1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 | bottom
Quote# 115389

Personhood USA cofounder Cal Zastrow joined Tennessee state Rep. Mark Pody at an event in Nashville recently in support of efforts to pass legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision in the state, warning that failure to do so would result in people eventually being rounded up by the "sodomite police." Zastrow warned that the "sodomites" and the "perverts" would oppose the legislation on the grounds that it would just be a waste of time and money, since the law is obviously unconstitutional and will simply be struck down, but such criticism should be ignored because this law is the only way "to stop perverted marriage." "Years from now, do you want to get the phone call," Zastrow asked, "from your kids or your grand kids saying, 'Mom, Dad, the sodomite police or the population police just came and took my husband away. Dad, Mom, why didn't you fight evil when you could?'" - See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/cal-zastrow-sodomite-police-will-take-your-husband-if-states-dont-nullify-scotus-ruling#sthash.ndRtQjN4.dpuf

Carl Zastrow, Right Wing Watch 35 Comments [12/19/2015 4:53:15 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: Mister Spak

Quote# 115387

#BringBackThePatriarchy because it's traditional and Christian values that's what really frees the woman.

Jason Bergkamp, Twitter 32 Comments [12/19/2015 4:50:21 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 115383

[The Rebbetzen gives advice on parental authority.]

If you are your children's "friend" it means you are abdicating the responsibility of being their mother and educating them.

[...]

And more than that, if they consider themselves on the same level as you, they will feel it perfectly acceptable to tell you that they disagree with you because you are old-fashioned and don't understand them. They will also feel free to criticize your point of view, tell you where you've gone wrong, what you should be thinking and even more what you should be doing; they will not be ashamed to tell you, because they will genuinely feel that way, that they are right and you are wrong.

[...]

Children should be allowed to voice their opinion only when YOU feel it is appropriate, and only within the framework of the parent-child relationship.

Children must be raised with the basic understanding that parents are wiser than they are and understand better what is best for them in all areas and walks of life, and this must be done right from the beginning.

This includes not apologizing when you have done something wrong in the child's eyes (and even in your own); if you want you can explain why you have acted in a certain manner but not in such a way that it sounds as if you are justifying yourself.

You should also not always explain to your children why you want them to do something; if you always give them an explanation it "teaches" them that they only need to obey you when they understand the reason for it. By not explaining everything they are learning that they must obey their parents simply because it is part of kibbud horim - and because parents know best!

Rebbetzen Shaindel Moscowitz, Breslev.co.il 17 Comments [12/19/2015 4:25:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 115382

The democrats came for the Socialists, and brought them into the fold. I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

The democrats came for the Trade Unionists, and brought them under their wing and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, the Jews went willing and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and only Trump spoke up for me.

PHMA

phma, City Data 32 Comments [12/18/2015 6:06:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 25
Submitted By: ScrappyB

Quote# 115370

Nevertheless, WN's who support Bob Whitaker should ALSO support Donald Trump. Why?

Because the Trump candidacy is not so much a candidacy as it is the start of a WHITE AMERICAN MOVEMENT. Donald Trump is giving "the Silent Majority" a voice. He is the voice of the Silent Majority's thoughts.

Whether Trump wins or loses, the Silent Majority will NEVER be silent again. The White Racial Movement in America is underway -- and will only grow in numbers and in strength and in loudness. The demoralization of White America is breaking down. That is what Donald Trump's candidacy represents.

Tenniel, stormfront 43 Comments [12/18/2015 5:59:48 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 115369

afchief
“All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

Null - without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

Void - having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

Homosexuality is Repugnant. It is Null. It is Void!!!!

Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

Valri
Homosexual relationships are two people of the same gender in a loving committed relationship to one another identical to a straight relationship. Only difference is they can't procreate.

"Repugnant" is just your opinion. Clearly it's not "null and void" with so many millions of people in homosexual relationships that work.

afchief
Nope! There is nothing normal, natural or right about homosexuality. It is deviant, perverted, and a mental disorder. It is sick!!! It is unclean!!! It is gross!!!

