased, how can I not be real?I must be, right?
Theists(people who believe in gods and worship them) are just like atheists(people who don't believe in any god), both stupid, retarded, foolishly arrogant and full of hubris, so much pride, every single one of their thoughts and concepts are so fallacious in nature and so easily countered.
Believing in a god or gods is stupid, not believe in any gods is just as stupid.Atheists these days are nothing more than condescending assholes who pretend they hold the ultimate understanding of our world and universe, they are so arrogant in their beliefs they are christian.That's right, atheists are just like christians, nothing more than a bunch of retarded people always claiming to know the truth, always arguing and debating who's right.Richard Dawkings is one of the stupidest people I have ever met, this guy spews so much bullshit, I am surprised he doesn't go on televisions and attempt to convert gullible people to his beliefs.Oh, he actually does like in this video right here.Just like the other guy.His arguments are so childish and unfounded, he doesn't even realize how lackluster they are.You have no proof that a god exists, nor do you have a proof that no god exists?You're just a shitty human just like any other human being that ever lived, is living and is going to live on this planet, you don't know shit, you just like to believe that you know, a common arrogance of all human beings.
Let's assume a god exists, does that automatically mean that he created the universe?No.See how easily I just proved all the debating on this subject and all those who debate it are stupid and retarded.I just erased all meaning in debating anything related to this subject.What if God exists and he just chills around doing nothing but godlike things(we may not know what godlike things are, we are humans after all) and the universe just is, or not?
Nobody knows anything, all the "knowledge" we "discovered", all the information we acquired over the years, all the things we learned are all meaningless, worthless and with no basis in any reality whatsoever.You can't even prove there assumed existance successfully.You can't prove anything, not even your existance or your thoughts for that matter.Are your thoughts real?How do you know they are, are you holding them inside the palm of your hand?Are your thoughts yours to begin with?Maybe they're someone else's?Nobody knows anything, we just assume we know, we just assume we can learn new stuff about our surroundings because we're all arrogant enough to instantly assume reality is a thing and not a concept, or a mere collective hallucination of mankind.
The only 3 ideas that make some sort of sense, the only 3 ideas that are closest to what may actually be, but not what we believe it is, are these:
- agnosticism, acknowledging that you're a worthless human being who has no certain way of ever knowing the answer to this dilemma or any dilemma for that matter
- solipsism, the idea that all reality even the concept of you is just a thought in your mind, or a mind and basically that mind is the only thing being something and all else is nothing
- nihilism, the idea that nothing has a meaning or a purpose and it's all just an accident, or a meaningless course of events

There it is, the only 3 ideas that all people who want to dub themselves as rational must adopt, these concepts aren't exactly real, genuine or true either, we have no way of knowing this or ever knowing this.
But, at the very least these concepts are the closest thing to what may actually be and not what we believe or what we want to believe or what we tell ourselves to believe.
Any other one that is not one of these is stupid, unfounded, can't ever be proven and only believed by stupid people.
Being a theist means being a retard,
Being an atheist means being a retard,
Both are self-righteous believing-in-their-own-bullshit fools
Oh my, my atheists, how foolish you accuse christians of being, but you're exactly if not far more foolish than them.
And I pick on the atheists because this is the new trend of the world, nobody takes christians serious besides themselves.
All atheists are retards.
Why are you all deluding yourselves into believing any bullshit or not believing bullshit?
Is this what you all are, atheists?Nothing more, than a bunch of people who don't believe in the bullshit of another bunch of people?
How can I take any of you seriously?Heck, how can you take yourselves, seriously?
Don't you all realize just how much of a retard every single one of you really is?
Do you really believe that if you're an atheist or a christian that you are smart, intelligent or clever in some way?Don't make me laugh, you're all nothing but posers.
Frauds, that's what all of you are.Nothing but a bunch of nameless sheep who follow the most stupidest and retarded ideas made by humanity ever.You're no smart people, you're no intelligent or wise people, you're nothing more mentally challenged people who waste their lives with what to believe or not believe in.
You are all bottom feeders, nothing more, nothing less.
Idiots, morons, people with shit-for-brains, retards, uneducated by yourselves to actually think for once in your life.
Annoying troglodytes, actually believing themselves to be someone, to have a an understanding of their surroundings, enough to make their own opinions, which are both illogical and irrational.
You are just like in Plato's allegory of the cave, you see the shadows on the wall and come up with the stupidest and most random things to claim and believe and then you go into this crusade for your entire life to prove to others, but mostly to yourselves that you are right, that you do understand "reality", whatever the fuck that is and all just because of your instincts to look for attention and approval, to look for acknowledgement from other retards just like you, to look for their acceptance of you, of the retard known as yourself.
Get your mind out of the gutter, you are not special, you are no unique snowflakes, you are just meat, made out of meat and thinking like meat.
As if being an atheist is closer to the "truth" than any religion.
Retards!
I am just a worthless human being not actually knowing anything or believing my own version of reality is genuine in any way, shape or form.
But I am not arrogant enough and I am reasonable enough to understand that I know nothing and that I don't have a certain way of ever knowing anything, for all I know anything is fake or constantly changing, thus what's real now, will not be real the next moment.
I am just a human being born among these arrogant fools who believe themselves to be gods, since they, apparently, know everything and anything, but they don't actually know shit, no one does.

Grow up.?

Macrocephalus #sexist #moonbat #kinkshaming incels.co

Sex is ubiquitous in today's western world. Sexual promiscuity is not only condoned but encouraged. Some argue that this is just the way things are naturally supposed to work. Actually though, this wasn't the case for a long time. People actually invested little time and resources dealing with sex. It was pretty much took for granted. Most people would eventually become of age, seek a partner through networking in communities (a small village, the church etc.), get married and that was pretty much it. They'll eventually move on to deal with less worldy and animal-like aspects of life rather than sex. It would play a small part in the rest of their existence, and mainly for reproductive reasons.

Ironically this glorification of sex happens in a time where many people are having less sex than their ancestors used to (there are many studies you probably already know, I'll just link one)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex-recession/573949/

By the way this is absolutely consistent with modern sexual dynamics, since of course when a resource is scarce, it becomes fetishized.

This mechanism also features a key characteristic of capitalism, which is unequally allocating resources: on one hand you have attractive people who are so awashed with sex, and take so much pride in succeeding at something so glorified by society, that they make it one of their main focus in life; then you have normies who delude themselves into thinking they'll eventually get to live the same life as attractive people if only they try hard enough and invest enough time/money; and finally on the other spectrum we have incels who are completely deprived of sex, and thus end up making something so worldly, something they were supposed to take for granted, their main source of pain, misery and motivation (or more often, lack thereof)


Quoting from Marx's "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844" regarding the estrangement of labor in the factory based system of production:

As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions – eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up, etc.; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc., are also genuinely human functions. But taken abstractly, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions.

There's only a finite amount of resources (time, money, intellectual capabilities) one can dedicate to a given number of activities. If a mundane activity such as sex ends up absorbing a hefty share of them (either because you're good at it and like indulging in it, or because you can't get any and won't stop brooding about it) there will be less resources to dedicate to something else (e.g. questioning the status quo)

Obviously we now live in a post-industrial society. People are now consumers first, rather than producers. Capitalism has thus switched from exploiting labor, to exploiting consumption. This is where the commodification of sex comes into play. Sex being promoted, advertised, fetishized, and unequally distributed just like any other commodity, only broadens the spectrum of consumption, and the broader it gets, the more there is for capitalism to exploit.
Labor -> Consumption -> Sex.
As a consequence, stemming from the estrangement of labor, WE CAN RIGHTFULLY TALK OF ESTRANGEMENT OF SEX as the main tool to degrade mankind.


What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.

[A picture of Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and then Elliot Rodger]

Shifting SubliminalsHD #magick youtube.com

(tl;dr: Listen to this music video and become a werewolf Mary Sue!)

Dog Shifter Subliminal

Listen at least 3-5 times a day!
This was made as a testing subliminal so I’m unaware if it works or not, let me know your results down below!
I’d say listen upto 3 weeks or 3 months but as I say it hasn’t been used before.

Results you’ll get from listening to this subliminal:
•Become a dog shifter
•Gain dog like instincts
•Shift freely whenever you want
•Have desired fur and eye colour (Only natural colours!!)
•Become desired breed
•Have dog eye colour become your eye colour
•Get increased agility, stamina and senses
•Canines love you
•You can speak human in dog form but humans don’t understand you, only dogs do
•Your DNA turns partly dog
•Your kids carry DNA to shift too
•You can turn others into dog shifters by biting them
•Can digest raw meat and foods dogs are poisonous to (Chocolate, ect) safety
•Vision in dog form is like your human eye sight, no black and white or lack of colour receptors
•Become immune to colds, diseases and simple illnesses
•Shift fully into a dog whenever you wish and as many times as you want
•Dog form is desired gender
•Dog form is desired age
•Shift within seconds

Questions:
•How do I shift?
-You simply start by thinking of your desired dog form and you’ll start shifting. It should take only seconds. You might need to practice shifting by slowly moving to bigger body parts over time.

•Can I have braces while listening?
-No, I wouldn’t recommend this one for you since they’ll brake.

•Can I listen with headphones?
-Yes and No, the audio may seem like a stage with headphones. I’d recommend not using them but if you must keep on a low volume and don’t be frightened by the audios concert like texture.

•Can I listen at night?
-Sure!, any time of the day is suitable for this subliminal there’s no set time to listen.

•Can I just have ears/tail?
-No, this is only a full body shift.

Haven’t answered your question? Leave me them in the comments box and I’ll get to them ASAP! :)

Ray Rooney Jr #fundie afa.net

What I find perverse about homosexuality is the insistence from the gay community that I should know about their sexual proclivities. Normal people understand that sex is an extremely intimate and therefore private act. I would find it troubling, if not disgusting, for anyone to talk publicly about what kind of sex they like to practice. Normal people do not want to broadcast to the world the details of their sex lives. There is something wrong with those who want complete strangers to know who they like to have sex with.

Medical statistics tell me homosexuality is unhealthy. My Christian faith teaches me it is unrighteous. Common sense tells me it is unfruitful and unnatural. But none of that is why I am fed up with the gay community. I’m just sick of hearing about how one group of people demand that everyone in the world accept who they want to have sex with!

…

I wonder if all the stories making the news today about bakers and florists being forced to cater to homosexuals would be stories but for people announcing who they like to have sex with? I mean, did the offended customers come in and ask for a wedding cake or flowers for their wedding and were denied service because they looked like homosexuals? Or did the customer come in and announce their sexual preference and then demand service? I suspect the latter.

I believe homosexuality is wrong. Just like I believe adultery and sex outside of marriage is wrong. But even though I believe I have good reasons for opposing homosexuality as a normative lifestyle based on science, medicine, and faith, that is not why I strongly oppose it. I believe anyone who insists everyone know what they do in their bedroom and with whom is perverse. Normal people do not define themselves solely on the basis of who they are sexually attracted to.

Corey Savage #sexist returnofkings.com

7 Ways Modern Women Treat Men Like Dogs

Corey is an iconoclast and the author of ‘Man’s Fight for Existence’. He believes that the key to life is for men to honour their primal nature.

For all the feminist criticism of men supposedly treating women like dogs, it is actually today’s feminism-infected women that are treating men like domesticated animals.

While the majority of women still prefer masculine men for relationships, I’ve been noticing how more and more women today are defying their biology for ideological reasons and are pursuing long-term relationship with men they’re not even attracted to just because they are supplicant and effeminate. If this trend continues unabated, I expect the entire male population to turn into weak and feckless bonobos who grovel around to serve female interests.

Observe the following comparisons to see how men are being turned into dogs for both women and the state:

1. Dogs are optional

Dogs as pets are optional. People get a dog only when they want one; it’s not a necessity. Men today are also increasingly becoming an object of utility for a woman rather than a man whom she forms a bond with for a nuclear family. She will marry a man when she wants to (if at all) and she will dump him when she feels like it.

2. Once attached, dogs offer unconditional loyalty

If you want a picture of what the feminists want from men, just imagine a world where all men are male feminists.

Once dogs have a human to call a master, it doesn’t care whether he is a scumbag, loser, criminal, or homeless. Dogs are faithful no matter who their master is and what he does. In fact, they’re so loyal that they’ll even remain with an owner that mistreats them. And that’s exactly what feminists want men to be.

If you observe the rhetoric of the feminists, you’ll notice two general themes: first, the desire to be free from all criticisms. And second, for men to believe them and “support” them no matter what. Feminists want their prospective low-testosterone boyfriends and husbands to fully accept them for who they are no matter how disgusting, slutty, crass, and toxic they are. They want their men to show unconditional loyalty so that they can openly cheat on them and brag about it. And men, if they don’t want to be called a misogynist, must never question their partner’s past or present behavior and remain faithful even if they’re treated like garbage.

3. Dogs do what they’re told

Once the owner has secured his dog’s loyalty, he can train it to behave on command. Some owners enjoy the power they have over their companions and they will order their dogs around for fun.

Western women today have discovered that there are truck loads of desperate men who will do just about anything for them to win an ounce of female approval. These women have successfully used men to take them out on expensive dinners (only make fun of them on their blogs afterwards), buy pizza for them for free, shovel snow for them, and so on. The women who order these men around like dogs didn’t even have to train them as they’ve already been conditioned from birth by the society to do what women tells them to do.

4. Dogs are treated for good behavior
image
Dogs need to be treated to reinforce good behavior; the same is true when you want to domesticate men as second-rate citizens.

Women understand just how desperate the general male population is for affection and sex. Women today are leveraging this power over men to make them behave the way they want them to, rewarding these simps with faked compliments so that they’ll continue being good boys.

5. Dogs defend their masters
image
One serves a man, the other serves the government and its harem of women.

Besides companionship, the main roles dogs play is to defend their masters. In spite of all the calls for equality, the reality is that women still expect men to defend and save them. The men suffering from white knight syndrome will go as far as sacrificing their own lives to rescue women they don’t even know.

Feminists also don’t mind that many men are serving the police and military force to serve their alpha boyfriend: the government. Women are innately attracted to power and the government is the new protector and provider of women that grows bigger and stronger each day while ordinary men are becoming weaker and irrelevant.

6. Dogs are neutered

Although men aren’t getting physically neutered the way dogs are, other methods are being employed to psychologically castrate men. This includes the epidemic use of ADHD drugs to tame boys, ridiculous laws aimed at controlling men’s sexual interactions with women, and the overall cultural currents to shame masculinity while promoting all sorts of degeneracy that dilute it. Today’s wives don’t even want to get sexual with their husbands.

7. Dogs that are not domesticated are pests

“Masculine men are organizing a meeting? They must be rapists!”

When a dog is not owned by a human being, it is considered a pest that needs to be controlled.

Men today who do not submit to the feminist agenda are constantly attacked as being losers, sexists, misogynists, rapists, and so on. In today’s feminist society, you either serve the female imperative or you’re a Neanderthal who is out of touch with the times. Steps are already being made to control every aspect of male behavior in public.

You should also remember that dogs are natural pack animals (think of their cousins, wolves). By being removed from the pack, they become isolated and dependent on their masters. Can you see how the same applies for today’s men?

The Differences

In addition to being dogs, men are also expected to serve as drones to keep the feminist nanny-state running.

In spite of all the similarities, there are differences that need to be addressed.

First, unlike dogs whose owners house them and feed them, men are not supported by women. Women are free to throw men away like used tampons or divorce their husbands to extract their cash. If anything, men are usually the ones who must provide for their wives.

Second, whereas dogs are under the responsibility of their owners, men are expected to be fully responsible in all their interactions with women. It is the man’s job to ensure that a woman is giving consent even if both parties are drunk; it is men who must watch over their own behavior to ensure that what they say is non-offensive and conforming; and it is men who must ensure that women feel perfectly safe and comfortable in all their interactions. If you so much as walk past a woman in the wrong manner, you’ll be accused of rape. Again, it is the man’s responsibility to ensure that he is acceptable enough to share the same space as women, not the other way around. Feminists want “equality” without accountability.

Are men becoming collectively domesticated?
image
The domesticated cows we see on farms didn’t end up the way they are now naturally. It was through thousands of years of herding and selective breeding that they became smaller, more passive, and accepting of their conditions. But the fact is, it doesn’t take thousands of years to transform entire species. In this article which I recommend you read, a Soviet project to domesticate foxes have shown that it only takes several generations of selective breeding to transform wild foxes into effeminate and tamed versions of themselves.

The global testosterone level around the world has been mysteriously dropping for the past few decades. While chemical toxins in all the products we consume and come in contact with has been given as one possible explanation, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that we as species are gradually becoming emasculated at a genetic level through the selective breeding process. In other words, we are becoming socially engineered to be effeminate. It’s not something impossible when you consider that easily tamable beta males, the sperm donors, are usually the males women select as their mates after they themselves are done riding the cock-carousel. I think it’s a factor we should consider besides the emasculation through cultural degeneracy that we’re already familiar with.

Men are supposed to be men unleashing their primal energy through raw adventure instead of getting tamed into submission. I have no doubt that the systematic domestication efforts of today is what is causing collective male nihilism, depression, and frustrated energy. Men who are awake must allow themselves be men.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh's book Free Speech Isn't Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Old Man Montgomery #fundie oldmanmontgomery.wordpress.com

[=Authors Note: For the sake of trimming, some of the Bible verses in the original page have been removed=]

From the website of ‘johnshore.com’

These were published and dated December 16, 2010. I have only recently become aware of this ‘movement’ via Facebook. (One never knows what one will find there.) These are referred to as the “Sixteen Tenets of ‘unfundamentalist Christians’ , known also or previously known as ‘ThruWay Christians’. Being the old-fashioned, hard-nosed Bible thumper that I am, I disagree with some facets of this and the conclusions of the entirety.

Of course I have reasons and those reasons are published below. Just for convenience, I numbered the statements, replacing what appeared in my copy as a paragraph ‘dot’.

Just for the record, as the article was dated December 16, 2010, it is entirely possible Mr. Shore has completely changed his mind and recanted this whole document. On the other hand, I just checked Mr. Shore’s last blog entry and he’s still pitching the “UnFund” theme.

Caution: If the reader is not a Christian believer, much of this discussion will seem pointless. Feel free to read on, but if you’re confused, don’t worry, it happens to lots of folks.

Here beings the tenets:

1. Jesus Christ was God incarnate. He performed miracles; as a means of providing for the irrevocable reconciliation of humankind to God he sacrificed himself on the cross; he rose from the dead; he left behind for the benefit of all people the totality of himself in the form of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

So far, I’m in agreement. Jesus is God incarnate; the ‘Son’ who is God Himself. Jesus was executed and killed (no alternatives) on a Roman cross under Roman law. Jesus’ death was the final sacrifice needed to atone for the sin of all people who appeal to Him for forgiveness. Jesus rose from the dead on the third day showing Himself to be God and giving a promise to all of an Eternal life in Heaven with Him. He sent the Third Person of the Godhead, the ‘Holy Spirit’ to believers after His ascension.

2. Christ and Christianity are meant to be understood, appreciated, and experienced as galvanizing inspirations for living a life of love, compassion, fairness, peace, and humility. Period.

Now we’re disagreeing. The primary purpose and function of Christianity is to repair the breach between God and mankind due to mankind’s rebellion and disobedience. Being forgiven by Jesus and redeemed by His sacrifice, mankind can have a direct and proper relationship with God. The qualities of love, compassion, fairness, peace and humility are by-products of that proper relationship, not the primary aim.

Am I splitting hairs here? Not as much as one might think; the matter becomes clearer as we proceed.

3. The Bible is a collection of a great many separate documents written by different people in different languages over thousands of years. Properly understanding both the letter and spirit of the Bible necessarily entails taking into account the historical and cultural contexts that so greatly inform so much of its text. The size, density, history and complexity of the Bible render unfeasible the idea that not one of its words reflects more man’s will than God’s. The spirit of God is inerrant; people—even those impassioned by the conviction that God is speaking directly to or through them—are not.

The one starts out well and descends into heresy. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Books of Moses, the Torah – sometimes Pentateuch, was written in the period between the Exodus from Egypt, around 1400 B. C. to the time of the Babylonian Captivity, around 600 to 530 B. C. (give or take a decade or so.) The book of Revelation, written by John the Apostle was written around 90 A. D. The rest was written somewhere in between, with the possible exception of Job. Job was one of the earliest sections written and may predate Moses. The Bible was assuredly written by at least forty different authors. (For instance, the books of Judges, Kings and Chronicles were written over periods of time and one author could not have written them all; they require accounts from events several hundred years apart. The Torah was more than likely written by a number of scribes with Moses or a later, Babylonian scholar as ‘editor’ and having final input. Genesis is obviously based on oral traditions of the Israelite nation.) The books reflect social conventions and cultural coloring of the times involved.

However, it is the message of Almighty God to humanity. No matter how much a human can foul up, the integrity of the message is based on God’s ability to ensure His message is properly passed on. No human can foul up or outright lie good enough to defeat God’s purpose. So as much as mankind wrote the words on paper (papyrus or whatever), the ‘Word’ (Greek ‘logos’, meaning idea, identity or concept) is that of God. As such, it is inerrant in message.

The idea of the Bible being ‘written by man and therefore possibly distorted’ is an old heresy. It was argued about in the earliest councils trying to settle on the ‘Bible’ and is the basis for several cults who claim to be Christian, but rely on teachings of extra Biblical origin. The heresy also finds much favor among those who wish to discredit any one particular facet of Christian doctrine. Under any version, the idea the Bible isn’t correct means either God really doesn’t care about the message or God is incapable of protecting His own plan. Christians cannot in good faith (no pun intended) accept either alternative.

4. Anyone seeking to mix church and state has failed to understand the nature and proper role of either. Belief that all people are created equal and are deserving of equal protection under the law is foundational to all modern democratic nations. To incorporate the inherently exclusionary imperatives of a particular religion into the determinedly inclusive system of democracy would be to undermine the very spirit of democracy by pushing it toward a theocracy.

This is a pretty silly statement and is highly ignorant of history. The ‘foundational’ belief of people being created equal and deserving equal protection under law is uniquely derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is not found in Islam, Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism or any of the other ‘religions’ of the world. It is Christianity that fostered Democracy, not Democracy that fostered Christianity.

Additionally, it was Christian believers and supporters who founded the United States as a nation with no state religion. The United States was not founded as a ‘Christian nation’, but was indeed begun as a ‘nation of Christians’. To pretend otherwise is to ignore history and to invite serious question as to the point of the discussion. One must also note that all movements to ‘remove’ the influence of Christianity from the United States and civil laws result in the promotion of either Secular Humanism or Islam.

There are no moral vacuums.

5. It’s not possible to read Paul’s New Testament writings and remain unmoved by his open heart, intellectual prowess, and staggering bravery. And yet Paul (who, after all, spent years zealously persecuting and having executed untold numbers of Christians) must remain to us a mortal man. More than reasonable, it is incumbent upon those who claim to seek the deepest knowledge of Christ to subject the words of Paul to the same kinds of objective analysis we would the words of any man daring to describe the qualities, purposes, and desires of God.

This is a gentle, lofty and seemingly reasonable attempt to undermine the message presented by God through Paul the Apostle. What this statement does is deny the Divine inspiration and authorship of the Bible as a whole. It returns to the fore in a moment with more of the ‘villify Paul’ agenda.

6. With regards to the written identity of God, the pronoun “he” is a necessity of the English language, not an actual anatomical designation. God is neither male nor female; God contains all of both.

Again, agreement. In Hebrew, just as in English, the male pronoun unless specifically intended refers to both male and female. Jesus says (John 4:23 and 24)“But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers. God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” Also one notes in Genesis (chapter one, verses 26 and 27)
“Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, after our likeness, so they may rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move on the earth.”
God created humankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them,
male and female he created them.

So, both male and female were (still are, more or less, being distorted from the original model by mankind’s disobedience) created in God’s image; which manifestly means not a physical image, but a mental and spiritual image.

7. The Biblical scholarship supporting the idea that Paul never wrote a word proscribing natural homosexuality is at least as credible and persuasive as the scholarship (if not typical Bible translations) claiming that he did. Any person who uses the words of Paul in the New Testament to “prove” that homosexuality is a sin against God has either never themselves researched the matter, or has simply chosen to believe one set of equal proofs over another. Though laziness is easily enough understood, we remain mystified as to why anyone who purports to follow Jesus would choose to condemn an entire population over choosing to obey Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself.

Here’s the follow up to point 5. Once Paul is ‘questionable’, the condemnation of homosexuality can be dismissed as a personal quirk, or possibly an outright error on the part of Christianity (on the whole).

Here’s the premise of the tenet: Paul either really didn’t mean what he wrote about the practice of homosexuality despite what is clearly written in the original Greek manuscripts and all subsequent translations of the Bible, or Paul was mistaken and therefore not inspired by God. What an amazing statement.

Either God inspired and authored the Bible or not. If one chooses to deny God’s inspiration in part, then the whole becomes suspect. If God was lax in allowing Paul to write and publish errors, then what of the rest of the Bible is trustworthy? Conversely, if God did in fact inspire and author the Bible, then Paul’s writing is equally trustworthy.

Leviticus 18
This entire section (several chapters) deals with sexual sins and prohibitions. In part (I have inserted whole paragraphs to present an in context view):
19 You must not approach a woman in her menstrual impurity to have sexual intercourse with her. 20 You must not have sexual intercourse with the wife of your fellow citizen to become unclean with her. 21 You must not give any of your children as an offering to Molech, so that you do not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord! 22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act. 23 You must not have sexual intercourse with any animal to become defiled with it, and a woman must not stand before an animal to have sexual intercourse with it; it is a perversion.
Leviticus 20
9 “‘If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. He has cursed his
father and mother; his blood guilt is on himself. 10 If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. 11 If a man has sexual intercourse with his father’s wife, he has exposed his father’s nakedness. Both of them must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 12 If a man has sexual intercourse with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. They have committed perversion; their blood guilt is on themselves. 13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves. 14 If a man has sexual intercourse with both a woman and her mother, it is lewdness. Both he and they must be burned to death, so there is no lewdness in your midst. 15 If a man has sexual intercourse with any animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. 16 If a woman approaches any animal to have sexual intercourse with it, you must kill the woman, and the animal must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

These two passages are from the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. One can argue these are part of the Jewish or Mosaic Law and are therefore obsolete; in that case, general adultery, incest and bestiality are also permitted along with homosexual conduct. Or is that the point?

First Timothy 1 (written by that suspect Paul fellow)

8 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers – in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me.

There is a note on the phrase ‘practicing homosexuals’ in verse 10 from the NET Bible: “…this term… ??se?????t?? states, “a male who engages in sexual activity w. a pers. of his own sex, pederast 1 Cor 6:9…of one who assumes the dominant role in same-sex activity, opp. µa?a???…1 Ti 1:10; Pol 5:3. Cp. Ro 1:27.” L&N 88.280 states, “a male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’…It is possible that ??se?????t?? in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with µa?a???, the passive male partner” (cf. 1 Cor 6:9). Since there is a distinction in contemporary usage between sexual orientation and actual behavior, the qualification “practicing” was supplied in the translation…”

First Corinthians 6 (also written by that questionable Paul)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

This last passage strikes me an illuminating. Homosexuals are included in a list of sin categories which include heterosexual sexual sinners, idolaters, adulterers (distinct from ‘sexually immoral heterosexuals), thieves, greedy, drunkards, verbally abusive and swindlers. The phrase ‘verbally abusive’ is rather interesting. The NIV translates it as ‘slanderers’; I think ‘gossips’ might easily fit into the meaning. At any rate, people who say nasty things about others are lumped in with murderers, thieves and the sexually immoral (of any type).

The last verse in the paragraph implies a change of life in those reading the letter. “Some of you … lived… But you were washed… sanctified… justified…” So they were not just forgiven and allowed to continue; they changed their values and life-styles. The same implication applies to the sexually impure; they don’t do that sort of thing anymore; they avoid that sort of thing; they are ashamed of and denounce their own past behavior.

Therefore, the Old Testament writings prohibited homosexual conduct as does the writings of Paul, therefore the New Testament. The words used really do mean homosexual conduct and not just the generic ‘sexual misconduct’.

I’m really curious about the ‘equal scholarship’ which demonstrates what the Bible says isn’t what it means. I’d like to examine the line of thought and arguments.

The statement “…Jesus’ self-proclaimed Greatest Commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself” is incorrect and sloppy scholarship.

Matthew 22:
35 And one of them, an expert in religious law, asked him a question to test him: 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 Jesus 44 said to him, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

This tenet goes past ‘unfundamentalism’ and is squarely non-Christian.

8. It is much more reasonable—and certainly more compassionate—to hold that throughout history God chose to introduce himself in different ways into different cultural streams than it is to believe that there is only one correct way to understand and worship God, and that the punishment for anyone who chooses any but that way is to spend all of eternity having the living flesh seared off of his or her bones.

More reasonable? By who’s standard? As a Christian, the only viewpoint that counts is God’s viewpoint. That ‘viewpoint’ is expressed in the Bible, which is – as noted prior – God’s message to humanity.

More compassionate? To whom? Not to mention under what definition of ‘compassion’? I find no compassion in patting someone in error on the head and say comforting words while allowing them to remain in error at the risk of Eternal Death.

So let’s go along with the idea of God introducing Himself into different cultural streams in different ways. Why would introduce Himself in a totally different manner if He’s the same, Eternal God? For instance, in the sub-continent which is now India, why would God decide not to be the Eternal God of Creation of the Jewish people, but instead be represented by a pantheon of conflicting gods which change over time? Why would Almighty God manifest Himself as the volcano god, demanding virgin sacrifices? Would God happily change Himself into the Great Green Arkleseizure of Viltvodle VI?

Is He still God? Is He bored and just experimenting? Can He not remember who He is, from epoch to epoch?

The idea appeals to the ‘open-minded’ who have no ideas about who God is, or what He should be or do. The concept flies in the face of the ultimate creator of the Universe and all things that exist, who is Eternal and changeless, who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. In other words, God.

Again, not just ‘unfundamentalist’, but not very good thinking and doctrinally non Christian.

9. “No one comes to the Father except through me” does not mean that in the afterlife only Christians can get into heaven. It means that Jesus/God decides who does and doesn’t make it in.

From this one is forced to believe Jesus will not judge between those who accept Him and those who don’t, but instead will judge by ad hoc rules of ‘good behavior’. I say ‘ad hoc’ because no such rules are outlined in the Bible.

All that stuff about believing in the Son and relying on Him in tenet 1 are out the window, then? It is good deeds that really make the difference?

This heresy is remarkably old as well. It predates Christianity, in fact.

Jesus mentioned this concept in Matthew Seven, starting with verse 15:
15 “Watch out for false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves. 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they? 17 In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree is not able to bear bad fruit, nor a bad tree to bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of heaven – only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. 22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do many powerful deeds?’ 23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’
24 “Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, but it did not collapse because it had been founded on rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain fell, the flood came, and the winds beat against that house, and it collapsed; it was utterly destroyed!”
So then, what about “… the one who does the will of my Father in heaven…”? John 15, starting with verse nine makes it clear:
9 “Just as the Father has loved me, I have also loved you; remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments and remain in his love. 11 I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be complete.”

Nowhere in the Bible, nowhere in the quotations of Jesus, nowhere in the letters of the various apostles and elders in Jerusalem is any such doctrine mentioned or taught. In one setting (John 10:14-18), Jesus says,
14 “I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me – 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that do not come from this sheepfold. I must bring them too, and they will listen to my voice, so that there will be one flock and one shepherd. 17 This is why the Father loves me – because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again. 18 No one takes it away from me, but I lay it down of my own free will. I have the authority to lay it down, and I have the authority to take it back again. This commandment I received from my Father.”

Verse 16 is often used to ‘prove’ the heresy of various versions of God and or Jesus running about in human history, showing up in various forms and guises. One fellow seriously suggested it could indicate the existence of extra-terrestrial life. Actually, the statement simply indicates non-Jewish people were included. That’s all.

I personally don’t have any problem with extra-terrestrial life, or any of them being in Heaven. But it will be on the basis of an individual relationship with Jesus Christ.

I am also firmly convinced all the inhabitants of planet Earth will have adequate notice of the person and Deity of Jesus Christ. God is not the sort of being who looks for tiny excuses and ‘foot-faults’ to disqualify anyone from Heaven.

10. The question of whether or not hell is real is properly subsumed by the truth that a moment spent worrying if you’ll be with God in the afterlife is an opportunity missed to be with God in this life.

I agree. There is no point of wondering, let alone worrying, if Hell is real. Jesus talks about it too much to be in doubt. It isn’t pleasant, but it’s there. One is obliged to take note and do something to avoid residence.

11. God’s will and intention is to forgive and teach us, not to judge and punish us.

That is true, but only to a qualified extent. Jesus came to Earth as a mortal man to tell us what to do to avoid Eternal punishment and die in our place to pay the price for our sin. Obviously, God the Father was in on this plan as was the Holy Spirit.

God really does not want anyone to spend Eternity in Hell. However, since all mankind is in the default position of being in rebellion against God, mankind is by default condemned to Eternal Hell.

The words of Jesus in John, chapter three:
16 For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him. 18 The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God. 19 Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed. 21 But the one who practices the truth comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds have been done in God.
God is loving and concerned. God is simultaneously honest and just. God is God and that means – in a long list of other things – He will always conduct Himself as God and be true to His own nature.

There are also a number of references warning that when Jesus returns – ‘The Second Coming’ – He will in fact judge all people according to their alliances.

12. The only person who should be actively endeavoring to convert non-Christians into Christians is God. Jesus does not need our help drawing people towards him. He does need, or could certainly use, our help in making sure that people know that they are, just as they are, loved.

This statement directly contradicts the command of Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-20
16 So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age

Acts 1
6 So when they had gathered together, they began to ask him, “Lord, is this the time when you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He told them, “You are not permitted to know the times or periods that the Father has set by his own authority. 8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the farthest parts of the earth.” 9 After he had said this, while they were watching, he was lifted up and a cloud hid him from their sight.

First Peter 3
15 But set Christ apart as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess. (“Hope” here meaning the expectation of Eternal life with God.)

So in this statement again, the concept is not ‘un-fundamentalist’ but ‘un-Christian’.

13. Getting a divorce is painful, and if at all possible should certainly be avoided. But ultimately the act in and of itself is not immoral.

This statement flatly contradicts Jesus’ teaching on the subject.

Matthew 5
31 “It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19
3 Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” 8 Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!”11 He said to them, “Not everyone can accept this statement, except those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some eunuchs who were that way from birth, and some who were made eunuchs by others, and some who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this should accept it.”

So yes, Jesus said divorce is an immoral act, save for the cause of adultery. Even then, the divorced man or woman is limited in options.

14. God does not want any woman “submitting” to anyone.

Another direct contradiction of Biblical teaching.

Ephesians 5
22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord, 23 because the husband is the head of the wife as also Christ is the head of the church – he himself being the savior of the body. 24 But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her 26 to sanctify her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, 27 so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

Colossians 3
18 Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be embittered against them.

Oh, wait! That’s that questionable Paul again! Since Paul is so very questionable, we can ignore much of his writings – especially the parts about moral conduct, sexual misconduct and general carryings-on.

First Peter 3
1 In the same way, wives, be subject to your own husbands. Then, even if some are disobedient to the word, they will be won over without a word by the way you live, 2 when they see your pure and reverent conduct… like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so. 7 Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers.

That’s the summation of Peter the Apostle. He agrees with Paul the suspect.

15. There were no dinosaurs on Noah’s ark; Jesus didn’t have a pet stegosaurus. An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.

Whooop! Whooop! Whooop! Strawman Alert!
So, just where do we find claims of dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark? Which gospel contains the story of Jesus and His pet stegosaurus? What kind of hairball ploy is this?

Okay, “An all-powerful God and the theory of evolution are not incompatible.” That part is reasonable enough. However, this isn’t a matter of doctrinal distinction; it’s a matter of textual examination.

Dinosaurs on the Ark? Sheesh.

16. The single most telling indicator of a person’s moral character has nothing to do with how they define or worship God, and everything to do with how they treat others.

So, a relationship with God isn’t important; what is important is ‘good deeds’.

Actually, this is a deceptive argument; somewhat strawman in nature. I’ll agree one’s ‘moral character’ is not always dependent on how one defines or worships God. However, one’s moral character has nothing to do with one’s Eternal estate, being in a proper relationship with God and spending Eternity with God in Heaven.

One can be a rotten skunk and be bound for Heaven, or a very decent, clean, honest and honorable person going to Hell.

I know for a fact that my moral character was – for that matter ‘is’ – not always as good and shining as it ought to be. After becoming a Christian, I have sinned grievously, often and cheerfully. But my eternal destination is already secure and in Jesus’ care. As far as God is concerned in Judgment, I am as pure as Jesus.

Which is not to say I’m content in my life that way, or at peace with God. I found I was a jittery, angry, depressed, unsettled maniac; at least some combination of two or three of those. I can hide it well, but it’s there and I am very aware of it.

What happens is this: God works on me to make me into who – the type of person – He wants me to be, fit for Heaven in Eternity.

