Guest Post by Fred Reed
Having for decades been exposed to the hostility of radical feminists, to the enormous harm they have done the schools and universities and the military, to relations between men and women, to their ashen tediousness and endless fury, their victimhood, I finally began to yell, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore.” At least, not quietly. Some thoughts, expressed with the gentility characteristic of this worthy column:
To begin with, there is problem of forged credentials. Radical feminists do not represent women. They represent radical feminists. Other women typically say that they are feminists, meaning in favor or equality of pay and opportunity, but explicitly reject the ideological baggage of the radicals.
Nor do feminists bear demographic resemblance to other women. For example, it is a good bet that no feminist voted for Trump, but CNN’s exit polls have 42% of women, and 53% of white women, voting for him. Further, few feminists seem to be married with children, and comparatively few are heterosexual. None of these conditions is morally wrong, but suggest not much commonality with most of humanity.
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
The ideological baggage is great. Radical feminism is not just about women, or perhaps even mostly about women, but rather a package of far-left causes, usually including open borders, Islamophilia, affirmative action, gun control, socialism, unisex bathrooms, environmentalism, compulsory diversity, opposition to abortion, opposition to free speech (“hate speech”), hostility for white men, support for bigger government, intense focus on nonstandard sexuality, and using the schools as indoctrination centers.
Some of these things may be reasonable or even desirable, but how such a porridge can be called feminism is hard to imagine. It certainly is not the feminism of the suffragettes, of people who campaigned for various forms of equality. It has given way to neurotic anger looking for targets. It combines the vitriol associated with antisemitism with the intolerance of Scientology.
Sometimes feminism borders on psychosis, though on which side of the border is not always clear. “Psychosis” means “detachment from reality.” For example, years ago one radical feminist told me, “three-quarters of men want to hurt women.” She meant it, cold sober and not in the heat of argument. Another told me, “Sixty percent of men are misogynists.” This is loopy, around the bend, Haldol time. Among themselves men say with wry resignation that women are mildly crazy and have PMS, and women complain about the position of the toilet seat and why don’t men ever pick up after themselves. All true, but doesn’t approach hatred.
Note that feminists tend strongly to be of the middle or upper middle class and well educated, much like members of the Red Army Faction and other virulently bored revolutionaries.
Typical exudate, from something,called Femsplain.“Dear dumb, entitled, insecure, angry men of the world: I am tired of you.” Ain’t no misandry here, and no sexism. Not a trace. thank god.
Invariably they describe as “women’s issues” things that are not. Abortion is a prime example. Check photos of any rally against abortion and you will see that a high proportion of the participants are women. An issue is not a women’s issue merely because some women favor it. Some women will favor socialism or compulsory military service, or longer hours for the library, but these are not women’s issues. They affect all.
Much of radical feminism evinces a profound dishonesty–though sometimes it may be simple confusion. Feminists paint opposition to abortion as hostility to women. Of course nobody opposes abortion for this reason. They oppose it because they think it morally wrong. Sane people may disagree on the notion, it isn’t misogyny.
Pregnancy simulator, forced on the military by feminists supposedly so that soldiers will understand the difficulties of pregnancy. (The military exists to understand the difficulties of pregnancy.) Can anyone believe that the purpose was other than to humiliate the hated macho male?
The dishonesty appears again in their attitude toward rape. Rape is packaged as a women’s issue, the implication being that men are unconcerned about sexual attacks on their mothers, wives, daughters, friends, and for that matter women in general. Oh sure. The fact is that a man’s usual response to hearing of rapes involves either rude surgery or a rope–but what do radical feminists know about men?
“Lena Dunham Posts Video Celebrating the ‘Extinction of White Men’ on Twitter”
Ain’t no misandry here neither. Imagine the hooha if a man celebrated, or hoped for, the extinction of white women. (Let’s see, I have a wife, an ex, two daughters, a granddaughter, and a stepdaughter, all of whom I care greatly for, not to mention a conviction that without women, white or otherwise, the world would be unutterably boring. So I want extinguish women, right?)
When there is conflict between concern for women and allegiance to leftist causes, the causes win. Feminists disapprove of rape, real or imagined, only when committed by groups they don’t like, such as white men. It has been infinitely documented that black and Muslim men are far more given to rape than white men, but they are “people of color,” and part of the coalition against white men, so they get a pass.
“Honor Killing: Two Men In Pakistan Rip Sister’s Eyes Out, Cut Her Feet Off“
If Donald Trump did this, he would get unfavorable press. Not Pakistani men, though. Have you seen radical feminists screaming to keep these animals out of the US, in which they would be utterly justified? Nope. Muslims are People of Color. Even when they are not.
It is telling that feminists do not criticize women who lie about being raped. Such prevarication puts innocent men in danger of having their lives ruined, being expelled from work or school, and jailed. Why no outrage from feminists? Would it not be moral to prosecute real rapists, and also prosecute the liars?
Apparently not. Why?
Well, Tawana was a black. The Duke-Lacrosse liar was black. Lena Dunham was a Democrat and feminist. All were women. Identity trumps gender. This behavior supports the view that radical feminism is just misandry wrapped in shiny cloth. I.e., a hate group like any other.
From the Rolling Stone piece, written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely about an alleged rape of one Jackie Coakeley by fraternity members at the University of Virginia :
| Seven men took turns raping her, while two more – her date, Drew, and another man – gave instruction and encouragement. She remembers how the spectators swigged beers, and how they called each other nicknames like Armpit and Blanket. She remembers the men’s heft and their sour reek of alcohol mixed with the pungency of marijuana. Most of all, Jackie remembers the pain and the pounding that went on and on. |
Almost predictably, she turned out to be lying. A jury found the author and Rolling Stone guilty of defamation and awarded damages of $3 million. Why did this happen? Because of rape hysteria created entirely by feminists, a population accustomed to routine attacks on men, a female writer, a co-ed trained by the zeitgeist to think rape fantasies carried no consequences, and a lefty (usually good) magazine eager to make a splash.
When a black rapper called on other blacks to gang-rape Sarah Palin, feminists did not rise in rage that I saw. Why? Because they don’t like Palin, and because blacks are People of Color. This is racism. Bill Clinton, a serial forcible rapist, gets a pass, as does Bill Cosby, while Donald Trump, accused of groping, is a monster. Identity politics. Misandry. Sexism.
One sees the same thing in their criticism of “Islamophobia.” Islam probably the most misogynist philosophy on earth. Islamic societies genitally mutilate young girls, kill them if they are caught kissing a boyfriend, forbid them schooling, and have far and away the worst track record for sexual assault. Not a peep from feminists.
Identity, identity, identity.
For the record, female genital mutilation consists in a group of women holding a young girl down, forcibly spreading her legs, and cutting out her clitoris with a razor blade and no anesthetic. Speaking as a man, I believe that everyone involved in this, specifically including the father who allowed it, should be killed in some exceedingly unpleasant manner. Feminists are OK with it. Mustn’t criticize People of Color. If strong of stomach, click here.
Do you notice a correlation between genital sadism and Groups Whom We Must Not Criticize?
Invariably feminists portray themselves as victims, when the American variety are the most privileged of their sex in the world. This desperate victimhood is the bedrock of radical feminism, without which it would have nothing to complain of. When your sense of self depends on being oppressed, you cannot afford to run out of oppression. Yet for all their obsession with imaginary misogyny, they practice a robust misandry. (A cynic might ask, can anyone be more sexist than a feminist, or more racist than a black? But I am not a cynic.)
The enmity to men, sometimes disguised, never called sexism, sometimes open, runs through the culture today. This is hardly a secret. There is for example the endless portrayal on television of men as milquetoasts and buffoons in need of instruction by women, the now normal beating up by women of a hundred pounds of men of one-eighty. Misandry.
Men seldom challenge feminists on this free flowing snot and bile because normal men like normal women. Again, they are our wives, daughters, dentists, and neighbors. It is easy to hit back at the bad temper and ill breeding (“Name one thing, with a moving part, that was invented by a radical feminist.”) but hard to do so without offending normal women, whom we do not want to offend. Further, men have a sufficient track record of achievement in the arts and sciences as not to feel greatly threatened by the calling of names. So we roll our eyes and think, “Yeah, yeah, Rachel. Yeah, Yeah. Oh god, I need a drink.”
The above, currently lurching around the internet to much complacent clucking, encapsulates the curiously delusional thinking of the tribe. It is insulting to men, and intended to be. Misandry. Men are dangerously violent, killers even; you have to watch them every moment. Simultaneously men are strutting foolish little things, their delicate vanity always vulnerable to a witty sally from Sally. All of this is of course pure misandry–that is, sexism.
Are they wacky enough to believe this? If so, they are, again, psychotic. If not, dishonest. Normal women are not afraid of being killed by men. (“Ah, but Fred, you can see it in their eyes as they creep through the streets, staying behind cover, glancing furtively about, frightened, ever expecting the knife….”) If anybody is more blisterishly sensitive even to disagreement, much less to ridicule, than a radical feminist, I haven’t encountered him. Or her. Or it.
Yes, the cheerleader can devastate the class dweeb by saying that she wouldn’t date him on a bet, or the quarterback crush the not-so-pretty girl by saying that she looks like a box car with warts. But few normal people, either cheerleaders or quarterbacks, are so cruel. And men in general do not speak of women with the venom of feminists speaking of men. Most of us date women, even marry them, regard them as the most attractive part of the social landscape.
Though, of course, at any moment we may kill them.
