Quote# 120358

The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of The Land . We had a revolt and an American Revolution fought in this land because of people like you that wanted Government to suppress and tell God fearing people what they could and could not do. We will probably have another violent bloody revolution if the Godless and wicked sinners in this nation do not respect the rights of those that want to live their lives in deference to what they believe The LORD Jesus Christ want them to be doing. My strong suggestion to you , before it is too late, is that you seek The LORD while He may be found , humble yourself before Him and seek the cleansing that comes through , "..repentance toward God and faith toward The LORD Jesus Christ " ( Acts 20:21; 1st John 5:13; Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 6:17,23; 2 Corinthians 5:17; John 3:3; 1st Peter 1:23; Philippians 1:6; Acts 16:31)KJB. ---------------------------------- NOTHING you will ever do will be more important because this will effect your eternity .

GibbyD, Christian News Network 23 Comments [7/7/2016 2:46:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 120357

What we are seeing is not simply the moral collapse of America, but a global war on Christ. From ISIS, to the LGBT radicals, to :Black Lives Matter, to the Democratic Party, to corporate America, to the E.U. to the courts and the President, to the Public Schools, to the Vatican, to contemporary "evangelical" churches, everywhere, Bible believing Christians are targeted for suppression and destruction. The world has no intention of leaving us in peace. Satan has declared open war on the Saints globally for he knows his time is short.

Stephen Anderson, Christian News Network 17 Comments [7/7/2016 2:46:18 PM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 120356

I am an avid reader of end times, last days books, magazines and articles. I have lost count of the huge volume of writings I have consumed not only in the field of research based eschatology, but also in Christian end times fiction as well as secular dystopian books. Needless to say that the end of days has been a fascination of mine for as long as I can remember. Eschatology is the theology concerned with the final events of history, or the ultimate destiny of humanity. Christian Eschatology is a ‘science’ in every sense of the word. It should be logical, understandable through a biblical worldview, verifiable through scripture and reasonable to an open minded secular mentality.

Sarah Burlingame , Rapture Ready 18 Comments [7/7/2016 2:46:14 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: solomongrundy

Quote# 120355

(RSTDT or FSTDT? You could flip a coin, I guess)

Friends, I invite you to ponder the image above. The beautiful woman is Christy Sheats. The Texas wife and mother who is being vilified in the media for shooting and killing her teenage daughters. It makes for a great headline in mainstream media but what goes unsaid is even more powerful.

A devout Republican and gun rights advocate, she no doubt discovered that both of her daughters had been promiscuous and were sleeping with black boys and she took it upon herself to put an end to that cycle. She was brave enough to stand up and say ENOUGH! Not in MY house! And she should be lauded.

Race mixing is not only an ungodly thing, it causes such confusion and humiliation. Not only for the children born of this sin, but for the grandparents who would have to carry this burden. Mrs. Sheats was the picture of elegance and I know she would not want to have to explain to her friends why she was carrying around a yellow mixed baby that her promiscuous daughters had created.

Rather than be forced into this life of depravity and sin, she chose to go down grasping her weapon in the name of God. As far as I am concerned, she is a martyr for Christ.

Jennifer mayer, An Elegant Life 35 Comments [7/7/2016 2:46:06 PM]
Fundie Index: 28

Quote# 120353

Rape can be classified into two categories (perhaps more but for our purposes 2).

The completely blameless rape where a woman minding her own business is attacked and held at knife-point or beaten until she submits to sex.

Then there is date rape.

Imagine that I break into the zoo at night and dangle raw meat above the tiger cage. I am not only breaking the rules but I am engaging in very risky behavior. Most of the tigers will mill about happy to wait for food to drop. They won't do anything to harm me. But if one of them jumps up and rips my fucking arm off then people will rightly say that I had it coming.

Date rape is like the above situation only women have lobbied for laws that absolve her of responsibility and remove pesky rules like, "You shouldn't break into zoos late at night and dangle steaks above the tiger cage."

To complicate issues further: if we look at the details of many date rape claims we find that almost always no violence was use. It is also extremely rare that date rape drugs were used. This is actually so rare that it's considered an Urban Legend.

