Similar posts

Femonade #fundie factcheckme.wordpress.com

women as a class are subservient to men as a class, then, due pretty exclusively to PIV.

now. gays and lesbians are vilified, under this system, because homosexuals fuck up the narrative (again, the narrative is, and must be, men fuck women, and women are fucked by men). see? regarding gay men, they make it too clear that men have asses that can be fucked. its not *just* women that can be fucked, men can be fucked too. but how is that supposed to work???!!!!!1 no, its not fucking unless women are fucked. its not “fucking” unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and lesbians fuck up the narrative too: they make it too clear that PIV is not inherently erotic, for women. so, they arent really women, at all. and what they are doing to and with each other isnt fucking. because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing.

and i have kinda been harsh on transwomen in this series, but they fit in here too, dont they? because transwomen are men, and they have asses that can be fucked. they have fake fuckholes that can be fucked. but its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can become pregnant. because fucking and female subservience are the same thing. and its not a fucking coincidence, is it, that many times when a straight man murders a transwoman, its after he has fucked her (or right before), and finds out that shes not a woman? because the transwoman reminds him that he, too, has an ass, that can be fucked. that what they have just done or almost done together wasnt fucking or almost fucking, it was something “disturbing” in fact, because its not fucking unless someone can die from it, unless someone can get pregnant.

because fucking and female subservience are the same fucking thing.

wetwareproblem #fundie wetwareproblem.tumblr.com

in response to this post


The issue I have with this post is that for the purposes of who it’s appropriate for you to be dating you’re 30, not 17 ,always. To go ‘oooooh which is the age you should be judging the morality of my relationships by 30 or 17 it’s impossible to say!’ you’re implicitly telling people that there’s some ambiguity as to whether having headmates who are minors as an adult means your relationships should be judged as a minor’s relationships. There is not. This is the main point of this reblog and tbh it’s something you need to speak on. Arguing for age gaps between adults being okay shouldn’t be done in ways that could be used to justify child abuse, and that’s a responsibility you take on when you speak on the issue.

We have spoken on it. Repeatedly. And… no, you’re dangerously leaving out an important nuance there: A system member who is a minor, even in an adult body, is still a fucking minor and so probably should not “have their relationships judged as an adult” - they shouldn’t be entering into adult relationships at all. Yes, this leaves an awkward spot where there’s basically no ethical way for some system members to date at all. Again, we’ve spoken publicly on this very issue before, including in direct response to this post.

.You’re not allowed to ignore age completely whether you’re a singlet or not. The age of your body absolutely determines, at least, the minimum age of the people it is ethical for you to date and I don’t know why you continually dance around whether or not you agree with that because you have made it unclear.

.”mental age” is measured in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people, unlike chronological age which is objective and it’s often used to tell disabled people what they can and cannot do so I think it’s up to her to decide the age of the people she is comfortable dating, depending on what exactly she is using the very ambiguous term “mental age” to convey, and her chronological age.

.It’s actually pretty dangerous to a wide variety of people to respond to people saying “23 year olds and 30 year olds shouldn’t date” with but ‘I’m a system and therefore using age as a measure of the morality of a relationship is flawed.’ Like were the “antis” you’re discussing even talking about a relationship that involved systems in any way?

.Also “think carefully about your answer” look it’s so unsettling how you’re conducting this conversation like SEE IF YOU CAN SOLVE THIS PUZZLE I”VE CONCOCTED like people are trying to talk to you about how something you said had some really uncomfortable implications and you should at least try to treat our concerns in a way that’s honest and self-critical and not be trying to like get us to say something wrong so you “win”that’s not how this works.


What SM was arguing in the OP - what we have argued consistently - is that chronological age does not equal narrative age for multiples. SM split in a trauma event 17 years ago. So yes, it is 17 years old. But believe it or not, we aren’t born quite like you. It didn’t need to learn to walk and talk and use a toilet again. It came into existence as a teenager, in a teenage body. It continued to age in real time, so despite having existed for 17 years, it has a narrative age in the mid-30s.
This information has already been explicitly provided to you.
So… your argument is that a system member with a narrative age in the mid-30s, with a body in the mid-30s, is the victim of a gross predator… because she’s in a consensual relationship with someone younger. Because you are utterly fixated on dictating to multiples instead of listening to us about our experience and how your rules get really fucked up and ableist when you apply them to us unilaterally.
What’s even more fucked up is that you’re making this argument after repeatedly arguing that a system member with a narrative age of fourteen should be allowed to date adults because they happen to be in an older body.
Like. Do you have any idea how many different levels of fucked up you’re being here?
Re: mental age: If you know that, then maybe you know better than to apply it to other DD people without their consent? No? What a surprise, consideration for other people’s boundaries and differing situations is not your strong suit.

You seriously could have just said that you’re 30 and your girlfriend is 23 and it’s a healthy relationship without doing all this bullshit
.‘checkmate people who disapprove of relationships between 30 year olds and 23 year olds, I’m also 17’ is an inherently dangerous sentiment, deflecting criticism of your relationship based on the age of your body by bringing up your chronological age of your alter absolutely cosigns some pedophiles’ justifications
.


2. Well, there’s the aspect that we’ve brought up repeatedly and you literally just acknowledged: Basing your decisions solely on the age of the body opens up two loopholes for the abuse of children.

I have never seen someone so determined to allow for the abuse of children in my life.

2.5. They weren’t just calling it “inherently predatory,” they were calling it “pedophilic.” That is the absurdity I was responding to. There is no, repeat no, way for a relationship between two adults to be pedophilic.

3. I could’ve done a lot of things. I chose to write a quick snarky post to vent some of my frustration. This is just tone-policing a mentally ill woman for not responding to ableism politely enough for you. Fuck off.

4. “Your expressed policies paint me as simultaneously predator and victim of the same person, this is absurd” is not an inherently dangerous statement. I wasn’t deflecting criticism of my relationship - I was responding to criticism of a fictional relationship and the fact that it leaves zero room for me to exist. And I wasn’t bringing up the age of a system mate. I was talking about myself. I am an adult who happens to have existed for 17 years. This is a thing that happens, and maybe if you could stop being an ableist fuck for like half a second you’d be able to understand that.

This is not cosigning anybody’s justification for the abuse of children. This is saying “Your rules have a blatant and ugly failure case; better rules are needed.” I have, repeatedly, offered better rules which - unlike yours - do not simultaneously paint someone as predator and victim or allow for the exploitation of children.

Seriously. I said “Hey, there’s a problem with your policies, here’s a policy that better protects children.” And you are trying to pretend I am cheerleading for child molesters, like the ones who fucking raped us, because I did so a bit snarkily (after already having been the target of multiple smear campaigns by antis for daring to actually listen to experts and evidence).

No part of this is honest disagreement. You are doing exactly what I have always objected to in the Anti Squad - reaching as hard as you fucking can for any excuse to portray anybody who disagrees with you as a supporter of child molesters. You are actively harming CSA survivors and mentally ill people and allowing child molesters to go unchallenged, and that is beyond disgusting. Get the fuck off our post with that shit.


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.

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.

Bethany Blankley #fundie charismanews.com

By destroying the institution of marriage, the "gay rights" LBGQTI movement made possible the extension of similar "legal rights" for other "lifestyle choices," including zoophilia, consanguinamorous relationships, necrophilia, pedophilia, polygamy, and every other "fluid" sexual preference or identification—including sologamy and trans-polyamorous relationships.

Efforts to normalize sex with animals as an accepted lifestyle choice resulted in one documentary winning an award this year that idolizes a sexual relationship between a man and his bottlenose dolphin lover.

The 40-year movement to legalize sexual interaction with children is working. People are publicly advocating without shame: "I'm a pedophile, but not a monster;" and, "pedophilia is natural and normal for males."

Now, incest activists in the consanguinamorous community argue it's their turn to have their sexual preference and lifestyle choice validated socially and legally.

Because of a case in New Mexico that's making national headlines, incest activists argue exactly what homosexuals argued to normalize incest.

"I was born this way."

"I can't choose who I love."

"I have a right to be happy just like everyone else."

"We aren't hurting anyone."

"Who is the government to legislate love?"

Incest activists maintain that all sexual preferences and acts should be legal if they are consensual and don't harm anyone. More importantly, the government should not be legislating love.

Christina Shy, an incest activist who runs an advocacy and support website for consanguinamorous people, and is in a relationship with her half-brother, argues that incest "needs to be brought to the attention of everybody in the country and people need to start thinking differently. It was the same with gay people just a few years ago and now they can get married they are accepted. Well why not consanguinamorous people like us? We are all adults. We are not pedophiles, there's no domestic issue. We are in love, we want to be together, but we are related. That shouldn't be a deciding factor."

She's right—if sex is consensual among adults in the privacy of their own home—how is it wrong or even illegal?

How is consensual sex between two adult men different than consensual sex between adult brothers and sisters or adult mothers and sons? If two adult men can legally marry each other, why can't consensual adult incestuous couples?

Why should one consensual relationship be denied and another legal?

Incestuous adults aren't coercing anyone. They are knowingly making choices about their own bodies, so why does anyone have a problem with it? It's really none of anyone else's business.

If transgender people in America, who represent less than half of one percent of the population, can have the government dictate bathroom policies for non-transgender people in public schools and stores, why won't the government legalize consanguinamorous relationships?

Homosexuals, who represent less than 3 percent of the population in America, can legally marry and adopt children, why can't incestuous, polygamists, pedophiles and zoophiles?

If morality and laws are determined by personal preferences (that are fluid and always changing) to justify societal norms, why is a different standard being used to legislate incest, necrophilia or pedophilia than that of same-sex relationships?

Incestuous relationships are mutually consensual, therefore they should be legal. (The same reasoning can be applied to murder. Surely, if two people agree to murder someone, in fact a group of people consent to murder another group of people, their consent justifies their action, which should therefore legalize murder.)

The same goes for polygamy. And necrophilia.

Why is having sex with dead people wrong? The corpse doesn't care. It's dead. It doesn't hurt the corpse; it doesn't even know what's happening. Granted, it can't consent to the sexual act, but that doesn't matter because there are enough necrophiliacs to argue that their sexual preference is normal.

When it comes to not hurting anyone, incest activists argue that abortion is legal, so again, what standard is being used to legislate harm to another person?

They are right. If a baby has no constitutional rights, and adults do, why can't the adults, who aren't harming anyone else, be together?

Practicing homosexuality used to be illegal. Now gays can marry. Times have changed, so who has the audacity to suggest that incest is not the new normal of the 21st century family? Or bestiality?

"Non-human animals have incestuous relationships and multiple partners," some activists argue. Likewise, it's well-known that kings and queens had incestuous relationships for centuries to 'keep their bloodline pure.'

So, who is the government to legislate love? Everyone has the right to love whomever they choose. All love is equal. How is heterosexual love better than incestuous love or being in love with multiple partners?

As the defendant in the New Mexico case argues, as to why he should be allowed to love, have sex with and even marry his mother, he says: "This is about whether I have the right to love someone. And I sure (expletive) have the right to love Monica. You can't tell people who to love or who not to love."

His mother's name, Monica, could easily be "Matthew," the name of a brother, father, uncle or homosexual boyfriend.

No love is wrong.

Gay rights activists and corrupt politicians who chose to legalize same-sex marriage and transgender bathroom policies, have no justification to prevent the legalization other sexual behavior.

Pastor Scott #fundie sbcopenforum.com

Responding to the Chart “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?”

Here is a post I recently put up at my “pastor’s blog” for my church. I am starting a regular post entitled ‘Ask the Pastor’ to give me an opportunity to answer question our folks have about theological issues, and living-out a biblically faithful life in the presence of the challenges we face in our world today. Here is what I posted:

In this post, I am going to answer the challenges put before us by someone who advocates in favor of same-sex marriage and against a biblical world view. Below is a picture of a chart which is making the rounds on the Internet, especially Facebook. The title of the chart is “So You Still Think Homosexuality is Sinful?” with the tag line of “And Therefore Gays Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Marry?” Here is that chart:


The question brought to me regarding this chart is pretty straightforward, “How do we answer the objections raised here?” In other words, when someone makes what sounds like a legitimate argument regarding the issue of homosexuality and what the Bible has to say about it or a related topic, how are we to respond? This is a great question which gets to the heart of what I hope we are able to do with these Ask the Pastor posts: When faced with the issues in our world today how are we as biblically faithful followers of Jesus Christ to think about and respond to them?

The bottom-line answer is really quite simple, we think, trust, and live according to what God’s word says. This statement is absolutely true, yet is somewhat incomplete. We must ask ourselves if the Bible is reliable and how do we find the assurance that our understanding of the Bible is correct. I do not wish to get side-tracked into a discussion of the apologetic for the reliability and veracity of the Bible. Perhaps that could be another post at another time. Suffice it to say that as Christians we place all our trust in God’s complete revelation found in the sixty-six books of the Bible. Upon that trust, we then embark upon diligent study of Scripture and develop our theological convictions. The consistency of right understanding is borne out in a logical cohesion of all biblical texts, proper understanding of the original languages and translation, the history of the time, and the continued witness of Christians throughout history. For example, we can assert much about the orthodox fact that God is triune–the Trinity–because we see numerous passages referencing our One great God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We also benefit from biblical linguistic scholars who have diligently studied the Hebrew and Greek to assure us of right understanding of the words in the Bible. We know of the history in which God revealed Himself, and we see established the unique nature of God in contrast to pagan religion. Finally, throughout church history Christians have come together and labeled any other description of God as unorthodox heresy. These same factors figure in to our understanding of what God says in His word about homosexuality.

For my focus here, I’m going to respond to each one of the reasons listed in the chart in rejecting homosexuality as sin thus advocating for same-sex marriage. I take them from left to right across the presentation of the chart:

“Jesus Never Uttered A Word about Same-Sex Relationships”:

This is simply FALSE. Jesus has spoken at length regarding the immorality of homosexuality. He is part of the eternally triune God and as such is the author of ALL SCRIPTURE from Genesis to Revelation. Those passages in the Old and New Testaments outside the Gospels–in which are found specific prohibitions regarding homosexuality–are just as much the words of Jesus as are the ‘red letters’ found in many of our Bibles which are attributed to Him during His earthly ministry.

A similar ‘argument from silence,’ as the one attempted by the author of the chart, could be made that in those passages where Jesus spoke directly to the issue of marriage–such as Matthew 5:31-32; 19:1-12, etc.–He took no opportunity to affirm same-sex marriage as valid, which one would assume He would want to do, so as to not be misunderstood.

“The O.T. Also Says It’s Sinful to Eat Shelfish, to Wear Clothes Woven with Different Fabrics, and to Eat Pork. Should We Still Live by O.T. Laws?”:

The question embodied in the final box of this section–“Should we still live by O.T. laws?”–does not have a simple yes-or-no answer, thus the question is ill-conceived and short-sighted. The reason the answer is not-so-simple lies in the fact that OT laws fall into three categories–civil, ceremonial, and moral. Civil laws applied to how Israel, as the people of God were to live within society. Ceremonial laws applied to matters of worship and special identity for Israel. Moral laws applied to right and wrong–what God calls righteous or sin. In the NT we read Scriptures which tell us that the ceremonial and many civil laws were no longer to be applied to God’s people (Acts 10:9-29; 11:1-14). Nowhere in the NT do we find nullification of the moral laws; in fact, Jesus Himself even shows us all just how deeply those laws still apply (Matthew 5:17-48).

“The Original Language of the N.T. Actually Refers to Male Prostitution, Molestation, or Promiscuity, not Committed Same-Sex Relationships. Paul May Have Spoken Against Homosexuality, but He Also Said That Women Should Be Silent and Never Assume Authority Over A Man. Shall Modern-Day Churches Live by All of Paul’s Values?”

The answer to the question posed in the bottom box is ‘Yes.’ We’ll return to the reason for that answer in a moment.

First we must address the error of the lengthy attempted justification of homosexuality based on the Greek words and context of the NT discussion. The assertion made by the originator of this chart is simply not proved. It is what biblical scholars call eisegesis, or reading into a biblical passage something which is not already there. The words used to describe homosexuality deal with a general description of sexual relationships involving people of the same gender. The most notable of these passages is Romans 1:18-32. Also, nothing in the context of Romans 1 or the other NT or OT passages which reference homosexuality draw any distinction between consensual or non-consensual same-sex relationships.

Returning to the question: Yes, we should live by “all of Paul’s values.” In this case, the author of the chart highlights “women should be silent and never assume authority over a man,” so let’s deal with that specifically. This statement references 1 Timothy 2:8-15. The referenced statement is made within the context of Paul’s instruction to Timothy on the structure and leadership of the local church (1 Timothy 3:1-7, & all of 1 Timothy). Paul’s assertion pertains to his argument that women are not to be pastors or deacons within the local church. Nothing is being said about women in positions of secular authority.

“That Was When the Earth Wasn’t Populated. There Are Now 6.79 Billion People. Breeding Clearly Isn’t an Issue Any More!”

This, aside from the ‘argument’ addressed on the very right side of this chart (which is nothing more than a stereotyping, straw-man attack on personality rather than a matter of substantive consideration), is the weakest of the arguments on this chart. The author concedes the actual statement of biblical truth. The simple fact is that the Bible explicitly states the order of creation is man and woman, who are created for sexual intimacy with those of the opposite gender (Genesis 2; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31). Also, the fact that no population parameters exist within the Bible emphatically indicates that the commands limiting marriage to men to women are still applicable today.

“Wrong. The Bible Also Defines Marriage as One-Man-Many-Women, One Man Many Wives and Concubines, A Rapist & His Victim, and Conquering Soldier & Female Prisoner of War.”

To use the chart’s author’s own words regarding this statement…Wrong. The author is guilty of a confusion of categories, or category error. He attempts to equate two different types of Scriptural writing–prescriptive and descriptive. A prescriptive passage asserts something to be followed–Do not murder; Do not forsake the assembling of yourselves together; Honor your father and mother–while a descriptive passage simply reports that which happened–In the beginning God created; Judas went out and hung himself; John the Baptist came eating locusts and honey. Prescriptive passages give us commands to follow, even if given by example. They are often restated and affirmed as such in other parts of the Bible, such as is the case with the passages sited in the previous problem with relation to the definition of gender and marriage (Genesis 2; et al.). Descriptive Bible passages, such as have been correctly referenced by the author of the chart, merely state the observable facts, the narrative of historic events. Often times these references come with neither condemnation nor affirmation of the choices of those involved in the story. Such is the case with the examples sited in the chart.

One other interesting observation. Those examples sighted in an attempt to claim that the Bible advocates multiple definitions of marriage have at their foundation the biblical truth of men created for intimate relationships with women. No same-sex example of marriage can be cited from the Bible. To be sure though, all of those examples the chart author cited are indeed corruptions of the biblical prescription of one man for one woman for life.

Well…what I have attempted here is a relatively brief response to the various issues presented by this chart. Much more could be said. If you would like to see further discussion on one of these matters, please send me your question via the Ask the Pastor form on the blog here. I am also not averse to discussing specific questions pertaining to this post in the comment thread. I will certainly moderate it to be certain that it remains on topic, but would welcome helpful interaction on this topic.

As always, when we engage people who might bring these accusations against us or the Bible, we must always answer in a cordial, redemptive, and convictional manner. Thank you for your time in reading this post. Be looking for the next installment of “Ask the Pastor” soon.

By Grace Alone,

Pastor Scott

Torpedofails #psycho yandere.freeforums.net


Would you ever harm your crush? If so, what circumstances would cause you to do so?

No. I don't think I could ever bring myself to hurt my beloved, unless Her life depended on it. Consensual actions, such as carving my name into Her arm are technically fine, but only after making sure it does not hurt too bad, preferably using painkillers.

Would you ever take your crush's life? If so, what circumstances would cause you to do so?

If the relationship can no longer continue, whether that be due to a break up, or being caught by the police. Make Her death quick and painless, even if She cheated, preferably while hugging Her. Followed by suicide.

Is blackmailing your crush out of the question? Why?

I don't see myself ever being in a situation when blackmailing by beloved will solve anything. However, I reserve the right to do so at any time, just in case.

How far would you take your advances on your crush before beginning a true (read:consensual) relationship with them?

As long as it takes. If I get rejected the first time, try again later. If it takes a year, then so be it. I speak from experience. Just have to make sure to not come off as too creepy, to avoid restraining orders.

if your crush was already in a relationship, what would you do?


Try to sabotage their relationship without direct involvement/wait it out, because most relationships won't last for longer than a month.

What would you do to keep your crush in check?


A list of rules we must both follow. GPS trackers and bugs on all devices. Perhaps a tracker sewn into Her clothes, just in case.

Would you give your lover permission to harm you? Why?

Yes. If hurting me will in some shape or form make their life easier, then they are free to hurt me all they want. Plus that leaves room for romantic gestures like carving their name into my arm while I sleep.

If your lover were to threaten you, how would you calm them down?

Assure them that I would do anything for them. After all, it's not a lie, since my life is worthless without them anyway.

Would you be willing to cut off contact from the rest of society (yes, even the internet), if it meant living peacefully with your lover?

Well, I'm not exactly a social person in the first place, and neither is She. I'd say that living somewhere outside of common society with my beloved is a dream come true.

Given the choice, would you prefer a violent or a tame yandere? Why?


Hypothetically? Violent, because I would be extremely touched if She were to kill in the name of love and loyalty to me. Realistically? Tame, because murder is hard to get away with, and relationships tend to not do particularly well when introduced to jail time.

Does a Stockholm Syndrome relationship count as consensual?

Yes. Love is love, no matter how twisted it may be. Even if She is chained to a chair in my basement.

What circumstances would make you consider breaking up with a yandere?


If my common sense was to somehow vanish without my noticing. (NOTHING).

Theodore Shoebat #fundie shoebat.com

We have forgotten the fact that Christianity is supreme over all other creeds, thus we have chosen to neglect Christian supremacy (not that a Christian is superior to all other peoples, but that Christianity is superior over all other religions). We see it as bigoted or xenophobic; but here is the truth, and there is no running away from it: every nation on earth is under an ideological supremacy. We have no other choice but to esteem an idea as supreme; if we don’t, someone else will, and it may not be one of liberty, but utter tyranny.

In Somalia it is Islamic supremacy, in India Hindu supremacy, in Bhutan Buddhist supremacy, and in South Sudan it is Christian supremacy. As we laude ourselves in America as not being supremacist Christians, we still wonder as to why so many “believers” runaway from controversy, trivialize the most important priorities and prioritize the most trivial issues.

LN #fundie lunaticoutpost.com

A person who never has heard the Gospel still goes to Hell.

Here's an analogy.

Say I'm from VA and we have a right on red after stop law.

And I got to NM, where they have no right on red after stop law.

And I go up to the Stop sign and go ahead and turn right.

And a cop sees me and pulls me over.

It isn't going to matter to the cop that I didn't know the law existed.

I STILL broke the law.

And I'm going to get a ticket.

Same with God.

It isn't going to matter to Him if someone who knew the gospel and didn't obey it goes to Hell. It's their choice.

It STILL isnt going to matter if someone never heard the gospel and ends up in Hell.

BOTH are GUILTY of not being born again.

Bob Gray Sr #fundie bobgraysr.com

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT
Pants On Women - Is That All There Is To It?

Same-sex marriage, mothers no longer working in the home, families going their separate ways with no time together, the feminization of men, the masculinization of women. These are the things I see as I look out over the landscape of our country. I find myself asking, "Where has manhood gone?" and "Where has femininity gone?"

As I read the messages preached and the books written by my mentor, Dr. Jack Hyles, I sense in him a concern for the direction in which our country was moving with regards to manhood and womanhood. He even preached a sermon, which later was published in booklet form, on the subject of the unisex movement.

Today we seldom even think about it yet so many of the things about which he warned us have now come true and for the most part we have accepted them. We have lost the distinction between the sexes. We've lost the pride of masculinity and femininity. In fact, society derides both.

Perhaps nothing has brought more criticism to Dr. Hyles than did his strict position on women wearing pants for those in church leadership. He never wavered on that position, however he never treated women who wore pants with disrespect or unkindness. He NEVER made the issue of a woman wearing pants as proof of whether or not she was a Christian, or whether or not she loved the Lord. The issue really was not as much about the individual as it was with the whole.

He saw us moving away from the distinctiveness of the sexes towards a homogenous sameness that he felt was wrong. He saw the issue in ways that others did not. It was more of a philosophy that he preached. Deuteronomy 22:5 meant more to him than just a matter of women wearing pants. It stood for something much bigger. It stood for the fact that men should dress like men and women like women. Even in Bible days the distinctions were very clear and he wanted for them to remain clear in our day.

Did we somehow become lost and confused as to what the issue was really about? Does it really not matter if men dress differently than women and women than men? Is it really important that there be a distinctiveness between masculinity and femininity? The issue wasn't as much about pants as it was principle. He was looking at a much bigger picture than most. Perhaps we saw the issue to vaguely. Perhaps we missed the point entirely.

Many men who once agreed on the issue of pants have now changed their position. Perhaps the position was too small or too narrow in the first place. Perhaps pants in and of themselves was not the issue. Perhaps the real issue was the matter of the distinctiveness between the attire of men and women. Pants gave us a focal point for the real issue, which was that men ought to dress like men and women like women.

Has that changed? Does it matter? Should we care if boys dress like girls? Should it matter to us if girls dress like boys? Is it really relevant? There has always been a focal issue that rallied us behind a principle. Long hair on men rallied us against rebellion, which was the bigger issue. Pants was the focal point for the principle of women not dressing like men. Yet when it comes to the issue of women wearing pants we seem to have missed the point. What is the point? The point is the Bible principle.

What is the Bible principle? The principle is that men should dress like men and women should dress like women. Has that changed or is the Bible still true? Should men wear clothing that pertains to a woman? Should women wear clothing that pertains to a man?

If you are an honest person you will have to admit that females in public have taken the half off sale seriously. Hip hugging skinny jeans revealing mid riffs. I travel every week of the world around this great nation of ours. It is embarrassing for a man who is doing the best he can to keep his heart right with all of the female flesh on display.

Then I go into some of our churches and find myself wondering who is standing for the Bible principle of distinction in God's house. The decline of American morality is reflected in our distinction. The decline of our churches is also reflected in our dress distinction. 50 years ago it was not so in public and for sure it was not so in our churches.

The Mrs. Cleaver look was in almost every home in 1950's. Not so in either the home or the house of God, in a lot of cases, in this new Millennium. If God wanted a distinction in the Old Testament how much more does He desire it in the New Testament.

Murder was brought to a higher level and was identified in the word "hate." (Matthew 5:21-22) Adultery was brought to a higher level by Jesus Himself in the New Testament to the word "lust." (Matthew 5:28) This "second mile" level we find in the New Testament I am afraid is certainly not prevalent in this new Millennium.

Distinction was brought to a higher level in the New Testament. (I Timothy 2:9) Deuteronomy 22:5 has been elevated to "modest" clothing. No skinny jeans here! The Bible principle is for today.

So, if the principle is still true why are we criticizing those who took a stand regarding women wearing pants? I for one must allow others to disagree on the issue, but I'm concerned when they ignore the importance of the Bible principle upon which we built that position. If we lose the principle then we lose the purity of the Scripture.

If we begin to criticize those who took a stand then we should be explaining how we then are carrying out that principle. What should women wear that which a man shouldn't? What should men wear that women shouldn't? Does it matter? It has to because it is covered in his word.

Should we fight over the issue of pants? No, however many of the ones who are fighting the most are the ones who are fighting against those who took or still take that stand. I do not fight the women who wear pants or the preachers who allow it nearly as much as they fight me.

They don't know my heart because they haven't taken the time to understand why I take my position. My position on this issue is based on principle not preference. I am tolerant of those who disagree with my application but should we be tolerant to those who ignore the principle entirely?

The principle is not up for debate, so why would you criticize my commitment to a principle even though you may not like my application of that principle? The principle is that men are to dress like men and women like women and there must be some distinction.

What is the distinction? If you tell me my position is wrong then simply explain to me what the distinction is that you are making between the attire of men and the attire of women. I'll be satisfied with that.

If you're going to criticize me because I have put some kind of distinction into the principle then tell me what your distinction is based upon that same principle. Whether Deuteronomy 22:5 means pants on women or not it must mean something? What does it mean? Explain it.

Don't tell me that men wore robes in the Bible as your excuse? Trust me, the attire of men and the attire of women in those days was very distinctive. There was no question as to what was a man's clothing and what was a woman's clothing. My challenge to you is not proof of whether pants on women is right or wrong but whether or not you know what it means to you.

Let's face it the breaking down between the sexes has taken place. We no longer have the distinctions we once had between men and women including the way they dress. Dr. Hyles and others warned us of this danger more than they warned us of women wearing pants. He warned us of the danger of losing the distinction between the sexes. Pants was a symptom of the issue, but many have turned this against those who warned of the true danger.

We've been called legalists because of a standard based upon a Scriptural principle found in Deuteronomy 22:5. We were not trying to set the standard for everyone. There was a time when public schools made the same distinction and female students were prohibited from wearing pants. There was a time when only women that society considered loose wore pants.

I'm not suggesting that's true today, but what I am suggesting there is a Bible principle that we are not discussing honestly. Those who take a position are being ridiculed by those who have no position on a very clear principle.

I remember in 1959 when the PTA of our public school held a meeting discussing whether or not they should promote a "Slack Friday" for the girl students. I have often wondered why they did not allow "Skirt Friday" for the boy students? Now in the public work places it is "Slack Week."

Tell me pastor what should women wear, or does it matter? What should men wear? Does it matter? This is not legalism. This is applying principles to our lives. There's a legitimate reason that we took the positions we took. I'm saddened by the condition of our country, but I am not surprised. Same sex marriage is a result of the casual way we have dealt with issues in our country and even in many churches.

This smacks of a "oneness" move in fundamentalism that wants to absorb all issues into a "distinctness lessoning" position. I read the BLOGS and it worries me that if you take a contrary stand or an aggressive stand on issues you are causing the cause to not dwell in unity. We are not Catholics! We are not a part of a "universal body." When the cause becomes greater than the truth we are on a downward spiral spiritually.

We are a nation that has completely lost its mind and its morality. Yet we are criticizing men who say women shouldn't wear pants, because women are commanded to dress differently than men? How dare you be so concerned about a man who preaches against women wearing pants that you neglect to acknowledge that the distinction between the sexes has been broken. Yet, it is a distinction God gave us.

So, now I put the responsibility back on your shoulders. Tell us what to do? If there's no problem then there's nothing to worry about, but I think we all know there is a problem. Dr. Hyles was right. The unisex movement is a satanic pursuit to blur the lines between the roles and identity of men and women. How do we fix it? What's the standard going to be? Is there going to be no standard? I think it's time to give it a second thought.

If the pastor's wife has no distinction in her dress, then no wonder the pastor has lock-jaw and is like the Ant-Artica and frozen at the mouth. This makes it difficult to lead a local church let alone a movement.

Christians who believe in traditional marriage were shocked at the in your face sodomy display at the NFL draft. The truth is they may have to look in the mirror and figure out what happened to the distinction of the sexes as having laid the foundation for this and other woes. This is NOT hate speech, this is Scriptural speech. We are losing ground because we have lost the distinctiveness God gave us!

Elizabeth Minkel #sexist medium.com

Mary Sue
From self-inserts to imagines, how young women write themselves into the narrative
Illustration by the incredible Maia Kobabe

[This piece was written in conjunction with the most recent episode of the Fansplaining podcast. Follow us on Twitter or Tumblr, and if you’re interested in supporting our work—helping us commission more art and pieces like this—please consider donating to our Patreon.]

1.

Let’s start with the woman in question. She isn’t usually called Mary Sue—she has a less plausible, more fanciful name. Similarly, she has less plausible, more fanciful physical features than your average girl: purple eyes, or really extraordinary hair. You don’t know her, but you know the characters that surround her—she’s a new student at Hogwarts, an important ally you meet in Rivendell, the person on whom Holmes and Watson will rely to crack the case. She is notably smarter, stronger, and/or more beautiful than her peers. She’s going to save the day—and maybe a character you know will fall in love with her, too. She’s a wholly original character, though she might resemble an idealized version of the author. She’s a super-girl, bending beloved stories around her, heroism in a world mostly made up of heroes.

Oh, also: she is the ultimate object of scorn. She is the literal worst. She is embarrassing, self-indulgent trash; she ruins the story with her competence, her desirability, and the way all those characters you love seem to love her. She’s been described an endless number of colorful ways, including (via Fanlore’s meticulous and depressing entry on Mary Sues) the “literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself.” She is everything that’s wrong with fanfiction, with girls writing stories, with fangirls, period.

The most basic definition of “Mary Sue” is an original female character in fanfiction—which is largely about established characters and worlds—who is often close to perfect. Like, too perfect. Very good at her job, very desirable romantically or sexually, and sometimes very emotionally moving when she dies, tragically, and the other characters mourn her. The story usually centers around her, often warping established characterization in the process. She’s self-indulgent, to be sure, but she’s harmless, and framed this way, one might wonder why young girls writing themselves into their favorite worlds is the literary equivalent of publicly soiling yourself. If you have to wonder that, though, you might not be familiar with the way the world treats young girls.

“Mary Sue” was coined by Paula Smith in 1970s Star Trek fandom, in a very short story that began, “‘Gee, golly gosh, gloriosky,’ thought Mary Sue as she stepped on the bridge of the Enterprise. ‘Here I am, the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet—only 15–1/2 years old.’” Lieutenant Mary Sue, object of affection of Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the men of Star Trek: TOS, was meant to be a parody of what Smith had observed in the fanzines of the day: “The term caught on because she’s very identifiable: Here it is, that same character, and isn’t it a shame because she’s just so tiresome,” she told an interviewer at Transformative Works and Cultures in 2011.

The conversation, conducted 40 years after Lieutenant Mary Sue first stepped onto the bridge, is an interesting one, not least because of the vague sense of disconnect between the literary analysis around the term (why bending a story around your original character might make for bad fiction, or at least not-terribly-enjoyable fiction if you aren’t the author) and the gendered morass that the term has sunk into (or, arguably, where it began).

Mary Sues weren’t born in Trek fandom—one researcher drew parallels between modern self-insert fic and stories that girls wrote about versions of themselves in the nineteenth century—but the term was born in an era of paper zines, a time of limited space for fanfiction, and arguably one with a different relationship between fic writers and their readers. When she first coined the term, Smith says, “In the letter columns, we started seeing the writers react: ‘What’s so wrong with my story? I’m just telling a story that I think is great.’” Even detractors admit Mary Sues are about young girls finding their power and agency in a world of fictional landscapes that rarely afford such journeys to women. After all, the original Mary Sue was the youngest lieutenant in the Fleet.

The days of limited space and resources in fic production are ancient history: there is always room for another story in the internet’s archives, and the general ethos of the broader fanfiction community has long been “don’t like, don’t read.” Many stories are self-indulgent, whether they feature a stand-in for the author or or not. But hatred of Mary Sues is embedded in the culture, self-perpetuating, and has seemingly ramped up since fic came online. In the early digital days, some archives banned Mary Sues outright; to this day, blogs exist solely to call peoples’ original characters Mary Sues, and to deconstruct and mock them accordingly.

Once the seed was planted in cultural discourse, Mary Sue accusations became impossible to stop—the toxicity surrounding the term has spread far beyond fanfiction self-inserts. Not long after it was coined, “Mary Sue” became any original female character in fanfiction; for decades, women have been reporting that they stopped writing original female characters, then female characters altogether, for fear of the “Mary Sue” label. Canonical female characters seen as threats to male/male romances in fic got the term, too—one notable (and incredibly troubling) example is the treatment of Nyota Uhura in fic about the rebooted Star Trek films. And over the years, the term has seeped across pop culture, to the point where “Mary Sue” becomes any female lead, anywhere. Bella Swan, Katniss Everdeen, and Rey from Star Wars are just a few slapped with the label. It’s just so annoying that their respective plots center around them, they must be Mary Sues.

(There are male Mary Sues, in case you’re wondering: “Marty Stu,” “Gary Stu,” and other variations have shown up over the years. People try to counter, even undercut, the inherent misogyny in the Mary Sue conversation by naming too-competent, too-desirable leading men—Captain Kirk, Luke Skywalker, and James Bond are famous examples. There’s an old joke: “What do you call a male Mary Sue?” The answer? “A protagonist.” It’s…not a particularly funny joke.)

But just as fanfiction writers are fighting back against historical scorn towards the practice at large, in recent years fans have been standing up for Mary Sues, too. Critics of the term are working to excise it from discussions around professional works, where it disproportionally targets women writing novels about female characters. In an act of reclamation, one of the most popular female-led geek sites on the internet took the term for its name. And within fan writing communities, people are going to bat for even the most self-indulgent Mary Sues, questioning why we shame young fans for making themselves the heroes of their own stories. But is a long-embedded stigma that easy to shake?

2.

It feels like every other fanfiction writer you talk to has a tale of their own early Mary Sues. Not everyone got called out for them—plenty of people learned to self-censor when they saw others getting shamed. My podcast partner, Flourish, reports that her early original female character was a student who proved vital to a case that Mulder and Scully were investigating. My first fanfic was almost entirely original characters, sketched out on yellow legal pads—I took a minor character from a book series and gave him a diverse team of corporate executives (don’t ask, it’s a weirdly long explanation). But by age 14, when I fell in love with Buffy and learned about online fandom, I was writing stories featuring a banshee who was old friends with Rupert Giles named…Ophelia. (I swear to God, I had no idea about the implications at the time, I just thought “Ophelia” sounded pretty, just as I loved “Cecilia” until Simon & Garfunkel ruined it for me.)

But these days more women are pushing back against the original characters they once felt ashamed of. After all, why shouldn’t young girls write the most spectacular versions of themselves—and why shouldn’t they want to see themselves in a story? In recent years I’ve been especially interested in watching women, people of color, and queer people reclaim the self-insertion narrative from one of indulgence to one of vital representation. In a piece partly about her youthful love of Lord of the Rings, Ash Davis writes,

“Be the change you wish to see,” Gandhi said (sorta). So I wrote my change. I discovered fanfiction and wrote all the damn change. I went into the painfully white fandoms of the things I loved…and wrote black folk into every last one of them. If there were no black people, I made them. If they were tokens, I made them stars. Mary-sued the shit out of everything. It didn’t matter, you were gonna see me!

In another piece I love about reclaiming the Mary Sue (via a medieval mystic, Margery Kempe, who essentially Mary Sued her way into the Bible in her writing, chilling with Mary and romancing Jesus), Ana Wilson writes about placing the female body back into reading—and into writing.

Reading The Book of Margery Kempe alongside fanfiction makes it clear that physical, imaginative reading is still associated with women, still considered embarrassing, and still employed as a form of resistance to mainstream narratives. People, in short, are still using this style of reading to elbow their way into texts from which they are restricted, just as Kempe and other women did with religious texts.

I wish I had my own Mary Sues to claim, but on a personal level, I’m a little more ambivalent. When I talk about good old Ophelia the Banshee, both “female” and an “original character” (and pulling from a very specific strand of symbolic mythology, for that matter), it’s easy to assume that I must have been writing a Mary Sue. But I can’t remember any specific connection between myself and the character, beyond the connections I have with every character I write, from the weary narrator of much of my original fiction who, like me, works at a racetrack, all the way to a certain pansexual immortal time traveling man from the 51st century.

The relationship between a writer and the characters she both reads and writes is a varied and complicated one. Fanfiction adds a layer onto that—the original characters in question aside, most of the people we write about started out as someone else’s characters, at least before the original work went out in the world. In the hands of fans, individually or collectively, a character often becomes someone else in the process. I should clarify: I don’t mean that fans are likely to render them out-of-character. But with the space and care that fanfiction can afford, fan writers often draw a favorite world’s characters as richer, more complicated—more human.

So unless you’re writing self-inserts or original characters, fanfic is partly about getting into the headspace of a character you didn’t create. That, for me anyway, is one of fanfiction’s chief pleasures—I’ve written before that for most fans, fic isn’t about wacky plots, as people outside fandom often assume, but about understanding a character so well that the interesting part comes when you stick them in a wacky plot (sure, “there’s only one hotel room left” counts as wacky), apply pressure, and see how they react.