Obama has certainly left us a better world, hasn’t he?
Time to bring back the scold’s bridle for these feminazis?
Can you get those online? And is there a discount for buying in volume?
wow, a scold’s bridle….a device worthy of fear and one to denounce.
Yet, one can not blame a man for thinking about it. “Radical Feminists”
have nothing in common with the ‘everyday women.’ Abortion? I never
had one and would not have had one. I can’t imagine murdering my own
baby.
I suggest we ignore and deplore the feminists. Feminine women can speak
for themselves. Further, where would we be if not for our messy men?
I want them to thrive and be ever present in my world. Everything else
is a nightmare to imagine.
— “Feminine women can speak for themselves.”
Try it outside of the echo chamber around these parts.
When women stopped policing other women the same way men police other men all hell broke loose.
Currently, radical feminists both male and female ARE speaking for you and the men who are trying to stand up to them out in the real world are taking it in the balls and the ass.
Well said Razzle. Ignoring them doesn’t help when you, your brother, son or father come up against the legal bias in the system they have instituted and continue to push through legislation . Such as in hiring or family court or an accusation against a man using ever broadened definitions of rape, sexual assault, misogyny etc.
Suzanne, you speak a lot as my wife does. She has told me a few times that she appreciates my unapologetic masculinity–and she is immeasurably more feminine and a genuine woman than any of these “feminist” harpies.
I agree, these feminazi’s are hateful and mentally deranged at best. Many sound like they are mentally projecting their character flaws, their shadow side, onto males. Their assessments are not reality based, and I can’t imagine why anyone would take them seriously.
They listen to them (or better said give them a protected platform) because there’s money and TPTB desired control over the majority of normal men in them thar’ hills.
There is a great video on Youtube by a Mark Passio called “The Unholy Feminine and the Satanic Eugenics Agenda”–parts are a little out there but overall, it is very insightful on why TPTB are trying the ultimate divide and conquer–the 50/50 split of women against men.
Worth noting–the title is a bit misleading, it is about how far from the original Feminist/Suffragettes who fought for equal rights and opportunities are from the current -Third Wave Fems who are pushing for a Sameness Agenda.
/salute javelin
You have to take them seriously when they introduce their laws and occupy all the positions of power.
“Further, few feminists seem to be married with children, and comparatively few are heterosexual. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS IS MORALLY WRONG, but suggest not much commonality with most of humanity.”
The part I put in large caps is not necessary to the article and is incendiary. I don’t think that was your intent, but if it was you have succeeded.
Homosexuality is in fact the end of a series of immoral life choices as is laid out specifically in Romans 1. There is nowhere lower morally for a person to go. Not only is it against nature, but it is against nature’s God. The design of a man and woman naturally are ample proofs for this. Add to that the scriptural admonitions for this behavior and you have an airtight case for it’s being abominably immoral.
How glibly you parrot “against nature”. Try spending a little time in the barnyard, you may find that “nature” has fewer scruples than you assume.
In my particular barnyard, I have observed:
Roosters raping female ducks.
Roosters raping male ducks.
Female ducks who seek out the company of roosters.
One male duck ditto.
Turkeys gang-banging roosters to death.
And that’s in daylight hours, gawd only knows what goes on at night.
Your depraved collection of critters make Voodoo Island sound like a tropical paradise. I think the writer knew his readers would understand – against what nature intended.
There was this disreputable family in my hometown whose children were all crosseyed and bucktoothed. The father was arrested and convicted of beastiality, having been discovered in his pigsty in a compromising position by the county sheriff summoned late at night by neighbors reporting the obvious terror of squealing pigs.
I’m concerned about Socratic Dog’s birds.
I own a ranch in Montana. There is not a single act of homosexual copulation among Cows, chickens, dogs, cats, horses. Your definition needs some tweaking.
Read my comment above ed. I thinks I smells some bullshit.
really? you watch your animals 24/7?
We do watch them a lot. But, not 24/7.
But. Why would there be a need to watch them that much to see them doing their thing? The bulls copulate right in front of us. Horses, chickens, etc. They do not have the same sensibilities about such things as humans do.
sigh
YOU wrote “I own a ranch in Montana. There is not a single act of homosexual copulation among Cows, chickens, dogs, cats, horses.”
HOW do you know there is NOT a single act of homosexual copulation among Cows, chickens, dogs, cats, horses UNLESS you watch them 24/7?
jeez, even a bible thumper should understand that
Ed… you are incorrect about animal homosexuality.
The appropriate question is why are leftists so intent on using animals as their standard for cultural norms. Using creatures with no expectation of impulse control as a metric for cultural standards is a very odd recipe. They might as well endorse inter-species sexuality too since “it’s natural”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ1f7aOeEpc
While I agree that animal behavior should not define cultural norms, I can’t accept that pecking order and shows of dominance are synonomous with homosexuality.
In all my years of dealing with these animals I have yet to witness or even hear of actual copulation between animals of the same sex. But, in contrast I have often witnessed copulation between those of opposite sex. It seems to me that some are using their human interpretation of behaviors in animals to support conclusions that they set out to prove beforehand.
As an aside, though I believe in the Biblical model for sexuality, if for arguments sake we considered the evolutionary model, natural selection, it would dictate that within 1 or two generations the homosexual gene- if there was such a thing- would have bred itself out of the species. Because only the heterosexual tends toward reproduction.
This means that homosexuals, according to natural selection, can not be born that way. Because our species has been here for more than enough generations to have bred the gene out of it, again IF it existed, and if evolution were true. The same goes for animals.
So, there you go. Whether one is a Christian as I am who believes that choice decides human sexuality, or an evolutionist who believes in natural selection, homosexuality is an aberration. Even in animals.
Blessings:-}
— “In all my years of dealing with these animals I have yet to witness or even hear of actual copulation between animals of the same sex.”
Go to youtube. Use the search function.
I guess leftists bring up nature in response to bible thumpers saying homosexuality is unnatural
The problem with that is GV that ven the naturalists (evolution) won’t stand for it. They know it isn’t natural too.
got any proof of that?
Yes GV,
The Darwinian view explains the sexual drive and all behaviour as solely a product of survival of the fittest selection. That is, organisms with a strong heterosexually oriented drive produce more of their kind, and are more successful, and those lacking it produce fewer offspring and are, therefore, more likely to become extinct.18 Evolution teaches that the source of sex is ‘biological . . . written by natural selection’.19 Since nature would consistently select those organisms with stronger heterosexual drives, it would become stronger and stronger until it would eventually become the all-encompassing human drive, more important than food and other life preservation needs. Evolution would not select for length of life beyond childbearing years, but primarily for the number of offspring that an individual was able to produce.20,21
18 Margulis, L. and Sagan, D., 1986. Origins of Sex: Three Billion Years of Genetic Recombination, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
19 Wilson, E.O., 1978. On Human Nature, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 142.
20Darwin, C., 1859. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, reprinted by Random House, New York.
21 Darwin, C., 1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, reprinted by Random House, New York.
Reproduction rates are not just of major importance in evolution, but are critical because high rates provide the numbers for evolution to select from—and a greater sample size means greater chances exist that more ‘fitter species’ will occur. Homosexuality would obviously usually not produce higher levels of reproduction than heterosexuality—evolutionary selection would consistently work in the opposite direction, selecting for heterosexuality—and any biological factors positively influencing homosexual feelings would rapidly be selected out. Homosexuality is thus not easy to explain from this world view.
So, you need to choose another reason for your “sexual preference” GV. Because the naturalists aren’t having any of it.
I suggest Rom.1
“…So, you need to choose another reason for your “sexual preference” GV. Because the naturalists aren’t having any of it….”
oh, so after a quick google search you’re now an expert in human genetics AND speak for ALL naturalists!
wow, typical arrogance of a buy-bull thumper.
and for you, I suggest a rusty chainsaw.
that and Google “does evolution explain homosexuality”
— “I guess leftists bring up nature in response to bible thumpers saying homosexuality is unnatural”
Well this is where I have a problem. As the supposedly better educated, better read, and more enlightened group it is the left’s responsibility to recognize that both sides are using the word differently.
When a bible thumper says homosexuality is unnatural… they mean it in the same way that they would say Theft and Murder are unnatural. Meaning it is against God’s Nature and Will.
It doesn’t take a great intellect to realize that just because it is “natural” for an animal to steal or murder that the same standard should be used to evaluate what should be considered “normal” behavior for a human.
It is perfectly natural for a 25 year old to be attracted to a 15 year old pop star who could pass for 21 being peddled by MTV. But we don’t endorse them actually having sex as a culture, do we? Why?
The more you fall into the trap of pointing to the animal kingdom for what is natural in response to bible thumpers, the more you convince people who aren’t bible thumpers but know the full scope of what goes on in the animal kingdom, that all you are really advocating for is a return to a primitive animistic existence.
“…When a bible thumper says homosexuality is unnatural… they mean it in the same way that they would say Theft and Murder are unnatural. Meaning it is against God’s Nature and Will….”
oh really? and yet Edwitness was the bible thumper who brought up HIS observations of his animals sexual behavior
“…all you are really advocating for is a return to a primitive animistic existence.”
great strawman
This is probably one of the most important posts I’ve made on TBP and I’m sad it will likely be lost in the shuffle.
ErgoTheInternet… *shrug*
“…They might as well endorse inter-species sexuality too since “it’s natural”.”
yet more proof that males will fu*k anything
— “oh really? and yet Edwitness was the bible thumper who brought up HIS observations of his animals sexual behavior”
Fuck you are stupid.