To conclude:

“Un-fundamentalists” accept the Deity, Sacrifice, Resurrection and Redemptive nature and power of Jesus Christ. However, they also believe God has appeared in other forms and guises, seemingly revealing other versions of Himself. So Jesus really isn’t uniquely God at all.

“Un-fundamentalists” deny the Divinely Inspired nature of the Bible, strip Paul’s writing of authority and accept homosexual misconduct – and by inference, heterosexual misconduct – as both normal and moral.

“Un-fundamentalists” claim the goal of Christianity is to live a good life; ‘good’ being defined by not offending anyone, getting along with all and ignoring Biblical principles if adherence would cause a row.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe Christians should not vote in accordance with Biblical principles. Nor should laws follow the long held traditions of either Judaism or Christianity.

“Un-fundamentalists” do not assume responsibility for evangelism; in fact, evangelism is discouraged.

“Un-fundamentalists” believe God never criticizes or judges human conduct. They believe there is no Hell. After all, God isn’t going to punish anyone for anything anyway.

All things considered, “Un-fundamentalist Christian” is not a properly descriptive phrase. Citing the serious theological and doctrinal differences between this cult and mainstream Christianity, I would suggest perhaps “Nearly Christian” would be a better description. Since the first tenet does recognize Jesus as God, perhaps “Barely Christian” would do.

Now, I know some bright soul is going to jump on me with the Biblical injunction of “Judge not, lest ye be judged”. The statement comes in Matthew 7, starting with the beginning of the chapter. The whole paragraph reads as follows:

1 “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2 For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. 3 Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? 5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. 6 Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.

This whole speech is addressed at being judgmental of other people in regard to their fitness or standing before God. I am not ‘judging’ any person, but a set of beliefs and how they measure up to Christianity, I am not violating any injunction. Indeed, I am following a warning given by John the Revelator in First John 4:

1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now is already in the world.

So I am testing this ‘spirit’, this claim of revelation of God. I find interesting that tenet 1 claims to recognize Jesus as the Son of God in the Flesh, and then denies Jesus’ Deity in most of the subsequent tenets.

Wyatt Junker #fundie libertydwells.com

Listen. If I came from an ape, then I will eat like an ape and F like an ape and pick up a rock and kill like an ape. Its that simple. Why is evolution hard to understand? King of the Fking Mountain, yo. IF, I really believed it. I mean really really really believed it, tomorrow I'd be robbing banks after raping the tellers. Lucky for you and everyone else here, I don't believe I came from apes buttsexing each other, or retards screwing into newer, better mutants with extra cool super powers.

FlyFace #sexist incels.co

Unless they fix ugliness they won’t fix BDD that’s for sure

There is a way to solve this. Monogamy. Not Polygamy, not Hypergamy. We as human males are not animals, the human female certainly is though and should be tamed and house broken so they don't go and start shitting out children. The Foid should have never been given rights or autonomy.. they have ruined society for Men and are trying to gaslight Men into believing that their natural impulses are the cause of their distress and that Femifascism is the one and only thing that can save them from themselves. In reality it is not acting on these impulses, effectively having our own human feelings blocked from becoming reality which is what is causing Mental Strife among Males in our society. If we are not allowed to act on our Human impulses are we really Human? Or are we like a pack mule, destined to slave away for a carrot we will never even have until we have seen it rot in front of our eyes for an excruciating amount of time, which we then have to thank Femiturdism for. Thanks for making it so Carrots have rights now and don't get to be eaten right away.. it is Patriarchy to want to eat after all. If we want that Carrot to taste good that is also Patriarchy because it is forcing the Carrot to take care of itself. You want to eat the Carrot right away? Patriarchy. You aren't entitled to the Carrot tasting fresh.

You might think this is foolish to think of Sex like Food.. but in the Hierarchy of Needs it is on the same tier.

If we can't even fill in the bottom part of the pyramid.. the literal baseline to feeling like a Human, how can we ever build up any kind of life without everything instantly crumbling on top of us? Something Chads get for free everyone else has to slave for.. variances of time are needed for slaving away according to your looks.. but I as a Human Being want what other Human Beings have. I want what they have and I believe I am entitled to it.

Women getting rights has the been the worst social experiment in all of humanity and if it does not stop unforeseen consequences will arise.

Women when it comes to money are Communist.
Women when it comes to sexuality are Fascists.
How the hell does that work? One would think that if someone is Liberal they would be exactly as that statement is.. Liberal, in all facets of life.. not true. There lies the falsehood of Women getting any power whatsoever. They want money(our tax money) but they don't want to give anything back to the people that provide that money. It is a framework for a society that will self explode if not course corrected.

cdevidal #fundie godlikeproductions.com

EvolutionVsGod.com has a free 38 minute film in which various evolutionists such as a PhD/associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA, a PhD/professor of biological sciences and anthropology at USC, a PhD/professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at UCLA and PhD/associate professor of biology at Universiy of Minnesota Morris/famous blogger PZ Myers appear to be stumped by some challenging questions. It's an interesting movie and I recommend you check it out.

In observing responses to the movie, I saw lots of evolutionists mocking but I didn't see one person who answered the questions that apparently stumped the evolutionists. Accusations began to fly: The claim is that in his previous films, the evangelist had edited responses to questions to make the interviewees look bad. Thus the claim is that the stumped evolutionists in this film had simply been edited unfairly.

To which I replied, "OK, I'm sure we'll see a statement from PZ Myers soon explaining how he was misrepresented*, but what about you? Can you answer the questions?" The response often was, "What were the questions?"

Me: "I hadn't written them down so I didn't recall them. But you can see them again if you watch the movie."

Them: "No, I'm not watching that (blankety-blank)." (Which sounds dishonest, but I'll let that pass for now.)


* PZ Myers did claim he was misrepresented: [link to freethoughtblogs.com] But without substantiation. If he gave fuller answers during the interview, I'd like to see them, but he did not: [link to www.google.com (secure)]


So I promised to write down the questions from the film. And by the way, I don't pass any judgment on the quality of these questions. Maybe they're fallacious, and you can help demonstrate that. But before you answer, some simple rules to keep everyone honest.

RULES
* You must give a direct answer to every question or you've failed. Yes, some questions appear to be repeats but please answer them all as they are all slightly different.

* If you give an answer such as "It's not possible to know that" (or something similar) to any question you fail to demonstrate the validity of your worldview. Try harder before posting.

* You agree to the principles in this flowchart or you've failed: [link to www.jacoballee.com]

* You may not commit any logical fallacies or you've failed. Here is a list of some well-known fallacies. [link to www.informationisbeautiful.net] There may be others that I am not currently aware of.


If you don't agree with these rules, don't answer. If Darwinian macro evolution does occur in nature, these questions can be answered without resorting to cheating or underhanded rhetoric to uphold it. Right? I'm sure you'll agree these are fair rules.

Items beginning with an asterisk '*' are questions, and items beginning with an equal sign '=' are important statements which do not require an answer, but which inform the next question, so they must be read and understood.

OK, go!


= "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

= "Live Science" says of Darwinian evolution: "It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales."

* Do you believe in evolution?

* Do you think it's a belief?

* When did you start to believe?

* Are you a strong believer in evolution?

= A scientific method is based on "the collection of data through observation and experimentation..." ~Science Daily

* Could you give me some observable evidence that evolution is true? Something I don't have to receive by faith. Remember, events that occured 65 million years ago can't be observed. If you say "fossil record," please be specific: Give one example.

= "We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on." ~Richard Dawkins

= "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages..." ~Charles Darwin

* You've got the the canine 'kind' with the coyote and the domestic dog, and there's the feline 'kind' which is the cats, the tiger and the kitten and you've got humankind. So, Darwin said there would be a change of 'kinds' over many years so could you give me one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kinds'? I don't want something I have to accept by faith. I want it to be observable. I don't want to have to have faith in the experts, I want to observe it myself. Can you give one example of observable evidence of a change of 'kind'?

* Did we have lungs or gills when we came out of the sea?

* The scientific method must be observable and repeatable, so could you give me one piece of observable evidence for Darwinian evolution, not adaptation or speciation, but a change of kinds? If you say "stickleback fish", you must specify what other 'kind' have they become. These have remained as fish. Remember, Lenski's bacteria are still bacteria. The Galapagos finches are still finches. Their change in beak is adaptation, not Darwinian evolution. There's no different animal involved. I want something which shows me Darwin's belief in the change of kinds is scientific. Can you give me anything that I can see, observe, and test, which is the scientific method, for Darwinian evolution which is a change of kinds, so that I don't have to exercise faith?

* If you cannot offer any observable evidence for Darwinian (macro, change in 'kind') evolution, how do you know it's true?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to give observable evidence of a change in 'kind'. Therefore, Darwinian evolution (a change in 'kind') is un-observable. You need millions of years. If Darwinian evolution is not observable, is it scientific?

* You're trusting that the biology majors and professors know what they're talking about and they can't even give evidence of a change of kinds. Do you realize that's called 'blind faith'? Remember, "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence." ~Richard Dawkins

* Do you believe in intelligent design?

* How would you make a rose? A rose has a seed so you've got to start from nothing. Could you make a rose from nothing?

* No professor or biology major in the film was able to claim they were able to make a rose from nothing. For the purposes of this thread, I am going to assume you cannot, either. So if you say there is no intelligent design, where does that leave you on the scale of intelligence if you can't even make a rose?

= "The coccyx vertebrae is an extremely important source of attachment for tendons, ligaments and muscles..." ~Laser Spine Institute

= For years, the appendix "...was credited with very little physiological function. We now know, however, that the appendix serves an important role in the fetus and in young adults... Among adult humans, the appendix is now thought to be involved primarily in immune functions." ~Scientific American

= My note: This link discusses erector pili/most body hair and male nipples. [link to www.livescience.com] As a married man I have found a use for male nipples. If you know what I mean. (Ahem.) And I can certainly see that the organ would likely be present on a baby in the womb before its sex is selected with hormones, as the genetalia are identical before selection. Erector pili/most body hair I'm not so certain about. It's hardly earth-shattering evidence but I would like to read more. The first thought that comes to mind is that they're useful for sweat and a slight amount of warmth.

* So could you give me an example of vestigial organs? (I believe it is implied he is asking about human organs.)

* Skeptic websites often examples of famous atheists in an attempt to win converts. But more often than not, the famous personalities cited are not atheists. Aside from Earnest Hemingway (listed in the video), Can you think of any famous atheists which you can validate have never made a statement attesting to their belief in a deity? (At 18:32 in the video, quotes from Abraham Lincoln, Carl Sagan, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dawrwin show clearly they are/were not atheists. For the sake of brevity I will not list them here.)

= No professor or biology major in the film was able to give an example of a famous atheist. Ray said, "It is important to know that even though some of these men claim to believe in God, that doesn't mean they are believers in the one true Creator revealed in the Scriptures, or that they're genuine Christians. However, when atheists use theists or agnostics to promote their godless agenda, they're being dishonest. Then again, coming from those who claim that morality is relative to each person, convenient dishonesty should not be a surprise."

* Do you believe in moral absolutes?

* Is rape always wrong?

= PZ Myers essentially answered yes, so the evangelist stated therefore there are moral absolutes.

* So who makes the rules?

* PZ Myers stated that we make the rules. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So if Hitler made the rules and he had the majority, he makes the rules?

= "Evolution is a very harsh and cruel process." ~PZ Myers

* Did Hitler put into practice survival of the fittest? Such as the lion eating the antelope.

* Your pet dog (or insert other beloved pet) and your rotten neighbor are drowning. You can only save one of them. Which would you save?

* The biology majors all chose to save the dog. I am going to assume you will say the same. If you did not, no need to answer this question, just ponder it: So you think dogs are more valuable than human beings?

= "Any fetus is less human than an adult pig." ~Richard Dawkins

* If you believe in evolution it's just a matter of survival of the fittest. Your neighbor's a primate and you've got a canine, and you like the canine more than you like the primate. If the grouchy neighbor drowns, he drowns. Survival of the fittest. Would that be correct?

* Are you an atheist who thinks God doesn't exist?

* An atheist in the movie stated that after we die we cease to exist. Ray Comfort said, "If you were a car and your motor were turned off that would be right, that's inanimate. But you're a living, biological human being with the life of God in you. .. Is there no life in you?" Atheist: "Yes there's life in me." "That's your soul." If you agree with the atheist, how do you know?

* Are you a good person? If there's a heaven, will you make it there?

* How many lies have you told in your whole life?

* What would you call me if I told lots of lies? You'd call me a liar, wouldn't you?

* So what does that make you if you've told lies?

* Have you ever stolen anything in your whole life even if it's small?

* That's called theft. So what are you?

* Have you ever used God's name in vain?

= That's called blasphemy, and it's very serious to use God's name as a cuss word. One atheist said he doesn't believe in God so it's not blaspheming. Ray responded, "Well, if I don't believe in certain laws and still violate them, ignorance of the law is no excuse. So we're still guilty even though we deny a law exists or even don't know about it."

* Jesus said that if you look upon a woman with lust in your heart you've committed adultery. Have you ever looked at another person with lust, such as with pornography?

= If you answered yes to those questions (and I don't know anyone who honestly can't answer anything but yes, myself included), to quote the evangelist, "then by your own admission you're a lying, theiving, blasphemous adulterer-at-heart, and that's only four of the Ten Commandments. Just not believing in hell won't make it go away. A judge must see that justice is done if he's a good judge, and it's the same with God. If we die in our sins God will give us justice. The Bible says that no theif, no liar, no fornicator, no blasphemer, no adulterer will inherit the kingdom of God. So if you died in your sins but God gave you justice, because He's holy and perfect morally, you'd end up in hell, and I'd hate that to happen to you."

* Would you sell one of your eyes for one million dollars? Both for 100 million dollars?

= Most would say "no." Your eyes are precious to you. How much more precious is your life?

= "Now let me tell you something you know intuitively. You know that creation is proof of the Creator, God has given you that inner light. So when you look at the genius of God's creative hand, you know God exists because of creation, and the reason you choose evolution is because it gets rid of moral accountability. Evolution lets you believe that lust and theiving are just primal instincts; You're just an animal. The Bible demands moral accountability and says those things are wrong and that's why it's not acceptable to you. That's why you're not seeking after truth. Am I wrong?" ~Ray Comfort (The biology major sighed, paused, and said, "I think you're wrong.")

= "You are a unique human being, made in the image of God with a sense of justice and truth and righteousness. God gave you a conscience. It's inherent. It's shaped by society but it's inherent. You know right from wrong. You've violated His law and I don't want you to end up in hell."

= To a struggling college student: "James, if you put your finger on it, and see if we can, your struggle at the moment is because of your love for sin, because of the pleasure that sin gives you and you don't want to give it up. You're like a man with a money belt filled with gold who's just fallen into the ocean. I'm saying, if you don't get rid of that belt which weighs 80 pounds it's going to take you under. Doesn't matter how much pleasure it gives you, it's not worth losing your life for."

= To a college professor: "You're not a beast. You're a human being created by God in His image with dignity and worth and purpose."

* Do you know what God did for guilty sinners so we wouldn't have to go to hell?

= "God became a human being 2,000 years ago, Jesus of Nazareth, and He suffered and died on a cross, taking the punishment for the sin of the world. You and I violated God's law and Jesus paid our fine. That means God can legally dismiss our case because of the suffering, death and resurrection of the Savior. God can say, 'You're out of here' because someone paid your fine." ~Ray Comfort

= "And then what God can now do is clothe us in the righteousness of Christ, so on Judgment Day you're safe from God's wrath and His justice, because of the death and resurrection of the Savior. If you repent and trust in Him, God will give you a righteous standing in His eyes. He'll wash away your sins in an instant, and He'll grant you everlasting life. His last words on the cross were, 'It is finished.' In other words the debt has been paid. He came to take our punishment upon Himself. So because our fine was paid by another, God can legally dismiss your case." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense? (He was not asking if they believed it, just if the statements made a logical connection.)

* When are you going to die?

= "God knows the exact moment of your death. It could be today, it could be tomorrow. I'm not using scare tactics, this is just straight reality. 150,000 people die every 24 hours, and they were no doubt all making plans for next week, so please think about this." ~Ray Comfort

= "I'm not talking about a religion that says you have to strive to get to heaven, I'm telling you that the Bible says heaven is a free gift of God. You cannot earn everlasting life, doesn't matter how religious you are, how good you are. 'God commended His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.' And then he rose from the dead and defeated death." ~Ray Comfort

= "This is how the Bible puts it: 'For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' So eternal life is a free gift of God, and it comes because of God's mercy not because of anything we do." ~Ray Comfort

* Does that make sense?

= "I've been reading the Bible at home for over 40 years. There's no mistakes in it. Any mistakes that we think are in it are our mistakes, and you can trust God's Word. Think of how you trust professors and science books that tell you you're a primate? You trust and believe that so how much more should you trust a God who cannot lie?" ~Ray Comfort

* Are you going to think about this?

= "Soften your heart. Don't have so much blind faith in what science tells you and it's left you without any knowledge of what was in the beginning anyway. You haven't got a clue where you come from, you don't know what you're doing here on earth and you don't know what happens after you die."

* Could you be wrong about God's existence?

= An atheist responded, "Yes, but could you be wrong about God's existence?" "No." "Well then I think you're rather closed-minded." "Well if I said to you, could you be wrong about your wife's existence you'd say, "No, I know her. Don't be ridiculous. I know her and love her. And I know the Lord and I love the Lord, and He transformed my life 41 years ago, instantly, overnight, forgave my sins and gave me new desires when I had no desires or thoughts of God for the whole 22 years before I was a Christian."

= "The problem with those who are unable to see evolution, I think, is they don't have imaginations." ~Gail E. Kennedy, PhD, Associate college professor of Anthropology at UCLA

= "Human beings are still fish." ~PZ Myers

* Are you a talking primate?

* Are you a cousin of bananas?

= "I'm accepting that they did their science correctly." ~Biology major

= "I'm going to trust what those experts did, those experts came up with." ~Physics major

= "Darwinian evolution rests on faith. And once again, according to Richard Dawkins, 'Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.' Darwinian evolution requires great faith. The knowledge of God, however, is clearly seen by all mankind. 'For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools.' (Romans 1:20-22)" ~Ray Comfort

Note to newcomers Despite the name, this is not a Christian website. It is simply a good forum for discussion because one does not need an account to post. (You can remain anonymous.)

Usagicho #sexist reddit.com

Yes 2d is better. Much better.

That kindness you speak of is non existant for many people.I am 30, I have been in only 5 relationships 2 long terms ones and only 1 was worth it and that was in highschool. We acted like a team. Helping eachother with chores, studies waking up to random talks at 2am. Sex was great as we both explored our sexuality with eachother. Never met someone like her again after she moved for college.

Most Real girls/women/ladies/females whatever your preferred term is I have been with have only lied, cheated, stole or manipulated. One even tried to ruin my relationship with my roomate.

Its hard to explain. Especially without sounding at least kind of pathetic. Real girls can never be anything but themselves. A 2d anime girl can be whatever you want... That sounds bad.. Controlling even....

Okay. Say someone asked you to help with dinner. you dont want to, you had your own rough day. You do it but hesitantly or without enthusiasm. That shows and no one wants to put their SO out there like that. Sometimes that feeling can last a week. so its a week of possible tension.

(disclaimer: not saying men are better in anyway)

but with a 2d girl she will throw on a maid cosplay bend over forward ever so slightly so she is looking up at your face and say "Everything is okay, leave it to me, I will do my best!" I can indulge without making anyone uncomftorable or giving anyone more work or request something they dont want to do.

I have 2d fetishes because IRL fetishes suck. I can have a 2d foot fetish without worrying about hygiene or medical/science stuff that ruins it. Plus attitude. 2d anime girls always have the appropriate attitude, skills, or ability (this last one applies to the fantasy of it obviously). Where as real girls can lack confidence or attitude. Not to mention I avoid the judgements afterwords. a 2d girl never judges mocks or tells other people what I like for laughs.

SEX TALK WARNING

Example: Say people go to have anal sex. It is not as simple to do as vaginal sex. Lots to think and worry about. Pain and mess being at the top. You have to think about that with a real girl. How comftorable is she, am i hurting her, is she doing this because i seemed like i really wanted it, did i pressure her without realizing etc.

2d anime girl would practically live for that.

Its a mental weight off the shoulders knowing I can just indulge without worry or needing a mop(not ever actually needed just me trying to be funny)...

Basically 2d girls are better because they dont exist. They wont steal your credit card ,they dont have their own life to worry about, they dont make you feel like you wasted 3 years of your life or make you question your own confidence. They are a fantasy that exists purely to make you smile.

This next one is rather complicated fo me to put into words... Its lke if you took all the "disrespect" (in quotations because disrespect is subjective but to simplify think of it like seeing real girls only for sex) and focused that on a drawing.

That sexual lust that would make you ignore the personality of the real girl can be targeted to a 2d girl. Like a sexual lightning rod. So now that your lust has a target you can focus more on what the girl is actually like.

And most people suck. We only (from experience) see the world depending on our emotions or logic. example: someone lonely will be fin with abuse. If we take away what changes our perception we are left with the reality of what we are looking at. So many emotions that can be targeted to 2d girls leave room for clarity when engaing in real social situations.

I find mixing in asmr/binaural recording or audio dojins to be mentally refreshing. With 2d anime girls I get the visual, with what i just mentioned I get the audio and lastly with adult toys I get the feeling. All of which can be suited to whatever I like. Maybe i want a 2d girl to throw on a strap on maybe i want footplay or just a walk in the park. The illusion of resting on a lap.. It can all be achieved using other stimulants.

Most things people do like shopping, banking or cleaning can be done by an individual. Most relationships outside procreation have little to no meaning. Its all science telling us to mate. 2d girls and technology act like a placebo in that regards.

Basically if you can "trick" yourself/instincts into making it seem like you are not alone there is no need for other people. You avoid the physical, emotional, financial pain while saving your time for you.

TLDR

2d girls are better because fantasy is better than reality.

Othmar #racist stormfront.org

Since you asked for politeness, I won't make any comments about your typically female attention-whoring. Let's begin with point A :

Race is not only skin color. Race consists of all inherited (expressed or recessive) characteristics that are commonly found in a given human (or animal) subgroup and are therefore distinctive. A common lie of anti-racist propagandists consists in reducing race to skin color so as to make it appear as something superficial and unessential; but actually, there are considerable race differences in intelligence and character (due to gene differences between races) which are reflected in human history and in the daily life of multiracial societies. That's why we are racist.

Intelligence lies mainly in genes and to a small extent in environment. Genes, including intelligence genes, are not randomly distributed, and that's why there are race differences in intelligence.

According to the evolution theory, we've once had the same skin color (even though there is a controversy regarding the exact timing of the separation of homo sapiens races, some believe that they evolved from already separated homo erectus races and some believe that we all came out of Africa as homo sapiens). But anyway; according to the same theory, a long time ago, our ancestors were not even humans, they were animals. Should this mean that we should not care whether a living being is an animal or a human? Should we advocate equality between humans and animals, and even legalize consensual human-animal sex? It just doesn't make sense.

Evolution doesn't take place through "parenting" (there is no such thing as a hereditary memory) but through :

- natural selection (the weakest die, those with a specific characteristic which make them better adapted to their environment survive).
- sexual selection (those who mate transmit their characteristics to their offspring, those who don't mate do not).

Nowadays, natural selection in humans is weakening due to technological progress but sexual selection still takes place (in the wrong direction, as stupid people tend to have more children).

Because there is no such thing as inherited moral standards (notwithstanding the fact that morality is subjective and volatile), even though people from different races do TEND to behave and think differently (with exceptions on the margin).

Groups based on inheritance are relevant because when you build a house, you want to give it to your children, to those who share your blood and not to some aliens sharing your "moral standards" or even your "intelligence".

This is due to biological imperatives (living beings seek to perpetuate themselves), hence the fact that our racism is based on inheritance-based groups (for example : White people) rather than strictly characteristic-based groups (for example : all intelligent people). Otherwise, our racism would be purely idealistic, without a grasp on reality. But if we seized the power, we would try to develop positive characteristics such as intelligence in White people through an eugenics agenda.

To make people more intelligent, there is nothing better than deporting non-Whites, since they are far less intelligent than Whites on average. The next step is eugenics among whites themselves.

As a matter of fact, one of the main vectors of epidemias is immigration (as we can see with the current ebola epidemia in West Africa)...

Myluminaryking #fundie myluminaryking.tumblr.com

AQ

1. Q. Why do you comparing people who hate pedophiles with people who killed millions of people?

A. I do not compare pedohaters to Nazis by a number of victims. I comparing their believes. Nazis didn’t kill so many people until they come to power in 1933, and Holocaust was started only in 1941. But it’s obvious that pedohaters want to exterminate people they hate, just like Nazis wanted to exterminate people they hated.

2. Q. My sister, friend, relative was forced to have sex…

A. Just like you can’t hate gays because some people was raped in prison (and sex was completely homosexual), you cannot accuse all pedophiles, because of children raped by abusive adults (not necessary even pedos)

...


5. Q. Why do you compare sex to an ice cream? Eating ice cream is not a life-affecting choice.

A. Sex is not a life-affecting choice too. And the reason why do you believe it is, lies in you cultural background and moral believes. Like in some cultures you cannot touch a child’s head, because “you will suck his memories” or like-wise bullshit. Your believe that sex is harmful or important has the same meaning and reasons, literally - it’s a bullshit.

6. Q. Why do your grammar sucks?

A. English is not my native language, and I never learn it’s grammar. I just read texts and watch movies, never do any studies. But I will be grateful if you will show me most common errors, so I can avoid them in future.

7. Q. Sex is harmful for minors. It’s a scientifically proved?

A. Sex is not harmful for minors. And it was never proved scientifically. What traumatize
children is social attitudes, taboo and shame around it. Therefore, not pedophiles are ones who makes harm to children, but people spreading irrational believes regarding sex. Because of that I call them pedohaters and drawing them like monsters, because they really are.

8. Q. How child can decide to have sex. He don’t understand the consequences?

A. As I said sex is not something that is too important. You cannot have trauma from willing sex, unless you will be brainwashed to believe it was wrong, that is how social attitudes to some actions are causing harm rather than actions itself. Though anything in this world have it’s one consequences. Like you can be poisoned from an ice cream, or you can be harmed from eating it too lot. That is why children needs us, adults, so we can watch out for them to not allow them do anything dangerous or harmful. Certain risks in sex likes pregnancy risk or STDs should be prevented of course, but it’s not a child’s responsibility.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

Re: I just found out that my crush, the love of my entire life, is Chad’a slut. I didn’t want to be blackpilled but now I have no choice.

(HiImIncel)

I am a broken man right now.

I’ve known for some time that I’m not the most aesthetically pleasing of men. I’m short and naturally very skinny and scrawny. I’ve never had female attention like peers. I’ve known about this subreddit for a year now but I was always hesitant to follow your beliefs. This was because of one reason: her.

I’ve loved this girl for as long as I’ve known her. If I’m being real with myself, a big part of why is because I saw her as equal to me- both lookswise and personality-wise. She’s chubby and like they always say, “the equivalent of a short man is a fat woman”. I figured that like me, she didn’t get a lot of attention from the opposite sex so I truly thought I had a chance. Besides that, she was extremely sweet, really funny, pretty in the face [but I personally loved her body too] and loved the same shit I loved. We would watch seasons of anime together in a day’s time and she owned even more comics than me. She never missed a single con and hand-made her own cosplays. She was a geek, she was different from the rest. At least that’s what I thought.

When we were hanging out today, she gave me her phone to look something up while she went to cook some food. After a few minutes, a message popped up from this dude who’s in one of our courses. I knew it was him because he has a unique name. Tall as fuck, mixed-race, fit, good looking. I was confused because I never saw them interact at all. Out of curiosity I opened up the message:

“Such a dirty girl”.

This might have been wrong but I scrolled through the rest of their messages. What I saw and read made me sick to my stomach. Pics of her tits and ass, her telling him “I miss the feeling of your fucking big cock inside me”, telling him how perfect his cum tastes, him saying “you’re the tightest pussy I’ve fucked, I can’t stop fucking you”. I stopped at a point because I thought I would throw up on the spot, literally light headed. I pulled myself together enough to bullshit her by saying that I forgot I had a test I need to study for (even though we have the same major so the same classes). She didn’t buy it but I was insistent on needing to leave, and I did.

I feel like a shell of a person. I have no choice but to be Blackpilled at this point. Even the most “not like other girls” girl is JUST like other girls. I’m not looking forward to seeing her in class on Monday.

I love these stories, because they show the part women don't show to the world. It's also why I love the internet. You get to see what people are really like. When I first stumbled upon incel stuff, I really liked IncelTears because it was a great LifeFuel. But then I went and searched through the other comments from the people int that sub (the comments they made on other subs, you know, when they were not virtue signaling), and it was filled with BlackPills.

For example, I'm going to IncelTeras right now and find a double face bitch. One second.

Ok, I found one on random. The user is mermaid_mama_2015, she posted a comment in IT 11 hours ago https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/bmz54t/he_saw_chad_and_couldnt_stop_staring_at_him/en1frkd/?context=3

She has previously virtue signaled stuff like:

"This. I had plenty of guys wanting to have sex with me in my 20s, but I wanted a meaningful relationship, and because I was naturally flirty and very pretty, none of them really considered me for that. Got passed over so many times, I was intolerably lonely."

"I know, right? My nerdy friends circle is full of guys like that."

"Word. Like, yeah, I had sex sometimes on my 20s."

"The only man I had casual coital sex with was ...."

She also has comments where she talks about how hard it was having ADHD, and how never had many friends, and how she was always a nerd and awkward, etc etc. I know right, sounds like a damsel in distress, poor girl.

But then, if you dig further into her profile you find comment like these:

"Sure, he had an absolutely massive cock and it was pretty much the reason I agreed to fuck him"

"You sound like I did at 28, after three solid years of orgies, casual non-coital sex and a messy relationship that never quite got off the ground"

Remember I found this just right now. The real BlackPill is what people don't say. The stuff they do is the Real BlackPill and the internet is good for finding what these "virtue signalers" are really are like inside.

Youre mad that she....... has sex?? Whats your point

He JUST became a BlackPill, give him some time. He's still a bit shocked that the girl that made everyone think shes a virgin, a fat shy girl that can't talk to guys and doesn't have high standards, was riding Chad's cock (on the low) like an equestrian about to win the Kentucky Derby. Eventually seeing "virgins", the "I don;t date assholes" and the "I'm not like other girls" girls orbiting Chad's cock will become so common to him, that he won't even notice anymore, like all of us.

(Thinkandfeel)

Brutal realisation that almost all "not like the other girls" are deep down like the other girls and just try to be perceived different because they can´t compete with classic Stacys. The few Stacy tier "not like the other girls" are usually fucked up mentally and try to compensate for that with this whole charade.

When it comes to mating, except a few ultra rare ones everyone be it male or female ticks in the same way.

(BlueBombr)

"This. I had plenty of guys wanting to have sex with me in my 20s, but I wanted a meaningful relationship, and because I was naturally flirty and very pretty, none of them really considered me for that. Got passed over so many times, I was intolerably lonely."

Absolutely meme gender. She kept going after Chads and Chadlites and got depressed because they didn't want to commit to her and instead pumped and dumped. Meanwhile her looksmatch probably roped, because she refused to give him the time of day, preferring to chase the cock carusel.

(UsualSuggestion)

All women are degenerate cumdumpster trash.

They play innocent so that dumbfucks white knight and pine after them.

If you can't get a virgin you shouldn't play the game.

(mytrollaccount12)

Getting a virgin is impossible. Even the ones that say "I want to save myself for marriage" will eventually succumb to Chad's dick. There's only a small percentage that will actually save themselves for marriage and those are the ones that I actually respect.

Laelaps_dracos #conspiracy reddit.com

What if I told you that all the power the PC seem to have is nothing more than a superficial construct? They would have you believe that they are in control of the social media and everyone is on their side.

But that’s not true. Political Correctness is its own biggest lie. They make you think they can: destroy your reputation if you say the wrong thing, rewrite history, adjust our youth’s minds in an effort to support their agenda and you should conform because no matter what you say they are the ones in 90% of the schools and they determine the mindset of the next generation of voters.

Well here is a newsflash: that isn’t true anymore. Last year a secret revolution occurred that allowed republicans to win the midterms; and it’s the same reason why Donald Trump has retained so much support. Last year when sales of Grand Theft Auto V (the latest addition to the most Politically Incorrect video-game series of all time, Grand Theft Auto) reached nearly a billion dollars in on its first week on the shelves; the highest elites among the Politically fled from their thrones of influence.

Since then the PC have lost all influence on social websites such as YAHOO! No longer may user accounts be suspended for homophobic, sexist, or even racist comments. From this point the majority of the PC have devoted their time to social media trolling. But now the threat of the rise of the PC over the Video-game Industry, which will lead to the boycott and eventual banishment of the Politically Incorrect chauvinistic, sexist, racist, video-game series known as Grand Theft Auto, and a totalitarian conquering of this nation, must be countered with a new national conversation (White people are the real victims of slavery, Imperialism, racism).

From past observations of the PC Administrations of influential Campuses, they have been planning to destroy the video-game series known as GTA for a long time. One school principal threatened to call the police on parents that let their kids play Grand Theft Auto. And know the final piece in the prophecy has arrived. On November 10, 2015 the video-game known as Fallout 4 will be released.

These video-games may become a symbol for the left. They have already become a tool for spreading liberalism into the minds of our youth. Fallout was once the Post-Apocalyptic Pulp Fiction of video-games, but now it has become no more than a message for liberalism in general after the PC Bethesda Game Studios stole the copyrights to the Fallout series from its original developers Black Isles.

In Past years BGS has injected messages into its videogames: Green Peace/Animal welfare, Feminism, gay rights, racial equality, income equality, anti-war, anti-military, and more recently Marxism.

Here are the Leftist messages in the FO games:

The Evidence:

Green Peace is about the world is coming to an end because of humanity and they put it right inside of a videogame that takes place after a nuclear war.

The very theme song of FO3 is a testament to the left- “I don’t want to set the world on fire”. This very song utters the doom and gloom over global warming and urbanization.

FO3 there is a NPC known as Harold who appeared in previous FO games. But when Harold appeared in BGS’s Capital Wasteland they just had to add a PC swing to him. In FO3 the character Harold (already exposed to Forced Evolutionary Virus and having a tree named Bob growing out of him) has become fused with tree growing out of him, his legs become roots. . He was discovered by several people who began to worship him as a god, and a small and exclusive cult known as the Treeminders began to form in secrecy. Bob began to blossom and many plants grew in this area, which became green with life, a stark contrast to the outer wasteland. Tree minders is just another term for Tree huggers, which is exactly what the new game designers from BGS are.

FO3 also uses fear tactics to promote alternative energy. FO3 scares gamers into becoming advocates of energy efficiency. After playing, gamers are likely to think that if we don’t move towards alternate sources of energy we’ll run out of oil and gas and our world leaders will nukes us over the last remaining natural resources.

FO3 storyline pertains to the fight for clean water, and echoes the fear expressed by those in California. The truth is that the agriculture industry uses over 80% of the water in California. Most of the water in California is being used to clean almonds. So any attempts to cut down on the amount of water used by residents will never solve the issue.

In FNV there is an area known as Hidden valley bunker, on the outside of the bunkers are peace symbols and messages that display the anti-nuclear war mentality of the 1960’s through 1990’s (Before it became about anti-toxic waste, save the whales, and human beings are the scourge to nature, and where all going to die because of manmade Global warming).

There are messages about income inequality that appear in both FO3 and FNV. Outside of Fallout shelters lay signs once carried by the now dead protesters who thought screw the wealthy 1% because they can afford to enter the bunkers.

Animal Welfare has appeared in the FO games since the beginning. Animal Welfare groups believe that animals should be protected. While the radicals, Animal Rights activist believe that animals should have the same rights as people.

The intelligent deathclaws in FO2 bring about the issue of Animal Welfare. Products of the Enclave’s experiments these deathclaws had the ability to talk and fight closely alongside humans. These creatures cause the player to feel sympathy, for at one point in time the player must destroy the base containing most of the intelligent deathclaws, and later an NPC ( non-playable-character) bombs the shelter made for the last remaining surviving intelligent deathclaws.

The Enclave also becomes a target for doing unethical experiments on animals in FO2 (An Enclave scientist works in a sound proof room because of the unsettling screams of his test subjects. The player in disguise of an Enclave Soldier, has the option to kill the scientist in complete secrecy because the room is sound proof)

The Animal Friend perk in multiple FO games is clear evidence of Animal Welfare. With this perk certain creatures never become hostile towards the player, who may not want to fight them in the first place. With the second perk, animals will come to your aid against non-animal enemies.

FO3 - there is a NPC known as Moria Brown, who is based off a real life Marine Biologist of the same name. The real Moria Brown is a hero of animal huggers, who watch shows like whale wars and channels like Animal Planet. The in-game Moria Brown is openly opposed to violence against the creatures of the waste.