Valri
Mental disorder? What century are you living in?

afchief
[Long, uncited, homophobic copypasta]

TheKingOfRhye
Do you realize you quoted the case that established judicial review? You know, the thing you supposedly hate so much that says the Supreme Court gets to rule that laws are unconstitutional?

afchief
Wrong! Let me ask you a question: If the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law? What if they said you could keep 70% and the government got the rest? Where do we draw the line?

What if the “court” rules that a man had the legal right to marry his favorite animal? What if they told us that we could marry as many different species as we wanted? What if they told us that sex with 10 year olds was “legal” and, in fact, some scumbag down the road had the right to “marry” your 10 year old 5th grader without your approval? What if they declared that school principals were even allowed to conduct the ceremonies during school hours? Would that make it right?

A “decision” or “opinion” by a court is not law? Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Do you understand that?

afchief, Christiannews.net 24 Comments [12/18/2015 5:59:38 PM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 115368

Elie Challita
Chief, can you answer this simple yes or no question?

Are women in the United States being prosecuted for having an abortion, and are medical centers being prosecuted for providing them?

afchief
What you do not understand is that people are "sheeple" An “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

Elie Challita
Courts prosecute violations of the laws, regardless of "sheeple's" opinions. So tell me again: Are women in the US being prosecuted for having abortions, or are medical providers prosecuted for providing them?

afchief
Are you really this blind? We have a totally corrupt and evil government now. The people at Planned Parenthood should be out of business, prosecuted and in jail!!!!!! Yet our evil government is still funding them. And you are wondering why women are not prosecuted for having abortions?!?!?!?!

OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

Ambulance Chaser
I'm not wondering. I already know the answer: because there's nothing to prosecute. Having an abortion isn't a crime.

afchief
Does not even deserve an answer!!!!

afchief, Christiannews.net 10 Comments [12/18/2015 5:59:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 115367

[The Rebbetzen offers advice on protecting children from "bad influences."]

It's obvious that even when you educate your children properly at home, your children need the right influences. Education can all be undone very quickly if children do not attend the right school or have good friends. [...] I was always very careful which friends' homes my children visited because I didn't want all the hard work I had invested in them at home to be undone, or even just blunted, in other peoples' houses.

[...]

We had all learnt in school how Dinah, the daughter of Ya'akov, was a curiosity seeker and the troubles that befell her. Our mother explained, without going into too much detail, that this had happened because she had gone out when she shouldn't have without her mother's permission; because of this she was unaware of the dangers that awaited her. Our mother told us that it was the duty of a good girl to always let her parents know where she was and who she was with.

[...]

Regarding allowing children out alone, I too monitored my children the way my mother ob"m had done, but because other children were allowed more freedom by then, one of my daughters went through a stage where she questioned our close supervision of her activities. She used to say "but don't you trust me mummy", or "all my friends are allowed to go, why can't I"? Out of "all" her friends perhaps one or two were actually allowed out alone, and I explained very clearly to her that I considered this to be "hefkerus" - wantonness - on their part. [...] I also explained to them that it was a bad world out there (without going into too much detail) and for that reason I felt they needed to be protected. My children already knew that Jewish kinder do not roam the streets getting into trouble like otherchildren do.

[...]

Part of this policy was that my daughters did not go shopping themselves. I always accompanied them because it was my policy, but also because I wanted to be on hand to discreetly guide their taste in the right direction. I explained to my daughters that salesladies are not primarily interested in the client's welfare; they are interested in making a sale. And therefore it was in their best interest that I help them in deciding whether the item in question was as nice, well-fitting and modest as the saleslady claimed it was.

Rebbetzen Shaindel Moscowitz, Breslev.co.il 11 Comments [12/18/2015 5:59:19 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 115365

And that's why Christianity needs to be controlled and broken down for the good of humanity. I would rather have "the left" in control than an entire religion full of greedy pedophiles.

