1 2 3 4 5 8 | bottom
Quote# 97227

I honestly believe that this Malala stuff is blown way out of proportion. I understand that she has a positive message and presents another avenue to combat Islam but most of the stuff she and her supporters say is nonsense.
Education won't save women or children who live in a country with Sharia Law.
She says send books not guns. Well if we literally followed her advice all those books would be burned and the people with the books would be executed. We have to send both.
All that being said, Malala does not espouse any of the theology or love that Jesus spoke of. She's just a little girl with a lot of attention. I wouldn't be surprised if there were powerful people suggesting to her what to say. Basically being manipulated.
Christ was about self sacrifice for others and recognizing and rejecting sin. Where is the salvation in sending books? There is no salvation in books, only Jesus.

Gigcycle, Reddit 36 Comments [10/22/2013 3:54:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 46

Quote# 97226

First of all, as a young woman studying engineering, you have very likely been granted special favors whether you know it or not. All those programs designed to encourage young women like you to pursue a career in engineering exist for a reason. And the reason is that most women just don't enjoy engineering the way men do. You're obviously smart, you can do the schoolwork, but it is unlikely that you will want to do the real thing for very long. Assuming you don't drop out in favor of an easier discipline before you graduate, the probabilities indicate that you won't spend much time actually working as an engineer; you'll soon be moved into some sort of management or marketing position. Whether you have been told as much or not, that is the conventional path for smart, educated women like you in the corporate world.

There is no shame in that. I started out in engineering myself. I had the ability, but not the aptitude, and quickly switched to a field I vastly preferred. If you're smart enough, you'll likely figure that out before long. Whatever you do, don't waste your life doing something you don't really enjoy simply because you are capable of doing it. Remember that actual engineering is very, very different than studying engineering, and being very good at the latter is not necessarily indicative of real interest in the former.

Now I'm going to teach you a hard, but very important lesson. You see, I don't care you how feel. I really don't. More importantly, neither does anyone else. Only about 200 people on a planet of 7 billion actually care about your feelings, and that's if you're lucky. The sooner you grasp this lesson, the better off you will be. And since almost no one gives a damn what you do, say, think, or feel, appealing to your feelings when you encounter differences of opinion is not only illogical, but useless.

What happened to me to make my brain go this wrong? The short answer is: living life with my eyes open. Keep in mind that I'm more intelligent than you are. The fact that you can't understand the way I think doesn't make my brain wrong, it merely means you aren't keeping up. But more important is the fact that I'm considerably more experienced than you are. I've had three decades to observe the differences between all those school lessons about valuing equality, diversity, and vibrancy and the way human beings actually behave. Equality is a myth; it doesn't exist anymore than fairies and unicorns do. As for women's rights, well, a young woman as intelligent as you should be able to handle the math that dictates what happens to a society when an insufficient number of young women marry and have children. Since women's rights are very strongly correlated with demographic decline, they are not sustainable and are, in fact, societally deleterious. They are not so much wrong as fatal when viewed from the macro perspective.

I do believe women should have the same legal rights and protections afforded to unborn children. There is no contradiction there. You see, I don't believe that unborn children should be given the right to vote or permitted to murder other unborn children either.

I understand you have your own goals. That's fine. The problem is that women are not only valuable to society, they are invaluable. They are necessary. The one and only thing both society and the human race actually need from you is for you to marry and raise children. If you're not going to do that, then it really doesn't matter if you're going to become a human resources manager with an engineering degree or drop out of school and become a stripper. If you're only going to do what any man of similar capabilities can do, then you are an evolutionary dead end and as unimportant to society as the average man is.

In the entire history of the human race, the actions of a few thousand men have actually made much of a difference one way or the other. If that. But without women deciding to marry and have children, the species would die out. Do you really want to limit yourself to the same sort of irrelevance as the average man?

Another thing you have no reason to know is that young women are reliably bad at foreseeing what they will want to do in the near future. I graduated with a number of women like you. None of them thought they were interested in marriage and children until they were about 27. Then they suddenly changed their minds and some of them were very upset that they had spent the previous ten years pursuing goals that were now unimportant to them. I even wrote a column about it called Spiting Their Pretty Faces back in 2003, you can google it. Think about 2003. You were ten. Are your goals the same now as they were then? If not, then how can you be certain that your goals, and your opinion about marriage and children, will be the same when you are 30?