Anti-Animal Welfare/Rights: To appear as a neutral game FNV has the thorn. In the thorn the user can wager money on creature fights, compete against creatures for money, and set up custom fights. The user can also embark on a series of quest focused on fetching eggs for the thorn. With each quest the type of creatures the player most take eggs from becomes deadlier.

FO3 Galaxy News radio is a propaganda machine that encourages players to fight the good fight and bring down the U.S paramilitary industrial complex (known as the Enclave).

FO3 quest Tenpenny Tower is an obvious reference to the civil rights movement. The ghouls represent important black figures throughout history. Hence one ghouls has the name Bessie, the same name as a well-known African American singer of the period of time in which people started to think about the social injustices.

FO3 - Civil War in the Brotherhood of Steel because the BOS wanted to help the people of the Capital Wasteland (unlike the Enclave, which is the true U.S Government as depicted in these games)

That one song that appear in FO3 Galaxy News radio loop that goes something like bongo bongo bongo I don’t want to leave the Congo oh no no no no no! fenko finko funko I don’t want to leave the jungle I refuse to go!... That song obviously represents the anti-urbanization ideology of the far-left green movement; If you listen closely to that song you’ll hear them singing about how they don’t like the bright lights of the flashy cities and the noise of cars in their ears ; and no matter what you say I’ll stay right here! Dun dah duda duda dah duhda! Deeeh!!!

FNV: The communist NCR faction in FNV was once a constitutional republic; until Bethesda made it into a totalitarian communist faction that seizes private property for annex and makes farmers work in communes.

FNV: Caesar’s Legion is just a subliminal message meant to turn male and female gamers into feminist by using women as slaves. Caesar’s Legion also represents the feminist view of Las Vegas as a disgusting town of ill repute where women are forced to use their bodies to please men. They could not have made it more evident.

Most of that is in the last 2 FOs alone. The Enclave in the FOs smears the line between the U.S and the Nazis.

The Greatest evidence that FALLOUTGATE is not a conspiracy:

Black Isles studios (the original Fallout developers) refused to completely conform to their PC PR team, for example the original and present day logo of FO is a white guy with blonde hair known as the vault boy that actually represents president John F Kennedy; who is popular among the populace as he is thought to have prevented the first Nuclear War during the Cuban missiles crisis; and the Brotherhood of Steel a paramilitary organization that appears throughout all of the Fallout games with the goals of protecting humanity from advanced technologies by hoarding them all to themselves represents Kennedys deep-seated interest in advanced technologies before his death .

But then they included a vault girl (for obvious reasons), and the one time the game designers from Black Isles try to include a logo that would appear in the karma status for evil players that killed children, It was omitted from the original game cause it was a sketch of the vault boy kicking a pregnant vault girl in the belly.

This situation caused a firestorm among their PC PR managers, and the designers ultimately omitted it from the game before its release. Not only was this sketch offensive to women because it demonized them for having abortions, the PC claim that black isles studios shouldn't have given players the power to kill children in the first place. In the 1990’s games like FO2 were more realistic, which made them feel more unethical, but they included ethical storylines in which the players fought against Nazi like enemies in the name of peace, liberty, and freedom.

BGS never allowed children characters to be killed in any of its games during the time of Black Isles. And sense then BGS (for its PC desire that video-games become something more than just mindless violence of uncensored proportions) has gained the copyrights to the FO games.

Since then all child characters in Bethesda games have become invincible (accept in the case of ‘two’ carefully scripted ‘situations’ in Fallout 3 involving an Undetonated nuke destroying an entire town (which can be prevented by the player who will becomes immediately idolized by locals afterwards) and a low orbit ballistic mini nuke strike capable of targeting only one of several optional locations based on the characters choice( one of which was an enemy air force base that was the intended target for that quest and the others being pedestrian zones and the final choice being the headquarters of the protagonist party of the game. But you never get to watch a child character die in real time. They don’t show it.

In FNV there is a character known as Mr. House that reforms squabbling tribes into civilized societies after a nuclear war. What Mr. House actually represents is how the PC transformed a collection of uncensored videogames and their companies into meaningful experiences for those people that would arrive from the American cultural wars prior to 9/11. If you really go through the game and look at what Mr. House really is in his true form, you will see an old grotesque being clinging on to life with the power technology, popularity, and his final ledger states that he just wanted to improve humanity. But just like Mr. House PC hides you from the truth to protect you and make you see the best of things, and when you finally see the true nature of reality and how it all works it is hideous. In a way Mr. House is a perfect representation of PC.

In a way FNV may have just been an entire game structured off of PC. From the Republic of Dave and Dukov’s place in FO3 (Which I’m pretty sure by all observations that Dukov was a representation of either older FOs or GTA hidden inside FO3 and Cherry is a representation of FO3 itself. Dave from the Republic of Dave mocks GTA, which does hog all the attention but still GTA deserves all of its popularity by its own accord) to Rose of Sharon Cassidy and the xenophobic artillery hogging, ammo hoarding, grenade lobbing, explosive loving group known as the boomers in FNV (which represents what the PC imagines when they think of republicans).

In FNV it all makes sense once you look hard enough. If you still don't believe me look at what Bethesda Games was prior to 9/11 (see Elder Scrolls 2 Daggerfall for more info).

The video game cultural objectified women up until that point but then they realized that this wouldn't work out well in a new and reformed world with empowered females that would for the first time start to become curious about video games.

You see the computer games of the 1990's were never meant to be played by girls or women because just like Las Vegas and Caesar’s legion in their game Fallout New Vegas, Bethesda Games objectified and exploited woman in their games for social misfits that were curious and felt the need to play out their Fantasies in exchange for profit.

Why else do you think old video games are always represented as Nintendo and arcade games? Because the history of computer games is one of erotic fantasy and lust of which the likes could not be tolerated in today's society.

Look at moder sties. The first video game modifications always include nudity and sex because computer gamers are obsessed with that kind of stuff. They were conditioned to love it buy the games of the 1990’s. On 11/10/2015 who would be willing to spend their money on the PC anti-slavery, Marxist videogame Fallout 4? At the end of the day it’s about money. But no one really hates the ideas of slavery, because it made this nation, and no one is going to buy that video-game Fallout 4.

On paper it sound good, you walk around trying to improve a post-apocalyptic society while fighting slavery and liberating the underdogs of the new world. But that’s not right. The truth is for a world to begin again there has to be slavery and imperialism.

Some of you like video-games like this, you think in what world is the greatest nation formed off of centuries of slavery and mass genocide. But in time you’ll come to the conclusion that there is no real need for Political Correctness and Slavery is not that bad. When you go to bed to night you will not spread the message of #Fallout4Equality via social media.

This video-game will not become a symbol for the left. And all of the other disturbances that have occurred on the internet in the past weeks over this issues will be resolved and all will return to normal. I have several points that prove why Fallout 4 will not sale in one month, enough copies to beat the two day sales record of Grand Theft Auto V.

And on November 10, 2015 I will prove that black lives, LGBT rights, women’s rights, and all other social injustice hoaxes are non-issues when the most PC videogame of all time doesn't reach a billion dollars in sales on its first week on the shelves. And then we will know that Political Correctness is just an unnecessary joke that we don’t need in our private lives.

They aren’t the majority

In the Culture War between the PC and the Video-game industry, the PC are not just the 1%, but the .0000001%. The social minorities that they would look to for support love to play GTA. That’s why it sold 880 million in just 2 days. And GTA is just one of many video-games. The PC war with the video-game culture, Is as futile as trying to westernize the entire Middle East in 1 year without the use of violence. It’s like trying to peacefully colonize the most diehard, nationalistic, society via PC. It won’t work.

The PC are not attracting the correct audience to their video-games

Most of the PC in the gaming industry are the social majority that prefer RPGs.

mein kamph #sexist redpilltalk.com

Get it through your head that women desire to be dominated

They FUCKING NEED IT. Rape, anal etc. Physical abuse slapped around talk dirty etc they are drawn to it like moths to light. They don't know why they love it but they do. They will constantly want you if you treat them like piss and fuck them like an animal. The size of your cock means nothing. Go watch some animal fucking videos. I mean the ones in the wild. It is pure primal lust that has been bottled up for months/seasons. Only achievable through prolonged abstinence like the animals of the wild. Most men have lost the sex power agression and in order to learn what it feels like to be an animal and to BEHAVE like an animal they must abstain.

dogpill #sexist incels.co

Reddit girl does an AMA about fucking a dog, drops a bunch of dogpills

[F] my fwb convinced me to have sex with his dog, AMA

In this AMA a girl says that her fwb Chad has gotten her to fuck a dog. She describes the first time it happened, what she's done, how it felt, and just a bunch of stuff that's worth pointing out and examining. There are other AMA's out there but this one is revealing for a number of reasons.

First, she describes how it happened the first time. Chad is fucking her for hours and gets her all hot excited but won't let her cum. He pushes her all night and then stops when she's getting there. He does this and tells her that the only way he'll let her cum that night is if she fucks his dog. At first she says no, but eventually she gives in and gets dog fucked. She says the dog knew exactly what to do, and by the sounds of it so does this Chad. The more you read on the more obvious it is that he's done this multiple times with many girls.

She even mentions in it that this fwb guy has told her directly that girls who are into this are not rare and that it's more common than you'd think. How does he know this? He's obviously been doing this for years and with God knows how many women. He knew exactly what to do, he got her to edge all night and pushed her in between the build up to consider fucking a dog until she wanted it. This is something I've mentioned repeatedly since my first thread on this site, the guys who do this with girls all seem to say the same thing, "girls who are into this are not rare".

Describing the actual sex itself is pretty much what you'd expect from a girl who openly decided on doing an AMA on dog sex. She says that it might have been the best sex of her life, and that it's a multi orgasm experience because of the knot. Going through her posts, she's done a lot of shit too like gangbangers with all of Chad's friends and getting filmed doing all kinds of shit, and yet out of everything she's done, fucking a dog is possibly the best sex of her life.

Another interesting thing about that AMA was the way she described herself. She's a good looking 20 something year old girl. Her Chad even says to her that no one would suspect that a girl as good looking as her would ever fuck a dog. Which is probably true, no one thinks these things actually happen in real life, it's just something you see on the Internet. Not me, I no longer put it past me that a good looking young girl I pass by on the street is incapable of having the most disgusting sexual history imaginable.

The worst part is that she even says how innocent she looks in real life. Guys are idiots and would never see a girl like this coming. One day she'll get married to some retard who considers himself a lucky guy, all the while never knowing that his beautiful bride used to be a knot thot. Plenty of other guys would actually be excited at the idea of it if they ever found out. "Wow, my wife is really kinky. That's so hot. How did I get so lucky?" the sex positive dumbfuck says to himself. All the while Rovers dick is hitting all the spots his can't, stretching her like he will never do, getting her to cum like he never could. When women cum with a man, they bond to him in a weird way that intensifies her submission to him. What does it say about this when the girl in the AMA admits that she has now become more submissive to the dog after they fucked?

Some idiot would love a wife like this, who is sexually bonding stronger with an animal than with him. Just look at the upvotes that girl gets and look at the down votes people give to the ones who think she's disgusting. There's no shortage of men out there with patheticly low standards in what they want in a woman. Could you imagine what the votes would look like if I told her she's a woman and should act with some kind of tact and decency if she wants be a decent wife and mother someday and possibly, idk learn some homemaking skills instead of spending her twenties dripping between her legs? Yeah, I'd get down voted for saying that but a girl describing her adventures with dog dick gets gushing praise.

Forgot about the icing on the cake, she's not even the only girl in her own thread who dog fucks, another completely random girl comes out in the comments and admits she had a couple she subbed for that got her to play with a pooch.

Dogpill is a funny meme, but as far as practical application it's overblown. People are pointing to one or two dogfuckers like dogfucking is the norm now and all women deep down wanna have sex with animals. That's not how it is. Dog sex is weird and disgusting, but it's not anything we need to be afraid of.

Honest question, do you think you've ever met or passed by a girl in your life that has fucked a dog?

No, not even close. I would have to go online to find somebody who fucks dogs.

Well, I've read the data on this subject and the prevalence of bestiality among women ranged from 0.6% to 3.6% which is a far higher rate than the prevalence of down syndrome in the general public which comes in at 0.14%. Have you ever met someone with down syndrome before?

I haven't. But, and I don't wanna get all IncelTears on you or anything, but what samples are we looking at? Who are we asking and how many are we asking? You go to some sort of fetishy place where people do all sorts of shit then yeah. But you can't poll the entirety of all people everywhere. But then, that's the flaw of just about every poll.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282844608_Bestiality_An_Overview_and_Analytic_Discussion

I've talked about this before on this forum but the general rate from every scrap of data puts it at 0.6% to 3.6%, which is a low estimate. You can go through my post history if you want to see other discussions I've had about it.

I wish I was a Chad that could get multiple girls to fuck my dog. That's such a power move.

This is what incels and Chad have in common - we both hate women.

And yeah, never let the butterflies in your stomach make you forget that just because she looks like an angel doesn't mean she actually is one. People are animals.

To each their own I suppose. I'd feel too much like a cuck doing it personally. Maybe if I was completely shit faced and a girl offered to let me watch I'd consider it but after that the bitch would be completely dead to me on every level.

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com


Gay activists contend there are only seven scriptures that address homosexuality in the Bible and therefore homosexual behavior is insignificant in scripture. Gay activists also contend that theologians have misinterpreted the seven scriptures. The seven main scriptures are the Genesis account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), the Mosaic Law in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, the letter by Jude verse 7, and the Apostle Paul’s letters in Romans 1:26-7, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10.
Gay activists like to point out that none of these scripture references are in the first four books of the New Testament that record the direct teachings of Jesus. The gay argument is that since Jesus never mentioned homosexual behavior, it should not be considered immoral. That argument lacks any merit when one realizes that Jesus never mentioned bestiality either (humans having sexual relations with animals – another aberrant sexual orientation). Using the same gay logic would imply that a human having sex with an animal is not immoral behavior. Bestiality is listed as a sin in the Mosaic Law right after male homosexuality in Leviticus 18:23. Male homosexual behavior and bestiality are the only immoral sexual behaviors listed in Leviticus 18 that include the adjectives of “detestable” and “perversion.” The gay insignificant argument also fails the test on the bestiality comparison because there are even less scriptures that address humans having sex with animals.
Leviticus 18:22 explicitly states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” (NIV) Gay theology argues that the type of homosexual behavior condemned in Leviticus does not include homosexuals in loving and consensual relationships. This gay argument is also without merit when one studies the content of Leviticus 18. Most of Leviticus 18 condemns various close relative and incestuous heterosexual relationships. The author of Leviticus condemns fourteen heterosexual relationships between close relatives and no homosexual incestuous relationships. The obvious reason Leviticus 18 does not list homosexual close relative relationships is because verse 22 condemns all homosexual behavior.
Other arguments put forth by gay theology are that the word for homosexual has been misinterpreted in the passages of the Apostle Paul’s letters; God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah not because homosexual behavior was prevalent in those communities, but because its citizens were inhospitable and sought to rape the male visitors; and the close friendships between Jonathon and David in the Old Testament as well as Jesus and the Apostle John in the New Testament were actually homosexual relationships. The key to all these arguments is still found in Leviticus 18. If Leviticus 18 condemns all homosexual behavior, which I believe it clearly does, these other gay arguments have no foundation for their devious assertions.
Once homosexual behavior is established biblically as sexual immorality along with adultery, close family heterosexual relationships, and bestiality, a host of other biblical scriptures apply to homosexual behavior. The Apostles gave four firm requirements to the non-Jewish Christians in the early church, “to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” (Acts 15:20 NIV) The Apostle Paul wrote, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18 NIV) In his letter to the Ephesians Paul wrote, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” (Ephesians 5:3 NIV) There are many other New Testament verses with similar instructions to avoid sexual immorality.

.....


I was discussing these issues on homosexuality with an independent filmmaker in Houston, when she said, “I don’t care if people engage in homosexual behavior in their private quarters.” I was taken back a bit, because I knew I did care and didn’t care at the same time. I was also unclear what she implied by her statement. I had to think that statement through, and out of that thought process came a good example of how Christians need to be prepared to intelligently address issues of homosexuality.
My confusion and a lot of the confusion on issues of homosexuality stem from the fact that in America’s structured society there are different spheres of authority where behavior is subject to scrutiny. I find three distinct spheres where society views homosexual behavior from different perspectives – a medical sphere, a civil law sphere, and a theological or moral sphere. As one who has studied all three of these spheres, I tend to view homosexual issues differently depending on which sphere of authority they pertain to.
To illustrate this concept I am going to give my viewpoints on the filmmakers comment from these three structural spheres. From a medical viewpoint I do not care if two or three or four people engage in consensual homosexual behavior in private quarters, although I have apprehension that they may harm themselves or others. Some of the people engaging in that behavior may have unhealed emotional wounds from their same-sex parent and the behavior might be an attempt to repair that wound. Some may be carrying a sexually transmitted disease. I am not their medical doctor, their psychologist, their psychiatrist, or their close relative, so medically it is none of my business, but as a Christian I should have enough compassion to not want to see these individuals get AIDS or continue in behavior that will deepen their emotional wounds.
From a civil law viewpoint consensual homosexual sex in private quarters is not an infraction of civil law, so from that viewpoint I have no reason to care if people engage in that type of behavior. Sodomy used to be illegal. When it was illegal one could have been concerned that this consensual behavior was breaking the law, and even now some believe that sodomy, like prostitution, should be against the law. On another level as a Christian I care greatly if the civil law tells school children that consensual homosexual relationships are as desirable as heterosexual relationships and equivalent to marriage between one man and one woman, because those types of laws intentionally oppose my Christian moral beliefs.
From a theological viewpoint Christians should be concerned for people who engage in consensual homosexual behavior, because according to biblical scripture it will keep them out of heaven. The Apostle Paul reiterates that warning in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In direct contrast to the warning is the desire of God to not want “anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Peter 3:9) Followers of God should not want anyone to perish either. For those who are not familiar with this Christian terminology and message, one inherits eternal life (heaven) with Jesus upon repentance of their sins, turning away from sinful behavior, and choosing to follow Jesus. When one refuses to repent of sinful behavior and disregard God’s promise through Jesus, they are destined to perish (hell). Jesus talked about heaven and hell many times referring to hell as a place “where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” To the Christian either heaven or hell represent each individuals eternal destiny.
The simple statement by the filmmaker had many interpretations and implications. For example, a moral liberal would state that they do not care if people engage in consensual homosexual sex in private quarters because they believe consensual homosexual sex is moral behavior. A libertarian could make the same statement and not care if the behavior was moral or immoral, because their main principle is personal freedom. A conservative could make the same statement also and in a mean spirited way imply that they don’t care if that person gets AIDS from their sexual behavior, because they are responsible for their own actions. A Christian could also make the same statement in a callous way and imply that they don’t care if people who engage in consensual homosexual behavior go to hell or get AIDS, because they deserve “the due penalty for their perversion.” (Romans 1:27)
As a Christian I do not identify with any of the four interpretations presented of the filmmakers statement. From my Christian viewpoint, although I agree American society gives people the civil right to engage in consensual homosexual sex in private places, I do care that people engage in this behavior, because ultimately I do not want them to go to hell or to harm themselves or to harm others.

paraphilias-are-human #fundie paraphilias-are-human.tumblr.com

so...i have a question. To put it simply, i'm a zoophile. The thing is.. I'm not anti contact. Well, in some cases i suppose but, generally, I think that with animals, they CAN consent. Not verbally of course, but they can eagerly obviously want sex. If a dog is violently humping at somebodies leg, why is it so wrong to give the dog a quick hand (literally). Especially if it makes the human and dog feel good. I dont know? i can’t even really say im non offending, honestly, as i’ve tried something with my dog before when in heat. I also frequently watch zoophilia porn (Watching and participating in bestiality is completely legal where i live, if that helps at all). I just wanna know your thoughts. Am i inherently a bad person? am i the exception, to all this positivity? I don’t want to be a bad person but I genuinely think in some cases, its fine to pleasure animals if they obviously want it.


I understand your concern. First of all, I want to make clear that no one is inherently a bad person. The world is not black and white, things are more complex than that. I don’t think you are a bad person (and less when you are even worried of being doing something wrong, that shows that you care, which is really important).
The short answer is that I agree with you. I just don’t like to post things that are clearly controversial in a very vocal and explicit way because this is not a blog where I discuss my opinions (not like my main) but just a blog for positivity. When I talk about zoophiles I talk about the ones who ‘don’t harm animals’. I’m totally against animal abuse and zoosadism (zoosadism in the sense of actions, fantasies are ok). If the animal suffers some kind of harm, pain or distress, I find that as abuse and I’m against it. But I also thing animals can consent, in the sense of being obvious when they want some kind of sexual interaction or when they are feeling uncomfortable and want you to stop. Also, some animals are specially anthropophilic, so… If you don’t harm and animal, you respect their limits and are really careful, I don’t see it as abuse.
That is why I’m not expecific with my zoo positivity posts. I don’t think all kind of sexual contact with animals is abusive, so if you don’t harm them, you are ok and not an exception for my positivity. Some people will disagree, I guess, but that is on them. For me, if you don’t hurt animals, you are ok.
However, I’d be careful about the porn. Mostly because you can’t know if that animal really wanted it, if they are being treated well or if they suffer any kind of abuse. Sometimes it can seem obvious, but how could you know? I have heard that in child porn the kids seem to be ok with it… I think when it is about porn you should be really careful because you can’t know what is happening behind the cameras (no need to say that all actual child porn is bad and abusive, I guess, I just mentioned it as an example).
[..]
So tl;dr: you are ok if you aren’t hurting animals and you deserve positivity. Be careful with porn, not because the law, but because the abuse it could be happening, and understand what I mean in my posts with “zoophiles who don’t harm animals”.
Hope you have a nice day :)
anon asks answer zoophilia discussion not positivity controversial opinions i love how this is the 'short answer' dont want to imagine the long one lol xD about me personal opinions about the blog

Pomidor Quixote and Mr Justice Hayden #sexist #wingnut dailystormer.name

[From "British Judge Says Sex With Wife is a “Fundamental Human Right” and Everyone Loses Their Minds"]

The Jewish media puts sex everywhere to make people think about it constantly, but the Jews also make heterosexual sex much more difficult to achieve by introducing convoluted ideas about “consent” and about what marriage is supposed to be.

One man is taking a stand against that bullshit. This judge is bringing old ideas and common sense back into the discussion about the role of marriage in our society, and he’s doing all of that by… saying that a husband should be able to have sex with his wife.

RT wrote:

A British judge has invoked the ire of online commentators, activists and politicians after remarking that it was a man’s “fundamental human right” to have sex with his wife during an already controversial court case.

I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” senior High Court judge Justice Hayden was quoted as saying during a preliminary hearing on a case involving a married couple of 20 years.

The wife has learning difficulties and her condition is deteriorating, prompting social services to raise the alarm about the potential for sexual abuse in the relationship as they felt the woman was no longer able to make decisions about whether she consented to sexual relations. Social services ultimately brought the case to the Court of Protection in London.

The husband has pledged to no longer sleep with his wife but prosecuting lawyers are still pushing for a court order barring sexual relations to prevent the woman from being raped.

Let’s get something out of the way first: all women have learning difficulties. It’s just a matter of how severe those difficulties are.

That said, if she can say yes or no to a question such as “do you want some ice cream?” or “do you feel like watching a movie?” then she can absolutely consent to sex.

This whole “consent” thing is a retarded Jewish invention that overcomplicates basic male-female interaction. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex, she resists, if she wants to stop having sex while having sex, she makes it known. If she for some reason decides to pretend to be okay with having sex while not feeling like having sex, then that’s her problem. Literally something that happens in her mind that can’t be measured or proven.

The insanity of this story is augmented by the fact that even though the poor husband pledged to no longer sleep with his wife, prosecutors still push for a court order to officially make him unable to have sex with his wife.

Do you understand how insane that is?

If a man can’t have sex with his wife, why does he have a wife?

[...]

The idea about marriage that most people have in their subconscious was put there by tales of old, by their grandfathers, and by the Jewish social-engineering media machine.

If marriage doesn’t ask anything from women, and gives them half of your stuff or more whenever they please, it not only does nothing to stop relationships from breaking down but it actually provides incentives for relationships to break down.

These whores will destroy your life if you let them.

The moment they feel they’ve secured you, that you have no alternative front-hole, and that you’re socially and legally prohibited from looking for their replacement… that’s the moment they’ll decide to stop having sex with you. Sex will become less and less frequent. She’ll never be “in the mood,” she’ll always be tired or with headache. She’ll never treat you the same. She’ll look at you with disdain. She’ll resent you. She’ll feel trapped by you even though you’re the one that’s really trapped. She’ll feel you’re abusive even though she’s the one being abusive.

She’ll file for divorce and she’ll take as much from you as she possibly can, and then she’ll tell everyone you know about how terrible you are. She’ll go fuck some loser that can’t compare to you but that will have more than you because she’ll share the stuff she took from you with him, and they’ll laugh at you every time you go get your kids on the weekends.

Your kids won’t understand why daddy looks so poor now while mommy and her new boyfriend seem so well off. You’ll want to explain to them… but you won’t be able to. You wouldn’t even know where to start.

As time passes, you’ll see how your own kids prefer mommy’s boyfriend. They’ll tell you how funny he is, how many great things they do together, and how much time they spend together. Every time you send them back to her house… you’ll feel like a shadow. An empty human husk trapping the echoes of the man that you once were and mixing them with the cries of the man that you wanted to be.

All because you thought marriage meant something other than your doom.

HaifischGeweint #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

For the purposes of relative brevity only, I am limiting the content of this post to HIV/AIDS discrimination in Canada, and will not be addressing the racial component (i.e., which racial groups are at highest risk). It should go without saying that this is already a loaded topic. I’m going to warm this post up by providing you readers with a video link for the trailer of a powerful documentary about the life-long effects of discriminatory North American laws (specifically in the U.S.) on HIV-positive people, before I break down some basic terminology:

HIV Is Not A Crime – A 2011 Documentary by Sean Strub

Relevant Terminology

Now, partly for the purposes of reducing the space it takes to say “living with HIV/AIDS”, and partly as a sign of compassion for those individuals who are thusly described (some of whom are my friends), for the rest of this post, I am going to use the word poz instead. I will be using it like any other adjective, just like how I don’t talk about my friends who are poz any differently than anyone else unless the topic at hand is specifically about social barriers against people who are poz. Previously, one might have said “infected”. But is this person a zombie or a rabid animal? I think we can all afford to be a lot more sensitive, and just use the word poz instead.

Furthermore, on the issue of the term “infection” (and sometimes even its cousin, “transmission”) — some people are born poz, some people became poz relatively unintentionally (i.e., not engaging in high-risk behaviours, such as bare-backing with someone they knew at the time was poz or sharing needles), and some people who became poz at one time now have such a low viral load that it can’t even be detected (let alone transmitted in any way to another individual). It is for sensitivity to all of these people and, really, most people who are poz (and not currently dying from complications of AIDS), that many prefer to speak of becoming converted. Most people who are poz aren’t walking around with such an active and excessively contagious infectious process coursing through their circulatory system that it is in any way appropriate to refer to them as “infected”. And in fact, even for those who are so unfortunate to be dealing with a hyperbolic bloom of the virus in their system, this is usually a temporary state, often associated with the earliest phases in conversion (which can easily go unnoticed for many newly converted) or the final stages of AIDS (in which case, they are unlikely to just be out for a casual stroll like anyone else).

The point is that words like “infected” and “infection”, when talking about people who are poz, carries a connotation of uncleanliness, filth, and/or viral transmission — again, medical intervention has actually advanced to the point that many poz people are no-transmissible or even un-detectable (I’ve seen it with my own eyes while working for a doctor whose only poz patient had been non-transmissible for 13 years and started testing un-detectable). You don’t personally have to agree with this argument, but I do, so I will be referring to people as becoming converted (or at risk thereof) unless I’m quoting a source that uses different language, such as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Finally, a major component of anti-poz stigma is when people look at someone who is poz and perceive of their condition first (as though it were a disease, an infection, or otherwise just icky in socially significant ways) and then perceive of the person in front of them after the fact. Many people will see the fact that This Individual Is Poz as more important (or of a higher priority) than the fact that they are an individual. A human being, not just a body that carries a perceived threat of invisible death and some sort of unseen contagious filth. A person. This attitude of seeing some isolated quality before recognizing the full personhood (or even not being able to see past this isolated undesired quality) of the individual concerned is called essentialism. If you’re already familiar with the role of essentialism in racism, sexism/misogyny, homophobia/transphobia, and ableism, among many other forms of systemic oppression, yes I am talking about the same thing here. Essentialism is the driving principle in anti-poz stigma, but bigotry is the behaviour of application of that principle — the line is razor-thin.

Criminalization Of HIV In Canada

Now that I’ve established the terminology you will be seeing in this blog post and likely elsewhere if you choose to look for resources (especially in gay and queer communities, where I’ve personally seen poz and converted/conversion used most often), I can start talking about the criminalization of HIV. I’ve actually known about a law that exists in Canada now for a few years, whereby if a person who is poz engages in unprotected sex without disclosing their status to their partner, they can be tried and convicted of aggravated sexual assault (i.e., rape). I found out about it because, though he had not converted either of two known casual partners with whom he engaged in unprotected sex, a CFL football player named Trevis Smith was being put on trial and his reputation permanently destroyed for not disclosing his status to his partners. To the best of my knowledge, Smith’s wife has never charged him, presumably because she’s not looking at her husband as some sort of infectious pustule. Other people have been convicted on similar charges under similar circumstances prior to and since Smith faced sentencing that marked him a sex offender, but his particular case was what brought this issue to my attention. I’ll be getting to what the law actually states momentarily.

First, for the record, while I personally very strongly disagree with engaging in unprotected sex without first having an honest conversation about STIs and safer sex (no matter what your status), I can fully empathize with someone who can’t quite get the words out until after the first encounter. This is also simply not the same as lying when a partner enquires. I talk about why that is in this blog post I wrote in May 2011 when I found out that a bunch of my friends-at-the-time, who all still claim to be sex-positive, were apparently sex-positive-unless-you’re-HIV-positive. The short version is I have experience not being able to get the words out soon enough, and though that person continued to see me and not use protection for nearly a year, when we broke up, he threw it back in my face — I’m talking about human papillomavirus, which I was exposed to before the first time I consented to sex as a young adult (take all the time you need to think about that). But what I didn’t mention in that post is that I also have experience being directly lied to about someone else’s STI status, and being directly lied to about someone going to get tested . While I can be compassionate to someone who couldn’t find a way to bring it up (assuming we are speaking of someone who is poz and either non-transmissible or undetectable, or someone who knows their poz status and uses a condom to protect their partner), I cannot stand by someone who lies about their status when asked about it or who (regardless of their status) deliberately avoids getting tested and/or practising safer sex. Full stop.

I firmly believe that the media circus around Trevis Smith, and the existing law around non-disclosure, bolstered already pre-existing widespread stigma and a dangerous avoidance of personal responsibility (that really need not be further exacerbated) on the part of people who can’t rest assured of their status because they won’t get tested for fear that they will test positive for conversion. People already avoid getting tested so that they can keep a false sense of security. I dated multiple such individuals and have talked to countless people who haven’t the faintest idea of how to actually practice safer sex (it’s more than just a fucking condom) or who assume that if their prospective partner doesn’t say anything, it’s because they have nothing to disclose (these are people who are recklessly negligent towards themselves). Criminalizing HIV isn’t going to make it go away, any more than not getting tested will reduce your chances of conversion. So what does Canadian law actually say about HIV?

In 1998, R. v. Cuerrier set the precedent for HIV criminalization in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled, at the time, that someone who is poz who is engaging in protected or unprotected sex without disclosing their HIV status to their partner, obtained consent under fraudulent circumstances, and therefore has committed an aggravated sexual assault. The default assumption here is that people who are poz are frightening, are rapists, and unsuitable sexual partners for anyone who isn’t poz. Whether or not the sexual partner(s) pressing the charges was/were converted is irrelevant, as is whether or not the person who is poz even has a sufficiently high viral load that they can convert anyone else; and in fact, as in Trevis Smith’s case, Cuerrier’s two partners were not converted. It’s also unclear whether or not the complainant must demonstrate to the court that they were of HIV-negative status prior to the encounter, although in one case, a failure to demonstrate that resulted in an aquittal. Well, the law changed recently. Very recently. Now you can be charged even if you are undetectable or non-transmissible, if you didn’t use a condom. And you can still be charged even if you did use a condom, no matter what your viral load was at the time. Of course, the media spins it as “now you can be HIV-raped without a condom and you won’t even know it! Clutch your pearls!” Here’s the actual statement in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision two months ago:

[ “This Court, in Cuerrier, established that failure to disclose that one has HIV may constitute fraud vitiating consent to sexual relations under s. 265(3)(c) Cr. C. Because HIV poses a risk of serious bodily harm, the operative offence is one of aggravated sexual assault (s. 273 Cr. C.). To obtain a conviction under ss. 265(3)(c) and 273, the Crown must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the complainant’s consent to sexual intercourse was vitiated by the accused’s fraud as to his HIV status. The test boils down to two elements: (1) a dishonest act (either falsehoods or failure to disclose HIV status); and (2) deprivation (denying the complainant knowledge which would have caused him or her to refuse sexual relations that exposed him or her to a significant risk of serious bodily harm). Failure to disclose may amount to fraud where the complainant would not have consented had he or she known the accused was HIV-positive, and where sexual contact poses a significant risk of or causes actual serious bodily harm.

[…]

The evidence adduced in this case leads to the conclusion that, as a general matter, a realistic possibility of transmission of HIV is negated if: (i) the accused’s viral load at the time of sexual relations was low and (ii) condom protection was used. This general proposition does not preclude the common law from adapting to future advances in treatment and to circumstances where risk factors other than those considered in this case are at play.” ]

In other words, if you would consent to sex with someone assuming that they are HIV-negative but doing nothing to either rule out the possibility that they are poz or even protect your own sexual wellness (as any responsible sexually active adult should), but your attitude towards that person does a 180 in the event it turns out they are poz, the Supreme Court of Canada will answer you by registering your former sex partner as a sex offender and sentencing them to prison, for up to a maximum of a life sentence. And yet the Supreme Court of Canada just can’t see how this could possibly be abused. Well, the BC Civil Liberties Association can. So can Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and their coalition of allied organizations, which released this statement on the same day as the Supreme Court’s decision. Because not every person who is poz who dares to have sex with a consenting adult is actively trying to convert HIV-negative people without their consent (again — in that case, I do not stand by his actions and think he should be criminally punished), but the Supreme Court of Canada ruling criminalizes every HIV-positive body in the country; unless, as Michael Vonn says, you freeze and label your used condoms and get signed waivers from all your sex partners indicating that they knew your status before you had sex. Anyone with a bone to pick against a poz sex partner in Canada now has a golden ticket to ruin that person’s life, livelihood, public reputation, and ability to maintain and secure gainful employment, safe housing, or custody of their own children, by dragging them through a guaranteed media circus and criminal court. Race is a significant factor in this, that is already too complex to address even briefly, except to say that the guaranteed majority of people who will be impacted by this are racialized individuals. You can take that to the bank.
Changing The Record

To some people, sex-positivity means sex is a positive thing that you should gleefully embrace at every possible opportunity. If that’s what floats your boat, fine, but sex-negative abstinence “activists” and pro-lifers alike would like nothing more than to paint all sex-positive activists and their ideology thusly. And of course, it is this very slippery misappropriation of the term “sex-positive” that leads the same people who embrace it to recoil in disgust at the audacity of anyone who is poz to have a sex life at all — to say things like “Well if I found out I had sex with someone who was HIV-positive and they only told me afterwards, they may as well have held a gun to my head and raped me, because if I knew they were HIV-positive, I never would have given them my consent.” One of my long-term partners actually posted this online in a discussion led explicitly towards this conclusion by a local self-proclaimed sex-positive activist (who, funny thing, has since used that website and Twitter to repeatedly libel me and multiple others — but especially me, because I’m too poor to hire a lawyer to stop her). I just about barfed on my keyboard when I read the words my so-called friends, allies, and lovers had contributed to this conversation, and when I managed to contain myself, I seriously contemplated spontaneously ending my romantic relationships over it. Amazingly, these are people who rub shoulders with, fuck, and maintain a leather family with at least one person who is terrified to tell anyone too loudly that they have herpes, for fear of being treated like a Pariah. But none of them see the connection.

Sex-positivity is for everybody. It means an approach to sex education that teaches individual people that they have the right to prevent unwanted pregnancies and unwanted sexually transmitted infections, the right to self-respect, the right to say “no, not right now, but maybe later”, and the right to say what they want without fear of being ridiculed or shamed (and to stand up for themselves if they are ridiculed or shamed). It means being aware, up-to-date, and educated about what safer sex means and your individual and general risks of inheriting or transmitting a sexually transmitted infection with any of your sexual partners. For instance, if you aren’t having penile sex, how do you protect yourself (obviously condoms are out) and what is your risk of inheriting or transmitting something like HIV or chlamydia from the different activities you are engaging in? (Hint: enzymes in human saliva eliminate the HIV virus but not chlamydia; some infectious processes such as heat blisters from herpes or aphthous ulcerations from bad oral hygiene or smoking can compromise either your lips or gingiva, increasing your risk of inheriting even infections that your saliva would normally eliminate.) Sex-positivity means not feeling ashamed to be tested regularly for sexually transmitted infections while you’re sexually active (and for a few months after) and even encouraging your primary sexual partner to go with you so you can get tested together (or even immunized where possible and desired, such as for Hepatitis A & B). It also means all sorts of fun stuff like dropping in together at the sex shop down the street from the clinic and picking out a new toy to play with.