Bible thumpers consider evolution part of God’s plan. Animals will never evolve into humans so their behavior is not relevant to the higher standards expected of humans. So even while a bible thumper is bringing up evolution… you as the smarter, better read, better educated, more well informed, leftist, should be able to understand where a person like Edwitness is coming from and crush his argument.
— “great strawman”
It is not a strawman to explain to you in clear English exactly why you are failing to convert certain demographics to your cause. I offered you help, you shat on me. I gave you guidance and you shat on it. Which just contributes more to the perception that you are endorsing little more than animal reactions to impulses.
— “yet more proof that males will fu*k anything”
I am a male and the primary criticism levied against me is my refusal to fuck.
No… animals will fuck anything they desire that doesn’t kill them when they try. Thus we loop back around to what started this conversation. Orgasm != Love you fucking animals.
Razzle,
“Bible thumpers consider evolution part of God’s plan.”
Did you mean to say Christians DO NOT consider evolution part of God’s plan? Because we do not.
Unless you are talking about micro (variations within the kind) and not macro (change from one kind to another) evolution.
Blessings:-}
“…Bible thumpers consider evolution part of God’s plan….”
hey moron, fu*king moron, Edwitness was the bible thumper who brought up HIS observations of his animals sexual behavior.
“…you as the smarter, better read, better educated, more well informed, leftist, should be able to understand where a person like Edwitness is coming from and crush his argument….”
where the fu*k do you get off calling me a leftist?!?!?
“it is not a strawman to explain to you in clear English exactly why you are failing to convert certain demographics to your cause.”
I don’t give a rat’s ass about “certain demographics. reading your post shows you are one arrogant p.o.s.
“I am a male and the primary criticism levied against me is my refusal to fuck.”
like we want to hear about your sex drive
Ed… My comment is guiding the perspective more toward the understand that “Everything that happens within existence, regardless of whether we understand the full scope of it or not, is part of God’s plan”.
The point is to *remove* the macro/micro/”is natural” aspect from the discussion of whether a human culture should endorse certain behaviors or not and focus on the consequences of actions.
Razzle,
I got that from your comments and I agree completely. But, a ‘witness’ is careful not to leave out the ultimate consequence and it’s remedy that comes from a rejection of the instruction that comes from Nature’s God.
And while a secular discussion may bring some understanding. It can never make the difference that saves someone from the fires of a real hell. Only a discussion that includes the gospel can do that. Rom.1:16,17
Blessings:-}
— “And while a secular discussion may bring some understanding. It can never make the difference that saves someone from the fires of a real hell. Only a discussion that includes the gospel can do that. Rom.1:16,17”
The conversation is a multi-step process. Before some people can even consider what you have to say, they sometimes need a little razzle dazzle sprinkled on their ontological foundations.
/salute
“Razzle dazzle”
I like it:-D
Blessings:-}
rabble: “And while a secular discussion may bring some understanding. It can never make the difference that saves someone from the fires of a real hell….”
jeez, your “god” ordered the murder of children and babies. so spare us the buy-bull thumping
GV,
“jeez, your “god” ordered the murder of children and babies. so spare us the buy-bull thumping”
As usual you are clueless.
Gen.6:4- “There were giants(nephilim) in the earth in those days; AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of god cam in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children unto them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown……….”
But, you won’t be for much longer.
Mt.24:37-39; “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, MARRYING AND GIVING IN MARRIAGE, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
Unless you repent.
Edwitness, typical buy-bull thumper. can’t think for yourself so you have to parrot the buy-bull
btw, how did Noah get all those South American species on the ark?
GV,
If you really want to know you can go to this website;
https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-noah-fit-the-animals-on-the-ark-and-care-for-them/
It is certain that no fully grown animals were taken on the ark. And as for the numbers, when we understand ‘kind’ as opposed to ‘species’ it is easily seen that relatively few animals were needed to represent the varieties we see today.
In Kentucky a full sized ark has been constructed and is available for exhibit there.
So the question of how all the animals fit onto the ark is realy a very simple one.
Edwitness: “…So the question of how all the animals fit onto the ark is realy a very simple one.”
typical buy-bull thumper, ignore the question: how did Noah get all those South American species on the ark?
Gen.1:21,24,25….”after it’s kind.” Every species was not taken onto the ark. Every kind was. It makes a huuuge difference.
Edwitness: “Gen.1:21,24,25….”after it’s kind.” Every species was not taken onto the ark. Every kind was. It makes a huuuge difference.”
are you saying that all the current species got on the ark?
or that most of the current species evolved after the ark landed?
and how did the saltwater fish survive the fresh water flood?
He heh heh,
You’re funny.
I said; “Every species was not taken onto the ark. Every kind was. It makes a huuuge difference.”
Kinds are not species. Many species come from one kind. Wolves, coyotes, foxes, and chihuahuas are different species, but are the same kind.
Extrapolate that out to the rest of creation and you have relatively very few kinds.
constantly amazed at how your type will buy any fairy tale.
very few kinds, eh?
then MOST of the current species evolved after the ark landed, right?
— “hey moron, fu*king moron, Edwitness was the bible thumper who brought up HIS observations of his animals sexual behavior.”
Yup… and I corrected him on the technicality of his commentary regarding animals who have no civic standards regarding their sexual behavior.
You… choose to use animals… to justify your behavior in response to Ed. Bad move.
— “where the fu*k do you get off calling me a leftist?!?!?”
If you want homosexuality to be considered normal and treated the same as heterosexuality you are a leftist. You sit on the left hand side of God.
— “I don’t give a rat’s ass about “certain demographics. reading your post shows you are one arrogant p.o.s.”
You care VERY much about certain demographics. You care in particular how certain demographics think about your demographic and you are terrified that the demographics you don’t give a rat’s ass about might stop giving a rat’s ass about you.
— “I am a male and the primary criticism levied against me is my refusal to fuck.”
— “like we want to hear about your sex drive”
Excellent! We agree!
I don’t want to hear about your sex drive. Keep it to yourself. Private. STFU.
You see how this is a two way street… and how I genuinely care more about your personal health than all the gay rights activists out there?
rabble: “If you want homosexuality to be considered normal and treated the same as heterosexuality you are a leftist….”
riiiiiiiiiiiiight, meanwhile Trump held a rainbow flag at one of his events.
so you can drop the leftist BS
rabble: “You care VERY much about certain demographics. You care in particular how certain demographics think about your demographic and you are terrified that the demographics you don’t give a rat’s ass about might stop giving a rat’s ass about you.”
not really, as far as equality for Gays goes that is now mainstream, especially among the young.
jeez, you sound like a Hiligua voter, we won, get fucking over it already
— “rabble”
That’s Mr. Rouser to you.
just ignore all the homosexuality in Nature.
That will be easy:-D Because there is none.
yep, brain dead bible thumper
How do you feel about all the inter-species sex in Nature?
What about all the old geezer animals having sex with youth the moment they enter puberty?
Pointing to nature is a losing proposition for your cause.
The conversation has to remain entirely about the long term effect on human communities when certain impulses are culturally encouraged vs discouraged.
“…The conversation has to remain entirely about the long term effect on human communities when certain impulses are culturally encouraged vs discouraged.”
then have that conversation
— “then have that conversation”
But I thought you were the educated demographic? If you don’t know how to mock and dismiss the Edwitness in your midst, what hope does the likes of me have that you can have an actual conversation?
It’s very very easy.
The moment a culture stops directing orgasm toward procreation is the moment the culture chooses suicide.
This does not mean that homosexuals can’t not only live… but thrive… in a heteronormative culture… it simply means that the homosexual understands that their very existence and survival depends upon the health of the heteronormative foundation upon which they were born into and depend upon whether they are willing to admit it or not.
Yes, GV… you are killing yourself by endorsing your lifestyle. Me… someone who tells you to shut the fuck up and keep your shit probing to yourself… am more interested in keeping the likes of you alive than every “gay right’s activist” out there.
You just have to be smarter than your average idiot leftist to get the picture.
“But I thought you were the educated demographic? -If you don’t know how to mock and dismiss the Edwitness in your midst, what hope does the likes of me have that you can have an actual conversation?”
what, you think the buy-bull thumper is winning? ROFLOL.
“…The moment a culture stops directing orgasm toward procreation is the moment the culture chooses suicide….”
hey Einstein, we don’t suffer from UNDER population
“…Yes, GV… you are killing yourself by endorsing your lifestyle. Me… someone who tells you to shut the fuck up and keep your shit probing to yourself… am more interested in keeping the likes of you alive than every “gay right’s activist” out there….”
man, you are one arrogant p.o.s.
as for me shutting the fuck up? fuck you with a rusty chainsaw
— “what, you think the buy-bull thumper is winning? ROFLOL.”
No… the general population is catching on to the true consequences of openly supporting your sexual preferences. That’s what is winning. This is resulting in the bible thumpers no longer sounding as crazy as they did in the 90’s which is why you are having to work harder to convince yourself that the tide isn’t turning.
— “hey Einstein, we don’t suffer from UNDER population”
Focusing orgasm toward procreation has nothing to do with population size. It is in regards to the nature of the culture in regards to sexual drive and the stability of the community.
Even though a 15 year old girl might be totally into having sex with a dozen 30 year olds in a week… we have determined this to be a socially destabilizing activity and thus restrict it. It’s natural, it’s consensual, and nobody is “harmed” if we allowed it. Yet it is still restricted.
