I am loving the new Annie movie, but it brings up a good question:
Where are all the anti-racism SJWs?
When it’s OK to make white characters black, but not black characters white, you’re not interested in equality, you’re just a fucking bigot.
I am loving the new Annie movie, but it brings up a good question:
kingwiththekey: That’s the best way I’ve ever heard the subject of multiple authors addressed, it’s a group of their favorite Jesus fanfics. That’s a great way of explaining the inconsistencies and placing them in an understandable context. I’m really pleased with that. It is a very important point, I agree. And that’s also part of the reason that taking the Bible as absolute, literal proof (as fundamentalist Christians are want to do) simply doesn’t work. And you mentioned Star Trek, so you’ve won my heart, of course. I feel you, it’s extremely difficult to try to suss out who’s right when we’re talking about things that are generally out of reach for actual certainty. The best we can do is suggest what’s most likely, and that’s certainly no guarantee. But we do at least have that, what leads to less killing people over idealogical differences and misunderstandings is better. I really enjoy talking to you too, friend! This has been a really pleasant discussion and has given me a lot to consider and research, which is always a good thing (and unfortunately happens pretty rarely, a lot of people really don’t have much to add)! I look forward to future discussions! __________________________ Oh I’m a HUGE Trekkie! (Or trekker, if you prefer) I used to dress up as a Klingon (sometimes Bajoran, after the Maquis storyline began, once I got the earring!) and go to conventions, and do charity work with the club! To me Star Trek is a glimpse into a future where not all is lost. It gives me hope! Though I wanted to blow Janeway out an airlock…
I made blueberry muffins yesterday afternoon, and I am 99.9% certain they are the best blueberry muffins I’ve ever made in my life. I’m such a great cook, and so good at baking and all my talent is being wasted, because I’m 23 and haven’t a husband yet.
No talent is ever wasted, hon.
Even if no one is there to eat them, if you feel fulfilled, then who gives a shit who else is there to enjoy it!
kingwiththekey: the-bloodlily: kingwiththekey: the-bloodlily: kingwiththekey: the-bloodlily: A) Then explain converts, dipshit. B) Then explain our forefather’s developing science, dipshit. C) Then explain why so many of the greatest minds in history believed in a god, dipshit. D) Then explain why it’s rational to be an atheist based on the %4 of the universe we know, but it’s irrational to believe that there is a God, based on the %96 of the universe left to be discovered, dipshit. Bottom line: Richard Dawkins is a stupid little man who feels entitled to judge everyone else because mommy and daddy’s money sent him to a big school. He does not possess critical thinking skills. he is not intelligent. He simply parrots back information he learned from other people. This was not always the case, but it has become true. I don’t know if he got sick and damaged his brain, or if he got hit on the head, or if he’s suffering dementia. it doesn’t matter. The man is damaging science the same way that Pope Benedict damaged Catholicism. A) He wasn’t addressing that and he did say “almost everyone.” Converts happen because people can and do choose to believe things without evidence when they’re adults as well, particularly if they’ve already been socialized to accept the model of sufficient evidence that most religions promote. B) He’s not saying that everyone is stuck believing only what you’re parents taught them or that it’s impossible to be right about certain things and still have illogical faith. Obviously you can, it’s not helpful though.C) Because people can be wrong about some things and right about others. Faith is limiting and it sets a precedent for not requiring enough evidence, but it doesn’t literally make it impossible.D) Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods. It does not necessarily positively assert that they aren’t there. The known, worshiped gods generally disprove themselves, but the theoretical possibility exists. But there is no evidence to suppose there are gods, so it’s most rational to act under the premise that there aren’t. We have to work with what evidence we have because we do not know about the rest of it because we don’t have it and it would be absurd to try to do anything based on that. Based on what I’ve read of his, his critical thinking skills seem fine to me, but I’m obviously not him and thus cannot know for certain. It does seem to be rather obvious that he’s a good deal more intelligent than most people. And he holds more right ideas than most, as well. __________________________________ Please keep in mind I’m not applying any of this to you personally, as I have no idea what who you are or what your about. Even if you hold some views that are completely opposed to mine, I believe we should all try to find common grounds for respect. A) Just because you dismiss evidence, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Also, ‘almost