Don’t want to be converted? You don’t have to be an anti-poz bigot to reduce your risk of exposure and promote prevention. Both risk-reduction and prevention are critical aspects of sex-positivity. It’s sad that both “sex-positive” activists and the Supreme Court of Canada have left poz people even further marginalized on this issue than they already were. And if you think it’s pretty bleak in Canada but haven’t watched that 8-minute video, I’ve got news for you: it’s so much worse in the states, I might wind up doing a second blog post just about that.


Assuming that someone has nothing to disclose because they didn’t say anything isn’t informed consent. I realize my opinion is going to be unpopular among people who are not poz, but please (everybody). Take some responsibility for what you’re doing with whatever you’re packing between your legs. It’s one thing if you asked and they lied — which I flat-out disagree with and think they should be criminally punished in that case — but it’s another thing entirely when you don’t ask (especially when they used a condom anyway) and then get the person registered as a sex offender because YOU failed to take the same degree of personal responsibility as you secretly expected from them (but only if they were poz, because if they weren’t, then you don’t expect them to take that degree of personal responsibility because you don’t)

THAT’S where the discrimination is taking place here. One standard of behaviour for people who are poz, and another for people who aren’t. Criminal punishment for people who are poz (even with low viral load, non-transmissible status, or undetectable status), but never for people who aren’t. Are people who are poz not entitled to be assured that the person they are about to have sex with is a safe partner, because they’re already poz?

I find this “informed consent” requirement from people who are poz, but not from people who aren’t (because I guess… why… because they have nothing to disclose, and they’re the “victim” here?) motivated by thinking of HIV/AIDS as how the SCC laid it out: threat of bodily harm. Only it’s not that black-and-white. Low viral load, non-transmissible viral load, and even undetectable viral load, do not present threat of bodily harm.


Have you ever had unprotected sex with someone who was not, at the time, a virgin? Congratulations. You’re INFECTEEED with HPV, and your body can now INFECT your future partners with a virus that could kill them with cervical cancer over roughly the same time span in the absence of treatment as untreated HIV typically becomes AIDS and takes a life.

Shouldn’t you be telling all your partners about your status? After all, you’re potentially killing someone by having sex with them.

HPV is even transmitted via skin-to-skin contact, so either one of you wearing a condom doesn’t protect you. And if you think oral sex is your way out, think again. That’s how people get throat cancer from HPV.

Axle The Beast #fundie zeldadungeon.net

[My question is simple: Why on EARTH is homosexuality even controversial? At all?]

-Why WAS it controversial? Because people used to be intolerant and hugely violent monsters who would punish things they couldn't understand.
-Why does it continue to be controversial? Because some people still don't understand or agree with it, gay people and gay proponents don't like that and remember how horrible this used to be in the past, and neither side can see things from the other's perspective.

And no, I'm not implying there aren't still people who will do horribly mean or even violent things to homosexuals, like ostracize or beat them. But that is a medieval and cruel way of acting -- I'm not sure if I've ever met someone personally who didn't think it was cruel an inappropriate -- but it doesn't change the fact that in some case homosexual proponents will respond to criticism or even just plain old disagreement with them by treating the person like they're one of these monsters. That's projection, and as someone who has multiple homosexual friends and is pretty damn respectful of their way of life despite disagreeing with it, I don't much care to be lumped in with that sort.

Homophobe is used as a slur in a number of conversations I've been in, so I don't care to be identified by it. Most use of the term indicates fear or hatred of homosexuals, not just plain disagreement. Some uses do just mean disagreement, but considering that it has two distinct uses you might be cautious about using the word without clarifying your intended use, or else you will offend people who simply disagree with homosexuality because they can easily interpret it as you accusing them of hatred, fear, and the like. Bottom line is I don't care if people don't like it that I don't agree with their lifestyle; I don't agree with it, but I'm perfectly pleasant with every homosexual and bisexual I know. I don't see why I don't deserve the same respect they deserve for... having my own thoughts and way of life... without hurting anyone. I don't particularly think it's cool to call someone a name for that, and I do frankly liken it to using homosexual slurs; I don't see why we have to call people names when they're being plenty pleasant with people. Calling the monstrous people who do try to hurt homosexuals is a-okay by me, but I think it's a little silly to invent a new slur for it. Why not just call them what they are? Hateful jerks and/or monsters.

Anyway, enough of that. Back to the topic question...

What is my problem with homosexuality? It's not something that makes sense to me. I don't mean that I'm just like "but, wuh-wuh-why would someone like the same sex, durrr", I mean that it functionally doesn't have any place that I can see. The more common phrasing you'll hear people say is something like "I don't believe homosexuality is natural", and then that gets quickly rebutted by citations of examples of homosexuality in nature among animals. Yes, some animals -- not all -- engage in homosexual relations. That doesn't do anything to change the fact that it doesn't make sense to me. Animals doing it is NOT a good argument in favor of homosexuality since animals engage in certain other practices humans generally universally consider taboo: Cannibalism, necrophilia, murder, rape, torture, etc., and not all of these are even out of necessity; dolphins murder and rape the corpses of porpoises for fun. Throwing aside the animal example entirely and going with things like "it feels good so how can it be wrong", absolutely everything that "feels good" can kill you in excess, and other things that feel good can damage you outright like a number of drugs. Impulse and desire are not universal tools for determining right and wrong; this cannot be argued. Like anyone, I have angry and destructive impulses that I have to control to be a decent person.

So since I cannot see a reason for homosexuality to exist -- the distinctive traits between the genders pretty visibly only exist for the sake of breeding and I don't really see the point of sexual love unless it's driven by the breeding impulse (not saying you can only have sex to have kids either; don't misunderstand me) -- I find it unnatural, and therefore I disagree with it. To be clear: I don't think it's immoral or hurtful, I think it just plain doesn't make sense, I don't like to see people do things to themselves that I feel are illogical. Sure, plenty of people argue that they were born that way, but I have my doubts, and either way that can also be argued against in the same way animal behavior can; not every pre-existing psychological state people are born with is a good thing either. I'll say this: Human beings are exceptional at deluding themselves; it's seen best in the general human disdain for being wrong. I can't know for sure if that's the case with homosexuals -- I'm not one -- but I wouldn't write it off, at least in some cases. It's also because of this that I worry about overarching appreciation -- not acceptance, but an almost eagerness that I see from time to time -- towards homosexuality, because I've seen cases of people who I believe more or less deluded themselves into acting as homosexuals. Cases where they had a string of bad relationships, declared they hated the opposite sex, and then sought same-sex relationships as some kind of solution to this, which is an absolutely poisonous reason. Maybe this was a case of "the right thing in the wrong way" for some of them and they really were born homosexual, but I really don't believe it was the case for all of them.

That does not mean people shouldn't do what they feel is right; if someone's thought something through and decided the way they're going to be -- where that's a decision of how to act moving forward or a decision to embrace certain pre-existing impulses they already had, it doesn't matter -- then they should embrace it, live by it fully, and do it in the face of anyone who thinks they shouldn't. I'm free to question their decisions the same as they're free to question mine, but in the end I respect that they made their decision and decided who they're going to be, and it's their decision, not mine. I just can't justify it -- that's probably why I'm not gay or bi. :P

Finally to end off on the point of just letting people love... well, I think I've made it plenty clear that I do let people love, and advocate that others do as well. :bleh: As for how it affects my personal view of homosexuality, I still factor it into how I don't see why. Again, I see sexual relations as something evolved as an incentive to breed -- whether or not it's used for that exclusively -- so I don't really understand why someone would express their love sexually for the same sex. I "love" both males and females in my life, but the only ones I have sexual (or, romantic, if you prefer; they're the same thing) feelings for are some of the females... and I don't see how anything else makes sense. *shrug*

[I'm happy to see that you are reasonable and let people love. I just don't understand why people think sex has to involve reproduction anymore, we aren't going to go extinct due to lack of population anytime soon. I guess that they naturally feel the same way about the same sex and you and I feel about the opposite. We don't need to disagree with things just because we don't understand.

Why should a homosexual have to abstain from marriage and sex? Sure, maybe not everything that feels natural is "right", please respond relevantly and specifically for why homosexuality is wrong?]


I disagree with anything that is unnatural, significant and important, and that is either harmful to others (which homosexuality isn't) or harmful to oneself; I do feel homosexually is somewhat self-harmful, and the reason for that is because I don't think it logically makes sense -- I consider it a strange fallacy -- and therefore I think people who engage in it are deluding themselves with that fallacy. The fallacy is this: Sexual relations exist for reproduction, therefore two individuals who have can't and would never be able to reproduce have zero reason to get involved sexually in the first place.

And I said I don't think sex has to involve reproduction. I guess that's confusing so I'll explain: Sex only existed in the first place for reproduction; I don't think there's any disagreement on that. Every animal has their mating habits, from penguins who leave their partners after a year, to wolf packs who usually stay together in a big family all their life. As near as I can see, on a primal level human mating habits are to form families around their sexual relations and form links that way. This started for reproduction, but of course it has other facets and it's obvious that not every heterosexual marriage leads to kids or can even have kids considering things like sterility, but that doesn't mean the relationship doesn't have merit; people still engage in every other facet of the relation because humans are built to connect that way. I don't believe people are purely primal -- we're well beyond that -- so of course people can make their own decisions about how to live, but this is why I see homosexual relations as a fallacy. Yes people hook up and marry for reasons other than reproduction -- because we're hardwired to -- but that doesn't mean that the reproductive urge wasn't a part of why we do it in the first place. Not following the reproductive urge to its eventual purpose? I get it. Having sexual relations with people you can't reproduce with in the first place? It doesn't make sense as a concept.

Since I know you'll ask me what is wrong with homosexuals not following that urge through completely either, I'll simply say: Because there's no reason for them to have the urge towards one another in the first place.

The reason I think homosexuals or people who identify as homosexual in part or in full should resist their urges is because I think indulging in them is the same as indulging in a fallacy, and I never think that's the best thing for someone to do.

laishlife #fundie laishlife.tumblr.com

[ So you really believe that rape victims should have their rapist's baby, even if it's horrible for them, and just shut their mouths and deal with the baby looking like him. Also, it's not 'caring about human life' to say that people HAVE to work in order to be entitled to basic things like food. Do you honestly see disabled people as worthless because they can't work or 'earn' those basic things? Bc that lack of empathy is making me want to make even more of an effort to be kind and help ppl. ]

I love how pro-abortionists always forget what the word “adoption” is.

[ we wouldn’t need adoption if people were able to decide not to get the child they wouldn’t be able to or wouldn’t want to take care of.
And I think that would be a lot better.

It’s sad anyways that adoption even exists. human beings which weren’t wanted by their parents…that’s sad. ]

But adoption gives a child a chance to find someone who DOES want them and love them. When we kill them, we don’t even give them a chance at life.

Adoption is a second chance. Abortion is NO chance and it’s telling that poor child that NOBODY wanted them and all they’re good for is to be killed. I’m not adopted, but at least I would have the comfort of knowing that my mother at least thought of me as a human being that deserved to live.

But I know MANY people who are adopted. I spent 3 years of my life living with a house full of kids that were adopted. I know the pain they feel and separation that comes with adoption, but what I also know is that every single one of them were happy to be alive.

So no. KILLING the child just because you don’t want it is NOT a lot better. It’s selfish, inhumane, and just a cop-out for people who don’t want to grow up and take responsibility for themselves or the people that look up to them for help. People that get abortions simply because they don’t WANT the baby are cruel cruel people who only think about themselves and only deserve as much as what their poor unborn child got from them. Nothing.

Even rape victims are responsible for the child inside of them. As unfair as it is, that child did nothing wrong and deserves to be given a chance. If a rape victim decides to abort their baby, then they are NO better than the person that raped them in the first place. They don’t get a free pass just because they were hurt.

If it’s not purely for medical reasons or life-death situations, then it should be murder. It’s legal murder.


[ but how many children don’t get adopted? Or get adopted into an abusive family? (shit like that exists. happy-go-lucky parents while adopting; hugest abusers as soon as the child id ‘home’)

How the fuck are rape victims responsible if they get pregnant from rape? Should I tell my rapist before they rape me i’m one week away from my period, so pregnancy will happen if they rape me? 
“Hey sir, I’m really sorry, but maybe you souldn’t rape me. You know, I’m sorta at the point of my cycle where pregnancy would happen, sooo…maybe don’t?”
Or should I start using the pill even though I don’t have a partner and the hormones would fuck my whole system up just because I might get raped? 

How the fuck is rape and abortion a similar crime. I don’t think making a baby and aborting it are even similar things.

Well, a baby can become a sickness for the mother. Mental sickness. Shit, I have to get that baby, but I’ll never earn enough money for it. This can cause depression. And this can get worse until it’s a clinical depression ‘n stuff. Is abortion then allowed? I mean, it could make the depression better if the baby gets aborted. Safe the mothers life ‘n stuff.

I don’t think a fetus should really coun’t as a human. Okay, from the 12th week on it really looks like a very small baby, but from that point on abortion isn’t allowed anymore.So at that point I understand, that abortion is no possibility anymore. 
But before that I have no problem with abortion. The fetus isn’t even visible with the eye alone. So why make a fuss about killing it. 
Abortion is also no easy decision for the mother. It’s not like “lmao I got preggo on accident, pls kill it~” It’s one hell of a feelings ride, and hormones will fuck her up extra, because mother feelings are developed too. So don’t assume abortion is an easy decision.
]

I’ve explained all this before with anther person already so I’m not going to write it all out again.

Basically you’re implying that just because someone MIGHT have a hard or unfair life they should just die before anything even happens. With that logic, we should all just kill ourselves because we never know what the future holds. It could end up being something *gasp* BAD! So why live life at all then? Shit, if I had know when I was a baby that one day I would be emotionally and mentally abused for 3 years in boarding school I would have just asked my mom to abort me! (No I wouldn’t, because despite the bad things in life, you have to deal with it all. Life isn’t perfect.)

I never said that rape victims are responsible for the RAPE. I’m saying that they are responsible for the life inside of them.

And no, making a baby and killing a baby are not the same thing because making a baby isn’t the bad part. The rape is the bad part! Killing a baby is wrong, it shouldn’t matter how that baby came to exist. Because both include hurting someone. Rape hurts the mother, abortion hurts the child. And yeah, the mom didn’t ask for that baby but I didn’t ask to be autistic. Some things in life just aren’t fair.

Also that “depression” excuse is a terrible one because 1: Adoption, first of all. 2: Having a baby isn’t the only thing that causes depression. You’re saying that if something has a risk of causing you depression then we should just kill it. I have depression right now because of the abuse I went through. Welp, if only I knew to kill my abusers before they made me depressed.

The fact that adoption exists brings your whole “depression” argument down.

It’s real easy to say it’s okay to kill something when you claim it isn’t human. You think slave owners ever saw black people as human back in the day? No, because it was convenient to treat them like they weren’t!
Your argument is, “It doesn’t LOOK human so why not kill it?”
Animals aren’t human either, yet it’s a crime to abuse and kill dogs and other domestic pets. They aren’t considered “people” either, yet we seem to value them more than early human life!

When you close your eyes and don’t look at it and refuse to call it human, makes it really easy to kill it!

Sassy #fundie religionethics.co.uk

Says the animal about his creator...

See how stupid your answer really is...

Seems the only thing cross on here is your own inability to separate yourself from that which you are caretaker off, to that which is under the caretaker. Is it any wonder you cannot believe in your creator,

I am dealing with facts... We are not animals we gave the names to all individual species and lumped them altogether under the one title animals. The bible makes the clear distinction between man and animal.

I guess the donkeys only know how to eat their carrots because they cannot plough  the fields and sow their own.
Does that make man a different type of ass?


We all see why mankind is mankind and not an animal. Believe what you want because even an animal isn't dumb enough to pretend there is no difference between animals and humans.

Humans are not animals... here endeth the first lesson.

southern-feminism #fundie southern-feminism.tumblr.com

Alright, my meat-eating friends. I am going to break this down for you…

What if I told you that something you do almost every day is completely unnatural? Most of you probably know that eating too much meat or eating it prepared improperly can make you sick, but modern research suggests that humans shouldn’t eat meat at all.

According to studies backed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, eating meat causes humans to become obese, have higher blood pressure, have a higher risk of heart disease and several cancers, and have a much higher risk of chronic constipation and/or “foodborne illness. [x]” The studies in this article are important and telling because many of them used Mormon subjects. Mormon people abstain from caffeine and alcohol, two substances that can cause similar health problems as meat, so using Mormons as subjects yields stronger evidence that it is meat causing these health problems and not anything else.

Aside from the long term ailments meat can cause, most of you have probably noticed that outbreaks of food poisoning are usually caused by animal-based foods or foods that have come in contact with animal-based foods. Very few bacteria that cause food poisoning begin in plants.

Medical doctors and anthropologists alike are beginning to conclude that humans get sick from eating meat because we are not built (for lack of a better word) to do so. By refuting the arguments that we’ve always eaten meat, our bodies are capable of digesting meat, and that our bodies are designed to eat meat, I hope to persuade you that humans are naturally herbivores, as opposed to omnivores.

A common argument used to support humans being naturally omnivorous is that we have always eaten meat, which is not even true. Archaeologist Derek Wall says that the “mighty hunter” image of the early human is quite faulty and tools originally thought to be hunting tools are now appearing to be planting and harvesting tools [x]. Still, humans have obviously been eating meat for a very long time. Before our technology had progressed to the point where we were the most powerful species on the planet, we were forced to compete with other animals for our plant-based food, which threatened early humans with a potential endangerment. Based on our superior ability to imitate, it is theorized by many anthropologists that humans learned to hunt by copying other animals to survive ecosystems with limited or unsafe vegetation. This means that, while we did a good job at preserving our species, there is no substantial evidence to suggest that humans have the instinct to hunt in the same way that natural meat-eaters do.

Another common argument is that humans are capable of digesting meat, which means to many that it is natural for us to do so. Well, many animals are capable of digesting food that they are not necessarily meant to eat. Domestic cats are natural carnivores, yet they are capable of digesting the vegetables and grains in their manufactured food. Just because an animal is capable of digesting something, does not mean it should. Herbivores, carnivores, and omnivores all have separate anatomical correlations that decide what their diets should be. This means that you can tell by looking at an animal both internally and externally whether they are an herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore.

Many claim that humans are omnivores because our bodies are designed to eat meat, which is not true. As mentioned before, an animal’s anatomy decides their diet, and human anatomy matches that of herbivorous animals more than that of carnivorous or omnivorous animals. To show you the striking resemblance between humans and herbivores, I will use a comparison of humans, herbivores, and omnivores conducted by Dr. Milton R. Mills [x]:

Omnivores’ jaws can move very well up-and-down, but hardly at all side-to-side, while herbivores can move their jaws both up-and-down and side-to-side very well to allow the crushing of plants. I’d like you all to take a moment to move your jaws from side-to-side. This may seem pretty silly, but most of you can probably do it because the average human can move his/her jaw the same as an herbivore.
Omnivores have bodies that are optimal for hunting, including long, sharp, curved canines, reduced facial muscles that allow a large mouth-opening compared to the head size, and sharp, curved claws. Herbivores, as well as humans, have short, blunt canines, defined facial muscles that allow a smaller mouth-opening compared to the head size, and flattened nails, or hooves for some nonhuman herbivores. While humans have successfully hunted with tools, we could not hunt using only our teeth and fingernails like true omnivores do.
Humans sleep much less than omnivores. Dogs are true omnivores. Have you ever noticed how much of the day your dog sleeps? Cats sleep even more as carnivores. Animals that are anatomically meant to eat meat sleep up to 90% of their day to preserve energy for the hunt, while herbivores only sleep 5 to 10 hours. How much do you guys sleep? 5 to 10 hours in a 24-hour cycle or 13 to 20 hours?
Omnivores can swallow raw meat whole while herbivores must chew quite a bit before swallowing. I don’t know about you guys, but I can’t just swallow mouthfuls of food at a time; I have to chew quite a bit.
An omnivore’s stomach acidity is 1 or even less with food inside. The stomach pH of herbivores, including humans, is only 4-5 with food inside.
An omnivore’s intestines are only 4-6 times its body length, while herbivores and humans have intestines between 10 and 12 times their body length. Just like meat rots quickly laying out in the heat, it rots inside the body during digestion. Animals truly designed to eat meat have short intestinal tracts to allow a short digestion and prevent the rotting of meat inside. Humans are truly meant to get our nutrients from plants. It takes longer to absorb sugar from fruits and vegetables, which is why herbivores, as well as us, have long intestinal tracts that allow a longer digestion.

So, in summary, humans are not omnivores because we have not always eaten meat, many animals are capable of digesting things they should not, and human anatomy matches that of an herbivore more than that of an omnivore.

There are two things you can do from here if you started reading this post as a meat-eater. You can either continue to eat foods based on animal products, which is unnatural and leads to health problems for most, or you could try to cut back and maybe even eliminate animal products from your diet. It is not easy to eat only plant-based foods, but when you consider that it is the most natural way for humans, maybe it won’t be so hard.

If you’re still reading, thanks for giving me your time.

Pastor Bo Wagner #fundie timesfreepress.com

Religion is a very powerful thing, so much so that, when people have been involved in it even for a while, it is very difficult to leave. It is even more difficult when an individual has been in it for most of his or her life and has given a full heart of devotion to it.

So the news world experienced some shock waves yesterday when one of the most religious men in the world renounced his faith: Farhis O'Hare, world-renowned atheist, has left the faith.

"My religion was precious to me," he said, "as much or more so than any Christian or Muslim or Jew. Faith in the absence of God always brought great comfort to my heart. Faith in the theory of evolution did too."

O'Hare tried very hard to hold onto his religion.

"I wanted to keep believing, I really did. But faith just became so hard for me. Every time I turned around the 'science' was changing. First the universe was 20 million years old, then a billion, then 4 billion, then 16 billion, and now 20 billion. It finally dawned on me that people just threw figures around without any evidence. That hurt me; I really did have lots of faith in my favorite scientists, my 'gods,' I guess you would call them."

In spite of all that, O'Hare did not go down easily.

"I worshiped very hard. I suppose I was really just trying to convince myself," he said. "I always attended lectures on atheism, even when I would rather have been on the lake fishing. I gave my offerings (donations to liberal causes) regularly. I even prayed."

When queried about whom he would have to pray to, O'Hare got a bit sheepish.

"To me," he whispered, explaining that, since he had believed there was no God,that made him (and any other human) the final authority, and thus, a god himself.

"I have to admit, it is a bit awkward at first, but after a while you just learn to refer to yourself in the second person as you pray. After a while, you can really get into it."

In addition to the billions of years simply spoken into existence as the need arose, O'Hare also stumbled in his faith because of the inconsistency of life among other believers.

"They claimed not to believe in God, but when their children's mother died, they told the kid she was 'in a better place.' They claim to believe the survival of the fittest, but then get angry when their kid gets bullied by a bigger kid. They say there is no absolute truth, but they blow up when someone lies to them. Do you want to know why I stopped believing? I left the faith because of the absolute hypocrisy of so-called believers."

O'Hare knows that he will likely receive little sympathy.

"Believers are really mean to those who leave the faith, I know that. The 'tolerant' are really very intolerant to any dissent. I fully expect to be blackballed and to have the leaders of my former religion command that other believers no longer talk to me. Shunning is such an ugly thing, but it is just part and parcel of the religion I spent my life in."

Bo Wagner is pastor of the Cornerstone Baptist Church of Mooresboro, N.C., and the author of several books which are available at wordofhismouth.com. Contact him at [Email address censored]

Various racists #racist reddit.com

(the_man_in_the_high)
Ideally from a White Nationalist point of view, is there any reason why you'd want any non-whites to exist?

After all, every non-white who exists takes away from the resources that a white person could utilize.

(CisHeteroScum)
Yes. I actually value human diversity. Its extremely interesting to observe the differences in our divergent evolution, and our uniqueness. It also gives world history and geopolitics a richer context.

Unlike a myopic and inconsistent leftist, I recognize the obvious fact that that "mulitculturalism" or "multiracialism" are not sustainable long-run options for any society. At best, this will achieve a boring, homogeneous, raceless world society that will have no distinctions - but in all likelihood you will just create sociopolitical dysfunction and a breakdown of public and private institutions where this ill-informed experiment is tried. Which is what we observe. And that is all assuming that "multiculturalism" is truly a benevolent ideological goal that just happens to only be the obligation of white countries.

After all, every non-white who exists takes away from the resources that a white person could utilize.

As if wanting my own nation and society defined by my race is the equivalent to wanting to be ever-expanding and ever-consuming. It's Malthusian, and it's wrong. I don't want all the resources that exist in the world, and we don't need them

(ChangeOfWind)
To a certain extent that is true; other people consume resources and pollute. In particular, atmospheric pollution is a problem: we can have whatever policies we want in our countries, if other countries pollute the atmosphere we also suffer.

But realistically other people have the same right to exist as we have. We don't want to exterminate animals either, despite them consuming resources too.

(the_man_in_the_high)

But aren't animals more like resources and less like people ? And it's not like animals are competing against human beings to get into Harvard. Mostly they just eat grass or eat each other -- most humans don't eat grass.

(BlinginLike3p0)
this is dumb as shit. do you think hardcore white supremacists want to kill all animals that are not a resource to humanity? the alt right doesnt want other races to fail, it just wants people to be able to exist and thrive without being dragged down or burdened by perceived obligations or debts to other races. I want the whole world to be successful.

Jim #fundie blog.jim.com

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor shit tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If fucking does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

O.D.H.G.A.B.F.E. #conspiracy forum.grasscity.com

first, we got to look at all the existing proof of aliens in the past visiting us. look at all the old paintings, cave art, even hieroglyphics that depict images resembling alien spaceships and ancient astronauts. google that yourself because that alone would be another thread by itself.

we, as an animal species, evolve faster than any other animal on the planet. from fucking stone tools to building huge stone monuments and pyramids that it would take years for us to do even this day in age. you could even say that perhaps the aliens helped the ancient cultures of Earth (like the Mayans, Inca, etc). what's the explanation of how your brain capacity and development can just evolve like that?

I mean really, how can humans just keep going but every other animal is left behind? dogs, we've had them since we were cavemen. the crocodile, those bastards were around since fucking dinosaurs, man. neither of them have changed, yet humans did.

if you believe that humans came from monkeys, then why do monkeys still exist today? and why did we lose our fur? the theory of adaptation says that it would have happened in order for us to survive, but why would we lose our fur and then have to hunt animals to make clothes because we're cold? doesn't make sense. perhaps our genes were altered artificially. after all, there's still a missing link.

Black Man #racist wutang-corp.com

(On his theory that white people once regularly had sex with dogs... and offspring with them...)
When did Elijah start teaching the white women had sex with jackel and had offspring with those jackels?

I know those colored women (and men too) were having sex with animals (dogs) as it can still be seen in this day and time. From what I know that type of sexual activity is known beastility. I've seen white woman having sex from dogs to horses.....no wonder why dogs (jackels) are said to be the best friends of those who refer to themselves as white as a collective. I don't know where they had babies by jackels, however I do know that having sex with animals is going to have an influence on the development of any fetus, it's going to have a direct influence on the (physical) health of the actual person having sex with the animals and it also has a psycological effect on the person who performs the act and the society that it grew out of and the society that still allows and practices this ungodly act.

Siphliss has it's origins in animals(dogs)....wonder how that was transferred to people? Somebody was doing something with something other than what they were.

I wonder why white people actually say they have sex with animals.

In no way am I saying that a dog (jackel) can or can't get a female pregnant as science has shown many things that we think shouldn't happen actually do happen.

CraneFlight #fundie teens-4-christ.org

If evolution were real...

...we probably wouldn't exist. Think about it. If there was no God...what would be the point of developing the wide variety of emotions that humans have? I mean, our emotions, a lot of times, don't lend well to the survival of our species. People are thinkers that can choose not to have children, have only a few, take a few years break in between having children, etc.

An animal that is able to reproduce will always do so if given the chance - even if reproduction always results in death for the mother, father, or both!

If humans thought like animals, we'd all have a baby every year with the first available person regardless of circumstances because survival of the species is most important.

Of course God commands us to be fruitful and multiply but...well, if our complex emotions actually decrease our productivity as a species...what's the point? To make us closer to God! God gave us the gift of emotion (not that animals don't have emotions, but not like humans of course) to make humans - made in His image - distinctly separate from the other creatures of the Earth. That's proof enough of God for me! PTL!

craneflight #fundie teens-4-christ.org

...we probably wouldn't exist. Think about it. If there was no God...what would be the point of developing the wide variety of emotions that humans have? I mean, our emotions, a lot of times, don't lend well to the survival of our species. People are thinkers that can choose not to have children, have only a few, take a few years break in between having children, etc.

An animal that is able to reproduce will always do so if given the chance - even if reproduction always results in death for the mother, father, or both!

If humans thought like animals, we'd all have a baby every year with the first available person regardless of circumstances because survival of the species is most important.

Of course God commands us to be fruitful and multiply but...well, if our complex emotions actually decrease our productivity as a species...what's the point? To make us closer to God! God gave us the gift of emotion (not that animals don't have emotions, but not like humans of course) to make humans - made in His image - distinctly separate from the other creatures of the Earth. That's proof enough of God for me! PTL!

CraneFlight #fundie teens-4-christ.org

If Evolution Was Real... we probably wouldn't exist. Think about it. If there was no God...what would be the point of developing the wide variety of emotions that humans have? I mean, our emotions, a lot of times, don't lend well to the survival of our species. People are thinkers that can choose not to have children, have only a few, take a few years break in between having children, etc.

An animal that is able to reproduce will always do so if given the chance - even if reproduction always results in death for the mother, father, or both!

If humans thought like animals, we'd all have a baby every year with the first available person regardless of circumstances because survival of the species is most important.

Of course God commands us to be fruitful and multiply but...well, if our complex emotions actually decrease our productivity as a species...what's the point? To make us closer to God! God gave us the gift of emotion (not that animals don't have emotions, but not like humans of course) to make humans - made in His image - distinctly separate from the other creatures of the Earth. That's proof enough of God for me! PTL!

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

Question: "Does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 command a rape victim to marry her rapist?"

Answer: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is often pointed to by atheists, skeptics, and other Bible attackers as evidence that the Bible is backwards, cruel, and misogynist, and therefore, not the Word of God. At first glance, this passage seems to command that a rape victim must marry her rapist. Is that the correct interpretation of the text, and if so, how is that not horribly unfair to the woman? This issue is actually addressed in two passages, both of which are below:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

Exodus 22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

Together, these passages clearly state that if a man has sex with a virgin who is not betrothed (regardless of whether or not it was rape or consensual) he is obliged to marry her. He should have sought her father's permission first, negotiated a bride-price, and taken her as his wife. Because he did not, he is punished for this—he now must pay up (he can't opt out any more) and marry her (which could be a major punishment in itself if this was a foolish, spur-of-the-moment act and she really wasn't the right woman for him!).

Also note that "he may not divorce her all his days" – this initially doesn't seem significant but is actually a major punishment. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (restated more clearly in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9) allowed for divorce, but only in the case of sexual immorality (the word "uncleanness" refers to this and was translated as such in the LXX). This man now may not divorce his wife even for this reason, but is obliged to continue to support her all his life whatever she does.

But her father is ultimately in authority over her, as her head, until he hands this authority over to her husband. If the man is unsuitable, the father can refuse to give his daughter to him. How many fathers would give their daughter to a rapist? Not many. So, in general, a rapist would actually have to pay a 50 silver shekel fine to her father, and not get a wife at all.

The answer to the question is in Exodus 22:17 - the woman does NOT have to marry a rapist, she must only do what her father says.

Note that throughout the Old Testament no rape victim is ever recorded as being forced to marry a rapist. However it is plausible that there could be circumstances in which a father would choose to have his daughter marry a rapist. In 2 Samuel 13, Amnon, a son of David, rapes his half-sister, Tamar. Tamar was not forced to marry Amnon. Interestingly, though, Tamar seemed to have wanted to marry Amnon after the rape (2 Samuel 13:13-16). Why would she desire such a thing? In that culture, virginity was highly prized. It would have been very difficult for a woman who was not a virgin, and especially a woman who had been raped, to find a man to marry her. It seems that Tamar would have rather married Amnon than live desolate and single the rest of her life, which is what happened to her (2 Samuel 13:20). So Deuteronomy 22:28-29 could be viewed as merciful to the woman, who, because of the rape, would be considered unmarriageable. In that culture, a woman without a husband would have a very difficult time providing for herself. Unmarried women often had no choice but to sell themselves into slavery or prostitution just to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different, and it is better to be flexible than have a blanket rule.

Also note that the penalty for having sex with an unbetrothed virgin is completely different from the penalty for sex with a married or betrothed woman. Sex with a married or betrothed woman is adultery and was to be punished by the death of both if consensual, or the death of the man if it was rape (Deuteronomy 22:22-27).

Lysander #fundie boychat.org

I think people are more fascinated with pedophiles than ever before. Back before the registry existed, there could be sex offenders hanging out in your neighborhood that you didn't even know about. They would hand out candy on Halloween just like anyone else, and no one would be the wiser. Pedophilia was effectively invisible. It wasn't talked about. Also, child porn wasn't even all that common, because we didn't have the Internet.

Now, we have more than 700,000 sex offenders on the registry. People can exclaim, "Wow, I didn't know we had a child pornography trafficker living right in our neighborhood!"

I think to some extent, people realize, "700,000 sex offenders can't be wrong." Also, they don't feel revulsion toward sex offenders, even though they say, "That's horrible and disgusting!" Rather, they can't get enough of shows like Special Victim Unit. They want to immerse themselves in it.

My view is, there are a lot of pedo-curious people out there. They want to know what all the hubbub is, that's making so many people want to download child porn, or have sex with little kids, or whatever. They're tired of feeling left out.

For a long time now, people have been sexualizing children. There are so many women (single moms, etc.) who are basically whores, that obviously their daughters are going to copy them, and want to wear the same tight/skimpy clothes and adopt the same sexualized stances, etc. so they can get attention too. Also, the Romeo-and-Juliet laws, coupled with the feminist injunction against slut-shaming, amount to society's sanctioning teen sexual activity.

The bottom line is that more and more, I think a lot of people want to experience sex with kids. They want to at least experience it vicariously. That's why they love to repost clickbait articles about adult-child sex. Women want to have sex with boys, men want to have sex with young girls, and homosexual men definitely want to have sex with boys (they barely even try to hide it). (As for women with younger girls, that doesn't get talked about much, because it doesn't fit into the feminist narrative, but I guarantee it will someday be a popular segment of the child porn market, once that's legalized.)

Another factor in this is that hebephilia and ephebophilia have been subsumed under pedophilia, even though the official change wasn't made to the DSM. That also tends to make pedophilia seem more alluring, because it includes not only attraction to the prepubescent but to the pubescent as well.

I think at this point, a lot of people would at least like to mess around with a kid to see what it's like.

ZETA #fundie thelocal.de

(This happened in 2013.)

As Germany tightened its laws against having sex with animals, zoophile advocates gathered in central Berlin on Friday to fight for their right to choose who, or what, they love. The Local's Jessica Ware reports. Michael Kiok and his partner Cissy have been in a caring relationship for the past seven years, which would be unremarkable if not for the fact that Cissy is a dog.

Angry that Germany wants to criminalize his unusual love affair, Kiok joined other zoophiles at Berlin's Potsdamer Platz on Friday to protest against new legislation banning bestiality.

“I found her advertised in a newspaper after my old dog passed away,” Kiok told The Local, saying the new law was unfair. “We feel like criminals. This is all because of fanatical animal rights demonstrators who think we hurt the animals.” Late last year, Germany's lower house of parliament made having sex with animals a criminal offence carrying a fine of up to €25,000. The upper house, the Bundesrat, signed off on the measures on Friday, as part of a package of measures aimed at bolstering animal protection.

“We are going to appeal to the highest court,” said Kiok, whose hat was covered in Cissy's hair.

He said the all-male group gathered at the protest were all in mutually beneficial relationships with their significant, furry, others and were not – as commonly thought – deviant animal abusers.

Behind Kiok, a female dalmatian nuzzled the lap of a young man as he smiled for photos and answered questions about his lifestyle. His red anorak marked him as a member of ZETA, or Zoophiles Engaging for Tolerance and Enlightenment, a German group lobbying for more acceptance of human-animal relations. The leaflet the organization put together for the protest says that “animals, which have been domesticated by humans for years, see people as pack members – the step from that to sexual partner is not large.”