Our population “problems” have more to do with the procreative consequences of those who aren’t thinking about procreation and all the responsibilities when seeking orgasm… than we would have if orgasm were focused toward procreation.
— “man, you are one arrogant p.o.s.”
Sometimes.
— “as for me shutting the fuck up? fuck you with a rusty chainsaw”
No thanks. I’m not controlled by my orgasm urges to the detriment of myself and those around me like you are.
razzle: “No… the general population is catching on to the true consequences of openly supporting your sexual preferences. That’s what is winning. This is resulting in the bible thumpers no longer sounding as crazy as they did in the 90’s which is why you are having to work harder to convince yourself that the tide isn’t turning.”
riiiiiiiiiiiiight, must be why Trump was holding a rainbow flag at one of his events.
razzle: “Our population “problems” have more to do with the procreative consequences of those who aren’t thinking about procreation and all the responsibilities when seeking orgasm….”
well hot damn, I actually agree with you. now let me look out the window to see if it is raining cats and dogs
razzle: “No thanks. I’m not controlled by my orgasm urges to the detriment of myself and those around me like you are.”
wow, the stoopid is strong with this one.
but again, fuck you with a rusty chainsaw.
razzle, you and gay vet need to kiss and make up. There are other battles to fight.
— “razzle, you and gay vet need to kiss and make up.”
I do not consent to performing in your proposed TBP porno.
— “There are other battles to fight.”
All of the other battles are rooted in and influenced by the fundamental way we treat and regulate the desire to orgasm. You want to fix the economy? Fix the attitude toward orgasm.
So long as we treat a 30 year old woman who consents to have sexual interactions with a 15 year old who initiated of either gender… with more contempt, horror, and legal consequences than we do homosexual/trans /otherkin behavior… our economy and culture is guaranteed to tank and drag us all down to the bottom.
rabble: “So long as we treat a 30 year old woman who consents to have sexual interactions with a 15 year old who initiated of either gender… with more contempt, horror, and legal consequences than we do homosexual/trans behavior… our economy and culture is guaranteed to tank and drag us all down to the bottom.”
amazing how fixated some people are about Teh Gays
hey Einstein, it ain’t us fags that are popping out little bastards. that would be heterosexuals like you
— “amazing how fixated some people are about Teh Gays”
[/img]
[img
I’m here to make you feel penetration into your soul in ways you’ve only dreamed of.
Teh Gays are a trivial momentary flame. Always have been. Always will be. Enjoy your moment… the youth are eager to hate you in ways I am completely incapable of.
razzle: “…Enjoy your moment… the youth are eager to hate you in ways I am completely incapable of.”
ROFLOL, the youth don’t believe your BS
@GV… note I haven’t been keeping up with any other posts to the thread so if you’ve said something to me you would particularly like me to respond to… let me know.
— “ROFLOL, the youth don’t believe your BS”
ROFLCOPTEROMGBBQTHEJEWS… the youth don’t want you to be unnecessarily hurt, but if you can’t see the tidal wave of STFU and GET OUT OF MY LIFE rebellion that the youth *always* engages in once they catch on to both the consequences of the dogma their elders taught them and the tenuous control their elders really have… then you aren’t paying fucking attention.
I’m telling you… seriously… as a concerned human who understands your fear… start identifying mostly with your Veteran status and leave your Gay status to those close to you.
The youth are being brought up with an undercurrent awareness and personal experience and thus understanding of the higher personal risk of a non-traditional approach to sexuality, the absolutely terrifying groups of people “slip streaming” aka “drafting” behind you, and the never ending demands for MORE MORE MORE from people you may dislike, but also are not in a position to stop.
I told you, I’m more concerned with the health of the gay community so long as they live on earth than every gay rights activist out there. Whether you’re fucked as far as God is concerned is between you and God.
razzle: “…The youth are being brought up with an undercurrent awareness and personal experience of the higher risk of a non-traditional approach to sexuality….”
ROFLOL, the youth don’t care, they aren’t obsessed with Teh Gays
— “hey Einstein, it ain’t us fags that are popping out little bastards. that would be heterosexuals like you”
Hey fag, it’s historically white Christian culture that has become totally gay toward fags that isn’t popping out little bastards either. Those cultures are in population decline.
It’s the animal cultures who have even less tolerance of you when push comes to shove that are breeding like animals using the protection you’ve been demanding that “all love is love” who are overrunning the social systems previously maintained and defended by straight white Christians out of empathy.
That empathy is being abused and unless the tide truly shifts you will find yourself surrounded by animals that just fuck for the sake of fucking rather than considering whether their desire to fuck… or bully the gay… is anti-civic.
razzle: “…you will find yourself surrounded by animals that just fuck for the sake of fucking rather than considering whether their desire to fuck… or bully the gay… is anti-civic.”
love how you demonize people by calling them animals
sounds like you have a problem with sex. you should move to a more religious country……try Saudi Arabia
— “ROFLOL, the youth don’t care, they aren’t obsessed with Teh Gays”
Correct. They are disgusted by the people hiding in your anus and are coming to realize the only way to get rid of them is to close off easy access to your anus.
— “love how you demonize people by calling them animals”
Acting on feelings without considering the long term consequences for everyone else is being an animal.
— “sounds like you have a problem with sex. you should move to a more religious country……try Saudi Arabia”
Sounds like you have a problem with impulse control. Not a worry… almost everyone does in one way or another. It comes down to whether their animal impulses are given government protection or not.
If I had a problem with sex there would be hundreds, maybe thousands, of razzles coming to destroy you. No… my problem is people like me have been far too civic to people like you while anti-civic people have flooded through the door that civic people like me have kept open in good faith for people like you.
“…They are disgusted by the people hiding in your anus and are coming to realize the only way to get rid of them is to close off easy access to your anus….”
I see rabble has some anus obsession.
and AGAIN: the youth don’t care, they aren’t obsessed with Teh Gays
“…Sounds like you have a problem with impulse control. Not a worry… almost everyone does in one way or another. It comes down to whether their animal impulses are given government protection or not….”
what, are you the sex police? AGAIN, sounds like you have a problem with sex. you should move to a more religious country……try Saudi Arabia
“…my problem is people like me have been far too civic to people like you while anti-civic people have flooded through the door that civic people like me have kept open in good faith for people like you.”
oh yes, “anti-civic” people being anyone who disagrees with you
— “I see rabble has some anus obsession.”
Only when it’s being used incorrectly. I mean that for when straights abuse their anuses too. Both are part of the long term trail of poo leading to Lady Gaga and Myley Cyrus performing for pre-teens.
— “and AGAIN: the youth don’t care, they aren’t obsessed with Teh Gays”
No… the *leftist* and Churchian youth don’t care.
The youth on the right (including atheists/agnostics) are seeing the bigger picture behind you and recognizing the problem caused by opening the doors as wide as they have been allowed to be and are trying to figure out the appropriate response. Again… being treated poorly isn’t their desire… but getting what has infiltrated the public education system and media meant for kids back to a sane state is definitely part of it… and it started with “free love” and exploded into absurdity with “all love is love”.
And as you’ve noticed… the right that is in power right now was fueled by a highly charged youth. Who are sick of progressive agendas and you my friend are smack in the middle of the larger social conversation about the progressive agenda.
Heck as an… I’m assuming… gay white male you aren’t even all that appreciated by the progressives anymore because you’re not oppressed enough in their victim pancake stack.
— “what, are you the sex police? AGAIN, sounds like you have a problem with sex. you should move to a more religious country……try Saudi Arabia”
Explaining that treating *all* sexual conduct as if it should be put on equal social ground as a married man and woman seeking to have children has severe social consequences has nothing to do with being the sex police.
It’s being honest.
— “oh yes, “anti-civic” people being anyone who disagrees with you”
Anti-civic means being more interested in yourself than the larger picture effects of encouraging certain types of behavior to be treated as if they are on the same footing as others… when they clearly are not because the civic *responsibilities* are inherently different. Especially to children. When marriage is changed from being primarily an arrangement for the stability of families to an arrangement of someone to have sex with… it has negative consequences for the civic arrangement.
It *started* with heterosexuals and especially no-fault divorces. So don’t think I’m saying the decline in our civic standards is all your fault. I’d pick on someone who had a username of Slut Veteran too, especially if they were in a conversation with EdWitness trying to justify it because of how certain animals mate.
2 things to keep in mind. You absolutely can’t provoke me no matter how much you try… and if you put aside me upsetting you and really think about what I’m trying to say you might see why I mean it when I say I’m more interested in your long term health (because it’s dependent on the health of your surrounding culture) than those out there having hyper-pornographic gay pride parades in public streets.
rabble: “Only when it’s being used incorrectly. I mean that for when straights abuse their anuses too….”
oh lord, here comes rabble the anus police. bend over everybody for the anus inspection!
“No… the *leftist* and Churchian youth don’t care….”
heh, that would be the majority. suck on that
“…Explaining that treating *all* sexual conduct as if it should be put on equal social ground as a married man and woman seeking to have children has severe social consequences has nothing to do with being the sex police….”
equal social ground? wtf is that? sounds like you have a fundamental problem with liberty. Teh Gays could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn’t change a thing
“…Especially to children. When marriage is changed from being primarily an arrangement for the stability of families to an arrangement of someone to have sex with… it has negative consequences for the civic arrangement….”
arrangement of someone to have sex with? are you fucking retarded? when does it require a marriage license to have sex?
“…and if you put aside me upsetting you….”