In any event, I wish you good fortune regardless of what path you eventually choose.


Vox Day, Rural Revolution 60 Comments [10/22/2013 3:36:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 59

Quote# 97222

Wow, this comment really opened my eyes. I mean, this is mind blowing stuff. You make some powerful points, except ... let’s put the Hitchens-Dawkins Kool-Aid down for a while and look at reality: Kalaam Cosmological Argument, the Argument from Reason, Fine Tuning of Universal Constants, irreducible biological complexity, the argument from morality…. Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Indeed, why are you even bothering to comment at all? No atheistic position can be taken seriously until two threshold questions can coherently be answered. 1. Why is the atheist even engaging in the debate. On atheism, there is no objective basis for even ascertaining truth; there is no immaterial aspect to consciousness and all mental states are material. Therefore, everyone who ever lived and ever will live could be wrong about a thing. By what standard would that ever be ascertained on atheism? Also if atheism is true, there is no objective meaning to existence and no objective standard by which the ‘rational’ world view of atheism is more desirable, morally or otherwise, to the ‘irrational’ beliefs of religion. Ridding the world of the scourge of religion, so that humanity can ‘progress’ or outgrow it, is not a legitimate response to this because on atheism, there is no reason to expect humanity to progress or grow. We are a historical accident that should fully expect to be destroyed by the next asteriod, pandemic, or fascist atheist with a nuke. In short, if atheism is correct, there is no benefit, either on an individual or societal level, to knowing this or to spreading such ‘knowledge.’ 2. Related to this, why is the atheist debater even alive to participate. If there is no heaven, no hell, no afterlife at all, only an incredibly window of blind pitiless indifference, then the agony of struggling to exist, seeing loved ones die, and then dying yourself can never be outweighed by any benefit to existing. As rude as it way sound (and I AM NOT advocating suicide) the atheist should have a coherent explanation for why they chose to continue existing. Failure to adequately address these threshold questions should result in summary rejection of the neckbeard’s position.

In the end, we all know you can’t answer these questions because yours is a petty, trivial, localized, earth bound philosophy, unworthy of the universe.

Finally, is there a basement dwelling troll left in the multiverse who doesn’t drag themselves out of the primordial ooze and logged onto this site in order to announce our collective atheism towards Thor, that gardens can be beautiful without fairies (a powerful rebuttal to fairy apologetics, by the way, but it leaves a lot unanswered about the Gardener), and that we cling to Bronze Age skymen due to our fear of the dark? Let me translate that to neckbeard: you are unoriginal, you are wrong, and you are an ass.


Steve Willy, Patheos 48 Comments [10/22/2013 3:34:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 28
Submitted By: Nemo

Quote# 97220

Reality TV star Jim Bob Duggar spent most of his speech at the Values Voter Summit imploring attendees to run for office, just like he did, in order to advance social conservative causes like an “army.”

Duggar ended the address by retelling a story about a time when Mike Huckabee and his daughter visited a concentration camp, which he used to compare the current state of the US to Nazi Germany.

“As they were walking out of that concentration camp, he said little Sarah looked up at him and she said, ‘Daddy why didn’t somebody do something?’ You know what, that’s where we are at in our nation,” Duggar said. “Do we want our children, when we’re going to tell them about how great America was, they’re going to look at you and say, ‘Why didn’t somebody do something?’”

Jim Duggar, Right Wing Watch 34 Comments [10/22/2013 3:33:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 34

Quote# 97218

The one thing that all those boys who were molested by homosexual Catholic priests have in common is that every last one of them had contemplated suicide because they thought that having participated in a homosexual activity, it meant they were homosexuals and most of them would rather be dead than be like that. The high rate of suicide among homosexual youths has been cited as the need for promoting acceptance of homosexuality in our public schools. If I am right, and the high rate of suicides is caused by this misconception by confused adolescents, then, aren't those promoters of acceptance of more open sex with children, actually advocating putting more and more of our youths at risk? Nobody has ever questioned the "facts" put forth in the gay activist's agenda. Isn't it time someone checked this out and blew the whistle on it?