Occasionally a woman is unconscious and the man had sex with her. This was wrong of him, but to claim that it rises to the level of a man breaking into a home and raping a woman at knife-point is ridiculous.

Often the woman has no memory of the event and suffered no physical harm. Yet, as a society we think that's a justification to send the man to prison for years?

What's more is that often she may have been conscious but too drunk to remember. Sex may have been her idea and their intent all night long. But because she was so drunk she can't remember the sex or blacked out during it then that constituted rape. Meanwhile, these rules don't apply to men in reverse. If he's too drunk or blacks out she can do whatever she wants and get away with it. Just try to go to the police and tell them your girl fucked you while you were asleep. It just won't work.

For those women who are riding the cock carousel, who go out and dance naked on tables, flash their tits at guys, get hammered drunk and then agree to sex only to later claim they didn't or to change their mind in the process after things got going I really don't have any sympathy for them.

Women who engage in behavior which was designed to provoke a male sexual response have no right to bitch when they succeed.

If a woman walks away from a "rape" where no weapon was used, no threats, no violence, and there's not a mark on her and her clothes aren't damaged then I have a real problem with considering what happened to her a crime and certainly not a crime that should be punished with decades in prison and a lifetime on a sexual predators list.

Now as for false accusations. I think that nearly everything that comes out of feminists mouths about rape is a false accusation.

The 1 in 5 women in college will be raped is a false accusation. It is preposterous.

The 1 in 4 women will be raped during their life is a lie.

The 80% of rapes aren't reported is ridiculous and reckless conjecture which relies on faulty data and unreliable surveys that redefine rape in order to extrapolate a shocking percentage.

The fact that the media, thousands of college professors and politicians allow these clearly false statistics to go unchallenged tells me that only the most cut and dry rape accusation should be accepted and prosecuted.

We simply can't trust women to tell the truth and we can't trust the government to enforce the law fairly.

All that said, it's up to each of us to protect ourselves from false rape accusations. As leaders of the relationship we need to exercise control of the activities so that we aren't engaging in actions that can be used against us later on.

However, if BD/SM or other kinds of kink are mutually agreed upon then you should sit down with your partner and outline ON PAPER what you both agree to. Get her to sign it and put it away some place safe. That way if she says on paper that it's cool if you fuck her while she's drunk and that she won't hold you liable if she can't remember or she passes out then you have that to take to court.


JeanValjean197o, r/TheRedPill 20 Comments [7/7/2016 2:43:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 19
Submitted By: Menomaru

Quote# 120352

There are a few exceptions, whereby your guardian angel isn't allowed to prevent your soul contract from being ended prematurely. One of those is suicide. If you choose to end your own life, that is your own free will and so your guardian angel won't interfere. However, you're offered a last chance to return before you go into heaven, because suicide is almost never desirable. To a soul, a life ended by its own hand, remains a deed which it will always think back on with regret. That's because it left a chance for development unused and besides that, almost always karma is being created by such a decision. After all, in case of suicide usually loved ones stay behind on whom such an event leaves deep marks. That karma will have to be redeemed in following lives.

Another exception where your guardian angel can't interfere, is murder. One of the most important laws that God equipped this universe with, is the Law of Free Will. Angels aren't allowed to go against universal laws, so if someone wants to kill you, that's his free will and your guardian angel can't stop this. With this however, compensations are possible for the soul of the victim because it couldn't help that its soul contract was ended prematurely.
Obviously the murder also causes the offender a cartload of karma, that will only be redeemed once he himself undergoes a similar fate.

There are cases however, in which higher beings are allowed to interfere if someone is in danger of being murdered. That is for example, when that person plays such an important role in a larger proces, for example the Ascension of the Earth, that it would have too many consequences if they died. Such a person is then actually invulnerable (without knowing it). This is also predetermined in the soul contract. The actual protection doesn't necessarily have to be executed by the guardian angel, it can also be done by the Galactic Federation for example. But the communication about the fate of a soul always runs through the guardian angel.