For me, in my post-Ophelia Banshee days, inhabiting other characters as I write fanfiction has been vitally important. I read and write fic for a simultaneous distance and closeness with these characters—I allow them into my head, but I’m not looking to project myself back onto them. Part of this is privilege: whiteness, and I’m especially thinking of the un-interrogated whiteness of my adolescence, often lets white people assume a “default” position. A disproportionate number of the characters on our pages and screens are white, and from that lens shared whiteness with characters feels less like commonality and more like a lack of difference. Part of it is the opposite of privilege: the minefield of my struggles with gender and sexuality—almost definitely a subject for a totally separate essay—have left me perpetually out of step with many characters I encounter on pages and screens. When I think about myself in relation to a story, I slip away—a bit ironic, I suppose, for someone fascinated by girls who write themselves into stories. Or maybe that’s the whole point.

But part of it’s not just me: I hesitate to get too reductive on the links between shaming girls out of their own stories and the kinds of things that dominate many corners of the fanfiction world, but one could draw a line from the embarrassment of the Mary Sue to the positioning of certain types of characters in fandom as “default.” In the vast landscape of popular media, at least in the Anglo-American context, we’re implicitly taught to view the white male character as neutral, blank, infinitely relatable. While media certainly can shoulder some blame, fans should be held responsible, too, and the way young fans are encouraged, gently or mockingly, to step out of their own perspectives, away from their own backgrounds, and into the perspective of certain types of characters is one of the lasting legacies of the Mary Sue construction.

3.

When we consider the Mary Sue and her position in fandom at large, those of us outside the real person fic space often tend to overlook the fact that as long as celebrity fandom has existed, fannish communities have been built on self-insert fic with female protagonists. For many readers, this kind of story is sought after, not an object of scorn. The self-inserts that populate a lot of boy band RPF, for example, are perspective characters that, just like Mary Sues, allow young women to gain narrative control of their relationships with the objects of their affection.

Perspective is important in fanfic. It’s obviously also important in all other fiction, ever, but fic can sometimes feel particularly preoccupied with it. After all, perspective shift is one of the bedrocks of the practice; fans love nudging the spotlight off a canonical protagonist. RPF is an interesting space to examine perspective, and the way the “default” (white, male) gaze gets shattered and refashioned. There’s the complicated sort of circular gaze of stories from the celebrity’s point of view, where the reader watches the celebrity watching a character who’s often a stand-in for the reader. And while second-person fic feels more prevalent in fanfiction at large than it does in the published fiction world, it often feels ubiquitous in RPF spaces. Lumped under a second-person umbrella stories that work very differently in form and function, from fleshed-out second person narrators to “x Reader” stories that eschew identifying details to “imagines,” short prompts that exist in a murky space between fiction and daydream fodder.

When you place those fleshed-out narrators side-by-side with Mary Sues, it’s an interesting study in contrasts: where a Mary Sue is too-perfect, the self-insert narrator is often fairly ordinary, beaten down in some way, frustrated with her situation, not quite aware of her own attractiveness or agency. (Part of the pleasure of the narrative arc is the realization, and reclamation of that agency.) These characters and this type of fic is wildly popular on Wattpad, so much so that the platform commissioned an entire anthology of second-person RPF entitled IMAGINES, released last year with a shiny silver mirror on its cover alongside the words “Celebrity encounters starring YOU.”

The imagines of the anthology are, a little confusingly, not quite the same thing as “imagines,” the prompts that are increasingly popular on Tumblr and Wattpad. The anthology’s stories, about chance encounters with celebrities, are narrated by women of various ages and backgrounds with clear characterization and perspective. They’re not all romantic: in one story, a mother embarrasses her teenage daughter when she brings home Nicholas Hoult for dinner, the “you” full of maternal affection for the actor; in another, “you” are on the run with Kim Kardashian, a freedom fighter in an America where the government has outlawed selfies (Kim is on the run because she keeps taking them, obviously). The “yous” are unremarkable, but there’s a bit of knowing space between the reader and the narrator: we can tell you’re selling yourself short, and we’re waiting for you to realize it.

Actual imagines, in contrast, leave you to do most of the work of constructing a protagonist. They are short, sometimes a single sentence: “Imagine: You and Ed take a camping trip to get away from the media,” reads one on a popular Tumblr devoted to imagines, accompanied by a gif of Ed Sheeran looking sort of bashful. How you met, the state of your relationship, literally everything about “you” is up in the air—whether the reader even feels compelled to fill those gaps is a matter of preference. The “you” in an imagine isn’t necessarily average-looking or untalented—the same blog offers you a gif of Sebastian Stan looking charmed accompanied by, “Imagine: When Sebastian first meets you he is speechless and stunned by your beauty.” Imagines are interesting often not because of what they contain, but what they lack—the wide-open spaces they leave, utterly customizable, whether you spin a single-sentence prompt into a 60,000-word story or just imagine you and Ed Sheeran sitting in a tent. As a self-insert narrator, you are as present or as absent as you want.

The protagonists of “x Reader” stories are similarly blank: often called “y/n,” short for “your name,” these stories are the most literal expression of “self-insert” imaginable, since the pairing is you, the reader, and the celebrity of the title. These stories vary, but sometimes they tread so lightly in an attempt to leave “y/n” as neutral as possible that they wind up feeling a bit like Mad Libs, instructing you to fill in, say, your favorite book rather than just name one the narrator might like. Sometimes x Reader stories follow a full narrative arc; other times they feel like a collected set of imagines. When I got sucked in researching, I wound up in a story where in each chapter, you successively date, then marry, each of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

The prevalence and growing popularity of images and x Reader stories amongst younger fans is a fascinating shift when I think of the self-inserts of previous generations. If a Mary Sue is a projection, a young woman’s ideal self on the page, then an imagine is more likely to be a reflection: exactly who you are, at the center of the story. Mary Sues are aspirational, but in a way, so are these other self-insert forms: they construct worlds in which your fictional self, going about your incredibly ordinary life, is just as important as Lieutenant Mary Sue. The story still bends around you.

The overwhelming popularity of self-inserts on Wattpad, a fanfiction hub with a younger demographic than other archives, leaves me both curious and hopeful about young girls right now, writing themselves into stories. I know that reader x boy-band-star-of-the-moment isn’t exactly a new construction; while I was working on my weird diverse corporate team and Flourish was helping the FBI catch aliens, my contemporaries were writing themselves into Hanson’s green room and *NSYNC’s tour bus, stories they’d later disavow (and, haltingly, reclaim).

Today’s social media is restructuring our conceptions of personal identity—we increasingly center ourselves in our own narratives. Don’t worry, I’m not about to go on some “narcissistic millennial” rant. Quite the opposite: it’s heartening to see young women, young queer people, young people of color, center themselves in narratives when our screens and pages are still lacking. In the fanfiction world, just like in the rest of the world, we still hold marginalized characters, original or otherwise, to impossible standards. But perhaps our embrace of Mary Sues—even if they’re the most achingly perfect young woman to ever command a ship in the Fleet—will help change things for the better.

Incel Wiki #fundie wiki.incels.info

Welcome to the incel Wiki! Members are encouraged to detail the forums of incels, incel memes, prominent incels, historical events, lingo etc.

Rules:

Do *not* post content violating US/international law, create a page about someone under 18, or post calls to violence or encouragement of suicide

Do *not* post content not available to the public, or sensitive personal information like street addresses, private social media photos, social security numbers, and the like.

Disclaimer: Most things contained in this wiki are meant to be satire. Do not take this forum seriously. It is not your personal politics wiki. If you would like an image or whatever removed, please make note of so on the relevant talk page or for sooner removal PM 'master' in this discord server: link and also leave a message in the server. Incel Wiki is against any form of threatening comments or content, or content violating US/international law. Admins/mods endeavor to monitor & appropriately deal with any such material but can not be online all the time & as such it is members responsibility to act in accordance with the law. As such Incel Wiki takes no responsibility for the actions of others in this Wiki.

INCEL

An, "incel", is someone who has been totally shit on by the world to the point where they are 'involuntarily celibate' for six months or more. Incels are known for being poor, being victims of abuse, living with their parents, having medical disabilities, and spending way too much time on the internet. Many, but not all incels forums, subscribe to the philosophy of the, "blackpill".

Many people make fun of incels for having a victim complex. However it is completely justified for incels to have a victim complex given they are usually ugly or bullied/ostracized to the point of having bad social skills. The same people who tell male incels that they are entitled and whiney, are usually the same people who feel entitled to non-sexual emotional labor of others through government and the same people who tell men they need to express their feelings more. Apparently men are supposed to express their feelings but their feelings are 'invalid' and therefore 'should not be expressed'.

image
Incels are the vanguard of tearing down gender roles

Advice from Normies

Since normies don't like to pair up people anymore, they tell incels it's near 100% incels own fault that they can't find a partner. So they offer self-help "advice". Incels are told by normies that looks don't matter, but normies always are curious about how ugly incels are and assume they don't take enough showers or get enough haircuts. They tell incels to be themselves, but to pick up hobbies they don't like. They tell incels that pick up artists are full of shit but that incels don't have enough 'game' to date rape drunk women at bars 'pick up women'. They tell incels that they are too nice but also that they are assholes. They tell incels that sexual intimacy is not that important, but they themselves buy and/or create movies and songs about how sexual intimacy is one of the most important things in the world and they get upset if they have a few week long dry spell.

They tell incels that sexual intimacy isn't a commodity in a game with a reward, but think of male virgins as "losers" and tell incels that they don't "deserve" intimacy due to their actions.

For an incel, asking advice about dating from a normie is like phoning up a lazy customer service operator for a corrupt company. The operator will say whatever they can to get the customer off the line as soon as soon as possible without care for consistency or accuracy, or witnessing meaningful results born from their 'advice'.

Normies, especially feminist normies will often insist that incels are the correct batch of people not to be partnered up. After all it would make women and society seem a lot more just if that were the case. They will insist that sexual freedom is a sorting mechanism for male feminists and good personalities like OJ Simpson and Jeremy Meeks, and that your local grocery store bagger deserves to be an incel because maybe he went on 4chan once or twice.

image
Normies, when not lying to incels about celibacy being easy, in reality consider going even 40 days without sexual intimacy as complete savagery

Thenamesevan #psycho reddit.com

When did you start being attracted to Yanderes?


Oh god, probably a little over a year now. I’ve always been a very obsessive person myself, especially whenever I’m in a relationship with someone, so the idea of someone being the same level of obsessive about me makes the whole thing a lot easier. I guess it really began sometime around when my girlfriend cheated on me for being just a little bit too possessive. About a week or so later, I’m sitting at home with not much to do, so I decided to sit down and play DDLC because I had nothing better to do. Once I got to the second act, where Yuri gets all obsessed with you and forces you into her route, lashing out at anyone who talks to you, I’ll admit I found it creepy at first, but after a while, I found it kinda endearing. I sat there, seeing the resemblance in the way I had acted and sometimes still do act, and I thought “why can’t I have someone love me like that?”

I found myself suddenly wishing I had someone who loved me so much, they lashed out in rage at anyone they thought would take my attention away from them. There was just something about the idea of someone who would only ever love me, and who was genuinely afraid of losing me, that made me feel genuinely happy. I have often felt that I am replaceable to the majority of even my closest friends, and in every relationship I’ve been in, that’s something I’ve only been reminded of as people got bored and started looking elsewhere because I’m a clingy, socially inept bastard with barely any hobbies or interesting traits whatsoever. It was only natural, really, that I would find the idea of unconditional, obsessive love just a little tempting, no matter what kind of crazy shit that brought


[sometime later . in another post ] . ]


For the longest time, I was like a lot of you here who wanted to be in a relationship with a yandere, to have someone who was completely obsessed with you, someone who would love you, and only you, no matter what. Or at least, I was like that until I started dating one.

It started about three months ago, when a complete stranger messaged me out of the blue, saying that she had been eyeing me for quite a while now, and that she wanted to go out with me. I said yes, because I was a lonely, desperate bastard, and she seemed like an incredibly kind-hearted person. For a while, everything was fine. We’d talk for hours on end, and she was generally a lot of fun to hang out with. The only thing that stood out to me as being odd was that she would often accuse me of cheating on her to my best friend. When he told me the conversations she had with him, I couldn’t help but get kinda worried. After all, I didn’t know what I had done to give her that impression, and aside from her saying that her previous ex had cheated on her, I couldn’t think why she’d be so paranoid about it.

Her paranoia worsened the longer I stayed around her. She began lashing out at my best friend, claiming we were in a gay relationship behind her back, despite neither of us being remotely inclined to do so. After that, she started begging angrily for me to block all contact with him, as well as a female friend of mine who I had known since we were in 3rd grade. It didn’t matter how many times I told her that I was only interested in her, she never believed me. Eventually, she reached a point where she’d start accusing me of infidelity if I’d so much as look in the direction of another girl. It got to the point where she started accusing me of cheating on her with my stalker, whom I’d made my disgust of quite clear.

I had had enough at the point. I broke up with her the following night, taking special precaution to make it as easy as I could on her. She broke down into tears almost immediately, telling me that I was all that mattered to her, and eventually threatening suicide. Unfortunately, I gave in to that little bit of guilt there and said I’d give her another chance, something I regretted almost as soon as I said it.

Soon after, she started sending death threats to my best friend, and I spent the following day wondering what the hell to do. I decided to just tell her outright to stay away from me, and she went into an angry rant, which I ignored completely. She then sent a lot of other messages, ranging from obviously fake apologies to ridiculously poorly written threats, and a lot of begging me to come to her house so she could apologize in person, which I didn’t trust in the slightest. Eventually I just blocked her. She stopped coming to school as much after that, and from what I’ve heard, she’s being homeschooled now. I’m just hoping that’s the last I’ll see of her.

dr khalid #fundie ummah.com

"
The viewpoint of quran is very clear. according to the quran surah yasin ayah 40, the sun and the moon keep moving in their orbits. this makes clear that the sun moves too. this has been discovered i this century itself. A muslim's view of the quran should not be with reference to science rather the view of science should be in the light of quran. Thus if both move, its the relative motion of things that we observe fro the earth. in the universe, nothing is above, below, big or small. everything is relative. hence there is no wrong in saying if the sun moves around the earth or the other way round. Most important thing is that these petty things should not divert us from worrying about more important issues facing the religion and muslims.

in surah al anaam verse 97, allah says that the purpose of the stars is to help us find our path geographically. thus stars are not for wasting our time (we should not waste our time on the discussion of movement of the sun, which is also a star, on ummah forum)

the purspose of humans is defined in quran as to worship allah. so we should discuss more on issues related to that aspect."

endersblade #fundie mmo-champion.com

Also, for the ignorant, being a pedo is no more an illness to be cured than being gay. Sexual preference is just what you're attracted to. My friend has the most ogrish looking wife I have ever seen, but he finds her irresistible. Does that mean that one of us has an illness? No, it means we have different preferences in what we find attractive. Some people find the same sex attractive. Some people find animals attractive. For some, the underaged. The only reason people view such a thing as bad is because people say it is. Just like being gay used to be bad. Just because YOU don't accept it doesn't mean it should be outright banned. The pure ignorance of the greater masses is what leads to things like this.

So look at it from the pedo point of view: I'm sure many of us have sexual vices. What would happen if you didn't have access to some sort of release? In this case, an adult wants to have sex with a minor. Well, looking at kiddy porn is illegal, so that's (mostly) out. Obviously having sex with a legit child is also illegal. Sex dolls? Sex robots? At least before this ban passes/passed, they were legal. A legal release for your vice. If I was into kiddos and had a doll that simulated, at least to some extent, sex with a kiddo, I'd imagine I would be satisfied enough. Granted, my hand simulates quite a bit as it is, so whatever.

Now, that doesn't mean that their urges to fondle kiddos is going to ultimately LEAD to them doing so - but the frustration of not satisfying that urge could lead to other issues. Being sexually frustrated doesn't just mean your wife isn't putting out anymore. Just look at Prohibition...people will find a way, and that way may not always be better than what was in place beforehand


A gay person does not rationalize their desire to be with other people fo the same sex by projecting their desires upon them unless they actually are mentally ill. Just because I like guys does not mean I rationalize my desire by kidnapping random guys and saying that in truth they really love me. Pedophiles routinely rationalize their desire to be with someone who cannot consent and will often show visible signs of pain during intercourse and will romanticize those relationships and even brain wash children. They also often trade the kids around.
There is no equivalence here.

You are reading way, way too into what I said. Sigh. Why aren't you people intelligent enough that I don't have to spell this shit out? Sheesh.

Do I think people wanting to fuck children is good? Of fucking course not. However, since we're being asinine, it's technically more natural than gays - at least they're having sex with the PROPER opposite sex. There is nothing natural about being gay. That said, I support gays, I don't support pedos.

I was also posting under the assumption, apparently incorrectly, that people would realize I wasn't talking about YOUNG children, like single digits, etc, and that I wasn't referring to straight up rape. If a teen wants to have a relationship with an adult, I don't care what the fuck you try to rationalize your response with, it's up to them to do so and they know what the fuck they are doing. All of you were that age once, you knew what the fuck sex was. Some of you lost your virginity at 13, 14, hell maybe even sooner.

Is it strange for some, say, 30+ to want to be in a CONSENSUAL relationship with someone 13, 14, etc? By societal standards today, sure, it is. Has it always been? Nope. As a matter of fact, more human history has not only supported it but EXPECTED IT than not. Wrap your head around that one. But you outright say that the teen is being raped against their will just because they're "underage", or that the teen didn't know what they were doing (you are, at that point, putting words in their mouth), is just straight bullshit.

Rape against anyone, from the age of 0 to infinity, is rape. I don't condone it against adults OR children. Brain washing, as you say, same thing. Doesn't matter the age, it's wrong. But there ARE cases where the younger of the two KNEW what the fuck they were doing, but the adult gets into trouble because OMG that person is diddling kiddos! Burn them!

Sigh. I could drag this on and on; either you guys are going to pick apart what I say and twist it, or you'll understand what I'm getting at and move on. Either way, from the rest of the responses in the thread, it is very obvious that the majority of them aren't capable of talking about this subject with an open mind or without extreme biases.

coconutcurrychicken ,Jackson2615, azrael-legna #psycho reddit.com

[ in response to this post about someone being accused of poisoning ba neighbour's dog ]

coconutcurrychicken:"Maybe I'm heartless, but who gives a shit if a dog dies? Like why does that require police intervention to solve this "crime?" The dogs sound moronic, probably lapped up antifreeze while the owners weren't paying attention."

Jackson2615:"The world over reckless dog owners are letting their mongrel dogs bark constantly which drives the neighbours mad. Its no wonder sometimes someone cracks and takes matters into their own hands. It always amazes me that the barking dog/s don't seem to bother the owners??? As in this case doing the right thing only brings grief, frustration and ultimately NO help from the animal control authorities. BUT as soon as someone cracks the police are all over it trying to pin it on someone. If even 1/2 as much effort was put into making owners keep dogs quiet, especially at night, including removing the dog/s then it would be better for everyone including the dogs."

Azrael-Legna:"If you allow your dog to bark nonstop all the time, then it's 100% your fault if it ends up getting killed. And the people who killed the dog shouldn't be charged with anything, the dog owners should. They're the ones that allowed this to happen.

And that's assuming that someone killed the dog. The dog was obviously untrained, it could have gotten into it's stupid owners antifreeze, and the owners are trying to blame OP for payback for OP daring to not worship his masters (the dogs)."

Pat Robertson #fundie nova-magazine.net

Pat Robertson has warned single mothers, that they’ll go to hell if they aren’t forced to get married.

The 700 Club host got a question from a father who has been actively trying to force his daughter to marry the father of her child, even though she has been through two divorces and doesn’t want to marry for a third time.

“My daughter has been living with a man for 3 years and has a baby with him,” viewer Mark wrote in an email. “She has told her kids that they are married but she won’t marry him because she has had 2 husbands already.”
Robertson believes that all women should be forced to marry, have babies, and cook and clean. Without even having met the viewer’s daughter, Robertson assumed that her relationship issues are due to a bad upbringing and that she must be rebellious instead of being submissive to the man in her life.

“I don’t know what kind of bringing up she had, but she didn’t have a very good one. A couple of marriages already? She is obviously undisciplined, rebellious, she can’t hold a stable relationship. And now she won’t enter into one even though she’s got a child by this man.”

Pat Robertson said that single mothers are asking to be sent to hell by remaining unmarried. The con artist also dared to presume what God would do to mothers who choose to stay single.

“She’s tempting God. I mean, man. She is walking on the edge. You think Wallenda was taking a chance? She’s really on a tightrope. I’d warn her because she’s asking for it. It’s going to be really tough. It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission — that’s a big joke. Not when you’re dealing with the Lord. Sooner or later, God’s going to say, ‘That’s all she wrote, baby.’ And it’s going to be tough.”

John Best #fundie hatingautism.blogspot.com

Message to Psycho Killers with Asperger's Syndrome

I understand what Asperger's can do to people. I have one son with severe autism and another son with Asperger's. I also have years of experience at trying to talk sense to young people with Asperger's.

I have tried to help these victims understand how they have been brainwashed into believing that Asperger's is something to take pride in rather than seeing that they had their brains mangled by mercury in vaccines. I have offered to help them cure themselves by teaching them how to remove the mercury from their brains. Sadly, I think I have only been able to reach a few of them who I know did seek help.

The propaganda from our own government who causes the Asperger's by allowing the mercury to remain in vaccines is intense. Obama appointed a psychopathic liar named Ari Ne'eman to national positions where he helps set policy regarding autism. Young Mr Ne'eman, who calls himself autistic in spite of the fact that he is only diagnosed with Asperger's campaigns vigorously and dishonestly to discourage people from curing any form of autism. Mr Ne'eman thus helps our corrupt government to encourage deranged psycho killers who murder babies to remain mentally ill instead of seeking the cures that have been available since 2000.

The largest increase in these brain damaged kids happened among those born in 1991 when the HepB vaccine was initiated on the day of birth. They turned 21 this year. Millions more are quickly coming of age and I fully expect more crazed acts of violence from them. These kids are largely friendless, will probably never have consensual sex unless they pay a hooker and consider themselves rejects from society. Their lives are miserable. Sometimes they snap.

I can't say I can understand why they would decide to shoot little children but I do understand their anger and frustration at their mental conditions. Most don't know that it's possible to cure their condition because that information is suppressed by our government and the liars like Ari Ne'eman who they hire to promote a bunch of untrue nonsense about autism and Asperger's. These Aspies, as many of them call themselves, have been misled to believe that their social ineptitude is genetic. They have been taught through bogus IQ tests that they are more intelligent than the rest of us and they believe it. They think that remaining brain damaged is a good idea since they don't even know that they were poisoned by mercury which eats their brain cells and lowers their IQs.

I don't suppose I will be successful now at convincing any Aspies to try chelation to remove the mercury from their brains and try to better their lives. Maybe I can reason with them though in case a future psycho killer reads this.

If you're an Aspie who is considering mass murder to take your frustrations out on the world, please don't hurt any innocent children. Be aware that your brain damage was caused by doctors who shot mercury into you, politicians who refused to stop the poisoning due to bribes from the Pharmaceutical Industry and liars like Ari Ne'eman and his band of associated psychopaths from Neurodiversity and the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) who discouraged people from curing you. These are your enemies. These are the people who destroyed your lives. Please leave the little children and other innocent people alone. And, if you want to try to improve your lives instead of going nuts and suiciding yourself, ask me how to cure Asperger's. I'll be happy to help you.

Valerie Austin #fundie gcmwatch.wordpress.com

"I agree with your doctrinal statements. I wanted to comment on whether you’ve taken a look into why Wendy’s has had this campaign showing men with the “Wendy’s wig” on. It seems to all be a part of the enemy’s agenda to desensitize people to the whole cross-gender, trans-gender/homosexual thing. Expecially the one commercial where it’s in Black & White and there’s a huge crowd of women with men faces superimposed and they’re cheering for the man wearing a Wendy girl wig. Why can’t they show women in their commercials who crave their burgers and wear the same red wig? Have you posted anything about that? My family and friends have since stopped going there."
____________________________________________
To which GCMWatch, the Webmaster, replies:
____________________________________________

Thank you Valerie.

I dont eat at Wendy’ cause he food is always cold despite what their lying commericials say.

You brought up a good point. I looked around and didnt find anything directly tying Wendy’s to the gay movement other than in 2005, the gay group HRC pressured them to change their “discrimination policy” to include homosexuals and transgenders, which they did.

The commercials really do look like Wendy’s is showing that it wants their business by appealing to the gender switching crowd.

Because it isnt a doctrinal issue, you probably wont see it addressed here.

But I think youre right to boycott them.

pcorbett #fundie forums.spacebattles.com

Okay, if you really want me to adopt a principle, I'll take this one:

"Science education should only concern itself with presenting scientific knowledge, scientific methods, the philosophy of science and its criticism."

Great, now ID has a place in science class. Including discussion of all its various flaws both scientifically and philosophically.

[Perhaps I'm missing something here, but how would redefining a science course's curriculum in that way lead to teaching ID? I mean, it's still not a scientific theory.]

I don't see how that objection makes sense unless I assume only science can be taught in science class, which I clearly don't.

C. Daniel Motley #fundie thegospelcoalition.org

Chuck and his wife made their announcement on Facebook. They were opening up their marriage to other relationships.

I had only known Chuck through a few mutual acquaintances, but he and his wife seemed like a normal, monogamous couple. The comments section erupted in praise and cheers for their “courage and bravery” to commit to others outside the marriage covenant. While a few people attempted to question the wisdom of pursuing additional partners, they were drowned out by a chorus of defenders quick to shut down such “bigoted” and “judgmental” concerns.

What made the announcement so shocking wasn’t the decision to embrace polyamory. Like many others, I’ve been expecting that ever since the Supreme Court paved the way for polygamy in the Obergefell ruling on same-sex marriage. What did surprise me were Chuck’s arguments for polyamory from Scripture and Christian theology. Apologies for sexual relations outside of marriage based on consent have been around for decades. But justifications of polyamorous relationships based on Trinitarian language and Jesus’s charity ethic are a recent and dangerous development—a threat to a proper understanding of Christian sexual ethics.

From Consent to ‘Christian’ Polyamory

Franklin Veaux, creator of the popular polyamory lifestyle site More Than Two, defines a polyamorous relationship as “a romantic relationship where the people in the relationship agree that it’s okay for everyone to be open to or have other romantic partners.” Psychologists and social scientists differentiate between types of polyamorous relationships, including swinging (spouses who seek other partners for casual sex), polygamy (the marriage of multiple spouses), and polyfidelity (the commitment between partners to not form relationships with those outside the group), among other poly-type practices. Ultimately, non-Christian polyamorous individuals believe consent alone is the centerpiece holding the relationship(s) together—anything beyond this is up to the individuals involved.

“Christian” polyamory builds on this foundation of consent, but seeks to normalize the relationship by appealing to misreadings of the scriptural witness and creative interpretations of Christian theology. Jennifer Martin, describing her own journey to discovering Christian polyamory, says that as a young, traditional Christian she “[got] married young, felt trapped by the conservative bounds of purity culture, and wanted to explore the sexuality that we never really got a chance to have.” For her, this meant taking a boyfriend alongside her husband of nine years, a man with whom she shares two children.

Chuck’s Facebook post was shocking, but it serves as a warning to Christians living in the wake of the sexual revolution: almost nothing is out-of-bounds.

Although Martin uses the language of consent to justify polyamorous relationships, she hesitates to stop there. She wants to ground her polyamory in a revised vision of the Christian life: “Even though I subscribe to a postmodernist view of Scripture,” she says, “I still found it hard to believe I wasn’t ‘dirty.’ And it’s been difficult to find spiritual leaders who both accept my feelings as natural and respect my deep faith.”

Twisting Scripture

Writers and teachers such as Jeff Hood are all too willing to provide just such justification for Christians wishing to pursue these types of relationships. Hood, a progressive pastor in Dallas and former SBC minister, claims that “love is the thrust of Scripture.” He sees the polygamist relationships pursued by the biblical patriarchs (e.g., Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) as problematic, but the arrival of Jesus signals an era of love and tolerance that supersedes the Old Testament. When confronted with Paul’s teaching on marriage, Hood dismisses him entirely: “I find Paul’s patriarchal words to be derogatory, demeaning, and dismissive.”

Martin and Hood make similar appeals in their attempt to justify polyamory as a valid form of romantic love for Christians: (1) Both mention the Old Testament’s portrayal of polygamist relationships to signal God’s openness to other options besides monogamy, while critiquing the Old Testament's patriarchal bent; (2) both use Jesus’s perceived silence as proof of his approval of non-monogamous, non-heterosexual romantic relationships; and (3) both critique Paul’s views on sexuality, dismissing him as a illegitimate representative of the views of Jesus.

On Chuck’s widely shared post unveiling he and his wife’s adoption of polyamory, he takes secular progressives to task for their slow acceptance of Christian polyamorous couples: “The Christian church has come a long way on matters related to human sexuality. . . . However, the same can’t yet be said for another relational orientation: polyamory.” Chuck claims “thousands of faithful Christians” practice polyamory. While he doesn’t offer statistics to support this claim, he’s right to note that even progressives are slow to accept polyamory as a valid sexual framework for marriages.

Erin Wathen, a pastor in the progressive United Church of Christ, is one of those unconvinced that polyamory is a constructive path forward for Christians. Although she affirms her belief in the goodness of same-sex marriage, she nevertheless says: “I am convinced that there’s something to the one and one, that marriage is best kept as a covenant of two. I am still convinced that fidelity means loving the one you’re with—body, mind, and spirit.” Ironically, she laments that she sounds like one of those “old-fashioned traditionalists.”

Next Era of the Sexual Revolution

The increasing acceptance of polyamory by progressives and (soon-to-be former) evangelicals is symptomatic of the church’s witness to God’s normative pattern for sexuality after Obergefell. Pressured (or freed) to come to terms quickly with their accusers in the wider culture, these teachers have taken license with the biblical text to open a path for LGBTQ and polyamorous persons into the church without the confession and repentance of sin required by Scripture. Moreover, there is a noticeable lack of reference to the uniform witness of Christians throughout history that—until a few years ago—denied any sexual relationship outside heterosexual marriage has God’s blessing, on the grounds that such relationships are counter to his revealed pattern for marriage.

Chuck’s Facebook post was shocking, but it serves as a warning to Christians living in the wake of the sexual revolution: almost nothing is out-of-bounds. Polyamory is but the next movement to find an accepting audience among professing Christians already willing to justify any consensual sexual relationship with revisionist readings of Christian history and theology. Many Christians have been warning those of us who hold to monogamous heterosexual marriage as sexuality’s only valid expression that this day was coming.

Are you prepared to answer “Christian” polyamorists’ claims?

Eirin #fundie yandere.freeforums.net

[ Would you ever harm your crush? If so, what circumstances would cause you to do so? ]

Yes, ranging from firm loving swats with a riding crop, to breaking their legs for relentless, disgusting disloyal, behavior. Thats something I really don't want to end up doing.
I once caught the person I loved in the past lying to me about so many things, for a long time, so I had their crotch branded with my name on it. (maybe that should've been in one of those "most yandere thing you ever did" topics) I admit, it made me very sad that I did something like that to them, but I feel guilty of enjoying it too.
So double yes, I'd do it with love all the way to pure heartbroken yandere levels.

[ Would you ever take your crush's life? If so, what circumstances would cause you to do so? ]

Yes, if they keep pushing me to do it. Most likely, I'd do it out of extreme stress if I couldn't keep them. But if they want to leave me without dieing, they need to do it quickly without playing games with me.

[ Is blackmailing your crush out of the question? Why? ]
No, some people just don't listen to reason, and the best way to keep them safe is to give them more incentive to behave. Sometimes, it's the only way to keep somebody from doing something stupid without hog tieing them down on a table.

[ How far would you take your advances on your crush before beginning a true (read:consensual) relationship with them? ]
The moment I sense they have a weakness for me. They'll be all mine for sure~

[ If your crush was already in a relationship, what would you do? ]
I could sit back and wait to strike, then join in, take them away with my charms and then give them some time to say their goodbyes, and then make them break it off. Or else.
If all else fails, there is the weapon of seductive, sweet words, remaining calm, and causing their relationship to eventually fall apart. If I'm certain this crush is the only one for me, the person they're with is going to leave through any means necessary by my will.

[ What would you do to keep your crush in check? ]

The usual, stalking, asking questions, and talking with them, and reminding them that I will always figure out if their lying, and even prove that they will never be able to get away with anything. Making it known and deeply established that I'm a lot smarter then they'd be giving me credit for if they thought I won't notice even the slightest thing.

[ Would you give your lover permission to harm you? Why? ]

Of course, I'm a bit of a masochist myself. I'm definately not perfect, and may hurt my lover unintentionally, in which case I would give them my permission specifically only if it made them feel better.

[ If your lover were to threaten you, how would you calm them down? ]

I'd hold a finger to their lips, tell them to calm down and be quiet, stroke their hair, and kiss them passionately and deeply on their lips to assure they're still my entire universe, and if it takes more then that; Nothing is more reassuring then leading them into passionate sex till they can't even remember being sad or angry. I'd make sure them being upset at me again would be very unlikely. Whatever issue they had with me previously probably wouldn't happen again, I'd learn from it and make sure they're far too satisfied with me to give me problems.

[ Would you be willing to cut off contact from the rest of society (yes, even the internet), if it meant living peacefully with your lover? ]

I've done so in the past. I see no reason not too.

[ Given the choice, would you prefer a violent or a tame yandere? Why? ]

Both are wonderful, but tame is more reasonable. If she is going to do something violent and impulsive, I rather she be tame enough to consult me about it first, so we can do it together as a team. I'd really hate it if she got hurt or arrested or made a mistake, all alone. It'd make me very sad.

[ Does a Stockholm Syndrome relationship count as consensual? ]

I'm quite sure it is even though most people wouldn't see it that way. >.>
In the end, they are giving their consent willfully.

[ What circumstances would make you consider breaking up with a yandere? ]

There isn't one. I wouldn't even let death part me from them. The whole idea of breaking up with a dedicated, loving, loyal, yandere seems pointlessly stupid to me. Somebody like that holds lots of value.
Or rather IS invaluable. Pricelessly so.

Amy Mantooth #fundie chrisandamymantooth.blogspot.com

With my beliefs and love of birth and children, I would want to just have babies as God gave them to us. We would also have more freedom in our marriage relationship, no worries because more babies are more blessings. With four c-sections, we are struggling with the safety issue. I am struggling with how big do I think my God is? Am I demonstrating a lack of faith by even having this struggle? OR, has God called me to take care of myself and having more pregnancies would not be doing that? Right now, I do not know. I have not heard from God clearly on this.

I'm a ramblin' man #announcement

This'll probably be my last Shy Says post here. After this, they'll have their own separate blog hosted on the site.

Also, I typed this up more or less stream-of-conscious, and afterward I put aside tags around the parts where I strayed too far from my original topic. I haven't done anything resembling proofreading any of it. But I'm letting it stand as it is for now.

Something I really want to do but don't know how to go about even figuring out where to start is making public all of the statistics that I've collected from what the comment filter evolved into. Funny how The Frog thought he 'won' because he made me waste my time making that filter. In reality, I love statistics, especially corpus statistics, and I obviously love programing, so it should go without saying that I legitimately enjoyed making the filter, so much so that it's morphed into something well beyond its original purpose. It now analyzes comments in other ways besides detecting Le Frog and other trolls and even does the same kind of analysis on quotes too. Unfortunately, it ain't easy to put all of the data and statistics together in a user-friendly form that's easy to read, browse, and manipulate so you guys can explore and have fun with it.

That's not to mention the problem of organizing the code and getting it into a form that can even run on the current host. For the curious, the filter started its life as a well-organized and structurally coherent set of three VB module files and one C# class file. The C# class was later translated into VB when the quote comment page was, since it is closely tied to it. It originally intercepted comments with unusually high, low, or average troll scores and sent a copy of them to my FSTDT email so I could add them to the corpus of training material. It would then discard comments and perform a progressive IP ban if they had a high score, or returns comments back to the quote-comment page code to be posted as normal if they had a low or average score.)

Now it's become a disorganized, ad-hoc set of seven VB modules, three Object Pascal* unit files (compiled in either Delphi or FreePascal depending on the operating system I'm compiling on), one Ada file mostly written by my BFF / modly minion Mikey, and two JavaScript files that I wrote to run in Node.js when I was testing out how well it worked with databases (the verdict on that: comme ci, comme ça). Code in three two of those languages won't even run on the current host. I could probably get the Object Pascal to compile with Delphi.NET after some adjustments. The code only started branching away from things like "written in one language" and " organized structure" after I started analyzing comments for fun and the whole thing was taking on a life of its own. Around that time, it also somehow began to take on a secondary role as personal playground for experimenting with programming languages.

[aside]*I'm using Object Pascal here in the sense that a lot of Pascal-dabblers nowadays use it, i.e. to describe a modern and quasi-standard dialect or "style" of writing Pascal code that can be compiled by at least both Delphi and FreePascal, and possibly other Pascal languages (e.g. GNU Pascal) if you adhere to a stricter subset of "Object Pascal" in this sense. Confusingly, Object Pascal is also originally what Borland called the last couple versions of its Pascal compiler for DOS (whose very last version also apparently had a hilariously bad, half-assed Windows port). Indeed, this old-school Object Pascal is essentially Turbo Pascal with object orientation (or a ridiculous attempt thereat in the case of the Windows port). Aside from their core syntax and lexicon, that Object Pascal and "Object Pascal" in the sense here are dramatically different. Most code more complex than "Hello world" written in the latter is not compatible with the original Object Pascal in any useful sense unless it was intentionally written to be. And that's your programming-language history lesson for today.[/aside]

In addition to being written in as many languages as your average Dutchman can speak, another fairly major hurdle to making this little pet project public is that both the quotes and comments I've fed it to analyze (originally "train") and the interesting parts of the analyses thereof are stored on my private server in an SQLite database. Our current host Does Not Allow Using SQLite, despite their terms of use saying nothing to that effect or even suggestive of it. Apparently SQLite is Too Forbidden to even do that. TIL SQLite is Lord Voldemort.

Only the word and word co-occurrence probability data needed for the filter to run was stored and updated here on FSTDT in a secondary SQL Server database. (It still is, but hasn't been updated in a while and isn't currently being used.) This probability data is basically just how likely (or unlikely) certain words and co-occurrences of words are to occur in 'good' and 'bad' comments. These probabilities are the product of other statistical and meta-statistical analysis stored in the external SQLite database.

Getting the probability data used by the filter requires collecting statistics about a corpus of training data, the larger the corpus the better. Those statistics are stored so they can be subjected to statistical analysis of their own, and then those statistics are subject to further statistictaal analysis. That's two layers of meta-statistics. I originally decided against storing this latter data on the FSTDT server because I vastly overestimated the amount of space that would be required to store statistics about statistics pertaining to statistics of statistics about tens of thousands of words and the frequency they co-occur with other words. (How could you not??) Yo dawg, I heard you liked statistics, so I gave you some statistics collected from your statistics about your statistics...

We call this madness naive Bayesian filtering. To be a "non-naive" Bayesian filter, you must venture even further down this metastatistical rabbit hole.

TL;DR: Bayes Theorem is postmodern statistics.

Anyway, I think the corpus in the training database is a good representative crosscut of the actual FSTDT database. There's tons of cool, fascinating, and just plain weird stuff to gleam from it, like the fact that the fundie index of a post and the number of times the word 'when' appears in it appear to stand in direct correlation. Why?? Anyone wanna fathom a guess? Quotes also have way more hapax legomena (words that occur only once in a corpus) than comments do, but I don't find that nearly as interesting, because there are already a couple of very likely explanations. One, certain fundies absolutely love to invent "words" like abortuarydeathscortagandistism.* Two, a whooole lot of fundies just can't spell. Perhaps they try to hide that fact with word puree like homocommunofascofemininazis?**

[aside]*Protip: English is a mostly Isolating language, so we Anglophones generally prefer to create names for novel concepts by compounding existing words together into phrases instead of creating new words by adding prefixes and suffixes to other words or word roots. For example, to describe the practice of treating medical problems with things that actually exist in reality (as opposed to quackpot woo-woo), we coined the term evidence-based medicine instead of inventing a completely new word like vercomadhealancy (ver-com-ad-heal-anc(e)-cy, lit. "truth~reality | with~using | from~by | heal | having the quality of | the activity or state of"), no matter how much cooler and more phonoaesthetic vercomadhealancy sounds.