ROFLOL, funny you think a 2 watt bulb like you is upsetting me
“…I’m more interested in your long term health (because it’s dependent on the health of your culture) than those out there having hyper-pornographic gay pride parades in public streets.”
don’t like gay pride parades? then don’t go to one
oh, but maybe you want to ban Mardis Gras too
This is what a feminist looks like.
[img
?w=450[/img]
Shouldn’t there be a couple of cats in that box of rocks? Cats, not pussies, of course.
In the United States non-essential Infant Cosmetic Surgery is legal on the infant male penis and the infant male penis only.
Science says otherwise. And so do nurses that have to take care of patients that can not take care of themselves. From Scientific American;
“A year after men received circumcisions, the total bacterial load in the area that used to be under the foreskin dropped significantly, researchers report today (April 16) in the journal mBio. Anaerobic bacteria, which thrive in limited oxygen, declined most dramatically. Some aerobic bacteria, which need oxygen to live, increased.
“It’s dramatic,” study researcher Lance Price, a genetic epidemiologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C, said in a statement. “From an ecological perspective, it’s like rolling back a rock and seeing the ecosystem change.” [5 Things You Didn’t Know About Circumcision]”
Blessings:-}
B4 circumcision was common,were male organs rotting off?
Not many, but I would be willing to bet that women had a lot more yeast infections and UTIs.
If we performed surgery on infant female’s breasts we might reduce breast cancer too.
Is there a benefit to the foreskin being there? There is for a woman’s breasts. Food and fun.
Reducing the number of deaths due to the unnecessary surgery is a good start (much less the other complications that can and do happen).
http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm
The foreskin contains the bulk of the nerve endings, protect the glans from constant rubbing resulting in desensitization in most… and outright pain in those who are highly sensitive.
It provides a substantial part of the mechanical portion of sex allowing for more comfortable penetration for both partners.
It’s the way the body was built and until there is a KNOWN problem to be addressed we do not perform pre-emptive surgery on infants in any other circumstance.
The World Health Organization state that there is “debate about the role of the foreskin, with possible functions including keeping the glans moist, protecting the developing penis in utero, or enhancing sexual pleasure due to the presence of nerve receptors”.
Notice it says “possible functions”. Ummm…that’s not science.
As to your argument that it is cosmetic surgery done without the babies’ consent. Circumcision is not the only cosmetic surgery done in babies. Or young children for that matter.
These are done for their good by those who believe it to be in the best interest of the child. And as you can see when studying the literature on the subject, it is the opinion of many that it is better for them to be circumcised.
Israel did this as a matter of religious observance. And like the washings and food ordinances God gave them, circumcision was a matter of health. Just like it is today. And in my humble opinion, just as most today are rejecting God’s plan for them for salvation, they are also rejecting anything and everything that could be construed as coming from him. Including circumcision.
But, the apostle Paul made it clear that circumcision was not to be adhered to because of one’s religious beliefs. It was ok to be circumcised. But, not for religious observance sake.
Blessings:-}
I will leave this conversation to the wolves… as I know it will go in loops and the information is out there at everyone else’s fingertips.
There are those who are afraid to admit that perhaps they have been unconsciously supporting non-consensual non-necessary surgery on male infants (declared non-necessary by even the most strident medical supporters of it).
The medical community has a vested interest in over-stating the benefits because their credibility hinges on not having it widely understood that infants die from the practice for marginal benefits at best… where the benefits are much weaker than other pro-active surgeries we could do in infancy but don’t permit entirely on moral reasons.
So have at it… continue to defend it if you must. But I know full well you’ve got that pit in your stomach while you do. That’s for you to deal with.
I had read the foreskin, let’s put it this way – the removal of the foreskin leaves the person with less sensitivity. If the jews agreed to circumcision, they were in effect giving up sex for god.
Jesus later clarified that sin originates and matures in our minds. He suggested that only when you can’t control your appetites is when you should cut off any part of your body to secure a place in heaven. Paul followed that teaching and declined to teach his disciples to practice circumcision – circumcision being a part of the old law.
Of course, there are still folks who practice the old law and muzzies who practice their own efforts at justification. (Although what I read is that clitoral excision is promoted by women and men figure it will insure the girl’s chastity.) Male and female circumcision is but a ritual to appease their religious leaders. Medical benefits are nothing more than an attempt to justify doing the things Paul condemned.
El coyote,
The reason Paul withstood peter to his face was that peter had stopped fellowshipping with Gentiles in order to appease the judaizers. In their view you were not Christian unless you were circumcised.
Paul’s contention was that a person is a Christian by grace through faith in Jesus. And it had nothing to do with the observance of the law.
But, the judaizers rejected Paul’s teaching.
Paul wasn’t saying a person could not be circucised. Or even that they shouldn’t. He only taught that it was not a condition of salvation. And to make it so was an issue worth getting in someone’s face and rebuking them over.
There is no doubt cleanliness is an issue with uncircumcision. Do you think any man actually wipes himself like a woman does after urination? Even shaking that uncircumcised mess wouldn’t help them.
Blessings:-}
I wash my uncircumcised mess daily. Urine is sterile, you could even drink it. I do not know what women do after peeing, since they have nothing to shake. I hold that what Maggie described are STDs and not some toxic dick cheese.
Coyote – I finally decided to check my piss and wet my finger, it tasted sweet, I filled a cup and took a drink, it tasted like juice.
Sexy Mulatta – Ugh
Coyote – C’mon, men have been tasting girl’s piss forever
For fuck’s sake. Perform surgery on the infant male penis before the child can consent for the sake of the women?
Maggie, come on.
Look razzle, without getting too graphic, let me tell you my first husband was not circumcised. My current husband is.
I speak from a position to know.
Do get graphic. Are you seriously proposing that because you had the poor judgement to marry a man incapable of properly cleaning his dick that every other man should be subjected to infant surgery before they can consent?
Really? So that YOU don’t have to be inconvenienced?
I’ve been in a position to get involved with women with nasty cooters and assholes too that would be liable to infect me with diseases. What surgery should they be subjected to so I don’t have to do my due diligence and make sure I don’t marry someone incapable of basic bodily care?
Okay, okay, you force me to disclose shit I never like talking about. I’d gone to Panama with a friend – T. A taxidriver offered to give us a tour of the place. They do the same thing in Juarez, btw. He took us to a strip show. T said he was bored because we were way the heck in back of the theater and they were painting the girls with colored stripes of lights like it was a Vegas production.
So the taxi driver took us to a ‘burdel’ – a cathouse. The girls started coming round and T finally chose a girl he liked. Meanwhile, I kept telling the girls ‘no’ and finally came up with a good excuse. The girl turned and reported to the others, he says he’s already been upstairs. Another girl in the group said loud enough for me to hear, he’s no ‘galan’ (gentleman).
After a while, my buddy comes back in a panic. The girl asks me to explain to him that the lather he found on his penis was due to the soap she had used to wash his dick before doing the nasty. He was only mildly convinced.
I confess all that to say, men can wash their dicks, no need for surgery. Only little kids have trouble stripping the bark back, big dudes have no trouble skinning the foreskin back a foot or two.
We didn’t do it to my three year old. Asked the doctor if there was any MEDICAL reason to do so, she said there was not. Same thing when he had his first check up after we left the hospital. Doctor immediately noticed he wasn’t circumcised and asked if it was staying that way, we told him yes, and he said “good for you. Most people today still do it, and the reason they most often give is so it won’t be weird looking, or it will look like his dad’s” he said that those aren’t a good reason to get elective cosmetic surgery. Just seems to me to be a horrible thing to do to a baby when it first enters the world. My parent’s still thought it was a medical neccessity since thats what they were told. Since thats not the case, you are doing it for cosmetic reasons. If my son gets a little older and wants a part of his dick cut off, Ill pay for it. How many of you guys, if you were asked now, would want that done? Didn’t think so
The big reason I think it won’t go away is because the medical community doesn’t want to admit they’ve been doing this to infants for decades for no reason. Babies have died, or had to grow up with a mutilated penis, because of this. Admitting it now would undermine their authority, so they continue doing it because most parents dont even give it a second thought.
Excellent Maggie! My wife is a nurse in a rehab unit and occasionally has to deal with these filthy things. She says the smell is nasty.
Blessings:-}
What is she proposing we do to infant vaginas to help with the nasty smells there?
And armpits. And assholes. And mouth holes. What infant surgery is she endorsing to help with those?
Okay, I seriously have a problem with this topic as if thousands of years of circumcision for custom or health practices (I said PRACTICES, raz, don’t get your panties in a wad) has been just to murder the baby boys who’ve died of infection resulting from the procedure.
I don’t know if some uncircumcised penises are easier to maintain than the one with which I was once somewhat familiar, but I can only compare what I’ve seen with what I know. Things that are harder to clean don’t get cleaned as often by a lot of dudes.
Women tend to be a little more fastidious about that area. At least in MY day.
Right Maggie,
Nurses work with uncircumcised men all the time. They all say it is nasty. So you are right on target.
And I was just thinking about the days when I was in high school. We had group showers where I went and I never saw a guy pulling the skin back to give it a good cleaning. And that was after vigorous exercise. It would have been very noticeable if they did.
And what guy wipes after peeing? None. It’s obviously very un-hygienic.
And yes, it is obvious razzle has a thing about this subject. Hmm?
I can assure you without looking, that Stucky’s long pole is clean as a whistle. Most guys take care of that better that they take care of anything else. The problems you might have had in the past could have been due to STD’s. Which would mean your old BF was carrying on like Batman, living a double life.