MarilynA, WND 25 Comments [10/22/2013 3:32:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 32

Quote# 97210

With the multitude of sexually transmitted diseases on the scene, getting involved in sexual sin is gambling with your life. Not one person infected with HIV/AIDS has ever lived -NOT ONE! If you are harassed and tormented by filthy memories or fantasies flooding your mind, if you are constantly undressing others with your eyes, if you are a fornicator, adulterer, homosexual, masturbator, porno addict or any other type of sexual deviant, then you have opened the door for many evil spirits (demons) to enter and live INSIDE YOU! Once they've gained entrance they will force you to increase your sin habit until you are out of control and damned to burn forever in Hell. You cannot defeat these forces in your own strength, without help you are doomed to remain their SLAVE. There is only one way of escape -THROUGH THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST!

Howard Taylor, Charisma News 31 Comments [10/22/2013 3:28:10 AM]
Fundie Index: 32

Quote# 97208

Exactly, but the left doesn't care, or is simply too stupid to see the truth! We are in the End of Times, the die has been cast, the vow of the Harbingers has been spoken per Isaiah 9:10. I see OVomit as the Hammer of God who has rightfully judged this Nation, he doesn't know he is that hammer, and when God is done with him, he will be summarily 'dismissed'. Defy God and see what happens, it is happening now as it happened in Ancient Israel, the warnings have come and gone unheeded... The time of Judgement is upon us... Read the Harbinger, research ancient Israel and the invading Assyrian armies, dispute with facts if you can..

Dan, Free Patriot 31 Comments [10/22/2013 3:27:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 24
Submitted By: zipperback

Quote# 97206

[emphasis added]

If judges and lawmakers in our land fail to respect the limits of legitimate government power, then we as free citizens of the U. S. must do the right thing by refusing to comply with government mandates that violate God-given rights. In that way, we remind our government by our actions, not just by our words, that it is not God, and that it loses its authority to compel obedience when it violates our rights with which we have been endowed by our Creator and which are secured to us by the highest law of the land-- the U.S. Constitution (particularly, the Bill of Rights and the ninth amendment concerning 'non-enumerated rights'). Government has no legitimate authority to pass laws that violate the superior claims of natural law or that seek to nullify natural law. That's why these 'gay marriage' laws are bogus-- for government has no right to compel citizens under threat of penalty to recognize and treat things as equal which nature teaches are unequal, nor to recognize and treat things as unequal which nature teaches are equal. Hitler tried to do that when he tried to get the German people to treat the Jews as 'unequal' to other citizens; he had no authority to do that, just as our government has no authority to compel us to treat homosexual unions as "equal" to heterosexual unions. Civil disobedience was required of freedom lovers then (under Hitler) and it is required of freedom lovers now (under Obama).

Martin Rizley, OneNewsNow 27 Comments [10/22/2013 3:26:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 29

Quote# 97194

You do not owe anyone anything. No one owes you anything. Christians have a lot to gain from these powerful Randian insights.

Genuine acts of kindness are not motivated by guilt, fear, or shame. Yet modern religion is saturated with guilty consciences. Fear of sinning, guilt over your station in life, shame about your dreams and desires are commonplace in churches. These feelings are played like instruments by power-seeking ministers, activists, and politicians. The Kingdom of God brings freedom from this condemnation. Anytime you hear a pundit trying to motivate religious people by making them feel guilty, remember that you cannot truly give if you do not freely give. You do not owe anyone anything, but you are free to give everything.

Of course those who decry Randian ideas and favor bigger government are free to give away all they have too. They rarely do. More often they serve the poor by putting on fancy suits and going to fancy restaurants to lobby politicians to spend more of other people’s money. Then they call those other people selfish when they complain. Don’t buy it. Help those in need out of love, not guilt.

On the flipside, no one owes you anything. Nearly all political activism starts from the idea that someone owes you something. A job, a house, medical services, an aesthetically pleasing landscape, a low-fat diet, and on and on ad nauseam. The Christian idea of grace is the antithesis of this sentiment. You don’t deserve it.

The goal of material equality, or the idea that those with more owe those with less, is naked envy. Most people confuse the issue by believing the state, not another person, owes them something. The state has nothing to give but that which is first takes, and it takes from citizens. Your fellow citizens do not owe you anything. You are free to ask and you are free to receive, but you are not owed. What’s amazing is just how generous people can be in an environment of freedom.