There you have it, people - a Christian basically just admitted that he doesn't care about charity. Well, at least you're honest about that fact that you don't give a shit about charity, which makes you more honest than your Christian brethren.

Do you legitimately believe that the left is entirely made up of atheists?

No, and that's rather unfortunate.

NeoMatrix, FSTDT 55 Comments [12/18/2015 5:58:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 115364

For ANYONE who doubts that Obama stands WITH/FOR Muslims, is NOT paying attention, as he proves this by Each and Every Situation that arises. He is NOT looking out for Americans, THAT IS FOR SURE.

He will NOT even call "Muslim Terrorists what they ARE, and protects with his special JIVE, ALL the Attacks BY MUSLIMS on Americans, and he "Lectures us, on HOW to REACT to their Attacks, as he CONTINUES to MAKE EXCUSES FOR THEM...KILLERS AGAINST AMERICANS.

Is it ANY wonder, that he is NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH KEEPING AMERICANS SAFE AT HOME...BUT TODAY, HE TALKED ABOUT 'HIS MEETINGS WITH HIS SECURITY ON WHAT HE'S DONE/WILL DO IN THE MIDDLE EAST....BUT,
"not ONE word about WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO HERE IN AMERICA."

This guy AND His Whole Staff, Lynch,(prior-Holder) Hillary(prior SOS) Rice, and especially Valerie Jarrett(born in Iran) SHOW THEIR CORRUPTION ON A DAILY BASIS, as they "Continue Obama's Muslim/Islamic Agenda, protection of them, and their BIAS ATTITUDES 'AGAINST WHITE AMERICANS', THAT HE CONTINUES TO RIDICULE(Via his, Marxist Alinsky Methods-"Rules For Radicals")

ItsJo, WND 12 Comments [12/18/2015 5:57:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 115358

As the group has been attracting criticism for their views on Syria, Stop the War Coalition has been accused of preventing pro-revolution Syrians from protesting bombing of their country. Stop the War Coalition is facing a further barrage of criticism following accusations that they attempted to bar Syrian protesters from an anti-war march on Saturday.The UK anti-war group has been accused of being apologists for the Syrian regime, reportedly inviting pro-Assad speakers to its events and no-platforming Syrians who support the revolution.The group has come under more scutiny recently as the leader of the opposition Labour party Jeremy Corbyn has been a leading member in the group since it was founded.During the demonstration on Saturday, protesters from the Syrian solidarity movement attempted to join to express their opposition to the British bombing campaign, while also standing against Assad and his allies.Immediately after joining the demo, John Rees, chaiman of Stop the War Coalition, reportedly told a Syrian refugee and a member of the Syria Solidarity movement, Peter Tatchell, that they had to leave the protest.

John Rees, Stop The War Coalition, Al Araby 7 Comments [12/18/2015 5:55:40 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 115357

Abortion is a topic I have trouble understanding why it is even debated. What makes me more perplexed is the same people who are 'ultra-pro-abortion' are the same people who are exploiting the deaths of Sandy Hook.

First of all, Obama's Science Czar supports Eugenics, Abortions up to the age of 2(I have even seen 3) as well as forced abortions and population control www.pop.org/content/president-… www.examiner.com/article/scien…

The liberals don't care about those kids who were killed in Connecticut. They were salivating at the mouth the moment it happened as this would give rise to the final straw in their anti-gun agenda. Infact, after the Aurora Movie Theater shooting, Bloomberg was already preparing propaganda for the next mass shooting, and the shooting that followed Aurora was Sandy Hook politicker.com/2013/03/after-a…. And Let us not forget fellow Anti-Gun-Nut, Rahm Emanuels famous quote "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" youtu.be/Rs6TgitlNIA

How can someone want to get guns banned for "safety" of children but love abortion and support a president who kills children overseas every day in what is simply poorly orchestrated coups( Obama Built this -----> youtu.be/ghnHqJBtZTs) . It's insane.