everyone’ is an exceedingly gross over-exaggeration. He’s twisting information to fit his theory. That’s piss-poor science at best, deliberately manipulative at worst. C) Faith is not limiting, faith frees us from limitations. You’re confusing the mental and neurochemical process of faith with dogma. Point of fact, faith is what allows us, as intelligent beings, to believe that there is more to the world than meets the eye. Without faith there could be no higher math, science or invention. Some people choose to put faith in gods, but that fact is irrelevant to your statement. Dogma, on the other hand, tells people what they can and can’t think, believe or practice. Faith and dogma have nothing to do with one another. Case in point, Catholic priests molesting children. Their dogma says it’s fine, but if they had any faith, they wouldn’t be doing it. D) Please get your terms strait. this is one of my major beefs with atheists. What you describe is agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that there is no god, agnosticism is the lack of belief in any god. They are two different things. Granted, talking cartoon dogs have the community very confused, but the simplest research into the etymology of the words will really clear it up. Short version, the word ‘atheist’ was coined by a man who believed there was no such thing as god. More to the point, ‘atheism’, when broken down from its root words quite literally means ‘belief in (concept of) no god’. Conversely, agnosticism was coined by a man who saw no evidence that there was a god, and therefore didn’t believe, but wasn’t willing to rule it out. broken down from its root words, agnostic means ‘without knowledge’, which can apply to any subject. It never ceases to stun me how a community of people who claim to ‘fucking love science’ can so completely disregard every single tenet of scientific procedure and thought process. As for Dawkins’ critical thinking skills, explain to me how touring the world telling people they are stupid or insane if they don’t agree with him is a ‘right ideal’? His belief structure is unproven, mathematically impossible and based on a theory that is (I kid you not) 60 trillion + steps from having any tangible evidence whatsoever. As an educated biologist, I can assure you that the currently proven aspects of abiological genesis are about as far removed from the simplest known organisms (contemporary or fossil) as homo sapiens are from a bottle of asprin. Plastic cap included. Do you have any idea how many steps there are just between naturally occurring inert proteins (which is where we are on proving abiological genesis) to even a simple DNA strand, or even the simplest known cell structure? Let alone mathematical absurdity of those structures coming together on their own? And yet Dawkins not only wants everyone in the world to believe that billions of molecules randomly (the word random is vital to his theory btw) fell together in a coherent structure and somehow just came alive on its own, but he’s willing to draft laws forcing people to learn only his pet theories. Explain how this is even sane, let alone ‘right ideals’? If he was pushing for better and wider education, and kept his personal beliefs out of it, I would agree with you. But he’s not. He’s trying to push his individual school of though onto everyone, then getting hostile and inflammatory when anyone disagrees. These are not the actions of a man of science, these are the actions of a demagogue. Disclaimer: I’m not saying abiological genesis isn’t true. All I’m saying is at this stage, with this little evidence to support it, believing that it’s the only possible answer is an act of faith. And forcing your faith on others is flat out wrong. Okay, I like that you don’t want to make this personal, that’s great. I’m not generally going to take offense at anything unless it’s meant to be. So, we’re good on that front for discussion. Okay, perhaps we need to define things more explicitly here. Faith, as I’m defining it, is limiting because it allows for things to be taken as true without any logical basis and thus short circuits the quest for knowledge. I know that certain logical conjectures are necessary to continue on for math and science, sometimes things need to be taken as given in order to make the next step. And we need to have the sort of faith that’s necessary in order to presume that our senses don’t lie to us and that we aren’t just all brains in a jar living some virtual reality program. The sort of faith that is limiting is the sort that allows someone to look at all manner of scientific evidence and say “No, that’s wrong. My god tells me otherwise.” The definitions of atheism and agnosticism I generally see revolve around agnostics claiming doubt and leaving it there and atheists claiming that there is no evidence for a god and therefore they are going to act under the premise that there isn’t one. That’s where we get arguments like “Well, there could be an invisible flying tea pot over there, I can’t prove it’s not there, but I obviously don’t believe it is.” You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, unless