Be Free

If you are a Christian who likes Rand you can ignore the cries of “hypocrite” from those with a political agenda. You needn’t defend or support every tenet of Objectivism to appreciate its political philosophy. There’s no contradiction between Christianity and Rand’s main thrust that individuals should be free.

Take to heart the Randian idea that you are not owed nor do you owe. There is a tremendous freedom in this that makes way for genuine giving and receiving, done with joy and motivated by love.

Isaac Morehouse, LibertarianChristians 34 Comments [10/21/2013 1:45:39 PM]
Fundie Index: 24

Quote# 97193

The fundamental difference between Bill Gates and a broker or fund manager like George Soros is productivity. Bill Gates invented and produced a software that improved and changed technology for the better. Consequently, he receives billions for his contribution to society which has been exponentially more productive because of his work.

George Soros has contributed nothing. He is not wealthy because of any invention or anything that his company produces. Instead, he has made billions by collapsing national currencies, and making bets on wall street with other peoples money and using that money to manipulate the market for profit. Yes, he is very successful, but most his success has been built on the misfortune of others. Now tell me, which of these two types of men claims to be an objectivist and which one actually is?

Jesus helped those in need by healing the sick or disabled and by giving to the poor. I do not recall anywhere in the Bible where it was indicated that his ministry supported those who were saved by him indefinitely. In fact, it was the Bible that first said that if a man will not work, he shall not eat. If a person was unable to work or to be reasonably productive, he enabled them by healing, teaching, or giving to them. In essence, what he did and taught was the empowerment of the individual to live freely with the ability to provide for himself in a manner that is just and reasonable.

Justice in it’s purest form is balance, and the Golden Rule is social balance. Therefore, a reasonable man will live by the Golden Rule. Rand defined objectivism as, "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." This is the connection between Jesus, Galt, and Roark; the reverence of the human spirit and it’s natural right to carry on without domination or oppression by any man, government, or spiritual being.

Why isn't Ayn Rand ever considered to be a humanitarian?

TheThirdAdam, Above Top Secret 34 Comments [10/21/2013 1:45:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 30

Quote# 97192

I’ve been reading quite a few threads that talk about Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism and it is quite evident that her work is almost universally misunderstood or misrepresented as a sociopath’s manifesto. Though I’m sure that it is the adopted creed of most sociopaths, I do not believe that it was ever intended as such. Much like Christianity and the Bible, Objectivism and Ayn Rand’s works have been dissected and have been quoted out of context to justify the unreasonable actions of those who would try to do harm for personal gain. I compare the two works because when you break them down to their fundamental principles, they are nearly identical by my own interpretation. They both teach the value of honest reasoning, and free will as a sacred human right.

How did I draw that conclusion? Jesus gave only two commandments, the first of them was to essentially live by the golden rule. In Rand’s work we see one theme that stands out far above any other and that is that the only true evil in this world is when one man takes by force the physical, intellectual, or spiritual property of another man for his own gain. In other words, Rand illustrates that free will is a sacred human right deserved by all. However, both books are widely quoted by those whose actions contradict the true principles taught. They are the basis of this bad behavior because of certain ideas within that are taken out of context.

TheThirdAdam, Above Top Secret 17 Comments [10/21/2013 1:45:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 97185

Newly hired Fox News contributor Dr. Ben Carson proposed on Friday to “re-educate the women” so that they would stop having abortions.

Speaking to a group of overwhelmingly Christian attendees at the Values Voter Summit, the retired neurosurgeon said that your health “is the most valuable thing that you have.”

“And that’s the reason that your health should be controlled by you and not be the government,” he explained. “But when we’re talking about things that are important, life is important. And that includes the life of the unborn.”

“You know, there are those of us in this society who have told women that there’s a war on them because that cute little baby inside of them, they may want to get rid of it and there are people that are keeping you from doing that,” Carson continued. “And women say, ‘No, no, they’re not doing that to me! No!’ And they get all riled up.”

He added there was obviously not a “war on women” because men give up their seats to pregnant women.

“There is no war on them, the war is on their babies,” Carson insisted. “Babies that cannot defend themselves. Over the past few decades, we have destroyed 55 million of them. And we have the nerve to call other societies of the past heathen.”

“What we need to do is re-educate the women to understand that they are the defenders of these babies.”