One of the most common arguments I hear for abortion is "rape" and "health dangers to the mother." We'll rape makes up just 1% of all abortions www.nytimes.com/1989/10/13/us/… , yet it is used in more then 50% of the "national conversations." Why does such a low statistic get so much reverence among the pro-abortion crowd? Answer: They are sick, and love to exploit rare tragedies to try and accuse the side they are debating of lacking "humanity." It is a sick tactic used by these weasels time and time again.

The main reason women get abortions is "because it would change my life." Getting an abortion because of that is grotesque. There need be no religious conviction in arriving at such axiom. I think, if Humanism "practiced what it preached" it to; would chastise penurious abortions for the abomination to life that they really are.


FlipswitchMANDERING, deviantart 17 Comments [12/18/2015 5:53:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 115355

Who says animals don't have the physiological makeup to speak. All the animals came to Adam to be named and not one was found to be a suitable help meat. When the serpent came to Eve and spoke she was neither shocked not surprised. So Adam and Eve most likely routinely spoke to the animals and the animals in all likelihood spoke back. Science today wants to keep everything in their little box but God isn't limited in anything!

revmwc, Baptistboard 17 Comments [12/18/2015 5:52:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: PT

Quote# 115352

One is a pragmatist: a 47-year-old lawyer by training who has steered France's far-right National Front (FN) from pariah status to mainstream.

The other is an ideologue: her 25-year-old niece, a Roman Catholic traditionalist whose easy smile and blonde hair belie a stance on abortion, homosexuality and Islam that critics say is dangerous or sectarian.

On Sunday, Marine Le Pen and Marion Marechal-Le Pen -- respectively the daughter and grand-daughter of the FN's firebrand founder, Jean-Marie Le Pen -- established themselves as major players in France's political landscape.

[...]

Many observers believe it is her photogenic niece Marion who is the real ideological heir of Jean-Marie Le Pen, and better placed at a time of crisis to woo electors worried about the nation's future.

[...]

But since becoming an MP, and a mother for the first time, Marion has gone through an astonishing transformation, building a growing following among young radicals and older party supporters disgruntled with her aunt's apparent moderation.

[...]

Last month, she also demanded an end to state subsidies for family-planning associations, "which today are peddling abortion as something that's run-of-the-mill".

And last week, she raised a storm when, in Toulon, a Mediterranean city with a large number of citizens of Arab descent, she said Muslims could only be French "if they follow customs and a lifestyle that has been shaped by Greek and Roman influence and 16 centuries of Christianity."

"We are not a land of Islam," she said. "In our country, we don't wear djellaba clothing, we don't wear a veil and we don't impose cathedral-sized mosques."

Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, The Local 16 Comments [12/18/2015 5:52:16 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 115351

How’s this for a little trip through the looking glass? In Great Britain, the “anti-fascism” group Hope Not Hate has compiled a long list of “anti-Muslim” campaigners that includes… devout Muslims.

........

Nawaz says, the list

… conflates genuine … anti-Muslim bigots, with academic, journalistic and intellectual critics of Islam — including beleaguered ex-Muslim voices — and further, it throws reform-Muslim activists into the mix for good measure. In a plot twist befitting of a Monty Python sketch, one of those … was a headscarf-wearing, devout Muslim American woman called Raquel Saraswati. Raquel’s crime, for which her life was deemed to be worthy of putting at risk, was that she campaigns against honor-based violence.

Concerned Muslims exposed that absurdity, and Hope Not Hate took Saraswati’s name off the list, casting doubt on the rigor and thoughtfulness with which it was compiled in the first place. Other Muslims remain:

[T]he authors kept others such as an Egyptian Muslim Koran exegete, and reform campaigner Tawfik Hamid, as well as right-leaning American Muslim Zuhdi Jasser.

