From NaturalNews (according to the copyright stuff):
Since when did the process of combustion lead to aluminum byproducts?
The mind boggles.
From NaturalNews (according to the copyright stuff):
Since when did the process of combustion lead to aluminum byproducts?
The mind boggles.
As it says on the tin, have a Happy New Year!
Stay safe, don’t drink and drive, don’t rape people, remember to drink a lot of water, have a good time, and do science!
[content note: lots of misogyny ahead, a lot of entitlement, some really unneeded comments about some dude’s boner and wank fantasy]
According to Billy Chubbs, guest author of RooshV’s Return of Kings blog, the reason why school shootings happen is because men can’t get laid, so line up ladies and get some of my D or I’ll shoot your head right off.
On December 13 2013, Karl Halverson Pierson walked into his high school with a gun, wounded a fellow student named Claire Davis and then killed himself. The assumed motive was Karl’s anger toward a teacher at the high school but others in the mainstream media posited their own theories as to the reasons behind the shooting. The usual suspects were called out to blame: prescription drugs, mental illness, gun control, etc. Some have even posited, based on former Facebook messages of his, that Karl was a militant anti-Republican and that that motivated his attacks…somehow. One theory that was noticeably absent from the ‘experts’ who reported on the situation, however, was Karl’s probable sexual frustration.
So this is the train of thought that went through Chubbs’s head at the time:
“Hmm, let’s see, there’s this school shooting, and it’s terrible, and it’s this kid who shot down this girl. OH! I know why! It’s because she and women like her won’t bang him! Those scheming HB10s! They goaded this man by denying his boner sex, and eventually he just HAD to shoot a chick to represent FEMINISM! Which is something that I personally hate, which means that this guy must hate it too! I’m going to write this into a post!”
By the way, if further details are released in the future which discredit my assumptions, well, ignore the Karl parts of this article obviously. Yet even if I’m wrong in my assumptions of Karl’s life, the basic gist of this article is right and does apply to the majority of normally peaceful men who suddenly turn violent and perpetrate these tragedies.
“Even if I’m proven wrong in this case, my asswritings are still 100% true for ALL MEN, and hence I’m still right, even if I’m wrong. By the way. men are all secretly ticking time bombs who need a self-heating fleshlight in order to not detonate, but feminists are the TRU MAN-HATERS! Men’s rights!”
Seriously, and feminists are the ones who hate men? Read your own writings, MRAs, and then look at yourselves in the mirrors!
Return Of Kings has touched on this subject before, but since the cowardly and narrow minded mainstream media refuses to even consider positing such a theory, it’s up to us ROK truth sayers to repeat ad nauseum such observations: women’s selfishness makes men kill.
“If you decide to not sleep with me, I’ll shoot you dead! Ladies.”
This guy. This freaking guy.
What do I mean by women’s selfishness? The majority of women are consistently sexual only with a minority of men. This is a fact.
Note the complete lack of studies or citations to prove this guy’s point.
The percentages aren’t certain (some studies claim a 60w/40m percentage – I personally think it’s as high as 70w/30m based on my own empirical observations), but the basics are a sure thing.
Anecdote is not the same as data, and assertions of fact are not fact just because you say that it’s a fact.
By the way, according to this study,
Among adults aged 25–44, about 98% of women and 97% of men ever had vaginal intercourse, 89% of women and 90% of men ever had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner, and 36% of women and 44% of men ever had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner. Twice as many women aged 25–44 (12%) reported any same-sex contact in their lifetimes compared with men (5.8%). Among teenagers aged 15–19, 7% of females and 9% of males have had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner, but no vaginal intercourse.
In addition, according to this news poll, some 86% of men claimed they’d had sex in the past year, while only 70% of women said the same (margin of error, ±2.5).
So no, MRAs, there is no 60% of women banging 40% of the men going on. A good number of men are having sex and a good number of the women are having sex. Men are getting sex, women are getting sex, the end.
Life without sex is a horrible experience, especially when you’re a young man.
Because every man ever is a horny monster who needs sex now or die.
Sometimes you don’t have sex. Get over it MRAs. It’s not the end of the world.
Although I get laid consistently, I have gone long stretches without any sort of sexual contact with women. It was gruelling [sic].
Boohoo, you don’t get sex every single damned night. I don’t feel sorry for you.
My unfulfilled sex drive made me jack off on average three times a day—four or more on gym days when I upped my testosterone level.