Fairies

Not only humans and animals have protectors, trees and plants also have helpers who make sure that everything goes according to plan as much as possible. These spirits of nature are called devas, or the devic kingdom. Among others the well-known fairies from fairy tales are a part of it. Yes indeed, just like so many other legends, like mermaids, dragons and Minotaurs, fairies really do exist! (7) Just like other higher beings, they're aware of all your thoughts when you're around them. And you can always ask them for help. So if you're lost in a forest, don't hesitate to call upon the fairies, because they would certainly like to help you find the way back.

The Greater Picture, The Greater Picture 10 Comments [7/7/2016 2:42:55 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: TimeToTurn

Quote# 120348

[ If homosexuality were normal and natural in humans then wouldnt all/most humans be natural fully functioning hermaphrodites? ]

Hermaphrodites themselves are rare and only 11 cases of fertility in true hermaphrodites have been reported as of 2010. So if that was the norm, humans would die out. 
Naturality is not defined as whatever occurs in nature, except by materialists. To a moral outlook suicide is unnatural, [in spite of lemmings] and so are other inherently self destructive and or excessively risky behaviours. The overwhelmingly unhealthiness and riskiness of homosexual activity is well established.
As for the terms, hermaphrodite or intersex, it is a biological condition of anatomy, which has nothing particularly to do with same sexual attraction, at least not in that the former is any outcropping of the latter; it being a complex mutation and there being no gay gene discovered as of yet.
Personally I am of the belief that homosexuals require a biological proclivity and a certain amount of personal choice. 
But to the point, that which is destructive to human continuance cannot benatural. But in the way in which suicide and arsenic are natural ie Material Occurrences. 


thoughtsandreplies, tumblr 16 Comments [7/7/2016 2:23:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 120347

Christians were in America long before you. We came here to live as Christians in peace. You don't belong here.

Stephen Anderson, Christian News Network 17 Comments [7/7/2016 2:21:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 11

Quote# 120345

[if life starts at conception, then is a miscarriage a murder?]

Equating the unintended and tragic loss of a child through natural death (miscarriage) to the intentional killing of a child by starvation, dismemberment, or poisoning (elective abortion) is frankly appalling and an insult to the 30%+ of women who have endured the unfortunate natural death of their child before birth.

A natural miscarriage is no more murder than a natural disaster is genocide.

lifemattersjournal, Tumblr 19 Comments [7/7/2016 3:43:36 AM]
Fundie Index: -2
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 120343

No one was ever an eye-witness to the fables of mythology, which were kept alive by the naïve credulity of devotees of pagan religions. Nor was the coming of any mythological figure accurately prophesied centuries before in a coherent body of prophetic literature. The Christian faith, therefore, stands alone among all the world’s belief systems, which, with the exception of Judaism, are based on unverifiable mythologies. Even the secular “religion” of Evolutionism is based upon a grandiose myth—that the minutely ordered cosmos arose spontaneously by chance from chaos, gradually increased in complexity by a series of small, random mutations, and eventually produced the minds of Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan, who were “smart” enough to conceive of and rationalize such a preposterous fable. [17] In contrast, Christians are expected to ground their faith on a rational, scriptural and historically verifiable foundation, so that their testimony cannot be discredited by later discoveries.

Biblical Unitarian, Biblical Unitarian 15 Comments [7/7/2016 3:43:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: jesus

Quote# 120341



This graphic illustrates the devasting toll of #Abortion #AbortionIsMurder #ProtectTheUnborn from #Leftists

timmiecat, Tumblr 35 Comments [7/6/2016 5:19:47 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 120338

In short, not dating a person BECAUSE they are trans is transphobic; as is making a blanket statement 'not attracted to trans women', because that statement stems purely from prejudice. That said it's best you probably not date any trans person if that's the way you feel about them.

Gundersanne, Reddit - r/asktransgender 45 Comments [7/6/2016 5:19:11 PM]
Fundie Index: 1

Quote# 120337

IS ABORTION A SIN?

During one of his campaigns, President Abraham Lincoln was asked about slavery.