Nawaz correctly points out that

Hope Not Hate cannot escape the fact that there are people in their list who are also listed by some of the world’s most determined terrorists, who want them dead for the very same reason — daring to criticize Islam. …

By being included on the same list as genuine anti-Muslim bigots, any Muslim, and any other intellectual for that matter, who wishes to hold a serious and genuine conversation about Islam and its place in today’s age, is smeared by association, and is intimidated from expressing themselves from fear of being labelled a racist or bigot.

Hope Not Hate, Patheos 16 Comments [12/18/2015 5:51:28 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Nemo

Quote# 115350

Self sacrifice.
If you were in a plane crash and you could save everyone except yourself OR you survive and everyone else dies -what would you do.
If the atheist is right you would be stupid to die.
To die for others you don’t even know,to give up all the brief existence you would ever have-what for?for the atheist there can be no reason it would be STUPID.
Atheists making up some purpose,which amounts to self-delusion and not carrying their views to a logical conclusion .
Belief in GOD and eternal life is better than atheism where life has no value or purpose.
A second problem is that if God does not exist and there is no immortality ,then all evil acts of men go unpunished and all sacrifices of good men go unrewarded.But who can live with such a view?

billpuntonsghost, Iron-Bru 41 Comments [12/18/2015 3:33:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 115349

You stare at the universe daily Outrider and all its many sciences that brought you into existence and you support your sciences to the hilt which say that you and the entire universe came from an eruption that was no bigger than a dot too tiny to see but was held under so much gravity that the universe was inevitable. I question this science of yours because it doesn't make sense but I have Biblically ascertained that there is a material that existed before the big-bang and, using the Holy Bible realised that this is Almighty God's starting point. So...I will follow my lead-scientist and you can follow yours...mine promises a science that will lead to everlasting life...here, on planet Earth, in the flesh but, I must endure the pains and the distresses that your scientists will inflict upon the planet first...best summed up as World War 3.

My faith remains with Almighty God who, it seems, has all universal problems under control, especially the impending danger from the scavengers of outer-space who want to pick up the salvage afterwards.

NicholasMarks, Religion and Ethics 14 Comments [12/18/2015 3:33:00 PM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Nearly Sane

Quote# 115346

That's right bitches, I'm going there. I haven't posted a journal on a controversial topic in a while, so I figured it's about time to cause trouble again. ;D

Anyways, regardless of what side you're on, you've all heard this argument at least ONCE I'm sure: That abortion should be kept legal to keep the number of back-alley abortions down. After doing a little research, I've discovered that what a lot of the "facts" that people know about back-alley abortions are a load of bull. There's more common misconception than anything. Being the little trouble-maker I am, I'm going to break them all down for you and explain why they're a load of horseshit. :3

Misconception #1: Illegal abortions were done in unsanitary alley-ways by fake doctors.
Sorry but, that's not how it was at all. Actually, before it was legalized, about 90% of illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians. The term "back-alley" didn't refer to abortions literally being performed right there in an alley-way with a clothes hanger, but to how women were instructed to enter the doctor's office after hours, through the back alley, to avoid arousing neighbors' suspicions.

Misconception #2: Tens of thousands of women died from illegal abortions every year
Sorry, but this was actually proven false. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson(The guy who directed what was then the largest abortion clinic in the 1970's, as well as the guy who made up this bullshit body count), later admitted that this figure was false but considered it to be "useful" in their campaign to legalize abortions. Even Planned Parenthood admitted that these numbers were wrong. In 1972, there were only 39 deaths related to illegal abortion, not tens of thousands like Nathanson originally claimed.
In fact, deaths from illegal abortions were actually DECLINING prior to 1973, not because abortion was becoming legal, but because of the introduction to antibiotics. The number of reported abortion-related deaths didn't start increasing until AFTER abortion was legalized. Why? Because it was legal, and abortionists were able to do more procedures. More abortion procedures, higher chances of people dying from said procedure. Duh.