If that gloss is incoherent to you, read it backwards: "the activity or state of | having the quality of | heal(ing) | by | using | reality." In English, the order that a word's morphemes follow is generally a mirror image of the order that words usually follow in clauses and sentences. In linguistic parlance, English clauses and morphemes branch in opposite directions: clauses are head-initial (branch to the right of their head), while words head-final (branch to the left of their head). Oh, and only one morpheme of that word, heal, can stand alone, while all three of evidence-based medicine can. And that's your linguistics lesson of the day. And this is exactly why I love corpus statistics: it fuses my three favorite subjects: linguistics, mathematics, and in the modern age, computers.[/aside]

[aside]**True fact: I'm also a terrible speller, but I actually heed the little red underlines that tend to pop up a lot in the things I write.[/aside]

almaratalarabia & Lil_Z #sexist reddit.com

(Note: Another TERFs)

(almaratalarabia)
I have been reading more about the almost-complete liberation of Mosul (I cannot express how happy we are here in Iraq even though there are long struggles ahead) and came across several articles like this.

At least nine ISIS jihadis were detained on Wednesday while trying to flee the security checkpoints of the Iraqi forces in Ramadi suburb. They were all dressed as women.

Here is another article about Fallujah.

The argument that men just wouldn't claim to be women to commit crimes isn't based in any fact, but the false idea that toxic masculinity will stop men from committing crimes (as it has never done and will never do). Men in one of the most horrible misogynist groups in the world (literally ISIS, not in the hyperbolic way) are willing to cross-dress to get away with crimes.

I have posted in the past about men also dressing as women to kidnap girls from refugee camps.

I refuse to let men into women's spaces.

(Lil_Z)
When people claim that men would never present as female just to gain some advantage, I think it's because they are unconsciously assuming that being a woman is so degrading, no man would ever stoop to that unless he has some serious, desperate mental issue (and deep down most people do assume trans is a mental issue). 'What man would put himself through the humiliation of appearing as a member of the lowly female sex caste, just for kicks?', they think. (Not realising that for many trans males, the 'humiliation' of being seen as a 'lowly' female is precisely the way they get their kicks).

But as you point out, even the men of ISIS, who expressly believe in the divinely ordained absolute inferiority of female human beings, are not averse to masquerading as women if they can gain some advantage from it. It's just incredible that people can sincerely believe predatory men won't take advantage of gender identity laws. It's like, um... have you ever noticed what predatory men do all over the world, daily?

And that is wonderful news indeed about Mosul, I am so happy for the people of Iraq.

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.

KatieMarie999 #fundie #wingnut katiemarie999.tumblr.com

@Anonymous

Katie, I just want to tell you I don't give a rat's ass that you think we can still be friends because I honestly wouldn't touch your raw chicken looking ass with a ten foot pole... anyone propagating that a clump of cellular life is more important than the financial, medical and psychological wellbeing of an already existing human being is a fucking sociopath


Sociopath: a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behavior and a lack of conscience.

I’m impressed that you’ve been able to diagnose me and about 50% of the population with a personality disorder based solely on one position on one issue.

I mean if you’re on anon, I assume you’re not someone I’ve ever spoken to before because I have faith in my friends and even in the people who just follow me from a distance. They’re good people, regardless of what side they’re on. And I don’t believe any of them would ever send hate anons to anyone. I hope one day, the same can be said for you.

I’m not going to have an argument with you. I don’t want to waste my time trying to talk to someone so intolerant that they’re willing to send something this immature. So here is a lovely pro-life master post someone made. Lots of great information about embryology and the ways the pro-life movement are helping women in need.

I don’t reach my beliefs or positions blindly, which is why I don’t align myself with a political party or with either liberalism or conservatism. I don’t sit here twirling my fake mustache asking myself “how can I hurt and oppress my own sex today for no reason?” If that’s what you think about the pro-life cause, perhaps you should do some research. I’d recommend logging off tumblr, to start.

CB_Brooklyn #conspiracy checktheevidence.co.uk

Imagine utilizing free energy technology in daily life. No more petroleum-based fuels; no more outrageous oil and gas prices. Humanity would definitely benefit from this. The technology for water powered cars has been in the news, such as in this NBC-affiliate clip. This FOX-affiliate clip reveals the development of this technology for the military. From the FOX clip we learn that Radio Frequencies are key to this technology. As you read further you’ll discover another building block of free energy: Tesla Coils. So why are these technologies suppressed? Basic Answer: Control.

The Global Elite plan a New World Order with an enslaved “police state” culture. How might this be done? One way is the Patriot Act. Another could be the 800 FEMA detention camps fully constructed, staffed, and awaiting prisoners. What else might they do? They could slow the economy. Control over oil and gas makes accomplishing this easy. All they have to do is notch those prices up little by little, and the average citizen gets poorer and poorer. Not only do these increases affect the gas pump and home boiler, they affect food manufacturing plants, public water supplies, and other necessities as well. Raising oil/gas prices is the Global Elite’s way of destroying our way of life.

But they can’t raise prices without a reason, so they concocted one: Peak Oil. That way, people assume the increased costs and fuel limits are natural with no way around it. But Peak Oil is a hoax. In the 1970s, a huge oil field was discovered in Alaska that could fuel the United States for 200 years, but its existence has been classified. Those is power have planned their New World Order for some time, and didn’t want an Alaskan field getting in the way. Instead, they approached the Saudi’s for an “oil deal”, a way of ripping them off and entrapping the United States. Information regarding this is linked later in this article; much from a video presentation by Lindsey Williams, a former “insider” turned whistleblower.

It is all too common for those in control to suppress and weaponize new technologies.

Suppression can be accomplished simply by spreading choice phrases such as “raygun nutcase”. Even the production of sci-fi TV/movies helps associate these weapons with “science fiction”. As one example, the body cloak technology portrayed in the film “Predator” is very real, and was reported in Time and WIRED magazines. It is pretty well known that these technological advances are light years ahead of what is publicly admitted. This technology is far from sci-fi and has existed for many decades.

The first microwave oven was built in 1947 by Raytheon, a major defense contractor. What advances could they have made in the past sixty years? A look at the documentary “Star Wars in Iraq” reveals weaponry based on these technologies. So what’s “crazy” about it? What would people sixty years ago have said about cell phones? “Wacky”?? How about The Wizard of Oz on an ultra-thin shiny little disc? ”Nutjob”?? What about embedding spy chips on insects? ”Insane”?? Technology has come a long way in the last 100 years.

The first major free energy scientist, Nikola Tesla, knew the direction his research would someday take. In 1915 he said “I have not thought it hazardous to predict, that wars in the future will be waged by electrical means”. The Star Wars in Iraq video proves him right.

Of course, the Global Elite need the public at large to consider free-energy “crazy”. They want this “black op” technology as their secret weapon to use against us and they attack those who speak up. One example is well known pioneer of free energy research, John Hutchison. After he and Dr Judy Wood publicized their paper “Anomalies at the WTC and the Hutchison Effect”, Hutchison ran into problems with the Canadian authorities. Another is Dr Eugene Mallove who, after writing an open letter to the world requesting free energy research funds, was killed. This “2005 Cold Fusion Colloquium” at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had a special tribute to Dr Mallove. A number of mysterious deaths are connected to free energy suppression.

9/11 Truth is an extremely important issue and only those who really care are ever involved. But 9/11 is just one of the issues that absolutely need attention. Other issues are equally as important. One thing the Global Elite do not want revealed is the existence of free-energy technology. This technology has the capability of revolutionizing the world by removing oil/gas as main sources of fuel, but instead has been weaponized and used against us. Directed energy weapons and weather control are among the dangers we now face.

**Might this technology have been used on 9/11? What if the “truth movement” was steered by those affiliated with free energy technologies, including those who discredited it decades past? What if pictorial evidence shows resemblance to the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing?

**Might this technology have directed recent weather-related events towards populated areas? Have powerful hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, cyclones, and volcanic eruptions shown an increase lately? What if hurricanes and tornadoes have natural characteristics of the Hutchison Effect? Would this be worth exposing?

Not many know that a major hurricane - Hurricane Erin - was in the Atlantic Ocean in September of 2001. In fact, Erin was closest to NYC, and at its largest size, on 9/11 itself. But the TV news networks had little reporting on this hurricane. Contrary to Erin, however, 2005’s Hurricane Katrina had virtually 24 hour coverage, even before it hit land. Interestingly, the National Hurricane Center projected Erin to be stronger than it projected Katrina to be four years later. So why didn’t the media cover Erin, say, on September 10, when its speeds clocked Category 3 status? Shouldn’t they have prepared the upper-east coast for this major storm?

This NASA photo taken on 9/11 reveals the proximity between Erin and New York. Weather reports at JFK Airport indicated rain! This animated graphic shows how, the day after 9/11, Erin made a sharp right-hand turn (over 90°) away from NYC and back out to the Atlantic. (Note the previous graphic displays only the location of the eye of the storm. See this photo for Erin’s full humongous size.) An astronaut in the International Space Station commented on the WTC smoke plume, but made no mention of the monstrous hurricane next to it. How come? Those interested in learning the secret between hurricanes and Tesla Coils should see Dr Judy Wood’s new paper “9/11 Weather Anomalies and Field Effects”. She presents evidence suggesting Erin was part of the mechanism used to turn the Twin Towers to dust. The paper is chock full of photos and analysis and is highly recommended.

Those who control the energy control the world.As prices for oil, gas, food and other types of energy go higher and higher, one must ask themselves what they are to do. What holds for the future?Did Bush do 9/11? Or was it Clinton? 9/11 was orchestrated by those affiliated with energy companies. The “truth movement” should not involve the “democrat vs republican” distraction but instead push to remove them all. There is only one group controlling the world - the Global Elite - and they must all be removed from power.

Landmartian #fundie rationalwiki.org

Are there any plausible hypotheses about the evolutionary psychology of pedophilia?

We know that, up to a point, youthfulness is often an attribute non-pedophiles look for in a mate. For a long-term relationship, assuming the partners do not live in an industrialized society in which having a high school education is an advantage for a mate, it makes sense to mate with someone as close to pubescence as possible, since they have more years of fertility ahead of them. This would explain the fetish behind magazines such as Barely Legal and websites that advertise models who have just turned 18 and look younger than 18.

So maybe pedophilic attractions developed because it was more adaptive to err on the side of too young rather than too old. In pubescence, fertile young women still have many characteristics of children, and therefore it might be maladaptive for a man to be strongly repelled by childlike traits.

Maybe there were situations, in caveman eras, in which someone started a sexual relationship with a prepubescent, and that relationship continued into pubescence and produced offspring. Maybe those who did this had an advantage over rivals, by being the first to form an emotional bond with the child, and to claim the child as their long-term partner. Maybe this emotional bond was promoted by their providing the child with food and other resources; thus it also served to protect the child's well-being.

Who knows what complicated social purposes pedophilia might have served? Maybe, in a variant of the super-uncles theory, pedophiles served as caregivers for young family members, since they would tend to volunteer for roles that would put them in close contact with those kids. A counter-argument would be that their engaging in child sexual abuse would cause enough harm to those children to outweigh the value of the care they provided.

Maybe in caveman days, though, the resources they provided would have meant the difference between life and death for the child, so that back then, the pedophilia was adaptive.

OpinionGenerator #fundie reddit.com

I know I'm going to be downvoted to hell for saying this, but I think most of the negative aspects of having sex as a young person (especially females) come from society's views on sex. If you found out later that you were "used," why would that matter unless you were tricked into thinking your virginity or your genitals are sacred?

Yes, a 25 year-old might be using a 15-year old for sex, but how is that any different than a 15-year old boy doing the same? What if the 25-year old explicitly states that he just wants her for sex and nothing else?

Furthermore, if we're going to talk about maturity, why is 18 the magic number? Why not 25 when the brain is fully matured?


I was in a relationship as a teenager with someone in university. It was so easy for him to use me and lie to me, because I was still very naive. I know that some of these relationships go well, but most that I know of were bad for the youngest partner because the power balance between partners wasn't like it should be. It is very easy for an adult to overpower and use a teenager, maybe even without knowing it.


Okay, but how were you hurt and how was that damage equivalent to being labelled a sex-offender for life and going to prison? If you had to choose between those two options (being lied and used vs prison and being labelled as a sex offender) which would you choose?

I agree that what he did to you was a dick-move, but unless he used physical intimidation, I think the punishments we're handing out are out of proportion. Do you think he deserves to be in prison?

Or like I asked another user... if I were a guy of the age of 25 with an IQ of 200 and I used and lied to a girl of the same age with an IQ of 90, does that warrant that kind of punishment since it's essentially the same dynamic? It'd be just as easy for me to lie to her and use her.

Again, I think this has more to do with the fact that women are taught to value their virginity and sex in irrational ways.


I was depressed for a year and needed a few more to get my confidence back..

The adult chooses for the relationship, much more than the child (s)he has a relationship with.

That I was hurt with that relationship had nothing to do with how society views sex, unless it's the other way around: not 'putting out' after a certain time of being together is 'not done', and certain gender roles made his behaviour seem ok.


You didn't answer any of my questions so I don't know how to respond to this.

This happens with adults. Should an adult who uses a depressed adult go to prison?

Okay, so assuming you weren't feeling slut shamed, how is that hurt any different than a guy your age doing the same thing? Should a guy your age who had the ability to trick you into sex go to prison?

If I use a friend for his/her video game system and they find out (which hurts them), should I go to prison?

GINGERBEARDMAN #sexist gingerbeardmansite.wordpress.com

Assalaamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu,

Jumping straight in: ISLAM IS A PATRIARCHY

Now some of you will be having a hard time accepting that statement, that’s OK so I am just leave it out there for now and going to ask you to read on and I’ll explain why I said it but for many of you, Islam = Good, Patriarchy = Evil. If after reading this post you still disagree with me feel free to say so in the comments, write your own thoughts on it elsewhere, unfollow, or just generally be mean to me. Don’t worry I won’t cry and I grew up in a time when we were able to disagree without the need for anyone needing a safe place.

It’s pretty clear that in it’s use in academia, the media and the workplace that patriarchy has become this big, evil, dirty word in modern Britain, as well as the rest of the world. It shuts down discussion, prevents dialogue and I would argue stops us getting to the root of problems and having a go at solving them in matters of gender relations. Sadly many Muslims including I assume some you who are reading this post have adopted this use of the word, and the ideas that follow from feminists along with other aspects of ‘progressive’ ideology from the media, fellow race / equality activists, education, especially higher education or just general society around us.

To see if you’re one of these people, read the following three statements and decide whether you agree with the traditionalist Muslim in the dialogue or the progressive one.

Traditionalist Muslim: “Sister’s shouldn’t travel without a mahram.”
Progressive Muslim: “That’s patriarchy!”

Traditionalist Muslim: “Hijab is about behavior not just what you wear.”
Progressive Muslim: “Don’t tell women how to behave or dress, that is patriarchy!”

Traditionalist Muslim: “Any woman who gets married without the permission of her guardian, her nikkah is invalid, her nikkah is invalid, her nikkah is invalid…”
Progressive Muslim: “How dare you tell women who we can or cannot marry, THAT’S PATRIARCHY!”

If you find yourself agreeing with our progressive Muslim brother in the above three dialogues then you have a problem, actually you have two problems. The first is you probably assumed it was a female making the argument, which is really sexist of you, shame on you and your sexist views as there are men and women on both sides of the discussion.

The second problem you have if you agree is that all of them in isolation are statements of truth, Islamic teachings which as a believer you should not be digressing from and the last is even a sahih hadith from the Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa salam).

(..)

So as for the rest of us Muslims, we’ll not be changing Islam to suit whatever the prevailing tendencies in society are from decade to decade.

Now if we’re going to have committees to run our institutions I’m all in favour of appointing women to these governing bodies as long as gender relation etiquette is observed as we need to listen to those voices, value their opinion and point of view but don’t come saying we need to appoint female imams, or try to say a woman can run the state or some such other modernist idea.

Muhammad (Sallallahu alayhi wa salam) and the rightly guided khulafa used to make shura (consultation) with the women, listening to their views, valuing those views as valid and worthy of consideration.

We adapt ourselves and our society to and around Islamic teachings, we do not change or bend Islamic norms to suit ourselves and our society and Imam Malik (Rahimahullah) was correct when he said:

“Nothing will rectify the last part of this Ummah except that which rectified its first part.” (i.e. the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah Sallallahu alayhi wa salam)).
— Imam Malik (rahimahullah)
Reported by Ibn ‘AbdulHadi, in Tanqih at-Tahqiq 2/423

We should as believers stand firm in justice and truthfulness, standing up to the tyrants in people’s homes even, who are usually (but not always) men abusing their spouses, producing further dysfunctional people to raise more dysfunctional families of the future ummah.

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted.
Quran translation, Surah an-Nisa (the chapter of Women, 4:135

Umar ibn al Khattab (Radiallahu anhu), the second khalifa, the one about whom Rasoolullah (Sallallahu alahi wa salam) said: “If there were to be a Prophet after me, it would be ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab” was a man who used to walk the streets day and night, and when he heard problems in people’s households he would deal with them justly, just as our Nabi (Sallallahu alahi wa salam) did in his time.

When we look at the examples of their lives, we see strong men able to deal justly with strong women taking a full role in accordance with their nature in society around them, not men feeling they can only be strong by forcing down women into a lesser role and the sooner we return to something like that as our target the better for us and the rest of society around us.

We see in the early days of Islam the natural role of women being valued, treasured and there are many evidences to attest to this such as the Sahabi being told to give good company to his mother three times more than his father. Men are men, women are women. We are mentally, emotionally, physically different and we cannot change biology or ignore it, nor should we if we are true to ourselves.

The problem with feminism, especially second and third wave feminism is that it tries to force women to match men or even beat men at their game, rather than getting society to change to value and respect the role and nature of women. That would be true liberation. Promoting the Islamic view point of the true role of women is the way to move forward, a constructive message of productive gender relations to those around us, as well as forbidding the evils of many men both within and without the Islamic community is the way we as Muslims need to go in combating misogyny.

You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin Al-Ma‘roof (i.e. Islamic Monotheism and all that Islam has ordained) and forbid Al-Munkar (polytheism, disbelief and all that Islam has forbidden), and you believe in Allah. Quran translation, Surah Al e ‘Imraan, 3:110

I say within as well as without the Muslim community, as we have to admit to have a problem and that as we’ve so many things we’ve strayed far from the Sunnah when it comes to gender relations and there is a middle path between the free mixing and other sins of the modernists and liberals and the almost absolute and total gender segregation practiced by most traditionalist and salafi communities here in the UK.

Likewise I cannot believe that our Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa salam) would allow the practices of marriage bandits, the wife beaters and oppressors, those who refuse to care, maintain and financially support their spouses to go unchallenged if he was with us today as many Imams and activists do by staying silent on these matters.

In this I would urge all the brothers and sisters out there to correct themselves, their families and the community around them. Many revert sisters speak of how they liked the Islamic viewpoint of women’s rights, sadly most of them are disappointed about how we practice that in reality in our daily lives and marriages.

If we can do this, then I believe there will be no reason for even non-Muslims to believe in feminism, never-mind Muslims and we can do it all through the Islamic system, a Patriarchy.

some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: On how the only aspects of "womanhood" that are valued are the ones males can buy into

image

(lacubana)
Yesssss thissssss

Wanna know when I felt most “like a woman”? I can tell you I sure wasn’t wearing makeup or heels or having a pillow fight. I wasn’t delicate in the slightest.

It was when I was pushing another human I had made out of my body. Oh yeah that.

(earthgarden)
and if you're not pushing a human out, or in the process of growing a human, you get a monthly reminder by your body (for at least 4 f!cking decades of your life!) that it had to tear down the nest it built just in case you set one to growing. I swear to god!! If men could experience a period ONCE they would leave us TF alone! That would be an end to the oppression because their pity would know no bounds, they'd experience massive shame at the treatment men have inflicted upon female humanity these long millennia. because then they'd realize nature already oppresses us just fine, thank you very much

(LadyCeer)
My dad used to be really sweet about it and let me sleep a lot and he fed me eggs and ibuprofen and was just very kind when I was being shot down by my period. He also used to talk to women in the form of long, friendly, non-sexual conversations....But then, he never tried to become a woman. Maybe that's a connection.

(shortstroll)
I don't know about your theory but I think it's one of two options.

The first is that some of them are just gay men who in their formative years internalised gender roles. So since they like clothes, have a crush on a dude and their penis isnt a major erogenous zones they think they are girls. It's also sub conscious sexual strategy. There's a greater selection of partners for them if they can fake being a woman. In fact you now see them pushing the idea that genuine heterosexual males would knowingly copulate with a tim.

The second is that some of them are straight men who just have a weird fetishism of womanhood. They don't just want to have sex with women, they want to be them. This isn't dissimilar from the cannibals who get sexual gratification from eating their sexual partners. Bruce Jenner is the perfect example of this. He slowly turned himself into a male version of his wife and the closer he got to his goal the greater his resentment of her grew. Once he had completed his transition, he didn't just discard her, he tried to destroy her in the media. I'm convinced that in a different world, he would have murdered her. That would have been his version of a perfect conclusion.

(TerribleConfusion)
I saw Graham Linehan retweeted a man suggesting something similar. It’s hard to empathise with this, as a woman, but it seemed to make sense to him and the other guy. And I suppose when you think about it, a lot of men do get INCREDIBLY uncomfortable when discussing ways in which men oppress women. Even decent guys don’t want to think about it. So I can kind of imagine how that discomfort might feed in to autogynephilia. Maybe when you feel like your desire is oppressive you want to be the object of desire instead of the subject.

It’s very hard to reconcile this with how misogynistic many TIMs are, though. But I suppose maybe they feel like they’re allowed to hate and bully women because they’re “women” too, and they’re more special and oppressed than any other kind of woman blah blah etc. And maybe it’s the most misogynistic and shitty of men who are most uncomfortable with themselves deep down so they transition to escape their own shittiness. Spoiler: they don’t escape it, they just found a different method than other misogynists to project their shittiness on to (actual) women.

(witchy_xx)
actually this is the exact reason given when my ex came out as trans. he wanted to escape the role of oppressor. what a load of shit.

it's also an easy power grab. for example that asshat Hailey Heartless was a no one politically before and now everyone knows his name.

(griffxx)
We have seen TIMs along with their Handmaidens, trying to dislocate all things female, from the definition of of woman, womanhood and female. I'm truly fascinated, in a psychologically clinical way, the TIMs asserting that they have Bloodless Periods. This a whole other level of Delusion.

Why on Earth did these Feminized White Men, think they could dictate WOMEN diminished our Womanhood, for their OBSESSIVE NARCISSISTIC NEED FOR THE VALIDATION OF THEIR GENDER IDENTITIES!!!!!

The minute these Prostate Havers and their Handmaidens said point blank that, "FEMALE BIOLOGY AND THE EXPERIENCES OF LIVING IN THE BODY, HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMANHOOD" this Misogynistic, Homophobic and Racist Movement should have been REELED/REALED in to what it was supposed to be:

Lobbying and advocating for laws that reassert Civil Rights protections against various forms of discrimination.

They have framed as "A FIGHT FOR THEIR EXISTENCE" this is categorically A LIE.

And to make the claim there are plenty of Lesbians that will date and fuck them; Bisexual leaning women more like. If this were true the Cotton Ceiling War Against Lesbian Sexuality would have ended 5 years ago. Instead it's still continues, and we are at 7.5 year mark.

We need to build on the momentum, we currently have. We need to explain to the Civilian class of women--> not part of the Feminist or LGBTQ Communities, how White TIMs are engaged in the process of erasing their sex-based protections, in the name of attaining their Civil Rights

(scienceisarealthing)

I have no way of knowing whether most pass or not. I’ve never seen a study. All I have is anecdotal evidence.

I've seen a lot of trans-identified males in real life as well as in photo & it's very rare for them to pass. The few who do pass visually are clockable as male as soon as you hear their voice, see their body shape, or see how large their bone structure is when they are next to a female person. This is not meant as an "insult" btw, bc there's nothing wrong with being a feminine male (as long as they arent sexist, etc...)

Transmisogyny is intrinsically illogical bc either the trans-ID'd male passes as female (and experiences some forms of misogyny) or he is clocked as male & faces homophobia/ transphobia/ whatever you wanna call hatred/ disgust against gnc males. It's the reason why drunk guys will sometimes hit on a trans-ID'd male, then the moment they find out he's actually male will scream things like "Fggot! Trnny!!" and sometimes resort to physical violence. That is NOT an example of misogyny bc it wouldn't happen to a female.

How would you know you saw a trans person if they did pass though?

I've never seen a trans-ID'd male who passes in real life, only in photos. There's just no getting around the differences in bone structure, voice, and movements between males and females when you observe people in real life. As someone who is involved in the natural sciences & figure drawing, it is easy to determine someone's natal sex & tell if they are trans or not.

edit: I mean, even when you look at the transpassing sub, few pass even in photo. It does a disservice to trans people to lie to them by telling them they pass when they don't. I see women and other trans people do this all the time & it makes me cringe, because it's so obviously.. not true. In fact, it comes across as cruel to lie to someone like that. It should be ok for people to look/ dress however they want without striving for the unattainable goal of passing completely as the opposite sex.

If a trans woman passes as female, what forms of misogyny would they not face? Honest question. Is it just from medical professionals who would know about someone’s private health details? If they pass, then why would it come up in conversation?

Side question, why does it matter if someone is facing violence due to misogyny or transphobia? Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences under the same system?

It is impossible to say definitively whether or not most trans women can pass based on one person’s interaction with the public. You can definitely say that you’ve seen some trans people not passing. Why would anyone reveal their medical history to a stranger?

Jesus christ, seriously? They wouldn't face:

-limited birth control access, abortion access, reproductive rights battles

-the pain of pregnancy/ discrimination against pregnant women

-dying in childbirth

-the fear of becoming pregnant

-menstrual pain/ stigma/ menstrual huts

-female genital mutilation

-femicide/ sex selective abortion

-medical stigma against female health concerns like PCOS, uterine cysts, endometriosis, severe PMS, menopause, etc... (the list goes on & on)

-sex trafficking & rape (most men want to rape females, not trans-ID'd males)

-being sold as a child bride

-limited access to education bc of being female

-breast ironing

-bride burning

-foot binding (though this only happened to females in the past, as far as i know)

I'm leaving off so much more I can't think of right now. Trans men, nonbinary females, women.. we all face these issues based on what part of the world we live in. It matters whether someone faces misogyny vs. homophobia/ transphobia because those are different forms of oppression! By your same logic, we could include men who face racism under the branch of feminism because (as you said) "Why put up one more barrier between people who have similar experiences?"

FEMinism is the only political movement that is exclusively for FEMales. It's horrible that other people face different forms of oppression, but they can form their own movements to address their needs. Black women & black men both face racism but ONLY black women are welcome in feminism. Poor men & poor women are both economically oppressed, but ONLY the poor woman is welcome in feminism. A woman & a passing trans-ID'd male may both be catcalled, but ONLY the woman is welcome in feminism.

Trans-ID'd males are welcome to (and in fact, already have) formed their own political movements against the unique problems they face. It is narcissistic and unreasonable to demand that women dismantle the ONLY political movement that we have to ourselves. Can female people seriously have nothing to ourselves?Do we have to give in to every group who wants "in"? We can be allies with each other to overcome some similar problems we may face (if any), but we are not the same, and that distinction in lived reality matters.

Isn’t feminism for anyone who believes in the social, economic, and political equality of women? Everyone is welcome. That is a great point about not including everyone who is oppressed ever, but the type of oppression we are talking about is targeted at people who present as female. What I find disturbing by your response is that you aren’t inclusive. Why do you need to say that someone is not welcome if they are experiencing something as common as cat calling or workplace harassment? Would it be so bad if a trans woman was in your circle? Would you not feel safe? I don’t understand what benefit there is to being so specific in membership? It seems to me that it would be best to differentiate by who is suffering a type of discrimination. For example, a trans woman might be subject to being talked down to in public (there is a great TEDtalk by a trans woman who knows what it is like to walk around in society as an adult male and an adult female. She passes btw). A trans male might have not had access to birth control prior to transitioning. I would think both types of people would be welcome.

Feminism is Liberation of females from male oppression. We are already equal, stating that is redundant and offensive.

Draleex #fundie tv.com

[Concerning a woman objecting to same sex couples having children]

Thank you finally someone who isnt completely ridiculous. I'm glad I saw someone stand by their beliefs. Im tired of everyone accepting gay people like theyre not doing anything wrong. Even if I wasnt a christian and basing all of this off of religion i still wouldnt support gay people. Since no one seems to care about the bible anymore ill give a few reasons why its wrong without using the bible. First of all its completely disgusting, second of all gay people cant have babies which hurts the population, third of all its compeltely against what a man should be, and last of all strait people are the majority and most of us say no gays so there you go no gays.

revoskeepnus #fundie forums.plentyoffish.com

[replying to - - You are probably Bi....or Bi Curious....just know its ok no matter what. Maybe you are gay? Either way ....just be WHO you are....be happy.]

I am sick and tired of everyone saying it's "okay to be gay." "Just be who you are." They are the same dumbasses that say if a child acts like a total dipshit, he's just "expressing pent up hostilities". WTF. Homosexuality serves no biological purpose except to give the people participating in it pleasure. Greed, self-love, and all of the other bullshit is what has the world in the shape we are in today. Just because all of these damn liberals say it's okay, doesn't make it so. Rome didn't fall for no reason at all. It is a lot harder to resist temptation and desires, but you are a stronger person for it in the end. Instant gratification is not always the best route to take. I have a son, and a lot of people have asked me what I would do if he were gay. Well, I guess I will have to wait and see, but as of right now, I'd throw him out on his butt. If he wants to defy me and The Bible, he can do it on someone else's watch...

Douglas Wilson, smugpug #fundie forums.kountrylife.com

[Highlight from a quote from Douglas Williams that was reposted as the introductory post of a forum topic called "In praise of our president" started by user smugpug]

If there is outrage over DT's denunciation of both sides, then it is plain and obvious that someone is attempting to steer us. In response to my post yesterday, someone breathlessly announced that I had equated Black Lives Matter with the Klan. Why, yes, I did. Hatred and murder are to be reprobated, period. Movements that excuse them are to be reprobated, period. But when your moral compass is governed by the skin tone of your tribe, instead of letters in granite inscribed by the finger of God, then you are going to get the kind of identity race war that we are in the process of getting.

I don’t expect the president to fix this kind of thing because he cannot. Going back to yesterday, the only one who can deliver blacks from their resentments and hatreds, and the only one who can deliver whites from their resentments and hatreds, is the Lord Jesus. He can do this because He was commissioned and sent into this world in order to bear our resentments and hatreds on His shoulders, bearing the Father’s rational wrath on account of our irrational wrath. He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities (Is. 53:5Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).

Jesus died, in short, for people on both sides of that street in Charlottesville. In that melee, we may assume that the elect of God were scattered amongst them, sinning along with the rest. Apart from the gospel of Christ, that is America’s future.

As a minister of Christ, I want our magistrates to resist the roar of crowds, and to identify bad actors in whatever crowd might happen to be yelling at the moment. But that is all I want them to do. I want them to do that in order to maintain public order, so that we who possess the gospel might have the opportunity to set before the people a different vision, in Christ, for loving each other.

“I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–

Nadine #fundie christianforums.com

(How come my Hindu friend is so calm and relaxed has such a wonderful homelife and beautiful family?
He's got huge statues of various god's in his house).

Is "calm" the sign of a non effected person spiritually? He's HINDU... rejecting Christ.
I don't know how "calm" prove someone isnt' demonically blinded or influenced?

As my earliier post said, it doesn't mean demons are throwing you around the room or making stuff levitate to be there.
What did Paul say? The DOCTRINES of false religions are OF DEMONS.
You don't think since the religion CAME from them, that they don't put on the show to make Hinduism seem plausible & true? Sure they'll give them a false sense of peace. They lie & keep people bound to false religions.

We as American's need to break out of our stereotypes of things.
Satanists are prominant people in society, not lowlife freaks you can spot a mile away...

It's more sophisticated than you would know. Just like pedophiles & serial killers are normal family men that you'de never suspect to be able to do such things.
They go to church too.......

Some Incels #sexist #transphobia reddit.com

Re: Top kek

image

(seven _ pillars of_wut)
You're such an inspiration. You're honestly so brave for coming out! Honestly, you've done a solid job at passing for female! I'm really happy that the MTF transistion went so well!

(drizzleweather)
But I'm assuming this is a troll

I'm not trans

(AutisticUntermensch)

We need to do this. Tell thots that they pass really well after their transition. It's a completely PC way to call foids ugly. And if they take offence, we can just say it was a misunderstanding and accuse them of being TERFs.

(riceceltears)

The fact that they get offended at being called trannies just shows all their virtue signaling bullshit

Foids are all transphobic

(rip_elliot)

Being transphobic is a meme lmao they're just not as stupid as to truly believe trans are ok

(hhhh__)

3 minutes ago

Personally, yes. I struggle with body dysmorphia so of course the idea of looking even slightly not feminine kills me

1 minute ago

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being trans, but I don’t think anyone should just assume someone is out of the blue, especially with no biases to do so

NickCagelaugh.gif

Fucking Life fuel. Let others feel what I do everyday.

Toasty toasty admits trannies are ugly. Kekfuel.

(seven_pillars_of_wut)

I started this. Just saying.

I'm a big fan of your posts, no lie. You've posted a large portion of the most brutal blackpills on this subreddit.

CHECK HER POST HISTORY SHE MADE A POST "AITA FOR GETTING MAD WHEN SOMEONE SAID I WAS TRANS" LMFAOOOOAOAOA

Ultimate life fuel; thank you, messengercel.

Peter Ward #fundie patheos.com

Who do you SAY JESUS IS?

Upon that answer you are saved or damned

You can be a degreed scholar known for quoting the bible and go straight to hell when you die. The devil isn't stupid and loves quoting the bible against believers but he doesn't really believe it either (and by the way the devil is called the "accuser" in the bible, he goes accusing others of wrongdoing no matter how legit or not because he is a liar).

Liberals LOVE critique and NOT facts these days and fool only their own.

Do YOU have a lifestyle of calling someone names no matter how the evidence speaks? Do you assume and call names because a celebrity or leader told you what to think today?

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9,10, NASB).

The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them (Eph. 5:5-7)."
All of that not SOME but ALL of that message is true. Hear that often in Huffington, Vox, Slate, Salon or Yahoo?

David Wright #kinkshaming #dunning-kruger #crackpot web.archive.org

What is love, actually? What is love being misunderstood as?
Love explained


Theory:
Love is an anti-sexual feeling
image

image
First of all, I know all of this by experience. I have been in love multiple times before, and I am as certain as one could ever be, that what I felt was love. It was amazing. It was an experience of quality, and definetely something that everyone deserves to feel and understand. ...Which they clearly don't.
Though I never succeeded at getting into a relationship, I have been close, and I have felt what it would be like to have a girlfriend, without being in doubt about anything.

Okay let's begin...
Love is the most effective feeling against sexual thoughts. The idea of thinking sexual thoughts have never been more distant, and for once, revealingly demotivating, than that very moment of quality when you're in love. On top of that, being in love also makes you feel alive and very emotional, whether it's the happy kind, or the sad kind where you're missing that person.

Love is basically two things:
• Emotional and
• Anti-sexual

Couples who are having sex is just as misunderstood about love as couples who claim to not feel emotional about their relationship. I'm having a hard time respecting people who can't see the logic in this, who choose to have sex with that very special "loving" partner that they claim to love. B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T...
If you haven't felt this kind of emotional and anti-sexual feeling before, then you are unexperienced with romantic love, and you shouldn't be allowed to have a girlfriend/boyfriend.
If you haven't felt this kind of emotional and anti-sexual feeling before, then you are unexperienced with romantic love, and then you probably haven't found that one and only person yet. But don't worry... once that happens, you'll know EXACTLY what I mean.


But how come our relationship seems to work out so well, when we're having sex?
Because you're confused about whether you're having a nonromantic sexual relationship, or a romantic nonsexual relationship. I'll get to that later... But keep in mind that you two WANTED eachother. You are simply partners. I prefer to call that "natural attraction". However, the day you realise what it would be like to have a LOVER then you will not want to think about having a simple partner anymore. Until then, please don't abuse the word "love" again. It's a strong word that one should simply not condescend with something as silly as sex.
image

image
Okay, so let's bring up some facts:

• You can have a romantic non-sexual relationship.
• You can have a non-romantic sexual relationship.
• You can have a non-romantic non-sexual relationship.
• You cannot have a romantic sexual relationship*

* Such a thing does not exist. Romance is non-sexual. Sex is non-romantic. These two things does not work out together at any time. When you “crush on” someone, your brain sees the non-sexual beauty on someone. Both the inner non-sexual beauty (approachability, intelligence, interest in you, personality, etc.) and the outer non-sexual beauty (look, voice, clothing, and all those things). Basically, every positive thing that you can find on someone that does not include anything sexual. Love is like a magic thing that can vanish ALL sexual feelings and temptations, and replace them with all the non-sexual qualities of that one special person that you’re having a crush on.


The more in love you are with someone, the more inappropriate it feels to think of them in a sexual way. When you’re truly in love, you might even forget that sex is a thing that exists in this world, temporarily! Love is simply the most powerful feeling in the world, and the more you feel it, the more distant the idea of sex becomes. This is why I think EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this world NEEDS to read, and think about this quote: “Love is an anti-sexual feeling” before even talking about, and using the word “love”.

Also, make sure you don't misunderstand my point! If you want to have a child, and reproduce, go ahead and do it! Just make sure my message is clear, and you're doing what you have to do for the right reason ☺
This has nothing to do with religion. I am 100% atheist, and this is nothing but pure knowledge that comes from years of experience with being in love, and being part of the loving nature in mankind.

Think of a girl or a boy that you really like. Maybe your crush, or your girlfriend/boyfriend.
Now imagine that their parents just died in a traffic collision, and now they're standing next to you crying. What would you do? Comfort them, right? This is where, my theory about love really becomes clear. The thought of doing anything sexual to them suddenly becomes very inappropriate. Inappropriate because giving comfort just really doesn't work out with sex, or have anything in common with anything sexual.
That feeling you get, when you decide to comfort someone, is exactly how love is supposed to feel. Love is like wanting to comfort someone all the time, even when they're not sad. Love is also the ability to feel "comfortful" torwards someone who isn't even sad. You can tell that two people really love eachother, when the 'comfortful chemistry' is between them as a standard, and no tragic experience is needed. These are difficult words, but actually, this is precisely what I mean. Sex is just an inappropriate thing when it comes to love. Period.
image

Another reason to say that love is an anti-sexual feeling
When you fantasize about someone in a sexual way, you're thinking of them as an object. A sexual object. You may not always think of them as an object, but once you're fantasizing about them in a sexual way, all you see is an object.


Now... love is the exact thing that makes us humans see the PERSON that hides behind a human's body. Love makes us feel the other person's identity, as if it was our own. Love makes us realise that behind another person's body, exists something far more amazing than just an object. If you're actually in love with someone else, then it also means that you will find it wrong to think of them as an object - at any given time.
In other words: You will not think of them in a sexual way, because the personality, and the identity that you see will keep disturbing your sexual thoughts. It is NOT possible to sexually fantasize about someone that you love unless you're really concentraded about not thinking about their personality, and identity. So yes... it IS possible to sexually fantasize about a loved one, but only if you're trying hard to not think about all the things that makes you love them. And honestly... as you get closer and closer to someone that you love, get to know them better and better, this whole idea of thinking sexual thoughts about them WILL become more and more distant. Because you will automatically find it wrong to think of them as an object for sex. THAT'S HOW LOVE WORKS! If you do not feel this way, then you do not feel love, simple as that.


Remember:
" People who find the love of their lives, and then later have sex with them, is like people who buy the most expensive meal in the world, and then soaking it with Heinz Ketchup. "
image

image

Theory: Love is an anti-sexual feeling
Theory proven and confirmed

fschmidt #fundie mikraite.org

In Defense of Feminism

Here I will defend feminism, but not for the typical reasons. In order to understand this post, you must understand these two previous posts of mine:

Human Evolution where I explain why women in feminist cultures are attracted to stupid immoral men.

The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture where I explain how American Christianity failed in the 1800s, meaning lost the ability to impose morality.