Kiok said he could not see how he was committing a crime, if an animal is big enough to protect itself from human sexual advances yet still submits willingly. For him it's love, but in a different package. Despite a few early problems with Kiok's many cats, Cissy soon became part of the family and they have been inseparable ever since. Fellow protestor Oliver Bordinski was convinced that the German government had made up damning statistics to pursue its anti-bestiality agenda.

“This has all come from propaganda,” he said. “500,000 animals apparently die from sexual abuse each year, which is complete nonsense.”

He said moralists had a distorted image of all zoophiles violently abusing animals with sex toys. “These are the worst lies,” he said.

Kiok nodded beside him, clutching a bundle of leaflets on bestiality. On the front is an attractive woman nose to nose with a dog. Neither of them were at the protest. “We love animals,” it reads. “We reject any kind of force, violence and abuse and it hurts our souls to see animals suffer.” And this is what ZETA seems so desperate to convey: “We are pro-animal rights but we are being discriminated nevertheless.”

“We cannot do anything about being zoophiles, and so are trying handling our inclinations responsibly,” it concludes.

Bordinski cited societal prejudice as the reason behind the government’s decision. “We are a minority which is being discriminated and we are going to take this to the courts,” he said, adding he will not be made into a criminal for loving his dog.

Another protestor's dog barked for half an hour at a group of actors brought in by ZETA to garner the group some attention. One, dressed in black robes and wig ran around bemused onlookers, waving chunks of raw meat on the bone. With bits of fat in his hair and a fake red nose, what he and a woman dressed as a granny eating a fake rabbit were trying to illustrate was not immediately clear but they did draw a crowd.

On Thursday night, there was a screening of a bestiality documentary “Coming Soon” in Berlin. It was followed by a discussion on leading a zoophilic lifestyle. “I was there but interestingly none of the animal rights activists showed up,” said a smirking Kiok.

“There's one now,” he said, pointing to a woman in an orange neon vest with “animal rights” printed across it. She didn't approach the men, preferring to hand out her own pamphlets to snickering passers-by. Although not zoophiles themselves, the production company behind the movie believes the issue isn't as black-and-white as many people think. “Banning it means that millions of people in Germany are criminalized,” a spokesman from the company told The Local earlier this week. That alone, he said, should make people think about what is or is not a crime.

“It isn't loving animals which is making people freak out,” he said. “It's sexual hysteria.”

Guy Malone #fundie alienresistance.org

[I recommend checking out the rest of the site. It's a goldmine of lulz!]

Additionally, Paradox Brown describes one possible scenario this way,

“Beyond this, there is also the “Beast from the Sea”, with 7 heads and 10 horns, which while having a symbolic meaning, is also the fallen angel Abaddon who is released from the Abyss…
It seems likely that this fallen angel Abaddon will take the form of a human man, and not assume a strange “alien” form like other angels seem to do in Revelation. However, this does not preclude people believing that he is an alien. In fact, as the whole world is said to worship him as “god”, it stands to reason that he may claim to be “god” or “creator” of mankind. A human-looking “alien” who claims he himself created humanity in ages past, seems a lie that the world might believe. In fact many “abductees” already believe this. One type of “alien” seen in abduction False Visions is the Nordic. “Nordic aliens” look like beautiful humans, and some people describe them to seem angelic, and they also claim creation of humanity…

“Many people already have gotten the idea into their heads that the Earth may have been visited by aliens in the past, or that aliens might have built the pyramids, etc., have been visiting us for a long time, or even that aliens seeded life here on earth. This theory is known as “panspermia” or “exogenesis”. And some abductees already believe that humanity was genetically engineered by aliens that were here in Earth’s past. The foundation of these ideas is the Theory of Evolution. If people are deceived into thinking Abaddon is an “alien”, who was here in the past, this may be the grand finale of the Theory of Evolution, which has grown beyond a science theory, to be a faith-based religious system. In fact, it seems to be the best candidate out there for the “Strong Delusion” spoken of in 2 Thessalonians.

“As much as believing in evolution is a matter of faith… Exogenesis is also a matter of faith. What if someday people were told by reliable sources, such as the government or mainstream media, that “aliens” were real, here, and from another planet in another solar system? What if someday people were told by reliable sources that the “aliens” had said they guided the evolution of mankind through genetic engineering, or were the ones who originally brought life to the Earth from outerspace? If this were the case, many people would believe it, especially those who already believe in evolution. Because if a person believes that life evolved here on earth, it leads them to think life could have evolved in space as well, and “aliens” could exist… the Theory of Evolution has been very effective in prepping the world to be deceived by Abaddon, should he claim to be an “alien” who was here in Earth’s past.”

Incelman #sexist incels.co

If women don't like sex then why do teachers fuck their students?

One of the biggest MGTOW copes was that women only have sex as an exchange for money or to boost their confidence. The truth is, women like sex as much as men do and since they have higher SMV they can easily get it anytime they want. Females, just like males, are degenerate animals and sex is all they care about in life.

Incels have brought down so many common myths about women. Stuff like "girls are shy and want to be apporached", "girls like confidence the most", "women can be lonely too" are all proven wrong by us. Females are not exalted creatures. They are animals just like us. The only think that makes them more important than males is their pussy. A man might as well die after impregnating a girl, but the girl has to stay alive for 9 months in order to give birth so her life is more important than the man's.

Chris #fundie rr-bb.com

Man labeled the animals, put them in classes, families, species, etc. Of course the apes look a little more similar to humans than other animals, but they are still animals. They are not humans. They are trainable like other animals, but that is all. Trying to compare animals and humans together is absurd, and so is the idea of saying we came from animals. Once again, those who do this truly have no love for God, they would rather worship the creation, rather than the creator. And then their are others who have just tried to fit in with the world and bought the worldy view of origins. The only common ancestry we have with apes, is we all come from the dust per the Bible.

I think the verses speaking of God frustrating the intelligence of the wise, is very appropriate here. Most of the people trying to push the evolutionary views are atheists who do not want to believe in God, and they will find anything and everything to justify to themselves that he does not exist. And evolution and the ape to man theory (hypothesis) is just the latest (since 1800's) idea they have been satisified with. Still doesn't change one iota that God will judge them for their wickedness when they take their last breath.

v4ln4r #fundie reddit.com

To say fencehopping were totally wrong and have to be punished is bullshit. Cruelty has to be punished in opposite to love! Many people can't effort or manage to have own horses, cows, donkeys or whatever animal in this size. Just because of the animals owners dont like that someone have sex with there animals, you can nobody force to life a life without love and sex.

Or say he has to get punished just for making an animal which he don´t own himself feel good. I do fencehopping since i was 12 years old (now i am 27). I do have an etablished romantic relationship to the mares i visited so many times in my life. I am 100% zoophile and i do not want to have sex or an romantic-like relationship with humans ever. The only thing that i live for is my love to animals. btw i live in germany.

Freesu-San #fundie deviantart.com


Okay, I've said it before, and I'll say it again (this time I'll just elaborate): its only God that defines marriage; not you, not humans, not the government, not some activists, just God alone.

And before you say stuff like "Then polygamy is okay", or "But love is love!", or whatever excuse you're about to come up with, let me just get some stuff straight here, especially on some certain issues:


Polygamy
Okay, some of you may think that there are people in the Bible that practice polygamy (well, there were). But the big question is this: is polygamy acceptable? The answer is no.

Can a man love more than one wife? Certainly not.

A man cannot love more than one wife, neither should a woman love more than one husband. (1 Corinthians 7:1-2). The Scriptures tells us that "each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband." This sinful practice can be classified as a combination of fornication and adultery.

In countries such as Brazil and Netherlands that have legalized it, it has created a whole deal of chaos in those families, and the rest of the people.

Polygamous marriages, (or known to some countries as "group marriages"), can put a whole household into so much unrest and ruins, and it will have a negative impact on children living in polygamous families.

Having said that, polygamy is also classified as greed, because they will even take other men's wives, which before God is wrong. God created marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, Adam and Eve, not one man and multiple wives, not even Adam and multiple Eves.

Now I mentioned it, during Issac's time, people were seeing polygamy as a norm (which before God its not). But Issac married only one wife, and that's Rebekah. He loved her dearly, and he was loyal to her that he did not take another wife for any reason whatsoever.

Joseph, the 11th son of Jacob did not take many wives himself; he only married one woman, and had two sons with her.

Some of you reading this may think that the Bible condones polygamy. Wrong. And in case you didn't know, it's actually Islam that allows that practice, not Christianity. And with that being said, God's Word never for once approves it. The Bible also says "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold." (Deuteronomy 17:17). Even the New Testament makes it clear that men are ought to have one wife, for example, when speaking about the role of the elders it says "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2).
Bear in mind that phrase "the husband of one wife"; not two, not three, not four, not even 100, but one wife. That just tells you that polygamy is clearly unacceptable.

To all Christians reading this, and to all who are looking forward to be married someday, stick to one husband/wife.

Arranged marriage

Regardless of what you think, human beings are not Matchmakers. Okay? Unfortunately this thing is happening across the globe, more especially among rich people and Muslims. Some will even sell their daughters as child brides, which is totally wrong. Some will even kidnap young girls to forcefully marry them. That is why you even see human trafficking here, where they sell girls as child brides, forcing them to marry at such a young age. Its repulsive. Its wrong. Its downright immoral.

I mean, seriously, why can't they understand that God is the real Matchmaker? They just end up taking it into their own hands, and that never ends well. At all.

I mean, during Issac time, he wanted to marry but none of the ladies living there are even eligible because they all worship pagan gods. So God used Abraham's servant Eliezar, to bring the right wife for Issac.

God has His own way of bringing the right husband/wife for you, if you simply leave the matter to God's hands!

Same-sex "marriage"

A very widely debated topic, still going on today. And believe it or not, same-sex "marriage" is and will always be a sin. In fact, when it comes to homosexuality itself, the Bible does clearly forbids it. In countries such as Spain and Argentina that have allowed this practice, it has created a great deal of damage, to the point it even destroyed many families, and it is a very grave injustice to equality. Even in Netherlands, there has been a significant fall in the marriage rate since the day marriage was redefined. In France, there have been continuous large scale protests against this practice, even after the law was passed. In this century we live in, homosexuality is considered normal by many people. Whenever it is mentioned, it is not uncommon to hear someone ask "What's wrong with two people of the same gender falling in love? Isn't it normal?" The answers to these questions can be found in none other than the Bible.

In the modernized world we live in, people (especially Christians) are labelled as "homophobes" for not agreeing with homosexuality or anything related to it such as same-sex 'marriage', which is just foolish mentality.

The world considers what God clearly tells is unnatural to be natural (Romans 1:26-27). Some may argue that God's law forbidding homosexuality was only for the Old Covenant which God made between Himself and the Israelites. However, a quick search of the Scriptures will show that the New Testament has more verses condemning homosexuality than the Old Testament does.

Jesus himself gave God's definition of marriage in Mark 10:6-9, when he was speaking about marriage and grounds of divorce. He said that in the beginning 'God made them male and female.' He also said that "a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

Plus, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Geez man.

Recent polls also show that children are better off with a married mother and father than same-sex couples.

The worst part about that is that some of todays churches are even accepting it as a norm. No. Its shouldn't be that way. Its not good, its not Biblical, its not Godly, its not right.

Please read the journal for more information: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

Transgender "marriage"

Possibly one of the rarely debated issues, transgender 'marriage' is as worse as same-sex 'marriage'. It will affect everybody in a really drastic way. When men liberalizes sin, and when sin demands rights and acceptance, that very nation will crumble down, and will eventually lead people to Hell. This practice is not genetically based, and it is not simply a psychological disorder that "have to live with"; it is rebellion against God's plan.

God created marriage solely between one man and one woman, but in today's world, they disregard the Truth and not only promote same-sex 'marriage', but also promote laws that involves a transgender person who was born a male to marry a man, and a transgender person born a female to marry a woman.

The most basic to our understanding of sex is that God created two (and only two) genders: male and female, as He created Adam as a man, and Eve as a woman. (Genesis 1:27). There is no room for error in God's creation, and no one is born with the "wrong body." as the transsexual activists so claim.

They may think they are right all the time, but God will weigh their hearts (Proverbs 21:2). And the Scriptures clearly warned of such pride:

"For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, "There is no God." ~ Psalms 10:3-4

"For the sin of their mouths, the words of their lips, let them be trapped in their pride. For the cursing and lies that they utter" ~ Psalms 59:12

"For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world." ~ 1 John 2:16

And also the Bible says that He resists the proud and give grace to the humble (Proverbs 3:34). Some people (even the LGBT activists, and so-called Christians) may argue "But what's wrong with pride?!", when pride, unfortunately is what Satan uses to lead more people to Hell. It is no wonder that many are too comfortable in sin that they are very hardened against The Word of God.

A man should stay as a man, and a woman should stay as a woman, is that too hard to ask?

See this for more information: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

....

What marriage is
When you hear the word marriage, its earliest use of that very English word dates back to the 13th century. However, it's more valuable than we can ever think. Having said so, there is more to marriage than just "love and romance". Unfortunately, many seem to deny that.

Who created marriage in the first place? God did. In the book of Genesis, highlights God's plan for marriage as it says:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." ~ Genesis 1:27-28
First of all, marriage, is not something that just happened recently in the century we live in. In fact the first marriage took place right in the beginning, when Adam and Eve are joined together as husband and wife (Genesis 3:21-24).

After he created Adam and all the animals, God said “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” . So He put Adam to sleep, “and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:21,22)

When a man and a woman get married they commit themselves to spending their lives in a new relationship. It is a partnership of love, made richer and deeper through sex. Like many people, Christians regard it as the best context for nurturing children. It is also seen as the best (many Christians would say the only) setting for sex.

In any marriage ceremony the bride and groom must confirm that they want to marry each other, and after the opportunity has been given publicly for anyone present to prevent the marriage if there is a legal reason, the couple join hands and make promises. They exchange rings, which are worn as a reminder of these promises for the duration of their married life.

Marriage is more than a man a woman joined together, it is a beautiful gift from God, a marital devotion solely between one man and one woman as God created it to be. And to add to it, marriage is meant to be for life, and not some cheap contract for people to use and dump. Jesus gave a solid warning concerning divorce, when He said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." (Mark 10:11-12). Simple as that. Having said this, in marriage there should be room for reconciliation, else how can that marriage even stand?

"And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife." ~ 1 Corinthians 7:10-11

There are aspects that can either build or crumble down a marriage: fcu777.deviantart.com/journal/…

A spiritual aspect on marriage

Now, there is more to marriage than the earthly one itself. Having said this, if you look at the issue in a spiritual aspect, it actually reflects our relationship between us the Church, the children of God for that matter and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who is the head of the Church, the body of Christ to be precise. The earthly marriage has this high symbolism that most of us unfortunately are not even aware of or chose to overlook .

If you look at Isaiah 54:5 where it says "For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." And also the Bible says that the husband is the head of the wife "even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." And that as wives submit to their husbands, so do we as Christians submit ourselves to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His will (Ephesians 5:23,24,32).

This is something we as Christians really need to keep in mind.

....

In Conclusion

Marriage is a very beautiful union that God has created. In fact, the government did NOT create marriage, God did. Marriage is more than just about love and romance between two people, it is a holy marital devotion between a man and a woman, the way God designed it. And before you ask, in as much as marriage is important, and it is a beautiful union defined by God as between one man and one woman, we are actually given a choice whether to marry or not. I mean 1 Corinthians 7:8-9 says "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." That just shows you that marriage is not by force. All in all, marriage is and always will be between one man and one woman.

Liv Heide #racist #wingnut amren.com

Quality Matters

As a farmer’s daughter, I grew up surrounded by nature and animals. My father, like both of my grandfathers, was a very active and successful hunter, who turned the entrance hall of my parents’ house into a trophy gallery.

Our family’s men all had hunting dogs. I especially remember my grandfather’s German Shorthaired Pointer named Edda and several of my father’s Small Münsterländers, which had an excellent reputation as loyal hunting dogs for small game. The breed had been brought back almost from extinction at the end of the 19th century through some remaining lines found in the region of Münster, Germany.

The optimization of qualities is the obvious goal of any dog breeder. Not even a race-despising, self-proclaimed “anti-racist” can deny this. Not long ago, a hunter’s ability to feed his family depended on the intelligence, nose, swimming capabilities, and prey drive of his dogs. Recreational hunters still value these qualities and understand breed purity. I do not know much about equestrian sports, but horse breeders take the same approach in what is a $300 billion worldwide industry.

Yet when it comes to humans, we are expected to believe that physical, mental, and moral qualities have nothing to do with breed or race — that we are just one race: the human race. Like dogs — there is only the dog race?

To expose this laughable double-standard, I made a video and entered it in the Last Message to the West video contest run by Jared George of The Great Order. The contest is open for voting here (you have to register your email to do so). You can also watch my video at the same link.
I openly invite viewers to reject the taboo against seeing humans in racial categories, and urge them to strive for racial optimization in health, intelligence, creativity, and — last but not least — beauty. I dare them to look at humans as animal breeders look at animals, and I won’t apologize for it.

Animal breeders want to achieve certain results, and — let’s be honest — so do we. I am quite certain that none of the female members on my website WhiteDate.Net hope to reproduce one day with a man who looks like the hunchback of Notre Dame. Men do not dream of a hideous and mentally retarded wife and mother of their future children. Men and women alike, more or less subconsciously, even try to look for traits in a partner that would correct their shortcomings, such as height or hair quality. Sweeping this under the rug does not change the universal truth that finding a partner is and has always been a eugenic choice.

I am also quite certain that a pregnant woman looking for information on hypnobirthing online wonders why the YouTube algorithm suggests videos about “A Day with 4 Handicapped Children,” “My Abortion Story”, “I am Sophia – Life of a Transgender Child,” or “Beauty Queen with Down Syndrome,” etc.

You almost get the impression that the biggest video platform welcomes anything dysgenic and unnatural while it normalizes the elimination of perfectly healthy embryos. By strange coincidence, everyone in these videos is white. A dog or horse breeder would tell us that a strong, functioning society needs healthy, intelligent, productive people.

Well, looking at what our ancestors have built, we woke white people understand what we are capable of, because these qualities are enshrined in our DNA. We woke white people feel a responsibility to maintain and improve these qualities, even if only for the sake of honoring what defines us: our race!

Harold Godwinsson #racist englisc-gateway.com

As for Civil distubances, or Civil War, or Race War, yes, i believe something like that, is coming, and i believe it will begin in England first, and it will be bloody, and distructive, but i also believe that we the Englafolc will come out of it free, and for wiser for it..

(...)

i believe it will begin in England, and we must be ready for it, for we will be lost completely if we lose it, but i believe we won't lose it, i think it will be more of a race war, since the White Race's will be fighting for their very survival...

As far as the end of the world and all that Hollywood thing, well, the Earth Mother may take a hand, i don't know, you see the Earth has gone through so many changes in her history, this will will only be one of many, but i doubt if it will be the end of the world all together, just the end of the presant set up, therefore the end of the Global New World Order, and back to living with Nature, instead of against her, and back to being Normal Indevidual Folk-nations, independent of each other, and no more Globalist Agenders..

As far as all of us dying, no i doubt it, the Human race hasn't finished his evolution yet, not by a long way, so no, not all of us, although, there will be millions killed, which will bring down the Human numbers.. [thumb-up]

But that is only if it takes place at all that is, we shall only have to wait and see..

But i believe Race War is coming, yes most certainly, and with in the next three years or so, and i believe it will begin in England, why England?

Well since i believe the English, have been pushed into a corner long enough, and we will come out fighting like savages sooner or later, yes i mean like savages, like wild animals, for we must prove ourselves far more terrable and visious than any of those facing us, just like our Forefather's were like, and i still believe we have it in us to be like our ancesors, its not been bread out of us, its still there, we only show it when we are push into a corner and that time is coming..

ANewCreature #fundie rr-bb.com

(fundie bought a house from someone who had a dog named Satan, hilarity ensues)

Spiritual warfare impact of neighbor's dog's name

I bought this house from our neighbor, an elderly widow who had had quite a few economic problems. I've pretty much gutted it, and the outside and inside are all pretty much brand new by now. Some great things have happened here, as I've grown in Christ and helped people and such.

However, at times it feels like I've been test4d like Job and I was just wondering last night if there was somereason. Such as, what this lady called her dog, which died maybe 1.5 years before she did.

She had named it Satan.

Now, even as a baby Christian coming home from college hearing she'd gotten one, back around 1990 or so, I thought that sounded like a Really Bad Idea , no matter how bad the dog was at first. It actually was a really nice dog, but I mean, the idea that every time she called it, or spoke to it, she was saying the devil's name, which i don't even like to say...

Do you think that could have had something to do with it? I've never seen anything weird, or anything like that, and she wne downhill just in the normalw ay older people do, becoming incontinent, not being able to get aroudn mcuh; she was ashamed of the condition the house was int he last couple years and always went out he garage door, but older people do that without naming their dog after the devil. One could argue that when the dog died that was the end of it (or, at least, when I bought the house and prayed and dedicated it to the Lord.) But, do you think that could have been part of the problem of the spiritual warfare that I've felt from time to time? The fact that name had been called or used a lot int he early '90s, even though it was only used to refer to the dog?

I didn't really think about that till now, it's funny. maybe because it's nothing. or, maybe because the Lord didn't wnat me to lose sight of Him as He worked through these intrusive memories with me and helped me and guided me to a solution, which I mentioned in the prayer requests.

What do you think? At the very least, as I've said, namign a dog that was Really Dumb, but was there more to it?

Alpha Ott #fundie amazon.com

[On homosexuality.]

How I would like to just ignore this argument and say, "Who cares"!! But, I came across this discussion and I've felt compelled to have a say....I have to respond as a Christian, born again at that....that I believe in the Creator that made you and I, I believe with all my heart that HE inspired every word written in the Bible, AKA ,Gods Word....and in it, I have read that God is not wanting HIS creations, made in HIS likeness to make love with the same sex ...And seeing as HE knows how we are made and HE knows whats best for HIS creation, He has said, a MAN is not to lie with anothr Man. I believe that means NOT to have SEX with the same gender. ( Last time I looked, shall not is in the negative...) NOW...He did not say you cannot LOVE one another...THAT HE wants for all of us to be part of...however I think HE means to cherish, care for, be tender towards one another not to literally have sex with...I also believe that HE means women are to NOT have sex with another woeman as well...( there's equality in that statement)...He's also stated that He finds homosexuality an ABOMINATION...
SO....since I believe in Jehova, the CREATOR, the ONE who loves each of us and sets rules and commandments up for us to have a MUCH better life and world to live by AND IN...i have TO SAY, i DO NOT AGREE THAT having sex with the same gender, man with man, woman with woman, is the right thing to do....IF you love each other, live together....just don't have sex....I know...I know...how silly is that?...But, its not anymore silly that for people to read Gods words and then say..." H, He didn't mean that"...OR, Well , thats from the OLD testament, that doesn't apply...well...I guess " thou shalt not kill doesn't then, or thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife, or ...thou shalt not steal, ect....Anyway...Disagreeing with you doesn't make me a haterof people that I don't agree with. THAT would break Gods GREATEST command and that is....Thou Shalt LOVE one another... So, I wish you well....LOVE and peace... have a reat life together.....just don't have sex together...It isn't MY rule...or idea. God thought of it first!! *S*

Tim Rowe #fundie charismanews.com

Are we living in another generation like Noah's, when toxic thinking is destroying our entire culture?

"The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was continually only evil. The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart" (Gen. 6:5-6).

It is sobering to see what happened to the human heart because of a reckless thought life. It did not take long after sin had poured into the human race in the Garden of Eden for men's and women's thinking to go down the tubes. Almost immediately, Adam and Eve let fear dominate their thinking when they hid from the presence of God. God was no longer the focal image of their thoughts. Corrupt thinking only worsened as Cain murdered Abel when thoughts of jealousy and anger shaped his heart into a killer. Sin was crouching at the door of Cain's thought life, and he failed to master it. Each succeeding generation continued to allow sin to crowd God out of their thinking.
The Days of Noah: The Point of No Return

In Genesis 6, people's thought lives had so corrupted their hearts that they reached a point of no return. Every thought, imagination and intention of their human thinking was consistently and totally evil. The Bible does not say some of the imaginations and thoughts of the human race were continually evil, but all of their images, desires, intentions and inclinations in every single thought, were evil.

This was not just some weekend fling. It was their thinking from the time they got up in the morning until the time they went to bed at night. There was not a moment in the day when this evil thought process was not actively controlling their minds and shaping their hearts. They wanted absolutely nothing to do with God in their thinking and ultimately in their hearts.

The psalmist affirms this destructive habit of wrong thinking to the human heart:

"The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek God; God is not in all his thoughts" (Ps. 10:4).

This wicked and rebellious people in the time of Noah did not seek God in their thinking. God was not in one single thought. God is the most awesome thing we can ever think about, but these people were so deceived that they did not believe they needed God.

This is the tragic height of selfishness. This is the ultimate ego trip. This is the most dangerous thinking pattern on the planet. Without God in our thoughts, we have written the death sentence to the magnificent purpose God has prepared for our lives. To never know Him is the greatest catastrophe of the ages. He deserves the honor to be first in our thinking.

Our thoughts are a mighty weapon that can forge our hearts into a steel fortress for our God, or they can be a stealth bomber that penetrates our inner lives and destroys our hearts. Thoughts are a much more powerful weapon than any nuclear bomb. They are the critical component to our spiritual growth. We must have a disciplined thought life that is focused like a laser on God and His Word, or our hearts will become a mush of spiritual apathy and worldly lusts.

The devil is a master general at attacking the thought life of a Christian. His war strategy involves tactics of deception, pressure, and enticement to turn our thinking away from God and toward his kingdom. The devil knows that every action that flows out of the human heart originates from our thoughts. He knows that our moral character is an exact image of our thinking. Our thoughts determine whether our character drifts toward good or evil.

The devil knows that in order for a person to do evil, he must first think evil.

Within 10 generations after the fall in the garden, the devil was so successful that only one person on the entire Earth had godly thoughts. Sin had spread like wildfire and contaminated every single thought of what was probably between 235 million and 7 billion people. To imagine that only one person out of this massive population had his thought life together is mind-boggling. Nothing in their thoughts reflected the image of God and not one thought brought glory to God. They were wise, rich, sophisticated and cultured for their time, but the defining characteristic of their age was wickedness because of their thinking.

A civilization that is centered on an ungodly thought life is built on sinking sand. This civilization in the days of Noah received the fruit of their thoughts, which was wickedness and corruption that multiplied on the face of the Earth.

Only Noah was thinking rightly and found favor with God. No one else held the image of God and His words as the standard for their thoughts. No one else was guarding their thoughts. No one else cared that their thought life had nothing good in it, but was a breeding ground for evil. Only Noah had righteous thoughts that built his faith and fueled his obedience to God. Noah's thought life was pure and free from evil because he walked with God.

Genesis 6:6 reveals how the toxic thinking of the human race affected God's heart. These verses contain the first usage of the word heart in the Bible, and they describe a heart that is in deep sorrow.

"The Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him in His heart" (Gen. 6:6).

The toxic thought life of His precious creation broke God's heart. God's heart was in horrible agony and pain as He groaned in sorrow over the condition of the heart of every member of the human race. He cried in agony that His people refused to honor Him with even one thought.

Are our thought lives any better today? Does our thinking bring great agony to the heart of God? How God must grieve today over the thought lives of so many Christians and the toxic thinking of this generation.

God is sounding out a clarion call to all who would listen that what we think is critically important to the heart of God. He knows He cannot have your heart if He does not first have your thoughts.

I don't want to break the heart of God because of my toxic thinking. I want to bring glory to God with my thinking. I want to honor Him with every thought. I do not want any virus to infect my thinking and take out the operating system of my heart. A reckless thought life led to the annihilation of an entire civilization. Is it happening again?

KnightsTemplar.TV #fundie godlikeproductions.com

Sexual Union of Souls and The Occult Forces of Sex

Sex is the fountain of all life.

However, let me warn you that this magnificent fountain is not something we humans should profane with our animal needs or wants by treating the most beautiful act of sex similar to that of a dirty dog. But in our current world, many men and women seem to be doing just that by making this most beautiful fountain a possible poisoned Karmic well of death for the unsuspecting souls who treat this divine act like that of an animal.

The facts are that most people are completely ignorant to this “force” when it comes to the spiritual realm, their astral souls and their animal bodies in the material world. The reason being is that most humans are not educated on these facts as the live their lives based on mostly pure materialism as they operate primarily from the seat of their animal selves rather than for their divine selves which would be their souls. These same people think of sex as purely a pleasure act where they feel good temporarily or reach a form of ecstasy, but they do not think beyond the joy we feel and or orgasm that it brings. This is a serious mistake that I have made myself more than once and have lived through the resulting very bad Karma from these ill fated and ignorantly chosen sexual unions.

When you have sex, you need to realize that the other persons soul becomes one with yours and some serious soul work may need to take place to release their astral connection to your astral self.

Think of these unseen forces that are like vampires that instead of feeding on your blood, feed on your energy which is your “life force.” It is almost akin to an exorcism that takes place when you are free from the other’s Astral influence. Some people can do this in days, weeks or months with the proper work and some people who don’t understand this will take a year or more to get over one relationship. If you have multiple sexual relationships then you are creating multiple unions that will end up creating multiple vampires confusing you and making you a bit mad in the head. Hence, think about porn stars, prostitutes and strippers who always seem to have serious mental issues that never leave them and often plague them till death. Most of these people are going crazy not from the porn or the act of sex, but the many sexual unions with dark souls that never leave them. The same can be said about the girl or guy who sleeps with everyone in your school or town. They are always a bit weird and most of them end up dying or going absolutely crazy later in life.

This is really why many people take break ups with their partners or marriages so bad.

Here is an excerpt from the Occult Science in Medicine to help put this in perspective for you:

Popular medicine deals only with external effects and physical causes, occult science goes deeper, seeking for fundamental causes and final effects, which are of far greater importance than the passing manifestations taking place in the physical form. Thus, for instance, a promiscuous sexual intercourse not only causes venereal diseases; but as during that act a commingling of the inner natures takes place to a certain extent, a man cohabiting with a depraved woman takes on some of her characteristics and joins to a certain extent her future Karma and destiny to his own. The basis of the existence of human beings is what, for want of a better expression, has been called the Will (Spirit or Life), and as one body may colour or poison another, likewise a colouring, and perhaps poisoning, takes place by a blending of spirit during sexual intercourse; this “spiritual substance” being the essence of each human being.

“If a woman leaves her husband, she is then not free from him, nor he from her; for a marital union having once been established, remains a union for all eternity.” (” De Homunculis.”)

The important thing to understand when it comes to yourself is that your body is comprised of two entities. One would be that of your material or animal body and the other would be your astral soul which is your divine self. When you are born, these two separate entities go out into the physical world and are always somewhat at war with one another with each trying to control your thoughts or actions in order to gain the upper hand in your daily affairs.

Think of it like you have an angel on one shoulder and a little devil on the other.

The devil would your animal self that encourages you to have as much sex as you please with whomever you please and the angle would be your good side that hopes to find a soul mate to marry and start a family with whom you can make love with because you care deeply for this person.

Here is a quotation from H. P. Blavatsky to help explain this a bit further:

“The ‘harvest of life’ consists of the finest spiritual thoughts, of the memory of the noblest and most unselfish deeds of the personality, and the constant presence during its bliss after death of all those it loved with divine spiritual devotion. Remember the teaching: The human soul, lower Manas, is the only and direct mediator between the personality and the divine Ego. That which goes to make up on this earth the personality, miscalled individuality by the majority, is the sum of all its mental, physical, and spiritual characteristics, which, being impressed on the human soul, produces the man. Now, of all these characteristics, it is the purified thoughts alone which can be impressed on the higher immortal Ego. This is done by the human soul merging again, in its essence, into its parent source, commingling with its divine Ego during life, and reuniting itself entirely with it after the death of the physical man.”

Philo said that “God separated Adam into his two sexual component parts, one male, the other female—Eve—taken from his side. The longing for reunion which love inspired in the divided halves of the originally dual being, is the source of the sexual pleasure, which is the beginning of all transgressions.”

This is where many of our problems had started when our astral souls had left the heavenly spirit world to inhabit the animal, plant and mineral world that we now know as the planet earth. This is where our species of animal, man kind or Home erectus has been in a perpetually lost as many of us are trying to find their way home or search for our souls mates. Our soul mates are our other astral halves thus resulting in a perfect union of souls. We are all Adam’s or Eve’s looking for our other halves so we can then truly be scientifically soul complete, but the wrong choice of a mate may just end up in a destructive union that causes negative consequences and or an outcome for both parties involved. I am sure you may have had this experience yourself or have seen this first hand in your lifetime.

The male element represents the energy, action, warmth, and productive principle in nature. The female represents, the maternal which is passive and procreative, the union of the two is the subjective man’s universal soul. The whole reason we humans have sex is for this union and not purely for the pleasure of the act, but for the reproduction of “souls”which just happens to use our animal bodies which I sometimes refer to as space suits for this propagation process. To put it simply, we humans are used by astral soul entities who wish to propagate our physical bodies to further their Karmic development.

Here is an excerpt from Harry Houdini in his book , The Esoteric that will help those of you out there understand the difference between the soul and animal body;

“The human body is subject to a double law of nature, male and female, and when the student will throw aside this outer material body, as his hypothesis,and learns to comprehend the difference between the objective and subjective man; the animal and the soul body, the outer and the inner being: to polarize either with the astral-magno or astral-force, he can have the might power of nature, and become the grandest of magicians. But the student must not rest here but press on. The student of soul-light finds the union of sex in its dual being is the universal form of God ; unselfish love the “universal force, and wisdom the guiding hand; marriage of the soul with spirit the universal result.

The bottom line is that regardless if you are heterosexual or homosexual, the Occult Forces of Sex And The Sexual Union of Souls is not something that should be taken lightly or you should carelessly toy with. You need to understand that you have now entered into “soul union” with this other person’s soul because when we mate with another human, we are also mating with their soul.

If you care and love them from your heart,this is where you will find the divine spark that culminates from this union as you unite as one with them and the magic can be very powerful. The reason is because this union of souls holds a special energy in a regenenerating as well as a generating force with the former producing this union of souls which is astral and also physical because we can all see, touch and feel the experience in the material world. The consequences of this act could turn out very bad if you simply cannot control these energies or Karma that may be a result of what you think is just “casual sex.”

Jim #sexist blog.jim.com

The trouble with Rotherham is not that white girls were raped and beaten, but that Muslims get exemption to be manly as women understand manliness, and whites and Hindus do not.

The Rotherham girls were raped, threatened, and beaten all right, but they were also complicit in the violence.

For the most part, the pimp, rather than aggressively forcing his women into prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, is aggressively, but unsuccessfully, attempting to restrain them from prostitution by the threat or actuality of violence, and to the extent that he goes along with their prostitution, is just being the dancing monkey, pretending to be in charge so as to retain some tattered shreds of manliness despite being massively cuckolded.

Human female sexuality is closer to feline female sexuality than to chimpanzee female sexuality. Apes are primarily vegetarians, but we are descended from killer apes. Even when sex involves quite dangerous violence against women plus infanticide and plenty of it, as it rather often does, human females are massively complicit in that violence and infanticide. The women that pimps go through the motions of oppressing are topping from the bottom, and pimps are more accurately understood as the cucked and oppressed victims of lustful bawdy women.

Prostitution is frequently in substantial part an alarmingly enthusiastic and endlessly continuing search for a male who is alpha as women understand alpha – which manliness and alpha character is in substantial part is demonstrated by criminal violence against women and children and being able to get away with violence against women and children.

Even when sex involves a lot of violence against women and children, as it often does, it is the pimps that are the real victims, being brutally cucked by their lustful women.

If a girl is being sexually trafficked, there is absolutely no way the pimp can stop her from wandering off with one of her customers, and whores do this with great regularity. The client is trying to “rescue” the girl from prostitution and her brutal pimp and human trafficker, but she then tries to turn him into a pimp and cuckold. Hence the saying:

“You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.”

Reality is that all the power is in the hands of the whores, not the pimps, which deeply frustrates the women, who are endlessly searching for manly power and authority in all the wrong places, and not finding it. Everyone gets hurt, no one gets their desires fulfilled.

The Democrats prefer to import Jihadis, criminals, and whores. Jihadis and criminals because they can be relied upon to vote Democratic, whores because they will become cat ladies who can be relied upon to vote Democratic. As a rationalization for importing whores, they implemented the “blue campaign”, which defined illegal immigrant whores to be victims of human trafficing, which the government proceeded to “rescue”.

The purported “victim-centered approach” – as opposed to criminal-focused prosecutions – was mostly a fraud-enabling way in the spirit of asylum/refugee fraud to give a bunch of illegal alien women yet another zero-scrutiny way to claim a victim status that was a free and quick golden ticket to a green card. Cf: U Visas). “Some evil man trafficked my humanness here and took all my documents which are totally from a country that is both unable and unwilling to cooperate with your investigators.”)

Men who come here to kill us and take our stuff will reliably vote Democratic, and women who are whores will remain single, and thus reliably vote Democratic.

Hence the striking and conspicuous preference for importing criminals, Jihadis, and whores.