Misconception #3: If abortion becomes illegal, women will seek out illegal abortions.
Yeah, they actually did a study on this by doing a survey on women undergoing legal abortions. According to the surveys, only about 6 to 20 percent of the women would have gotten an illegal abortion if the legal option was no longer available.
Even more research done had found that most women having legal abortions are pressured/coerced to do so by someone else, directly and indirectly, and that most abortions are likely unwanted. Before 1973, women could refuse an unwanted abortion on the grounds that it was illegal, unsafe and immoral. Legalization has made it easier for those around her to insist that because abortion is legal it must be "safe," and because it is "socially approved," it must be moral. It makes it easier for them to refuse to support her desire to continue the pregnancy and insist that she abort anyway.
For example, when actress Hunter Tylo was fired from the TV show Melrose Place after she became pregnant, her pregnancy discrimination suit quoted a producer as saying, "Why doesn't she just go out and have an abortion? Then she can work."

Misconception #4: Legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions.
Nnnnnoooopppppeeee.~ Whilst the percentage of women dying from abortions are lower, the actual number of women dying from abortion has increased. The actual number of women suffering physical complications has increased. The actual number of women suffering psychological complications has increased. The suffering of women, men, and families has been increased.
Since people are likely to get confused by the difference between the percentage and actual numbers, the percentage of women dying from the abortion itself has gone down, but the number of women dying from abortion has increased because the deaths happen AFTER they had the abortion. Studies have shown that women who have had a history of abortions are 3.5 times more likely to die following an abortion and six times more likely to commit suicide then a woman who just chose to give birth. They are also more prone to substance abuse and other forms of risky behavior that may lead to death. Indeed, more than 30 studies published in the last few years alone have linked abortion to higher rates of mental health problems, including depression, substance abuse, suicidal behavior, and anxiety disorders — including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Society as a whole also seems to have overlooked the fact that not a single study has ever been published which shows that abortion, for any given reason, actually benefits the physical, emotional, economic, or social health of women. Indeed, the available evidence shows that abortion is instead associated with making the physical, emotional, economic, and social well-being of women WORSE.


SiogaAgusArrachtaigh, deviantart 39 Comments [12/17/2015 6:14:35 PM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 115345

Last but not least, the ultimate reason why I detest birth control above the other medical and cultural reasons is this: artificial birth control has the ability to kill a conceived human being.

You heard me. Birth control, depending on whether it's the pill or an IUD, has the ability to either: 1) prevent ovulation 2) thicken cervical mucus to prevent the sperm from traveling, or 3) prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, thus killing the newly conceived life.

piewriter, deviantart 48 Comments [12/17/2015 6:13:49 PM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: undie not fundie

Quote# 115342

When that priest assaulted you, he was thinking certain things, and those things were not at all what God was thinking. When the Church system worked to hush up what happened, they were thinking certain things, and what they were thinking was not at all what God was thinking. Understanding God’s involvement in your assault begins by recognizing that a group of individuals can engage in the same activity without having the same motivations. One man eats a plate of food because he’s very hungry and he really enjoys it. Another man eats a plate of the same food because he’s trying to be polite to his host, but he really hates it. On the outside, both men are going through the same motions, and where we humans see the same behaviors happening, we assume uniform motivations. But the truth is that these two men have vastly different reasons for doing what they’re doing. One man is thinking of pleasing himself, the other is thinking of blessing someone else. In the same way, when that priest assaulted you, he wasn’t thinking of you, he was thinking of himself. For humans, sexual assault is a very self-serving activity in which we degrade someone else for our own gratification. But for God, this is never what sexual assault is about. For God, putting you through this kind of experience is about helping you by forcing you to change in drastic ways.

There’s no way to remain unchanged by trauma. This is by God’s design. Before you were assaulted, you were not all that God wanted you to be. You were—and still are—a work in progress. We could say the same of every human. We’re all works in progress. We’re all walking down roads that God has set us down on. The road that you’re on is unique to you and as you walk, God creates forks in your road: decision points at which you have to pause and decide if you’re going to go right or left. These options are forced upon you—you don’t get to decide when they will appear. God makes them appear in your life.