Wait, hold up. Are you taking steroids? And are you aware that steroids have a huge list of side effects, including cataracts, high blood sugar, osteoporosis, mood changes. shrinking of the testicles, infertility, and worse?
Oh, the irony of a self-proclaimed “alpha” male losing his balls!
For the vast majority of men their sex life is a central part of their character and a major part of their motivation for all aspects of their life. If men are barred from it (whether they actually are or merely feel that they are) for whatever reason, they feel little incentive for anything else; even if that incentive is to not go crazy and shoot people.
So, men are 100% horny machines who only want sex and will kill people if not sated with sexy poon? And men don’t naturally have moral centers?
Wow. You are a sad human being, if you think men are like that.
How many MRAs are going to say “wait a minute, what the hell, misandry!”?
Karl wanted to have sex, and just by looking at him it’s obvious he wasn’t getting much, or any. Claire is a beautiful young woman and is doubtlessly the object of affection for many young men who know her, including lonely and sexually frustrated ones. Karl was certainly amongst them. Karl had no chance to ever be with her and he knew it. And that’s why he encountered her in his school, armed with a gun, he turned it against her.
Obviously, every shooting that involves a man shooting a woman is because he wasn’t getting enough poon and hence he just had to get violent and kill her. or another woman representing her. TRU FACTS!
In reality, it is believed that the suspect in question was seeking to target the debate coach, and not some random woman. She was just in the way, at the wrong place at the wrong time, collateral damage.
Am I saying Claire should have known better and had sex with Karl in advance? No. Claire was for all intents and purposes (looks, status, wealth) far out of Karl’s league. Yet there’s little doubt that there were many, many women in Karl’s high school who were in his league. So why wasn’t Karl at home relieving his sexual frustrations with a girlfriend on par with his looks instead of simmering in anger alone, writing typical angry teenaged political messages on his Facebook and purchasing guns? It is because the inherent selfishness of all women has been allowed to run rampant in our Western societies.
In other words, it’s always a woman’s fault. If only she had sex with him, he wouldn’t have killed her. If only she gave him a blowjob every night, he wouldn’t have killed her kids. If only she showed him affection, he wouldn’t have beat her senseless. If only she did <thing>, he wouldn’t have done <violent action>.
It’s the same story, constantly excusing the abuser’s actions in every scenario of abuse. Because the victim didn’t do this, then the abuser was justified in abuse. It’s never the abuser’s fault for choosing to abuse, it’s always the victim’s fault for not appeasing the abuser. Always the same story, and always the same justification, the same excuses, the same defenders.
The assumed catalyst as to why Karl went on the rampage was that he was demoted by a teacher in charge of the debate team, and that this caused murderous frustration in him. Do you think Karl would have had so much murderous frustration if he was receiving as little as a blowjob every so often?
Yes. That’s why there are serial rapists — it’s not about the sex, it’s about power.
This is just abuser’s language. “If you don’t want me to hurt you, you have to do something that I want. Appease me, and maybe I’ll be nice and not kill you today.” Does Chubbs realize how depressing that mindset is, how abusive?
Wait, no, of course he doesn’t.
So long as society encourages women of all ages to be the inherently promiscuous creatures they are and allow them to limit their sexual choices to the men at the top of the pyramid (when many of them have no right to), sexually frustrated men will continue to lash out with extreme violence. The Columbine’s will continue. The Sandy Hook’s will continue. The Arapahoe’s will continue. Until society sits down and thinks over these problems with an unclouded mind, men will continue the shootings. More people will die just so Jane Doe can continue to ‘explore’ her sexuality until she hits the wall.
Because women now have sexual agency and can say “no”, men are going to kill, because men are all ticking time bombs who will kill if provoked by the threat of no sex. The only way to stop school shooting is to deny women sexual agency and force women to have sex with every single man in question, with no resistance, no questions asked. The end.
And they say that feminists are the misandrists here.
Oh hi! Happy holidays, everyone, and Seasons Greetings!
So the Health Ranger gave us a gift in the form of a video: “Health Ranger Sings the Twelve Days of Christmas”. Even better: he’s singing it in his lab, without lab coat, protective eye wear, and other protective things. Good job!
Some highlights from the video:
Kent Hovind: creationist, owner of Dinosaur Adventure Land, so-called “Dr. Dino”, claimant of four “PhDs” from Patriot Bible University, and currently serving ten years for tax fraud. But you really need to care about the first and the fourth parts.