He was aware of the strong feelings on all sides. He knew that no matter how he responded someone would be alienated and offended. But he was also aware of the need to confront this great question of right and wrong. His reply? “If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.”

His point, of course, was that depriving human beings of their freedom and basic human rights must be morally wicked — but if it is not wrong then how can anything ever be called wrong?

I believe he would say today, “If abortion is not wrong, then nothing is wrong.” Depriving an innocent living human being of their right to life must be wrong if anything is wrong. To be more precise: It must be sinful. That which falls short of God’s righteous requirements is sin. Yet, in a recent column (“Dealing with questions of abortion,” Livingston Daily June 24), the Rev. Norris Burkes refused to give sound biblical guidance to a young woman who came to him for counsel with the question “Is abortion a sin?”

My sense is that Burkes is a caring and decent man and that he meant well. But his response to the young woman asking about abortion was morally scandalous and indicative of a God-shaped vacuum in his theology. That is my view.

In 38 years of ministry, I have counseled dozens of women facing challenging pregnancies. Unplanned and unanticipated. Very stressful. Sometimes they have come alone to seek guidance. Sometimes with the child’s father. But always with a measure of anxiety because God has hardwired mothers to protect their children. They come because they know that abortion is sinful — that it cannot please God who creates all life. It does not help to avoid the hard truth when they ask, “Is abortion a sin?” Yes. It is always a sin to take innocent life. The Fifth Commandment condemns murder.

Norris explains the anxious mother’s dilemma this way: “She wanted to go to school. She wanted to date without having a baby in tow. She couldn’t handle the perceived embarrassment to her family.” He then says that no matter what she decided, “nothing would separate her from the love of God.” Yes, God is gracious but the preceding justifications for having her child put to death were tragic. Will this gentleman really suggest to God on Judgment Day that the young woman’s personal plans and family concerns justified crushing a child’s skull or ripping off its arms or burning off its skin? It is clergy like this that make Heaven shutter. Such people are not helpful to young women who will, in their souls, regret the choice they made for the rest of their lives.

Finally, what if she had come asking a similar question about a month-old baby outside of the womb? Inconvenient? An impediment to dating? To education? Family comfort level? Would he counsel her to put the child to death? Of course not. So for this man, a sin against God and the child is not a sin if the location of the killing is inside of the womb? The young woman needs to hear that God requires a holy choice — and that help is available to help her make that right choice. And I would say to this gentleman: “Count on it, chaplain: It’s a sin!”

Rev. Richard Alberta, Livingston Daily 11 Comments [7/6/2016 5:18:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Denizen

Quote# 120335

Insert socialists Gov. Brown, Hillary, Sanders, or Obama or any other rotten "progressive" for "Himmler" below - or for Hitler or Stalin or for any other despot who banned guns: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." -- Heinrich Himmler
Many others as above by dictators and human slaughterers as compared to:
"The 2nd amendment is mainly so we can rise up against tyranny. No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms ." Thomas Jefferson
“What country can preserve (its) liberties if (its) rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” Thomas Jefferson
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” Benjamin Franklin
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - - Thomas Jefferson
"Even as it stands, the Home Guard could only exist in a country where men feel themselves free. The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE." -- George Orwell.

I HOPE AND PRAY WE NEVER GET TO THIS SCENARIO:
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government - by exercising one's Second Amendment rights.” Alexander Hamilton

F K, NPR 28 Comments [7/6/2016 3:14:05 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 120334

The SCOTUS decision is playing out in a rather interesting way on our sidewalk.

Not one bit of celebration by our deathscorts.

But, lots of interesting questions by us.

"Is this decision not proof that pro-choicers are anti-woman and PRO-ABORTION?"

'Why the celebration for an abortuary's 'victory' when they are only slightly better than a rusty coat hanger - maybe?"

"Are lower standards REALLY the goal of the women's 'rights' movement?!?"

SCOTUS actually handed pro-lifers some delicious talking points. And Erin Mersino just nailed them!