You have a point about the yeast infections & UTIs Maggie but I do believe that unless it is a serious health problem that men should decide once they’re adults.
It took some time for the power of death to infiltrate man’s genetics after Adam bowed his knee to the serpent. Which is also why man started living much shorter lifespans.
Circumcision was also a sign, a commitment from them, that they were God’s people as well.
Blessings:-}
Ed, Science does not agree… which is why very few places including scientifically literate first world nations on the planet still practice it and why it is purely voluntary (and rare) in the places it is still allowed outside of the US.
Your argument rests on allowing Cosmetic Surgery on males before they can consent based on the habits of people who “can’t take care of themselves”. What other body parts do we perform surgery on in infancy based on the potential the person might not take good care of themselves?
Show me a nasty penis and I’ll show you a nasty asshole, mouth, and fingertips too. And plenty of nasty vaginas.
I repeat again, no other body part in the United States is allowed to be cosmetically altered in infancy except the male penis… and there is not a pandemic of penile problems in those who are uncircumcised. Go ahead… try to find this epidemic of medical problems that justify allowing Infant Surgery on the penis… and compare against rates of other issues which too could be reduced or eradicated if we performed surgery in infancy.
You should seriously consider what precisely you are defending.
“Ed, Science does not agree”….
I gave you the scientific journal that says otherwise. Yet you offer only your opinion. Ok
No, you are just lazy. I countered with the absurdity of the reasoning of what you did provide by putting it alongside other situations where the same reasoning clearly falls down and would not be tolerated.
http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm
a good description of communism.
and who should we blame for feminism?
white power structure.
also responsible for computer, electricity, and agriculture.
what has feminism created?
safe places for uni-brow chics in army boots.
Women are an astounding invention designed to reproduce and fill the world with yet more women. Of course, they will also require monetary support for their reproductions. Their weakness is that they need men’s precious fluid to accomplish their nefarious ends. So they resort to various obvious or underhanded tricks.
The women who have no hope of achieving their reproductive goals go rogue and embark on a campaign of cock-blocking on a major scale. They pretend to be on other women’s side but they are in fact, attempting to chop down men’s logs and build a dam for themselves, stopping up the water flow and denying the life-giving fountains downstream.
I’ve a radical solution (otherwise, why bother writing this?). Outfit men with VR headsets linked to their cell phone. The convenient app on the phone translates reality and beautifies latent dykes without need of liquid fortifier. The uglier the bitch, the more beautification created by the app. Men would know the truth but their loins would be unable to resist and walla! Dykes dicked daily.
Problem solved.
Much like a paper bag with your favorite celebrities face printed on it. You can even double bag the really ugly ones.
Miles, I understood that a double-bagger was – one for her and one for you.
EC… “no hope of achieving their reproductive goals go rogue and embark on a campaign of cock-blocking on a major scale.”
and…”attempting to chop down men’s logs and build a dam for themselves, stopping up the water flow and denying the life-giving fountains downstream.”
I’m not exactly able to visualize this or grasp “cock-blocking on a major scale”, but the wordsmithing is nice.
P.S. It was worth an edit to asked where the alliterative gem “dykes dicked daily” emerged.
Alliteration is a cheap literary strategy but I love it and have been doing it for years here. The major scale cock-blocking is as Gator described; forming protests against sex and attempting to make laws against heterosexual sex and even incarcerating little boys who dare to kiss a classmate to send a message to any other daring heteros.
Happy New Year, all.
This post is great. It encapsulates several real examples of radical feminist/leftist hypocrisy and double standards, and duly cites concrete cases where “protected groups” (People of Color) are “given a free pass.”
A few days ago, a white poster said in the thread about MTV’s ludricrous new year’s resolutions for white guys video that he never cared much about himself being a white man until he was faced with all this nonsensical, idiotic, foolish trash from the left about “white guilt” and its related topics. Today he is proud of his white identity.
In the very same manner, a few years ago, I started a “radicalization” process which has seen me “swallow the red pill” regarding women and the lies of feminism. I am not a misogynist (I love the women in my life) but I have seen very clearly the double standards and hypocrisy of so many “enlightened” (sarcasm intended) western women. This thread lists most if not all of them.
I still believe in chivalry, but I am far more able to see today how women manipulate men (and other women), and how feminism in its radical form is a dangerous disease.
Modern, it was well known early on that the women’s libbers were dykes. Dr – (UTEP) explained that part of the induction process, introducing young women to women’s lib was to have them examine their clits, the instructors or facilitators would be there to hold the mirror and possibly help them locate the little thing. Surre.
Dr – also explained that a lot of the ground level political party leaders were queer and you can see today where that has brought us.
Your explanation of clinical psychological methodology sounds charming.
Apparently, Modern Chronicler, this discussion is all about circumcision and what a barbaric practice it is.
razzle appears to have a thing about it.
Modern Chronicler’s post was magnificent and I thumbed it up.
To Maggie: The conversation is about feminism and the influence it has had on our priorities as a culture in the modern era (not 200 years ago). In particular those we as a culture rush to prevent ever feeling uncomfortable with their choices and the consequences of those choices… and those we shrug and tell to just get over it and stop “having a thing about it”.
Even when they had no choice.
— “razzle appears to have a thing about it.”
Maybe my penis was mutilated by a botched circumcision at birth. Maybe it was not.
You seem to have a thing about your ex-husband. Over the years on TBP I’ve grown kind of tired of hearing about the dude. Get over him.
@Maggie… skip to 10:00 and watch for the next 30-60 seconds and get back with me about “have a thing about it”.
I’m going to make a wager right now.
Maggie will either not watch the video, or she will watch from 10:00 to 11:00 and will not comment.
Prove me wrong Maggie. Tell me to stop having an issue about it.
With all your going on and on about it razzle, it’s seeming more like an obsession than a “thing”.
Hey Ed: Why are you obsessed with defending genital cutting of infants?
I just arrived at the scene and am cueing up the video now, razzle.
I will be perfectly honest and tell you I don’t have a thing for Les. He was my “tester” husband. I find the memory handy for asshole examples. The foreskin issue was a minor one, I admit, but since he turned out to be a giant dick himself, I like to point it out.
I will return to comment on the video.
/salute and appreciated and +1.
Honesty: You bring him up a lot. Far more than your current man.
Decent guys get kind of tired of consistently hearing from the ladies they care about… about how big the giant dicks that are bigger dicks than they will ever be… were such huge dicks back when the ladies they care about were younger and more “open” to “giant dicks”.
My “current and only” doesn’t like to be mentioned here. In fact, you might have noticed I no longer post images of our home and land. Or me unless an unrecognizable shot from ancient history.
I am aghast, having watched the video and admitted my error in allowing my newborn baby to be subjected to that horror just so the head of his pecker would be shiny without knowing who, where, why, what or, most importantly, HOW.
And, there is no way I’m showing this to my son to add the list of things to blame on mother.
Razzle, you are absolutely right.
If I had seen that BEFORE I gave birth to my son, I would never have allowed it to happen so young. If Nick insisted, I would have insisted on waiting.
I agree that all expectant mothers should see that minute. FWIW, I watched/listened to much more.
As for my ex? I actually “bumped” into him in the Cyberkingdom of AWACS hasbeens, congratulating him on his two lovely daughters and recent retirement without even a pang of hatred.
Time heals. Otherwise, no discussion.
I thank you a thousand times over for proving me wrong in my challenge to you above. Couldn’t ask for more from a nicer gal. Will now go personally down vote my challenge comment.
This is a case where both of us being wrong results in a huge right. /respectful fist bump
As for the ex vs now… I hear you and understand. I think the big win there was you giving me the chance to wordsmith the “giant dick” into a point. 😉
pointy headed giant dick. ohhhhkay.
When I was a kid, my grandpa bought me an orange so big, I needed two hands. I never found oranges that big when I grew up. Ah, my misspent childhood!
razzle, can you believe I got down-voted once for saying that men like women with little hands because they make things look bigger? People have such dirty minds.
I was approached by one of these things last week. We were in the french quarter of NOLA walking around, and on the corner there was a fat, blue haired feminazi looking creature in a planned parenthood shirt trying to sign people up to support them. Y’all should have seen this thing. It looked like what you would expect to show up if you called central casting and told them to send over an angry lesbian protestor. She stopped us and asked if we would join them and support planned parenthood. I was carrying my daughter on my shoulders and had my pregnant wife with me. I looked at her and bit my tongue, and just point at my wife’s stomach and told her “no thanks, as you can clearly see we prefer to keep our babies” and kept walking. Didn’t say what I wanted to, but oh well. There was some goofy homo looking dude on the opposite corner doing the same thing. He didn’t bother us.
It bemuses and frustrates me to no end seeing the left’s hypocracy with muslims. I feel like a great reality show would be to lock a bunch of these feminazis in a warehouse with about a dozen muslim men and just film what happens. Apparently simply seeing and reading about what this particular brnad of “diversity” does isn’t good enough. I guess they actually need to get raped first. It will be funny though, as their immediate reaction to getting assualted is probably going to be to run to a white guy to protect her.
OK ladies sign up for the draft , pass the same PT tests equal pay equal responsibility equal accountability ! Most women and men of good concience see thru much of the radical feminist movement and understand there are natural differences between male and female not one over the other how about a realtionship built on mutual respect viva la difference !
Gator, I told you all my little story about the dykes. To be more clear, the dykes are baby haters.
Sex is nature’s way of insuring the human race is kept going.