Being assaulted is a major fork. Now that this horrible experience has been forced upon you and you find yourself reeling with all kinds of distressing aftereffects, what now? Well, it’s like you’ve been thrown into a scary maze that you’re now trying to find your way out of. There are a lot of guides available to you. You can try to find your own way out by relying on your gut instinct. You can take the advice of friends who have been where you are and do what they did. You can seek help from a professional human counselor. But what about God? He’s the One who threw you into this mess in the first place. Since He created the mess, obviously He would be the best Resource to guide you out of it. But you’re so mad at Him for putting you into the mess in the first place, that maybe you don’t want to talk to Him. Maybe you are going to intentionally ignore anything He has to say, or perhaps you’ll do the opposite of whatever He says just because He’s the One saying it. But what is that going to accomplish? Since this whole mess is God’s design, He could easily prevent you from ever getting free of it. And perhaps that’s what He will do if you’re giving Him perpetual attitude. Because you see, God’s whole purpose in doing this to you was to strengthen your personal relationship with Him. This is about you and Him—it’s not about priests or the Catholic system. This isn’t about punishing you. This isn’t some statement on how you are unloved. On the contrary, you are very loved. But it’s a very imbalanced relationship at the moment, for God loves you far more than you love Him. How does He step up your interest in Him? By creating crises which only He can save you from. By creating situations in which you desperately need His help.

Anna Diehl, The Pursuit of God 18 Comments [12/17/2015 6:13:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 115339

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


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


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

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


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

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



BlackLieutenant, INTJForum 26 Comments [12/17/2015 6:13:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 16

Quote# 115338

Every relationships I got into turned very badly, and when the gal is seriously crying, I try to give a damn but I can't. Sometimes this coldness makes me laugh in my head (because it still surprises me), and the girl can see a little smile on my face while she's in tears, which makes things worse.

And I read this too : "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction, at 31%." Which not surprise me, but when we're objective it's kinda shocking.

Seeing all this destroyed people around me just because of me is getting weird. Am I an asshole, or is it IxTPs people in general ? In both case I know I won't change so it kinda sucks in a way.

And how can women knowing MBTI can look after ISTP or INTP (men), there's nothing likable in us . This is a suicide.


[Just because women are biologically built to have children doesn't mean that we're built to stay home with those children.]

Women are weaker and therefore, less adequate for outside work. Even if most jobs today do not require physical strength, women are more emotional, more sensitive, more unstable (periods), less competitive and therefore less adequate for the workplace.

Men are physically stronger, women weaker. It's science. And denying that men have always searched for weaker, fragile, feminine etc... women, and women for stronger, muscular, tall, dominant men is bullshit.

[The fact that you think of women solely in the context of your sexual attraction to them is an example of sexism.]

I'm telling my way (and most men's) to behave with women is linked to our heterosexuality. Yes we prefer women be weaker than us, more fragile, nicer, sweeter etc... More feminine.


[I know a lot of men who believe they'd like to be stay at home dads and if that's what works for families then it's really not your concern. Babies are still being born, someone is staying home with them, doesn't matter if they have "milky boobs" or not]

First, most men would probably not want that. Second, you just screw with Nature. All women body functions, psychology etc... are made for motherhood. The existence of women is linked to motherhood actually. You wouldn't have your periods every freaking month otherwise.

[HOWEVER, "serial monogamy" (one mate AT A TIME) is absolutely something we're capable of. Essentially, the thing we should be asking for is not monogamy, but "exclusivity".

Exclusivity is the term and condition in a closed relationship social contract.]

Serial monogamy is BS and a social construction. It's the crap women tell us to make us believe "romantic monogamic love" exists (and is the norm). When I date somepne, my love for women don't go away and my dong too. Forbidding men to be themselves can make us go sneaky, hide stuffs and cheat.