Patriot Bible University is essentially a diploma mill, and for some reason they won’t release their doctoral students’ dissertations. By contrast, most (if not all) (accredited) universities allow the public to access their students’ dissertations, often times in the university library. And given the fact that Hovid’s a creationist and utterly ignorant on how the theory of evolution (or science in general it seems) works, people have been curious about exactly WHAT said dissertation contains.
So, I finally found a copy of Kent Hovind’s doctoral dissertation for his “PhD” in Christian Education (which, for some reason, somehow qualifies him to teach about evolution? The mind boggles.). It was leaked on WikiLeaks a few years ago, to the horror of Patriot Bible University (and probably Hovind himself), but the last time I tried to access it the URL was down. Today, said link finally worked, and now I’m free to share said document to the world.
This is the dissertation in question. It’s hosted on my blog, so it should be accessible for all eternity (or until WordPress breaks down, or if WordPress decides to suspend my blog without a reason again, whichever comes first),
Anyways, I just want to highlight my favorite parts.
My name is Kevin Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I’ve been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for some time.
As someone once said, “That’s not a thesis, that’s a letter to Santa.”
All seriousness though. who actually starts off a dissertation saying “My name is <nym> and I am a <career/title>. I have been <career> since <year>.”? Are you writing a serious dissertation or are you sitting on Santa’s lap asking for a PhD for Christmas under the tree?
It is my burning desire to help Christians get back to a simple faith in God’s Word. Satan’s method has always been to instill doubt in God’s Word. The first sentence that came from Satan that is recorded for us in the Bible is: “Yea, hath God said?” He started by questioning God’s Word in the Garden of Eden. It worked there so he has used it ever since.
I’m a undergrad college student, and I can write better sentences then that, complete with complicated sentence structures, Oxford commas, advanced vocabulary, and the like. Seriously, the most complicated word in that passage is “questioning”, with three syllables.
Of course, then there’s the “where’s the evidence that the Garden of Eden exists?”, “where’s the evidence that Satan is an actual being?”, “where’s the evidence that the Bible speaks the literal truth?”, and the like. Then again, this IS a dissertation for a PhD in Christian Education, so it does make sense. You’d think Hovind would have cited his work however, even if it IS from the Bible.
Also, I should note that the Jews didn’t believe that Satan was even speaking in Genesis 3:1. In fact, it’s specifically stated to be a serpent (NIV version, KJV version). I’m aware that Christian tradition presumes that the snake IS Satan, but that’s not what it says in the text itself.
In the twentieth century the major attack Satan has launched has been against the first eleven chapters of Genesis. […] I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect Word of God.
So from “God made the earth in 6 days, with plants before man” to “God made the earth, with man before plants” to “serpent convinced Eve to eat forbidden fruit who convinced Adam to eat forbidden fruit” to “kicked out of Eden” to “Cain kills Abel out of jealousy and Abel’s blood calls out to God” to “Noah’s ark and global flood because man is EBIL” to “rainbow covenant” to “lots more babies and names and descendants” to “tower of Babel”?
I mean, they’re nice stories and all, but seriously, they’re just stories. We have absolutely NO evidence that any of this stuff happened. In addition, the story contradicts itself. If God’s word is totally infallible and perfect and whatnot, why does the story contradict itself in it’s FIRST book? Doesn’t God have the power to NOT have the freaking creation story riddled with contradictions and errors?
Also, science is Satan now? Let me go fetch my pitchfork.
I believe that God’s Word is infallible and flawless in every detail.
If the Bible says that something was created in a certain way, then that is just the way it happened. Now, as a science teacher, I want to keep an open mind […]
> Bible is utterly infallible and that’s final, no questions asked.
> Science: “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”
I will be quick to point out that “there is nothing new under the sun.”
Okay, first off, WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THAT QUOTE? GAHHH
Second of all, what is the point of writing this then? A dissertation is meant to advance our body of knowledge with new ideas, not restate it. If I wanted Genesis restated to me, I’ll go read Genesis myself.
There’s apparently supposed to be sixteen chapters in this dissertation. As someone else noted, there’s only four chapters. And none of the chapters really advance any knowledge at all — instead, it just explains what Hovind has come to learn “through many years of studying both science and the Bible”.
If I wanted to read an interpolation essay, I’ll read Montaigne. At least Montaigne is at a higher reading level AND is more interesting to read than this.
I didn’t go over the entire document (since it’s 102 pages long, and time is short), but RationalWiki did an amusing article on this dissertation here. I recommend you save a copy; I personally use it to make myself laugh.