There is no pretending now, pro-aborts. :-)

WorldGoneCrazy, Live Action News 24 Comments [7/6/2016 3:13:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 120329

I was searching around youtube to learn about Julie Andrews. Then I was disgusted to find an interview with her where two guys pointed out that she went topless in a softcore porno film.

If she hadn't have done that, then she would have been remembered forever as a wonderful wholesome lady with a perfect voice.

Since she did do that, now she will be remembered forever as an immoral, filthy, harlot-like woman.

I bet that is why God made her lose her perfect voice. She decided to squander her gift by devolving into Sodom & Gomorrah-like immorality. Her fall is almost exactly like how Lucifer was the most glorifious creature God ever made, but then he became debased into filthy satan.

Navaros, IMDB 25 Comments [7/6/2016 3:09:59 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 120327

"Been there and done that Lori. I grew up in church and spent most of my life as a believer." Tom Dub

So you knew the Lord Tom? Here's your predictable answer:

"I THOUGHT I did." Am I wrong?

So you didn't know the Lord. Like millions of other false converts that fill the Church, you faked it. Jesus called such "believers" "Goats among the sheep," and warned that hypocrites will be sorted out on Judgment Day.

Here's another guess as to your experience. As you grew up, you noticed that girls were a better shape than Noah's ark.

Predictable answer:

"No. I preferred science to God." Am I wrong?

Ray Comfort, Atheist Central 31 Comments [7/6/2016 3:09:14 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Chris

Quote# 120326

I think the main problem with women having the right to vote is the inherent conflict of interest involved with the dependent (the woman) telling the provider (the man) what to do; having the provided for telling the provider what the provider “owes” the provided for. I have said before that chivalry is a duty of men on behalf of women but that chivalry is something that men impose upon other men; it is not something that is defined by the woman herself. The government overall can be viewed as an expression of men’s chivalry; the government is to provide for the overall protection of society, to set the rules under which society operates, and these activities of the government are designed to allow each individual household headed by a man to operate in safety and flourish. Women “hijacking” the operation of government through the right to vote creates the same conflict of interest problem that women “dictating” to men what chivalry is about creates. When the recipient (the woman) “orders” the benefactor (the man) to provide for the recipient (the woman) in a particular way then the purpose of the man’s behavior is no longer controlled by the man; the purpose of the man’s behavior is then to satisfy the demands of the woman. When the link between the man’s chivalry and the man’s purpose as a man is broken the man is no longer motivated or rewarded for fulfilling his role as a man. The man’s honor gets converted into the woman’s manipulation. Men respond to this abusive dynamic by withdrawing from their role and purpose as men.

Ann Barnhardt is quite amazing. The first time I ever heard of her was when she announced she was shutting down her Barnhardt Capital Management commodity brokerage business in response to the MF Global collapse scandal where money from segregated customer accounts was stolen. In this initial exposure, her views on cultural issues were not discussed at all. Now we hear she is a full bore supporter of patriarchy going as far as condemning women’s suffrage! This does indicate that support for patriarchy within a Christian context is moving closer to the mainstream.

Jesse Powell, The Thinking Housewife 23 Comments [7/6/2016 3:09:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 120325

Do you know when things really started to go – literally – to hell in this country? When women were given the right to vote seperate and apart from their husbands. What a flipping disaster. This is when the war against marriage and the family began in earnest – and it has taken less than 100 years for both institutions to be almost completely destroyed. And it all started with the damn suffrage.

Here’s the deal. Up until women’s suffrage, a man was the head of his marriage and his household, and his vote represented not just himself but his entire family, including his wife and his children. When men voted, they were conscious of the fact that they were voting not just for themselves and their own personal interests, but they were also charged with the responsibility of discerning and making the ultimate decision about what was in the best interests of their entire family. Wow. Isn’t that nuts? Men being . . . responsible?

Ann Barnhardt, Reddit 14 Comments [7/6/2016 3:06:56 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120324

I’m a woman, and I’ve voted in every election since 1976, but I would gladly give up my right to vote if it meant we would get more presidents like Ronald Reagan and not be saddled with any more Barack Øbamas.