it disproves itself, as is the case for the Christian god. I will admit, I don’t have enough information on Richard Dawkins (particularly recent) to assert much, so I’m going to actually reconsider and look into that. Thank you. No, I do not know how many steps there are between that, I don’t know too much about that. But generally speaking, when we’re considering origin points for life, we’re considering which idea is the least likely. I need to look more into that as well. Off topic, but I really enjoy your turn of phrase. :) ________________________ Thank you very much! I enjoy yours as well! I can see your point of view on the nature of faith, so the only other thing I will say on that, is to point out that sometimes, it takes a leap of faith to prove something that you just know, even thought you have no evidence. Thomas Jefferson publicly eating a tomato is one of my favorite examples (even thought it’s a bad example, he was making a political statement, not proving they weren’t poisonous). but there are others. Benjamin Franklin risking his life working with electricity to prove it was harness-able. Galileo risking his life to prove what he believed on the nature of the solar system. One could argue that they weren’t acting on faith, but rather observation, but then I would counter that it’s the same with religion, and cite that Moses described a working model of the universe 4000 years ago, including planets, solar systems and galaxies, and built his religion around those observations and the being that he claimed showed it to him. So it could really go back and forth. As long as you understand my point of view, even if you disagree, I’m happy! As for someone arguing that their god tells them otherwise, again that’s not faith, that’s a person hiding behind dogma so they don’t have to think. Unless that person really were receiving some kind of extra-normal information somehow… But how to prove that? As for the very nature of proof itself, all I will say is that, from a scientific point of view (and again, educated biologist here, with sides in physics and metaphysics), we, as a species, can perceive only around %4 of the known spectrum of wavelength (estimates vary). In fact, when you look at the charts of which wavelengths we can perceive, either through our own senses or through instruments, there are not only massive gaps, but indications that the spectrum actually goes FAR beyond what we have even theorized (must point out that I’m using theorized, not hypothesized here, otherwise it sounds like I contradicted myself). That being said, I think it’s silly to assume anything about the possibilities of the universe. Either by ruling out gods and monsters, or giving names to possibilities (and especially killing each other for believing or not believing). I mean, imagine what kind of strange ecosystems could be living right beside us, but vibrating at a frequency different enough from ours that we cannot interact. We have already found unexplained anomalies in the spectrum that seem to indicate thought and will, knowing how much we don’t know, I think it’s irresponsible to ignore any possibility. But that’s just me. ^_^ As for the Christian God disproving itself, I disagree, but that’s a circular argument. Everything a christian detractor could being up, I could disprove as being an element of dogma, and any support I could give a detractor could claim a reasonable argument against. it’s all academic, but a fun debate! I see what you mean about science sometimes requiring a leap of faith in order to do the necessary things to get the evidence, it’s not how I would generally have phrased it, of course, but I can accept the similarity of the mechanism. Personally, I go back on forth on what I want to presume and assert about the universe. Though, it’s not completely conscious choice, it sort of depends on my mental state. Sometimes I find myself struggling to have faith in being able to know anything at all and end up focusing a bit too much on existential ideas. As in, not being convinced that I should act under the premise that there’s not an invisible flying teapot. Other times I generally presume that it’s most reasonable to assume that there’s nothing outside the realm of what can be currently objectively proven and I should act under the premise that that’s certainly true. I think a lot of what’s important about atheism, rationality, those sorts of things is determining which presumption people should act under, not necessarily what they might be open to. The basis for information about the Christian god is the Bible, we could go into legitimacy of edition and translation, but at its’ core, that’s what we know about him, supposedly his own word. At different points in this book, and by general wisdom of his followers, he is omniscent, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. I would assert that it is not possible for him to be all three of those things while there is still suffering in a world he created. It’s the Whence Cometh Evil argument. I believe the citation to the longer, more eloquently stated version is to Epicurus. Generally speaking, based