In the "Human Evolution" post I explained that women simply choose the type of man who is evolutionarily optimal in the current environment. Let me take this one step further. Probably the most important thing for a woman is which men she has sex with, because this will determine the future success of her genes. Because this is so important, one can reasonably assume that a significant part of a woman's brain is dedicated to this issue. This means that women can intuitively determine which men are genetically "good" much better than men can using analytical reasoning. In other words, men have no right to doubt women's mating choices in terms of genetic suitability. When a woman says that a man is "hot", she is unquestionably correct that he is a good genetic choice in her current environment. And when a woman says that a man is a (genetic) loser, she is also unquestionably correct in her current environment.

One of the worst things that can happen to a woman is mating with a genetically unsuitable man. A woman can only have a limited number of children, so who she chooses to be the father of those children is critical. Mating with an unsuitable man is almost like the loss of a child because that child's genetic future is bleak. The word to express this tragedy is "rape". Men badly misunderstand rape because we interpret it from a male perspective. We think that the critical element is violence. This is because for men, violence is a huge risk for our genetic future since many men are killed through violence. But for women, this simply isn't the case. Violence plays a much smaller role in the genetic success of women. So now let's consider a woman in modern culture. If a violent thug forces this woman to have sex with him, is this rape? No it isn't because the violent thug is well suited genetically for modern culture. So there is no issue of mating with a genetically unsuitable man. Now let's consider the case of this woman being seduced into sex by a nice guy who studied seduction techniques. This clearly is rape since nice guys are genetically unsuitable for modern culture. Whether the sex was violently forced or voluntary is irrelevant, all that matters is the quality of the man's genes. In modern culture, any sex with a nice guy is rape regardless of the circumstances because nice guys have unsuitable genes for modern culture.

Throughout history, women have depended on society to protect them including protecting them from rape. Men in society have always played a role in protecting women from mating with unsuitable men. But of course it is ultimately up to women to decide what types of men are unsuitable. In an effective patriarchal society where promiscuity is heavily punished, intelligent moral men are optimal and stupid immoral men are unsuitable. In such a society, women expect society to protect them from stupid immoral men. And similarly, in modern culture where stupid immoral men are optimal and intelligent moral men are unsuitable, women expect society to protect them from intelligent moral men. In both cases, the motive is exactly the same, to protect women from rape, namely sex with unsuitable men. This is why modern society is currently implementing all these strange sexual consent laws. These laws are very well designed to protect women from intelligent moral men.

At this point it should be clear why feminism makes sense for women in modern culture. All feminism is really about is allowing women in modern culture to mate with genetically good men and avoid mating with genetically bad men. Why should women be prevented from this? But now let's move away from women's perspective and consider what is best for humanity.

The optimal society is a moral patriarchal society. In such a society, promiscuity (outside of prostitution) is strictly limited. Women are expected to virgins at marriage. Adultery (sex with another man's wife) is severely punished with the guilty being removed from the gene pool one way or another. Seducing virgins is also punished. In such a society, moral men are the optimal mating choice for women. So women in this society will be attracted to moral men and will consider immoral men to be losers. There is absolutely no chance of feminism occurring in such a society because women there simply wouldn't want it.

Now let's consider what happens when such an optimal society starts to break down. What happens is that for some reason society loses its ability to enforce sexual morality. This means that promiscuity and adultery become a viable evolutionary strategy for men. Women realize this, and these immoral men become exciting for women. And so the evolutionary decay of the society begins.

Feminism is the natural expression of women's changing mating preference in a decaying society. But let's imagine that we could magically eliminate feminism. Would this be better for humanity? I believe that what this would look like is America almost permanently stuck in the 1950s. As I explained in "The Rise and Fall of Christian Culture", American culture began to break down in the 1800s when religion went from encouraging people to follow Jesus's moral teaching to simply having a personal relationship with Jesus. With such a change, it was inevitable that society would lose focus on the core issues of sexual morality, and lose the ability of effective enforcement. In the 1950s, America retained the facade of a moral culture, but underneath society was breaking down. Women clearly expressed sexual excitement for "bad boys" in movies. And I am certain that this must have corresponded to a rising adultery rate. Without feminism, the facade could have remained intact for centuries, with moral men continuing to find wives but these wives cheating on them and having illegitimate children with immoral men. The genetic breakdown of society would have been much slower, but the ultimate result would have been the same. So instead of taking decades for society to call apart, it would have taken centuries. Which is preferable? I think it is preferable for a morally broken society to fall apart as quickly as possible so that it can be replaced by something else. Feminism doesn't change the end result, it only speeds it up. And so I support feminism.

What about the poor suffering moral men in modern culture who can't get women? One can read the complaints of these men all over the internet. If you suggest options to these men like using a prostitute or looking abroad, they will tell you that they want validation. Any moral man who wants validation from a woman in modern culture is simply a moron who deserves to suffer and die without reproducing. Unlike feminists, he hasn't slightest understanding of evolution. The only sound evolutionary strategy for moral men is to join together to form moral patriarchal societies. Such societies are evolutionarily superior to modern culture. When modern culture has decayed sufficiently, a good moral patriarchal culture should attack modern culture and slaughter all of its men for the genetic good of humanity.

If a woman from the modern culture calls a moral man a loser, the correct response is "I would be a loser if I were a member of your culture, but I am not. My culture is superior to your culture and my culture will eventually destroy your culture." Intelligent moral men must reject modern culture and find an alternative. And from the perspective of an alternative culture, we can recognize feminism as a good thing that is helping to destroy our enemy, namely modern culture.

(Submitter's note: Emphasis added)

Knowledge Transfer #fundie disqus.com

You opened up the convoluted diversion when you [not me[ said: "COMPLETELY unlike a same-sex adult consensual relationship which harms no one"!

My responses were then employed to pulverize that lie because same sex consensual relationships harm everyone especially when others are forced to accept the normalcy of such abnormal, unnatural and unhealthy relationships.

As an example, here is just one of the malevolent goals: "Present homosexuality, promiscuity and degeneracy as normal, natural and healthy." Homosexuality automatically includes promiscuity and degeneracy in one stench ridden package like a 3 point play in basketball...one shot three points.

Just a few questions: 1) if homosexuality was normal; natural; and healthy, why pray tell would it ever need to be presented as if it were normal, natural and healthy; wouldn't such presentations be superfluous? 2) if homosexuality was normal, natural and healthy, why pray tell is the cited goal above one of the 45 goals within the Communist Takeover of America given that Communism seeks to destroy America from within on its way to one world Godless; soulless; family destroying; life hating; sodomy saluting; wealth redistributing world rule?

Projecting My Psychopathy Award

Chopper9760 #fundie boards.straightdope.com

These questions come up in my mind when I've spent all day watching a Law & Order marathon.

On this show, people perjure themselves all the time to protect mothers, fathers, siblings, children (rarely spouses), and when at the very end of the episode, the detectives drag the truth out of them (namely, that they knew all along that mom, dad, sis, son was, in fact the murderer), they say, as if it's obvious and self-explanatory, "BUT SHE'S MY MOTHER," or fill in the other first-degree relative.

So I'm asking: would you perjure yourself in court to protect your parent, sibling, or child, knowing they were guilty?

Separate question: would you take the rap (jail) for your guilty parent, sibling, or child? (I'm presuming you wouldn't take the death penalty.)


I'd perjure myself for my folks but I don't think I'd take a murder rap nor would they let me.

might not agree with my dad for killing my neighbor with a snow shovel but if I could convince myself that he wasn't going to kill ALL my neighbors w/ snow shovels, I'd probably help him get away with it.

I think David Kaczynski was a hero but I'd have to be convinced my folks were a danger to society before I held up my social responsibility to rat on them. I'm selfish that way.

As for sex crimes, well, I figure my family's experience with sex crimes has informed my opinion of killing people.

Serious? Even if he did it without any real justification?What you think there's some special legal or moral privilege that attaches to having been a victim of sex crimes, that doesn't count for murder? I don't. And I've been a victim.

Bear in mind that I haven't advocated my actions from a legal, moral, or even a logical standpoint. Obviously everyone should be held to the same standard of justice.

That being said, are you really surprised that I value my loved ones more than the social contract? I picked an extreme example as a way of finding my own personal limit. I would imagine I'd be quite conflicted if I knew Mom or Dad killed someone with no provocation. However, if I saw an opportunity to get them out of trouble I would take it.

I haven't murdered the sex offenders in my own family but I'm not going to be upset if someone else does. I only raised the sex crimes issue to point out a personal hard limit - I can wrap my mind around helping my folks get away with murder but I could never defend them if they committed a sex crime.


So you're saying you're advocating actions you, yourself, think are immoral and illogical?
So you've never made a choice that you knew was wrong? I have a hard time believing you've seriously considered the hypothetical.

I'm saying that I would, in certain circumstances, chuck my morals and rationality for 2 people in a world of, what, 6,000,000,000? That doesn't make me an asshole, that makes me a normal member of society.

You nailed it earlier when you mentioned the justice system. LEO's aren't supposed to investigate family, your relations won't end up in the jury box and our spouses are often exempt from testifying. We've built our society with an acknowledgement of the importance of familial relationships.

MrDibble, I think you have unrealistic expectations of yourself and others. Further, I think slightly irrational balls-to-the-wall loyalty for a small number of people is just as important as trying to be a good global citizen.


View Post

Really, it boils down to a simple question - how can anyone justify helping someone get away with murder? "Because they're family" doesn't quite have enough of an explanatory power to me. Why should it?

Justify is perhaps a poor word choice as we've posited the example of someone we know is guilty. The choice to commit perjury is inherently unjustified no matter what crime we're talking about, that's why it's perjury.

Why would I (in some circumstances) perjure myself so a loved one could escape a murder charge they were guilty of? Because I'd rather have my loved one free and not in prison. Because I value my family over society.

I'm not going to break that way every time but I can imagine doing it.

F. Roger Devlin #fundie amren.com

The problem lies elsewhere, mainly in what is known as feminism. It is this, I believe, that mainly explains collapsing white birthrates. For several decades, white women have been reared in an unprecedented manner: They have been encouraged to do almost anything but marry and have children. It is extremely difficult for any society to make its young women unattractive to its own young men, but the West now appears close to succeeding (an achievement attributable, no doubt, to our high IQs).

...

Feminism has encouraged the erosion of traditional Christian and European standards of conduct and has replaced them with a polygamous mating pattern in which women compete for the most attractive men. This is something we see in primate packs, but even among humans, polygamous societies are nothing new, and a great deal is known about how they operate. It so happens that the most polygamous part of the world is West Africa, the ancestral homeland of America’s own black population. A look at these societies may shed light on what is happening in the West today under the influence of “women’s liberation.”

...

This is not a universal human pattern. On average, Africans appear to make the tradeoff between mating effort and parenting effort differently, with the result that sex assumes greater importance over a longer period of time. White writers of earlier days frequently noted the prominence of sex in the black man’s thoughts; when recalled now, these observations are cited with horror. In fact, early observers were reporting what they found, and what is still noted by professional anthropologists today.

As monogamy decays in the West, our mating system increasingly comes to resemble the more competitive African model, and with similar results. Young women devote more effort to maximizing their allure in order to snag high-status men, and men compete for status in order to attract these women. This comes at the expense of childrearing and family life.

At the same time, the feminist program of cajoling women into the workplace means they become self-supporting, as are the female farmers of West Africa. The Dilbert world of work cubicles may not resemble the farming plots of Africa, but both stand in marked contrast to the male-breadwinner tradition of the West, in which childrearing was a woman’s most important duty. Indeed, the modern workplace, optimized for risk-free, repetitious, sedentary work is probably the best environment for eliminating women’s economic dependence upon men. By the same token, it discourages the moderately large families of well-brought-up children that are the indispensable preconditions of Western Civilization. If enough women fail or refuse to marry and become mothers of such families, our way of life cannot be sustained.

...

The most important effect of economic autonomy upon women is that it reduces the benefits to them of monogamous marriage. They can mate as they please, in competition for the most attractive men. That is what the college “hook-up” scene is really about — it is not callous men preying upon wide-eyed virgins. Later, women use affluent men for their resources (either not marrying or marrying and then divorcing them). In any case, economic independence means they do not need a man in the same way previous generations of women did.

A second economic factor influencing female family behavior is easy consumer credit. Using a credit card is a little like providing for African children through fosterage. It shields young, present-oriented women from the need for frugality.

The American economy is fueled to a great extent by massive consumer debt. How much of this spending is by married men with children to support? Feminists complain that men continue to earn more than women, but they say little about which sex spends more. And, of course, the more time and effort women devote to careers and personal consumption, the less they have for the children they do manage to bear. The problem of “latchkey children,” raised by television sets and peer groups, was a predictable result of feminism.

To summarize, the contemporary West resembles traditional West African society in:

female economic self-support;
polygamous and unstable mating patterns;
absence of long-term planning;
low-investment parenting.

...

Sociobiologists speak of high-investment versus high-fertility reproductive strategies, but it is clear the contemporary West does not fall into either category. We are practicing both low fertility and low parental investment. It is uncanny how many of the “progressive” causes being pushed among us involve thwarting procreation: female careerism, unrestricted abortion, so-called safe sex, and special political protections for homosexuality. A society that makes these things its priorities can only have a death wish.

...

In contrast to European nationalists, American race realists have not yet had political success. When we do gain influence, we will have many more important things to worry about than mixed-race marriages or men who seek Venezuelan brides: things such as how to dismantle 50 years of “civil rights” legislation, the repatriation of millions of aliens, and ending anti-white indoctrination in our schools.

Many racially conscious whites worry about the absence of women in our ranks, but I believe they have it backwards. We do not need women on our side to succeed politically; we need to succeed politically to have women on our side. As soon as we start winning, the ladies will find our arguments plausible, our faces handsome, and our jokes witty. Direct political action by women is not part of the European tradition; respect for the vital female role in the family is. When we have done our work, they will gladly do theirs: bear our race’s children.

Terry Hurlbut #fundie creationsciencehalloffame.org

Creationists are getting more scientifical . . .

A twist on circular reasoning

Any student of formal logic soon learns about the fallacy of circular reasoning. If one starts by assuming a fact of nature, one cannot try to prove that fact later. Any scientist knows this. For that reason, scientists always start with fundamental properties of nature that none can explain. Geometers start by assuming certain relationships (like the constant ratio of the circumference to the diameter of all circles) they cannot prove, but still know. Some things deserve to have someone assume them. Hence their name:axioms, from the Greek word axios meaning something deserving or deserved.
In circular reasoning, someone tries to prove an axiom. Formal logic does not work that way. And origins scientists often fall into a twist on this trap: “Your theory does not work under my theory (or the theory everyone accepts). So your theory must not hold.” Glen Kuban falls into this trap.
Observe how Glen Kuban takes issue with Walt Brown’s starting point: a subcrustal ocean, some fifty miles underground, and sealed for about 1600 years (at least) until the crust breaks and lets it out.
This precludes any significant earthquakes, meteorite impacts, or fissures in the crust anywhere on entire earth, even though such phenomena are well evidenced throughout the geologic record.
The trap: Kuban assumes age for the earth, and gradual, sequential settling of layer on layer of rock and soil. But suppose one event laid down all those layers in one year? And suppose the meteoroids that fell back as meteors (and meteorites) came from that same event?
The Hydroplate Theory also tells us that every earthquake in the historical record is an aftershock of the earthquakes that attended the breakout of the subcrustal ocean. Of course no earthquakes occurred before the Global Flood. The Flood event provoked the first such earthquakes! These made the Japan Earthquake feel like somebody dropping a bowling ball in the lane next to you. They easily reached Richter magnitudes of ten to twelve. That made them more than powerful enough, by the way, to produce the radioactive materials Glen Kuban’s sources rely on to “date” the earth.

Creation Week

Kuban does give a nod to Brown’s theory of the Creation Week itself. Here Brown scrupulously follows the Bible. Specifically he follows Genesis chapter 1 and 2 Peter 3:5. (He follows the original Greek verse. That verse speaks of the earth “standing together out of the water.”) Kuban thinks he found a weakness in Brown’s theory: whether the earth’s crust, if hot enough to deform, could have cooled off rapidly enough to avoid killing the life God placed on the earth later. The way Kuban expresses himself, makes one suspect he thought the life came before the buckling of the crust, the sealing of the waters under the earth, and the forming of the pillars. Of course, the Bible says different.
Walt Brown might seem to break one of his own rules, if only this once. “Brown’s Razor” says one must not invoke miracles to which the Bible does not specifically attest. But the Bible does attest to Creation Week and the events of it. The first matter formed in space, literally out of nothing. That alone qualifies as miracle enough. After that, life itself could only come by miraculous means. (Neither Glen Kuban nor anyone else has ever advanced a convincing model for abiogenesis or chemical evolution. Life does not come from non-life.) The exquisite sequence of the molding of the earth’s crust surely qualifies also.

How the Global Flood started

Glen Kuban seems to say Brown specifically said that God set the Flood off by direct Divine action. Brown never says that. He says the Flood was an accident waiting to happen after Man “fell” and turned his back on God. The Bible repeatedly says “all creation groans” under the effect of sin.
Furthermore, for all we do or can know, some person or company or corps of engineers set off a charge of high explosive (not nuclear or thermonuclear) in the wrong place, and opened a crack that compromised one of the pillars. Whoever did this, neither Adam nor Noah nor his sons ever recorded his name or the details of his act. The Flood did not begin with a miracle. But the Bible does attest to one: God gave Noah 120 years’ advance warning. He also gave Noah the design for a vessel that would withstand a rather violent launch and even more violent buffeting. (The favorable winds that blew the great life-ship into the “eddy cut off from the main flow” where it “rested” until the waters went down, likely came from the rise of the great mountain chains as the hydroplates settled to the floor of the old subcrustal chamber and literally wrinkled.)

A factitious heat problem

Glen Kuban talks at length about The Heat Problem. Brown himself calculates the energy release from the breakout at more than a trillion thermonuclear bombs. But when one releases a supercritical fluid from confinement, one relieves at once the “critical pressure” that kept it in that state. (Supercritical fluids consist of mutually miscible liquid and vapor.) The fluid expands, then cools. Rapidly. Refrigerators work that way.
Furthermore, much of that energy “cold-packed” itself as the earthquakes, acting on buried quartz, helped form the radioactive materials in the crust today. Everyone knows radioactive materials release lots of energy when they decay and especially when they split.
Last, and possibly most important: the energy that converts to the kinetic energy of the comets, asteroids, meteoroids, and trans-Neptunian objects (including Pluto), cannot remain as heat.


The starlight and time problem

Brown does try to make his work comprehensive. So sometimes he treats subjects that bear less on the Flood and more on how the earth can be young while the universe is so vast (13.7 billion light years in radium), yet we can see every object in it. Glen Kuban thinks he has done his job by pointing to the weaknesses in Brown’s specific sources on that point. But he never once considered another source (John Hartnett, Starlight, Time and the New Physics). Hartnett explains the seemingly inexplicable this way: when you stretch space, you stretch time. Hartnett can concede that 13.7 billion years’ worth of changes have taken place–at the edge of the universe. At the center of the universe, only seven thousand years need have passed. (And Glen Kuban fails to show, with his brief citations, that redshift is not quantized.)

Tom Bagwell #fundie freep.com

WASHINGTON – A Libertarian candidate for a Michigan congressional seat is getting some attention for voicing his opinion that age-of-consent laws should be changed to consider the case-by-case circumstances where an adult and a minor are in a consensual sexual relationship.

Tom Bagwell of Wyandotte made his comments Thursday on a Houston TV’s station’s Facebook page beneath a post on a story about a 24-year-old female middle school teacher who has been charged with having a sexual relationship with a 13-year-old male student.

In his comments, Bagwell said while “children should be protected,” the “unintended consequences of government action can often cause more harm.” He went onto say that reforms in state consent laws are needed that force prosecutors to “look at each case separately rather than simple hard age cutoffs.”

Another poster on the KPRC2/Click2Houston page, remarked, “Exactly what mitigating circumstances make it OK for a 24-year-old to have sex with her 13-year-old student?”

Bagwell responded, “Hard age of consent laws don't take into account the actual maturity of the child. Some teenagers are able to handle these relationships many can't. If there is actual abuse by all means charge with a crime, but it should not be a snap judgment.”

WDIV-TV (Channel 4) reported on Bagwell’s comments Friday afternoon.

When reached by the Free Press, Bagwell stood by the remarks, noting that according to the reports out of Texas, the teacher and the student not only were in a consensual relationship but that the boy’s parents knew about it, had met the teacher and were supportive.

“My view is simply this: We shouldn’t jump the gun on these issues and automatically go to the worst (scenario),” he said. “Where there is actual consent between the parties, we should look at it on a case-by-case basis to see if coercion was involved.”

(...)

“I gave an opinion based on me having some deeply rooted libertarian views,” said Bagwell, who has filed as a Libertarian candidate for Michigan’s 12th congressional district seat currently held by U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn. “I have some views that I know the general public might say, ‘Eh, I don’t like that.’”

Dr. Miriam Grossman #fundie miriamgrossmanmd.com

[The topic is a sexual health program in some New York high schools that lets the school nurse provide emergency contraception.]

1. Sexual activity, pregnancy, and contraception are serious health matters. Parents, not schools, are responsible for decisions related to the welfare of their minor child. Schools undermine parental authority when they are complicit with a student's wishes to hide important health issues from her parents.

2. It cannot be assumed that EC [emergency contraception] decreases teen pregnancy. In fact, some studies indicate it may increase it, along with STDs, by increasing sexual activity.
It's not difficult to imagine how that could happen:

She: No, I don't want to... I could get pregnant.

He: No you won't. We have school tomorrow, and you can get one of this pills after history class.

3. The success of the program is measured by how many students use it. But the more sex students have, the more girls will need EC. This just isn't sound thinking.

4. It is highly likely that many parents never hear about the program. The girl who is most likely to need EC is also the girl who is most likely to not deliver the letter. [Parents can opt their students out of this program by sending a letter to the school.]

5. A common side effect of EC is headache. But girls who return to the nurse for Tylenol can't get it without parental consent!

CH #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The relevancy of this post will probably be moot by the time it’s published, but I’ve made some points about our current climate of anti-sex prudishness that deserve consideration, so here ya go.

I’m glad Trump came out in support of Roy Moore. The man’s travails — stoked to an incomprehensibly vitriolic froth by Nasty Womanhood, Inc and the Jewish Interest Media — are emblematic of the man-hating culture that suffuses us. Do I think it’s a leetle weird for a 30 year old man to actively seek to date late teenage girls? Sure, but it’s not criminal (not as long as AOC varies state-to-state from age 14 to 17….I can’t take a statutory crime seriously if all it requires is a hop across the state border to decriminalize the charge), and certainly not worthy of national coverage knowing that it would hardly have made the local news in the 1970s (which really could have been a millennia ago given how much American culture has changed since then).

30-year-old Roy Moore’s preference for teenage love isn’t a radical aberration or departure from the spectrum of normal male sexuality. It’s out on the tails of normal male sexuality, but not off the curve into abnormality where actual paraphilias (e.g., pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality) exist. NEWSFLASH: Men prefer young women, at minimum younger women than themselves, and men with power and social status that are naturally attractive to women will be better able and willing to fulfill their desire. At the margins, this means there will be HSMV older men who will date 17 year old Southern Roses, and some of those men will be actively pursuing a marriageable young woman with plenty of residual reproductive value to provide him with the large family he wants.

Roy Moore has four children with his wife of forty years. As far as we know, he has been faithful to her the whole time, and she adores him. His wife is fourteen years younger than him. This indicates that his youthful exuberance pursuing teen girls was part of a conscious desire he had at the time to find his One True Girl and marry her.

As long as there are teenage women with shapely figures telegraphing the opening of their prime fertility windows….

...

…there will be men of all ages ogling them. Some of those men will have the mate value and the immunity to social expectation to win one over as his own. Roy Moore’s preferences were within the sphere of normal, naturally evolved male sexuality. To dumbly conflate his dating history with that of pedophiles and pervert potted plant masturbators cajoling actress whores with a bit of the ol’ quim pro quo, is a slanderous joke and reveals a deep-seated discomfort with and spite toward the Darwinian contours of male sexuality and male romantic longing.

FYI it’s not all that unusual or uncommon for an adult man to get tripped up by the apparent age of an especially voluptuous teen woman. Unless a man is in the habit of asking all 0.7 waist-hip ratio women for their IDs, there’s a chance one of them might conceal being a barely legal vixen.

Related, some men (maybe Moore) either physically age more slowly or retain a light-heartedness of spirit that belies their age, which both makes them more attractive to and more attracted to younger women. It’s not the rule, but it’s a fairly notable exception.

Say what you will about Roy Moore, at least his girls agreed to date him (even if they retconned a discomfort 40 years later). The Synagogue of Seediness doesn’t bother with the formality of mutual agreement, they just passive-aggressively jam tongues down throats “to rehearse our lines”.

In sum, if you believe every recollected detail of the ancient allegations, only one woman at the time was underage (barely) when Moore asked her out on a date, shared consensual 2nd base foreplay with her, and drove her home when she wanted to leave. The rest of his “accusers” — aka bitter aged cows who regret not being the woman Moore married, all of whom with shitty personal relationship histories and connections to thecunt’s #SheMenstruated cat lady symposium, retconning their bloom of youth trysts with Moore into criminal acts — were legal age at the time of the alleged May-December violation of the feminist code of acceptable intersexual conduct.

You may think it’s icky for a grown man to consensually date barely legal teen girls, but that doesn’t make it criminal. There was a time when, while not quite the social norm, such couples weren’t all that unusual and nobody much blinked an eye when they encountered one. We all know of our own or someone else’s great-grandparents with big age gaps who started popping out kids when great-grandmama was seventeen.

I doubt Moore’s janey-come-lately accusers really were all that scandalized by his come-ons in 1977. Here’s a rule of thumb I use to determine the validity of a woman’s sexual misconduct accusation: If she waits more than ten years to tell anyone about it, she wasn’t all that bothered by the infraction when it occurred. If she waits forty years, it’s a political hit job exploiting a radically changed anti-sex feminist cunt climate.

But it is fair to ask why Moore would, if reports based on memories of contemporaries from forty years ago are accurate to the tiniest detail (they’re not), pursue questionable if mutually consensual age-disparate relationships with teenagers to the exclusion of older women, and risk the specter of social ostracism. Some say it’s because Moore was emotionally stunted and socially awkward — a 1970s proto-sperg — who wanted a deferential and awestruck teenage woman for company unlikely to challenge his self-conception or strain his capacity for mature adult banter.

Maybe, but probably not. I think he just liked ’em ripely hot, and didn’t much care about “relationship complementarity” as de-sexed ür-bugman Will Wilkinson might put it. This notion, held dear by both white knights and feminists, that men who date younger women are secretly intimidated by strong, independent, empowered older women is why I say betacels and bitterbitches have a lot more in common than they’d willingly admit.

Psychologically emasculated white knights who gripe about “power imbalances” in the workplace between male bosses and female subordinates, or in society between older high status men and younger inexperienced women, can’t seem to fathom or accept the reality that female sexual desire is different than male sexual desire, and women are typically attracted to powerful men. Two to tango, chumps. Men are aroused to provide for and protect vulnerable, deferential women, and women are aroused by strong men to whom they can safely and happily defer. Even to whom they can submit. Perfectly equal relationships are also perfectly passionless relationships. Sexual polarity is the lube of love. Male power and female admiration provide the sexual frisson that magnifies feelings of love and creates a solid foundation up;on which to build up a lifelong commitment.

Other theories for Moore’s focus on finding a teen fiancee that I’ve read hold more weight for me.

...

Character matters, and it looks to me that Moore’s accusers have the lowest of character, which rightly calls into question their veracity. Their low character doesn’t disprove their allegations, but it certainly is a leading indicator that they’re telling lies, or at best telling politically embroidered quasi-truths.

...

Well, you know, (((comedians))) get a special dispensation. (For the record, I have no problem with Jerry Seinfeld dating a legal 17 year old hottie. Men work hard to acquire status, fame and power FOR JUST THIS SORT OF OPPORTUNITY.)

...

That’s one of the better analyses of Moore I’ve read. He had an epic case of blue balls, and he wanted that feeling of young love that was denied him for so long. Are we going to lynch the man for that? If so, then you may as well criminalize men and castrate us all, because our dicks and our hearts aren’t going to cooperate with the anhedonic low T androgynarchic shrewtopia the hag collective wants to impose on society.

The next #resistance narrative is taking shape. Already I have shitlib acquaintances telling me, “How is it Ok that Trump can get away with groping women but no one else can?” You knew this was coming. Frankenwinestein was the sacrificial lamb to the gods of NeverTrump.

I’m near certain that Dem leaders and Cuckryans sat down with Frankenstien and said “Look Al, the photo is bad, you’re gonna have to resign, but look at it this way, you’ll go down a martyr, we’ll use your sacrifice to take down Moore and Trump. This is how you can do the most good.”

It’s pretty clear to me that the leftoid fuggernaut, caught off-guard by Pedowood, scrambled to segue from Chosen perversion to smearing the good names of Gentile anti-establishmentarians. Jizz up the waters enough and people forget who the worst perps are.

That’s why I have been consistent in my assessment of these decades-old sexual harassment allegations: mostly a bunch of Regret Fling griping from post-Wall women with a few genuine victims sprinkled in to give the moral panic a veneer of legitimacy. NeverForget that the overwhelming majority of these sex abuse accusations have been leveled against male feminist shitlibs, so what we are seeing is a moral panic started by shitlibs and feminists that they are DESPERATE to enlarge beyond the scope of the ghetto of male shitlib perverts.

Libs trying to tie Trump to #MeToo should be made aware of their telling silence and support when Hillary was running smear campaigns against Bill Clinton’s accusers. And in Bill’s case, one of the women, Juanita Broadderick, has been saying since day one he raped her.

It would be funny if, after every GOP establishment eel turned on Moore and the combined force of the jewish interest media lobbed their artillery at him, he still won. Biggest middle finger to the Globohomo Uniparty and to Schoolmarm Feminism this side of Trump’s election.

...

When you accept that the GOPe cuck elite really truly hate the heartland Americans they pretend to represent, you’ll understand their behavior and be able to predict their future actions. The Uniparty is real, and they are feeling the heat. Moore, please.

Fotheringay-Phipps #fundie boards.straightdope.com

ISTM that Dottie Sandusky and the posters to this thread share a common premise, i.e. that the accusations against Sandusky are all-or-nothing. Either all are true down to the last detail, or all are false and Sandusky is a persecuted saint.

The reality is that it's possible that some accusations are true and some are not, and within valid accusations, that some details are true and some are not. Meaning that while based on all evidence Sandusky was a serial child molestor, that does not preclude the possibility that other opportunists also jumped in with a chance to score a financial settlement, settle an old score or whatever. And it does not preclude the possibility that some genuine victims are misremembering (or possibly even misrepresenting) details of or relating to their abuse.

So it's possible - just possible - that Dottie Sandusky is simply relating the truth as she knows it: she did not in fact ever hear any suspicious sounds coming from that basement. And either the victim in that case was not a genuine victim, or he was a genuine victim who misrembered after the years how loud the sounds were, or perhaps even misjudged it at the time etc. etc.


Where she's going wrong - assuming this is true - is in making the leap to the assumption that this accuser's entire story must be fake, and that the other accusers' stories must also be fake, and so on. However, this is a premise shared with many others on the other side of the issue, who assume that since the evidence shows Sandusky to be a serial molestor it must follow that the particular detail of this kid making noise in the basement must also be true.


View Post
So, she should call her own son a liar and ignore that her husband molested him? And, if she doesn't do that, but accepts that her son is telling the truth, then what - she should believe that he was molested, but all of the other kids were lying? OK, so maybe not all of them - maybe she just believes he moslested half of them - does that really change anything at all? I think if she said, "yeah, turns out he was a serial molester, but I never heard anything from the basement that one time" people might actually buy it. But right now she's landing square in the 'blind eye' camp and it's not unreasonable to assume she probably knew something was going on and chose not look too hard.

I wouldn't put too much into the "own son" bit.

Matt Sandusky is not the Sandusky's biological son and is not someone who was raised by the Sanduskys. He is a former juvenile delinquent who became their foster child at the age of 17 and was adopted at age 18. (
cite
.)

There's no particular reason for Mrs. Sandusky to find Matt Sandusky any more credible than any other accuser, and her feeling of betrayal would be even stronger.

Clint Loveness #fundie pepperdineevolution.weebly.com

In response, someone might say that Moses did not understand science, but Jesus affirmed Moses in Luke 16:31 ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ Jesus also said in Mark 10:6 "But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” If there were a billion years before Adam and Eve then it was not ‘the beginning’. If there were a billions years before Adam and Eve, than you have death before sin, which goes against Scripture!


image

Why didn’t the Pepperdine professors teach the flaws of evolution? For example, they should teach the different types of evolution. One type is called “microevolution”, which refers to changes variations within species (different types of dogs, etc.); I have no problem whatsoever with this type of minor evolution, as it clearly occurs within the plant and animal kingdoms. However, there are some major scientific and moral flaws within “macroevolution”, which is defined as one species morphing, or evolving, into a completely different and separate species. Clearly, these two very opposite types of evolution cannot be called similar to each other, yet evolutionists have hijacked the word “science” by blending microevolution and macroevolution together
Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote the foreword to the Origin of Species (100th edition), admitted that “Evolution is unproved and unprovable, we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” When the well-known apologist Ray Comfort recently interviewed dozens of evolution professors, he asked them for just one example of repeatable, observable evidence of macroevolution and they COULD NOT give even one example. Thus, macroevolution does not follow the scientific method, which means that macroevolution is not real science. In fact, since these professors need billions of years they actually need faith to believe this worldview. I recommend that you watch his movie called “Evolution vs. God” on this link.

I asked Dr. Honeycutt for one clear example of macroevolution and he used whale evolution, but Dr. Honeycutt was wrong, because the world’s leading authority on whale evolution admitted that it was a hoax on this link. Even Darwin himself was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved his own theory. He hoped that in the years to come, there would be more fossils discovered that would prove the theory as he stated it. It has been over 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for the missing links, but the supposedly innumerable transitional forms have not been found. Why didn’t the Pepperdine professors teach about how many missing links have been a hoax? In fact, every time a supposed link is discovered, an evolutionist would criticize that example as a hoax, meaning that we still do not have one example. The Cambrian explosion disproves transitional forms because the very base layer of the fossil record shows advanced life forms. This fact is fatal to the evolutionary theory’s descent with gradual modification through natural selection. The fossils record is evidence for a worldwide flood or for transitional forms evolving, but it cannot be both. If Noah’s flood were true you would expect to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and what do we actually see in the fossil record? Millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!

Evolutionary dating methods are not accurate. For example, did you know that living snails have been radiometrically carbon dated to be 2,300 years old? Or that the radioisotope dating showed Mount St. Helen's lava to be 340,000 years old, when in reality it was only 10 years old? Carbon-14 atoms should not exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years old, but we find carbon-14 in dinosaur fossils, diamonds, and coal - which is good evidence that the earth is only thousands of years old, not millions of years old. Scientists have found red blood cells in many different dinosaur bones that could not possibly have survived millions of years. Here are two links for the top scientific reasons why the earth is not millions of years old: from the Institute for Creation Research and Answers In Genesis the two leading creationist organizations.

Essentially, the bottom line is this: macroevolution is not only unscientific, it directly goes against the Bible. If I was a current Pepperdine student and I had these theistic evolution professors teaching me that Adam, Eve, Abel, Cain, Noah and the worldwide flood were not real, that evolution was true, and that Genesis was not to be taken literally, I probably would have doubted whether or not the rest of the Bible was true and I would have lost my faith! I’m worried that many more students like my brother will lose their faith in Christ because we are putting another religion called evolution ahead of the Bible. In the past, the Hebrews worshiped two gods and one was named Baal. Now, I believe that we are guilty of worshipping two gods by mixing evolution and theology. If you look up “religion” in the dictionary, it says that a religion is “a worldview that explains the cause of origins, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially the creation of humans.” I would propose that evolution is not science but a form of another religion that you need FAITH to believe in. God will also judge a teacher more strictly, which makes this issue of an important issue because if you compromise the book of Genesis, than this will encourage many young people to compromise and to reject the rest of the Bible.

CertifiedRabbi #racist reddit.com

My first real red pill occurred when I was 14-15 while I was doing research online about IQ. I already knew that I had a high IQ when I was accepted into a very prestigious private boarding school in New England, but I wanted to learn more about what exactly IQ is. And it was during that research online that I accidentally stumbled across the raging debate over racial IQ differences. After a lot of painful and uncomfortable research and soul-searching, I very reluctantly came to the extremely disturbing conclusion that the toothless, racist, inbred, skinhead, neo-Nazi, KKK pieces of shit really did have science and reality on their side.

But rather than just ending my red-pilling process there, it's probably a good idea to go over more of the details on my background in order to provide additional context to my current worldview since I think that it will help to dispel lazy stereotypes about most Alt-Righters being born into trailer parks or whatever.

My parents grew up in very liberal, wealthy families in the sister cities of Detroit and Flint, Michigan - two cities that were eventually completely ruined by black people during their lifetimes. But they first met each other at a law school that won't be named because I've already provided way too much doxxable info. After they graduated, they White Flighted to Fairfax County, Virginia - which is considered to be a part of the larger Washington, D.C. area (another city that was ruined by blacks) and is where I spent about half of my childhood.

Despite my parents being very liberal, they were actually quite socially conservative in many ways - such as their decision to not allow my siblings and I to watch TV or play video games growing up because they (correctly) thought that it would rot our brains. And the private boarding schools that I attended also didn't allow us to have TVs in our dorms. So, what do you do for entertainment when you can't watch TV or play video games? Read lots and lots of books. I had already read all of Carl Sagan's books, all of Stephen Hawking's books, all of Jared Diamond's books, and many other similar popular science books by the time that I was 13. So, I was an absolutely massive science fanboy growing up.

I was also super liberal and politically conscious growing up because my parents and grandparents were heavily involved in donating to and campaigning for the DNC for decades. Some of my earliest memories were being dragged around the Presidential campaigns of Clinton and Gore back in the 1990s and getting a behind-the-scenes look at the Clinton/Gore administration - which was pretty cool.

That's why I was so fucking incensed to see these racist, redneck fucktards dare try to claim that the science was on their side. I wanted to completely annihilate their arguments, and so I read a small mountain of books and at least a hundred blog posts and online articles and watched several documentaries on this topic before coming to the literally physically painful conclusion that the evil, subhuman racists really did have the data on their side, and that my liberal side of the debate was spouting half-truths and flat-out lies in a desperate attempt to combat White supremacy and uphold their liberal egalitarian paradigm.

I basically went full Kraut & Tea for about half a year or so researching this topic in my free time, except that I actually had the intellectual honesty to admit that the racists were right. I actually genuinely and naively believed in the liberal mantra of being open-minded and following the evidence regardless of how unpleasant it might be to my own sensibilities - and it caused me to realize that racism, social Darwinism, and eugenics is scientifically justified...

So, that was quite the traumatic red pill... But I actually managed to remain a loyal shitlib for several more years despite that paradigm-shattering realization on such an important issue. And that's because it's extremely hard to escape the liberal ideological bubble. My brain had basically been marinating in liberal propaganda my entire life. And simply being a Republican was enough to become a social pariah in the kinds of far-left social circles that I existed in. My family and friends were liberal as fuck, the communities that I lived in were liberal as fuck, the private boarding schools that I attended were liberal as fuck, the authors that I read were liberal as fuck, the popular culture that I consumed was uniformly liberal as fuck, the news that I consumed was liberal as fuck, the university that I attended was liberal as fuck, et cetera.
Reading books from far-left ideologues like Noam Chomsky in middle school and high school actually caused me to become even more far-left in my teens. I was even borderline Antifa at one point. But it was traveling to former and current communist countries, walking through museums that were dedicated to exposing communist crimes against humanity, and reading critiques of the left (e.g., The Black Book of Communism) which caused me to gradually become disillusioned with the left as I started college.

But the last straw that finally broke the camel's back was the brutal murder of my liberal White best friend by a pack of 15 MS-13 illegal immigrant gang members when we were both sophomores in college. I had never even heard of MS-13. While researching them online, I came across a random blog post by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin that was basically sounding the warning bells about the dangers of MS-13 in the Washington, D.C. area and condemning the left for allowing violent illegal immigrant gang members to spread across previously idyllic American communities.