As I think everyone’s heard by now, Megyn Kelly has declared Santa to be forever whiter than fresh fallen snow. In fact, if you think that Santa can be anything OTHER than white, then just suck it up kids, because he’s white! After all, Kelly said so!
A few days ago, Fox News decided to discuss Aisha Harris’s article “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore”. In this article, Harris discusses how confused she was as a child when she saw both a black Santa at home and a white Santa everywhere else, and proposes that Santa be a penguin instead, in order to allow other children to share in holiday cheer without feeling alienated and shameful over the idea that Santa isn’t the same color as them.
Of course, as Fox is wont to do, Kelly just had to say this to the children:
For all you kids watching at home, Santa just is white. But this person is just arguing that maybe we should also have a black Santa. But Santa is what he is. […] Just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change, you know? I mean, Jesus was a white man too. He was a historical figure, that’s a verifiable fact, as is Santa — I just want the kids watching to know that.
Wow. Uh. Yeah, “just because it makes you feel uncomfortable doesn’t mean it has to change”? Does that mean that just because you feel uncomfortable if someone is standing on your foot that it doesn’t have to change? Do you really want to make that argument?
The stupidity and the privileged position in knowing that Santa Claus will represent your race no matter where you go. It’s just too much.
And of course, as Jon Stewart said in regards to the “for all you kids watching at home” thing (forgive the ableism in the link), “[W]ho are you actually talking to? Children who are sophisticated enough to be watching a news channel at ten o’clock at night, yet innocent enough to believe that Santa Claus is real, yet racist enough to be freaked out if he isn’t white?”
Seriously. Fox News, news flash, but Santa Claus isn’t real.
And then of course, then there was the claim that Jesus was white:
Jesus was a white man too. You know, it’s like, he was a historical figure, it’s verifiable fact.
Jesus is white? Even though he was born in Bethlehem, in what is now Israel? Which, in case you forgot, is in the Middle East?
Hey Jews! According to Megyn Kelly, you’re apparently white now! Congrats! Please pick up your “Hey guys, I’m totally white!” cards at your local synagogue this Saturday, right after service, and join the ruling class of the racial hierarchy. Antisemitism is now over! You won’t be targeted by neo-Nazis and white supremacists ever again!
Okay, so if you were trying to get to this blog for the past few days, you might have noticed something about this domain being suspended.
Explanation: WordPress had suspended my blog for a few days, in the belief that I somehow violated the Terms of Service for some reason. I filed an error report to say “hey, what the hell, I didn’t even get a notification, you probably made a mistake” on Friday, and happily it seems to have been lifted today.
For that downtime, I apologize.
Or, actually, technically it’s WordPress’s fault for screwing up in the first place, but there you go.
New posts are up and coming though! Stay tuned!
As the holiday season picks up speed and consumerism drives people to the shopping malls and the department stores looking for presents for loved ones, I think it might be appropriate to bring up the issue of “for her” products.
“So what are ‘for her’ products?” you may ask.
“For her” products are essentially products that have been “redesigned” in such a way as to become more “feminine”. In many cases, this involves a more slender design (because apparently women’s hands are much too small to handle the “big boy” toys like a power drill), and often features a large palette consisting solely of shades of pink and purple. The above image of Bic For Her pens is a prime example on how this works — a product which is inherently unisex is “remade” with more “feminine” features in order to appeal to female consumers.
Some other examples of “for her” products:
You get the idea.
“Now what’s the problem with pink products, Alice? Wouldn’t some people really want to have a pink product?”
And to that, I say that there’s nothing inherently wrong with “for her” products on its own. Having a product that happens to be colored pink or purple or whatever is the issue here.
No, the issue isn’t the fact that there are pink products. The real issue is that these products are pink, and are solely intended to be marketed for women to purchase. And that’s problematic, for a few reasons:
So people. If you’re going to buy a present for your lady friends, unless your friend really, really, really loves pink, can you just buy us the regular products? We’ll know that those presents are intended for us, and we can figure out how to use it, thanks.
Just what it says on the tin: a photo montage of students holding up signs describing their reactions to everyday racism.
You’d think that racism only happens when people get racially profiled at Barneys because they happened to shop while black, but racism happens every single day, from the person who asks an Asian whether they can really see out of their squinted eyes to the person who asks the one Hispanic kid about what the “Latino perspective” is, Just simple, everyday things that escape people’s notice because it’s not so obvious.
Are we living in a post racial society? I think not.