After the 2008 election, someone did a statistical analysis (I wish I’d saved the article) which showed that demographic shifts were responsible for Øbama’s victory. Certain demographic groups can be counted on to vote certain ways (e.g., married men with children vote Republican, single mothers vote Democrat, etc.), and their voting patterns stay remarkably consistent over the years. What has changed is the distribution of those groups. Back when Ronald Reagan was elected, we had more married people with children (who tend to vote Republican) and fewer single women with children (who vote about 99.9% Democrat). Over the years since then the numbers have shifted — marriage is down, broken homes are up, illegitimacy is up, and of course so is immigration, which has skewed the numbers to favor Democrats. If we could somehow bring back the culture of marriage and family formation, and decrease the incidence of family breakup and illegitimacy, that alone would go a long way toward solving the problem. But I don’t suppose that’s any more likely than repealing the 19th Amendment. Sigh…

bob, Camp of the Saints 29 Comments [7/6/2016 3:06:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120323

This is what happened: I slipped on a wet floor, banged my head on something and woke up in an emergency room with a concussion and virtually no short-term memory.

For two weeks I contemplated the 24-hour news channels and I was unfortunately somewhat healed by the time Hurricane Katrina ambushed the Southeast.

(I say "ambushed" because apparently officials in Louisiana didn`t know it was coming.)

Interestingly enough, I now feel compelled to re-evaluate my life, my purpose as it were…and I know what I want to do with the time I have left:

Repeal the 19th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Why? Because time and consequence have proven that some women are not capable of handling the awesome responsibility of voting.

Look, it was the 1920s and I agree it was worth a shot. But the skills of a politician rarely include prophecy. So factoring the cataclysmic events of the 1940s was undoubtedly impossible.

What happened in the 1940s you ask? The four greatest threats to American civilization gnawed their way into the world, that`s what.

I am talking of course about Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Blanco, Kim Gandy and Hillary Rodham. I will explain why—umm, let me see…because they are full of it.

Ladies, we just have to give up the vote. The brain power of Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin would be missed at the poll booth, but so would theirs.

Admittedly, without women the conservative side of the aisle will lack a certain équilibre. And frankly the White House Christmas Card will seem dowdy without Condi`s legs.

But think about the benefits…Blanco, Pelosi, Gandy and Rodham would no longer be able to highjack the U.S. Constitution and warp it into some deformed manifesto for social equality and civil rights…oops, I mean women`s (sort of) rights.

Hey, desperate times call for desperate measures.



Bryanna Bevans, VDARE 20 Comments [7/6/2016 3:06:34 AM]
Fundie Index: 12

Quote# 120319

Similarly, East Asians are protected against all kinds of environmental and mutational “attacks” that would normally destroy other people, intellectually, but this special blessing means that they will also tend to be under-represented among the most original human intellects. This solves one of the stronger challenges raised against the Unzian Asian Exception conjecture, asking why it was not East Asians who produced the greatest epochs of human intellectual achievements in history if it is true that their average IQs have consistently been stubbornly high for most of modern human history. It would be because the same canalization that protected them from low intelligence also “protected” them from producing the numbers of super-creative intellects that would be required for such revolutionary achievements in a concentrated period of time. They have a small creative smart fraction, in short.

This differential canalization theory is certainly more plausible than the existing models given by many hereditarians to explain why East Asians have a high average IQ. For example, the idea that East Asians were selected for intellectual novelty because they faced a very challenging environment has one obvious problem that somehow escapes the analyses of most hereditarians: if they were really selected for their ability to find novel solutions to problems, that should probably be the characteristic that distinguishes them the most even today. And yet the same hereditarians admit the conspicuous paucity of highly significant originators and innovators among East Asians, despite showing over-representation in high intellectual aptitude, sometimes very precociously so. East Asian women, who have the highest canalization coming from gender and race, are the most exemplary of this contrast. The shortage of such super-creative phenotypes can not be because they lack the numbers of people with the right genotype, but because the genotype is “buffered” from phenotypic expression by canalization.