Two incidents with a woman:

I protected her.

We were walking along a little used path in a semi rural area when a dog charged us barking furiously. She would have run, in which case the dog would have done a large circle around me and attacked her (a barking dog always wants to attack from behind) so I tightened my grip on her, and turned to face the dog while sweeping her behind me like a sack of potatoes and prepared to strike at the dog with my free hand and with one foot. The dog, seeing my focused immobility, the steady predator gaze of the tiger in ambush, abruptly spun around, tucked its tail between its legs, and fled.

Heh, I thought. Massive display of protective manliness. She is going to remember this fondly.

Wrong!

Wrong again!

She totally and completely forgets it.
I endangered her:
“Why”, I ask, “are we at the kiddy pool?”
“I cannot swim”, she replies.

I pick her up.

“Hey, put me down”, she screams. She then realizes that I carrying her off to the adult pool. Her screaming redoubles.

She then realizes that I am carrying her off to the deep end of the adult pool, and realizes I am going to throw her into it. She screams and struggles.

I am doing this in front of her family, in front of several male members of her family. The trip from the kiddy pool to the deep end of the adult pool requires me to walk past the security guy, who is responsible for order and safety.

I am old and at that time was rather fat. She is young and slim. I am walking very briskly, so, obvious sexual predator forcibly abducting screaming young girl, or at least a guy being disorderly and endangering safety. To avoid triggering his white knight impulses, I totally ignore him, and keep my gaze steady on my destination, so I don’t know how he reacted. As usual, when I act with confidence and determination, as I have learned to do in the presence of fertile age women, no one gets in my way.

I toss her in, shortly thereafter get laid like a rug.

I really do not like violence against women all that much. The incident with the dog was way more in accord with my sexual fantasies. Truth is, I had been warned there was a dangerous and aggressive dog in that area. I had no way of knowing for sure that I would be able to intimidate it or defeat it, but was confident I could. I have plenty of experience with dangerous and aggressive dogs. Dogs, like humans, can tell if you are seriously considering killing them and think you might be able to accomplish it. It was totally a setup to give effect to my sexual fantasies. But I am a dancing monkey, and I do what it takes to get laid. Eggs are dear, sperm is cheap, so male fantasies do not matter, and female fantasies do matter. That is just the way the world is. Women do not particularly want protection, and are disinclined to cooperate with males who protect them. The early James Bond movies reflect male fantasies. Female fantasies involve motorcycle gang leaders, vampires, demons, and serial killers, and men have no alternative but to play along. I must dance, and women call the tune.

The Rotherham problem was not Muslims out of control, but women out of control. The cure is not to restrain Muslims, but to restrain women.

For women to reproduce successfully, they have to be under male authority, and in the modern world, they look for that authority and do not find it.

Female behavior makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology when you reflect that the barista with an advanced degree in women’s studies and one hundred thousand dollars in college debt will probably become a cat lady, but if Islamic State was militarily victorious, and auctioned her off naked and in chains at public auction, would probably have seven children and twenty grandchildren.

It also makes total sense if you take the story of the fall seriously. It is the curse of Eve. “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

It also makes sense of female voting behavior. Single women have no country. They want us to be conquered, they want their male kin to be castrated, so they can finally get into the possession of someone strong enough to own them.

Whenever someone talks about rape in the sense of the female not consenting, implying it is perfectly fine and completely normal if she has sex without her father consenting, or engages in serial monogamy, he is normalizing a morally degenerate male fantasy that fails to correspond to observed female revealed preference.

Women perceive protective manliness as something as natural as the sun rising in the east, and aggressive male dominance as an extraordinary gift from heavens to be adored and worshiped.

Which makes total sense from the point of view of evolutionary psychology, since aggressive male dominance is likely to result in being auctioned off naked and in chains, followed by seven children and twenty grandchildren, while protective manliness is likely to result in becoming a cat lady.

Female sexual autonomy results in defect/defect equilibrium, the equilibrium of whores and pimps. Nobody gets what they want. Queen Gwenevere cheats on King Arthur with Lancelot, King Arthur finds out, Camelot falls because of internal disunity, and everyone gets killed.

Protective manliness that protects the sexual autonomy of women, protective manliness that protects Queen Gwenevere’s sexual autonomy, is not only unappreciated by women, but is white knighting, is wicked, evil, and morally degenerate. The curse of Eve is that women should not have sexual autonomy, and endlessly look for a man strong enough to take it away from them.

Be that man.

In order to reproduce successfully, women need to be conquered and subdued. Her owner can then safely invest in her. With female sexual autonomy he cannot, so he does not. Her bearing children for her owner, means her holding hostages against him, thus cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

Mainländer #sexist #pedo incels.co

[Blackpill] The intense hatred for pedo/hebephiles (even non-practicing ones) doesn't come from Christianity but from feminism and psychology, particularly Freud

There's nothing in the Bible about pedophilia. It's a given that we are not supposed to hurt innocent people because loving thy neighbor is a commandment (so penetrating prepubescents can be inferred as wrong), but the Bible doesn't say anything about AoC, minimal marriage age, age difference in relationships or anything of the kind.

The intense hatred for anyone who even admits to be able to feel attraction towards underage people comes from:

1) Puritan old women who used religious moralism as an excuse to shame men who date much younger women, because of envy and jealousy
2) Psychology's unfounded claims about invariable trauma happening every time someone older has any kind of romantic or sexual relationship with anyone below certain arbitrary age of choice
3) Freud making everything about sex in his crazy theories and reducing humans to sex-obsessed animals. People stopped believing in the capacity of people to relinquish sex; they don't believe a person can choose to be celibate, a homosexual can choose not to have homosexual sex, a pedophile can choose not to pursue sex with children etc.

Thus, they believe anyone who feels attraction towards underage people is a rapist (a "statutory rapist", at best) or someone who is about to become a rapist at any moment.

"I feel attraction towards underage people" = "I'm a rapist" in the minds of people who buy into modern psychology and Freud's insane theories.

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

A teenager heard his high school teacher say that people are actually animals. The teen thought about the statement for a minute and then embarrassed his teacher by asking her in front of the class... "If people are animals, then is it acceptable for humans and animals to have sex together?" Unless you believe in bestiality, then you must concede that people are not animals and that evolution is a bunch of nonsense.

Michael & Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

The Lacerta Files

Interview with a Reptilian

[...]

Question: First of all, who are you and what are you? Are you an extraterrestrial species or can your origin be found on this planet?

Answer: As you could see with your own eyes, I’m not a human being like you and to be honest I’m no real mammal (despite my partly mammal-like body features, which are a result of evolution). I’m a female reptile being, belonging to a very old reptilian race. We are the native terrans and we live on that planet since millions of years.

(Note by Stephanie Relfe: Those who have read the Mars Records will recognize this as true. We found by muscle testing that the body does not consider Reptilians as “aliens”, because they have been here long enough to be considered native.)

(Note by Michael Relfe: Some Bible researchers believe that when YAHWEH gave the order to replenish the earth, He was referring to a previous race that had dominion of earth. And it is clear who the new owners are.

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth”. Genesis 1:28)

We are mentioned in your religious writings like your Christian Bible and many of the ancient human tribes were aware of our presence and worshipped us as gods, for example the Egyptians and the Inca and many other old tribes.

(Note by Stephanie Relfe: Yes, interesting, isn’t it? This is true- there is so much evidence from stone statues all around the world that in the past humans did worship them as Gods. Now, most of these people also practiced human sacrifice. Which means that that was done with the approval of the reptilians. Did they eat us? Do they eat us still ? Some people have reported that they do.

My question is, what happened? Why don’t they want us to know that they exist? Let alone worship them? Michael and I believe (and, of course, this may not be true), that each time, humans worshiped them as gods only for a while. Familiarity breeds contempt and after a while we think that humans lost their awe of the big lizards, and got sick of them torturing and eating us (human sacrifice). And rebelled. And with our superior metaphysical abilities, we won every time. Which is why the lizards now stay in hiding.

However, we think they are starting to want to come back and get worshiped again which is why there is SO MUCH programming of children in books, TV, toys and museums to love dinosaurs and reptiles. We visited a Children’s museum in a major city one day. The play area for children had about 90% plastic dinosaurs and reptiles! Only about 10% mammals and birds! What happened to dogs and pandas, pelicans and penguins? An area with live animas was the same – about 80% reptiles. No bunnies, guinea pigs and parrots. Just lizards, snakes and tortoises. And have you ever noticed how many, many children’s books ALWAYS have a reptile in them? And how “d is for ‘dog'” is now replaced by “d is for ‘dinosaur” (a much tougher word to read)? ).Continue with interview…

Your Christian religion has misunderstood our role in your creation, so we are mentioned as “evil serpent” in your writings. This is wrong. Your race was genetically engineered by aliens and we were just the more or less passive visitors of this accelerated evolution process. You must know (some of your scientists have already supposed this) that your species had evolved in a naturally completely impossible speed within just 2–3 millions of years. This is absolutely impossible, because evolution is a much slower process if it’s natural but you have not understand this.

(Note by Stephanie Relfe: Wrong again. Evolution is not slow. It’s VERY fast. I am not saying that God did not create everything in the beginning. Or that aliens have not interfered in DNA since then. But one thing is clear. Evolution continued AFTER the Bible’s Genesis. Please read Robert Felix’s Magnetic Reversals and Evolutionary Leaps to learn that immediately after the many major extinction events that earth has experienced, thousands of new life forms appeared, with no previous evidence of them in the fossil record. This has happened many, many times.)

Your creation was artificial and done by genetic engineering, but not by us but by an alien species. If you ask me, if I’m an extraterrestrial, I must answer no. We are native terrans. We had and have some colonies in the solar system, but we originate on this planet. It’s in fact our planet and not yours—it was never yours.

(Note by Michael Relfe: Please understand that predatory species of all types continue to get quite a bit of mileage out of the “you were created by aliens” scam. This is an attempt to steal the heritage of and undermine the confidence of humans as well as preventing people from having a personal relationship with their creator. As previously described, it is clear that humans were created by, and in the image of, YAHWEH, Creator of ALL things. This is a powerful secret that Lucifer and his operatives do not want you to know. Lucifer and the dark powers of this planet want humans to think they are animals, with no spiritual heritage. YAHWEH wants people to understand that they have infinite, eternal life through HIS Son YaHuShua (Jesus Christ) and that they have the ability, duty and honor of destroying the creations of Lucifer. And that includes everything that the cannibalistic reptilians have created. And that is what the reptilians are scared of.)

(Note by Stephanie Relfe: Maybe that’s why this planet belongs to Lucifer. We know that earth belongs to Lucifer because when he tried to tempt Jesus by offering him the whole world, if he would only worship him, Jesus did not rebuke him. Lucifer (Satan) is head of the fallen angels and there’s a strong connection between fallen angels and reptilians. While there is a spiritual Hell, there is another Hell of fire and brimstone deep within the earth, full of pain and terror, and that’s the home of the reptilians.)

Question: Can you tell me your name?

Answer: This is difficult, because your human tongue is not able to pronounce it correctly (and a mispronunciation of our names is very offensive for some of my kind). Our language is very different from yours, but my name is—I will try to say it smoother by use of your human letters—something like “Sssshiaassshakkkasskkhhhshhh” with a very very strong pronunciation of the “sh” and “k” sounds. We have no forenames like you but only a single but unique name which is divided and characterized by the way of speaking and which is given not to children (who have an own children-name) but only in a special procedure in the adolescent age at the time of either religious or scientific “enlightenment” or awareness (as you would call it). I would appreciate it if you don’t try to say my real name with your human tongue. Please call me “Lacerta”, this is the name I generally use when I’m among humans and talk with them.

Question: How old are you?

Answer: We measure the time not like you in astronomical years and in the revolve of the earth around sun, because we usually live beneath the surface of the planet. Our time measurement depends on periodically returning cycles in the earth magnetic field and according to this (and said with your numbers) I’m today—let me calculate—57,653 cycles old. I have reached my adult phase and my awareness 16,337 cycles ago (this is a very important date for us). According to your human time scale I’m around 28 years old.

Question: What is your task? Do you have a “job” like us?

Answer: To say it with your words: I’m a curious student of the social behavior of your species. That’s why I’m here and talk to you, that’s why I have revealed my real nature to E.F. and now to you and that’s why I give you all that secret information and why I will try to answer all the questions on your many sheets of paper honestly. I will see how you react, how others of your kind react. There are so many crazies and liars of your kind on this planet who claim to know the truth about us, about UFOs, about aliens and so on and some of you believe their lies. I’m interested to see how your species will react if you make the truth (which I will tell you now) public. I’m quite sure everyone of you will refuse to believe my words, but I hope I’m wrong, because you need to understand if you want to survive the coming years.

Question: I’ve read your full statement (which you have given to E.F.) about this, but can you give me now just a short answer: are UFOs real flying objects piloted by extraterrestrials or do they belong to your species?

Answer: Some observed UFOs—as you call them—belong to us, but most not. Most of the “mysterious” flying objects in the sky are not technological devices but mainly misinterpretations of natural phenomena your scientists have not understand (like spontaneous plasma flares in the high atmosphere). Nevertheless, some UFOs are real craft belonging either to your own species (especially to your military) or to other alien species or at last to us (but a minority of sighted craft belongs really to us, because we are generally very careful with our movements in the atmosphere and we have special ways to hide our ships). If you read a report about a sighting of a metalish bright-gray cigar-shaped cylindrical object with a length of—there are different types—let me say between 20 and 260 of your metres and if this object had made a very deep humming sound and if there were 5 bright red lights on the metalish surface of the cigar (one at the top, one in the middle, two at the end) then it’s likely that someone of you have seen one of our ships and this means that it was either partly defect or that someone of us was not careful enough.

Note by Stephanie Relfe. That’s interesting. I have always had an especially negative feeling from every single recording of a cigar-shaped craft.

We have also a very small fleet of disc-shaped craft, but such UFOs belong usually to an alien species. Triangular UFOs belong generally to your own military but they use foreign technology to build them. If you really want to try to see one of our craft, you should have a look at the skies over the Arctic, the Antarctic and over Inner Asia (especially over the mountains there).

Question: Have you a special symbol or something like that with which we can identify your kind?

Answer: We have two major symbols representing our species. One (the more ancient) symbol is a blue serpent with four white wings on a black background (the colors have religious meanings for us). This symbol was used from certain parts of my society, but it is today very seldom—you humans have copied it very often in your old writings. The other symbol is a mystic being you would call a “Dragon” in the shape of a circle with seven white stars in the middle. This symbol is much more common today. If you see one of that symbols on a cylindrical craft I’ve described in my previous answer or on some underground installation, this thing or place belongs definitely to us (and I would advise you to go away from there as soon as possible).

Note by Stephanie Relfe: I cannot agree too much with her last statement!

Jake M #fundie iidb.org

[[If not a monkey than what was the "common ancestor of both chimps and humans"?]

It was an ape.]

yeah, and apes came from monkeys, animals, and eventually you even believe they came from bacteria

So my argument is not wrong

Now, evolutionists are losing sight of where the burden of proof really is. If you want to claim humans came from animals, you have to provide a lineage, period. If you can't show the lineage of animals to apes, to humans, you can't claim humans are animals.

David Barton #fundie rightwingwatch.org

David Barton: Disney Movies Are Turning Animals Into Pagan Gods

On his "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, David Barton repeated his warning that Disney movies are anthropomorphizing animals by making people believe that they have human-like thoughts and feelings, which is causing people to essentially worship pagan gods.

"If you look back at the time of the Bible, a lot of the idols back then were actually animals," Barton said. "Dagon was the fish God."

Barton claimed that America never had any sort of animal rights movement until this nation got away from the Bible and Disney started producing movies like "Bambi" and "Lady and the Tramp," in which animals were presented as human surrogates.

"The Bible tells us that you are to be kind to your animals," he stated, "but you don't worship your animals, you don't make a Dagon god out of them and that's what we've now done."

APieceOfFemShit #sexist reddit.com

Disclaimer: I already know NAMALT

Do you really believe that the male imperative is sex, and sex alone. That there's nothing else that men want/need from women, besides being a human Fleshlight?

I'm asking because most men want to get married and have families. That differs from the sex imperative, because men can get sex without getting married. Marriage requires relationship building, and every guy knows that, so why go through all that hassle if your only interest is sex? This is a verboten idea on this board, but men want relationships just as much as women do. The process is different, but the goal is the same

Marriage is actually androcentric. Women and girls have been indoctrinated into thinking that marriage, LTRs, etc. is a female/feminine idea "Mr.Right", "obsessions with power", but it is not. It is men that created this through sexism and inferiority complex. Hate to agree with the red pill religion, but the male imperative involves religiosity around women, whether it be sex or relationships - almost impulsively that they cannot help - while the female imperative just revolves around reproduction and protection of offspring, with no interest in males to the extent that males are obsessed with females. Females are just shamed by society and men that their imperative is "unnatural" or immoral - so we have taken on more masculine attitudes and preferences, such as "settling down and getting married". This is ulitmately why The Red Pill clergy women are some of the saddest women in history to look at. In reality, we can select any male in nature we want and reproduce with them and spread genetics easily. This naturally ties males to their offspring, so there is no need to "marry one" for 50 years or be stuck with some man for 50 years. This is why women leave marriages early and remarry a lot less. Men continue to shame women that "divorce" shit men or love claiming "women are incapable of love" just because they aren't brainwashed into male imperatives, and etc for a reason. Like marriage/divorce are some natural thing. Stats continue to report decreased happiness that this causes women, which is not so for the male.

"Prince Charming," Disney, "Damsel in distress" "Provider," , relationships, marriage, etc etc etc was all androcentric and mostly only benefits the male. We can see in history women did not agree with these ideas. They did not agree with marriage. Women have marched since the 1600s way before feminism. These were socially established to compensate for male expendability in nature. The female on the other hand can mate and spread her genes as much as she wants, needs no male for protection nor financial means, and can also function at full cognitive capacity as the male, while also having the ability to reproduce. Males know the potential of women and how useless they are in comparison to the female, which is why they are obsessed with "keeping them somewhere" and indoctrinating them into "needing men" to the point of infantilization and benevolent sexism brainwashing. Most of this stuff is just male projection and envy. Freud was a big one. He made penis envy a thing which is just all projection, envy and jealousy and proven to be insane and made up (like most male things and fake male "academia" that demonstrably made of lies about female anatomy and women for ages), like the rest of his theories that were all projection, such "everyone is obsessed with sex" from birth.

Males worship and obession of women goes back to the very beginning with Goddess religions, and in nature. What we see today is all made up androcentricism. The world is entirely androcentric hiding it as "traditionalism" and laughably false monotheistic/theistic androcentric "religions" and other indoctrination's blaming on "what women want out of men" - so they have some reason to live. Traditionalism is just worship of women by men and this is why it needs sexism/mistreatment of women in it and to be virtue signalled by religions to justify it's stupidity.

BlkPillPres #fundie incels.co

(Emphasis original)

Inceldom Is Actually A Blessing In Disguise (If You Let It Be)

Made this thread to respond to a specific post that I thinks need to be addressed because it reflects the general mindset of a lot of the incels on this site (incels in general actually). Its a false mindset, you guys clearly haven't "studied" and interacted with normies enough to see whats really going on.

Thread here - https://incels.me/threads/my-whole-fucking-life-is-done.31324/#post-534850

@13k

I can relate to that as a 27 year old dude. My friends from university and HS are having children now. It is really soul crushing experience.

I lack behind so bad, it is depressing. Everybody moved on with their lives, and i am still here. Kissless virgin living in a condo at age 27 when people of my age are moving and progessing in life.

Most people in here will move on with their lives too. It is really brutal when you think about it. We are losers even here in this forum.

A lotta sexually frustrated kids here in this forum will reflect back on these days with sad cringe a couple years later thinking "ah, i was just an edgy sexually-frustrated teenager back then".

We are the real losers here. Suicide inducing..


Your standards are too high, and I don't mean for choosing women, I mean for what you expect from life, you have to adapt, we weren't born in the 50's, we were born in the era of whores (in my 20's), I've never felt love, only lust, never really wanted to get married all that much, only thought about it because parents try to poke that shit into their childrens heads over the years. I've started to realize that I'm not suffering as much as many of the incels on this site because I had the best "default mindset" for someone who would grow to be incel.

I only want sex, I don't want to feel desired, or admired, etc, I abandoned my ego years ago, I just want to enjoy the physical feeling that comes when you ejaculate into a womans body, and for that there's escorts, if I had your financial means I likely would have never even found this site because I'd be too busy, watching anime, playing games and fucking whores happily to care. Glad I found the site though.

Change your standards, not for women, but for life, latching onto normie standards when you clearly aren't one is illogical, the moment you focus on what you can enjoy in this life rather than what you can't enjoy you'll stop wasting time and feel a lot better. Also you are only getting to see the surface level of all the "happy family" BS that your friends ALLOW YOU TO SEE, most everything normies do is all about appearances, you see the smiling faces in images of vacations and family trips, you don't see the arguments your friend has with his wife about how little sex they have these days, that he suspects she's cheating, that he's worried about his son possibly being gay, that he thinks his daughter is no longer a virgin, the arguments that comes with the financial stress of having a family (mortgage, vehicles, tuition, school supplies, etc). You don't see all that shit, because they don't want you to, they only let you see "the good shit".

Most of the happiness normies get from the things you THINK you are missing out on IS SHORT LIVED, that's the great irony, we didn't really lose out on anything (inb4 this is cope), the only parts we legit missed out on were the PHYSICAL PARTS, the parts they enjoyed in their youth, most of which was an illusion anyways that they could only enjoy in blissful ignorance. Love isn't even a real thing, its just a chemical reaction in the brain, they weren't "teens in love", they were "teens in lust", but we only get to see those relationships from the outside looking in, so it looks so "magical" and "grand", again you didn't hear about all the bad shit, you never do, because normies don't like airing out their dirty laundry for others to see.

I have a friend that was going to be a doctor, complete normie coper, had "inspirational quotes" and shit on his book covers, studied hard, way smarter than me, would have definitely became a doctor, got all the necessary qualifications to pursue his university degree. The girl he was with for years cheated on him and he rebounded quick, he wasn't careful and a few months after he got his rebound pregnant when he was trying to get into university, guess who had to drop out and become a cuck, that's right him, in a lot of his images all I can see now is depression, he tries to hide it but he can't hide it well, met him in person at a store once too, he's now TRAPPED IN HIS OWN LIFE. Is sex enjoyable yes, and that's the only part of relationships that were really missing out on (unless you are some kind of idiot egoist that just wants to have their ego stroked, if so fuck off, this post is not for you, you will never be satisfied). Guess what, how much time for sex do you think people have when they have a child to worry about....... are you getting the point yet, the path that all normies take IRONICALLY LEADS THEM TO BE JUST AS UNHAPPY AS WE ARE.

I don't understand how you guys are so blind, WE ARE LIVING THE INVERSE LIVES OF NORIMES (Can't you see it?)

Normies start off having amazing lives, thrilling "emotions", great sex lives, having fun, but part of being a normie is "settling down", they are all followers because part of normie life is "fitting in", so they all mostly follow that road. As they reach the "settling down" phase their lives slowly become like ours, especially more so for the men, their sex lives dry up, they stop feeling less for the person they "love" and get hit with the black pill that even feelings fade over time because the human brain is wired to grow accustomed too and "bored" of similar stimuli.

Can you fap to the same porn video, every single day for for a month and REALLY get off to it, no, by the second week it won't be as enjoyable, now imagine the reality of this, but applied to a person OVER YEARS. That's the first black pill normies are forced to accept in their later years, you not only get bored of a person over time, but you get bored of "loving them" and eventually want someone else. Your brain is wired to do this, its part of our biological imperatives, monogamy is a forced thing, it isn't even normal for most other animals.

We however are somewhat cursed with how our lives began, but IT IS A BLESSING IN DISGUISE. We got black pilled early on all the shit that normies will end up learning ONLY WHEN ITS TOO LATE, we don't have to end up "trapped in our own lives". Don't get married, dont have children, just spend your years having sex with random beautiful women and enjoying your hobbies (whether you're paying for it (escorts), or looks/wealth maxxing to coerce women into fucking you). We've only failed at life here if we fail to take advantage of the benefits that come with having been incel, and that benefit is KNOWLEDGE.

Why do you guys think a mid life crisis is a "normal" and culturally known thing for men?, its because many men only start considering the shit we already thought of years ago, in their old age, when its too late to make changes because you have commitments to fulfill. So they perform copes like "buying a nice car" or "dressing differently", or the most outright admission of what I talked about above in relation to sex - THEY HAVE AN AFFAIR. They realize too late in life that one woman isn't enough.

I could never admire normies, not at this point, I already know how most of my other friends lives are going to end up, most of them are gonna be beta providers for some used up whore, have a few kids that will be hard to raise in this shitty era (kids might not even be theirs), probably get cheated on years into the marriage and maybe never find out because "tee hee, its for the best, I don't want to hurt you, I love you". Normiedom is the biggest long con, we ironically got screwed out of making a shitty deal, but again, we can only make this into a positive with effort and applying the black pill mindset practically. If you just LDAR, be a neet, don't work and build your wealth, then you're just going to remain a poor sex starved suidical poor sap, but if you do the opposite you'll actually look back on the days laughing at when you envied normies.

This isn't cope, this is reality, and I know I can't be the only person who has come to this realization, I have to work and talk to normies everyday so I have to learn to "blend in" and talk to them, every single damn relationship is terrible and the only glue that holds it all together IS SEX. Their lives are very "fragile". I know a guy right now (normie) who a month before was telling me about how great his GF is and how perfect she is and that they're getting married, last week he cheated on her with some random how who he ADMITS ISN'T AS ATTRACTIVE lol. He still plans on marrying her, do you see how much of a joke this BS fake illusion of the magical lives you think they're living is, stop fooling yourself, I could literally just message this girl and destroy his entire "construct" of "normie life" and let he know he cheated and who he did it with. But I won't because I don't care enough about his life to do it, I'm focusing on building my wealth, and fighting some normie right now isn't to my benefit, I just laugh and observe at these peoples lives, they project this air of happiness, especially online, but they are miserable, they are all LITERALLY COPING WITH THE JAIL CELL THAT IS THEIR ADULT LIFE (especially the ones with children, when you have kids ITS OVER).

Martin #fundie premier.org.uk

(=A rant against a Progresisve Christian Website=)

That you are not a Christian is illustrated by this post.

From PATHetic thEOS

1. "We embrace the many variations of the view expressed by many great Christian thinkers that “We take the Bible too seriously, to read it all literally.”

Really, this sounds like an excuse to make up your own opinion as to what is good and bad rather than accept what the Bible says.

2. "We don’t think that God wrote the Bible. We think it was written by fallible human beings who were inspired by (not dictated to by) the Holy Spirit. Hence, we don’t consider it to be infallible or inerrant."

Then why bother with the Bible at all? After all, you are so much more clever than those who wrote it and know so much more. You even know more than Jesus who clearly did regard the Bible as infallible.

3. "While we’re aware of the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible; and while we’re abhorred by, and reject, the various instances of horrible theology that appear here and there within the texts (e.g., passages that posit God as wrathful, vindictive, and condoning of slavery, and even “ordering” rape and genocide, etc.), they don’t cause us to reject the Bible, rather, they endear us to the Bible. Not because we agree with those passages, but because we recognize that they are fully human – they’re authentic, they’re down to earth, and they flat out convey the desperate and very real frustration, lament, and anger that are part of the human condition. The fact that such passages were allowed to be written into our holy scriptures are evidence of a mature people who realize that it’s best not to hide our dirty laundry or to deny our very real human feelings and passions. If the Bible were all about PR propaganda, they would have edited out those passages. We view those passages as exceptions to the over-arching message of the Bible of promoting unconditional love and the full inclusion and acceptance of all of God’s children. Indeed, while we wish those passages weren’t there, they actually help us to grant authority to the Bible in that we can see that was written by fellow humans who are struggling with real life and death matters of injustice, oppression. And since they make space for our need to vent and rage – we honor the Bible all the more for it honors our shadow sides – and that honoring is what allows for the possibility of our shadows being transformed and integrated in healthy ways."

So in other words, as above, you take out the bits you like and reject those you don't like. You seem to think that all mankind is God's children, reading the Bible should have taught you that this is not so. Would you consider Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot God's children? And BTW there are no " inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible".

4. "We read the Bible prayerfully. We agree with our conservative brothers and sisters that the Holy Spirit helps us to interpret what we need to read as we read."

To read the Bible in this way you first have to be a Christian, you have to be willing to listen to God. Your previous points have demonstrated that this is not the case so you cannot claim to receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

5. "We seek to apply full attention to Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience (and that includes the insights of contemporary science)."

Remember, much of contemporary science is just the opinions of fallible men. It is not without reason that it is spoken of as the best current understanding, tomorrow it might be different. And when it becomes different, you will have to change your theology. What you really mean is that you place your opinion as the authority and accept anything in Scripture that matches up to that.

6. "We realize that there is no “objective, one, right way” to interpret a passage – and we recognize that there is no reading of any text – including the Bible – that doesn’t involve interpretation. We also realize that each person interprets the text via their own personal experiences, education, upbringing, socio-political context, and more."

In other words you can make the Bible mean whatever you want.

...

7. "We do our best to read the biblical texts in their original languages (Hebrew and koine Greek) – and consult scholars and others to assist us. We also tend to look at several English translations – and by no means limiting ourselves to the King James version – which, while the best English version in conveying the beautiful poetry of the original languages, is based upon inferior manuscripts."

That's pretty pointless when you are clearly manipulating the text to mean what you want it to mean. Indeed, why bother with the Bible at all?

8. "We consider the best available Biblical scholarship from those who study it academically and professionally (and they’re generally fellow Christians and/or Jews)."

And by best, it seems, you mean those who agree with you.

9. "We seek to read passages in context – within their chapter, within their book, within their genre, and within the over-arching thrust of the Bible."

Doesn't this conflict with your need to be the master, or is it that you manipulate the context to fit what you want it to mean.

10. "We seek to read the passages with consideration of the historical socio-political contexts, frequently of oppression, which they were written in."

This, of course, manipulates 9, above. What you mean is that you use all sorts of unproven ideas to modify what the text says so it suits you.

11. "We employ a hermeneutic of compassion, love, and justice. (Which Jesus utilized). A hermeneutic is “an interpretive lens” and intentional filter. The hermeneutic of love seeks to see the forest for the trees and that allows the spirit of the law to trump the letter of the law (which Jesus modeled[sic])."

And what hermeneutic was Jesus using when He said:

And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.
(Matthew 7:23 [ESV])

And this is just a way of modifying the meaning to fit your prejudices.

12. "We also tend to employ a “canon within the canon” lens whereby we give greater weight and priority to certain texts over others. A canon is an officially established collection of books that are revered by a given community – for Protestants, that refers to the 66 books of the Bible. In my case, I give greatest weight to Mark, Luke, Matthew, John (in that order), certain letters that Paul actually wrote (as opposed to the Pastoral Epistles which he didn’t), the Prophets, and the Psalms. I interpret the other books of the Bible according to how they jibe and are in sync with these primary texts. Many progressive Christians refer to themselves as “Matthew 25 Christians” (referring to the test for who Jesus says is in or isn’t in the Kingdom by what they do or don’t do), “Sermon on the Mount Christians” (stressing their seeking to prioritize those teachings as central); or as “Red Letter Christians” (indicating that they give greatest weight to the words attributed to Jesus)."

So in other words, you place the books that say things you don't like low down on the list. What a dishonest way of reading the Bible.

13. "We also seek to allow “scripture to interpret scripture.” Here’s an example regarding how to interpret “the sin of Sodom”:
The Bible interprets itself regarding the story of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. And Jesus himself supports the view that the sin of Sodom was their lack of hospitality and hesed (loving-kindness) in Matthew 10:9 “Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.”

And the result of Sodom's sin was that they were sliding down that slippery slope we see in Romans 1:18-32.

14. "We follow Jesus’ example in being willing to reject certain passages & theologies in the Bible and to affirm other ones. (He did it a lot)"

Really, would you like to give us an example?

15. "We do as much of the above as we can with fellow Christians in community with others. We avoid doing it solely as a solo endeavor. (We also tend to be open to doing this in community with Jews and Muslims, as fellow “people of the Book” whose insights are often invaluable)"

So you don't seek the opinions of those who love God, but rather look for people who agree with you, even unbelievers.

16. "We repeat these steps frequently as new information and scholarship comes in. Knowing that we will always find something that we hadn’t noticed before each time that we do this."

And always ensuring that we look for those in agreement with us.

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com


Children simply lack the maturity to make sexual decisions. Our bodies may have evolved to be sexually mature by age 13, but the average person only lived into his thirties in prehistoric times. Just because the body is ready doesn't mean the mind can make mature decisions in today's world.

But they have the maturity to make traffic decisions as they walk to school or ride a bicycle? As I was suggesting to Brian, you seem to think sex is a dangerous thing. Its a wonder humanity survived if so.

Another strange thing about your point here is that you seem to think its harder to get by in today's world than prehistoric times! Therefore, more maturity is required with regards to sex! How completely preposterous! We can prevent pregnancies with drugs and condoms. Most diseases can be cured with a shot. STD testing can be done to ensure partners are disease free. I scarcely understand how more maturity is needed now than in the past.

I also don't see why sex has be such supreme danger. With an attitude like that, its a wonder you would let a 13 year old cross the road by themself.

Sex has real consequences that can change or end lives -- STDs, pregnancy, and emotional damage are all among them.

Well, I already addressed pregnancy and STDs. (And I still don't think they hold a candle to getting run over on a bicycle). But emotional damage? Where do you get this stuff?

Is it illegal for teens to have sex with eachother? No. So what of the emotional damage? Again, you seem to be saying that sex is extremely dangerous. Pah! You want emotional damage? Divorce. Death in the family. Moving away. Paralysis from a cheerleading accident.

For me, sex and sexual things have always been emotionally soothing. From playing doctor when I was a kid to bonking with my girlfriend today.

I wonder if you ever in your life considered the emotional damage of NOT having sex. I experienced plenty of that before I got out of college. It was a very painful time. I am grateful for every childhood and teen sexual experience I had, but I did not have nearly enough. Both my childhood and teen sexual experiences involved adults (though I wanted but did not have actual sex). The only thing that hurt me was have to wait for months and years before the next experience. Surely I am not alone.

If you ask me teens especially are being harmed emotionally by being cut off from the rest of the humanity in this way. I blame this state of affairs for things like smoking, binge drinking and runaways. Used to be a 13 year old could expect to be married soon. Now they are forced into celibacy essentially. Its inhuman cruelty and no wonder teens are viewed as being unstable when they are treated like this.

Maybe stoning is too harsh, but I'd have no problem seeing pedophiles castrated, if they're more than a few years older than their victims.

This sentence is mixed up 8 ways from Sunday. I have to assume that since you said pedophiles and victim, that you mean the younger party is twelve at the outside, since that is about average for puberty. A few years older would be 15. So you would not only call a 15 year old with a 12 year old partner a pedophile, you would have them castrated?

You also assume the younger party is upset or harmed and is a victim out of hand. And further you don't seem to realize that most age of consent violations are not committed by pedophiles.

Like BrianLewis, your viewpoints are based on unfounded assumptions that are very negative about sex and that have been feed to you by a sex negative society. Your viewpoints are contradictary and you don't seem to have examined anything in much depth at all. Yet it seems you have firmly made up your mind despite those horrible failings.

I had a couple friends, one girl of 14 and a man of 20. They fell in love. Their relationship was approved by her father, a man who is very strict and very protective of his children. Last I heard, they got married. I ask you, would you have my friend castrated?

---------- Post added at 02:37 ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 ----------

RolandtheHeadless said:

Amen. Adults who have sex with children are exploiting them, and they're rapists because children lack the capacity for consent.

Can a child consent to surgery? Can a child consent to eating mashed pototoes? Either could be life threatening. I find it strange where capacity to consent is touted as the end-all-be-all argument for sex issues, but completely ignored for pretty much all other issues.

I was a child once. I consented to a lot of things. I knew who I liked and who I didn't. I was very interested in sex and I knew who I would like to have sex with and who I wouldn't. I did not lack capacity. I lacked experience and knowledge. You don't gain either for doing nothing.

My view of your philosophy is that you first enforce ignorance. Then you say they can't consent because they are ignorant. Its extremely backward thinking.

I also don't like that you would call someone a rapist and exploiter just because of age even though they may well be kind and caring and generous to their sex partner, and would not dream of harming or tricking them. Rape has a real and serious meaning, and you dilute it with ideas like that.

It is preposterous to decide such issues on age alone at the expense of a million other details, including and especially the sentiments of the child or teen in question.

Pedophiles who act on their perversion make me want to punch their lights out.

They said the same of gays 50 years ago.

The only real perversion is asexuality.

Tim Philpot #fundie rawstory.com

A Lexington, KY judge and former Republican state legislator told a Christian group earlier this month that he believes “gay marriage” is an “oxymoron” like “jumbo shrimp” or a “magnificent chihuahua.”