Ben Carson, The Raw Story 46 Comments [10/21/2013 3:22:58 AM]
Fundie Index: 40
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Quote# 97181

Many people use the NIV, but it's missing over 16000 verses. They've been stuck in the footnotes or removed entirely. The sin of homosexuality, hell and damnation have been removed as well. Someone gave me a gorgeous, inscribed in gold NIV. I started reading it...I got totally confused! It went on the altar and was passed through the fire, as does anything I personally consider to be heretical. (I have an altar I built and asked God to consecrate and burned everything in the house that glorified satan, with my husband and mother in prayer with me whilst it all burned)

ReadyforSupper, Rapture Forums 39 Comments [10/21/2013 3:22:36 AM]
Fundie Index: 40

Quote# 97177

Hitler was just following Darwin's script, that's what Aryan eugenics was based on. Its also why scientists used calipers to measure the heads of black people to try to determine they were intellectually inferior to whites in order to enslave them.

If we came from protoplasm, then abortion makes perfect sense. Its also protoplasm. If we are mutants from panspermia, jizz on a comet or a space rock colliding with fertile ingredients in mother terra firma, an accident, then there are no rules. There is no right and wrong. No intent. No purpose. No meaning.

And if that's the case, in this giant black F-hole of empty space, don't blame me for my actions in any damn thing I do any damn time I want, any way I want. You are just protoplasm too and in my way. Might makes right, in that world view.

Connect the dots.

Wyatt Junker, Where Liberty Dwells 35 Comments [10/21/2013 3:21:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 27
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Quote# 97176

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

Wyatt Junker, Where Liberty Dwells 46 Comments [10/21/2013 3:21:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 40
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog

Quote# 97175

I CAN'T believe in the Big Bang, until someone explains to me how our universe got here without violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

WHAT "banged"? You explain WHAT "banged" and we can then have a discussion...until then, "not even close, let alone no cigar".

Oh, and for the record, evolutionism is far more religious than creationism. At least creation doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Timberwolf, Where Liberty Dwells 38 Comments [10/21/2013 3:20:29 AM]
Fundie Index: 32

Quote# 97174

On the topic of swimwear, I used to go to the public pool on a near daily basis as a child, and I always noticed that it was the girls in bikinis who were uncomfortable with themselves, as Mary noted. The girls in the one-pieces were the ones usually having fun in the water, while the boys always stared at the bikini girls and seemed to harass them. I didn’t understand why boys would stare at girls so much at the time, but something in me became determined never to put myself on display to be stared at or harassed in such a manner.

Later on, I became aware of the effects of nearly naked flesh on boys, and I always thought it manipulative and unfair that girls and women would take advantage of men and boys like that, and then complain about it. Additionally, I had an arrogant attitude that no one was going to look at me unless they earned the right to, so I kept myself covered; my “uniform” until my mid-20s was always loosely-fitting jeans and t-shirt. I even swam in such a getup! Yes, it was heavy! Now that I acknowledge my femininity, I wear prettier things such as blouses and skirts, but swimwear stumped me for quite a while. My search was made more difficult by the fact that I am a little bit on the heavier side, and most of the modest options I found just didn’t go up to my size. I thought I would end up having to buy a rash guard and long surf shorts, which is what my husband wears.

Marissa, The Thinking Housewife 36 Comments [10/21/2013 3:14:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 97173

You say, “So their bitchy attitude was defensive.” Perhaps, but over-confidence, an awareness of one’s primal power over others, is probably at work in many cases. A bikini is an act of aggression in its own way. I realize many girls don’t mean it that way.

"Persistent behavior becomes habit or second nature. The emotional hardening that began on the beach in scanty followed many girls whom I knew into their twenties and beyond into their adult lives."

True. Immodesty makes women mean and callous.

Laura Wood, The Thinking Housewife 21 Comments [10/21/2013 3:13:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 29

The "Jedi Mind Trick" Award

Quote# 97167

God can give you a high that no chemical substance can hope to match. Try it, just give it a go you'll see. You may want to take your materialist assumption blinkers off first, try to bear in mind there is no "no evidence" for it and it isn't "more rational" to assume a universe of this complexity wasn't engineered given the level of natural balance on which this complexity depends. All that has been got out of the way now and you can harness the power. You don't shut off your brain you make use of all of it including, the parts you have been shutting off or ignoring. The Force will flow through you.