Maybe. And because of this, women shouldn't impose "monogamous love" on men. Men and women don't have the same perspective on sex, one is active (and physical), the other passive (and almost emotional).
Sex has nothing to do with love/emotional bonding for most of us (men).

And because women want us to "love" them before we fuck, most of us (unfortunately) lie to get laid.

[Why not install chastity belts on women from the nursery homes until marriage (with a MAN only of course)?]

Women should be "correct" and "modest" about sex. I like women preserving for marriage, like Christians and Muslims. It's more correct and clean.

Men are not meant to be monogamous. Let the man live. We separate love/affection and sex quite easily. It doesnt mean we don't like you, just that other sexy/lovely women are very easy to love for us.

Personally,a beautiful woman sincerly smiling and being kind with me is enough for me to "fall in love". Even a silent/mysterious sexy woman is enough.

I already date women for a nice pair of ass, tits, beautiful eyes or hair, it's about little things sometimes.

Love is very physical for men. Love is more emotional for women. "Physical love" is more easy to have because you don't need a lot of bonding to have it. Men can look "promiscuous" because of that.

A lot of men think like me I guess.

For my sexual life, I don't think I could stay with one woman all my life, it's crazy. It's almost depressing. I would probably cheat on her or watch porn for a change. That's why men prefer submissive women, they won't leave you if you make "some" accidents sometimes. After pregnancies, women generally get fat, stretch marks and all, this is just disgusting. I don't know where the monogamy myth come from, at least for men.

BlackLieutenant, INTJForum 27 Comments [12/17/2015 6:12:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 115337


First, men and women don't naturally have the same interests.
Then, if we have, and if both parties "click", they will want to grow into something more, romantically, sexually etc...

As a man, I become friends with other men by "default", but with women, it's because there's a problem : she has a boyfriend, she's too ugly, something is wrong in her personality etc...
If there's attraction mentally and physically, it's hard to pretend to be "friends" and to keep it that way.

Personally I don't have a lot of females friends, as it grows generally romantically. The women I'm friend with are mostly "women not attractive enough to grow romantic interest" or my exes.


And to remain "friend" with a woman I find attractive feels like to remain in a state of constant failure or being a loser. Men don't like that.
Even if I make an effort to remain "friend", the hypocrisy and bottled-up sexual attraction/seduction in not healthy at all.



@Antares
If your male friends are friend with you, it's because they are attracted to you already, to your personality at least. Some of them probably find you also physically attractive.

If you're still friend with some of them, its because
- you (or they) already have a partner,
- you don't find them (or they don't find you) attractive enough

Otherwise, it's hard to understand why a single male and single female attracted to each other, mentally and physically, wouldn't hook up (or try to).


This male-female friendship thing is very new, very Western, and very unrealistic. Friendship are supposed to be platonic, which is natural and easier with same-sex (heterosexual) people. If a male and a female are friend (therefore platonic), it logically means something is wrong in their mutual attraction.

Men, women can be friends, but should they?


All men like to have their "ugly" female friend they can talk to, without feeling the pressure to "conquer" or "seduce".

BlackLieutenant, INTJForums 12 Comments [12/17/2015 6:12:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 115336

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men





Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.


[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.





BlackLieutenant, INTJForum 15 Comments [12/17/2015 6:12:29 PM]
Fundie Index: 15
Submitted By: Menomaru

Quote# 115335

here's no overpopulation around and in the western world, there's not enough babies made to sustain modern societies, retirement plans, public debts etc...

We need women to make 3 kids per family to have a regular growth, right now with numbers like 1.2 or 1.3, the extinction of the civilized world is around. Most country leaders let immigrants come in everywhere to ameliorate the situation, but not all countries are economically attractive. Countries like LIthuania, Italy or Spain are gonna die if women don't go back to gender roles.

BlackLieutenant, INTJForum 15 Comments [12/17/2015 6:12:27 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 | top