on the body of information we have about him in the Bible, I’d say the area he clearly fails in is omnibenevolence, but it’s still enough to disprove the claims that it’s part of the nature of his existence that he’s all three. You have to remember (as almost everyone seems to forget) that they aren’t all the same author, or the same book. The bible is basically an omnibus of the Council of Nicaea’s favorite Jesus Fanfics; all written by different authors, from their own points of view. It’s just like if you made a list of your favorite Star Trek episodes by different writers. Some of them explore Picard’s stern side, some of them explore his love of archaeology, some of them paint Wesley as the true hero, with Picard as a background footnote. They all focus on the story of the Enterprise, but each writer has a different take on the Federation and the characters within. Ultimately, there’s no way to ever know who Jesus really was, and what he really meant, which is one of the reason Christianity is so bi polar. Some apostles paint Jesus as you say, others paint him as a really groovy mate, but ultimately none of it matters because we all know that the Council only selected books to add in that supported their right to rule. Where the hell was I going with this? Ahh, yes. Basically, when faced with a subject that is overwhelming and unknowable as weather or not there is a God, or who Jesus is/was, all anyone can really do is interpret what they can, how they can. You and me choose to take a logical, and observational viewpoint, but who are we to say what’s right? Obviously the more benevolent attitude that leads to less ‘Kill him with sticks because she said a word we don’t understand’ is preferable, but other than that, who is right? That’s why my point of view is that the subject in question is that all points of view are needed to properly analyze a thing that is so huge, or distant in scope. Weather you’re talking about physics, or weather or not Jesus was a demigod. I’m rambling now because I’m so tired, so I’ll leave this note at this: I really enjoy talking to you. I love that we can have different opinions without biting eachother’s heads off, and I strongly respect you for taking a very inflammatory rant (my shit about Dawkins) and turning it into this. I wish you all the best, my friend, and I look forward to discussing whatever subject you like!
kimimprobable said: and if you're wondering why people still think feminism needs to exist, it's because some people (i.e. you) think a handful of bad apples represent the bunch, most mature feminists realise a lot of the things you posted, or re pasted, and they also fight for the rights of men, transgender and queer. Yes a lot of people have disfigured the label of feminist to the point of it being a derogatory term, it's twisted and the anger has just spiralled out of control on both sides tbh idk whats going on
Firstly, cheers for having the courage to speak to me off of anon.
Secondly, It’s not a handful of bad apples that I’m worried about, it’s the bigoted legislation and oppression that bothers me. And worse, it’s the inevitable backlash.
There are pages and pages and pages of links to laws that feminists have championed that directly oppress men, even male children. You can look them up if you’re half as intelligent as you’re trying to sound.
People too stupid to realize that feminism isn’t equality don’t bother me. it’s the fact that their insanity is actually becoming law that’s the problem.
Just a public service announcement: This woman is a fucking menace. her name is Chanty Morris, AKA Chanty Binx, aka Big Red. She is the face of everything wrong with feminism. Chanty is an abusive, hypocritical, self righteous blowhard who is blatantly using feminism to boost her own social and political status. She is also deliberately standing in the way of the fight for equality to keep herself relevant. Doing things like disrupting proceedings who’s goal is to legislate and enforce equality, at the same time blatantly calling for the oppression of anyone who believes slightly differently than she does. What this means, is that she is deliberately choosing to hurt feminists, and the cause of feminism for her own personal gain. I am violently anti feminist, as anyone who knows me can attest. And Chanty Morris is the main reason why. Her actions in 2013 (look it up if you want to know more) were the last straw with feminism for me, but it wasn’t just her. It was also the throng of followers that are lifting her up and enabling her violent rhetoric to continue. The men and women who claimed to want equality, but were themselves so aggressive and oppressive that they wouldn’t even allow a simple intellectual debate to continue. People who think it’s perfectly ok to assault others, as she does, for the sake of their political agendas are dangerous. Imagine a presidential debate where all the republicans screamed and threw things whenever the democrat tried to speak, then finally caused a public panic to shut down the debate entirely. These are not the actions of a sane or rational person. Those are the actions of radicals and terrorists.