That blog post - which she probably didn't even put that much thought and effort into - completely broke me mentally. I could barely even look at the screen while reading it because I knew that just a few weeks ago I probably would have left an angry comment on her blog calling her a racist, right-wing asshole and hoping that she got hit by a bus for writing something that was so blatantly ignorant and bigoted.
I had also strongly supported open borders, multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, sanctuary cities, and amnesty. I was basically a global citizen of the world that supported a UN on steroids because I didn't think that global problems like climate change and inequality could be solved without much stronger global governance. I basically viewed nation-states as being these primitive, tribalistic relics that were enabling disease, income inequality, war, environmental destruction, and xenophobic racism.

After reading that blog post, I finally realized that my best friend's blood was on my hands because I had supported those dangerously retarded leftist policies. And I also finally realized that my leftist views were helping to completely ruin one previously serene White community after the next and sacrificing countless innocent White lives to the altar of diversity and anti-racism. I became completely radicalized against my former leftist comrades after I realized that they had taken advantage of my ignorance and innocent altruism by brainwashing me with such a dangerously suicidal and delusional ideology.

When I first left the left and joined "the dark side", I actually started out as a fucking neocon because neocons still dominated the conservative movement - and because I was reading lots of neocon journals and books as I was exploring right-wing ideology and right-wing critiques of the left. I also became an Islamophobe because I was reading Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch blog on an almost daily basis. And I even briefly became a non-Jewish Zionist because Zionist propaganda is omnipresent in the mainstream cuckservative movement, and especially in the Islamophobia community.
Robert Spencer and other Islamophobes constantly denounce racism and routinely spout the talking point that criticism of Islam has absolutely nothing to do with race; but brown- and black-skinned Muslims flooding into the White Western world and leeching off of our welfare states, filling our prisons, turning underage White girls into sex slaves, slaughtering us in terrorist attacks, aggressively shoving their way of life onto us, and openly declaring their desire to rule over us is obviously a racial issue.
That realization caused me to seek out moderate White "racialists", which is how I discovered Jared Taylor's work. The flawless logic of his arguments and his relatively moderate approach towards pro-White activism completely changed my perceptions of White nationalists. I quickly became a closeted White nationalist and race realist (I have to pretend to be a liberal in real life in order to avoid being socially ostracized). And then Richard Spencer's work impressed me back in around 2014, which caused me to join the Alt-Right.

As to the JQ; I was very close-minded and dismissive towards the JQ my entire life, even after I became a White nationalist. I basically viewed the JQ as extremely counterproductive conspiracy mongering which didn't have any merit and would only scare people away because it reeked of Nazism; but it was during a debate with a fellow White nationalist about 4 years ago where he recommended that I read Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, and so I did. That's one of those paradigm-shifting books which completely transforms how you view the world. I checked his references to see if they were actually true, and I was shocked to see that they were. I'll never look at Jews or the world the same way again after reading that book.
So, yeah - that's a really long-winded explanation for why I left the left and joined the Alt-Right.

LoP Guest #conspiracy lunaticoutpost.com

THEY HAVE PROGRAMMED 90% OF US ALL TO BE ____

FACEBOOK NARCISSISTS

SELFIE ADDICTS

OVER EATERS AND INGESTORS OF GARBAGE PROCESSED FOODS/SUGAR/CHEMICAL SO WE HAVE DIABETES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE , HEART DISEASE, CANCER

CONSUMERS OF PHARMACEUTICAL DRUGS TO TRY AND COUNTERACT THE NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS OF OUR DIETS

EMBRACERS OF PLEASING LIES

HATERS OF UNPLEASANT TRUTHS

WORSHIPPERS OF ALL MAN MADE FALSE RELIGIONS

LOW ENERGY AND LAZY ZOMBIES

COMPLETELY UNEDUCATED IN IMPORTANT THINGS LIKE HOMESTEADING, SELF SUFFICIENCY

RELIANT UPON TECHNOLOGY TO DO THINKING FOR US . MOST KIDS CANT EVEN DO SIMPLE MATH ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO CHEAT IN MATH CLASS WIT THEIR IPHONES AND CALCULATORS

Most of us have been molded, into useless, non thinking narcissitic mass consumers. Our stupidity, laziness, greed and ignorance of truths, only ensures that TPTB, will continue onwards with their agendas and enslavement of society.

Oh..and happy easter....that time of year to celebrate another religious lie/ fairytale. Dont forget to spend alot of shekels on easter candy, easter dinner , easter outfits, etc.

Carry onwards you dumb ass goyim.

The effectiveness of their programming.

You cant grow a succesfull garden to support your family..dont worry...its more important to watch monday night football or basketball games

You are way behind in your bills, in debt and no real savings ? dont worry, you can post some useless photos of yourself on your facebook page and have 20 phony facebook friends tell you how sexy you look, even though you are a ugly obese loser.

You caught the flu ? dont worry, you can ask your phony facebook friends to say a prayer for you.

Yes, the programming is almost complete.

Robert Lindsay #fundie robertlindsay.wordpress.com

Well then, let me ask you something. Would a 15 year old girl have the experience to be able to tell if a boy her age is approaching her with longer term or sexual interest in her and therefore she would associate with him as she would with someone else and let down her guard, without having complete knowledge and understanding the implications of what she is getting into? You say she is Little Miss Naivete. If so, why wouldn’t a slick teenage boy be able to groom her as well.

I myself had sex with a number of 15 year old girls between the ages of 18-20. Believe me, they knew what they were doing. They pretty much seduced me in most cases.

No how is it that a 30 year old woman can be molested again?

I think this whole thing is a mountain in a molehill. In the past few towns I have lived in, you honestly cannot even talk to underage girls, ever. People will get pretty upset if they even see you talking to them.

I learned this the hard way because I have always talked to everyone my whole life and I am comfortable around kids. So at the local coffee shop, I would try to make conversation with some of the girls in line or putting milk and sugar in their coffee. Well after a little while, these idiot kids started calling me “molester” apparently for doing nothing other than that. Then I figured out that it’s not ok for a man my age (or possibly any man, I have no idea) to talk to teenage girls without getting called a molester.

Now I live in a Latino town, and you still can’t talk to teenage girls. It’s basically impossible. You can’t even ask what school they go to or if they are in high school or college. Those are considered “molester” questions. It’s not even very easy to look at them. They’re about as off-limits as human beings can be. And this is a Latino town where nobody cares about much of anything, and a lot of people are poor.

Now given that that’s the way things are, the way I see it is that the vast majority of teenage girls getting involved with adult men these days know exactly what they are doing, and in fact the relationship is 100% consensual. I figure in most cases the girls probably even seduce the men. But I do not know how anyone pulls off any such relationship nowadays because I see these girls as not only untouchable but also untalkable. How likely are they to be “groomed” if you can’t even say Hi to them?

various incels #sexist #dunning-kruger #quack incels.co

(Silverandgold)
Even when I was younger and more of a normal man, not a sexually frustrated nihilistic misanthrope, I didn’t think rape was that bad. I thought it was wrong, like stealing a loaf of bread or maybe an expensive TV at worst, but I never thought it was a crime worthy of jail time. I never thought it was a crime that was unforgivable. I always thought it was ridiculous when rapists got lumped in with murderers and child molesters. Rape is really not that serious. Women just don’t like it because the men are ugly. If I was raped by an ugly woman, I would take it as a compliment. Now if she was really fat, elderly, and had smelly genitals that she forced me under gunpoint to lick, I would be mad. I would probably vomit. But I wouldn’t be traumatized for life or believe that the woman deserves to be in prison for 10 years. A hefty fine would be enough. Women who get raped are no virgins. women who get raped have sex with at least 10 men by age 20 so how is it traumatic to take just one more penis? It’s not. Women have too much time on their hands to dwell on things and become neurotic about unimportant situations. If women were in a tribe, they would get raped all the time and wouldn’t even care anymore after one point because they would have more important things to worry about like surviving in the harsh environment. By the way, I don’t want to rape anyone. It wouldn’t turn me on to be with someone who is repulsed by me. I Would never rape someone even if I could get away with it. I’m just thinking out loud. Rape isn’t that bad. By the way, I know a woman who got raped by a black man when she was a teenager and she turned out okay. She is a happy wife and mom now of 3 kids.

(mentalcel666)
depends on the rape, if the rape is brutal with alot of physical harm and injuries then there should be a prison sentence since its the same as assault or something.

but normal rape is just what all animals do, you think the dog or elephant waits for consent? no

same with early humans, im convinced most babies come from rape because woman had no protection from the law, so the strongest male could just take the women and rape her because he is stronger, and since there were no abortions back then they had to deliver the baby,

so most modern women are descendants of women being raped. thats why they like being submissive, its an evolutionary trait passed down from all the females that have been raped for thousands of years before the law was invented

(Dialgatime321)
LOL based, women know this is true, they just crave attention and validation and also shit-test constantly, and thus must always put max effort into appearing to be victims at all times.

My only problem with your post is when you claimed, "Women have too much time on their hands to dwell on things and become neurotic about unimportant situations. If women were in a tribe, they would get raped all the time and wouldn’t even care anymore after one point because they would have more important things to worry about like surviving in the harsh environment."

BS. They're not "neurotic", they don't mind it that much. They may convince themselves that they are victims, but deep down inside they know they're not. They don't "care", they're just using shit like #MeToo to shit-test and gain attention and validation, not to mention ensure that virgins can never ascend.
>Assuming women tell the truth when they say they don't like rape and it's "the most horrible thing ever"
:feelshaha::feelshaha::feelshaha:

One more note, men take care of women entirely, so they're entitled to pussy 100%. The only problem with rape is that it's disorganized, creates hierarchies, and instills no responsibility to caretake on the part of the rapist (there are a few more, can't think of them right now). Therefore, rape damn well should be illegal and is immoral, but under Betrev (beta revolution), women would be paired involuntarily with men who chose them based on a decision made by a bureau of deciding which man is more productive to society, and they would not be obligated to work (in fact making women enter the workforce would be illegal, JFL at MGTOW and MRA who want women to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and work just as hard as men, that will never happen and never should).

Women should not even be obligated to do housework, JFL at maledoms who think their "house/tradwaifus" aren't hiding broken glass in the couch cushions to shit-test. In return, every man is entitled to 1 sex a day, no strings attached.

Linda Goudsmit #fundie conservativenewsandviews.com

Religion and religious freedom gone wild

The First Amendment guarantees Americans the freedom of religion in the “establishment” clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Words matter, so the first question that must be answered is a matter of definition.

What is religion?

The dictionary defines religion as:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.
3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Dictionaries have been used for centuries to help codify the meaning of words in an attempt to make language useful. Without accepted specific meanings for words it is impossible to communicate through language effectively. Language is the common denominator of speech. Even biblical stories express the importance of the meaning of words as they are understood or misunderstood in any language. The most famous example is the biblical story of The Tower of Babel that begins with everyone on Earth speaking the same language and able to understand each other. Whether the scattering of people around the world was a punishment for hubris or not, the consequence was that people began speaking different languages and could no longer understand each other.

But what happens when people speaking the same language no longer understand each other because they interpret the meaning of the same words differently? That is the situation we are facing in contemporary American society today.

The second question that must be answered is a matter of interpretation.

What does religion mean to you?

Thomas Jefferson wrote eloquently on the subject in an 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists who worried about their minority status in Connecticut. Jefferson was reassuring the Baptists that being a minority religion would not be a problem in a Protestant majority state as far as the federal government was concerned.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. (Wikipedia)

Jefferson’s letter clearly indicates that for Jefferson, religion was a matter of Man and God. Jefferson’s interpretation was the widely accepted and understood view of religion in the early 18th century. By the 20th century the U.S. Supreme Court “incorporated” the Establishment Clause and expanded its application from the federal government to the state governments as well.

Practical application

The practical application of the freedom of religion also requires a uniform understanding of the meaning and interpretation of the word religion. The Exercise Clause clarifies the supremacy of Constitutional laws and freedoms over religious laws and freedoms. This is particularly important in contemporary America because we are facing “religious” practices of Islam that threaten our Constitutional freedoms.

The Free Exercise Clause distinguishes between religions beliefs and religious practices. It is the equivalence of distinguishing between thinking and doing. In America an individual is free to think murderous thoughts but he is not free to murder. Islam is a religion governed by religious Sharia Law that endorses honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage and pedophilia. American jurisprudence does not have the will or authority to change people’s beliefs. This applies equally to citizens of the United States, guests in this country, illegal aliens, or citizens of other countries. But we most certainly have the right and legal obligation to disallow any and all practices in conflict with the U.S. Constitution and our cultural norms. Free Exercise Clause (Wikipedia)

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”[28] In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, “would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”[29]

Words mean things

In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Free Exercise Clause to the states. While the right to have religious beliefs is absolute, the freedom to act on such beliefs is not absolute. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/case.html

In Jefferson’s time as in Truman’s time the meaning of the word religion included items 1 and 2:

1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.

Seventy years later in 2017 we must reconsider the meaning of the word religion and ask the question:

What is Islam?

Islam is not a religion like Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism. Instead, Islam is a unified supremacist socio-political system with a military wing and a religious wing. Islam features religious sharia law. The goal of Islam since the 7th century is to make the world Islamic and impose sharia law worldwide.

Islam is tyrannical in its demand for conformity to its barbaric sharia laws. It is also intolerant. Islam is a political force seeking world dominion. So we cannot allow it religious protections like the Baptists in Connecticut during Jefferson’s times.

Islam is far more like the Nazis during Hitler’s time. Consider this question. What if Hitler declared Nazism to be a religion. It certainly qualifies as a religion according to Item 3. A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes superhuman importance.

Suppose Adolph Hitler declared his Nazism a religion. Then would the left-wing liberal apologists for Islam defend Nazism? Would they defend its determination to rule the world and rid the Earth of every Jew? Would the lefty-wing liberals declare murder of Jews protected by religious freedom? How is this different from allowing Muslims to perpetrate honor killings, female genital mutilation, murder of apostates, murder of homosexuals, wife beatings, child marriage, and pedophilia?

There is no difference.

Apologists for Islamic barbarity claim that Islamists have perverted their religion. If so, it is also true that they have perverted our concept of religious freedom. Islam is not a religion like any other. Moreover its savage practices do not deserve protection under our religious freedom laws and the free exercise clause.

itisamuh #fundie mmo-champion.com

The only reason marriage gives financial benefits is because it's working under the assumption that they're preparing to raise a family. A gay couple can't have kids, and shouldn't be allowed to adopt, so that's out. Those financial benefits are also the only reason, aside from preparing a family, to get married in the first place. So if they were doing that, that's pretty much screwing over all single people. You'd have people, who aren't gay or in a relationship at all, just friends, getting married for those legal benefits. That's not right. It's taking something that's supposed to be meaningful and abusing it for personal gain. Oh, and because homosexuality is an unnatural taboo, and taboos shouldn't be supported or encouraged legally or socially. Standards in general seem to be losing their meaning in today's society.


what?
1) that's not the only reason, if you think it is, i'd like to see some backup. you make the claim, the burden of proof lies on you.
2) why shouldn't gays be allowed to adopt again?
3) straight people DO do that all the time, hell i knew people that would get married just so they could move off-base when they were in the military.
4) how is homosexuality unnatural again?
5) how is it a universal taboo? you're aware that taboos are a culturally distinctive thing, right? every culture has a different s


These threads always seem to get me in trouble, or at least annoyed, so this will probably be my last post. If you respond, I won't see it.

1. Don't spout off the burden of proof crap. I can turn that around and say prove that it's not the only reason. I can tell just by your lingo that you're probably an atheist.

2. They shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it's raising a kid in an improper environment by default. They'll be getting exposed to a lack of standards from the start. Sure, they may be nice people and mean well, but the child won't be receiving the full perspective. Granted, that often happens anyway, but that can't always be controlled. Adoption can be controlled, however. Since you like using scientific lingo, maybe you should check out the snowball effect. That's exactly what will happen if this kind of stuff gets encouraged and accepted more and more.

3. Yes, they do. It's unfortunate, but again, it's not always avoidable. That doesn't mean that we should promote something that's an exploitation literally every single time. Because, until you prove to me what other legitimate reasons there can be for a gay couple getting married, I'm standing by that statement.

4. Look around you. Whether you're religious or not, just look. Basically the entire world shows it. Males and females mate to continue their respective species. They pal around with their own gender, if they pal around at all, but when it comes to mating, they find the other. Sure, there are the occasional defects, but whether it's God's plan or nature's design, males and females were meant to mate. If everyone turned gay, there's the end of our species. That alone should be enough to prove it's wrong. Obviously not everyone will turn gay, but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged as okay. Sometimes standards should be upheld, even if some people don't like them. Not everything should be okay, and the line of what is and isn't shouldn't be so blurred. This has nothing to do with religion, just general principle and common sense. If people are gay regardless of it being unnatural, that's their call. People can be attracted to kids or their own siblings if they want to as well. That doesn't mean it should be supported.

5. In my society, up until this ridiculous social liberal movement, it was a taboo. It still is, in a lot of people's minds, including mine. I really don't care if other cultures agree, the one I live in is the only one that's relevant to me. Besides, as stated above, I'm basing my views off of obvious nature and common sense, not what society tells me is okay.

This is what baffles me about the liberal mentality. Not necessarily you, cause obviously I don't know you, in fact I don't even know that you're liberal, but their general attitude as a whole. They preach that nobody should be judged negatively for their beliefs, or preferences, or values, or anything else. No matter what. And on paper that's a good ideal, but then they turn around and negatively judge anyone who believes in upholding traditional standards. I'm sorry, if you're offended by my beliefs, agree to disagree I guess, but I will never change my mind on this. The fact that, if everyone was gay, the species would die out in a generation, is enough for me to decide that it's wrong. The fact that basically every species on the planet with male and female counterparts thrives on male and female mating is enough for me to decide that that's the way it's supposed to be, whether designed by nature or by God, whatever. It's got nothing to do with religion, at all. Drugs don't hurt anyone except the person using them, and that's their choice, but it's still illegal because common sense says it's wrong. Same thing here. But no, we're too worried about offending someone to have a right and wrong, beyond discouraging murder.

Jehovahnissi #fundie christianpost.com

A religious argument:
"My lover and I are in a monogamous relationship, and we truly love each other. That can't be wrong!"

This argument is misleading in that it assumes love sanctifies a relationship. It is hard these days to say love is not the final standard for right and wrong. Love is nice, after all; In our culture, it has been nearly deified as something so intense ans beautiful, it justifies almost anything done in its name. Love, in and of itself, does not make a relationship right. In fact, contrary to the touchy-feeling wisdom of this times, love is not always such a good thing.

Love can, according to Jesus, interfere with GOd's plan for an individual. He warns His followers that love for anyone, no matter how legitimate the relationship, becomes sin when it surpasses our love for Him (Matt 10:37). King Solomon, in a similar vein, loved his foreign wives. Problem was, they turned his heart away from GOd (1 kings11:3-4) In his case, love became a snare. Love is not enough to justify a relationship..Two men or two woman may be in love, pledging fidelity to each other and live as happily as any married heterosexual couple, but again, that will not, of itself, justify a homosexual relationship. Scriptures places boundaries on human relationships, offering no compromise, even if love is present and desires to cross those boundaries. If a form of sexual relating is wrong, it remains wrong no mater what degree of love goes along with it.

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.?

Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis #fundie hineni.org

[In response to news of a pride parade in Jerusalem:]

Even if the entire world regards homosexuality as a viable life option, we Jews live by a different code of rules. Our standards of morality emanate from our Torah, and not from that which is in vogue. Phrases such as "meaningful relationships", "moral relativism", "majority consensus" or "consensual relationships between adults" cannot suspend our laws. The Word of G-d stands eternally and calls upon man to temper his passions and live in sanctity.

AngelRho #fundie wrongplanet.net

The problem with this whole debate is that the real point is being missed. The REAL ISSUE is whether the district holds any responsibility for what happened. Passing the blame along to others is the worst way in the world to defend oneself against this kind of thing. It's like saying, "It's not our fault 'cause the devil made him do it." What she did or didn't do is IRRELEVANT as to whether they hold responsibility.

It might, though. If she knowingly acted in such a way to provoke a sexual encounter, perhaps a consensual one, then she wasn't even really raped.It's stupid for a teacher to fall for this crap, but any idiot, I don't care how old you are, can figure out if you have sex with a teacher, you automatically have that teacher by the balls. Heck, you don't even have to know the teacher or even be in the classroom. All you have to do is say "Mr. so-n-so raped me" and that teacher gets an unpaid administrative leave. A negligence defense could very well be what it takes to help prevent abuse of the system.

SHE WAS TWELVE.
No more needs to be said, but you keep on digging anyway:

It doesn't matter how old the person is. Consent means "no rape." Rape as commonly understood means that a sexual advance has been rejected and the attacker refuses to take "no" for an answer. That is what rape is. When you hear "no," you stop. Rape happens when you hear "no" and you do it anyway. A 12 year old who invites rather than rejects a sexual advance is consenting. And no, I don't care what the law says. Laws change. Now, sure, I acknowledge WHY we have laws, and setting AOCs avoid legal ambiguities. We accept that "12 year olds can't consent" to make it easier on ourselves when it comes to pursuing child exploitation in the justice system, but--I'm sorry--laws don't reflect reality. Kids have sex with each other before they're 12 years old. Kids that age even have sex with young adults and don't see anything wrong with it. And they don't call the cops. Unless someone tells them they should, or unless they think they have something to gain from it. They are remarkably intelligent, and I'm not sure you give them enough credit.[/b[

Kenneth Copeland and officials at Fort Jackson #fundie wistv.com

'Christian extremist' Kenneth Copeland's Ft Jackson appearances sparks protests
Tuesday, January 30th 2018, 9:31 pm EST
Tuesday, January 30th 2018, 10:00 pm EST
By Tanita Gaither, Digital Content Manager

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) -

Both military and veteran groups are protesting a well-known' televangelist's appearance at a prayer breakfast on Fort Jackson this week.

A number of veterans and military groups - including the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Forum on Military Chaplaincy, Vote Vets - have called for Fort Jackson to rescind the invitation from televangelist Kenneth Copeland. A petition has also started making the same request.

The prayer breakfast is scheduled for Thursday, Feb. 1.

Copeland - a member of President Donald Trump's faith advisory board - and longtime television preacher whose headquarters is in Fort Worth, TX, has made a number of claims in the past stating that the Bible says soldiers should not suffer or claim to suffer from a post-traumatic stress disorder.
In one 2013 sermon, the self-described "Christian extremist" cites Numbers 32: 20-22 as the verse to back his claim. The passage reads:

Then Moses said to them: “If you do this thing, if you arm yourselves before the Lord for the war, and all your armed men cross over the Jordan before the Lord until He has driven out His enemies from before Him, and the land is subdued before the Lord, then afterward you may return and be blameless before the Lord and before Israel; and this land shall be your possession before the Lord."

"Any of you suffering from PTSD I want you to listen to me right now," Copeland said in 2013. "You get rid of that right now. You don't take drugs to get rid of it, it doesn't take psychology - that promise right there [points to Bible] will get rid of it."

In a letter to Fort Jackson Commander Maj. Gen. John P. Johnson, MRFF President and Founder Mikey Weinstein asked that given PTSD is a recognized mental health disorder, why would Copeland even be allowed to be on post.

"If you trivialize PTSD, you trivialize the members of the military that have this very serious disease. Is he going to claim next that you can't have [a] traumatic brain injury? Is he going to say at Fort Jackson that PTSD doesn't exist?"

According to the National Institute of Mental Health, an estimated 3.6 percent of U.S. adults had PTSD in from 2016 to 2017. People who battle PTSD are not just veterans and soldiers - PTSD can occur when a person survives any traumatic event, such as a physical assault, car accident, or natural disaster.

Andrew Extein #fundie huffingtonpost.com

Why Queers Should Care About Sex Offenders
By Andrew Extein, MSW


“So, how are the pedophiles doing?”

As a group psychotherapist for convicted sex offenders on parole and probation who also operates a private practice for queer people, I am bombarded with comments and questions from friends and family:

“Aren’t you scared?”

“I could never do that.”

“What’s it like to talk to all those child molesters?”

At first I was surprised to hear some of my most educated, liberal friends ask questions that were, to me, biased and misinformed. I had assumed that, as queers and allies, my friends would have a greater sensitivity to the persecution sex offenders face in American society. I have since come to realize that queer folk are not more prone to find empathy for this population.

I often find myself feeling defensive, and almost guilty, in the line of such questioning. “So... why are you interested in them?” they ask, a look of distaste on their faces.

Here’s the thing: I don’t consider “them” my bizarre, special interest. All queer people are invested in the plight of sex offenders, whether they like it or not.

Deviance and the Dangers of Othering

Although I studied many subjects in college, my interest especially aligned with the radical thinking of my queer theories coursework. Queer theory obliterates the idea of good and bad sex and what should and should not be deemed deviant. As such, my courses covered gay history, the timeline of the gay rights movements, queer theory, and the burgeoning transgender studies, as well as genderqueers, kink, sexual fluidity, and asexuality.

But there was a strange silence in these class discussions as well. As my education continued, I began thinking about other people who transgressed cultural norms of sexuality, other people whose sexual desires had been labeled deviant — people who even queer theory courses weren’t talking about. There might be no group more maligned, marginalized, and disconcerting as modern-day America’s “sex offenders.”

In treatment, lawmaking, and cultural discourse, sex offenders are referred to as participating in deviant sexual behavior, having deviant sexual fantasies, and being inherently “deviant” themselves. From one angle, this is true; all sex offenders have deviated from the boundaries of one or more laws regarding sex or the body.

But sociologist Joel Best describes the problematic nature of how the term “deviance” is used in our culture. In his book Deviance, he emphasizes that “a deviant label was simply a sign that some groups with power had singled out some acts or conditions for disapproval.” The term means that, according to the rules of a powerful few, something is inherently wrong with you if you are not like everybody else. In other words, deviance becomes a viral social construct that serves as a moral imperative to dictate and intimidate people into behaving.

Queer theory has well documented how those in power have employed the terminology of deviance to oppress queers. In recent history, society has labeled gays, lesbians, and transgender folk as abnormal, problematic, and threatening. Gay men, for instance, threatened to lure, groom, and convert children into the homosexual lifestyle; they were not to be trusted or validated. At one point, they were considered mentally ill and criminal. Sex between consenting adult males was illegal and morally reprehensible and served to mandate a gay man to a mental hospital or jail cell. Gay men and trans people socially congregating in bars, such as at Stonewall, was a valid reason for police to raid, frisk, and arrest mass numbers of them.

This is an important part of history that needs to be retold, to serve as a reminder of what happens when authorities dictate the lives and behaviors of “deviant” populations. In fact, this history is still among us; trans, gay, and queer people are currently arrested and incarcerated at a rate disproportionate to the general population. In this infographic, the Sylvia Rivera Law Project outlines how trans and gender-nonconforming people are at a high risk of incarceration, police harassment, and violence. Despite the existence of these contemporary systems of inequality, I worry that in the era of gay marriage, pinkwashing, and assimilatory LGBT politics, we queers may be forgetting the dangers of othering.

Because there’s no use mincing words here: The same methods historically used by the government to imprison and pathologize homosexuality and gender variation are being used today to justify the extreme marginalization, lifetime institutionalization, and oppression of people who have violated sex laws. Sex offenders are the new queers.

Who Sex Offenders Are and What We Are Doing to Them

There is a widespread assumption that all sex offenders are child molesters, pedophiles, and violent rapists. This is not true. A large spectrum of acts are considered sex offenses. These include public nudity, urinating in public, public masturbation, peeping, photographing or videotaping without consent, consensual sex with a 17-year-old, sexting, and downloading unlawful pornography; many of these acts will put the offender on the public registry. There is no single “type” of sex offender; they can be from any walk of life, and any race, class, gender, or sexuality. They are fathers, mothers, brothers, teachers, and friends.

Let me be clear: I am not advocating for the legitimization of these acts as appropriate. A forceful, coercive, violent sexual assault is not to be tolerated. But I am saying that the public perception of the sex offender, and of the laws violated to become a sex offender, is inaccurate.

It is also important to explain the ramifications of this label. In California, many sex offenders must be publicly profiled for life on the online registry created as a result of Megan’s Law in 2004. In 2006, Jessica’s Law increased the penalties for sex offenders, created a residency restriction of 2,000 feet from parks and schools, and mandated GPS tracking for felony offenders. Chelsea’s Law further tightened the restrictions and increased monitoring.

The Supreme Court recently upheld a law that allows for the indefinite civil commitment of those sex offenders deemed unfit to reenter society. This means that they are placed in a forensic mental hospital for the rest of their lives, or until it is decided that they have been appropriately rehabilitated. Very few of these people have been released from civil commitment.

As a treatment provider for sex offenders, I have seen the effects of these punishments firsthand. One of the main issues faced is homelessness. According to the California Sex Offender Management Board, the number of homeless registrants rose from 88 to 6,012 in the five years after Jessica’s Law was enacted. It is almost impossible to find steady work as a felon, and especially difficult if you are listed on the public registry, photo and all. The sex offenders that I see have been socially ostracized, often by family and friends, and suffer from mental health issues such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. GPS units, parole visits, and yearly registration serve as constant reminders of their crimes, their victims, and their newfound labels as deviants with no hope of recovery.

However, it is a misconception that the majority of sex offenders reoffend, as the actual number is around 2 to 5 percent for recidivism from a sex crime. A 2008 study by the California Sex Offender Management Board reports 3.38 percent of sex offenders released in 1997 and 1998 were convicted of a new sex offense in the decade after release. A far larger number reenter the prison system as a result of parole violations, an understandable sum considering the severity and rigidity of parole terms.

The sex offender treatment models currently in use are mostly based in cognitive behavioral therapy, helping offenders reevaluate their thoughts and beliefs and make healthier decisions to reduce risk of reoffense. Despite this good-natured approach, these treatment models still speak of sexual deviance. One manual recommends ammonia aversion therapy, in which the offender repeatedly inhales ammonia while reciting his most “deviant” sexual fantasies. The intended goal — to rid the offender of whatever sexual desire is deemed unhealthy or deviant by the treatment provider — echoes gay conversion therapy methods. If queer theory allows for one’s right to a diversity of sexual desire, shouldn’t we question the “reprogramming” of an offender’s sexual feelings?

The main problem with the ammonia aversion therapy is that it presupposes that the sexual feelings motivate and explain the crime. It assumes that if you rid the sexual desire, then you rid the possibility of criminal sexual activity; sexual feelings are understood as uncontrollable dictators of sexual activity. If a man has sexual feelings for children, it is assumed that he is at a high risk of nonconsensual contact with a child. As such, sex offender treatment emphasizes sexual desire as a motivator for a sex crime over other factors, such as low impulse control, a history of trauma, lack of social support, and emotional instability. “Deviant” sexual desire is thereby equated with criminal sexual activity. This is a dangerous stance, as it heightens paranoia and fear in our culture’s understanding of all abnormal sexual feeling, thought, fantasy, belief, or identity.

Why Queers Should Care

Any queer person should feel a pang of familiarity reading about the vilification of people based on sexual desire. At one point, the idea of the predatory, untamable homosexual was a widely held belief; the very fact that a man would think of desiring another man was reason enough to criminalize his existence. Whether growing up in the early 20th century or the early 21st century, a cultural condemnation of queer desire, affect, and identity is consistently reaffirmed.

While mainstream cultural perception of queer people is shifting, it affirms monogamous sex between married, consenting gay and lesbian adults. Gender variation and other forms of sexual desire and behavior, including heterosexual female desire outside of monogamy, still face condemnation. If queerness is teetering on the edge of what culture says is deviant, othered, or wrong, an alliance across marginalized communities is vital for acquisition and maintenance of civil liberties for all.

I need to emphasize that many sex offenders are queer themselves. Many gay men, lesbians, and trans women are labeled sex offenders as a result of survival sex, prostitution, cruising, and public sex. Many queer people don’t realize the legal risks associated with a number of cultural behaviors that have become somewhat normalized, such as public cruising.

A recent example of criminalizing queer relationships is the case of Kaitlyn Hunt. Kaitlyn is a now-18-year-old girl who is being charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery of a child resulting from an allegedly consensual relationship with her 15-year-old girlfriend. The Internet has seen a groundswell of support for Kaitlyn, finding her persecution homophobic, unfair, and misguided. This reaction is certainly warranted and points to a larger issue with age-of-consent legislation. This type of legal action takes place all the time, in all types of communities, resulting in new sex offenders to label, monitor, and vilify. The case of Kaitlyn Hunt should open our eyes to the ways in which sex laws are abused in our country — not just for queers but for everyone.

The people we have labeled sex offenders are a multifarious group, with a wide spectrum of sexual desires. Empathy is needed for the group as a whole to ensure that they do not continue to be the cultural pariahs that we queers, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender folk once were, and arguably still are. If we allow for the continuation of inhumane imprisonment based on what dominant culture and the government deem “bad sex,” we put ourselves at risk of further condemnation.

Clearly this is a tricky, complex, and imperfect dialogue to be holding. But I fear that if we queers do not engage in conversations about moral gray areas and uncomfortable topics, we put ourselves at risk and lose the fervor, innovation, and critical thinking that once defined queerness.

Jean-Batave Poqueliche #conspiracy returnofkings.com

12 Methods America Is Using To Turn France Into A Globalist Nightmare

Uncle Sam eats your children and you pass him the salt

Recently, Roosh shared with me an article in three parts on a conference that took place in Paris in 2010, initiated by the US ambasador to France, Charles Rivkin and aimed at many influencal figures of the state. The goal of this confidential conference was to deconstruct the French identity and sovereignty through different actions.

The document was released on Wikileaks and can be found here. It is a written proof of the will of the American government and investors to interfere in the domestic affairs of our sovereign state, something that we see in our daily lives. Here are the fields on which the multicuturalist and globalist decisions maker focus:

1. School

Being a former teacher, I noticed the introduction of constant changes since my youth and the education I received. An even stronger cultural masochism is taught to our kids at school. Racist and racism are the almighty go-to words that instantly discredit the hour-long argumentation of anyone, even when backed with research and scientific proof.

Educational lobbies are changing the school programs to teach the glory of African kingdoms and the expansion of Islam, instead of French history and civilization. Leftists call anyone who wants to focus on native history and its figures a “neo-colonialist.” As French polemicist Eric Zemmour puts it, destroying “the French National epic” and its heroes is the goal. The Rivkin program also includes redefining French history in the school curricula to give attention to the role of non-French minorities in French history.

The decision of teaching more about Arab kingdoms than French kings belongs to the current Minister of education, formerly Minister of Women’s rights, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a short-haired Arab woman born in Morocco who became French because her dad worked in France. She is fighting against sexism and inequality, is pro-abortion and stumps for the rights of the gay and transsexual lobby. I am obviously expecting an unbiased decision.

Rivkin states in the report of the conference, that the 1,000 American English language teachers employed at French schools will be provided with the propaganda materials necessary to inculcate the desired ideals into their French pupils.

2. Kids shows

The earlier the better. Back when I was a child, the cartoons I watched depicted mighty heroes crushing the enemy, often bloodily. There was a conflict between good and evil and a lesson taught. The story had a beginning, a chain of events, and an end. Now every episode has too many characters (all diversity-approved) who are often weak, but that’s ok because everyone is nice and worrying about the unknown is intolerant. The creators teach children that being a weakling is not a problem and that working on your looks is not important because true beauty is in the heart.

As the son of an ambassador, Rivkin had no experience in foreign policy and diplomacy. He was appointed because he had experience in including multiculturalist propaganda in kids’ shows and being the CEO of the Wildbrain company, which created Yo Gabba Gabba! among other things. Watch an extract of the show if you don’t know it, you will understand what I mean.

[...]

4. Food

The phenomenon of “malbouffe” (junk food) is smearing our rich culinary culture and became an essential part of our young people’s social life and diet. Coca Cola, McDonald’s, and other giants advertise everywhere and fast food “restaurants” just pop out of nowhere, even in the remote countryside. So does liquid sugar merchant Starbucks and its open support to homosexuals.

Our national agrarian system is now invaded by pesticides and automated agriculture. The opponents of it are quickly silenced. With the GMOed Frankenstein turnips and corn created in American labs, the plants mutate and the people will soon pay the price.

Small local producers disappear and the large companies put what they want in the food. We are still slightly protected by our national laws on food quality and protected labels. But for how long?

5. Influence on native youth

The Hipster-loving, tattoo-sporting, slut-celebrating culture as reached them and they love it. It makes them feel so special. So did lesbian and pansexual attention whoring of the girls, taught by pornography and the Hollywood crowd.

Promiscuity is on the rise, thanks to apps such as Tinder, the fashion of selfies, likes, attention-whoring, nudes sent on smartphones, Sex In The City, Instagram and the promotion of the hook-up culture, even if the young girls become more feminists. It goes only one way: against men.

The destruction of the nuclear family model and healthy relationships between men and women is the objective. The global culture turns our girls into unfuckable modern art masterpieces and our lads into fragile chicken-legged boys in skinny jeans and snapbacks for the urban predator to rob and attack.

6. Hollywood culture

The Hollywood sphere keeps unloading its filth in France. Open homosexuality, metrosexuality, narcotic abuse, along with Pitt-Jolie and their adopted African kids, brought around like a new handbag are everywhere in our tabloids. Everything they do is cool—changing religion like you change underwear, becoming a woman because you are bored, mudsharking, being gay as a three pound note. The words they say are followed by the mass like the bloody Gospel.

7. Destruction of nationalism

The civil rights and feminist movements that trampled the ideas of freedom of association and patriarchy inspired the plague that are the anti-whites of SOS Racisme (oh, the irony) and the anti-heterosexual male feminists of Ni putes, Ni soumises (“Neither Whore nor Submissive”).

Regionalists and nationalist movements and their sympathizers are filed by the police and intelligence services like they supposedly do with the potential jihadis.

Observe what happened in Corsica lately. The police services are moving heaven and earth to find the handful of men that broke into the Mosque and smashed the kebab place, but leave the youths that attacked the two firemen and the police officer that sparked the gatherings of the patriots in the first place. When a handful of Corsicans show more patriotic balls than millions of hand-holding JE SUIS CHARLIEs, there is an issue.

The objective detailed in Rivkin’s report is to monitor and counter any party that does not satisfy their agenda, namely nationalists and traditionalists, dubbing them “racist” and “xenophobic.” The words verbatim: “focusing on the decrease in popular support for xenophobic political parties and platforms.” This is to ensure that the program is working as it should to block the success of any “extreme” or “xenophobic” party that might challenge globalization.

8. Consumption

The consumerism brilliantly orchestrated since the end of World War II started with GIs distributing cigarettes and chocolate to French children after four years of rationing during the Occupation, and continues with the giant American corporations pushing us to purchase things we don’t need. Inside every French, there is an American trying to get out.

The explosion of advertising budgets of the likes of Pepsi, Kellogg’s, or McDonald’s shows it. Some courageous peasants lead by Jose Bové, seeing the threat, tried to take McDonald’s influence apart physically, by crushing one of their joints with their tractors. They failed, as they had limited means compared to the gigantic reserves of cash the corporation had.

Before, the French were champions of recycling and inventiveness. Now they throw away without repairing. There is an obsession with novelty and the newest gadgets. This also helps them collect your data and know your taste so they can propose more things to buy. “Oh you bought X Item, you will also like Y and Z item! Buy, buy, buy!”

9. Influence on non-native youth

The Quick burger chain in France now wants to have the cool halal image and will only serve halal meat in a few years. McDonalds France already serves halal meat but does not advertise it and admits serving it without explicitly warning their clients. So do KFC France and Flunch.

The halal market is a gigantic and lucrative one, as the client that buys it pays a tax directly to the mosques and their private funds on the pretext that they are the authorities that validate every kilogram of halal meat produced. Some large chains of supermarkets focus more and more on their halal clientele. In addition to the sanitary risks of halal slaughtering, the problem is that the natives have to adapt to the non-natives’ diet in the name of equality.

There is also a strong phenomenon of “thugization” of the black and Arab youths in the housing estates of the big cities. All of that thanks to the rap and gang culture, brought by American television shows and the gangsta clips on MTV.

10. Communication tools

The tablets and smart phones reach us younger and younger each year. Every schoolkid that can barely read already has a smartphone, an open door to porn, and the rest. Every family has one, and they replaced the baby-sitters.