The Louisville Courier-Journal reported that Fayette Circuit Court Judge Tim Philpot is a family court judge who routinely presides over matters of child custody, same-sex marriage and adoption by LGBT couples.

Speaking to the Francis Asbury Society — a Christian ministry group that hosts weekly anti-same-sex marriage seminars titled “Marriage Matters” — Judge Philpot said that he “loves homosexuals,” but that marriages other than those between a heterosexual man and a heterosexual woman are “sterile” couplings that are ultimately “just entertainment.”

At the Sep. 8 gathering, Philpot — who faced corruption charges in 2004 — went on to say that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Kentucky is “pretty close to insane” and now “there is no question that polygamy is on the way.”

The former Republican state senator said in a video posted to the Asbury society’s website that the normalization of same-sex marriage is harmful and confusing to children.

“Now kids not only have to decide which girl to date, or which boy to date, they’ve got to decide which gender to date,” he said. “There is not a 12-year-old or 13-year-old or a 14-year-old in Fayette County, Ky., that doesn’t have to decide ‘Am I gay or am I straight?’ Man, I’m telling you, that is some kind of abuse.”

The Courier-Journal spoke to Fairness Campaign director Chris Hartman, who said the judge “clearly has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be LGBT, chalking it up to some arbitrary choice children must make. Personally, I would never want Mr. Philpot making decisions about my family, given the fact he has deep disrespect for LGBT people and their families.”

Many of Philpot’s colleagues say he has never shown any bias in the courtroom for or against same-sex couples. When the Courier reached him by phone in Ireland where he is vacationing with his family, Philpot said, “(I)n 13 years as a judge, you will be hard-pressed to find even one complaint about me on this issue.”

Attorneys Ross Ewing and Keith Elsten both told the newspaper that Philpot has always ruled fairly. Elsten said that he has represented same-sex couples in Philpot’s courtroom and never saw evidence of bias in his rulings.

Elsten said the judge would ask “a few more questions of gay and lesbian clients than he asks to some of the straight clients I have had.” However, he said, none of them were “out of bounds or appear to reflect his personal biases.”

The lawyer said he finds the judge’s remarks concerning, but Esten figures “he has a right to say whatever he wants to say.”

During his 25-minute talk to a Marriage Matters meeting, Philpot said that same-sex marriage is “really very illogical…kind of like a dog show I was watching a few years ago where the announcer said that was a magnificent Chihuahua. Those words don’t make sense to me.”

The impact of the legalization of same-sex marriage in this country, Philpot said, “really hit me like a ton of bricks” when he was standing in a Starbucks.

“There was a man there, probably 45 years old. He had his arm around a young man who was about 20, and I would say there was a 90 percent chance it was just a father and son, but I had this moment when I thought, ‘Hmmm, I wonder what’s going on.’ They’re getting a little too close. They are making me uncomfortable.”

Philpot resents the use of the rainbow — “one of the Bible’s greatest symbols” — to symbolize LGBT rights.

“I’m gonna put one on the back of my car because I’m not going to let them steal it,” he said. “I’m gonna take it back. I’m gonna drive around town with my rainbow and my 8-pound shorky — a Shih Tzu and a Yorkshire terrier mix — and let them think what they want.”

Other remarks from the meeting included:

“Already there are ‘thruples’ getting married in the United States – thruples as in three. … It makes sense. I know there are times I’ve thought about a third person would be be a help around here. I know there are times my wife has thought about it. You know she loves Nosario, the guy who takes care of our yard. But we’re not a thruple. Relax.”

“For anyone who describes themselves as gay or lesbian I have discovered a phenomenal love for them that I didn’t have back in the old days. … I think it’s because I’ve had so much contact with them.”

“I have no problem with people not getting marriages license at all, if they make a commitment to … marry in a public setting in front of God. Whether they get a marriage license from the Fayette County Clerk is pretty much irrelevant, I think, in the eyes of God. I can’t imagine God caring what the clerk of Fayette County thinks about anything.”

In 2004, the Associated Press reported, Philpot failed to recuse himself from presiding over the divorce case of a donor to his campaign for state senator. The ethics case went before the Kentucky Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that Philpot could remain on the bench.

In June, Philpot released his first novel, Judge Z: Irretrievably Broken, which is a “pro-marriage” parable that explores “the social costs of divorce, babies born out of wedlock and children growing up in unstable homes.” The work, he said, is based on cases he has seen in his work as a family judge.

“The main tragedy is that straight people don’t want to get married anymore,” he said. “Social norms have totally changed. Marriage doesn’t mean anything anymore.”

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Illuminati Predictive Programming a TOTAL MIND FUCK - HALO, PROMETHEUS, AVATAR

I've read the books, played the games, seen the series and bought the t-shirts. I am telling all

who will listen that we HUMANITY is being played like a fiddle. We are being led like lambs to the slaughter and gullible followers to the chapel.

Has anyone ever noticed that in all these above mentioned titles, a theme of predictably and symbology has occurred. Whoever has watched the films Avatar and Prometheus and played the games

Halo will see that not only does humanity seem to exist to follow the same developments, humanity also develops technology at the same pace to.

Halo looks at humanity battle to survive against the covenant until HALO 4 when we are the reclaimer of a lost civilization of an advanced long forgotten race.

Prometheus discovers ancient paintings and languages that Humanity is indeed an engineered race and learns that these god like people created us and now want to destroy humanity.

Avatar is about how humans in the technological age have become an almost empty null and void species with no roots to spiritual and natural ideas and use engineered robots to infiltrate another culture to steal what they have.

In all these movies the same kind of philosophies, ideologies, technology, time scale and cultural ethics are brought together. Almost like some crossover advert or tv series. Man has becomes hell bent on mining other planets for resources and enters into a war like mindset to obtain them.

I am aware that mankind has become very advanced in technology and computers, nanotechnology is only just around the corner. Yet our travel like technology is still the same, combustible engines and rockets are considered thee most likely means of space travel.

I see in these games and movies an illuminati mind fuck like that which was launched against people in hollywood for 9/11. People need to research that concept and you will see how we the people were pawns of predictive programming for that.

Like the future is now of total dominance, surveillance and Draconian lifestyle and law. If you ever read Orwell's 1984 or Huxely's Brave New World which were released and published world wide years before it happened, by the very same Illuminati who wanted people to become accustomed to that way of life, so that we would passively accept enslavement.

I see that humanity is having that same mind fuck again. With games like Halo and movies like Prometheus and Avatar showing how the future human race will become mindless warlike people, fighting in the universe for resources that belong to other intelligent cultures or civilizations.

It is not bullshit, there is truth in this. Star Trek used the ideas of wireless communicator in the palm of your hands and energy weaponry (phasers) instead of guns. Today that is the very norm and accepted by the vast majority of people, and why? because of mass psychological brainwashing campaigns like these conditioned people to think just so.

Remember that social engineering is an art form that takes and requires a vast and understanding of human behaviour. Not to mention foreseeing future lifestyles and I believe we are seeing that in these very popular and widely sold items.

Max Roscoe #fundie returnofkings.com

Japan Bans Chicks With Dicks

Max Roscoe

is an aspiring philosopher king, living the dream, travelling the world, hoarding FRNs and ignoring Americunts. He is a European at heart, lover of Latinas, and currently residing in the USA.

At the risk of breaking a personal journalistic rule of devoting far too much time to an incredibly miniscule and unimportant issue, I must draw attention to a recent win for masculinity. The island nation of Japan recently made a common sense decision regarding the extremely minute portion of its population that is dealing with the first world problem of its genitalia not matching the perceived sex of the owner, known in the West as transsexuals or “gender questioning individuals” to use the word salad nonsensical parlance of the day.

image
Sure thing, toots, just as soon as you lose the balls.

First, I should clarify that no one is being banned, deported, or shipped out of the country in a way that a more aggressive nation like Saudi Arabia might handle this issue. Instead Japan has a simple policy which efficiently handles the transsexual question—one that seems to bewilder and confuse the Western world, who must devote weekly news articles, federal legislation, prime time (((television programming))) and endless discussion on how to handle this fraction of a percentage of its population.

It works like this: do you have a penis? If yes then you cannot be a chick. It’s as simple as that.

With that one universal test, Japan has disposed of the endless head-scratching and policy making by Western politicians, critics, and social justice warriors about how to describe their private parts on government identification cards or which restrooms to pee in. In Japan you will be considered a man as long as you have a penis. End of story.

Likewise, if you have a vagina, you will be considered a woman. No matter what clothes you are wearing, how deep your voice is, or how you choose to “identify” that day. The beauty is in the simplicity.

image
Japanese Sex Change Operation

While Western nations must debate and compromise, legislate and propose, carving out exceptions for this or that behavior and endlessly consulting irate social justice warriors in a futile attempt to placate them, Japan disposes with the entire question of transsexual people with the simple question.

In the Japanese system, Bruce Jenner would not once have been a news story during my lifetime, as he has done nothing newsworthy since winning a 1976 Olympic medal. If and when he actually removes his penis and replaces it with a surgical vagina (Sugina from hereon), only then could he be properly considered a female and could announce he would like to be referred to as Caitlyn. (A person changing their sex is still not a newsworthy story to me, but I suppose there are those who would be interested to know what happened to this former hero of theirs).

image

Japan is a fascinating nation. As an island nation, it is naturally more isolated than most cultures, and is able to control physically and culturally what enters its society. Japan is one of the more difficult countries to immigrate to, and I have been told that Japanese will never fully accept Westerners, even if you take a Japanese wife and live there for decades (and why should they, as those actions will make you no more Japanese than Bruce Jenner installing a sugina will make him a woman).

Japan is one of the only societies in the world that was never controlled by Europeans. It holds on to its traditions, and has a strong history of physical fitness including the samurai warrior. While Westerners are committing virtual seppuku because they touched a woman’s butt in 1984, Japanese businessmen will glibly walk to a vending machine and purchase a high school girl’s panties for sexual purposes.

image
An oddity to a westerner, but in Japan men are not ashamed to be men

Odd? Sure, and I’m not going to even go down the road of weird Japanese kinks and bizarre pornography, but the point is the Japanese are proudly Japanese, and will not let others shame them into changing their behavior. I will always remember the line from James Bond’s You Only Live Twice concerning women and men, which made an indelible impression on me since childhood.

image
In Japan, men always come first. Women come second.

What Is A Woman?

Outside of the West in The Current Year, I doubt anyone has given this question serious thought, but today, sadly, it is necessary. If you ask yourself what truly makes someone a woman, It comes down to whether they have a penis or a vagina in their pants.

image
“OK is She REALLY a man or a woman?” Can only refer to one thing.

While there are levels of masculinity and feminity which vary between the sexes, at the end of the day, if you really want to know someone’s sex, you want to know what genitalia they have. All Japan is doing is confirming, yes, that is exactly what sex means.

TransTrenders: Belittling Those Who Are Truly Victims

Just as feminists are opposed to true diversity, the public discussion of sexual dysphoria is a distraction from the minority of people who have real problems with their sexual identification.

Just as those who suffer from the horrible crime of violent rape do NOT want to publicly discuss their traumatic past, those who suffer from rare sexual disorders or chromosomal mutations that affect their sexuality are embarrassed and saddened by their condition. Those who truly have a medical condition which causes their genitalia to be deformed, or not match the sex they mentally feel, or who were a victim of a botched (((circumcision))) want to quietly rectify the problem and live life without others knowing about the unpleasant thing that happened in their past.

The LAST thing they want is to publicly exclaim that they were one sex and are now the other. Which seems to be ALL that being a trans-trender is about. Watch a Youtube video of a prominent transtrender like Justin “Riley” Dennis, and all you were hear is endless talk about their gender identification or their transition (despite the fact that they have rarely if ever actually snipped off the bits and therefore have transformed nothing).

Common Sense: A Lost Idea In The West

image
Dr. Wang, Japan’s Top Sex Change Doctor

By forcing those who claim their sex is “wrong” to surgically correct their sex, Japan is calling their bluff and separating the trans-trenders from the trans-genders. There is no further debate or discussion needed with such a policy. While the West is trying to fire, fine or even imprison academics for using the wrong (read: gramatically correct) gender pronouns when referring to snowflake students, Japan has a simple system: If you want to be a woman, you need to have a vagina. If you weren’t born with one, get one first and check back with us.

A Win-Win Policy

While most of us probably aren’t comfortable with the idea of going to bed with someone who was born a man, the truth is, if one are attractive enough, and has a vagina, men will want to sleep with you, especially if they don’t know about your past (this is a universal truth, not specific to trannies). So if potential trannies really want acceptance by men in the sexual marketplace, this is exactly the model they should be following.

Busy #fundie cnn.com

I think a line should be drawn somewhere also. I do not interfere with homosexual couples but i believe in the Bible. God created man and woman to marry. Man and Woman. Thats all there is to it. The U.S. is based off of the Bible and I am tired of seeing people take it out of the schools, taking the ten commandments out of our buildings and making up their own rules about marriage. I dont care if they are together because they will have to settle that with God when the time comes, but they do not need to be married. And if they do get married they don't need to do it in a church, near a church, with a preacher, or with a Bible- in fact, it shouldnt even be called marriage. God has made it clear that he wants nothing to do with that. So if you want to get married to the same sex and you dont believe in God then dont get married, just be together and leave it alone. The Bible was once America's Bible because our principles were first based upon the Bible at least until now- the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the constitution so i wish people would stop saying that it is and state what it actually says.I am not saying that you have to believe in the Bible or God. It just makes sense, if you want to get married to someone of the same sex. Dont. it is a contradictory act.

Larry Solomon #fundie #sexist biblicalsexology.com

(This is a follow-up to a previous post.)

What God Wants Women to Want From Sex

In Exodus 21:10-11 we read “If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money”. The phrase “duty of marriage” refers to her conjugal rights or in other words, the husband’s duty to have sex with his wife.

So, in similar fashion to Proverbs 5:15’s comparison of sex for men to the human need for water, in Exodus 21:10-11 God compares sex for women to the human need for food and clothing. So, we can rightly say based on the Word of God that sex is a need for both men and women.

And it is because of this truth, that both men and women need sex that God gave these commands found in 1 Corinthians 7:3-4:

“Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife”.

But just because men and women both need sex does that mean they need it to the same degree?

If we look at the needs that the Bible compares a woman’s sexual need to and then look at the need it compares a man’s sexual need to, we can answer this question.

Which can the human body go longer without? Food and clothing or water? Under temperate climate conditions the human body can go for an extended and perhaps indefinite period of time without clothing. And while food is a more important need than clothing, the human body can go weeks without food. The human being can live 30 to 60 days without food. But most human beings cannot go more than 3 days without water or they will die.

So yes, men and women both need sex. The Bible makes this very clear. But it also shows in how it compares the need for sex in men and women that sex is a far greater need for man. And that is a realization that every Christian woman needs to come to.

Now that we have established that sex is a need for women, even if women do not typically need as often as men. We then have to look at the difference in reasons that men and women need sex. While men need sex primarily to fulfil their physical and psychological thirst for the female body, women need sex for two primary reasons.

The first is that just as God created man with insatiable thirst for woman’s body, God also created women with a strong desire to be desired by man. When a man takes his woman in the act of sex, it fulfills her need to feel beautiful to him, to feel desired by him and ultimately to feel loved by him.

In Psalm 45:11, in a prophecy concerning Christ and his Church, the Bible says “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”. When we remember that man’s created purpose is to image God with his life then we understand the strong desire of men toward the beauty of woman. Man’s desire for the beauty of woman’s body symbolizes Christ’s desire for the beauty of his church.

And when we understand that woman was created for man, then we understand why women have a strong need to feel beautiful and desired by men. Men desire the beauty of women, so God designed women to desire to be beautiful for men. Men desire to take and use a woman’s body for their sexual pleasure and to meet this desire in men God designed women to desire to taken by men sexually. It is sin that corrupts these desires in women or causes them to deny these desires they have toward men.

This is why we read from the wife in Song of Solomon 7:10 “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me”. The wife wants her man to desire her beauty. But not just her beauty. She wants her beloved to desire to take her body and use it for his pleasure. In Song of Solomon 4:16 the wife invites her husband to feast upon her body when she makes the following statement:

“Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits”.

And in the Song of Solomon 1:1 the wife says of her husband: “Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine”.

When we take all of these Scriptures together what do we see that women should want from sex? They should want their husband to desire their beauty and to take and use their body for his pleasure. They should would want him to embrace them and kiss them and by doing all this show his love and desire for them.

But the second reason for a woman’s need for sex, that God has placed in her nature, is her need to have children. This is a defining need of a woman.

Let me illustrate from my own life origin story. My aunt, my father’s brother’s wife, told me recently that when their son was born my mom and dad came over and my mom held their son in her arms. That same evening, when my mom went home, she jumped my dad’s bones and boom, she was pregnant with me.

But outside these two powerful needs that drive women to have sex with men there is another spiritual reason which should drive Christian women to want to have sex with their husbands. And that reason is that they fully realize they were made for him and specifically to meet his need in this area of sex. It pleases him and gives him passion toward them and toward everything else in his life. This should drive any Christian woman to want sex as often as she can have it with her husband.

francois #fundie sciforums.com

Is it wrong to be disgusted by homosexuals?

I’m not homophobic, but I’m not ashamed to say that I find many homosexuals to be obnoxious. I don’t have any problems with anybody who keeps his sexual inclinations to himself. However, I have a huge problem with homosexuals who impose their sexuality on me and others. Let me explain what I mean.

I don’t have a problem with women giving me the eye. What I mean by “the eye” is the look a person gives you when it’s clear that they’re interested in you, and they find you sexually appealing. When a person gives you the eye, a lot of communicated. When a woman gives a man the look, it means he can have sex with her if he puts in a little effort. It is unmistakable when it happens to you. Personally, I find it flattering, no matter who gives me the eye. Even if it’s an ugly chick, my ego gets a boost. If it’s a hot chick, it gets an even greater boost.

Usually men don’t give women the eye, because it’s presupposed that the man will have sex with the girl. A man giving a woman amorous eyes would be redundant. Thus, it is questionable when a man does it.

However, when I get the eye from homosexuals, I am put off. I don’t know why this would ever need to be explained to homosexuals, but here it is: Don’t ever assume a random person is gay. Don’t put the moves on another person, unless you’re sure he/she is also a homosexual. Heterosexual males don’t appreciate it when homosexual males hit on them. It is disgusting, because men know men. We know what they want to violate our corn holes and we are disgusted by it. It doesn’t just apply to being hit on. It also applies to compliments. If a homosexual man compliments me on my looks, I don’t take it the same way I would from a woman, or even a fat, ugly woman. I take it that he wants to violate my corn hole.

What pisses me off on top of that is sheer (I’m not talking about all homosexuals—I have no problems whatsoever with people who keep their sexualities to themselves, regardless of what they do in private.) audacity that some homosexual men have. One of my brothers told me a story about him in a bar one time. There was this one guy who joined my brother and his friends at a table. He was a nice enough guy who just wanted to make friends. Then the guy started talking to one of my brother’s friends. My brother’s friend was very drunk and the two of them were hanging out, talking and having a good time. And then suddenly, the guy said to my brother’s friend, “How would you like to give me a blow job in the bath room for 10?” Needless to say, the friend was stunned and stalled — completely caught unaware, not knowing how to respond. My brother then stood up and told the guy that he had to leave immediately. He did. Now, let's ignore the homosexual's lack of social graces. Let's say he was just hitting on him and he didn't actually ask him for a blow job for 10?” It’s still wrong because he was assuming he was gay. It’s stupid for a least a few reasons. One, heterosexual males hate being hit on by homosexual males. Two, chances are high that the male who is being hit on is heterosexual male. This is because we live in a world where most males are heterosexuals. There are a lot more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. So why do they do it?

It’s arrogant. Do they think if they’re charming enough the heterosexual male might appreciate the effort? Do they think there’s a chance the heterosexual might turn into a homosexual? “Well, I’m not gay, but for you, I might make an exception.” No. Trust me, we don’t want your advances. We don’t appreciate your compliments. We don’t even like hearing you talking about sex in general.

I don’t care about what people do in private. If a man has raunchy dirty sex with another consenting man, that’s fine with me. But don’t talk to me about it. I can assure you, I’m not interested. You’re not special, and I’m not going to make an exception for you. While you’re at it, don’t tell me I’m good looking either. Don’t hit on me, and above all, don’t give me the eyes.

Am I wrong here?

[ Maybe you ping as fag on the gaydar, francois. ]

Perhaps you're right. However, that doesn't matter. The point is, gays should be sure that the person they're hitting on, complimenting or making some kind of advance on, is also gay. So hitting on and flirting with another person of the same gender is fine if you're in a gay bar or in some gay place. That's fine. That's what those places are for. But hitting on somebody or making some kind of advance on a person in a regular bar or any not explicitly gay public place should be absolutely, positively sure that the person he/she is hitting on is also gay. They should bend over backwards. Even if I do look gay (which I don't), a homosexual shouldn't hit on me. Unless a homosexual is in a gay bar, they should ask the people around "Hey, do you know if that person is gay/available for some man-on-man action?" And then when they've talked to enough people to be confident that the person in question is in fact, gay, then that person can go ahead and flirt and camp it up with said person.

[ You seem to have double standards. You're quite ok with heterosexual men "hitting" on girls in bars, it seems, trying to pick them up. But when it comes to homosexual men hitting on men in bars to try to pick them up, then you get all offended. ]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals going to gay bars to pick up homosexuals. That's fine. That's what gay bars are for. Heterosexuals picking up heterosexuals at a non-gay bar is what non-gay bars are for.

[ I can only assume that you feel somehow threatened by homosexuals showing interest in you. ]

You can safely assume that.

[ Yet, at the same time, you can't comprehend that a woman might equally feel threatened by your uninvited interest in her. ]

I can comprehend that, completely. However, it's different, because heterosexuals are a majority. Not only is heterosexuality more common, but heterosexuality is generally deemed less disgusting. A boorish heterosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual girl is different from a boorish homosexual male hitting on a poor heterosexual male. The difference is huge.

You can call it a double standard if it pleases you. But I really don't see it as such. In the third page of the thread I introduced an analogy with the floggers/fuckers and the tour bus driving driving his sick friends across the country.

I agree with you that some women are disgusted by some males who hit on them. But let's compare that to the tour bus analogy. Sure those few women may suffer from these stupid men hitting on them. But those women are like the three or four out of the 25 people on the bus who are sick from the bus driver who is driving fast. The boorish man who is hitting on the poor girls are the bus drivers.

The homosexuals who are hitting on the horrified heterosexuals are like the bus drivers when the bus is full of 25 sick people. And those people are sick because of the speeding. The bus driver continues speeding, ever merrily to his destination, without a care in the world about the 25 people in the bus who are doubling over in their vomit. It's very inconsiderate in my opinion.

If you were that bus driver wouldn't you slow the bus down for your sick friends if it would make them more comfortable? Even though the bus driver is a minority, he should still take his friends' into consideration. It's really simple utilitarianism. You do what makes the most people comfortable.

[ And yet, you seem quite willing to impose your sexuality on other people. And you also seem quite happy for others to impose their sexuality on you - provided that you welcome their advances. ]

Well, there is a huge difference between assuming that a given person is a heterosexual and assuming he is a homosexual. Huge difference. If homosexuals were a majority, I would probably still hate being hit on them, but I would probably get used to it and eventually learn to tolerate it out of simple necessity. However, they are not the majority. They should try to make the majority comfortable by inhibiting their sexualities in our presence because it sickens us. It's simple utilitarianism.

[ So, it seems to me that what you really want is for people to read your mind and magically deduce whether you want sexual attention or not. If they are a "hot chick", then bring it on. But if they are a "hot guy", they should somehow just know that you're not into that ]

Lol, no. That's not what I want. I already explained what I want. What I want is really quite reasonable. I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. That's what I want. Let me know if you're still confused. I don't know if I can make it any clearer to you. I have Skype. It might be easier to explain it that way.

[ If you're claiming that men never make sexual advances to girls - that it's always the other way around - you're living in a fantasyland. ]

Luckily, I never said or implied anything of that kind. Males are constantly throwing themselves at women in the hope of a favourable response - much moreso than vice versa.
It's called "trolling." It's a tried and true method.

[ But you're happy to "put the moves on" any women, I suppose. ]

Hold on now. You're being hasty and presumptuous. I'm not happy to put the moves on any woman. I'm not a prick. I only hit on women if they are receptive. I can usually tell very quickly in my interactions with women whether or not they are receptive. If they aren't, I don't waste my time or hers.

[ What if she is homosexual? Shouldn't you check, first, like you expect men to check your sexuality? Tell me - how do you propose that will work? "Hi, I'm Bernard." "Hi, I'm francois." "Just checking, francois - are you homosexual?" ]

Once again, I think you think it's a double standard. But it's really not. It's because homosexuals don't find heterosexuals nearly as disgusting has heterosexuals find homosexuals. That's reason number one. Reason number two is this: there are way more heterosexuals than there are homosexuals. Simple utilitarianism. Are you familiar at all with hedonistic calculus?

[ Why? There's no "violation" between consenting adults. ]

You took that too literally. I was just writing colorfully. I try not to bore the shit out of my readers. I am courteous. I consider others. I wish some homosexuals were the same way.

[ And you think that there aren't equally audacious heterosexual men who go around propositioning every woman they see and think might be fair game? ]

Not really that many guys do that. And yes, those kinds of guys are obnoxious, especially if the attention is unwanted. However, it's not on par with that of homosexuals hitting on heterosexuals. It's really not. I think I've already explained my reasoning to you. I think you can anticipate what I would say to that. If you need it again, let me know.

[ How hard is it to say "Thanks, but I'm not interested"? ]

It's not hard at all. My real problem is homosexuals that give me the look or grope me. Or homosexuals that make out in public places. Homosexuals making out in a public place is not the same as heterosexuals making out in a public place. Once again, I don't give a shit about what people do in private. However, in public, I think homosexuals should still be courteous and yielding to the horrified majority.

Well, it might be a 7 to 1 ratio, or something like that. Not terrible odds. From what I've heard and read, it's more like 1 out of 20, or 5%. They are a minority.

[ Do the men who proposition women think the same thing? ]

Get real man. A homosexual man hitting on a heterosexual man is not the same thing as a heterosexual man hitting on a heterosexual woman. If you think it's the same thing, you need to get outside. Take a walk.

[ I don't think many homosexual men would have a problem with that. They would be quite happy to avoid you. ]

Once again, I don't want them to avoid me. I've had gay friends. I'm not a homophobe. I've made it clear what I want many times, but you keep ignoring it, because you know that what I want is actually quite reasonable. Let me reiterate: I want homosexuals to find out whether or not I am gay before they grope, give me the eye, or make some kind of advance on me. They should be yielding to the horrified majority.

Still confused?

[ In fact, I wonder what francois's religious views are. ]

I have none. I'm an atheist. My disgust for homosexuals imposing their sexualities on non-homosexuals is natural and based on several bad experiences with homosexuals. It has nothing to do with Leviticus, as I'm sure you would love to think.

[ Do you think homosexuals have been accepted as a "norm"? I'll bet Prince_James and francois and Baron Max don't think homosexuality is "normal". ]

Then you would have lost money. That you would so flippantly assume that I would think that homosexuality is not natural or normal speaks volumes about you.

[ You rank people giving you the eye above people dry-humping you? Maybe you meant "and lastly"? ]

Strangely, yes. I've been groped, hit on, and stared at by homosexual men. And I think getting the eye is the worst.

Like this one time I got groped it was by this homosexual whom I know. It was at school. We weren't really friends, per se. But we were on a friendly basis with each other. He is openly gay and I knew he was gay. No problems.

However, one day, I was bending over to get a CD from my bag, and he couldn't resist apparently. He grabbed my ass. And I can completely understand my brother's friend at the bar, who was just completely shocked and stunned and didn't know what to do. I was just shocked and appalled for a good 20 seconds or so. After that, however, I composed myself and calmly told him to never do it again and that if he tried to do it again, I would likely beat the shit out of him. Overall, it was a pretty bad experience. But it wasn't the worst. The worst is getting stared at.

Like this one time I was working. And this homosexual who was buying something was staring at me, giving me the creepiest, depraved smile I've ever seen. Words can't describe how it made me feel. All I can say is that it made me feel really dirty. I felt like I needed to take a shower. I felt like I needed to peel off the first layer of skin cells that were infected by the treacherous photons which bounced off my pure, virgin skin and into this asshole's depraved pupils. Worst experience ever. This happened to me a few weeks ago in the bar. It wasn't quite as bad, but it still made me uncomfortable.

[ It's as wrong as being disgusted by heterosexuals, bisexuals, or asexuals.
It's a form of prejudice to be disgusted by a general group of people in that manner. You have to look at things on an individual basis.
]

I'm not disgusted by all homosexuals: just the ones that make it very apparent that they're sexually interested in me, and those who kiss their boyfriends in public and talk about their sexcapades in public. Normal homosexuals, I don't mind at all. Rude ones piss me off.

Adaher #fundie boards.straightdope.com

[On the Duggars]

Most families don't continue to have children after being unable to protect their existing kids from sexual abuse.

Wrong. Most families take no action at all to protect their kids from sexual abuse by family members. Strangers they'll get all mama and papa bear on, but when it's within the family the reaction is almost always denial or lame attempts to keep them separated. "Don't ever leave the kids alone with Uncle Jim! You know how he is!"

Most families don't go on national television and present themselves as perfect families with this kind of shit in their closet.

Most families don't go on national TV, but most families who are well regarded in their community have secrets.


Most families don't run around on television telling grown women they shouldn't be allowed access to birth control or that gays stink.

Which has nothing to do with sexual abuse. Liberal families have sexual abuse problems too.

And for the eleventeenth time, WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THE ABUSE WAS SHORT LIVED. We don't know shit about the abuse. We don't know when it stopped or if it is still going on. The Duggars are bunch of badly educated dumb shits with too many kids and tiny little brains. Why the hell should we believe a word they say?

It's certainly possible that Josh Duggar is a very sick man who will always be a sexual offender. And when there's evidence that this is the case, I'll believe it.

They don't seem like a happy brood. They seem like a group of really dumb people with an idiotic belief system that encourages sexism, overpopulation, homophobia and deliberate ignorance. Jim Bob Duggar makes disgusting excuses for sexual abuse. Michelle Duggar talks like a five year old and refuses to educate her own kids properly. Her daughters sound like the kind of morons who want to join ISIS or the Westboro Baptist Church. Her eldest son is a pedophile and a sanctimonious asshole with a GED and an over inflated sense of importance.

It is deeply disturbing to see how many foolish people still blindly support them.


Sounds like part of your issue is their belief system. Fine, so show me a more liberal, secular family that handled sexual abuse within their family in a more productive way

Xiao-Feng-Fury #fundie comments.deviantart.com

Murder is wrong, and I find it cowardly for any person to kill a baby that can't even say anything or defend for himself.
Animals differ from humans. Most domestic animals that are severely injured are euthanize. Some can be saved, but plenty of them do not have a great chance of surviving. Animals do not have morals like human beings. Animals are vicious, killers, immodest, and wild. So to euthanize an animal would not result in a crime being made, not unless the animal was perfectly fine, or if the animal belonged to someone and was euthanize without the owner's consent.

It would still be interfering with the creation of a human being. Humans are of more value than any animal. To interfere with the life of human being, would be attempted murder, and to kill the human is murder. There are consequences for those actions.

Christian Ryan #fundie animaladventures1314.blogspot.com

Rerun Article: Did Dinosaurs REALLY Evolve Into Birds?
I hope everyone had a terrific Harvest Day! As you might recall, last year I took part in the Nanowrimo (National Novel Writing Month) challenge, which requires me to write a 50,000-word novel during the month of November. I am doing this challenge again this year, so I will be posting quite a few rerun articles this month. Don't worry though, I'll pick articles from a little ways back.

Anyway, Thanksgiving will soon be upon us? Do you have any Thanksgiving traditions? If so, leave them in a comment below.

Days till:
It is: 16 days till The Good Dinosaur's theatrical release
It is: 17 days till Thanksgiving
It is: 45 days till Christmas

In the Spotlight:
Again, nothing of note to share this week.

Topic of the Week by Christian Ryan

Did dinosaurs really evolve into birds? What does the fossil record actually reveal?
Every Thanksgiving, people all over the United States cook and serve the American turkey. Despite not being part of the first Thanksgiving, the turkey is a symbol for this holiday. But for many Americans, they aren't merely eating a bird – they're actually eating a dinosaur! Evolutionists believe that all birds, including the turkey, descended from small, feathered theropod dinosaurs; to be more accurate, they actually believe that birds are dinosaurs. Such a claim, if true, would be a major problem for creationists. How should a creationist respond to such this idea? What's the truth behind this belief?

Is this delicious Thanksgiving entree the descendant of dinosaurs?
The idea that reptiles evolved into birds isn't new. Not long after renowned naturalist Charles Darwin published his book in 1859 called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life . . . it's easy to see why most people just call it The Origin of Species. In 1860, a feather was discovered fossilized in Germany and the species of which the feather belonged to was called Archaeopteryx. In 1863, Sir Richard Owen (the inventor of the name “dinosaur” and a creationist) described an entire skeleton of the creature; the fossils revealed a relatively small creature, with feathered and clawed wings, teeth and a long bony tail. In 1869, biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, often considered “Darwin's Bulldog” declared the animal as the missing link between reptiles – specifically dinosaurs – and birds. Ever since, most evolutionary scientists cling to the idea that theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds.

The similarities between dinosaurs like Compsognathus and birds led Huxley to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
Before we go any farther, we must understand both perspectives of the origin of birds: the creation perspective and the evolutionary perspective. Let's look at them both now. Most evolutionists believe that sometime between the early to late Jurassic Period, about 201-145 million years ago, the scales of small theropod dinosaurs began evolving into fur-like proto-feathers for warmth. After millions of years of evolution, these proto-feathers evolved to be firmer and longer; dinosaurs began using their longer feathers for display purposes, perhaps to attract mates. Evolutionists are unsure as to how the power of flight came about. Some evolutionists believe these feathered dinosaurs were tree-climbers and began using their feathered limbs to glide through the trees; others believe they developed the power of flight from the ground up, using their proto-wings to increase their leaps into the air, perhaps after prey. Either way, these dinosaurs eventually were able to get airborne and were now technically birds.

An early conception of "proto-birds" from 1916.
What does the Bible say about the evolution of birds? Well, it says God created all the flying creatures on the Fifth day of the Creation week, 6,000 years ago, the day before He created dinosaurs.
“And God created...every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good...And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.” Genesis 1:21-23.
This is a major contradiction to the evolution story, which states that dinosaurs came about before birds. Meanwhile the Bible states that land animals – dinosaurs included – came after birds! And instead of evolving through the processes of natural selection and mutation like evolution teaches, birds appeared on earth fully-formed and ready for action.

Evolutionists commonly point to Archaeopteryx as being a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
Many evolutionists (specifically atheists) believe that there is too much evidence for evolution for creation to be true. I find it rather interesting how many evolutionists refuse to even consider creation an option; in fact, many will go as far as to say that creationists don't know science. I was browsing the internet and came across an article entitled Feathered Dinosaurs Drive Creationists Crazy by Brian Switek. “Oh, really?” I thought upon seeing this article; I was rather unimpressed by this evolutionist's attempt to denounce creationists. Curious, I read the article, expecting to find much criticism aimed at creationists. Much of the article was devoted to how our view of dinosaurs has changed over the years, but perhaps a quarter into the material, he talked about creationists and the “overwhelming evidence” that dinosaurs evolved into birds, in addition to his other criticisms about dinosaurs living with humans and dinosaurs living 6,000 years ago etc. He also spent a great deal of time talking about Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham and the Creation Museum. Here's an excerpt below:
“...dinosaurs with feathers are not welcome at Ham's amusement park [speaking of the Creation Museum]. Even though paleontologists have uncovered numerous dinosaurs with everything from bristles and fuzz to full-flight feathers—which document the evolution of plumage from fluff to aerodynamic structures that allowed dinosaurs to take to the air—creationists deny the clear fossil record.”
He had much more to say of course, some of which I'll get to in a minute. I must say that while reading the article, I was troubled how many misconceptions Switek has about creationism. What really ticks me off is when evolutionists try to make a case for themselves without actually doing the research. I find Switek's ignorance of what we creationists believe appalling. If only he continued to research and find answers to why creationists don't believe dinosaurs evolved into birds, then perhaps he would not have been so bold in his statements. Like any other fossils in the fossil record, even though the observable evidence – dinosaur and bird fossils – can point to or suggest a certain conclusion, they do not speak for themselves and are left to the interpretation of the individual based upon observable evidence. Evolutionists like to claim that creationists start from a presupposition and use that to base their opinions on, while they base their opinions on scientific facts. Now, it is true that we have presumptions, but so do evolutionists! They fail to realize is that they do the exact same thing. In this article, I plan to talk about the evidence for and against the dino-to-bird hypothesis and see what the evidence best suggests.