Anonymous said: what's the best way to kill yourself. Also, ur blog is 0/10 faggotry
shotgun suicide’s your best bet.
Nahh. Helium mask.
Well I’ve given it a lot of thought.
My condition is getting more painful by the day, and I’m already in and out of the hospital.
Some days I get it in my head that I deserve a dignified end, on my own terms.
But then I say FUCK THAT, I’ve got kids, and they need an example how how to not give up.
When death takes me, the fucker is gonna have a chipped tooth and a black eye.
But I understand, that’s not for everyone.
Still, painless/odorless gas is such a weenie way to go.
Well the only other option is to douse myself in meat gravy and go punch a grizzly bear, but that’s too long a drive.
i think it’s a universal truth that everyone in our generation takes pluto’s losing its planetary status as a personal offense
pluto is smaller than russia. why did we ever even consider it a planet?
BECAUSE IT’S A PART OF OUR SOLAR SYSTEM
OHANA MEANS FAMILY
OHANA MEANS NO ONE IS LEFT BEHIND
My problem with that whole thing, is that the rules they used to exclude Pluto, also exclude Earth.
Scripted Anarchy If you’re wondering why people can’t take you seriously, here’s a short list. You’ve turned the actual cause of Feminism into a new wave viral bandwagon full of impressionable teens and young adults that just ramble on Tumblr and Facebook about it. The very name of your cause is oriented to one gender. Real feminism died out long ago, you can all vote and work equally now. You claim to fight for equality and declare that feminism is for everybody, but I’ve yet to see a feminist post one thing about male issues. Your cause is horribly enveloped in hateful people, despite the few of you with good intent. Your trump cards are getting old. You can’t debunk every issue with the word rape. The typical feminist is a brash, overly-sensitive, biased, and an emotionally charged misanthrope that is just hard to get along with. Rape isn’t the one and only problem in the world, and it’s not exclusive to women. You create a double standard that a female could never be a misogynist or sexually abuse a male. Your cause created the idea that “rape culture” exists which is in turn promoting the social behavior of misogyny. By saying rape culture exists you’re promoting the idea of rape culture. The argument “you obviously don’t know what real feminism is” is getting stale. How about you enlighten the multitudes of feminists what “real feminism” is so we don’t always get the wrong idea? Being an attractive woman is apparently just not okay anymore. You fight tooth and nail and moan endlessly about women being sexualized in the media, and then turn around and protest topless. Anyone who tries to prevent a rape scenario from happening by telling a girl to not dress slutty and to be safe in a bad area is a victim blaming rape apologist. You try to fight for equality by telling men and even other women how to act. And you shame them if they don’t think like you. You act like a woman wanting to wear high heels or be a stay at home mom is the worst person ever. The wage gap doesn’t exist. Do your research. A good bit of you want superiority to men, and call that equality. Women can be sexist. And that apparently is just the hardest thing for feminists to accept. We live in a culture where it’s funny or brave if a guy gets mangled or beat by his wife, and we empower and praise her for doing so. But if it’s the guy beating the wife, we’d want his head on a pike. You act as if female privilege absolutely does not exist. There are so many programs and causes to help women through life, and mothers are always in favor over the father in divorce cases. You don’t see any prostate cancer awareness stickers on the back of cars. And I’m sorry, we can’t fix the issues of the entire population by only focusing on half of them. Anti-feminism is not the idea that we agree with the prerogative of a misogynist. We’re just saying feminism, we gave you a shot, but we don’t like what you’re doing. And in conclusion, I’m not denying that the misogyny, rape, oppression against women, and areas of unfairness exist. They do. And it totally does suck. I’m the last person, well guy, to stare at a woman pervertedly or to treat them any lesser than a male. But you have to realize that there are problems on both sides of the gender, and among the transgender/gender queer people. This is why I can’t take feminism seriously, there’s too much damage. Please, create a new cause. ___________________________ (This IS NOT MINE. I had to re-paste the whole thing because tumblr is being wierd) The new cause is called Egalitarianism. It means absolute equality for all, not equality for one.