I recall Dr Hall (UTEP) commenting in his philosophy class that a woman’s scent was one of the provisions of nature to ensure men didn’t make a mistake.
He said it would be a shame if men took the wrong path and humanity was extinguished. Today, many folks take that wrong path and I surmise, using only anecdotal evidence, that dykes and queers hate babies and baby breeders.
“…I surmise, using only anecdotal evidence, that dykes and queers hate babies and baby breeders….”
I’m totally indifferent to babies and baby breeders.
Circumcision was ordered by God (the creator of the penis) for his Chosen People. You know less about this than God. Even if you don’t yet realize that fact.
People doing it for religious reasons are on firmer ground than those doing it for medical reasons. They are on the same ground as Muslims, but at least they have an historical reason for doing it for better and worse.
You telling us that the non-jew-atheists doing it in 2016 out of fear their boy will be made fun of in the US are doing it because they are God’s chosen people?
*shrug* Maybe… God does work in mysterious ways.
Or maybe you desperately need a reason to justify your genital cutting the same way Muslims do.
Since we’re having a religious conversation… I think this is the appropriate venue for this…
Let’s look at the original source of this barbaric practice.
God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself at the ripe old age ninety-nine. Then God said that all the generations of Abraham’s male descendants must observe this practice. And then God states His reason WHY he demands this’
“[it is] the mark of the covenant between Me and you.”
Get it? It’s a SIGN between God and Abraham’s descendants. A fucking sign, nothing more, nothing less.
It had absolutely nothing to do with clean dicks. Edwitness is full of shit, one again … a fundy bible thumper who has proven time and time again that all he really “knows” about the bible is parroting bullshit that has been spoon-fed to him over the years. He doesn’t ever think. In other words, he’s a fucking moron. Believe the bullshit he writes at your own peril.
And, oh, btw …. Maggie … knowing that your first husband’s dick smelled or tasted bad? ….. well fuckmedead and stick a spinning razor blade up my ass … sometimes you give out waaaaaay!! to much info.
But …. since we’re sharing …… I’m Austrian and un-snipped …. and Ms Freud says my dick smells like a rose, and tastes just yummy. Kinda like a Slim Jim.
sorry, stuck… was a too early in the morning thing.
It is a weird thing this blogoworld stuff. It can be like rambling to oneself until reminded that thousands of people are listening.
I apologize for the comment now. I watched a good portion of that video razzle posted and now I am sick to my stomach, realizing I let that happen to my newborn son and the doctor distinctly told me it was a simple procedure with a second or two of pain that would prevent a lot of problems with hygiene.
I will stop rambling so much, Stucky. I’ve been under the weather and too many late nights without rest. On the other hand, I’ve lost 35 pounds and “MY” Nick chases me more.
Maggie
I have never accused you of rambling … so, neither am I suggesting you stop “rambling”. I only said you gave a tad bit too much info …. which you graciously admitted was true. So, as far as I am concerned, it’s water under the bridge.
A few years back my father and I went to the Mother Earth News Festival in Seven Springs, Pa. to sell maple syrup. The booth next to ours was an anti-circumcision group and the guy manning it was both eccentric and charismatic as well as being completely armed with facts. This guy knew his shit as the youngsters say. While we gave out free samples of warm maple syrup he would engage whoever came along as if they were old friends regardless of how they approached. I was struck by how angry and loud people would become- I never gave much thought to it, my parents allowed the doctor to do it to me, we allowed it with our first son (but not our youngest) and it seemed more of an issue of common practice than of reflective choice based on research.
What stood out to me in watching this guy for four days (and the following year) was how invested people were in choices that they made when they hadn’t even thought about it, more so than if it were a deliberate decision made after deep reflection and in-depth study. Some of them were hostile in the extreme, as if he had a swastika hanging over the booth. By the end, I was completely convinced by this guys argument and really awakened to just how vehement people can be about things they haven’t even thought about.
It’s the sort of behavior that you wouldn’t believe in a fictional narrative, aye?
Some of us… are used to washing the shit off our dicks despite never engaging in sodomy.
Ya dig?
/hug HSF
I am humbled by what I’ve learned here throughout the years.
Seeing the actually “medical” procedure performed made me once again admit so many things we do for what we BELIEVE are very good reasons are for no reason at all.
I am never ashamed to admit I was wrong. It might take a while, but I will always admit when I err.
— “It can be like rambling to oneself until reminded that thousands of people are listening.”
Eternity is always listening.
In this thread… You dun good, kid.
/fist bump
The truth that all the washings and not eating the blood of the animals etc that God commanded Israel has been discovered to be for good health as well. Yet there is no mention of this in the scriptures either, stucky.
The fact that God did not tell them it was for health reasons does not mean it is not. Especially when even science has discovered it to be fact.
It is true that circumcision was to be a sign between God and His people in the covenant they were under. But, you are as ignorant as your filthy mouth makes you sound if you think that God told Israel all of His purposes in what He did with them. Everything Paul taught about the “mystery” given to him from Jesus is proof of that.
“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
NEITHER FILTHINESS, NOR FOOLISH TALKING, NOR JESTING, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”
Virtually everything that comes out of your mouth proves that you are a bad tree because of the bad fruit. Because “of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.” Luke6:45
Fuck off Ed.
You do not speak for God, nor do you quote well.
I know this on goodly authority.
I am… your +1.
You and stucky Are the same kind of tree. It’s no wonder you come to the same conclusions. Sad, but no wonder.
I’m still your +1.
Baby Butcher. 😉
This is your best comment, Ed. I disagreed on the circumcision part but this is a good interpretation of the purpose of the law. razzle is looking at it from the present but since you are looking at it from the past, you can see the folks back then were quite ignorant.
Modern schooling is much derided but if you took a marginal black student back a few centuries, that kid would be fucking smart for the age.
We take so much common sense for granted without acknowledging the past or the folks who actually got sick, suffered and died, or those who studied, observed, considered, tested and concluded things we now pretend whites knew all along.
Thanks el coyote,
The fact is that more than 3500 years ago God was having Israel practice hygiene that science has only recently discovered.
For example, Lev.15 gives instruction for what doctors do today when caring for those with a bodily discharge. In Deut.23 we gain instruction in how to deal with waste. Intestinal diseases such as cholera, dysentery and E. coli continue even today to take a heavy toll on lives where similar sanitary practices are not applied.
Lev.13 gave instruction for burning cloth that was worn on a fungus or growth that was removed. In Lev.11 we find God telling them to discard of pottery that had been contaminated. This chapter also gave instructions for isolation in certain cases.
God did not say these were for health reasons. But, we know from mostly Christians who were scientists that discovered these things based on admonitions like these in the Bible, that these were given by God for health reasons.
Science does sometimes catch up with the Bible. But, I certainly don’t count on it.
There is also some significance in the shedding of blood for a covenant, right? There is no covenant without it. I am certain this was the reason God said circumcision (blood) was a sign of their covenant between Him and them. A covenant must include blood. Heb.9:12-16- “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.”
Blood is the integral part in a covenant.
Blessings:-}
Oh go bugger a goat, EC. 😉
There is a difference between being able to comprehend the Old Testament in context and the people it was working with… and bringing the practices into modern medicine.
Yeah I know that’s more or less what you are saying, but you just encouraged Ed even more with your idealism that he thinks was actual agreement.
I can’t resist a fellow bible thumper. I tend to be more liberal in interpreting some things. Ed is taking the literal approach, that can be good or bad. Bad if you start following the law which is over but good if you can see some medical benefits to it.
Paul doesn’t say much about the law, although he is well versed in it. The law can be interpreted in many ways. Paul says that Jesus fulfills the law; he is a physician, a navigator, a leader, light…
One place where we find a disagreement with Ed is when Paul says the law is death and Jesus is life: circumcision (the law) may cause more death than it causes life.
When I look and see Ed in heaven finally meeting Jesus face to face… it looks very similar to an obnoxious Beatles fan running up to John Lennon in Hell. All excited and immediately quoting as many Beatles lyrics they can riff off in the moment.
Then when Ed finally runs out of breath… Lennon in Hell calmly says “I never knew you: depart from me, ye that quote incessantly.”
There is a huge difference between singing the song and living The Song.
That said… Ed’s heart does appear to be aimed in a functional direction, thus why I enjoy being his primary +1 on this rock that rolls.
I don’t want to belabor this topic or my shameful admission the practice was not “medically justified” as I’d been told.
When I gave birth, I was not of this mindset.
QUESTION EVERYTHING
EC… Could we talk about Joshua 5:8. “They rested… until healed.”
One interpretation suggests that the mass operation on the Canaanite males “rolled away the reproach of Egypt.”
I suggest the discussion NOT continue here. I am suffering enough cognitive dissonance these days.
And I find that I really like having the last word “below.” One can’t get the last word on Undermined’s stuff. He’s a lastworder too.
As for Fred’s point? Well made.
razzle: “…When a bible thumper says homosexuality is unnatural… they mean it in the same way that they would say Theft and Murder are unnatural. Meaning it is against God’s Nature and Will….”
hmmmmmmmmm, and what did the resident buy-bull thumper Edwitness write BEFORE anyone brought up homosexuality occurring in nature?
“…Not only is it against nature, but it is against nature’s God. The design of a man and woman naturally are ample proofs for this. Add to that the scriptural admonitions for this behavior and you have an airtight case for it’s being abominably immoral.”
so Edwitness was relying on (1) nature (which is why he claims he has never seen homosexual acts on his farm) AND (2) “god” for his argument.