So what is the “evidence” for this belief in dinosaurs evolving into birds? Switek claims there is a “mountain of evidence that birds are living dinosaurs” and that we creationists deny the clear fossil record. Let's at the so-called evidence now and see whether we're the ones rejecting the clear fossil record. Before we go on though, let me explain that evolutionists do not believe all dinosaurs evolved into birds; they believe the ancestors of birds are maniraptorans, small theropod (meat-eating) dinosaurs. Some of these dinosaurs include Deinonychus, Troodon and the famous Velociraptor.

Dromaeosaurs, such as this Velociraptor, are commonly seen as relatives of modern birds.

Bird-hipped and Lizard-hipped Dinosaurs
Evolutionists are quick to mention that maniraptorans are very similar to modern birds anatomically. This is true. In fact there are over 100 skeletal features that dinosaurs share with birds; some dinosaurs such as Velociraptor even had a wishbone. But what is often not mentioned are the often quite significant differences between the two. Within the order Dinosauria there are two subcategories in which dinosaurs are divided, saurischians (lizard-hipped dinosaurs) and ornithiscians (bird-hipped dinosaurs). The dinosaurs in these two categories are divided based upon their hip shape. The difference between the two hip shapes is the pubis bone; the pubis bone in birds and bird-hipped dinosaurs points toward the rear instead of to the front as in lizard-hipped dinosaurs, modern reptiles and mammals.

Saurischian or lizard-like hip structure.

Ornithischian or bird-like hip structure.

Problem with dino-to-bird evolution? All the dinosaurs that evolutionists believe are related to birds (e.g. Velociraptor, Troodon, Sinornithosaurus) are lizard-hipped! Dinosaurs that are bird-hipped include Stegosaurus, Triceratops and Parasaurolophus. These dinosaurs bear very few bird-like features and are not believed to have evolved into birds. Yet the few times this is ever mentioned in secular literature, documentaries and etc. this problem is never presented any emphasis. And why would they?

The lumbering 4-ton Stegosaurus is a bird-hipped dinosaur, meaning it must have evolved into birds! Right? Of course not!

Three-Fingered Hands

The hand bones of Dienonychus (left) and Archaeopteryx (right) are quite similar.
Evolutionists absolutely love to talk about how both theropods and birds have three-fingered hand bones. Evidence of a dino-bird relationship? Hardly. As birds supposedly evolved from theropods, you'd expect that the digits represented in the hand bones would be the same in both dinosaurs and birds. However, dinosaurs have the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd digits (the first being the thumb); birds have the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th digits in their hand. What happened?

Avian vs. Reptilian Lungs

The dinosaur Sinosauropteryx was so well preserved, that the reptilian-like lungs have also been fossilized.
If theropods are the ancestors of birds, you should find avian-like lungs in theropods. Of course, as most dinosaur remains are fossil bones, we can't know too much about their lungs and respiratory system. However, paleontologists have discovered the fossilized remains of a Sinosauropteryx, a small bird-like theropod from China, related to Compsognathus. This Sinosauropteryx specimen retains the outline of the visceral cavity, and it is very well preserved. Much to the dismay of evolutionists, they reveal that the lung is very much like that of a crocodile.

In Switek's article, he mentions how the Creation Museum didn't display feathered dinosaurs, nor does Answers in Genesis portray dinosaurs with feathers in books and DVD's. And he's right. But what if there's actually a scientifically good reason for this? Of course, failing to do his research to see why creationists don't portray feathered dinosaurs, he just scoffs and claims that “they take pride in promoting out-of-date, monstrous dinosaurs that more easily fit their contention that these animals were created separately from all other forms of life.” I'm very sorry Switek, but maybe you are the one who's trying to go against the fossil evidence. Like just about every other evolutionist out there, he claims that creationists just believe in non-feathered dinosaurs because we believe they didn't evolve into birds and then points to so-called “feathered” dinosaurs; no further explanation is given. He would have only had to read a few articles on the Answers in Genesis website to find their true opinion, which I will get to in a minute.

Is there actually evidence to support the belief that dinosaurs, like this Troodon, had feathers?
There are two types of “feathered dinosaurs” you'll hear about: dinosaurs with bird-like flight feathers and dinosaurs with proto-feathers. First let's look at the dinosaurs with “proto-feathers”. In 1996, evolutionists thought they found the amazing proof for their theory upon the discovery of Sinosauropteryx. This small carnivorous dinosaur is associated with the outline of what many believe to be fur-like proto-feathers. But upon looking at the “proto-feathers” closely, you can see that they really aren't that feather-like. They are much more similar to hair in appearence. In fact, it seems to some creationists that seems that these features are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen); this is found in the deeper dermal layers of the skin. These features have been found not only on other dinosaurs, but also ichthyosaurs, dolphin-like marine reptiles! Yet no one suggests these creatures were feathered. Another thing about the "fluffy-looking" structures that creation scientists have noticed is that many of these structures appear almost fur-like. Perhaps some of these dinosaurs were covered in something similar to pcynofibers, fur-like structures found on pterosaurs that are very similar to mammalian hair.

Dinosaurs like Sinosauropteryx might have been covered in a type of "fur".
In this article, Switek mentions this fossil discovery:
“Put feathers on a Velociraptor—we know it had feathers thanks to quill knobs preserved along its arm bones—and you get something disturbingly birdlike, revealing the dinosaur's kinship to the ancestors of Archaeopteryx and other early birds.”
In 2007, scientists published the find of a fossil arm bone of a Velociraptor. Along the forearm are six bumps that they claimed were very similar to those found on the bones of some modern birds. In modern birds the bumps are the quill knobs where feathers were once supposedly rooted. Is this proof of a feathered dinosaur? Perhaps, but sources that talk about this find give no details as to why the quill knobs don't extend further along this bone or if there were other fossils were also examined or how complete the find was. Who's to say this is even the arm bone of a Velociraptor? There are many uncertainties with this fossil. Keep in mind that I'm not doubting the validity of the scientists who studied the fossil, but we should also remember that we should be cautious about such claims based on scant evidence and the claims made by scientists with evolutionary presuppositions.

No feathers seem to have been present on Velociraptor, but pcynofiber-like fuzz is still a possibility.
What about “dinosaurs” that actually have fully-functional actual feathers? Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are two such creatures. Both of these animals bear toothy snouts, clawed and feathery wings and bony tails. They also both have a pair of enlarged retractable toe claws like those of raptor dinosaurs, such as Deinonychus and Velociraptor. Surely this is proof that these animals are the missing links between dinosaurs and birds.

Microraptor is a very unique creature with four fully-functional feathered wings.
First of all the feathers on the bodies of Archaeopteryx and Microraptor are actual feathers and not collagen fibers or fur-like structures. They also have the same digits configuration of modern birds (like modern birds they bear the 2nd, 3rd and 4th digits). Undoubtedly, these animals are birds. The fact that they have reptilian features does not make them half reptile/half bird. In fact, there are several actual birds that have reptilian features: ostriches and baby hoatzins also have clawed wings, and no one questions that these animals are birds; the extinct bird Hesperornis possesses teeth in its beak; and the seriema of today even has an enlarged second toe claw, similar to the ones seen in raptors. If you don't need a missing link between dinosaurs and birds (which creationists don't) then there's no need to call Microraptor and Archaeopteryx anything other than 100% birds.

The seriema is a medium-sized bird living today with an enlarged toe claw, similar to the ones found on dromaeosaurs.
If you look in dinosaur books, you've likely seen diagrams similar to the one below:

This is a typical chart showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds.
This picture suggests that the fossil record wonderfully displays the evolution from dinosaurs to birds; with more dinosaur-like creatures in lower geologic rock layers and more bird-like creatures in higher layers, slowly evolving more complex feathers. Isn't it strange that we creationists reject the plain evidence in the fossil record as Switek states we do?

Unfortunately, this isn't what the fossil record represents at all! Despite this being portrayed in just about every secular dinosaur book, the “clear fossil record” (as Switek puts it) tells a different story. Archaeopteryx, the famed transitional between dinosaurs and birds is believed to have existed 150-148 million years ago, during the Late Jurassic Period. The problem? Most bird-like dinosaurs that are commonly said to be closely related to birds, according to this worldview, lived before Archaeopteryx! Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with “proto-feathers” is claimed to have lived 124-122 million years ago! In fact, most dinosaurs with so-called “proto-feathers” are found above rock layers with more bird-like animals! The only dinosaur with "proto-feathers" that evolutionists have that didn't live after Archaeopteryx is Juravenator. But according to evolutionists, Juravenator lived at the same time as Archaeopteryx! In addition to this, we find birds very similar to the ones we see today living with "dino-birds". A Microraptor skeleton described in 2011 was discovered with tree-perching bird fossils (more bird-like than Microraptor) inside of its abdomen! This animal didn't only live with modern-like birds – it ate them! Even Velociraptor, a very bird-like dinosaur, is usually dated to live about 80 million years ago, long after birds has supposedly been flying through the skies for millions of years. These creatures were hardly ancestors to the birds. I for think the fossil record clearly demonstrates that dinosaurs evolved into birds, don't you? (That was sarcastic by the way).

Of course, I am not at all saying we should find all the transitional forms between dinosaurs and birds if this transition really did occur, but we should find a few. Evolution on this scale would take tens of millions of years and millions of generations between dinosaurs and birds. Where are these fossils? Surely some should have popped up if the "clear fossil record" suggests dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And to make matters even worse for evolutionists, extinct birds such as Anchiornis, Xiaotingia, Aurornis and potentially Protoavis are buried in sediment “older” than Archaeopteryx!

So, Switek, you believe the "clear fossil record" portrays dinosaurs evolving into birds? Hm...

Earlier, I mentioned how Switek claimed creationists don't like feathered dinosaurs. What if a feathered dinosaur with actual feathers were discovered? Would this prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds and that the Bible is untrue? Nope! In fact, nothing in the Bible goes against the idea that dinosaurs might have had feathers. Not only that, but I happen to like the look of feathered dinosaurs; I am not against the notion of feathered dinosaurs in the slightest, just the idea that they evolved into birds. Finding a feathered dinosaur would be no different than finding a mammal that lays eggs. which we actually have! The duck-billed platypus and porcupine-like echidna are monotreme mammals that lay eggs instead of giving birth to live young like all other mammals. Yet they aren't half mammals/half reptiles; they're mammals that lay eggs. We creationists aren't against the idea of feathered dinosaurs at all, it's just that so far, the evidence for feathered dinosaurs is missing in action.

Like Microraptor, the platypus bears characteristics of many different creatures, including the ability to lay eggs, a duck-like bill, a beaver-like tail and webbed feet, a mammal's fur, the ability to use a form of sonar and even a venomous spur. Yet it is not some evolutionary missing link, but a mosaic.
In order to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds, one would need to find evidence of a transition between the two in the fossil record (like reptile scales evolving into feathers) and the fossil record would need to show dinosaurs and birds evolving in the right order. This is not what we find!

Why haven't evolutionists who love to talk badly about creationists bring up the points I made in this article? An even better question is why would they do such a thing? Never in Switek's article does he even mention these problems with the dino-bird theory (or solutions to them)! Like many other evolutionists out there, he decided to pick on the claim made by creationists rather than the evidence that backs up the claim in order to make creationists sound like unprofessional idiots. What he wrote in this article shows just how utterly and willingly ignorant he is of creationism and what we believe to be true (and more importantly why we believe it to be true).

As I hope to have made clear throughout this article, if one looks at the fossil record from an evolutionary perspective, we don't really learn about the origin of birds. It's really sad how little research Switek did on the truth about creationism, Answers in Genesis, dinosaurs, birds and the fossil record as a whole. I doubt hearing the truth would have actually change his mind, but at least he would have been more informed. Until he decides to learn what creationists actually have to say and only talking about evidence from his own side of the argument, he should avoid talking about creationism altogether. (Unlike him, I used information from both sides).

I do however hope that this article has enlightened you, my readers, and helped you understand that the fossil record doesn't support the belief that birds and dinosaurs didn't share the same lineage, but that they do share the same wonderful Creator God.

You can relax, dinosaur lovers! The turkey you'll have for Thanksgiving this year isn't the descendant of this Velociraptor!

The Big Mick #fundie townhall.com

Can't stand the Truth, huh?

Prager needs no more qualifications for this then being married and having been denied sex by his wife.

You got a cogent rebuttal, cough it up, girlfriend.

But you don't, do you?

You don't because the REAL UNPALATABLE TRUTH BENEATH what Prager is saying her, is that most women simply DO NOT LIKE OR WANT SEX!

What they WANT is Security, Companionship, Children. They are willing to BARTER sex, and that at as favorable (minimal) an exchange rate as possible. in order to get what they really want. Once they got it, all interest is completely lost.

That's just the way it is.

Don't buy it? Of all the women I have known in my life I can accurately say that I have known only 2, that upon close analysis of their statements and behavior, could claim accurately to actually enjoy and WANT sex. Both of those could also accurately be said to have emotional problems.

Now admitting that most of the women I know have never had a conversation in my hearing about sex, but counting what I know about my friends wive’s, that still comes out to something less than 1%.

I challenge any man on this thread to better that percentage, and prove they weren't lying to you.

wicker white #fundie #homophobia christiannews.net

Bee Man:
Pedophilia and bestiality are disorders. They will never be “recognized” because they are considered acts of abuse against animals and children who cannot consent. There is no reason to criminalize homosexuality if the parties are of legal consenting age. Consent is everything in these matters.

wicker white:
You believe everything you read at Wikipedia and see on Nat Geo and elsewhere? Do you not understand what would appear to be a "homosexual" act even in dogs, say for instance that of riding or humping, is not one of homosexuality but is about dominance. Here's a little bit of scientific evidence below for your consideration. Besides, homosexuality is an abomination in God's sight and is condemned by our Creator. Does it make sense to you that God would create in the animal world that which he condemns for mankind? God is not schizophrenic.
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:
Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.
Despite the “homosexual” appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a “homosexual” instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:
Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals…. For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an “animal homosexuality”. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Bee Man:
Google the gay penguin book, then get back to me.

wicker white:
I don't have to. I read THE BOOK. You read God's Word and then get back to me, but hurry up, the rapture is going to soon be happening, and I won't be around because I'll be taken up.

Bee Man:
Oh God, so much garbage. There is no rapture, and your book doesn't even say that.
Like so many Christian bigots you focus on the sex act and ignore the fact that even in the animal kingdom same sex relationships happen. Two same sex penguins not just engaging in the sex act but behaving as committed partners. THAT is the reality.

wicker white:
Funny thing, what I read coming from you is nothing but garbage. You seem to have a herd mentality, following after any "science" to justify your own sinful life. Your secular, humanistic worldview and your opinion will hold no water when you stand face to face with God Almighty on judgment day. I would pray for your soul, but Satan already owns it.

Bee Man:
Following provable, repeatable, trustworthy settled SCIENCE does not mean having a "herd mentality". But following a religion does.

wicker white:
I do not follow a religion. I follow a man, THE MAN, Jesus Christ. Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship. All other "religions" are just that, religions, and they all lead to hell.

MillimetersOfBone & JanniesGuzzleCum #sexist reddit.com

(MillimetersOfBone)
"Sex is not important"

Twitter NPCs love to ramble about "gaslighting." No one knows what it actually means, anymore. They just call any lie a "gaslighting attempt."

Ya know what gaslighting actually is? It's when someone tries to make you feel like you can't trust your own perceptions, by making you feel like you are crazy, pathological, abusive, or even the victim of some nefarious outside force that's out to get the gaslighter, just because you notice certain inconvenient things. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

I see this shit all the time when it comes to ITcels. When they say "sex isn't even important, and the fact that you care so much about being a virgin shows that there is something broken inside you," they are doing two things.

1: They are ignoring the fact that sex isn't the be-all-end-all (which is why escortmaxxing isn't ascension). Having access to sex means you have access to romantic love. It means you have access to parenthood. It means you have the ability to lead the complete, satisfying life that humans have evolved to desire. Sex is a "symptom" of being accepted and valued by the world around you. Those who are virgins, who aren't that way by choice, are usually that way because they are rejected by people around them, in general. When ITcels ignore this, or when they give the "personaIity" line, they are denying how often ugly people are judged and cast aside due to their looks, and they are trying to make you seem crazy for thinking that they are. They are gaslighting you.

2: They are pathologizing the strength of your desire for sex. It's not hard to imagine why men want sex so badly. The cavemen who didn't care about sex never had kids. Humanity would have died out, just like any other species would have, if people didn't value sex above everything else. It is normal to feel the way you feel. When ITcels try to tell you you're crazy, or worse, pathological ("the source of your feelings must be underlying depression or anxiety") for having a normal desire for sex, they are gaslighting you.

You can even see it in the subtleties of their word choices.

"Sex seems so important to these people because the patriarchy has done them dirty"

"Sex is made out to be so important by toxic masculinity"

No. Fuck you. Shut the fuck up. Sex IS important. IS. Unless you're one of the maybe 10,000 great innovators of any given generation, the only thing about your life that will matter in 500 years is whether or not you had a child (i.e. had access to sex).

"Tinder isn't real life"

Then what the fuck is it? People almost always act more like themselves online. Are horny women immune to this? We're not crazy for noticing the 80/20. We don't "just think it's real because we hate women."

The reason we feel the way we feel, the reason we value sex so much and feel such hopeless distress in response to our lack of access to it, isn't because we're crazy. It isn't because we're pathological. It isn't because of some nefarious social force (that, of course, according to them, they have nothing to do with, in fact it is our responsibility, as men, to deal with it).

It's none of that.

It's because we are normal men. We are normal men who reject your ideological social engineering. And there are more of us every day, as more and more young men are made to feel worthless and hopeless.

(JanniesGuzzleCum)
Spot on.

There is literally NOTHING wrong with wanting a relationship. There is literally NOTHING wrong with having a sex drive. There is literally NOTHING wrong with being sad about missing out on these things. When normies tell you these things don't matter, ask them if they'd be willing to give up in relationships and sex for the rest of their lives

Normies do not give a single fuck about you. They tell you these things to make you shut the fuck up and stop complaining. They couldn't give a rat's ass about any of your problems, legitimate or not. They're literally just inconvenienced by your complaining and want you to be quiet.

To normies, having to hear someone complain is worse than the reason someone is complaining in the first place, no matter how legitimate it is. You could die in a ditch for all they care, as long as you don't complain about it. Your suffering is completely irrelevant to them.

Remember: normies are solipsistic and don't give a shit about you, and never will

Roosh V #fundie #sexist #crackpot returnofkings.com

ELLIOT RODGER IS THE FIRST MALE FEMINIST MASS MURDERER


Since originally publishing an article describing how a male-friendly culture encouraging Elliot into self-improvement (game), legal prostitution, and foreign marriage with Southeast Asian women would have prevented his murderous rampage, I did something that most people won’t bother to do: I read his manifesto. Not even halfway through, I began to understand exactly why the media has been pushing the narrative that PUA (game) may have been the cause: Rodger was one of their own.

Here is the PDF of his manifesto (http://abclocal.go.com/three/kabc/kabc/My-Twisted-World.pdf). If you take the time to read it, you will likely come to the same conclusion I have that Elliot Rodger is in fact a feminist. In other words, the killings of six individuals stem in part because of his mainstream feminist beliefs that, after intersecting with his dark traits of narcissism, entitlement, loserdom, and hopelessness, led him to kill. The fantastical mainstream media articles you have come across trying to pin Rodger upon us is nothing more than a defensive measure to distance themselves from a killer that was a card-carrying member of their own progressive club.

1. He put pussy on the pedestal, just like feminists do
Feminist theory speaks a whole lot about equality, but it’s actually an ideology that seeks to absolve all women from their amusing but sometimes dangerous stream of mistakes. Feminism (and progressivism in general—they might as well be interchangeable terms) treat women as flawless snowflakes that must be coddled and spoon-fed happiness and validation. Any act by a woman, even if it results in failure or bodily harm (like an abortion), is an “empowering” statement of independence and strength, while any failure by men is seen upon as proof that they are out-of-touch doofuses, a fact that is readily displayed on television, movies, and advertising.

Rodger’s manifesto exactly matches this feminist belief. He shows little genuine hate towards the object of his affections—women—and their poor choices, instead lashing out against the men who were successful with those women. Feminists do the same, always ready to blame men for their failures in life, even going so far as saying that society would be better without men, who are mocked as mere “sperm donors.” In spite of the bad choices that women make by dating bad boys at the schools he attended, Rodger gave them a pussy pass and continued to believe that they were flawless angels who should be cherished, especially the blonde ones.

Rodger’s hate for those men isn’t much different than that hate displayed to me and my colleagues here at ROK. Just take a look at this supposedly professional woman having an embarrassing emotional meltdown on a news show because she didn’t agree with what I said, resorting to blatant distortion and lies about “rape culture” and other such nonsense that was unrelated to the piece she was critiquing:
https://youtu.be/g3w-5-b4mhM

Elevating women as the superior sex, which is what both feminists and Rodger have done, means that discrimination and outright hatred must be then applied to the “inferior” sex—men. It’s no surprise that the most violent killings performed by Rodger were on his three male roommates with a knife, who surely endured more suffering and pain than the cleaner executions he did on his female victims.

2. He was awash in blue pill knowledge

We have an often-used metaphor called the “red pill,” which stands for the pursuit of truth concerning human nature, no matter how painful those truths can be. The opposite of the red pill is the blue pill, of people who choose to be placated by lies describing reality. Both feminists and Rodger were firm adherents to the blue pill world—of believing in a way of nature that doesn’t actually reflect actual human behavior. For example:

Both Rodger and feminists believe that attraction should be automatic and easy instead of being based on sexual market value or other components that can be changed (such as game).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that men should be blamed for problems of society or personal relationships.
Both Rodger and feminists were deluded into having standards way beyond their level of attractiveness (e.g., fat feminist cows actually think they should be able to date a good man).
Both Rodger and feminists believe that all a man has to do to get a girlfriend is to be “nice” and a provider, a strategy that no longer works in today’s America.
Both Rodger and feminists hated players who did well with women
As final proof that Rodger was as blue pill as you can get, simply reverse all the gender references within his manifesto and pretend it was written by a woman. What you would then have before you is a pity party of a self-absorbed feminist who thinks that men are the cause of all her problems. If he lived a couple more years, I have no doubt that Rodger would even be a proud moderator of the Blue Pill subreddit.

3. He didn’t believe in self-improvement, just like feminists
In spite of all the loneliness and pain that Rodger went through, he still couldn’t be bothered to lift one finger to improve his station. Compare that to what we teach here at ROK, where we strongly advise you to start your game training with at least 100 approaches, with the expectation that you’ll probably have to do thousands during your lifetime. In Rodger’s manifesto, all 140 pages of it, he details only saying “Hi” to one girl and practically running away from fear. In other words, he did one aborted approach with zero follow-up. That’s not game anywhere in the game universe, and if he came to us saying that he has yet to get laid after putting such an half-assed attempt, we’d tell him to do 10 solid approaches the following day and stop whining like an entitled child.

The fact that Rodger was a member of PUAHate, an online community of social retards who despised game and believed only Brad Pitt and millionaires can get laid, further highlights how vehemently anti-game he was. Why wasn’t he open to improving himself? Why wasn’t he ready to expend the labor to make himself more attractive to women? For that answer, we might as well ask some feminists, who share the exact same belief as him in not having to lift a finger in making yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. Look no further than feminist’s cause-du-jour, fat acceptance, a culture of de-improvement—and frankly, de-evolution—where women gain massive amounts of weight and then flaunt their blubber on social media, ready to attack any man who dare finds their display to be unattractive or repulsive.

Fat acceptance has become so pervasive that we had to dedicate one whole week on ROK tearing it to shreds, but in spite of that, not much has changed. America continues to get fatter and feminists continue to attempt to normalize obesity as actually being beautiful, just like how Rodger tried to convince himself of the idea that having a BMW would be attractive to women.

Take a look at this quote by Rodger:

“Everyone treated me like I was invisible. No one reached out to me, no one knew I existed. I was a ghost.”

Does that ring a bell to you? It’s almost identical to the rant we recently witnessed on the Louis CK show when a morbidly obese female went on to whine and bitch about how being a fat ass is not getting her the man she wants. It’s no surprise that fatties rushed to praise Louis CK for his act of sedition against men and acceptable standards of beauty. There is almost no difference between Rodger and a modern American woman who subscribes to feminist thought.

Now take a look at this passage:
“All of the hot, beautiful girls walked around with obnoxious, tough jock-type men who partied all the time and acted crazy. They should be going for intelligent gentlemen such as myself. Women are sexually attracted to the wrong type of man.”

Let’s do a swap on the genders:

“All the handsome men walked around with blonde bimbos who don’t have a good career like me and knowledge of reality television shows. These men should be going for a strong, empowered, independent, fabulous woman such as myself. Men are sexually attracted to the wrong type of woman.”

The overlap in mindset would be comical if it didn’t result in tragedy.

Another question worth asking is this: when today’s American woman can’t find the man of her dreams, does she look in the mirror and blame herself? No, she blames men for not finding her unattractiveness attractive. This is actively promoted by feminist thinkers on the most widely read American blogs like Buzzfeed, Gawker, and Huffington Post. Rodger shared this same viewpoint. His manifesto is dripping with entitlement of why girls don’t find him to be “marvelous” just because he happens to own a fancy pair of sunglasses. Feminists and Rodger, it turns out, are like two peas in a pod.

4. He believed that men should be chivalrous and kind, like feminists do
Please don’t forward us another listicle on a feminist-friendly blog about how men need to be nice, friendly, and awkwardly consensual by applying legalese speak in the bedroom before passionate fornication. Rodger believed much of the same, thinking that you had to be a “supreme gentleman” that catered to the material and emotional whims of women, doing everything possible to please them in exchange for a sexual reward. We can only imagine how nauseatingly “gentlemanly” he would have been if he actually managed to land a date on his terms.

I have no doubt he would have agreed with just about all the mainstream bullshit advice on being a gentleman, particularly the Thought Catalog piece The 20 Rules Of Being A Modern Gentleman. There is also a Buzzfeed quiz titled How Much Of A Gentleman Are You? that Rodger would have gotten an A+ on. The end result of his loneliness (killing six people) was obviously not gentlemanly, but before that rampage he treated girls with a gentlemanly shyness, reverence, and respect that feminists would have applauded him for. Rodger and feminists believed in the exact same demeanor that men should have around women.

5. He hated game, like feminists do

No one hates game more than feminists, who have gone so far as to equate it rape ([1], [2], [3]). They absolutely despise any attempt by men to improve their value in the sexual marketplace because then that would mean fewer men to put up with their obesity, short hair, or bad attitude. Rodger believed the same, going so far as becoming an active member in the PUAHate community which dedicated the bulk of their efforts to criticizing game and its adherents like a woman’s gossip circle. (On PUAhate there had been over 100 threads criticizing me and other ROK staff.)

Would you be surprised if I were to tell you right now that Rodger and a mainstream feminist shared the same views on PUAHate and game? I hope not, because that’s exactly what I found. A popular feminist writer who has worked for Newsweek, Jezebel, Buzzfeed, and Dissident magazine, Katie JM Baker, publicly declared that PUAs (i.e. us) are actually worse than PUA Hate.

“The men that lurk in the PuaHate forums are almost worse than the PUAs themselves…”

Let that soak in for a second. Feminist rage is so deep and emotional against game that they have supported a forum with “hate” in the title that cultivated and gave comfort to a mass murderer. I gave Baker a chance to change her opinion about believing a forum of hate was less worse than men who practice game:

[Image of a Twitter Feed, Transcript:

RoK: @katiejmbaker, for the record, do you still believe that we are worse than PUAHate? Or did the recent murder Rampage change your mind?

Katie Baker: lol, what are you even talking about?]

A feminist refused to reverse her position that game practitioners are not worse than Rodger’s favorite hangout. That tells me that Rodger and Baker would get along very well in their hate for men like us who teach game and try to improve men’s lives.

6. He subscribed to The Young Turks Youtube channel, a feminist darling

This is a minor point but one worth mentioning. We don’t know how knee-deep he was into The Young Turks liberal positions, but it’s a fact that he was not a subscriber to my channel or forum. We can only speculate as to how much TYT molded his pro-feminist view.

7. He hated alpha males, just like feminists do
Whenever a feminist encounters these parts, she immediately bashes our alpha/beta concept of male sexual hierarchy. She instead spouts tired cliches that are supposed to help men in their pursuit of sexual happiness but which actually do nothing of the sort:

“People are people!”
“Just be yourself!”
“Don’t be an asshole/creep/jerk/rando!”
“Having sexual standards is, like, misogynistic!”
Of course these phrases don’t explain human mating behavior and why some men get way more women than others, but that’s no matter since feminist theory does not have the slightest intention to explain the world in an accurate or truthful manner.

Like feminists, Rodger despised alpha males, who he called “obnoxious.” Here’s some relevant quotes from his manifesto:

“I noticed that there were two groups of cool, popular kids. There were the skateboarder kids, such as Vinny Maggio, Ashton Moio, Darrel, Wes, and Alex Dib. And then there were the boys who were popular with girls, including Vincent, Robert Morgan, and [redacted]. They all seemed so confident and aggressive. I felt so intimidated by them, and I hated them for it. I hated them so much, but I had to increase my standing with them. I wanted to be friends with them.

[…]

I thought all of the cool kids were obnoxious jerks, but I tried as best as I could to hide my disgust and appear “cool” to them. They were obnoxious jerks, and yet somehow it was these boys who all of the girls flocked to.”

If Rodger was alive right now, he’d be giving feminists high fives for sharing the exact same viewpoint on sexually superior but “horrible” males who have figured out the dating game and what women actually want.

8. He shared many personality traits with your modern American feminist
Rodger might as well have been a woman, which has raised speculation if he was actually gay. He took selfies like women. He was addicted to Facebook like women. He was obsessed with his appearance. He was narcissistic, vain, and materialistic. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was also addicted to his iPhone like your standard issue American woman. Heartiste does a good job of highlighting the similarities:

“[The effeminate male, like Rodger, is an] indictment of this infantile Millennial generation, which daily provides evidence that their ranks are filled with effeminate males who, like women, expect the world to cater their needs, no questions asked, no demands made. Elliot Rodger couldn’t stand how unfaaaair girls were to date uglier men than himself, how unfair life was that his car and clothes weren’t a magnet for hot white sorority chicks, how unfair the cosmic laws were to require of him a little bit of effort if he wanted to put an end to his virginity.

Egotistic, attention starved, solipsistic, passive aggressive, perpetually aggrieved, and unwilling to change when posing as a martyr feels so damn good… there’s your new American manlet, same as your new American woman.”

Like I already mentioned, a quick find/replace gender swap on his manifesto will pass the Turing test in convincing most spectators that he was actually a 22-year-old empowered feminist who participates in “Take Back The Night” walks and thinks that posting mindless #YesAllWomen tweets on Twitter comprises her good deed of the month. Rodger was effeminate and a negative person overall simply because he possessed beliefs that are undoubtedly shared by feminists.

9. He wanted to be a social justice warrior, just like feminists
He had a victim complex of being held down by invisible forces outside of his control. Feminists also believe that the “patriarchy” is holding them down, and they flock to Tumblr to reblog facile images and memes to spread lies that men make more than women for the same work, for example. These Tumblr crusades have even led to my own family being prank called at late hours, all because my words hurt their feelings, just like Rodger’s was hurt that pretty girls didn’t find him automatically attractive.

It turns out that Rodger was a budding social justice warrior, perhaps not far from establishing his own Tumblr beachhead:

“I formed an ideology in my head of how the world should work. I was fueled both by my desire to destroy all of the injustices of the world, and to exact revenge on everyone I envy and hate. I decided that my destiny in life is to rise to power so I can impose my ideology on the world and set everything right. I was only seventeen, I have plenty of time. I thought to myself. I spent all of my time studying in my room, reading books about history, politics, and sociology, trying to learn as much as I can.

[…]

I seriously started to consider working towards writing an epic story. I was always creating stories in my mind to fuel my fantasies. Usually those stories depicted someone like myself rising to power after a life of being treated unfairly by the world.

[…]

To be angry about the injustices one faces is a sign of strength. It is a sign that one has the will to fight back against those injustices, rather than bowing down and accepting it as fate. Both my friends James and Philip seem to be the weak, accepting type; whereas I am the fighter. I will never stand to be insulted, and I will eventually have my revenge against all those who insult me, no matter how long it takes.”

Both Rodger and feminists feel the only way to get what they want out of life is not self-improvement, but attacking others they disagree with. Their shared ideology is one of destruction. We have to wonder if Rodger would have eventually participated in any feminist event like SlutWalks to right the world of fantasy injustices that prevent them from being seen as beautiful, marvelous, gentlemanly, and so on.

10. He was not far away from being the epitome of a white knight, a man that feminists collect for their friend zones

If you see a feminist in the wild, a white knight won’t be far. He’s the man who enables her false view of the world and provides her with good feels and encouragement for her social justice campaigns. While Rodger wasn’t quite a white knight in this sense, he nailed all three white knight components:

“1. He is the ever-present servant.
2. He pines silently for a single woman.
3. That woman wants little to do with him, and it shows.”

In other words, if you inserted him in feminist company, he would be the glove to their chubby bear claw fingers. His personality is wholly compatible with how feminists believe men should behave: servile and wimpy while never taking real action on their sexual desires.

Conclusion

The only things in common that Rodger had with us is that (1) he wanted sex with attractive women, and (2) he had a functional penis. That’s it. The overlap of thought and belief between Rodger and feminists, however, should convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that Rodger was in fact a feminist, even if he didn’t himself know that his peg fit snugly into the feminist hole. I’ve actually met self-described feminists who were less feminist than Rodger was.

While I stand by my argument that game would have helped Rodger, I am beginning to wonder if being a feminist was the seed that drove him to desperation and delusion, eventually leading to a tragic loss of life. This line of thought is worth pursuing by people who want to understand why a man felt that taking other lives and his own was seen as the best solution. You definitely won’t read about this conclusion in the media, which is too busy trying to toss Rodger to our side like a hot piece of coal, even though Rodger shares absolutely no similarity in thought and behavior to game practitioners.

I have logically come to the conclusion that Rodger was in fact the first male feminist mass murderer that we have seen in America. I’m afraid that if the feminist ideology contained within Rodger’s head is allowed to continue spreading, we are likely to see more violent acts by men who believe in the exact same things that feminists do.

AbuMubarak #fundie forums.islamicawakening.com

[A non-Muslim points out that homosexuality is found in animals]

they look at themselves as having evolved from animals, thus, it makes sense for them to look at animal behavior as what they should emulate.

they copulate with each other without marriage, just like animals
their women run around naked, in heat, like animals
their men sit around basking in the shade while the women work, like animals
their children dont know who their fathers are, like animals
their men have no gheera, like animals

so why are you surprised that he looks to the behavior of animals to be his example?

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

30% of men in one particular NY campus are incels

image

(_MiscLegend)
Notice how as they get closer to senior, the percentages drop more when referring to sex. Most (of the ones bound to do it that is) are either having it early (because timeline doesn't matter -- it's all looks/determinism) or rarities later -- or never at all. It's not some "effort to fit in and adapt" mostly -- it's you're either in or you're out (of that social/sexual caste and the benefits with it when you have sexual value and how this impacts social value/etc.)

"It only gets better with age/time, bro."

"College/school is shallow! It gets better later!"

If it (life) "got better after school" then we'd expect there to not be a slowly degrading trend of likelihood of sex (since validation/desire among other benefits are key to life quality). The ones who "never had sex" were probably never going to have done so anyways, in college or after/before/with no attendance/etc. Also notice how these are no tiny numbers: 30% of just one uni is very fucking significant. People used to think incels were only "a tiny minority of thousands on the interwebz" but doesn't seem like it anymore with all of these studies and shit showing how more than 1 in 6 men can very much count as incel, more or less (depending on exact definitions used, AKA just about sex).

What people fail to understand is that it isn't all about sex, but being wanted for sex coincides with a better life quality all around usually (social life; friends; content/feeling validated/wanted; not being depressed/lonely; not being less attractive and a target of lookism; etc.). So while it isn't merely about the sex itself it's the symptom that not being wanted for sex by anyone paints as your value in a social system and thus the other negative factors with it.

IOW: It's all looks pretty much and uncontrollable factors that seal your fate and experiences in life.

(advancedatheist)

What people fail to understand is that it isn't all about sex, but being wanted for sex coincides with a better life quality all around usually

I've been saying this for years. It's funny how the health scolds have a model for the flourishing man that involves diet, exercise, social engagement and so forth; but they treat the incel's sexual eviction as an irrelevancy to his objective well being.

The incel is also at a disadvantage in the work place, because when you have sexual relationships with girls early in life, at an appropriate age, you pick up skills from the experience which don't exist in isolation; these skills play a role in the bigger problem of knowing how to live competently in a world full of women. Women in the work place respect a male coworker more when they can see that a woman in his private life wants to spend time with him and presumably have sex with him.

(QN356bx)
I'd like to see if those happy people would still be happy if nobody was attracted to them. They all say live like me and you too will be happy! I have been eating healthy my entire life and cycle at least half an hour every day. The magic formula just doesn't work. I am attracted to women and wish to have sex with them. It's not like that goes away during the 30 minutes I spent cycling or the hour to prepare good food every day. I'm only free of those feelings when I sleep.