Sword of Christ, Atheist Forums 38 Comments [10/20/2013 6:51:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 41
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 97166

And really, the god of the bible isn't so complex, or nuanced. Genocidal, though, by your own admission.

Regardless, you have to love him, or you're like a father who beats and rapes his children.

John V, Atheist Forums 43 Comments [10/20/2013 6:50:17 AM]
Fundie Index: 75
Submitted By: Doubting Thomas

Quote# 97164

"If women were consumers before they entered the workforce, then who's money were they consuming with? Mens? Parents'? In that case, those wages were already practically depressed by the fact that men and/or parents were providing women with a sort of salary."

No. Wages are not reduced by consumption. Wages are reduced by increased supply of labor or decreased demand for labor. Because consumption tends to increase demand for labor, it tends to increase wages.

...

In fact, a moment's thought will make it apparent that an increased number of women entering the work force will tend to reduce consumption in the short term; perhaps the women here can help us out. Do you do tend to do most of your shopping when you are at work or when you are not at work?

Vox Day, Vox Popoli 27 Comments [10/20/2013 6:47:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 30

Quote# 97148

Lol, if we were Roman pagans, our candidates would have served in the military, and would regard abortion as malevolent sorcery. Contemporary America is more degenerate than the Roman republic and even much of the empire. Sad, but true.

Psalm 144, Free Republic 29 Comments [10/20/2013 5:18:12 AM]
Fundie Index: 21

Quote# 97141

I proved the 'no God" assumption false with 2 proofs.

Proof 1:
by contradiction
assume no God
that leads to countless contradictions
therefore the no God assumption is false.
There God exists

Proof 2:
By Modus Ponens
1. If the universe and life have vast complexity that only an intelligent creator could cause then the universe and life is created by its Creator, God
2. the universe and life have vast complexity that only an intelligent creator could cause
3. Therefore, the universe and life is created by its Creator, God.

SavedByGraceThruFaith, AtheistForums.org 56 Comments [10/19/2013 7:01:26 AM]
Fundie Index: 61
Submitted By: Stimbo

Quote# 97134

Atheists: Why do you believe in science?
1. Lets imagine that through the Earth there is some unknown energetic area. Some scientific experiment is made 1000 times, and it always shows same results. But, then, that energetic area which is through the Earth disappears, and the same scientific experiment now shows completely different results.
2. Lets imagine that we see the atoms of some stone through some very powerful microscope. We see the atoms in one part of that stone. Maybe other parts of that stone is not composed of atoms ? And, even if we see the atoms through the whole stone, maybe that stone, after 5 minutes will not be composed of atoms ?
And, the Bible is full with miracles, with hundreds of witnesses.
Why the atheists believe in science, but not in God ?


Zoran, Yahoo! answers 47 Comments [10/19/2013 6:59:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 44
Submitted By: Anna

Quote# 97130

The dimwits who push the female-on-male rape charade are unbelievably childish and naive. They seem to think defining rape is some sort of simplistic mathematical equation where you first accept the most radical feminist definition of rape as the obviously true one, and then you deny all sex differences, and finally use feminist “research” such as NISVS to arrive at some ridiculous prevalence. Never mind that most of the “raped” men hardly feel victimized at all, much less raped, and the sheer ridiculousness if the concept itself.

The imbeciles promulgating this line of supposed men’s rights activism remind me of a four-year-old who has just found out what murder is, and then tries to figure out what the prevalence is by childishly thinking that if murder is to cause someone’s death, then most doctors and anyone associated with hospice care are murderers because they administer palliative care which hastens people’s death rather than putting dying patients in intensive care to extend their agony as long as possible. The child would then logically conclude that oh gee, we need to imprison all doctors because they are all murderers! Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense understands that you cannot simply apply banal definitions mechanically to learn about profoundly meaningful human concepts such as rape and murder. Grownups used to understand this. Throughout all of history before feminism, all humans had the common sense to understand that women forcing men to have sex does not belong in the category of rape. Even when female sexual coercion really occurs, it is such a qualitatively different, trifling experience for most men that it is ludicrous to call it rape and attempt to treat it exactly the same way. And needless to say, applying the most radical feminist definition of rape on top of all this nonsense can only do men more harm than good.

Eivind Berge, The Spearhead 47 Comments [10/19/2013 6:58:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 48
1 2 3 4 5 8 | top