Is he arguing that “god” created nature and THUS homosexuality is “against nature”? if so then he needs to write clearer
razzle, check out the El Monte article, an article so bad that it deserves getting its ass kicked. I guess Admin thought TBPers were just the guys to do it, unfortunately, a bunch of knee-jerk reactionaries thought it was an inspiring piece to rival HSF. I beg to differ.
As usual, Stucky is wide awake and didn’t fall for the fluff piece which is loaded with land mines that can throw off lesser minds.
Dammit, EC. I had the last word for a long time.
Word.
I no longer understand the issue. What has got you in a lather, razzle? Even the mere suggestion of a kiss drives you bananas. It almost sounds like homophobia – not the shit people refer to when they call somebody homophobic, in that case, they mean raciss – what I call homophobia is a fear that your a latent queer.
I’m not even going to joke about it. Some folks are queer, imagine if we were in that New York island prison, we’d need trannies to remind us we’re men. But we also need other men to remind us we’re not alone. What is a woman but another man to accompany us? Now, the idea that she was made to accommodate physical love as well as spiritual love…David told Jonathan his love was better than a bunch of women. That was the original bros before hoes theme.
I really wish you’d recognize the real enemy of guys; women. User losers who take take take from men until they are reduced to a loaf of bread.
Shame on you, EC. Not only pushing that same sack but trying to sneak in a final word. Seems as good a place as any to inform you my wooden bunny frame was blown over in a windstorm last Wednesday night, forcing a very cold emergency midnight evacuation of rabbits into the chicken pen and house. One litter lost to icy rain, but the second litter saved by a very diligent mother rabbit who stayed with the babies until moved into the haystack beside the henhouse. Thanks to her, I have the most interesting variety of black, white, grey and spotted bunnies I’ve had yet.
I was going to tell you that your own MOTHER was a woman, EC. However, I’ve known mothers who would toss their kids under the bus for their own advantage. But, I will tell you this: David had a Bathsheba problem. Did their kid, Solomon, write that stuff about Divine nature of breasts?
Maggie, You can read all about it in Song of Songs.
He wasn’t talking about his mom’s breasts, although David thought they were quite juicy.
But you asked if my mom was a woman. She’s a nice person.
I could go on and on about her but let’s just hear what my granny said, “I saw a woman walking by (1970 something) and I saw how worn out she was. I said, she’s no older than Joanna, it must be the difference in how they live their life.”
Maggie, women today live like that woman walking by my granny’s window. They live for themselves instead of for a husband and kids.
— “Maggie, women today live like that woman walking by my granny’s window. They live for themselves instead of for a husband and kids”
Now if you think about me making my anti-civic digs at GV… you’ll see what I’ve really been going on about this whole time.
/salute 😉
I like GV, did you know he’s dating Magic Mike?
Besides, he doesn’t advocate homosexuality.
He gets attacked same as Rdawg for his approach to life.
Even Fabulous or James (who has an older lover) did not get so much verbal abuse.
Do you actually think I’ve been abusing GV?
I think if you go back and really look at the exchanges you’ll see that any potentially inflammatory language I’ve used was in direct, usually playful, responses. The one I do regret was calling him stupid for being unable to deflect Ed. It came out completely wrong and the context wasn’t effective.
Offering a firm challenge to someone’s reasoning and lifestyle choices… and offering perspectives about my own view of the effects that differ from theirs… isn’t attacking. Except to leftists.
rabble: “…Offering a firm challenge to someone’s reasoning and lifestyle choices… and offering perspectives about my own view of the effects that differ from theirs… isn’t attacking. ”
lifestyle choices? like your lifestyle choice of fucking goats (female, of course!)
are you so retarded that you think gays “choose” to be gay?
The most ardent naturalist knows any gene that may have caused someone to be homosexual was bred out of the gene pool eaons ago. And therefore, your behavior is unnatural.
The Christian knows that there never was such a gene and that those who participate in such abominable behavior do so by choice.
Either way the fact is the reason you are a sodomite is because you want to be one. You and those like you have chosen to be homosexual.
But, you can be delivered from it. And there are those who would love to help you. http://janetboynesministries.com
EdwitLESS: “…Either way the fact is the reason you are a sodomite is because you want to be one….”
the Stoopid is STRONG with this one
bet you got all excited typing “sodomite”, fucking pharisee
EdwitLESS: “…But, you can be delivered from it…..”
too bad you can be delivered from your stoopidity, buy-bull quoting parrot
Keep in mind I’ve kept it entirely in this thread and have been nothing but respectful and have upvoted GV plenty everywhere else on the site.
In the context of the turd flinging that goes on all the time at TBP, this has been extremely tame and polite. Unless you consider having an opinion different from GV about the subject matter to be abusive in and of itself.
Uh, now I’m a leftist. Actually, I’m a troll.
Somebody defined troll today as a know it all blabber.
Sounds like me.
If you were having a gentlemanly discussion with GV, please forgive my intrusion.
— “Uh, now I’m a leftist.”
[/img]
[img
Ah, present company excluded… my life is my home, husband and kids. And a few articles on TBP. My life is complete.
— “I no longer understand the issue. What has got you in a lather, razzle?”
Trolling the packed tight shit out of GV. I don’t care who has sex with who (that’s between them and eternity) but it’s sometimes worthwhile to explore the different ways someone who feels the need to put such an identity in their username will be unable to stop taking the bait.
A bit like people picking on you for being a flaming beaner… except I’m keeping it to one thread and treating him perfectly normally elsewhere if/when we have reason to interact. 🙂
If you go back you should see I actually started off correcting Ed and was expressing disappointment with how easy Ed should have been for GV to dismiss as well as suggestions to improve his approach to defending himself… but then after I saw his replies to me I knew I had a live one and shifted gears.
I should be trivial to ignore.
—————-
There *is* a real long term problem with the effect on culture when we start treating homosexual relationships as if they are *truly* equal to heterosexual ones… and thus what we teach children about the complex feelings and thoughts they are going to experience, the type of media we allow to be visible to all aes, etc… but it’s not the sort of conversation that has any hope of being resolved on the internet.
GV… ignore me. I mean nothing.
Unless… deep down… you might know I have a good point buried somewhere in all this. 😉
Sincerely,
Mr. Rouser
rabble: “…was expressing disappointment with how easy he should have been for GV to dismiss as well as the weakness of his arguments….”
yeah, because you’re a regular Einstein. jeez, narcissism personality disorder
“…There *is* a real long term problem with the effect on culture when we start treating homosexual relationships as if they are *truly* equal to heterosexual and thus what we teach children about the complex feelings and thoughts they are going to experience….”
yeah, because all those kids are going to turn gay. you know, the power of Teh Gay and all that
“…GV… ignore me. I mean nothing.
Unless… deep down… you might know I have a good point buried somewhere in all this. ;)”
LOL, the only thing “buried” is your head up your ass
Good one GV!
Ya made me laugh.
Hey Gay Vet
Ask da BuyBull Thumper if there were DINOSAURS on the ark …. you know, about 6,000 years ago.
Could be good for dozens more comments and endless amusement.
I saw a decent attempt on the part of a backwoods preacher at a tent revival: They didn’t have to be all the BIG ones and they only had to be weaned. How big could they get in 40 days?
Oh, yes, I am aware. However,
Are dinosaurs “clean” (7 pairs of those) or “unclean” (two pair of those).
Also, there were up to 700 SPECIES of dinosaurs. That’s a lotta dinosaur meat even if they were teeny and “unclean”.
Also, the dino age of the Triassic Period, the Jurassic Period, and Cretaceous Period, a period covering at least 100 million years according to real scientists — or, just 100 years according to Creationists —– contained an ENORMOUS amount of life. Think there’s a lot of life on earth now? Pffft!! The Great Extinction wiped out 96% of ALL marine life and 70% of ALL terrestrial species on the planet!! I can’t find it now, but I once read that just the millions of different species of bugs, insects, spiders, etc. alone would have filled SEVERAL arks. Once again, Edwitness is full of shit.
Blessings }:-() (that’s supposed to be a Satan emoticon … see the horns?)
👿
Stop encouraging GV, queer bait.
goat fucking doggie
Maggie: “I saw a decent attempt on the part of a backwoods preacher at a tent revival: They didn’t have to be all the BIG ones and they only had to be weaned. How big could they get in 40 days?”
weaned? jesus christ, the dinosaurs didn’t have tits
Says you! You just aren’t interested in them. How would T-Rex feed the toothless pups?
[img]http://i1206.photobucket.com[/img]
Now thats funny!
ask Jebus, he rode a dinosaur
Yup and heres the proof!
[img
[/img]
looks like Jesus fucking a dinosaur, praise the lord!
LOL
I was wondering if anybody was going to comment on that. I really like the look on the dinosaurs face!
Stucky: “Ask da BuyBull Thumper if there were DINOSAURS on the ark …. you know, about 6,000 years ago.
Could be good for dozens more comments and endless amusement.”
well, if by amusement you mean fundy apes tossing their own feces
This dino was soo clean Jebus made it his bitch!
[img
[/img]
https://g.co/kgs/u9Xuxd
razzle: “So long as we treat a 30 year old woman who consents to have sexual interactions with a 15 year old who initiated of either gender… with more contempt, horror, and legal consequences than we do homosexual/trans /otherkin behavior… our economy and culture is guaranteed to tank and drag us all down to the bottom.”
yeah, Teh Gays getting married is soooooooooooo much worse than a 30 year old woman getting knocked up by a 15 year old boy
The STOOPID is strong with this one