Your position is always known thanks to your phone and they will listen to what you say if they want to. They know how many of you are in the house, what is your daily routine, what you buy, and what you read. The algorithms and data are kept.

The policy of “état d’urgence,” initiated following the Paris attacks, allows the government to bypass all the laws about digital privacy on the internet and is directly inspired by the Patriot Act that followed 9/11.

With the development of smartphone video games, more entertainment online, more immersive and time-consuming games where the mind is put on pause, you have fewer people thinking and questioning whoever is in charge.

11. Celebrations

Ah, Halloween. Another hardly disguised consumerist celebration. Occulting the autumn equinox and All Saints’ Day, trampling the tradition of family meals and flowering the graves of our loved ones, one pack of cheap lollies at a time. Overpriced costumes and diabetes for the kids, slutty behaviour and bad decisions for the grownups. Well, at least the pumpkin farmers thank you.

Santa Claus, invented by Coca Cola, pulverized Saint Nicolas that my father used to sing about and greet as a child. The cries of ungrateful brats under the Christmas tree because Barbie’s caravan does not include the picnic table replaced the Christmas carols. My grandfather used to say “When I was a child, we got an orange and a candy stick for Christmas. If we did not behave, we got a bag of coal. So don’t complain.”

[...]

Don’t be fooled—you are next on their list. Their end game is to submerge us into one big melting pot of global consumerism, to uproot every individual from an identity and heritage and replace that with the global shopping mall, and the “global village.”

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.


Nico Dacumos #fundie everydayfeminism.com

The article title is "Should Light-Skinned People of Color Voluntarily Exclude Ourselves from People of Color Spaces?"

Wouldn’t it be amazing if you could get all the cool stuff that Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) get? Like…

Richly artistic cultures that have been setting trends in music, dance, art, and fashion for hundreds of years
Ancient and powerful cultural and spiritual practices passed down through generations
Seasoned food

Without all the problems like…

Disproportionate incarceration and extrajudicial murder
Higher incidence of low self-esteem, depression, and suicide
Decreased life expectancy

There is a way to get lots of the good stuff and avoid lots (but not all) of the bad stuff!

It’s called being light-skinned or white-passing!

Really though. Don’t get mad, my fellow light-skinned and white-passing BIPOC. I’m not saying that we don’t face many of the same problems as other BIPOC. But it’s ridiculous to deny the fact that our experiences are easier than darker-skinned people’s.

There are too many concrete statistics to the contrary.

To be fair, us light-skinned and white-passing people cannot just snap our fingers and nullify colorism. We cannot return our privilege to the Privilege Store.

But, there are some things we can do to address our privilege, like not automatically assuming that we are entitled to be in all BIPOC spaces all the time.
Are Separate Spaces Based on Race Racist?

Dig, if you will, the picture:

A group of gazelles gathers by the watering hole to strategize about how to avoid being eaten by lions. Also just to kick it and admire each other’s stripes and horns.

A group of lions gathers on the plains to strategize about how to catch and eat gazelles more effectively. Also, just to play a round of golf and talk about wealth management.

Lions find out about gazelles gathering together and get very upset, calling the gazelle’s separatist meeting unfair and reverse speciesist. They demand that lions be able to attend gazelle meetings!

After all, aren’t gazelles allowed to attend lion meetings? It’s just a coincidence that gazelles who attend lion meetings sometimes get mauled and eaten.

You think I’m being funny but I’m not.

See, the way that this society is set up, Black, Indigenous and People of Color — especially those who are Black and Brown with darker skin tones — spend an inordinate amount of time trying to avoid the dangers of racism that are instigated by white people.

Meanwhile, the reaction of your typical white person to BIPOC expressing the levels of anxiety and terror they must manage while navigating emotionally, economically and physically violent white supremacist spaces is ¯\_(?)_/¯.

Pop Quiz!

In this context ¯\_(?)_/¯ means:

IDGAF
Hands thrown up incredulously as if to say, “I don’t know understand why you feel that way! I don’t see color!”
“Why couldn’t Kanye just accept that Taylor was the better artist? What’s the problem?”
All of the above.

Answer Key

Why, when BIPOC decide to gather for various reasons in the face of a society that systematically seeks to subjugate them, is it such a problem for white people?

Could it be that white people are afraid of what could happen if BIPOC divested from white institutions and ways of being and sought self-determination and independence instead?

BIPOC throughout history have spent much time and energy building our own spaces only to be met with disapproval, petty meddling, violent threats and horrific violence.

In the face of all this, BIPOC have even taken the time to explain to white people and our own people why it is okay and possibly advantageous to have separate spaces.

Yet we still encounter white people who want to know why it’s okay for BIPOC to gather but not okay for white people to form their own separate groups.

Problem is when white people gather separately we end up with groups like the KKK, Stormfront and the Trump White House (please avoid ‘splaining about how the cabinet is not actually completely white).

Bottom line: When life, wellness, and happiness are at stake, Black, Indigenous and People of Color have a right to gather without white people in order to address issues that are important to them.

Or even just to gather socially without the fear or inconvenience of having to worry about whether white people will insult them or act awkward.

Similarly, darker-skinned BIPOC may also desire spaces where they can process and organize around the unique issues they face because of their closer proximities to Black and Indigenous skin tones and facial features and that us lighter-skinned people do not have to worry about.
I’m Stalling

It’s easy to create a funny and provocative headline before you have to actually write it. Then you talk about it with people and realize that everyone has so many feelings. But feelings are okay, even my own, so let’s keep going.
Psst… I’m Not Making This Issue Up

In some areas, separate spaces are simply not possible because of lack of large populations of BIPOC. So this question is a moot point.

However, I have lived in the San Francisco Bay Area for the last 11 years, a place considered a mecca for social justice activism and vibrant BIPOC culture. I have been a part of many groups and events organized exclusively for BIPOC.

And every time I have been a part of putting together or attended such a gathering, the issue of whether very light-skinned or white-passing BIPOC should attend has come up.

At the very least, people have expressed annoyance that white-passing people seem to feel entitled to BIPOC spaces and/or get upset if someone questions whether they are BIPOC.

While some might argue that such comments are petty or inconsequential, I think it’s worth taking a pause to consider any issues that darker-skinned BIPOC bring up regarding colorism.

Besides, these tensions make sense since they arise out of the reality that colorism has been present since the first times Black and Indigenous women were raped by white men during colonization and slavery and then gave birth to mixed-race children.

To this day, light-skinned and white-passing BIPOC still receive economic and social advantages over their darker brethren despite all the writing, scholarship and discussion around colorism that is out there.

It must be very frustrating to know that someone of the same race as you can enjoy benefits that you cannot access and to know that they never have to worry about things that you worry about every day simply because of the lightness of their skin and facial features that are considered “finer” — AKA more European.

It might also feel startling to walk into a space that was advertised as BIPOC-only and see blond-haired, blue-eyed people who look whiter than the marshmallows in an Ambrosia salad.

Rather than being defensive or complaining about how we are being excluded from spaces, light-skinned and white-passing people might take a moment to think about what the impact of our presence is in the spaces that we inhabit.

Because let’s face it, us light-skinned and white-passing BIPOC — especially those with white parent/s — still get pretty defensive sometimes when BIPOC vent about the racism or poke fun at the cultural habits of white people.

Other BIPOC don’t really deserve to have to deal with our growing pains of sensitivity, defensiveness, and fragility when they were hoping to be in spaces that are safe from racist or colorist microaggressions.
Appearance Vs. Identification

Because identity is considered deeply personal, we are discouraged from questioning another person’s identity.

Being able to determine whether someone appears to be Black, Indigenous or a Person of Color is complicated and contested, and often depends on many different factors and contexts. For example, some BIPOC may only be seen as such when they are with other BIPOC.

But the examples of former NAACP leader Rachel Dolezal and respected Indigenous Studies scholar Andrea Smith, people who were enriched through claiming BIPOC identities even though they may not have any BIPOC ancestry, have highlighted that there might be a problem with uncritically accepting self-identification.

However, we know that one’s race and skin tone determines material factors such as health, income, and life expectancy, so to pretend that how one is perceived by the world at large has no correlation to how one might choose to identify doesn’t make sense either.

If a person has a BIPOC parent or grandparent and looks white, is treated as a white person, and was raised culturally white for most of their life with little exposure to other BIPOC, where does one draw the line?

Part of the problem may be that in the US we tend to talk as if race, ethnicity, and culture are equivalent, rather than related.

For example, a person can have mostly white European ancestry but due to their family immigrating to a Latin American country, may have been raised Latinx and strongly identify with Latinx culture.

Generally, Latinx people in the US are considered BIPOC. So a person with mostly European ancestry could be BIPOC in this instance and may show up to the next Black and Brown kick back wearing hoop earrings and a huipil blouse.

Does this section make you feel uncomfortable? It makes me feel uncomfortable! Maybe that means we are getting somewhere.

Or maybe it just means that this is a fraught subject. No one wants to go around policing membership into BIPOC-ness when it was white supremacy that created these imaginary categories in the first place.
These Final Thoughts Will Probably Not Feel Very Satisfying But They Are Important

Should you exclude yourself from people of color spaces as a light-skinned or white-passing person?

I can’t answer that for you. There may be no answer.

However, problems arise when us light-skinned and white-passing BIPOC fail to ask ourselves this question or freak out when others ask it.

Next time, before entering a BIPOC space, I would like to encourage light-skinned and white-passing people to read this helpful article by transpinay philosopher b. binaohan and consider the following questions:

Why do I want to be a part of these spaces?

Is it solely to be accepted, to be reassured by other BIPOC that I belong?

Is it to build community with the loved ones and inner circles of people who constitute the spaces in which we might have the most impact in our work to change the world?

Is it to hold space and compassion for the anger and resentment that darker-skinned Black and Indigenous people might have as a result of bearing the brunt of white supremacy’s abuses?

Is it to build solidarity with BIPOC communities so that we can fight injustice together?

Is it to move back by not dominating discussions and not rushing to take on leadership roles that could be filled by darker-skinned people?

Is it to humbly ask what we can contribute to the struggle?

Is to strategize around how we can use our perceived proximity to whiteness in order to destabilize white Supremacy?

***

I think you know where I’m going with all this, right? Humility, compassion, and patience are traits all people to strive toward, but it may just be a prerequisite for those of us with more power seeking connection, support, and solidarity from our communities.

Feeling entitled to space and the emotional labor of reassurance or favorable treatment is what often gives us light-skinned and white-passing BIPOC a bad name.

So keep this in mind — it may just be the reason why your people give you side-eye when you walk into a room.

ghostrecon #fundie debate.org

It's nothing wrong as long as long as relationship is consensual ,but it's only wrong if the relationship was by force. While in my opinion 13 years old are mentally mature enough to understand the act and consequences as well in making decision.So they can consent.

AwesomeMachine #fundie christianforums.com

When a person has sex alone, they are not alone. There is some love object focused on, which is an object of assumed beauty. The bitterness of a beautiful thing, which in the end is empty, is that it is a lie. Lies open a door to demons. When a person orgasms, if they are not orgasming with their spouse, they are opening the door to being made love to by demons. So enslaved do people become to these, that they may actually forgo natural intercourse, with a spouse, in favor of making love to demons. This type of enslavement is very difficult to break. When you have demons attached to your sex drive, they are deeply entrenched in your carnal will. This causes the flesh to rise up with pride, shunning the health of the spirit. The physical body then takes over, and lusts of the flesh succeed in destroying the individual. There is only one time sex with yourself is innocent. That is the first time. All successive sessions are based on the first one, and are no longer innocent.

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.

NSFL Award

Trigger Warning: Everything

pfta2a #fundie reddit.com

Children can never be sexual in our society because they cannot consent

Children are sexual. Just because society attempts to reject that fact, doesn't make it less of a fact. There is also no evidence that consensual early sexuality will screw up a child's life. Consensual sex play (or even consensual sex) between children is generally accepted as beneficial by child psychologists. It helps them learn about sex and also helps them to accept sex as natural and not something to be ashamed of.

Age of Consent laws are a problem because they don't account for child sexuality. You may believe that an adult should not be allowed to have sex with a child, but two children should be able to have sex without both of them being considered rapist.

Fuckin' gross, dude. Children develop sexually and sexuality. Like their other various forms of intelligences, they start simple and grow over time, so that at any observed moment, their level of sophistication falls on a continuum.
This does not mean that a statement like "children are sexual" is in any way, shape, or form correct or, considering what the likely motivation behind such a statement is, anything less than fucking abhorrent.
Consign yourself to a deserted island, you shitty predator. Any adult who takes and active and undue interest in children's sexuality is doing so for self-serving reasons, and needs to be monitored and contained. If you don't take steps to keep yourself physically removed from sources of temptation (in this case, meaning those not yet experienced, mature, or savvy enough to recognize your advances and protect themselves from your overtures), society needs to do it for you.

Did you know that most babies (under 1 year old) learn to touch their genitals as a form of pleasure. They can't orgasm at that age, but they can find the sensation pleasurable. In many cultures, parents also touch the genitals to sooth and comfort a baby.

Touch is healthy, especially from people you are comfortable with. Babies perceive (edit: non-forcible) touch to their genitals as pleasurable, unless they are taught not to. In sexually permissive cultures, children can learn to masturbate (for pleasure) by the age of 6 to 8. Children begin engaging in coitus by the ages of 6 or 7.

We live in a society that deliberately teaches children not to be sexual. We create a taboo around sex and sexuality, especially in regards to children. So in our society children are perceived as non-sexual, because we teach them not to be. We teach them that they should feel guilt or shame about sex. Many are harmed by this view; adults who grow up with feelings of guilt or shame about their sexuality. Children who are imprisoned or on the sex offenders list because they acted sexually.

Also I'm not going to have sex with a child. I believe that in our society the potential for harm to her from external pressures (society, therapist, law enforcement) is too great.

Men don't need to be removed from women because they are a source of temptation and might rape them. I don't need to be removed from association with kids, because I will not rape them. In another society I would be willing to have consensual sex with a child, but not in this one. I'm not will to risk the harm that society would do to her if they found out, even if she was a willing and enjoyed the act itself.

is the very definition of predatory, no matter what nickerson and the other virpeds say.

The VirPed's (who are anti-contact - which is to say they believe sexual contact between adults/children is always harmful) do not say this. The pro-contacter's do (which is to say, we believe sex between an adult and child would be non-harmful and even beneficial if social and legal views changed).

Sexual education and the ability to form their own moral compass in regards to sexual activity is very important.

But society does not allow them to form their own moral compass. It gives them the moral compass. It starts when a parent pushes their babies hand away from their genitals and continues throughout childhood as children are actively discouraged from exploring their own sexuality and are not answered when they ask about sexuality. Sexuality and especially child sexuality are taboo in our society.

However, they should be able to discover these things in their own way, at their own pace, with their peers.

I almost agree, I would say with whomever they choose, rather than their peers. Let them form their own moral compass, let them act on that moral compass. Even if their moral compass permits sexual contact with an adult. As noted above, our society does not do this. Our society pushes them away from self-discovery, purposefully slows their pace and discourages sexual interactions with others (especially adults).

taking advantage of a child if they had physical relations.

Why? What makes sex so special? An unrelated adult can have a emotional relationship, a friendship, even a physical but non-sexual relationship. Or should all adults avoid unrelated children unless it is a professional relationship with that child?

OSUK #fundie buckeyeplanet.com

it's okay to molest your siblings but gawd forbid you have an extramarital affair with a consenting adult

I saw a montage of liberal reaction to this family. No reasonable person could observe those reactions and call it anything but hate - written all over their faces, wrapped around every word, and seeping out of every pore. Only liberals can miss the irony of being the epitome of hateful while accusing others of being hateful.

Are you saying Josh is the monster, or all this publicity is the monster? I agree, if you mean the latter. A friend of mine literally lived and worked with Josh Duggar for a year when Josh was in his early 20's. He told me that Josh is one of the finest people he has ever been around. More than anything, that's what makes me think Josh was failed by his parents, his father in particular, in preparing him to deal with sexual issues, but despite some missteps by his parents, he was able to correct the problem by age 15, and I have a big problem defining the man now by what that boy did. I suspect none of us want to be judged that way.

The allegation of a cover up ("family buried it") seems to have no basis. A state trooper friend was consulted, their pastor and a group of close friends knew, they sought out a mentor, professional counsellors were used, and the parents took their son to the local state police post to report the behavior. If that's a cover up, it's a very poor one. The other sense you may mean "buried it" could be that the family tried to forget about it. That could be true, and it could be appropriate. Forgiveness and restoration could look like burying it, or be characterized as that, but it could also mean that the issue was dealt with successfully, and the matter put and left in the past. Going by the victims' statements, they love their brother, do not carrying resentment of him, and deny any unresolved emotional issues.

[Josh Duggar has held himself out there to be an moral arbiter in judgment of others. I can't even begin to feel the slightest bit of sympathy that he, personally, has to go through this.]

I have real trouble understanding how a child's sin negates his ability to hold and promote moral views as a man. I sense there is a standard being applied here that no one would apply to themselves. It would be like this if I were a public figure: Q: How do you feel about the morality of capital punishment? A: I can't hold a public view on that because I groped a girl in the 8th grade. Huh? Now, if as a 50 year old man I am molesting 8th grade girls, then I would have to agree that I have no standing to advocate any moral position. There is a logical gap/leap some anti-Duggars are taking right on this point.
This gets to one of the roots of the controversy and division this story has created.

It's basically the hypocrisy argument: "If you have ever had a moral failure, you are disqualified from holding any public moral view, and advocating for that view."

Which, of course, is total nonsense. The argument imposes on anyone who holds a public moral view a claim of moral superiority, if not moral perfection. The Duggars would, in fact, claim the opposite. A fundamental element of their faith would be that they are morally broken and imperfect people, and that the only way to be whole is through faith, but that while they have a living body, they are susceptible to wrong-doing. Because of this reality, they need moral boundaries to keep from harming themselves and others. Josh violated those moral boundaries, and he hurt himself and others. This is evidence of his imperfection, and it also demonstrates the need for those boundaries. It does not negate the need or diminish the quality of the moral standard itself, but rather shows why the standard is needed. If I strive to live by that standard, and so do my neighbors, and the people I work with, and all the other community members I come into contact with, we individually and collectively create a very good place for human beings to live with one another, in spite of the occasions where those standards are violated. So, you would want to advocate the setting of those standards for the benefit of yourself and everyone around you. You can't demand those standards are codified into law, although many are (don't murder, steal, lie), but every community has an ethos that defines it - what it values and discourages - and someone with views like the Duggars want that view to have a seat at the public table - not that they are perfect, because they are imperfect like everyone else - but because they feel the moral standard they hold is good for them and everyone around them. They would recogize that others would have other standards, and that a societal consensus may not want to adopt their standard. That's how democracy and freedom works.

But when we require moral perfection for one to hold moral public views, we are simply shaming with the label of hypocrisy in order to prevent a moral standard from being heard. That's not real democratic or freedom-honoring. The hypocisy argument is intended to discourage anyone from holding a public moral veiw they disagree with, since there are no morally perfect people. It's simplistic and inane, but there are a ton of people who buy it and repeat it.

By definition, hypocrisy can only exist where people are trying to live by a higher moral standard than what basic human nature provides. If you believe promiscuity is good for you, and you try to have sex with every woman in the bar, then you are not a hypocrite. But if you are the Sunday School teacher who has promoted sobriety and sexual purity, and you do the same, then you are a hypocrite. So, you see what your standard is determines whether hypocrisy exists. But again, the SS teacher's hypocrisy is only evidence of his imperfection, but does not prove that the standard is faulty. The choice is one in which we opt for a society with the lowest moral standards and no hypocrisy or one with high moral standards with hypocrisy. I'll take the latter, but I understand many prefer the former.

Idealogies clash - political and religious ones in particular. I have contempt for leftist and secular ideologies because I have seen that they are dangerous and destructive (as are some on the other side), and contempt for those from that bent who promote those beliefs through intolerance, hatred, name-calling, personal attack, and throwing fits like spoiled children - essentially what we are seeing in how they are treating this family. On the other hand, I cherish every one of my liberal friends who can sit down over a cup of coffee, make an intelligent argument, and teach me something. By definition, you can only learn something from someone who knows something you don't, or has a perspective you don't know about. Liberals have taught me a ton. Critics will point out to you the weaknesses in your thinking and confirm your strengths. In some cases, I have changed my thinking in subtle or drastic ways, or found confirmation in what I held. It's a great process, but I suspect very few people ever do it.

As for Josh's rehabilitation, you are aware that he received professional counselling, or not? I will assume that you do not claim the same kind of faith as the Duggars, so how can you judge what their faith principles and prayer can and cannot do? What we know now is that there has not been any reported repeat offences for over a decade. The people who know him best say he was/is a changed person. So, who do we believe? Who would have the proximity to make a reasonable judgment on that? I looked it up. The recitivism rate for those in Josh's category is much lower than what I assumed - around 10-15%. So, kids have issues, they get help, and the vast majority do really well going forward. I think we should be very careful about wanting to tattoo the label of "sexual offender" or "child molester" on a man who did what Josh did as a child.

Your noting all the mandatory reporters out there is a good point. I am a mandatory reporter. Because of my job, and my volunteer work with the juvenile court, I deal with social workers, psychologist, psychiatrists, probation officers, and various law enforcement every week. Some of the most outstanding people I know fill those roles, and I love using them to help people and families. The reality is that there are also some who are complete nuts - who I wouldn't want within 10 miles of any child. The minute you report, as a parent, you have no control over the situation. People who do not know you, and you don't know, begin to make decisions about what will happen to your children - what kind of punishment and treatment they will get, and whether they can remain in the home and under what circumstances. Knowing what I know, I would have never gone to the police or any mandatory reporter in this particular Duggar scenario (more violent or drastic offences, I would). I would have first tried to deal with it through parental action, mentoring, and probably a trusted expert who would help without reporting for a limited term (delay the reporting). If that worked, then the reporting could happen later. If it didn't, then you have to let the state have their shot. But it's so easy to tell other people to turn their children over to the state. It's a completely different story when it's your child. Given what I've seen, you would be a fool to do that in a situation like the Duggars found themselves in. Yes, I know what the law is, and there are good reasons for it, but as a dad I have to do what is best for my children, and so, yes, I would definitely skirt it, delay it, or whatever I had to do. The mandatory reporting system itself discourages reporting by parents because of what can happen after - and that creates tragedies when the problem is not solved and it never reaches the authorities.

Well, the Ashley Madison leak reveals that Mr. Josh was cheating on his wife. Now, before anyone goes off in a wrong direction, I do consider child molestation worse than infidelity, but I have no respect for a man who cannot keep his word to his wife and be faithful. Josh may have conquered his sexual curiosity about his sisters, but he did not conquer his desires for sex outside of the boundaries. You won't hear me defending him or his parents.

Eliezer Yudkowsky #crackpot #fundie lesswrong.com

The Dilemma: Science or Bayes?

"Eli: You are writing a lot about physics recently. Why?"

— Shane Legg (and several other people)

"In light of your QM explanation, which to me sounds perfectly logical, it seems obvious and normal that many worlds is overwhelmingly likely. It just seems almost too good to be true that I now get what plenty of genius quantum physicists still can't. [...] Sure I can explain all that away, and I still think you're right, I'm just suspicious of myself for believing the first believable explanation I met."

— Recovering irrationalist

RI, you've got no idea how glad I was to see you post that comment.

Of course I had more than just one reason for spending all that time posting about quantum physics. I like having lots of hidden motives, it's the closest I can ethically get to being a supervillain.

But to give an example of a purpose I could only accomplish by discussing quantum physics...

In physics, you can get absolutely clear-cut issues. Not in the sense that the issues are trivial to explain. But if you try to apply Bayes to healthcare, or economics, you may not be able to formally lay out what is the simplest hypothesis, or what the evidence supports. But when I say "macroscopic decoherence is simpler than collapse" it is actually strict simplicity; you could write the two hypotheses out as computer programs and count the lines of code. Nor is the evidence itself in dispute.

I wanted a very clear example—Bayes says "zig", this is a zag when it came time to break your allegiance to Science.

"Oh, sure," you say, "the physicists messed up the many-worlds thing, but give them a break, Eliezer! No one ever claimed that the social process of science was perfect. People are human; they make mistakes."

But the physicists who refuse to adopt many-worlds aren't disobeying the rules of Science. They're obeying the rules of Science.

The tradition handed down through the generations says that a new physics theory comes up with new experimental predictions that distinguish it from the old theory. You perform the test, and the new theory is confirmed or falsified. If it's confirmed, you hold a huge celebration, call the newspapers, and hand out Nobel Prizes for everyone; any doddering old emeritus professors who refuse to convert are quietly humored. If the theory is disconfirmed, the lead proponent publicly recants, and gains a reputation for honesty.

This is not how things do work in science; rather it is how things are supposed to work in Science. It's the ideal to which all good scientists aspire.

Now many-worlds comes along, and it doesn't seem to make any new predictions relative to the old theory. That's suspicious. And there's all these other worlds, but you can't see them. That's really suspicious. It just doesn't seem scientific.

If you got as far as RI—so that many-worlds now seems perfectly logical, obvious and normal—and you also started out as a Traditional Rationalist, then you should be able to switch back and forth between the Scientific view and the Bayesian view, like a Necker Cube.

So now put on your Science Goggles—you've still got them around somewhere, right? Forget everything you know about Kolmogorov complexity, Solomonoff induction or Minimum Message Lengths. That's not part of the traditional training. You just eyeball something to see how "simple" it looks. The word "testable" doesn't conjure up a mental image of Bayes's Theorem governing probability flows; it conjures up a mental image of being in a lab, performing an experiment, and having the celebration (or public recantation) afterward.

Science-Goggles on: The current quantum theory has passed all experimental tests so far. Many-Worlds doesn't make any new testable predictions—the amazing new phenomena it predicts are all hidden away where we can't see them. You can get along fine without supposing the other worlds, and that's just what you should do. The whole thing smacks of science fiction. But it must be admitted that quantum physics is a very deep and very confusing issue, and who knows what discoveries might be in store? Call me when Many-Worlds makes a testable prediction.

Science-Goggles off, Bayes-Goggles back on:

Bayes-Goggles on: The simplest quantum equations that cover all known evidence don't have a special exception for human-sized masses. There isn't even any reason to ask that particular question. Next!

Okay, so is this a problem we can fix in five minutes with some duct tape and superglue?

No.

Huh? Why not just teach new graduating classes of scientists about Solomonoff induction and Bayes's Rule?

Centuries ago, there was a widespread idea that the Wise could unravel the secrets of the universe just by thinking about them, while to go out and look at things was lesser, inferior, naive, and would just delude you in the end. You couldn't trust the way things looked—only thought could be your guide.

Science began as a rebellion against this Deep Wisdom. At the core is the pragmatic belief that human beings, sitting around in their armchairs trying to be Deeply Wise, just drift off into never-never land. You couldn't trust your thoughts. You had to make advance experimental predictions—predictions that no one else had made before—run the test, and confirm the result. That was evidence. Sitting in your armchair, thinking about what seemed reasonable… would not be taken to prejudice your theory, because Science wasn't an idealistic belief about pragmatism, or getting your hands dirty. It was, rather, the dictum that experiment alone would decide. Only experiments could judge your theory—not your nationality, or your religious professions, or the fact that you'd invented the theory in your armchair. Only experiments! If you sat in your armchair and came up with a theory that made a novel prediction, and experiment confirmed the prediction, then we would care about the result of the experiment, not where your hypothesis came from.

That's Science. And if you say that Many-Worlds should replace the immensely successful Copenhagen Interpretation, adding on all these twin Earths that can't be observed, just because it sounds more reasonable and elegant—not because it crushed the old theory with a superior experimental prediction—then you're undoing the core scientific rule that prevents people from running out and putting angels into all the theories, because angels are more reasonable and elegant.

You think teaching a few people about Solomonoff induction is going to solve that problem? Nobel laureate Robert Aumann—who first proved that Bayesian agents with similar priors cannot agree to disagree—is a believing Orthodox Jew. Aumann helped a project to test the Torah for "Bible codes", hidden prophecies from God—and concluded that the project had failed to confirm the codes' existence. Do you want Aumann thinking that once you've got Solomonoff induction, you can forget about the experimental method? Do you think that's going to help him? And most scientists out there will not rise to the level of Robert Aumann.

Okay, Bayes-Goggles back on. Are you really going to believe that large parts of the wavefunction disappear when you can no longer see them? As a result of the only non-linear non-unitary non-differentiable non-CPT-symmetric acausal faster-than-light informally-specified phenomenon in all of physics? Just because, by sheer historical contingency, the stupid version of the theory was proposed first?

Are you going to make a major modification to a scientific model, and believe in zillions of other worlds you can't see, without a defining moment of experimental triumph over the old model?

Or are you going to reject probability theory?

Will you give your allegiance to Science, or to Bayes?

Michael Vassar once observed (tongue-in-cheek) that it was a good thing that a majority of the human species believed in God, because otherwise, he would have a very hard time rejecting majoritarianism. But since the majority opinion that God exists is simply unbelievable, we have no choice but to reject the extremely strong philosophical arguments for majoritarianism.

You can see (one of the reasons) why I went to such lengths to explain quantum theory. Those who are good at math should now be able to visualize both macroscopic decoherence, and the probability theory of simplicity and testability—get the insanity of a global single world on a gut level.

I wanted to present you with a nice, sharp dilemma between rejecting the scientific method, or embracing insanity.

Why? I'll give you a hint: It's not just because I'm evil. If you would guess my motives here, think beyond the first obvious answer.

PS: If you try to come up with clever ways to wriggle out of the dilemma, you're just going to get shot down in future posts. You have been warned.

(Emphasis original)

Paul F. Taylor #fundie answersingenesis.org

An issue often used in an attempt to beat biblical creationists over the head is the worldwide distribution of animals. Such a distribution, say critics, proves that there could never have been a global Flood or an Ark. If the Ark landed somewhere in the Middle East, then all the animals would have disembarked at that point, including animals that we do not find in the Middle East today, or in the fossil record in that area. How did kangaroos get to Australia, or kiwis to New Zealand? How did polar bears get to North America and penguins to Antarctica?

Skeptics often claim, “The Bible is not a science textbook.” This, of course, is true—because science textbooks change every year, whereas the Bible is the unchanging Word of God—the God who cannot lie. Nevertheless, the Bible can be relied upon when it touches on every scientific issue, including ecology. It is the Bible that gives us the big picture. Within this big picture, we can build scientific models that help us explain how past events may have come about. Such models should be held to lightly, but the Scripture to which they refer is inerrant. That is to say future research may cast doubt on an actual model, without casting doubt on Scripture.

With this in mind, the question needs to be asked, “Is there a Bible-based model that we can use to help explain how animals might have migrated from where the Ark landed to where they live today?” The answer is yes.

The Hard Facts

A biblical model of animal migration obviously must start with the Bible. From Genesis we can glean the following pertinent facts:

“And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive” (Genesis 6:19–20). The Bible is clear that representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals and birds were present on the Ark. A technical term used by some creation scientists for these kinds is baramin—derived from the Hebrew words for created kind. Within these baramins is all the information necessary to produce all current species. For example, it is unlikely that the Ark contained two lions and two tigers. It is more likely that it contained two feline animals, from which lions, tigers, and other cat-like creatures have developed.
Another lesson from Genesis 6:20 is that the animals came to Noah. He did not have to go and catch them. Therefore, this preservation of the world’s fauna was divinely controlled. It was God’s intention that the fauna be preserved. The animals’ recolonization of the land masses was therefore determined by God, and not left to chance.
“Then the ark rested in the seventh month, the seventeenth day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat” (Genesis 8:4). The Bible is clear that the Ark landed in the region of Ararat, but much debate has ensued over whether this is the same region as the locality of the present-day mountain known as Ararat. This issue is of importance, as we shall see. The Bible uses the plural “mountains.” It is unlikely that the Ark rested on a point on the top of a mountain, in the manner often illustrated in children’s picture books. Rather, the landing would have been among the mountainous areas of eastern Turkey, where present-day Mount Ararat is located, and western Iran, where the range extends.
It was God’s will that the earth be recolonized. “Then God spoke to Noah, saying, ‘Go out of the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons’ wives with you. Bring out with you every living thing of all flesh that is with you: birds and cattle and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so that they may abound on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply on the earth.’ So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives with him. Every animal, every creeping thing, every bird, and whatever creeps on the earth, according to their families, went out of the ark” (Genesis 8:15–19). The abundance and multiplication of the animals was also God’s will.

The biblical principles that we can establish then are that, after the Flood, God desired the ecological reconstruction of the world, including its vulnerable animal kinds, and the animals must have spread out from a mountainous region known as Ararat.

The construction of any biblical model of recolonization must include these principles. The model suggested on the following pages is constructed in good faith, to explain the observed facts through the “eyeglasses” of the Bible. The Bible is inspired, but our scientific models are not. If we subsequently find the model to be untenable, this would not shake our commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture.

The model uses the multiplication of dogs as an example of how animals could have quickly repopulated the earth. Two dogs came off Noah’s Ark and began breeding more dogs. Within a relatively short time period, there would be an incredible number of dogs of all sorts of different shapes and sizes.

These dogs then began to spread out from the Ararat region to all parts of the globe.
The dog kind diversifying

As these dogs spread around the world, variations within the dog kind led to many of the varieties we find today. But it is important to note that they are still dogs. This multiplication of variations within a kind is the same with the many other kinds of animals.

One final comment must be made in this section. As I have used the word recolonization several times, I must emphasize that I am not referring to the so-called Recolonization Theory. This theory will be discussed later.

Modern Recolonizations

One accusation thrown at biblical creationists is that kangaroos could not have hopped to Australia, because there are no fossils of kangaroos on the way. But the expectation of such fossils is a presuppositional error. Such an expectation is predicated on the assumption that fossils form gradually and inevitably from animal populations. In fact, fossilization is by no means inevitable. It usually requires sudden, rapid burial. Otherwise the bones would decompose before permineralization. One ought likewise to ask why it is that, despite the fact that millions of bison used to roam the prairies of North America, hardly any bison fossils are found there. Similarly, lion fossils are not found in Israel even though we know that lions once lived there.

Comparisons can be made with more modern recolonizations. For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica has the following to say about Surtsey Island and Krakatoa and the multiplication of species.

Six months after the eruption of a volcano on the island of Surtsey off the coast of Iceland in 1963, the island had been colonized by a few bacteria, molds, insects, and birds. Within about a year of the eruption of a volcano on the island of Krakatoa in the tropical Pacific in 1883, a few grass species, insects, and vertebrates had taken hold. On both Surtsey and Krakatoa, only a few decades had elapsed before hundreds of species reached the islands. Not all species are able to take hold and become permanently established, but eventually the island communities stabilize into a dynamic equilibrium.1

There is little secret, therefore, how nonflying animals may have travelled to the outer parts of the world after the Flood. Many of them could have floated on vast floating logs, left-overs from the massive pre-Flood forests that were ripped up during the Flood and likely remained afloat for many decades on the world’s oceans, transported by world currents. Others could later have been taken by people. Savolainen et al., have suggested, for example, that all Australian dingoes are descended from a single female domesticated dog from Southeast Asia.2 A third explanation of possible later migration is that animals could have crossed land bridges. This is, after all, how it is supposed by evolutionists that many animals and people migrated from Asia to the Americas—over a land bridge at the Bering Straits. For such land bridges to have existed, we may need to assume that sea levels were lower in the post-Flood period—an assumption based on a biblical model of the Ice Age.

The rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood.

As Michael Oard, a retired meteorologist and Ice Age researcher, has suggested in chapter 16, an Ice Age may have followed closely after the Flood. In his detailed analysis, Oard proposed a mechanism of how the rare conditions required to form an Ice Age may have been triggered by the Flood, and shows how this explains the field evidence for an Ice Age.3

Severe climatic changes could have been the catalyst that encouraged certain species to migrate in certain directions. These severe changes could also have accounted for some of the many extinctions that occurred. Additionally, Oard’s studies provide a model for how land bridges could have developed.

Oard has pointed out that certain observed features from the Ice Age cause problems for the evolutionist, not the creationist. Thus, a creationist explanation of the Ice Age better explains the facts. An example of such an issue is that of disharmonious associations of fossils—fossils of creatures normally associated with different conditions (such as creatures with a preference for hot and cold climates) being found in close proximity.

One of the more puzzling problems for uniformitarian theories of the ice age is disharmonious associations of fossils, in which species from different climatic regimes are juxtaposed. For example, a hippopotamus fossil found together with a reindeer fossil.

Oard suggests that even with present topography, a number of significant land bridges would have existed to facilitate migrations if the sea level were only 180 ft (55 m) below current levels. However, there is even evidence that the land in some places where land bridges would be necessary could have been higher still. Thus, land bridges facilitated by the Ice Age constitute a serious model to explain how some migrations could have been possible.

Some still remain skeptical about the idea of land bridges all the way to Australia. Nevertheless, by a combination of methods that we see today, including land bridges, there are rational explanations as to how animals may have reached the far corners of the world. Of course, we were not there at the time to witness how this migration may have happened, but those adhering to a biblical worldview can be certain that animals obviously did get to far places, and that there are rational ways in which it could have happened.

We should therefore have no problem accepting the Bible as true. Creationist scientific models of animal migration are equally as valid as evolutionary models, if not more so. The reason such models are rejected is that they do not fit in with the orthodox, secular evolutionary worldview.

It is not a problem for us to rationalize why certain animals do not appear in certain parts of the world. Why, for example, does Australia have such an unusual fauna, including so many marsupials? Marsupials are, of course, known elsewhere in the world. For example, opossums are found in North and South America, and fossilized marsupials have been found elsewhere. But in many places, climatic changes and other factors could lead to their extinction.

The lack of great marsupials in other continents need be no more of a problem than the lack of dinosaurs. As with many species today, they just died out—a reminder of a sin-cursed world. One proposed theory is that marsupials—because they bore their young in pouches—were able to travel farther and faster than mammals that had to stop to care for their young. They were able to establish themselves in far-flung Australia before competitors reached the continent.

Similar statements could be made about the many unusual bird species in New Zealand, on islands from which mammals were absent until the arrival of European settlers.
Recolonization Theory

The most logical interpretation of the biblical record of the Flood and its aftermath would seem to suggest that the animals disembarked and then recolonized the planet. Comparisons with modern migrations and incidents such as Surtsey have suggested that this recolonization need not have taken long. A plain reading of Scripture suggests that the Ark landed in the mountains of Ararat, most likely in the region of modern Turkey and Central Asia. It is also our contention that the significant quantity of death represented by the fossil record is best understood by reference to the Genesis Flood (i.e., the majority of fossils formed as a result of the Flood).

More recently, a theory has developed among certain creationists in the UK and Europe which suggests that the fossil record is actually a record not of catastrophe but of processes occurring during recolonization. This theory is called the Recolonization Theory.5

Proponents of this theory suggest that the Flood completely obliterated the earth’s previous crust so that none of the present fossils were caused by it. To accommodate fossilization processes, Recolonization Theory suggests that the age of the earth be stretched by a few thousand years. Some advocates of this view suggest an age of about 8,000 years for the earth, while others suggest figures as high as 20,000 years.

A detailed criticism of Recolonization Theory has previously been published by McIntosh, Edmondson, and Taylor6, and another by Holt7.

The principal error of this view is that it starts from supposed scientific anomalies, such as the fossil record, rather than from Scripture. This has led to the proposals among some Recolonizers, but not all, that there must be gaps in the genealogies recorded in Genesis 5 and 11, even though there is no need for such gaps. Indeed the suggestion of gaps in these genealogies causes further doctrinal problems.8

Even the views of those Recolonizers who do not expand the genealogies contain possible seeds of compromise. Because the Recolonizers accept the geologic column, and because the Middle East has a great deal of what is called Cretaceous rock, it follows that the Middle East would need to be submerged after the Flood, at the very time of the Tower of Babel events in Genesis 11. This has led some of the Recolonizers to speculate that the Ark actually landed in Africa, and therefore, that continent was the host to the events of Genesis 11 and 12. This would seem to be a very weak position exegetically and historically. Such exegetical weaknesses led Professor Andy McIntosh and his colleagues to comment, “Their science is driving their interpretation of Scripture, and not the other way round.”

Conclusions

We must not be downhearted by critics and their frequent accusations against the Bible. We must not be surprised that so many people will believe all sorts of strange things, whatever the logic.

Starting from our presupposition that the Bible’s account is true, we have seen that scientific models can be developed to explain the post-Flood migration of animals. These models correspond to observed data and are consistent with the Bible’s account. It is notable that opponents of biblical creationism use similar models in their evolutionary explanations of animal migrations. While a model may eventually be superseded, it is important to note that such biblically consistent models exist. In any event, we have confidence in the scriptural account, finding it to be accurate and authoritative.10 The fact of animal migration around the world is illustrative of the goodness and graciousness of God, who provided above and beyond our needs.

Steve Beckow #magick #conspiracy goldenageofgaia.com

Wherever we might sit with Coronavirus – whether we believe it stemmed from the irresponsible handling of a weaponized virus, a clandestine operation by cold-warring superpowers, or some other explanation – the virus is real in its effects.

Our love goes out to those affected by it.

I know nothing about medical circumstances so I’m not proposing to look here at sanitary procedures, travel advisories, etc.

I am however asking your support to address it via a number of other routes.

The first is by meditating with us at 8 o’clock (AM and/or PM) for eight minutes (8@8), asking for help from the celestials of the Company of Heaven in mitigating its effects and eliminating it altogether.

Archangel Michael said on Nov. 26, 2019 that similar meditations from all sources were having an effect on the bushfires in Australia:

Steve: Have our mass meditations significantly impacted the collective consciousness?

AAM: Absolutely!

Steve: Do you want to say little bit more on that?

AAM: It is the coming together in heart and mind and spirit, unselfishly, because these actions have not been, by and large, motivated by individual wants or needs.

So it is the unselfish coming together for the highest good, not only of these poor kingdoms, the animals, and the planet herself, the trees, the grass, the air which has been severely damaged, to come together to heal.

So what it has done – these many collective meditations – is not simply to demonstrate the power of heart intelligence but the power to result in tangible measurable ways how the collective can shift the direction of anything, not just fire but in anything.

Steve: So you are saying that the rains were a result of the collective meditation?

AAM: That is correct. (1)

Let’s come together here to demonstrate again “the power of heart intelligence,” which can “shift the direction of anything.”

The second is that we each ask the galactics to neutralize it, as they’ve done with most viruses that have arisen in the world – whether manmade or not – in the last decade or two. They too have to be asked.

Third, we can invoke Sanat Kumara and ask him to invoke the appropriate universal law to take the virus away. The invocation of law requires the individual invoked to see to the request.

We can also invoke Sanat Kumara and ask him to invoke the appropriate law to have all bioweapons research and production on the planet closed down. That’s the unacknowledged issue of overwhelming importance in the background. (2)

If we go to the heart of the matter, I think we’ll find that bioweapons research is the heart. (The making of war is the cause of bioweapons research.) If we can’t end the research and production, we can get clear on them for the impact that that too has on the collective consciousness. And public awareness. And political will.

Michael reminds of us the true etiology of any virus:

“It is important to realize, whether it is natural occurring (which is a curious remark, is it not?) or shall we say, laboratory created, that any virus that in fact becomes alive (because there are many that are simply dormant) is related to the infection or the poison of emotions and belief systems. That is what infects people and that is what kills people.” (3)

The only emotions and belief systems we can realistically alter are our own.

So, now a fourth thing we can do is that we can turn our attention to what spiritual sources have traditionally called “purification,” “cleansing,” completion, emergence from our vasanas and unproductive habits. This website has a library of articles on doing that work. (4)

While many goals of purification may seem esoteric, the avoidance of a virus is a very tangible goal.

Michael acknowledges that few humans may accept his explanation, reliant as we are on empirical-materialist science.

“Now, the human race is not prepared obviously, especially in their panic, to be able to comprehend this because they look to their science for all answers rather than looking for the root cause and addressing it from that.” (5)

Our science holds that only what we can see, feel, hear, taste, and smell is real. To fit into it, we have to let go of such notions as spirituality, the soul, angels, astral travel, life after death, enlightenment, etc. Therefore we cannot go to root causes, which lie outside the purview of empirical-materialist science.

I wouldn’t have started this blog if I held to it. There’d be no interest for me and no point. The answer is not to be found in Third/Fourth Dimensionality. (6)

Most readers of lightworker blogs are here because they’ve come to see the empirical-materialist paradigm as too small and confining. This is my biased view: Empirical materialism cannot explain the bigger puzzles in life and its explanations of the smaller puzzles are often incomplete or mistaken.

Given that we’re one of the few groups that (1) recognize the unseen realms and (2) work with them in co-creative partnership, we may be one of the few groups that has the opportunity to make a real difference. For empirical-materialists, the opportunity would not be visible.

The opportunity is to use the spiritual tools available to us, as I outlined them above, to mitigate and perhaps end Coronavirus while sending healing love to the victims.

We may be the only ones at this time inputting consciously into the collective consciousness. And we now know that our loving efforts have an impact.

So let’s work a second miracle. Meditators around the world helped to end the Australian bushfires. Let’s do it again here, with Coronavirus.

Let’s make it two for two. Send healing love to the victims and ask the Company of Heaven to neutralize or eliminate the virus and bring an end to bioweapons research.

CosmicCitizen #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

If you look at the Duchess of Cornwall (Kate Middleton) when she and Prince William presented their son to the media you will notice that a) she still appears to be fully pregnant (faux prego belly?), b) she did not appear to gain weight in her pregnancy and c) in the presentation of the baby Prince William implied (24 hrs post birth) that this was the first time that they really got to see the baby and that they had some "catching up" to do. IF this is true that they faked the pregnancy to cover for a surrogate mother then the question is WHY? First, one of the parents could be sterile, Second, since Kate was a commoner they may have wanted the mother to be of royal (and/or illuminati blood), Third, the birth date (7/22) was important and would have probably required a C Section to be exact (1:30 probability if it was +/- 2 weeks from the due date...assuming conception date at the correct time for a 7/22 birth date) and the Duchess of Cornwall may have not consented to that plan. The 7/22 date is important for several reasons and may have been requested by the Illuminati. A) Full Moon, B) Sun entering Leo, C) Mars-Jupiter Conjunction (war planet - king planet). In addition there is some numerology with the birth date (7/22) and the wedding date (4/29). Adding the months: 4 + 7 = 11, A Master Number (double 1). Adding the days: 2 + 9 = 11 and add that to 22 (a master number so no further reduction) = 33, the highest degree in Masonry.

If this is true then perhaps we should revisit the alleged suicide by the ob-gyn nurse last December (the one that was distraught after getting caught up in a hoax phone call to the ward). Could the nurse have known something and threatened to talk and thus was silenced?

Thomas Coy #fundie ex-gaytruth.com

The movie “For the Bible tells me so” (forthebibletellsmeso.org) was shown in my home community of Flint, Michigan in the fall of 2008 as part of a series of gay events called “Out’N About.” Although the movie was billed as a documentary, it was first and foremost a gay propaganda film.

The movie has two distinct elements to it. The documentary element examines the lives of five homosexuals and how their immediate families responded to their homosexuality. That part of the movie is actually a documentary, interesting, emotionally moving, and somewhat objective. The other part of the movie is pure gay political propaganda arranged to disparage conservative Christians and present the gay political movement as the enlightened possessors of the real truth about homosexuality.
From my observations as a scholar on the gay political movement this movie has the imprint of the gay political organization known as Soulforce (www.soulforce.org).

Soulforce has been a branch of the gay political movement specifically targeting the Bible believing Christian church. Mel White is a cofounder of Soulforce and a prominent leader in the gay political movement. A favorite target of Mel White and Soulforce has been Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family (www.focusonthefamily.com).
The fact that the movie specifically targets Dr. James Dobson and that Dr. Mel White is a predominant spokesperson throughout the movie gives the Soulforce manipulation away. The movie at the time of this writing was featured on the Soulforce website and on the website of America’s largest gay lobbying organization – The Human Rights Campaign. A fifty page study guide comes with the movie to assist in molding the interested convert into an advocate for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender equality with heterosexuality.
Besides the deception and lies presented as truths, the gay theology espoused in the film claiming that the Bible does not condemn homosexual behavior is considered by many a self-serving concoction. It would take a whole book to accurately address all the deception and lies in the propaganda part of the movie, so I will select instances that best support my accusations.
Scientific lies and deception
Like most gay propaganda the movie begins its justification of homosexuality by contending that homosexuality is not something that is not chosen.

Conservative Christians knowledgeable on homosexuality, including ex-gays, and psychotherapists who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions, agree that clinical science has shown that homosexual attractions are not usually something that an individual chooses. That there is agreement on this point is never brought up in gay propaganda and it is not acknowledged in the movie. Instead Christians, ex-gays, and therapists who disagree with the gay worldview are shown as ninnies who ignore this and other clinical facts. Knowledgeable Christians, ex-gays, and therapists do distinguish between attractions and behavior, and most certainly maintain that individuals have a choice of whether or not they engage in any form of sexual behavior. This distinction is never mentioned in gay propaganda or the movie.

Gay propaganda and clinical science diverge after the fact that homosexuals do not choose their attractions to the same sex. Using that fact as a premise gay propaganda and the movie conclude that homosexuality is an innate condition that is unchangeable and therefore equivalent to heterosexuality. The movie specifically states that “sexual orientation cannot be changed or prevented.”

There are no facts to support the innate theory, so the movie shows a cartoon series that mocks the clinical evidence on the causal factors of homosexuality and sexual orientation change. What researchers have found is that male homosexuals usually have had past experiences of prolonged rejection by the same sex parent and same sex peers throughout childhood. As a child the homosexual never felt he was a part of his gender group, and the longing to be part of the group and the mystery of the same sex turned into same-sex attractions at puberty. This is not always the causal route to male homosexuality, but it has been documented enough to be referred to as the standard causal route.

Clinical science has also documented hundreds of cases where homosexuals have changed their sexual orientation. The evidence is overwhelming. The movie claims ex-gay organizations and psychotherapists use shame and guilt to coax homosexuals to repress their true feelings, thereby presenting ex-gay organizations as a sham and destructive to the mental well being of homosexuals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is that ex-gay organizations like Exodus International (www.exodus.to) offer real hope to individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions. Many individuals have overcome homosexual behavior and desires. A significant percentage have changed their sexual orientation, married a person of the opposite sex, and raised families.
A sexual orientation change from homosexual to heterosexual is partly a reparative process and partly a cognitive process. Motivation is the main part of the cognitive process. The motivation usually comes from religious beliefs, aspirations of a heterosexual marriage, and from a fact that gay propaganda avoids like the plague, which is that many who enter the gay world find its lifestyle very destructive. The main part of the reparative process is to understand and deal with the memories and hurt of same-sex rejection in childhood. Often there was sexual abuse that contributed to the unwanted same-sex attractions. This short introduction on the causal factors of homosexuality is more accurate than the sum of all the causal information in the movie. The movie mocks this knowledge, and in doing so mocks the truth.

Theological lies and deception

A Rev. Keene makes the statement in the movie that “All loving relationships are honored in the Bible.” This is an easily refutable lie. In the same chapter of Leviticus where homosexuality is condemned there are a number of family related sexual relationships that are prohibited. Surely sexual relationships between close relatives can be loving relationships, yet contrary to Mr. Keene they are condemned. Likewise, Leviticus 18:22 reads “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman: that is detestable.” There is no insinuation that if a man lies with another man as one lies with a woman in a loving relationship, then it is equal to a heterosexual loving relationship.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul was informed of a man in the Corinth church who was in a loving relationship with his stepmother. Paul told the church in Corinth to “Expel the wicked man from among you” (I Corinthians 5:13). In another incidence John the Baptist was martyred for saying that it was immoral for King Herod to marry his brother’s wife (Mark 6:18). Mr. Keene’s statement is a fabrication of what he wants the Bible to say.

Mr. Keene’s statement is also a misrepresentation of gay and liberal morality. Liberal sexual morality is based on consensual sex and is not dependent on a loving relationship or marriage. In general consensual sex without love in this moral code is as just as moral as sex in a loving relationship.
The movie presents many arguments of the new gay theology. The most amusing is “What did Jesus say about homosexuality?” The answer is “nothing,” if one ignores his comparison of the destruction of Sodom and the fate of those who did not repent after seeing miracles and hearing the gospel message (Luke 10:12). The sin of bestiality (humans having sex with animals), which happens to be listed in Leviticus 18:23 right after homosexuality, was not mentioned by Jesus in the written record of the gospels. If we use the gay logic that because Jesus did not mention homosexuality it is not immoral, then the same logic applies to bestiality, and it too is no longer immoral behavior.

When one examines Satan’s appearance in the Bible as a serpent in the Garden of Eden or tempting Jesus in the wilderness, it becomes evident that Satan’s method of persuasion is to present half truths. Likewise gay propaganda often persuades with half truths. One such instance in the movie was the gay theological argument that God’s condemnation of Sodom was not because the city was steeped in homosexual behavior, but because it was inhospitable.
The half truth that gay theology presents is that Sodom was indeed inhospitable to the two angels sent to their city in the form of handsome young men. Instead of welcoming the strangers, the men of Sodom sought to anally rape the young men. What the movie does not reveal is that in the ancient world accepted homosexual behavior was not two men of the same sex in a loving reciprocal relationship. It was a dominate man sodomizing a subordinate man or youth, usually a slave or captive from a battle. It was considered a humiliation for a man to be sodomized in any type of relationship.
In a related half truth the movie states that pederasty (an adult man sodomizing an adolescent male) is not homosexuality. It is true that pederasty is considered a specific sexual orientation in itself, but it is definitely a form of homosexuality. Intellectual elites in Ancient Greece during the time of Plato and Socrates considered arranged pederasty relationships the most preferred of all loving relationships. In the late 1980s gay authors Kirk and Madsen referred to the pederasty relationships of ancient Greece as the “traditional gay family.” The values of the Grecian society allowed the free man to not only have sexual relations with his wife, but also prostitutes, both female and male slaves, and a young free man to whom he would also be a mentor. When the young free man became an adult the pederasty relationship ended, because it was dishonorable for a man to be sodomized or have effeminate characteristics.

Deception in the storytelling

The five families featured in the movie were rated as to how supportive they were to their gay child. One family, the Reitans, was given the distinction of being “LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) Advocates.” In the movie the family is shown taking part in a Soulforce sponsored demonstration at the Focus on the Family facility in Colorado Springs. With his parents at his side the gay child, Jake, makes the accusation that Focus on the Family teaches parents to reject their children.

Mary Lou Wallner was given the distinction of being “Very Unsupportive (Initially)” Mary Lou’s lesbian daughter, Anna, committed suicide. Mary Lou Wallner is now an advocate for gay rights and has been touring the nation in support of the movie. In one part of the movie she tells the videographer that she blames Dr. James Dobson for the suicide of her daughter. At that time in her life Mary Lou was a member of a conservative Christian church that believed homosexual behavior was sin. She also followed the advice of Dr. James Dobson and did not accept her daughter’s homosexuality. The movie portrays that lack of acceptance as the cause of Anna’s suicide.

The Poteat family was listed as “Partially Supportive.” This family kept an open relationship with their lesbian daughter. They too were conservative Christians, who did not approve of their daughter’s homosexuality, but their daughter was always welcome at her childhood home and she always knew her family loved her, even though they did not approve of her lesbian relationships.
Having been a follower of Dr. James Dobson myself and having attended their controversial “Love Won Out” conferences on homosexuality, I can attest that Focus on the Family does not teach parents to reject their children. Obviously, Jake has never personally investigated Dr. Dobson or Focus on the Family, but relied on second hand information from Soulforce to make his damning accusation.

Focus on the Family and their Love Won Out conferences teach parents to continue to openly love their children while continuing their disapproval of the child’s sexual behavior. Focus tells parents the truth that homosexual attractions are usually not a choice, that sexual orientation change is possible but not easy, and that parents need to love their children just as God loves them, even in their sin. The Poteat family is actually a good example of what Focus and Dr. Dobson teach.

Mary Lou Wallner was present at the screening of the movie I attended in Flint. In my research on homosexuality I have read reports and heard lectures by clinical psychologists that lesbians do not usually seek counseling because of conflicts with their sexual orientation, but rather for distress from broken relationships. In the Q and A following the movie I asked Mary Lou if her daughter had any recent relationship problems before the suicide. Mary Lou revealed that her daughter had recently broken up with her long-time lover and moved in with another lesbian who had three teenage children. About two and a half months into this new relationship the woman asked Mary Lou’s daughter to move out. Shortly after this breakup, the daughter committed suicide.

Mary Lou also revealed that her daughter was always welcome at her childhood home. When her daughter and lesbian partners visited, Mary Lou and her husband let them sleep in the same bed. It became clear very quickly how distorted the movie had portrayed Anna’s suicide and the conservative Christian beliefs Mary Lou once held. The Wallner’s were at least as supportive of their lesbian daughter as the Poteats were, and maybe even more so.
Anna Wallner’s suicide had little to do with her parent’s disapproval of homosexual behavior, but a lot to do with the destructive aspects of lesbian relationships. The movie intentionally distorted this fact and used this terrible tragedy to smear an innocent man and the organization he represents. But this is nothing new, it is standard gay propaganda.

Question_Woman #sexist #fundie reddit.com

You evil gatekeeping aphobic scum.

/s

In all seriousness though I have met more than my fair share of pedophiles in the ace community. Just an example.

Damn, that's insidious! And it makes sense because kids who have a delayed puberty are the most likely to identify as "asexual". Hell, if I had been interrogated about my sexuality when I was younger than 15 I would have said "asexual" as well.

In reality, I just wasn't ready to admit my attraction to men because then I would be vulnerable up to their mocking and scorn based on my appearance.

That was certainly an issue in my teens, not anymore but the attraction still isn't there. Go figure. Actually I do feel some sort of attraction but it isn't sexual. I think.

You do you, I'm just not a fan of the split attraction model because I don't see any way in which attraction can be split into a sexual and non-sexual mode. I also have an issue with some people who claim it's no reason to worry if someone doesn't have a libido. Low or nonexistent libido can be a sign of hormonal impairment, autism, or depression and it's not something that should be glossed over.

On the other hand, the label of asexual can also be an understandable cope for women who are constantly pressured into sex by men. Men's prerogative of "pump and dump" is effectively countered by women with the labels of asexual/demisexual. These labels give women something to point to that's "out of their control" when men pressure them for sex. In reality tho, heterosexual sex fucking sucks for women unless the guy actually cares about you...which usually doesn't happen unless you've been dating for 3+ months or you're a Stacy.

Women also have it harder because men are violent, predatory, and disgusting in general so it makes sense to be wary of any attraction we feel towards them, especially when they see undesirable women as sub-human.

evantisin #fundie forums.gametrailers.com

[Discussion is about blood donations: So, saving a life is immoral, yet letting someone die, isnt?]

This is the same kind of controversy as the whole matter of stem cell research and cloning, right?

Nobody is required to do any of this. You would choose for yourself whether or not you'd like to use a blood transfusion instead of bloodless surgery.

The only person you're "letting die" is yourself, and not even that's 100% certain since bloodless surgery is still an available option, if you're a Jehovah's Witness.

You might be saving a life if it works, yes, but the exchange is simply not worth it in the long run if you believe in God.

It's like when Esau traded his birthright for lentil soup. Going after bodily needs (that could have been fulfilled through other means), he would give up a critical inheritance to his future in the long term, even though he was fine right after having done so. Likewise, mixing one's blood with that of another artificially gets two different souls needlessly intertwined and both the blood doner and the one who decides to use the blood in a blood transfusion will lose their inheritance in God's Kingdom.

Blood is sacred because blood is life. If you are a Christian, you wouldn't trade it around like an asset on a market.

In fact, there are such things as body parts being sold on the black market. Is life so trivial?

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.

theicarlyangel #fundie comments.deviantart.com

thanks to them, I call myself homophobic because of how mean and nasty they are. One of them sent me a gay porn fanfiction and I was disgusted, but I dealt with him maturely and blocked him. Now I really DO consider myself homophobic because they're terrifying. As one a cartoon animated character once said, "You think the only people, are people who think like you."
Be proud of being homophobic/hating homosexuality. I get bullied too and been told to die in Hell. :XD: Idgafudge though. :D That just shows them how immature they can be. :) I am never teaching my kids homosexuality is okay, but I will also not let them bully the LGBT. The LGBT is just hurt and confused, if they would just stop being so mean and respect others' beliefs, that'd be great. And accepting a belief is not the same thing as supporting a belief.


[ "Do you know the reasons WHY the LGBT community is often hurt and confused?" ]

Bullied, kicked out of their homes, etc. So yeah, I do know. Why should that change my viewpoint that I don't agree with homosexual rights?

[ "Have you seen the way society treats homosexuals?" ]

No, but I surely do see how homosexuals treat non-supporters of homosexuality.

[ "They are constantly being shunned simply for their sexuality. I've heard of people who can't get a job just for being gay, gay children are being disowned and kicked out of their houses by their own parents, people have even been MURDERED just for the sake of being homosexual. The treatment towards REAL homosexuals is more than just "bullying the LGBT"." ]

Yes, and guess what? People who don't support homosexuality also get shunned simply because of their own belief and viewpoint AND on what they wish to follow. People also get fired from their jobs if they disagree with homosexuality which isn't fair either. Yes, in OTHER COUNTRIES. I did nothing. Don't bash me, someone that's innocent who doesn't wish death upon homosexuals. People have also sent me death threats for not support homosexuality. I guess being on both sides sucks.

[ "Homosexuals aren't just sensitive or butthurt about people having different beliefs. They're not being "mean"; they're biting back." ]

But I did NOTHING. Why bash someone innocent when I did NOTHING? Do you think every freaking non-support of the homosexuality club wishes death upon people or wants them to die or wants them to be bullied? NO. What they're doing is sick and wrong. (I'm talking about the whole biting back issue.) They are butthurt and sensitive when someone doesn't follow their ways, so yeah. There's a HUGE problem here.

[ "Now I'm not saying that I HAVEN'T seen any rabid or immature LGBT members, but the main reasons for homosexuals attacking the homophobes back is NOT simply because of the fact that they don't support LGBT; it's because they're fighting to earn the same rights for not being judged by their sexuality, since enough homophobes have already judged gays simply by their sexuality. Telling a gay person to respect a homophobe's opinion is basically like telling a black person to respect a racist's opinion." ]

A skin color is different from a sexuality. Don't even compare the two. -_- I do not wish for gay/lesbian coupling to be as equal as straight coupling. What REALLY needs to happen here is for the LGBT to fight back the bullies and search for someone who is open-minded and kind. Religious people also get bashed as well. Now, imagine if everyone followed the bible, THEN everyone get along as well, but NO. Not going to happen, want to know why? Because not everyone believes God exists, not everyone thinks he made our world. They believe in the Big Bang Theory. Sure, it would be easier if everyone got along, but not everyone is going to see eye-to-eye and you need to learn to cope with it.

[ I am sorry, but the fact that you are ONLY looking at rabid LGBT members who have attacked YOU on the Internet makes you sound biased. NOT ALL homosexuals attack homophobes for not following their beliefs, but you treat it like they do. You probably still missed my point that LGBT is MORE than just an "opinion". I brought up race with sexuality because... as I said, they are both a matter of human rights. You can't just simply tell gays to respect homophobes' opinions and get over it because "Oh everyone thinks differently and we should all respect each other's beliefs just fine and dandy like that", no. Then can we just simply say that blacks should respect racists' opinions or that women should respect sexists' opinions just because they think differently. ]

First of all, I don't need to be 'educated' when I obviously am going to disagree with you. No, I don't. Also I know that, and I know not all homosexuals are bad and they actually accept me for me. No, a sexuality is NOT human rights. Yaoi and Yuri is wrong and it will forever BE wrong. You may think whatever you'd like, go on. You've got a choice to be gay or not, I don't think they should be as accepted as straight couples because homosexuality IS wrong. I don't know why you bring racism into something that is gay. I don't know enough about racism to debate about that so I am going to leave you be for someone else to argue with you.

[ Really? You're just going to let a serious issue slide like that? Being oppressed/disowned/killed over one little aspect means nothing to you? ]

Ummm... I'm gonna say, yes. Because hey, everyone's been through Hell and that's me included, but you gotta stay boss and move onwards and don't let people drive you down in the dirt. You gotta think happily and positively and whatever has been done has been done. I can't do anything about that. Do I think it's okay for them to be oppressed, disowned, and killed? No. Do I have to worry about it? No. Because I don't live where they are and I can't help them out when I am probably half-way across the world. Like someone said, ya gotta leave the past behind ya. It's not my fault it's still going on. No need to bash on me.

[ So you're basically saying an inferior group is not allowed to be equal as a superior group just based on their sexuality? Welp, I'm sorry, but that IS judging people by their sexuality, saying that homos don't deserve the same rights as straights. You are basically okay with oppressing human rights there. No, I disagree! ]

How on Earth is that judging someone on their sexuality?! JUST HOW? I don't understand your logic, what gave you that conclusion?! I NEVER said I want homosexuals to die and rot in Hell, seriously and that they should be treated like garbage, WHAT made you come to that conclusion? Are you that dense and close-minded or what? Agreeing with someone's rights is not the same thing as accepting someone for who they are.


[ Also, I have often seen you try to use "I hate homosexuality, but not homosexuals" as an excuse. That doesn't even make any friggin sense. It'd be like saying "I hate black skin color but I don't hate black people!" or "I hate vaginas but don't hate women for having them". Here's another reason I bring up sexism/racism to homophobia. Like different races with their skin color, homosexuals can NOT control their sexuality. They can't just wake up one morning and decide "Oh I want to be gay from now on!". Sexuality is a NATURAL aspect that people carry with them from birth or at a very young age. You can't change sexuality, and that is why most homosexuals hate homophobes. They are being oppressed for having a natural trait that they can't control, and that is another form of anti human rights. ]

Okay, first of all, it does make sense. It means I hate same-gender coupling and I could care less about it, but to people who like it or who are gay, then fine. I won't stop you. Be whoever you want. Give me one good reason why I should hate you over your sexuality. Don't you dare compare someone's skin color to a sexuality. Those are TWO different things. Look, I don't think racism is that much of an issue because from where I live, there's not much of it here... and anyways, loving someone versus a color of a skin are two completely different things. Sure, you can't help if someone has a skin color or if someone's gay, that's just who they are. It doesn't mean I hate them, it just means I would either hate their skin color or a sexuality. Just like if someone wore an outfit you personally don't like. You don't have to like it, it's their style and their choice. I for one don't hate anyone for being black/tan. It is not NATURAL. Okay, I can't change a sexuality, but what I can do is be against homosexuality. I am not supporting the idea to oppressed people. Seriously, how does someone NOT support homosexuality made you even come to that conclusion?

Ugh, I am done here. You're way too thick-headed for me. Go do something that makes you happy and positive. We are obviously gonna disagree here and nothing you say will change my mind and I will not change my beliefs just to please you. Have an awesome day and remember: Treat others the way you like to be treated.


[Also, regarding your last comment there; Just because you have not been oppressed it doesn't mean that you simply shouldn't care. There is a thing called empathy. If you could just put herself in a homosexual's shoes for once, you would know that being abandoned and killed just for being gay is not something you can just "think positively and get over with" about.]

I do care and I do feel bad for them, but I shouldn't worry about it. I should worry about myself and what needs to get done and what I can do to help make things a better place. Heck, I've been sexually abused since I was little, been bullied and harassed since the 3rd grade, and have gotten my heart broken. When people debate with me, my heart and liver hurts even more. It REALLY does. Which is why I tend to block people and think happily and positively and worry about myself first. I still need to worry about the work I need to get done and how am I going to succeed in life.

[ When you say that famous line 'treat others the way you want to be treated' , you need to understand that it also means that involves human rights as well. And that no one should be denied them. You wouldn't like your rights being taken away I'm sure. ]

Straight is normal and since two of the opposite gender can make a baby, I feel okay with that. I'm sorry, I disagree. Don't debate about me on this though, just please don't. I really think the LGBT should just stick up for themselves for once and call the cops. Maybe it's not easy, but I am here to help out whenever someone is needed. This involves NOT harming the innocent and shoving their beliefs down others' throats. Sorry, my mind has not changed and I don't want to debate about this.

Some incels #sexist reddit.com

Abusive Boyfriend Starterpack (according to Anti-Incels)

image

[Image showing a Star Trek-style "3d chess", a Cambridge State University diploma in Counseling Psychology, a book titled "Mind Control", an IQ test result at 157 points, and a book titled "48 laws of power"]

(Ultramegasaurus)
Real Starter Pack:

Over 6ft

Criminal record

Trashy/thuggish clothes

Tattoos

Drinking/drug problem

(L-E-V)
You forgot the rugged handsome face with mandatory facial scar

(DancingwithdogsLA)
I agree i see a lot of good looking guys tend to be narcissitic sex hungry assholes that treat women sexistly they only think about women as live fleshlights

(ExistingTremors504)
Good "personality" starterpack: * 6ft or above * 6 pack abs * Neo Nazi haircut * Sports jersey * Tatoos * Brutish attitude * Blasts Rap music out of his car. * Old, worn down jeep * Backward hat * Gets drunk every night * Party animal * "You wanna hop on dis dick" * Freaks the fuck out during sports games * Obsesses over football * 3 STDS * Marijuana * Criminal Record

(GeneralEi)
This is just "trash that tries to manipulate people instead of being genuine" starter pack. Reeks of being too smart to recognise their own insecurities

(WhiteFolder)
Uh no. This is basically a compilations of reasons given by women on why they stay in a toxic relationship with their boyfriends (typically chad). "It isnt so easy to leave sweaty, you see, they are master manipulators. Each time I want to leave they do that little something that continues to bind me to them even though they are still causing me harm and treating me badly. " How many times have you heard that platitude.

"Trash that tries to manipulate people instead of being genuine" seems to only work for good looking people huh. Try pulling the above nonsense as a below average male and see how fast you get shut down

(GeneralEi)
You're probably right on that second point, I doubt someone fuck ugly could do these things effectively.

holocaust21 #fundie holocaust21.wordpress.com


A small bit of sanity in an otherwise depraved world:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522625/Jailed-Italian-paedophile-conviction-overturned-11-year-old-victim-says-loves-him.html

Italy’s supreme court ruled that a 60 year old man’s relationship with an 11 year old girl was a loving, consensual relationship and that the original conviction had failed to take that into account.

However, the man is now going to be retried – thanks to the lack of double jeopardy laws – and as we know the next judge will probably be some hateful feminist who will promptly double his original sentence.

It’s also worth noting that the comments on the daily mail website are utterly vile – all of them deny an 11 year old her right to sexual self determination and the 60 year old man his right to life, liberty and happiness. Presumably the commentators are either projecting their own failings in life onto another ‘scapegoating’, are just sexually jealous or are in the pay of the ‘child protection’ cartel.

EarlyCall #fundie bibleforums.org

[Reviewing FSTDT.com]

Oh I think they are cute. I mean, let's be honest here. Whenever we are debating on here about anything at all, we do it for ourselves alone. Ah, wait a minute... I said debate - not witnessing or any such worthwhile endeavor.

Now, with that in mind, it seems a trivial matter what we do here when we debate a matter, but how less so is there any significance to what they do when they cut and paste something we've said and use that as ammunition to fire off their little quips?

So in summary then, if they consider us anything at all in a negative light, how much more so are they!

Now what I am thinking is it would be good fun to see them find this post, copy it to their site and try to defend their position against my claim. That ought to be very interesting indeed. But not likely they will touch this one. On the other hand, if they read this and consider it a challenge, then they just might, but then wouldn't that be me manipulating them in a fashion! A bit of a quandry this puts them in I should think.

[smilie]

I'm good with that. I suppose I even consider it good sport in a fashion - that is for me anyway.

Elizabeth Ely #conspiracy reducetheburden.org

This is a great summary, and wonderful PR for the movement for sanity in diagnoses and treatments.

I would only add the sexual dimension: Please cite the number of sexual contacts with a supposedly “infected” person that the CDC itself claims are necessary for “transmission” of the “virus.”

And then ask people to think about that. That number: 1,000? 3,000? This is usually with multiple partners, once each, a kind of Russian Roulette where you have sex with a person who is “infected” on that 1,000th or 3,000th time or whatever that they are actually “transmitting” the “virus.”

What kind of drugs, with what kind of immunological side effects, are necessary to sustain that kind of activity? What kind of psychological woundedness would a person carry into such an experience? How many other infections, viruses better documented, would a person pick up, and what would be the long-term effects on their immune systems of that level of constant onslaught? How would those things be risk factors in themselves?

And if somebody is objecting that this is Puritanism, ask them: What is their “ick” number? What level of sexual activity is too much? What level of detachment is a sign of psychosis? If not 3,000, how about 10,000? Because that’s how many sexual partners some of the original “AIDS” patients had.

This has nothing to do with the “HIV test,” because, as Neville Hodgkinson documented, the test was set at an artificially low threshold of “positive” to test blood supplies. Nobody minded if they threw out a lot of bags of blood, erring on the safe side — but if they’re labeling people as doomed with that test, they’re throwing out people who never even came close to that level of sexual activity or infection or malnutrition. Healthy people, caused to worry needlessly.

Sacrificing people.

And who are these people? Anyone important to us? People with issues, problems, drug addictions, sexual habits most folks don’t want to talk about? Human beings worth saving?

Is it OK to sacrifice certain people, or not? Avoiding the question is key to keeping “AIDS” alive.

I believe the answer, for most mainstream AIDS activists, is yes. Certain people are to be sacrificed, but we’re supposed to pretend we care. We’re not supposed to look too deeply within ourselves.

But if I really care . . . what then? Won’t I object to this labeling of people? Killing of people? Using a bogus test, an unreal label. Yes, I do care about the “stigma of HIV.” Stop labeling people with “HIV,” and the “stigma” is no longer a problem.

Start diagnosing people with their true immune deficiencies, and the source of these, and you begin to actually help them.

Thanks, Liam. On a clear day, you can see forever. You can see the truth.

IllimitableMan #sexist reddit.com

Men are superior to women and therefore have more responsibilities than women. Women are superior to children, and therefore have more responsibilities than children. Superiority means "leadership over" due to increased maturity and reason, it does not come with a connotation of hate. Women do not hate children because they're superior to them in the same way that men do not hate women because they're superior to them. Although plenty of men have their hang-ups with women (just as the reverse is true.) Men are more mature than women, who are more mature than children. This is about a hierarchy of maturity, of which men are at the top. The less mature you are, the less reasonable you are. You wouldn't want an immature person in charge of you, and assuming you found someone competent, you wouldn't say you were equal to the person in charge of you.

The problem with people today is women have been told it's bad to let a man be in charge of them, and men have been told to treat women as equal partners rather than subordinate dependants they care for. You are superior, and you have to be in order to be eligible. That's reality. For the sake of ego preservation on her part, she will want to think of herself as your "first mate" or "partner", but you're not the captain, you're the ship. Without you there is nothing, no base nor foundation. She relies on you VASTLY more than you rely on her, and any functional relationship between a man and a woman is always based on this model.

It doesn't mean she's not important, it means you're depended upon more than you depend on her. It means the distribution of burden is disproportionate in order to reflect your difference in maturity, your burden is greater because her need is greater, her need is greater because she is more immature, and by extension of being less mature, less competent. In fact, it's dangerous for you to depend on her emotionally, but the reverse is perfectly acceptable and fine. This is the burden that comes with being at the top of the maturity hierarchy. Emotional loneliness. Accepting you cannot confide all your deepest secrets and fears, not unless you're a schmuck who wants to see your relationship fall to shit. Women are so upset they're not really equals that they're completely ignorant to the fact that not being the final person everybody depends on is a privileged position.

That when push comes to shove, women want someone to lean on and someone to blame, that true equality to men is something they could never handle. Like a child who wants to stay up late and eat unlimited amounts of candy, they only see the privileges of being a man, not the burdens. Notice how women always go on about maturity in a way men don't seem to give a fuck about They're like the damn maturity police. This reminds me of little kids who insist they're grown-ups out of insecurity. "Women are equal to men!" touted by women is the same infantile narcissism as a child claiming "I'm not a little kid anymore!". It stems from the desire to be taken seriously by people you're less mature and capable than. This is all ego, remember you will find the truth in action rather than words, for in words they claim equality to man, but in action they demand superiority from him. In relation to the statement "women are children", this is hyperbole, what /u/redpillschool concretely means is "women are childlike" - if they weren't, you wouldn't want them. Feminine charm comes from a certain present-orientation, feminine beauty comes from a lack of ageing.

Women play up innocence and play down their cunning because this is what makes them attractive to men. Innocence is an inherently childlike quality. Men don't try to seem innocent because it's not masculine, things that are childlike are inherently unmasculine, but they aren't unfeminine. Why? Because women are closer to children than men. Stop thinking this is some way of talking women down or some sad attempt at dehumanisation. It isn't. It's a truism regardless of whether it suits your sensibilities. Shrewd women constantly leverage the appearance of innocence to get people to help them. Women pout, men don't. Women have strops, men don't. Women cry more than men. Women are less rational than men. In summary: women are more mature than children, but less mature than men. You can teach a woman to behave well, but she is still a woman and so requires discipline in the same way a child does. She craves it. She will not "be good" because "she's a good woman" she will only "be good" because you convey authority, and in order to convey authority, you must be superior, superior meaning more mature and more competent. This is the natural order of things. Egalitarianism is an indoctrinated ideal, it is normal to you because you grew up brainwashed by feminist garbage, but it is not normal in nature, and it is not indicative of reality.

Women's childlike qualities are not just physical (smaller, less hair etc), but their neonatality is likewise echoed mentally. The hottest women have greater neonatal traits than uglier ones. She's not your psychological equal. You can love her, care for her, even depend on her for small things, but she's not your equal and never will be. As Schopenhauer said, she is somewhere between a child and an adult, an adolescent perhaps. If you can't accept that, if you need to believe in the feminine ego porn that she's your equal in every which way, fine. But that doesn't mean TRP is wrong, it means you're unable to accept an aspect of reality that discomforts you.

Imasaved1 #fundie teens-4-christ.org

"Basically, the theory is that some 15-30 billion years ago, there was nothing. Then, all of a sudden, BANG. All that is exploded into existance from nothing.

Since then, the universe has been on a steady course of random evolution. According to the theory, this random course has come to the point where we are now.

Even in the most basic explanation (as I have given here) it is flawed. One of the fundamental laws of physics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This whole theory assumes that matter spontaneously created itself.

On the other hand, God is the author of the laws of Physics. He can do miracles, and He gave us the explanition that he created the universe."

Bro. Randy #fundie teens-4-christ.org

We are not here to defend or promote evolution. You asked for a scientific overview of evolution. The point is that there is no 'good science' that demonstrates evolution is true.

Basically, the theory is that some 15-30 billion years ago, there was nothing. Then, all of a sudden, BANG. All that is exploded into existance from nothing.

Since then, the universe has been on a steady course of random evolution. According to the theory, this random course has come to the point where we are now.

Even in the most basic explanation (as I have given here) it is flawed. One of the fundamental laws of physics is that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This whole theory assumes that matter spontaneously created itself.

On the other hand, God is the author of the laws of Physics. He can do miracles, and He gave us the explanition that he created the universe.

Knowledge Transfer #fundie disqus.com

(in response to story "Parents of Eight Year Old Boy Who Identifies as Girl Sue School for "Forcing" Son "To Live as a Boy"

Knowledge Transfer:
Sure, we should let rapists; child molesters; murderers; arsonists; thieves; and felons of limitless description live and let live so that they can do what they want to do whenever they want to do it so long as they don't hurt you. Surely, you would agree to let Charles Manson live and let live so he could come to your home for a visit.

GarbageAdams:
All the behaviours you describe are abuses, they are NOT examples of "live and let live". People like you don't comprehend the concept of consenting adults. No one is being abused, you just hate what they do.

Knowledge Transfer:
The despots who have glorified despotism throughout history were consensual depots were they not? If two children consent to jumping off of buildings, are such consensual behaviors abusive to the consensual children and those who are crushed by their falling bodies when they hit the ground? Actually, consensual perversion or voluntary perversion is more evil than involuntary or coerced perversion because FREE WILL is used to pervert consensually. You simply want to be justified in you unjustifiable perversions so you support and justify the perversions of others. Misery has always loved company.

GarbageAdams:
Children aren't old enough to consent, and that goes for sexual situations just as it does for jumping off buildings, which is obviously
a self-destructive practice. COMPLETELY unlike a same-sex adult
consensual relationship which harms no one.
"Perversion" in this sense is entirely a matter of your opinion. Just as I find it perverse in the extreme what you do to the words of your Bible to inflict your hate and judgement on others. Your analogy has failed.

Knowledge Transfer:
This post was on parents who help their children become freaks. You brain has failed. Nevertheless, saluting sodomy [the always lifeless and often lethal homosexual monogamy] is like cheering on those who play in; eat from and sleep in unflushed toilets. The INFAMOUS CRIME AGAINST NATURE is defined by one word. That one word is SODOMY. Sodomy is the CRIME AGAINST NATURE. Therefore, Sodomy isn't natural. The incineration of Sodom is evidence and proof of its foul; filthy; fruitless; fatal; and fecal evilness.
Then we have the deadly siblings of sodomy: "rimming"; "fisting"; "bare backing"; "bug chasing"; "pegging"; "felching"; "taking the express"; "circuit parties"; "brown showers"; "golden showers"; "scatting"; "fulsome street parades" etc. etc. etc. Homo's gladly suffer from exponentially higher shares of all sexually transmitted diseases far in excess of their puny shares of the general population. This includes the granddaddy of them all HIV/AIDS a homocentrically inspired pandemic.
Has a pregnancy ever occurred in a rectum - especially a male rectum?

Spud #fundie religionethics.co.uk

It is true that the prohibition of same sex marriage would be inequality, if we assume that homosexuals who say they would never be attracted to someone of the opposite sex, know themselves fully and are correct (some do experience a change whereby this can happen).
However, even if it is inequality, and I peronally think we shouldn't assume they can never love someone if the opposite sex, there are people who for legal reasons have to accept inequality of marriage. So the question is, why should we propose that homosexuals be prohibited from marrying someone of the same sex - is there good reason to deny this to them as we would do with an already married person, for example?
An already married person would be acting unjustly towards his or her spouse and children if they married another person, unless their spouse had been unfaithful.
I can only speak from personal experience. Others may have had a similar experience, and so may understand what my point is.
I once fell in love with someone who I found out was a lesbian. Basically, there was a sense of injustice that she would love a female rather than me. I felt that I had been wronged. The feeling was different from times when a girl I had been attracted to had loved another guy. In thise instances, the feeling was disappointment but not that I had been wronged.
If you asked me to articulate why I felt it was an injustice, I would have to work through the reason. But because of that experience, I believe that it is not right to allow people to marry someone of the same sex.
Maybe this is why God says that homosexual relationships should be avoided. He made marriage for opposite sex couples - I dont agree that there is any room for interpretation of the Bible otherwise

Oceanic #fundie ummah.com

of course it matters their worried about spresd of islam.
Ya Omar ...they are worried, envious of muslims, they hate us (secretly) for lecturing them knowledge . They cant except a
non-european showing them the way coz inherrent in a good bunch of them is the ignorant belief that our genes are of a low intellect ! They read popular scientific THEORIES and try and blind us with science. They are in a pitiful state ."

Lady Checkmate #fundie disqus.com

Newest target of Left is biggest one of all: your marriageThe professional association that bowed to pressure from homosexual activists during the 1970s is now advocating adultery among married couples.

Laurie Higgins of the Illinois Family Institute (IFI) suggests no one should ever consider the American Psychological Association a legitimate source again, citing the push for “consensual non-monogamy” from a group of lesbian and homosexual psychologists.

According to Higgins and IFI, an APA group known as Division 44, founded in the 1980s, formed a "task force advisory board" last year that examined consensual non-monogamy in the interest of “relationship diversity" and has now released its findings.

“Consensual non-monogamy” is professional euphemism for adultery and infidelity.

(full article here: https://onenewsnow.com/culture/2019/07/12/newest-target-of-left-is-biggest-one-of-all-your-marriage)

Lady Checkmate:
Again, their goal was always to mock and trivialize marriage. This is just a continuation of their original goal. But, God’s will will be done in spite of their mocking and hate.

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

Mad Monarchist #fundie madmonarchist.blogspot.co.nz

Why I shouldn’t be King of Great Britain: The UK embassy in Washington DC would be home to the world’s largest statue of King George III. If at all possible, I would try to face him toward Mt Vernon. Since I wish nothing more than for the English-speaking countries to be drawn ever closer together, this would not be a good thing for Anglo-American relations and yet, I know I would not be able to stop myself from doing it.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Spain: First visit to Mexico, I’d show up dressed like Cortes and carrying a flag. And, you know, they probably wouldn’t like that. Recently, King Felipe VI met with Martin Schulz and that highlights another reason because I could certainly never stomach shaking hands with the likes of Martin Schulz. (shudder) In dealing with certain Latin American leaders, I would not be able to stop myself at asking them to “shut up” but would probably include a string of epithets that would certainly not be conducive to Hispanic solidarity, which I would like to see more of.

Why I shouldn’t be Grand Duke of Luxembourg: I would spend all my time campaigning to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. I just couldn’t help it. Campaigning to evict the European Court of Justice from Luxembourg soil would probably also be seen as “too political” and “interfering” in government matters for current sensibilities.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Belgium: All foreign aid to the Congo would be in special currency bearing a portrait of King Leopold II. And that would be evil! They would probably also misunderstand it, assuming sympathy with atrocities carried out in his name rather than a swipe at the nature of “independent” countries being on the dole of former colonial powers.

Why I shouldn’t be King of The Netherlands: I would offer to annex any remaining Boer areas of South Africa. And I doubt that would go over well. Problems with Indonesia would also doubtless be unavoidable and I doubt the Dutch public could cash the checks my mouth would be writing -if you know what I mean. Referring, even in a joking way, to Belgium as “the Southern Netherlands” would probably also ruffle some feathers.


Why I shouldn’t be King of Denmark: The national coat-of-arms would be changed to show Reptilicus devouring Germany. And that would be weird. Hardly in keeping with the dignity and integrity of the oldest monarchy in Europe. (Bonus points to anyone playing along at home who actually knows who “Reptilicus” is)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Norway: I’m not proud of it, I don’t like to admit, but I must face facts and I have to be honest. At some point I would have to wear a helmet with two big horns on it and would constantly be threatening to raid someone.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Sweden: Constantly hitting on Finland and asking when we can get back together would probably not be considered a legitimate foreign policy. It would probably upset the Russians too.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Liechtenstein: I’d form a military and declare war on San Marino.

Why I shouldn’t be Prince of Monaco: I would probably bankrupt the place trying to buy Menton and Roquebrune from France. There would also be family tensions anytime Gad came up as absolutely no one is good enough for my dear Charlotte.

Why I shouldn’t be Pope: Perhaps this one shouldn’t count but the Pope is technically the sovereign of a legal state so it is included for that reason. My “Renaissance” style papacy would give the entire Catholic world whiplash after the reign of Pope Frank. Not good. Every address to the world would probably consist of me screaming, “You’re all going to burn in Hell you godless heathens!” Can’t see that winning many over honestly.

Why I shouldn’t be King of (insert name of predominately Muslim country here): I doubt an infidel monarch would last long. Aside from differences of belief, I don’t drink anymore so that’s not a problem and I can live without pork but…a whole month without being able to smoke? I would explode.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Lesotho: I would absolutely refuse to have any dealings with South Africa, which for Lesotho would make life pretty damn difficult considering that the country is entirely surrounded by South Africa.


Why I shouldn’t be King of Swaziland: Aside from how positively ridiculous I would look in the national costume, there are other aspects of life I could never adjust to. For one, I couldn’t do the whole polygamy thing. The idea of one wife is frightening enough. Good. God.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Bhutan: There is no way I could stop myself from hitting on pretty much every female member of the royal family -and that would be awkward. (seriously, they are ridiculously gorgeous)

Why I shouldn’t be King of Thailand: Constantly playing “One Night in Bangkok” would probably not be considered appropriate royal behavior. Some people are really offended by that…I know.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Cambodia: Pretty simple. On day one I would fire Hun Sen, upsetting Vietnam, end friendly relations with China and North Korea and probably be assassinated in quick order, plunging the country into chaos.

Why I shouldn’t be Emperor of Japan: I’d go to pray at Yasukuni Shrine wearing a kimono with a big rising sun on it and all the Chinese and Koreans heads would explode in a fit of rage that might start World War III. And nobody wants that. But, I’d probably also be assassinated by right-wing extremists for not going along with their ‘Japan is the only country that never did anything wrong ever’ mentality.

Why I shouldn’t be King of Tonga: After some rather rotund monarchs, having a king who looks like he was just rescued from the world’s worst POW camp would probably be too great a shock for the people of Tonga.

Chateau Heartiste #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon

I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first

Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.

II. Make her jealous

Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants. The partner who harnesses the gale storm of jealousy controls the direction of the relationship.

III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority

Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.

IV. Don’t play by her rules

If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.

V. Adhere to the golden ratio

Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.

VI. Keep her guessing

True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.

VII. Always keep two in the kitty

Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.

VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary

Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.

IX. Connect with her emotions

Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.

X. Ignore her beauty

The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.

XI. Be irrationally self-confident

No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more pussy than rational defeatism.

XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses

In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dancefloor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft.

XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little

Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.

XIV. Fuck her good

Fuck her like it’s your last fuck. And hers. Fuck her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.

XV. Maintain your state control

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

XVI. Never be afraid to lose her

You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.

***

The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.

Best,

Your Lord and King

Laurel and Billy Long #fundie blongoutofthebox.blogspot.com

Jesus Touched the Children


“Then they brought little children to Him, that He might touch them….And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands on them, and blessed them.” Mark 10: 13-16

Claire
Claire was 8 years old. She had two problems that troubled her—an embarrassing problem of bed-wetting and a wart that had been on the bottom of her foot for over a year. She had heard her brother Reuben’s story about the doctor cutting a wart from his foot and she did not want that. She determined in her heart that she would wait for Mahesh Chavda to visit to our church and let him pray for her.
Claire, along with our other children, had come to love and respect Mahesh. They had heard him tell stories of the many healings that had taken place in his ministry around the world. And we had friends who had experienced healings in his meetings. Therefore, little 8-year old Claire decided that Jesus would heal her when Mahesh came to minister.
She entered the meeting with a child’s faith. She went up for prayer and the Lord touched her. She was filled with the Holy Spirit, the wart disappeared overnight and was completely gone the next morning, and she never wet the bed again.

Leah
Leah was 7 years old. She was trying to go to sleep but began to cry, saying, “Daddy and Mommy, my tummy hurts!” Laurel and I prayed for her but the pain intensified and she cried even harder. Finally I turned to Laurel and said, “We need to take her to the emergency room.” Still in tears, Leah yelled out, “No! I don’t want to go to the hospital. Pray for me. Jesus will heal me.”
So Laurel and I laid hands on her stomach, and prayed in Jesus’ name. The pain instantly and completely left. Leah suddenly became very calm and relaxed.
I leaned over and kissed her and said, “Leah, wasn’t that nice of Jesus to touch you and take the pain away?”
She, with eyes half closed and ready now for sleep, peacefully and quietly said, “Yeah. ‘Cause if He didn’t, He would be in trouble.” I laughed under my breath and marvelled at the simple faith of a child.

Matthew
Parents know how frightening it can be when their infant children get the croup. The croup is marked by episodes of harsh, hoarse, and dry coughing accompanied by difficult breathing. Our son Matthew was less than 2 years old and had developed a bad case of it. We were at a Bible Study-prayer meeting at my parents’ home. Matthew began to cough. His face turned red, and his breathing was difficult. My cousin Bootsie said, “You need to take him to the emergency room.” We considered this, but on the way home, faith rose in our hearts. I turned to Laurel and said, “We are going to lay him in his crib and pray over him until he is healed.” Upon entering the house, we laid him in the crib and prayed over him in Jesus’ name. The Lord touched him and he was healed the minute we began to pray. The cough was instantly and completely gone. He lay there quietly consuming his bedtime formula, and fell into a restful sleep for the entire night. When he awoke the next morning he had no symptoms at all. He was healed.

A Neighbor’s Child
As I was leaving a friend’s house one day, He and I passed his five-year old son playing with some toys on the ground. As we discussed other things, the father showed me some sort of bone growth that was on the back of the child’s head. It was just a little smaller than half a ping-pong ball and had been there for years. The doctors had told him it was nothing to worry about. It would not harm the boy, but was simply unattractive and inconvenient. My friend and I did not focus on the child but continued our conversation.

However, as I talked with my friend, I very casually laid my hand on the back of the child’s head a couple times saying, “Lord, bless him.” Again I said, “I know it’s nothing to worry about, but Lord bless him anyway,” as my friend and I went on with the conversation about other things. Then I drove away feeling guilty that I had not taken time to pray an official and “real” prayer over that child. Instead I had only said “Lord, bless him” in passing as I talked about other things.

I was surprised a couple days later when my friend called to tell me that the child’s growth had completely disappeared. The Lord had healed it in response to a simple “Bless him” prayer.

“Let the little children come to me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.” Mark 10: 24

Ross Olson #fundie creation.com

When I discuss the creation/evolution controversy, there are all sorts of interesting responses to the evidence. People are basically unable to answer the powerful logical and scientific case for creation. So, many eventually say something like this:

‘But if creation is true, why don’t all scientists believe it? All scientists agree that evolution is true.’ Others do not say this outright, but it is an unspoken criticism which they see as an automatic veto of anything that seems scientifically unorthodox.

Can the majority be wrong? Most people admit that the general public may be in error. But they doubt that the majority of scientists could be wrong. This implies that science is somehow different from other human enterprises, and that scientists are immune to the foibles of non-scientists.

History shows that the scientific establishment has been wrong time after time. It is unwise to bet your life on any scientific theory, no matter how popular it is. In fact, often those who have consciously sought safety by staying in the middle of the herd have ended up, like lemmings, in the middle of a stampede off an intellectual cliff.

Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis (1818–1865) found that by washing his hands between the time he examined dead bodies and the time he delivered babies, he could prevent certain illnesses in mothers and babies, and save many lives. He was appalled by the heavy death rate in Vienna maternity hospital when he worked there. He introduced antiseptics, and the death rate plummeted from 12 per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Even though Semmelweis should have been declared a hero for this simple but powerful discovery, he was not. He was not even asked for his data. Rather, his idea was soundly rejected by his colleagues, and he was forced to return to his home in Budapest. Germs had not yet been discovered, and the physicians of that day had no theoretical basis for understanding the phenomenon Semmelweis was talking about. Even so, the idea would have been easy to test and was clearly of great potential importance. But they did not even consider it.

If we had quizzed the ‘dirty hands’ doctors at a particularly frank and honest moment, they may have said: ‘It just doesn’t make sense. If I can’t see it, it must not be real.’ Or, ‘What I don’t know can’t hurt me (or my patients).’ Or worse yet, they might have said, ‘If I admit to this, I will have to accept responsibility for untold past preventable suffering.’

Our past decisions may prejudice our ability to evaluate the present. A scientist who has based his career on calculating what happened during the first few moments of the ‘big bang’ will find it difficult to be open to evidence that the ‘big bang’ never happened. Great learning does not always make a person more honest and accessible, but it may increase the complexity of his or her rationalizations.

A young graduate student who believes in creation, but also knows that rejection of evolution would jeopardize his degree and career, may try to work out some intellectual compromise, whether it fits the data or not. (This is essentially a form of protective colouration which makes his beliefs invisible in that environment.) He is then likely to spend the rest of his professional life ‘agreeing with himself’. He may even ridicule those more forthright than he, partly because they prick his conscience.

Many scientists hold firmly to evolution despite the evidence. They know that without evolution they must consider themselves responsible to a creator. Their need to reject that possibility is so emotionally powerful that they hang on to evolution tenaciously.

Most of us assume the best about our fellow humans unless forced to think otherwise. Have you ever read a newspaper account of an event you know by personal experience, and found the story inaccurate or incomplete? You then probably wondered about the accuracy of other stories in the paper. Even though the scientific method is supposed to encourage objectivity, some data get recorded and some get ignored, some articles get published and some get rejected—a lot depends on the very human motives of individual people. Even looking at the same data and the same articles, different observers can come to different conclusions.

Great breakthroughs in science are not achieved only by the brilliant. They are shared by the honest and courageous who study the emperor’s new clothes and regard truth as more important than political correctness or a grant for further study. This does not mean that someone outside the herd is automatically right. But proper conclusions may be opposed by scholars with ulterior motives.

At one time or another, most children probably say to their parents (in support of some questionable activity), ‘But everybody’s doing it!’ Good Christian parents invariably say, ‘No, they’re not! But even if they were, you’re not, because it’s against what God wants for you, so it’s wrong.’ We should therefore become a bit wary if someone says, ‘But everybody knows…’, or ‘All scientists agree…’. They probably don’t. And even if they did, it might still be wrong.

Daren Mehl #fundie darenmehlblog.com

LEFOU, YOU’RE NOT GAY FRIEND!

Dear Lefou,

Before you start thinking you’re gay and acting out with behaviors you’re not familiar with, hear me out. I think there is more to you than your sexuality, and there is more going on in your life related to your newly discovered feelings toward Gaston. Instead of accepting the false identity of a gay man, you should consider the following:

Many people will be claiming that you’re gay, because you have an attraction to a guy that you just can’t place. You find him extremely attractive, and you’re not sure why. You hear from people that you must be gay! And that seems like the easy answer. You’ve seen movies with gay people in them and feel like you can relate to them. You’ve seen how your peers at Disney romanticize same- sex relationships as being healthy and normal; and it brings you peace thinking that could be you. Now that you’ve got this feeling you can’t hide, that deep down desire that is directed toward Gaston, you probably think that must mean you are gay, huh? Before you hasten to choose a gay identity, consider that there are negative factors that could be influencing your identity and behavior, if not subconsciously, then overtly. You may recall things as I mention them, or you may have to pray to recall repressed memories.

HERE WE GO, WILL YOU HEAR ME OUT LEFOU?

What if certain things from your past have caused you to have these unusual feelings? Many people who have been where you are, took on the gay identity, only to find themselves coming to a different identity that isn’t gay. Me for example. This is because they have identified experiences from their past that led them to nurture a mistaken identity.

What are these experiences? They include unrealized masculine qualities you wish you had and covet in other men (Gaston for example), feelings of rejection from women (so I’ve heard Claudette, Laurette and Paulette have been hard on you), lack of healthy masculine relationships with other men, and a really dark subject, abuse. Let’s review these one at a time:

UNREALIZED MASCULINE QUALITIES

Let me tell you about what happened to me here. I grew up very smart like you, energetic, fun to have around. Also like you, I was not really athletic and the girls ridiculed me constantly. I also found myself wishing I was the alpha male, daydreaming of being one of those big guys who got the attention of the girls and was awesome in all sports. (I suppose for you it’s hunting and fishing?) Something in me changed over time because of the coveting and the lust of their masculinity, including their bodies. I started to see them as attractive, not platonicly speaking, but with a desire to possess. With many of my peers jeering at my lack of masculinity, and calling me gay and queer because of it, I wondered if that was the explanation as to why I had those feelings. Perhaps those feelings were sexual? And if they were sexual toward the same sex, I must be gay?

You see LeFou, you have been bullied for a long time by Gaston. That guy has a huge ego, and he uses people like you to feel important and strong. It’s seems he is demonstrating dysfunctional behaviors in relationships with both men and women and needs help. He has been teasing you and demonstrating his masculinity to taunt you for his benefit. You recognize his strength and are intimidated by it, yet somewhat curious and attracted to it. What could be happening is the masculine qualities you think you don’t or can’t have that he possesses is causing feelings of desire. He seems to be using that to his benefit. It seems you’re stuck in a victimzier/victim relationship.

LACK OF HEALTHY MASCULINE MALE RELATIONSHIPS

I went the majority of my life without a healthy masculine relationship. My father, God bless him, was very busy man working to take care of our family, but unavailable for those father/son bonding experiences that you see in old shows like My Three Sons or Leave it to Beaver. The male peers with whom I hung out frequently made me the brunt of the jokes because I was a pushover. Always wanting to please others, wanting people to like me because I was so alone– wait, isn’t that your story? Yeah, we’re a lot alike.

It wasn’t until later in life that I met a male friend who eventually became a spiritual brother to me. My friend demonstrated masculinity in a way that didn’t intimidate or show condescension towards me. He wanted to help me find my masculinity. He came alongside me and encouraged my growth instead of holding his masculinity above me like a carrot to get me to do things.

Gaston is using you, and you are allowing it because you are getting male attention, albeit all negative . It is true he is a handsome and strong man, a seemingly very capable individual. But he dangles it over you to get a response for his ego, to get you to serve him, to oogle over him. Like I said, his ego is so big he uses women and men and wants them to swoon over him.

But you know what? There are better guys out there who will be your brother. Some other guys will come along and befriend you. These new friends will be your equal and your guide you in obtaining the masculine qualities you want. They can help you get comfortable in your own skin. Ask and I bet they can help you in prayer as you seek counseling from therapists. And then you’ll learn the strong men in your life are your peers, not your lovers.

TROUBLES WITH THE LADIES

Here is another area I have some experience in. Not the good kind, the bad kind. I see how the ladies treat you with disdain. They look at you and wince. In middle school I was setup by three mean girls. They invited me to ‘the dance’ with a plan to destroy me. When I arrived at my date’s house, they literally cornered me in the den and emotionally berated and emasculated me. I ran home for support, but instead, I was rejected by my step mother and told to go to my room.

I was crushed. It was not until years later that I learned I had believed those girls when they said I was gay, that I was ugly and stupid, and that no girl (or woman) would ever want to be with me. This experience dramatically changed the way I related to women and ultimately how I related to men. Not trusting women with my feelings, that left me with men. Now that I’ve recovered from that trauma, I am able to trust a woman with my feelings.

ABUSE

If you read the news, you’ll see there sure are a lot of stories around questioning identity and sexual brokenness lately. People are discovering their ‘true’ selves after being abused. George Takei was sexually molested as a 13 year old child by a male adult at a summer camp before he took on a gay identity. Ellen Degeneres was sexually assaulted by her step father over and over. Milo Yiannopoulos was sexually abused as a 13 year old by a man and later again by another man. Tragically, when children are exposed to sexual abuse, they can get very confused, hide the abuse from their parents, or worse not be believed by their parents, and then bury the pain and later act out in unhealthy ways by making poor choices and end up taking on identities they wouldn’t have ever had if they had not been abused.

Have you been abused? You don’t need to tell me. I ask just to give you something consider if you need healing in that area of your life.

SEEKING HELP

If any of these areas ring true to your heart, and you believe there may be any sort of brokenness; I would encourage you to seek professional therapy and support. It seems the longer you go, the farther you’ll repress that pain until it becomes part of your identity.
What do I mean by that? Well, for many people there comes a point when you just give up and ‘admit’ you’re are gay because you can’t address the pain of the causes of your brokenness or explain or deal with the confusing or unwanted same sex attraction. The ‘coming out’ experience seems inevitable when compared to the huge wall of pain. Giving in feels like a relief because sometimes it’s easier to accept the identity of a gay person than to address the pain of brokenness. I’m not saying this is your struggle or your solution, just hoping to enlighten you that this could be an issue for you and if so there is hope for wholeness. It was certainly a struggle for me, and I prayed and God lead me to healing my brokenness and restoration of my true identity. Write me back and we can talk more about that.

Sincerely,

Daren
Your Not Gay Friend

Archwinger #sexist reddit.com

The Red Pill is Pro-Woman

There’s a post floating around one of the other subreddits telling the tale of a 17-year-old girl and her controlling, manipulative, abusive 23-year-old boyfriend who took great pains to isolate her from her friends and family, demand sex on every occasion they would meet (and threaten to dump her or kick her out of his house if she didn’t comply), and some other really shitty behaviors, like physical violence and driving off and leaving her in another state. Needless to say, this guy isn’t the “alpha male” a Red Pill guy strives to be. He’s a sniveling loser who had to resort to insecure, jealous, and controlling behavior because he didn’t have options with other women, wasn’t an attractive or valuable man, and was desperately afraid of losing this girl.

Somewhere in this story, the woman tosses in the fact that this shithead she was dating was obsessed with reading The Red Pill, which, of course, led to the usual Reddit bandwagon about The Red Pill being a haven for virgin loser sexist rapist abusers. Conveniently brushed off was the fact that this woman, for five years, stayed with her boyfriend, had sex on demand every time, came back to him after every breakup, and put up with all of his crap. Everyone simply concludes, obviously, that this woman had psychological issues, was young and naive and inexperienced, and that her boyfriend “took advantage” of her and “manipulated” her. Because of the way he “made her feel,” she was forced to stay with him, forced to have sex with him on demand, and prevented from leaving him.

This standard surfaces again and again, in various examples--I’m just pulling this one because it’s recent.

If a man were to approach a “normal” woman he was dating, with no deficiencies, no issues, no perceived power disparity or significant age difference or anything like that, and if that man were to say, “Have sex with me or we’re through,” the assumption for this baseline, normal case would be that the woman has two choices: have sex with him, or end the relationship. Also assumed in this normal, baseline case is that the woman has the capacity to make whatever decision she feels is best for her. Maybe she wants to have sex anyway and likes sex with him. Maybe she doesn’t, but gets something else out of the relationship she appreciates. Or maybe she’s offended by this kind of demand on principle and dumps him. But it’s her choice, right? She has agency and makes the best decision for herself.

The modern, anti-Red-Pill viewpoint is that no woman would ever put up with that garbage. The only correct choice is for that woman to dump the “abusive” shithead she’s dating (because any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically “abuse.” You’re supposed to buy her jewelry every weekend, not say a word about sex, and hope she fucks you out of the goodness of her heart). If a woman does agree to sex when demanded like that, that’s obviously the wrong choice, and it is clear, simply due to the fact that the woman made this wrong choice, that she is psychologically impaired and not responsible for her bad decision. Her abuser somehow had power over her and she couldn’t see the truth.

That’s the standard. Essentially, if a woman makes a choice our detractors agree with, she’s responsible and made a great choice. If a woman makes a choice they disagree with, then she was clearly manipulated, controlled, abused, and not responsible for her bad decision – blame the man.

That’s the blue pill, feminist, anti-Red-Pill way. “The choice I would have made is the only correct choice. I’m so right that anybody who does differently is mentally incompetent by definition, and any man who causes a mentally incompetent woman to make a bad choice is an abuser who should have recognized that the woman he’s abusing is mentally incompetent simply by virtue of the fact that she did what he wanted.” That’s the standard. It’s on you, the actor, as a man, to recognize whether or not a woman is competent to make a decision on her own behalf. It’s up to you to know everything there is to know about her and the totality of her circumstances, and to assume that women are mentally incompetent and can’t make good choices unless their circumstances are absolutely ideal. And even then, maybe not.

Ironically, the Red Pill is much more pro-woman. We assume that women are reasonably intelligent people, capable of making reasonable decisions that are best suited to them. That’s where the whole hypergamy thing comes from – we assume women are smart enough to make the decisions that get the best possible outcome for themselves. Likewise, when a man gives a woman a choice: put out or get out, we assume a woman is intelligent enough and responsible enough and reasonable enough to decide which of those two choices is the best one for her. If she walks, great. If she stays, then maybe she wanted sex, or maybe she’s getting something else out of the relationship that she appreciates. But it was her choice based on what she felt was the best outcome for her.

The Red Pill gives women the benefit of the doubt. The Red Pill believes in a woman’s ability to make responsible decisions for herself. Our detractors assume women are idiots, and therefore, it should be a federal offence to ever attempt to coerce a woman into sex, because women that agree to be with such men are apparently, by definition, mentally impaired. You can’t put women on the spot like that! They can’t be expected to make the right decision in those circumstances!

That’s the world of “feelings.” If you pick up a woman at a bar, and she goes home with you that night, but tomorrow morning, she regrets the encounter, then you “manipulated” her into sex. It wasn’t her decision, it was your abuse.

But even if she doesn’t regret her decision, our detractors don’t take her feelings into account at all. They only consider their own. They never would have gone home with you. The only correct decision was to turn you down. Because she made a decision they disagree with, by definition, you abused and manipulated and controlled her.

Thankfully for women, we assume better of them. We’re far more pro-woman than most feminists.

Lysander #fundie boychat.org

In the manosphere, there are many men who say, "I try to leave women better than I found them." This idea was debunked by Heartiste. Women don't age well, and having sex with men and then breaking up with them tends to take a toll on them. Even if they enjoy the experience, that will just produce wistfulness later, when they're post-wall and stuck with a guy who doesn't turn them on as much.

I'm not aware that homosexual relationships work under the same premise as a heterosexual marriage, that the cost of enjoying the kitten phase is that you have to take care of the grown cat. (As Victor Pride writes, "It's a tradeoff, she gives you her good years and you put up with her in her bad years. Never take a woman already in her bad years.")

People err in thinking that homosexual relationships or pederastic relationships operate according to the same principles as straight relationships. The lack of potential to have kids is a key difference. Even though Roosh seems to be cutting ties with me at this point, I have to acknowledge that he was smart to point out during Milogate that gays and straights are indeed different, and that we shouldn't hold them both to the same standards in their relationships. Their needs are different, their culture is different, their relationship dynamics are different, etc.

It probably is a lot more possible for a man-boy relationship to leave the boy better off, because his time hasn't been wasted the way that a girl's time is wasted during her years of peak fertility and beauty if a man pumps her and dumps her. I think we should call out the antis when they assume that boys are just like girls, and that they have the same vulnerabilities and need to be protected in the same way that a father would guard his maiden daughter's virtue. That's some politically correct nonsense.

Phineas2 #fundie christianforums.com

The concept that a human being requires sentience is subjective. Not everyone agrees. What about puberty? Why not draw the line there? Sure the organism just before puberty is sentient and can feel pain but who are vyou to say thats the subjective criteria if others disagree with you?
Anyway the whole issue can be solved by saying dont have sex unless one wants the responsibilty of conception. And isnt that what its all about sexual license? Of course it is. The next question will be so am I saying do with out sex, and the answer is yes! thats what it says in the Bible its for procreation. If people can't do without sex, and one doesn't need it, then sex must be their god.

various commenters #sexist dailywire.com

Re: Cops Say 13-Year-Old Boy Traumatized From Endless Sex With Hot Teacher

(Brandon)
This kid wasn't traumatized, this is the dream of every 13 year old with a hot teacher. That doesn't make it ok, it still messed up. But this kid is anything but traumatized, he's going to talk about this for most of his life.

(Guest)
I have to agree. There is a double standard I acknowledge that but this kid is going to be bragging about this for the rest of his life. I'm not saying it's ok. The teacher is a weirdo and the parents are nuts.

(Brandon)
I live in the town this happened, I never stop hearing coverage on it. According to every single one of the people who knew of there relationship, they say the boy sparked the start of this relationship.

The only thing that probably will traumatize him, is the abortion the teacher had with his child.

(T llama)
yer probably sick of this thread, but....

I think this falls under the fundamental difference between men and women. Or in this case boys and girls.

Was this 'wrong?' Yes.

Is this going to mess the boy up for life? Prolly not, especially as he encounters real women and not sexual predators. Your point that it can mess with this boys view of sex and women is correct, but speaking as a man, who was once a boy, I don't believe this isnt anything that wont get worked out in this boy's life as he grows up and meets strong female role models. Of course having a child at 13-14 yrs old is another discussion...

I won't say this was OK simply because the boy (IMO) is not messed up for life. I agree with you, there are laws to protect children and those laws are good ones; for boys and girls.

Not being a woman, i do believe in a world that glorifies and pushes women as objects (trump's experiences with women is a perfect example) i see how women (girls) are more vulnerable to this type of predatory behavior.

Again, this is just one of those things in life that can't be applied equally across the sexes. It was wrong. A child as a result is FUBAR but given it was a woman taking advantage of a boy, I'm less inclined to be bothered by it.

Take advantage of a 13yr old girl and i'll string you up myself. This might be considered sexist, but i still believe in women and children first....which is prolly sexist to some.

I think the difference of opinion, throughout this thread, is that some see this as a black and white issue and some of 'us' see this as a shade of gray.

If we are on a sinking ship; ill evacuate after women and children; not sure what would constitute a 'child' in that situation, but personally, 17 and younger. An 18 yr old guy may have to fight me for that last seat on the life boat;)

In 'this' situation, with some admittance of double standard (i wanted to say hippocrasy but cant seem to spell it;)) men see this different, even 13 yr old boys dealing with puberty; its different. Something a woman cannot understand as a man and vs versa.

'We' see this as an offense, but not as disgusting as if the sexes were reversed and 'I' believe that offense against a female of that age to be way worse.

Double standard. I admit it. But I am a guy. Was once a boy. Were you? Its one of those situations ya may have to yield to experience; as I would if the situation was reversed.

(mousekiller)
soon it will be the norm and any misgivings you and I have about it is moot. The leftists liberals are killing this country. Temoving any morals we have. Look at how they have changes the bathroom( restroom) by alowig boys in the girls restroom, lockers rooms and showers. WHF is going on with this country? It is time to say NO MORE . If you have the equipment of a male, your a male . It doesn't matter if you are wearing a skirt and lipstick. Use the mens room. ( unless of course your afraid your ass will be laughed at. If your a man and my daughter and or grand daughter is in womans restroom and you go in . You will be a woman when you come out..Enough is enough. Lets face it. If we don't stand up for our selves we are alone.

(stu magoo)
legally raped? as opposed to illegally raped? explain the difference please. never mind. every red blooded heterosexual 13 y/o boy would be bragging about this forever. that doesn't make it right for the teacher, but the kid being traumatized? please!

(REALConservative)
The month I turned 14, one of the 30'something married female chaperone's of our church youth group made me a man in the back of her van in the parking lot of a roller skating rink.

I never told an adult because I was afraid my parents would beat MY a... if they found out.

She and her husband owned a christian book store; let's just say folks were impressed with how much I liked to go to the christian book store; they were convinced I was going to be a a preacher. Such is not the behavior of a traumatized young boy.

(mousekiller)
It is every boys dream to be involved in a sex situation like that . No boy that age is a puritan. It is a natural feeling and urge and few young men ever get the chance to satisfy that natural urge. . Not even consider the legality of it. I damn sure would not have turned her down were it me when I was 13 if the opportunity presented it's self to me.. Neither would 99% of the men posting here. How many 13 year olds consider the law when ogling the scantly clothed women in magazines and on the street or in Walmart? Lets face it walking down the street in beach wear turns a lot of heads..Fires up the imagination. in young men.

No Halal Food, et. al. #fundie whatsonweibo.com

The Anti “Halalification” Crusade of Chinese Netizens
By Manya Koetse

The “halal-ification” (????) of food products in China has been a hot issue on Chinese social media over the past two years. Discussions on the spread of halal food in China broke out again this week when food delivery platform Meituan Takeaway (????) locally introduced a special halal channel and separate delivery boxes for halal food. What especially provoked online anger was the line used by Meituan to promote its new services, saying it would “make people eat more safely” (Literally: “Using separate boxes for halal food will put your mind at ease.”)

image
The image of Meituan’s promotional campaign for halal food that went viral on Chinese media: “Make you eat more assured.”

Many netizens said the measure discriminates against non-Muslims. They called on others to boycott Meituan and to delete the app from their phone. In response, the topic ‘Is Meituan Going Bankrupt?’ (#????????#) received over 3.7 million views on Weibo, with thousands of netizens discussing the issue under various hashtags.

[...]

A popular Weibo imam called Li Haiyang from Henan wrote a post in March titled “Raising Awareness about Islamic Dietary Law” (“?????????????“), in which he discussed the importance of national standards on halal food in China. Li Haiyang, who is part of China’s Henan Islam Society (?????????), wrote that all Muslims should follow the classic rules and abide by their beliefs, of which Islamic dietary laws are an important part, and that the PRC cannot discriminate against Muslim ethnic groups by refusing to legally protect Muslim halal food.

At the time, the imam’s post was shared over 500 times and besides much support, it also attracted many comments strongly opposing the imam’s views. A typical comment said: “China is a secular country ruled by an atheist Party, and firmly boycotts Islamic laws!” Despite backlash, there are multiple accounts on Weibo dedicated to informing people about halal food, such as ‘China Halal Food Web’ (@??????? 3100+ fans) or ‘Halal Cuisine Web’ (@?????, 3950 fans).

[...]

In the halal food debate on Chinese social media, the term qingzhen fànhuà (????) is often used – a new term that popped up in Chinese media in 2016. It basically means ‘halal-ification’ or ‘halal generalization,’ but because qingzhen also means ‘Islamic,’ it can also imply ‘Islamization.’

And that is precisely what is at the heart of the discussion on the spread of halal food on Chinese social media: those who oppose the spread of halal food in the PRC connect the normalization of Islamic dietary laws to an alleged greater societal shift towards Islam. The spread of ‘Islam’ and ‘halal food’ are practically the same things in these discussions through the concept of qingzhen.

[...]

On Baike, Baidu’s Wikipedia-like platform, the page explaining the term qingzhen fànhuà ???? says: “The term [halalification] originally only referred to the scope of the specific diet of [Muslim] ethnic groups, and has now spread to the domains of family life and even social life beyond diet, including things such as halal water, halal tooth paste, and halal paper towels.”

image
Advertisement in Ningxia public transport for halal paper towels.

The Baike page explains that halal products are hyped by companies that are merely seeking to gain profits. It also says that halalification is “not good for national harmony” and “not conducive to the healthy development of Chinese Islam.”

[...]

The ‘No Halal Web’ account wrote: “This already is Muhammed’s Shanghai.” They later stated: “In the Islam world, the demands of Muslims are not as simple as just wanting a mosque, they want their environment to be Islamic/halal.”

Verified net user ‘Leningrad Defender’ (@???????, 254465 fans) posted photos of a segregated ‘halal’ checkout counter at a Jingkelong supermarket in Beijing’s Chaoyang area, wondering “is this even legal”?

image
‘Halal’ checkout counter at a supermarket in Beijing’s Chaoyang area.

A Weibo user named ‘The Eagle of Great Han Dynasty’ (@????001) posted a photo on July 20 showing a bag of infant nutrition from the China Family Planning Association that also has a ‘halal’ label on it. He writes:

“What is the Family Planning Committee doing? Why is this halal? This is Jilin province, are we all Muslims? What is behind this, can the Committee tell the public? This is financed through the state, the public has the right to know!”

image
Infant product by the Family Planning Committee that is labeled ‘halal.’

Others also responded to the photo, saying: “State-financed products should not be religious.”

[...]

One of the key arguments in the debate is not so much an opposition to halal food in itself, but an opposition to a normalization of ‘halal food’ (with the complicating factor that the Chinese qingzhen also means ‘Islamic’ and ‘clean and pure’), which allegedly discriminates against non-Muslims and increases social polarization. Many netizens said that if there are special boxes for food for Muslims, there should also be special boxes for food for Buddhists, Daoists, atheists, etc.

It is not the first time that the separation of facilities/services for Muslims versus non-Muslims triggers online discussions in China. In September last year, the introduction of special “Muslim-only” shower cabins at a Chinese university also provoked anger about alleged “Muslim privilege.”

[...]

A female netizen from Beijing wrote:

“Why are so many brain-dead people opposing Muslims these days? How does Meituan’s separation of halal food hinder you? What do you care if your yogurt is halal? If you don’t want to eat it, don’t eat it. There are plenty of people who will. Use your brain for a bit. Not all Muslims are extremists; just as not all people from the Northeast are criminals.”

[...]

One young female writer says:

“(..) Under the current national policy of protecting ethnic minorities, Muslims enjoy special privileges in the name of national unity. If this continues for a long time, the inequality inevitably will spread to other domains of society. Today it is about separate boxes for food; tomorrow it might be about separate seating areas in restaurants. And what’s next? Segregated neighborhoods? Trains? Airplanes? It might seem like a trivial matter, but if you ignore this, then those who are privileged now will go on and get greater privileges. The distancing of Muslims will only grow. I’m not saying this to alarm you. It’s self-evident that unequal benefits and the privilege of an ethnic group will eventually create conflicts between the people.”

They later say: “What we want is national unity, not religious solidarity. (..) You have your freedom of religion, which app I use is my freedom. Separate boxes and other special services will ultimately be reflected in the costs, and I do not want to pay religious tax. Luckily I have the freedom to delete this app and stop using it.”