Chanda Chisala, Unz 9 Comments [7/6/2016 2:38:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 120313

I saw a 48-minutes documentary on TV about a guy that went to Russia to find his dream bride. He married her within two days of meeting her. Most women in foreign nations just want a one way ticket out of poverty by marrying an American husband. They want the good life in America, not interested in being a homemaker or wife. They said it was true love at first sight. When they married and moved to America, she wanted to do her own thing. The man wanted a wife to spend time with him, but she wanted to go places shopping with her friends. He wanted a wife, but she wanted an independent life.

The tragic end was that the husband beat his wife up and the cops killed him when he resisted arrest. She didn't love him at all. She only married him to live in America. It was in the news recently that the rate of singles, people living alone, has been steadily increasing in America for decades. Feminism is to blame! People have become intolerable of each other, particularly because women are ultra-sensitive about THEIR RIGHTS. Men want a wife in their life, but women want a life without being a wife. Pursuing a career is directly against God's plan for a woman's life (1st Timothy 5:14-15). Women belong at home, barefoot and having babies, working in the kitchen.

I heard a woman say that women should always pursue a career so that they will not be dependent upon a man to take care of them. She said that women should be able to support themselves if a husband dies or divorces. The problem with her unrealistic reasoning is that there's no way for a young woman to pursue an education without forfeiting motherhood. What woman is going to earn a college degree, going into debt for $100,000 for a school loan, and then become a mother. It's not realistic. Women who graduate college work careers. Who will take care of the children? Day care? strangers? Your parents? Feminists talk insane! Being a mother is a full-time job. There's no way that you can go to school, pay off a loan, work and properly raise children. Who's going to watch the children? God's way is the only logical way that makes sense and works. Women don't belong in the workplace. Call me old fashioned,, a chauvinist or whatever you'd like, God wrote 1st Timothy 5:14, not me.

Both the husband and his wife were wrong for mistreating each other, but the underlying issue was that the woman married to escape Russia, not to be anyone's wife. She said that he wanted her to be his property and she wasn't his property. I have news for you ladies, YOU ARE your husband's property!

David J. Stewart, Jesus is Savior 30 Comments [7/5/2016 3:47:48 AM]
Fundie Index: 29

Quote# 120312

Innocent until proven guilty is a silencing tactic in which it is argued that any harmful action that did not result in a criminal conviction must not result in any repercussions to the person who did the action, often to the point where it is insisted that they are entitled to have everyone believe that the action did not take place at all, let alone censure them in any way for it.

It is based on the same principle that is held central in many legal systems.

Problems with this stance include:

not all harmful actions actually being illegal in the first place (for example, many jurisdictions only make sexual harassment an offense in the workplace, if then)
the considerable time, energy and monetary burden assumed by victims who report harmful acts, in interacting with the police, lawyers and the judicial system
evidence of considerable underreporting of harm to oppressed groups, lack of prosecution when reported, and low rates of conviction when tried
the nation-state is a very powerful entity, typically having effectively unlimited financial resources and reserving the right to commit violence to itself, against which almost any individual person has a considerable disadvantage. It makes sense to hold such an entity to extremely strict burden of proof in exercising its power, relative to, say, a geek conference or meetup!
the fact that in fact it may even benefit the perpetrator to face social and/or professional censure, relative to punishment by the state
In practice, insisting that the geek community only censure those who have been found guilty of harm in a court of law limits censure to a very very small number of people relative to the number of harassers and abusers within it (and within society in general).

Related stances include, eg, the position that accusations of harassment events should be tried in an open public hearing of community members or before an informal jury, etc.

Unknown, Geek Feminism Wiki 58 Comments [7/5/2016 3:47:03 AM]
Fundie Index: 27
Submitted By: Cyclonus

Quote# 120309

Cishet a-spec people don't belong in the lgbt community. It's not a way of saying ace people are not valid, but if you are cishet you don't belong in the community. This is a community created by and for people who are trans and or sga and therefore are victims of homophobia and or transphobia. It's not that hard. I don't want cishets in my community and safe spaces.

ryeichel, Tumblr 32 Comments [7/5/2016 3:10:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom