Category Archives: Time to Mock!

“If You Don’t Bang Me, Ladies, It’s Your Fault If I Go Kill People”, and Other Terrible Ideas from the Manosphere

[content note: lots of misogyny ahead, a lot of entitlement, some really unneeded comments about some dude’s boner and wank fantasy]

This guy. This freaking guy.

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.

No, really.

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.

Emphasis mine.

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!”?

Tumbleweed

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.

“On the First Day of Christmas, My True Love Gave to Me, A Gangsta Rap Coloring Book. It’s for Kids.” [NaturalNews Mocking]

Screenshot of the video (you can see the time at the bottom). This is a picture, I can't embed videos, do not click. Credit to Youtube

Screenshot of the video (you can see the time at the bottom). The picture quality is not my fault, it’s the video’s quality. This is a picture, I can’t embed videos, do not click. Credit to Youtube

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:

  • “On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me two cans of cocaine and a gangsta rap coloring book. It’s Christmas in America.”
  • Apparently Americans don’t drink ice tea (in reference to Ice T in the book).
  • Actually, all of the “oh, I’m going to show the rappers in the coloring book!” that’s present throughout the song.
  • THE AWKWARD SINGING! GAH! Even worse, there’s lines like this:
    “On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me, eight retail sticks (because no one can find a tree anymore and they don’t have backyards and they don’t know how to get their own STICKS!) […]”
  • “It’s like Christmas in Harlem!” Good job Adams, you racist asshole.
  • The tone of condensation.

Enjoy!

For a Good Laugh: Kent Hovind’s Doctoral Dissertation

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.

Introduction

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.

See above.

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”

Choose one.

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.

“For All You Kids at Home, Santa Just Is White” And Other Racist Bullshit On Fox News

Santa Claus FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Credit to Beverly Mahone.

This is Santa Claus? FAKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! Credit to Beverly Mahone.

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.

Are You Serious?

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!

So many eyeballs lost, so little time to find them. Guess it's time for me to go get more eyeballs from Costco.

So many eyeballs lost, so little time to find them. Guess it’s time for me to go get more eyeballs from Costco. DAMN IT!

“I’M TOTES A SCIENTIST NOW!!” or How to Impress People Untrained in Science [NaturalNews mocking]

Mike Adams is showing off his “fancy tech” in a new post on NaturalNews, thinking that having fancy technology a scientist makes.

Hint: it doesn’t.

What you’re looking at in the photo is part of an atomic spectroscopy laboratory with extraordinary capabilities including parts per trillion detection of atomic elements as well as advanced, high-level isotopic ratio analysis capabilities. Somewhere in the background there’s also a collection of Ion-Selective Electrodes with various testing capabilities.

I’m not yet showing you all the instrumentation, but anyone who knows their way around a lab can probably recognize the peri pump in this photo and figure out what it’s attached to. (Hint: It’s worth more than a Lamborghini…)

Wow, I’m supposed to be impressed that you spent a few hundred thousand dollars on a spectrometer? Color me unimpressed.

The red object on the workbench with the open lid is a standard centrifuge. This one happens to be capable of 10,000G.

Oooh, a desktop centrifuge! It’s not like other laboratories have this, right????

The diagram in the center of the board is a simple drawing of an ion multiplier, which is one of the components used in my food science research.

And what are you researching, exactly?

The glasses on my head are lab safety glasses. I’m also wearing protective gloves, but you can’t see them in the photo. Unwisely, I sometimes conduct R&D in the lab wearing a short-sleeved shirt instead of a long-sleeved lab coat. (I’ve decided the lab coat is just too cumbersome…)

You know you’re a real scientist when you say “screw it, I’mma go COMMANDO in a LAB FULL OF FREAKING CHEMICALS, MANY OF WHICH THAT CAN BURN MY SKIN OFF!”. </sarcasm>

The important thing to note here is that this lab is not theater. This isn’t a green screen setup, and it’s not a bunch of fake props. In fact, at the moment this photo was taken, some of the systems in the background were actually running.

“Dudes, this lab is totes legit! Really! See, some of them actually work and actually do things, see?”

Throughout 2013, I’ve been heavily engaged in high-level analytical chemistry and atomic spectroscopy training and research. On January 7, 2014, I will begin announcing a series of food science breakthroughs that, as promised, will reshape the food industry and absolutely revolutionize personal health. Based on what we are about to announce, every individual who seeks outstanding health, amazing cognitive function, healthy offspring, longevity and freedom from chronic disease will now have a powerful, transformative new science-based paradigm from which to accomplish those goals with clarity and consistency.

This research completes my own transition from activist to scientist, and it also signifies a radical reshaping of the editorial focus of NaturalNews.com onto transformative solutions for personal and planetary health.

“High level”? “Transformative”? “Breakthroughs”? “Reshape the food industry and revolutionize personal health”?

Is this an advertisement or an article? And why are we supposed to be impressed about the fact that it’s “high level” (in mother freaking BOLD)?

I think I can wait a month to see what happens next.

Oh My Gawds, Atheists are READING THE BIBLE!!11!! And They’re Using it to Point out CONTRADICTIONS! OH NOESSSSSSSSSSS!!!11!

</LOTSOFSARCASM>

First off, the obligatory “I really, really, reallllllyyyyyyyyy hate homework” rant. Also, I spent Thanksgiving hanging out with my brother, and honestly, I don’t get to see him that much, since I go to college. So there’s that.

Anyways, apparently the worst thing in the world, according to Ken Ham, is atheists reading the Bible and critiquing its contradictions.

Cue: FREE THINKING IS A CRIME! KNOWLEDGE IS SIN! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH! And the rest of the whole shebang.

Now, there’s a few things I despise in the world: bigotry, ignorance, and the willful spread of ignorance. So, I’m going to do what I do best: MOCK!

It seems like atheists will go to pretty extreme lengths to combat the words of a God they don’t even believe exists.

Well, yeah, this is kind of understandable, given the fact that the best way to combat ignorance is to learn about the subject you’re talking about and educating others about said subject. Otherwise you sound like a dumbass.

And given that a good number of Christians have NEVER read the Bible (see: using Leviticus 18:22 as DA REASON why homosexuality is DA IMMORALZ when Paul states that Gentiles are free from following Jewish law; it’s in numerous passages in the Bible, e.g. Acts 15:7-11), it makes sense to read it, especially if your goal is to educate people on its contradictions and maybe get said people to rethink their blind faith.

So seriously. If your goal is to dissuade people from Christianity, it makes sense to KNOW what the Bible says. That’s how debate works.

recent article from the Religion News Service reports, “Atheists use a popular Bible app to evangelize about unbelief.” The article contains interviews with a number of young atheists who have chosen to use YouVersion, one of the most popular apps around, as a way of trying to shake the faith of Christians.

And this is a bad thing, how? Are Bibles just for Christians now?

I have to admit, I have several copies of the Bible (an ebook, that YouVersion app, and a physical copy for class). And I’ve read the Bible—the Gospel in its entirety, plus 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and over half of the Old Testament. (I need to find time to finish reading it.) I read it not because I wanted to disprove Christians, but because it helps me to understand classical literature, given that much of it has allusions to Biblical texts.

But apparently, since I’m an atheist, it’s totally a bad thing to read it, because apparently the only reason atheists read the Bible is because they want to prove TRU BELIEVERS wrong.

santana_rolling_her_eyes

This is totally deserving of an eye roll.

That and what’s wrong with educating people?

And, unsurprisingly, these atheists are focusing on supposed contradictions in the Bible to make their points. Lauren, the atheist quoted above, states, “Reading the full story with all its contradictions and violence and sexism, it should make you think, ‘Is this really what I believe in?’”

Have you even read the Bible, Mr. Ham? There’s a LOAD of contradictions in there, beginning with Genesis 1:1-3 and Genesis 1:14-19. This is not to mention the fact that Genesis 1 states that plants came before man, and then Genesis 2 states that man came before plants.

If the beginning of what you consider to be your Holy Text written by your Infallible God is full of contradictions, what does that say about God?

Sadly, atheists like Lauren haven’t approached Scripture with the desire to have these problems resolved by believers who are equipped to answer such claims. No, instead they have come with a bias against God and His Word, and they desire to damage the faith that others have in God. These skeptics are intentionally searching for supposed problems in Scripture—so they can spread more disbelief.

For example, Lauren explains that marriage is a “pet issue,” so she intentionally targets people who post on social media sites that marriage is between one man and one woman. Lauren attempts to use instances of polygamy in the Bible to somehow prove that the Bible is contradictory on the issue of marriage. But she can only do this by taking Scripture out of context.

Out of context? Of what? What kind of context do you need to see that the Old Testament was okay with polygamy (see: Abraham and Sarah, Leah and Rachel and Jacob) whereas Jesus wasn’t?

And what kind of context do you need to see that the meaning of “traditional marriage” has changed over time? Just the fact that the Old Testament had no qualms with polygamy whereas the New Testament does is a pretty damn big hint that the meaning of “traditional marriage” changes over time.

Other atheists try to use the many translations on YouVersion to show that there are supposedly many variations of the biblical text: “The biggest thing for me is seeing how much the version will change the meaning of passage [sic]. It can make a pretty big difference in how you interpret it.” While it’s true that there are many different translations of the Bible, there’s a big difference between a literal translation and a paraphrase of Scripture. A literal translation provides the same meaning today that people would have understood when the Bible was written, whereas a paraphrase is someone else’s rewording of Scripture into everyday English. Bible scholars typically look for literal translations, not paraphrases.

Let me check my notes from my humanities class.

(On the earliest text of the Book of John): “200000 different copies available, many of them are fragments.”

(On mistakes in the New Testament, why?): “The handwriting […] No standard abbreviations […] Eyes often play tricks on you […] you can skip entire swaths of text in copying books […] we don’t know what the original said.”

(On the Corinthians text): “Corinthians was possibly a composite of several letters written by Paul.”

(On the altering of text—oh yes, this happened. A lot.): “Someone hunted for early manuscripts – 3rd or 4th century, full manuscripts and not fragments – to make a critical edition. He produced the first critical edition, and found out that the idea of the Holy Trinity (father, ghost, and son) was added, since older text didn’t have it.”

(On the additional, non canonical Biblical texts—oh yes, they exist.): “We found many other documents which could have been part of the New Testament […] The Gospel of Mary, The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Gospel of Judas, etc. […] accepted in some communities but not others.”

(You can Google this stuff if you don’t believe me.)

Yeahhhhhhhh, I’m going to say that Ham has NO idea what the freak he’s talking about. Like, at all.

One well-known atheist was quoted as saying that one of the “beautiful side effects” of free Bible apps is that “nothing makes you an atheist faster than reading the Bible.” But really, Romans chapter 1 teaches that they know there is a God, and that their disbelief is a willful suppression of the truth.

Because obviously you can totally Biblesplain what an atheist really thinks.

Also, Romans 1 presumes that there is a God, which something that there’s ABSOLUTELY no (scientifically verifiable) evidence for. Because we’re supposed to take it at face value that there is a God, this is a logical fallacy. Begging the question much, Mr. Ham?

I urge you to pray for these atheists that they would read and believe the gospel of Christ today, and pray for those Christians that these atheists interact with, that they would be strengthened in their faith and would be emboldened to share the gospel.

Thanks for praying for me, but praying doesn’t erase contradictions in the Bible, nor does it actually show evidence that there is a supreme deity (and that yours is the right one, of course).

Tolerance Is Terrible: NaturalNews Takes on Twenty Things to Tolerate Less and It’s a Doozy

Tolerance: do we have too much of it?

That’s the question NaturalNews asks in their article “Rethink Tolerance: 20 Ways We Put Up With Disrespect, Abuse, and Nonsense”. Their answer: yes, of course we tolerate too much stuff, and you know what? It’s our fault.

How so? Let’s take a look.

Tolerating things you don’t like was a necessary skill when you were young. Think about it. Babies and young children, in loving families, still MUST tolerate all kinds of “mistreatment” that they do not understand or appreciate. (Have you ever met a two-year-old?)

Kids growing up in dysfunctional families learn to tolerate not only the perceived injustices, but actual abuse and neglect.

The problem is, tolerance for perceived and actual mistreatment becomes so familiar that we end up (subconsciously) accepting it for the long haul. We don’t stop to realize that, as adults, there are OPTIONS.

We tolerate all kinds of abuse from other people, families, communities and governments. Nothing you can do about it. Just live with it (sigh). These are the sentiments that rule the day and create suffering for hapless sheeple all around the world.

You know you’re screwed when the writer of the article you’re reading uses the word “sheeple” without irony.

Also, seriously? The reason people stay in abusive households is because obviously they’re too stupid to get out? Really?

Gee, thanks. Remind me never to call you to talk about abuse, ever.

Now for the list of 20 things:

1. A poisoned food supply
Food and water are intentionally poisoned with toxic chemicals such as pesticides, fluoride, and genetically modified organisms.

Obviously people eat their vegetables without washing them first, because we like to have dirt on our food.

(Seriously guys? It’s not that hard to wash fruits and veggies. Also, one molecule of a pesticide won’t kill you, and depending on the pesticide used, it probably won’t even affect you—see Bt toxin, which has been used in organic farming for over five decades.)

The amount of fluoride in water is regulated by the EPA and it’s safe. There are public health benefits from the fluoride (namely you have healthier teeth), and it’s the most cost effective public health program.

In addition, fluoride toothpaste has more fluoride in it (1,000-1,500 ppm in a tube; by comparison there’s 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water), and an adult would need to eat 4 tubes of it in order to get fluoride poisoning. And you’d be vomiting from the other additives first.

Soooooooooo, no, you’re not likely to get fluoride poisoning from the water. If anything, should you attempt to do this to “prove” that fluoride is a toxin, you’d get dilutional hyponatremia before you get fluoride poisoning.

[This is where I put in the DO NOT ACTUALLY DO THIS sign. Seriously, don’t drink yourself to death just to prove a point.]

Finally, do I really need to pull out the list of over 600 studies verifying that GMOs are safe? Seriously. And at least 1/6th of the list are independent studies (or 126 independent studies; the list is outdated but the studies are real).

We’re off to a really bad start.

2. Mass corruption in government
Criminals and thugs are regularly elected and re-elected to positions of power around the world.

No guesses as to who, right?

(Hint: it starts with “Big” and ends with “Pharma”. Or “Science”. Or “Agriculture”. Or anything else really. But I think mostly Big Pharma.)

3. Mass corruption in the corporate world
Thieves and thugs in business regularly collude with cohorts in government while people keep buying their products.

Oh yes. I hear there’s this “doctor” in Texas who has not been (seriously) taken to task by the Texas Medical Board or the FDA for decades, even though his “cancer cure” has killed patients (including at least one child) and even though he’s utterly and totally incompetent. And unethical. Don’t forget about the unethical. You’d think that there’s some sort of political pull that this guy’s got, since he had been able to charge patients thousands of dollars to participate in his sham clinical trials until the FDA FINALLY put a hold on them sometime in 2012.

Oh wait. You meant Big Pharma, not Big Quacks. Apologies.

4. Lying and deception in the mainstream media
We sit at our TVs and listen to puppet heads neglect to mention the most relevant facts about current events.

Yeah. That’s why we go to NaturalNews to learn DA TRUTH, such as how psychiatry was to blame for Sandy Hook. Or at least, that is if it actually happened at all.

5. Abuse of holistic businesses and practices
If you are a holistic business, you need to be mildly paranoid about the benefits of your product or service even though there are no harmful side effects.

So laetrile is harmless? And hydrogen peroxide won’t bleach your skin? And there’s no evidence that DMSO can cause glaucoma? And antineoplastons have not been linked to extremely elevated sodium levels, anemia, fatigue, headaches, and the like?

You get my meaning here, right?

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies come right out and claim that their product endangers your health and may very well kill you.

Well yeah. No product is without risk. They’re also being honest about it, which is much more than the SCAM proponents will say.

Also, the reason that they’re even approved by the FDA is because 1. the risks are offset by the benefits and 2. they work. Both of these things are lacking in the SCAM department.

6. Vaccination abuse
Your right to spare your baby a toxin-laden vaccination is slipping away. In fact, you may be called a murderer if you refuse a vaccination.

Herd immunity is obviously DA WORST THING IN THE WORLD!

Also, to put that statement into context (listing some of the more comment complaints about ZOMGTOXINS in vaccines):

  1. Your body actually produces more formaldehyde in a day compared to what you would get in a vaccine. The wood in your house has more formaldehyde than a vaccine.
  2. Since we don’t use thimerosal in the vast majority of vaccines anymore, you get more mercury if you break a CFC bulb, or if you eat fish.
  3. You get exposed to more aluminum in your food than you do in a vaccine.
  4. There are no “aborted fetuses” in vaccines. Some vaccines are grown in cells derived from aborted fetuses, but these cells have been growing in Petri dishes for decades. At this point they’re so removed from their original source that they’re not even fetus cells anymore. It’d be sort of like saying that HeLa cells are made of cervices. That and the cells are all removed during processing, so this is essentially mostly moot.

If there are any others that I missed, leave a comment and I’ll research it.

7. Internet freedom under attack
There are those who would regulate your freedom of speech by monitoring what you post online and restricting information that they disagree with.

And who are these people, exactly?

8. Your email – no longer private
Your email account is routinely hacked and scrutinized by the government, a clear invasion of privacy.

And so it is! Governments shouldn’t hack email accounts!

But seriously, you have to REALLY egotistical to think that the NSA actually gives a rat’s ass about the amount of chain letters your grandmother forwards you every week.

Plus, can you even imagine HOW many email accounts there are, and how long it would take to hack every single one? And this is not including the fact that there’s a decent amount of people who have MORE than one email address (work/school/personal addresses anyone?), which means MORE accounts and MORE hacking.

In other words: the likelihood that the NSA hacked your account? Nil.

9. Forced psychiatric drugging
Psychiatrists and legislators would like to force psychiatric drugging and imprison people who seek treatment for problems. If you don’t want meds or even electric shock treatment, then you may be forced into it or physically confined.

Yeah, that might be an issue if you were declared to be legally insane by a court of law.

“Why no, I’ve never been declared insane by a court of law.”

Then why are you worrying about it?

10. Truth tellers and legitimate conspiracy theorists and jailed in prisons and hospitals [sic.]
When someone learns the truth and has the nerve to come out with it, they are destroyed.

Which is why InfoWars and NaturalNews doesn’t exist anymore, right?

11. Tolerance for obesity
Someone depressingly overweight consumes a diet high in sugar, fat, and toxins. […]

Because obviously people who are overweight are slobs who can’t stop eating bacon and if they just stopped eating processed foods, it’ll all be resolved oh so easily. *rolls eyes*

[…] These folks have a high tolerance for body discomfort, even though they hate it. The tolerance is so high that it is less painful to endure their as it is than to exchange their dietary and lifestyle habits for healthier ones.

Ewww, thin elitism.

Seriously. There’s a large amount of people who are eating healthy foods and who exercise regularly, and yet they’re STILL overweight. Losing weight is not as easy as “oh, just eat healthier!”, like it’s depicted on TV. It takes a LOT of work—and in many cases, they’re actually pretty damn healthy.

So can we stop with the body shaming now?

12. Tolerance for personal abuse
A tortured woman stays with the man who mistreats her.

So much women put up with SO MUCH from abusive men. These women have a super high tolerance for rejection, betrayal, and mistreatment. Their tolerance is so high that they find it easier to put up with abuse than to face life on their own.

RAGEEEEEEEEEEEEE

No. No no no no no no no no no. And no again. No.

No. People who are being abused by their significant others don’t stay there because they LIKE being abused. They stay there because they fear that if they leave, their significant other might find them and hurt them. Their abuser manipulates their emotions to the point where they’re left fearing for their lives all the freaking damned time.

Just, what the hell?

This author is a freaking ASSHOLE.

13. Tolerance for loneliness and emptiness
A lonely person avoids socializing and laments a solitary life. 

Lots of people feel so alone in this world. They have a super high tolerance for loneliness, even though they don’t enjoy it. They routinely avoid socializing and making new friends because the loneliness is more comfortable than reaching out.

Or they could just be really shy. Or they could have mental disabilities that keep them from socializing with people. Or any other many reasons that would keep them from socializing with people.

Seriously, the “oh, I’m so much better than you” is nauseating.

14. Tolerance for worthlessness.
Someone with low self esteem piles on with daily self-condemnation.

Because it’s so easy to have a better self-esteem.

Trust me on this. It’s not.

15. Settling for personal mediocrity

Depressing mediocrity is often tolerated more than the perceived pressure of success and high responsibility. Thousands of mid-level managers, would-be entrepreneurs and trapped housewives dream of doing something really great with their lives, but are much more comfortable with their current lot. Tolerance for mediocrity is the culprit.

Because obviously it’s because they WANT to be that way, and not because they don’t have the opportunity to do something great.

16. Intolerance for happiness

Nathaniel Branden called it happiness anxiety. This happens when you become happy, then anxious (because you know the happiness won’t last).

When bad news is just around the corner, you abandon the happy state in favor of hanging out where you are more comfortable – with your problems.

Because obviously depressed people just HATE happiness!

17. Tolerance of fear, anxiety, and needless uncertainty

Because obviously the only reason we’re anxious is because we HATE feeling prepared, so it’s 100% your fault.

18. Tolerance for guilt

Because we all really want to feel guilty forever and ever, I mean, there’s no such thing as a mental disorder that can cause you to do things that are wrong, right?

And obviously it’s so easy to break a habit. Just don’t do it anymore. See? Problem solved! Where’s my cookie?!

19. Tolerance for conflict

Because obviously the only reason people fight is because they WANT to fight. It’s not as if there’s a legitimate reason to argue and be mad, right?

So don’t be mad if the person you’re arguing with was late AGAIN, and don’t be mad if your partner was cheating on you or spent all of your money at Vegas. Just smile and get over it!

20. Tolerance for being controlled

Because obviously the way to solve being a doormat is by saying “don’t be a doormat anymore”. Problem solved!

NaturalNews: king of simple solutions for complex problems.

How Women’s Rights are Designer Goods and Other Thoughts from the Misogynistic Sphere

Obviously, I’m not dead, or otherwise this post would not exist. I hate exams. And homework. But mostly exams.

Unfortunately for us, while the world moves on and does more important things like not fail Calculus, misogyny never shuts up.

Today’s featured misogynistic screed is “Remove the Needs”, written by a woman named Laura Grace Robins. According to her, women’s rights are the same as designer goods: often ugly looking, extremely expensive, and totally unnecessary.

*rubs hands* I’ve been looking forward to this.

Even though men no longer go out for wild beasts, the modern workplace is just as wild and very often has a live or die atmosphere; literally regarding the military and other dangerous fields and figuratively with the competitiveness of business. 

Wait. So hypothetically, if I fail doing my office job (presuming that I want one), I’ll die? And my body would be buried with the scars of sharp scissors on my hands, paper cuts on my fingers, and punch holes from staplers?

The dynamics are still the same for men, but women do not return the comforts of home as a favor. They are too busy slaying their own wild beasts. Sure she still may pick up dinner at a restaurant and thus its looks like she is creating a home with “food according to his liking”, but I suspect deep down for the husband it just isn’t the same. She did not labor and put love into the meal as he did for his paycheck.

Because all men love their jobs, men can’t cook, and if a man picks up dinner at a restaurant it’s infused with love from his money.

Why can’t women love their jobs, and why can’t men want to cook dinner?

If God had meant us to live like animals, like we are today, then we would not have the maternal and paternal instinct that we do, nor this desire to create a family.

Obviously animals don’t feel this urge to have kids either. That’s why animals don’t have mating seasons and why many of these animals don’t risk death trying to sire offspring to pass on their genes.

BIOTRUTHS!

Gratitude. This is not something the modern woman thinks she owes anyone, especially a husband.

Wait. Since when are feminists teaching other people that we can eschew basic manners and empathy?

It is clear that modern wives have no need for husbands, since they now have their own money and independence; therefore, love does not feed. Husbands have also learned or been explicitly told that they too have no need for their modern wives. Modern technology has basically made a wife obsolete.

I’m pretty sure that one of the goals of the feminist agenda isn’t “no more marriage, EVER!”.

Also, isn’t it kind of sad that the only reason Ms. Robins think women want to get married is because they need a wage slave?

Men can still efficiently cook meals and a keep a home without it interfering with his work day. If it still took a whole day to do laundry or we were cooking over open hearths, wives would still be needed as men can’t do all that, plus make a living. Again, love does not feed. I think women still need men, more than men will ever need women.

Obviously women are totally unable to make a living and have a career, and will die starving on the streets without men to give them money.

BIOTRUTHS!

When shopping, we are told to recognize before buying something if it is a ‘need’ or a ‘want’. This is a way to stay clear of impulse buying. Feminists generally say its Okay to still want to be a mom or want to get married, but its NOT OKAY to say you ‘need’ to be a mom or ‘need’ to be married. 

Women don’t really need to have rights, they just want it, and we need to train women to follow their BIOTRUTHS and just be incubators.

Also: Ms. Robins. It’s totally okay if you feel that being a housewife is totally your calling. As a feminist, I’ll happily say that. It only becomes a problem when you extrapolate your personal choices and tell other women that they’re lesser because they didn’t make the same choices as you did.

If a woman merely wants to be a mom, there is still some wiggle room. Feminists can get in there and change her mind. Wants are Okay because they can be controlled and manipulated (advertising does this quite well). However, needs are more primal and survival based. 

Funny how Ms. Robins claims that feminists are trying to make everyone “live like animals”, and then she turns around and says that we should return to the so-called “primal and survival based” needs.

I would argue that the latter is trying to make people live more like animals, as it’s basically telling people that they should rely solely on “instinct”, if instinct means following the essential BIOTRUTHSKinder, Küche, Kirche, right?

At some point (usually around 40) the numbness wears off and women remember their basic needs of home and family.

So if I don’t snag a husband for myself by the time I turn 40, I’m going to die a sad spinster with ten thousand cats?

How heteronormative.

Buzz word alert: “experts!” Public school teachers are these paid experts. Even for the most sensitive issues, schools teach children to rely upon the school for their needs, i.e., birth control. They learn in school not to NEED their parents.

I don’t recall going to elementary school and being told that I should totally ditch my parents and declare emancipation.

I also don’t remember my middle/high school telling us anything about birth control. I mean, it’s probably different in other school districts, but my school district never really told us about birth control.

In either case, a person’s sex life is their business. And while it would be nice if a minor can be open with their parents regarding their sex life, it’s not necessary. A person’s body is not owned by their parents, period.

Yes, it is an “unnatural struggle for bread against the men who should be their natural protectors.” Very backwards. At times, I’m glad that I am in a women dominated field and generally compete with only other women. Guilt would be just that much more if I had to compete with men for the bread (i.e. pilot). Right now, at least I know I am not taking a job away from a man and pushing into his sphere.

That’s nice that you’re happy doing what you do, Ms. Robins. But why are you constantly guilt-tripping yourself on whether a man would approve on what you want to do in your life?

That doesn’t sound like a happy life.

Sex unity is gasping for its last breath as the hook-up culture is rampant and women willingly choose to be single moms.

Since when? I thought that the reason why many women are single mothers is because their partner was a huge asshole, and in many cases, left the women alone with the kids?

And that’s not to mention women who escape abusive households because the other option was to hope that the abusive partner won’t kill you or your kids.

She may have everything she wants, but not everything she needs. She wants independence, the vote, her own income, etc., but she wants all these things like she wants a designer purse. Underneath it all, it is just for show and what she really needs are the basics; like food, shelter, and a husband.

So I really don’t need to have the right to vote or the right to have my own income. Instead, I really, really, really long for a husband, even though I’m asexual and don’t have a desire to find a partner in general. And if I don’t get myself a hubby right now, I’ll die when I hit 40.

How heteronormative.

By women of today, she means the women of 1914! They had the the key, the chance to stop it all, but instead they were lured by wants and forgot about their needs and the needs of their families. Now most women live hollow lives filled with closets full of shoes and purses, while homes are empty of husbands and children.

“If you don’t have a husband and several children by the time you turn 40, your life is totally worthless and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

She has no one to “appreciate, sympathize with, are grateful to, enliven, comfort, and cheer.” 

Because obviously only husbands can fill that role, and not friends, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, cousins, etc.

It’s kind of depressing, isn’t it?

To make everyone feel better, here’s a picture of a cute cat with two differently colored eyes.

From NaturalNews: We Should Totally Tell Cancer Patents to Use DMSO!

There is so much cancer quackery in the world, I swear. I don’t think it’s ever possible to get to the bottom of the barrel, since it’s like everywhere.

That and autism quackery, but that’s its own little can of worms.

The article: “Whatever Happened to DMSO for Cancer and What Is It Anyway?”

But before the mocking, let’s do a little science lesson.

DMSO (dimethyl sulfide) is an organosulfer polar solvent, a byproduct of the paper production process. It is mincible (i.e. it can easily create solutions) with numerous solvents and can easily tolerate strong bases due to its acidity, which makes it useful for chemical analysis.  It is also used to preserve frozen tissues in cyropreservation, in order to prevent cell rupture due to the formation of large ice crystals. It also can easily penetrate cellular membranes without damaging it, and transport chemicals along with it. For this reason, it is used as a drug vehicle in experiments.

Because of the latter property, it was the subject of experimentation in the 1960s. However, these experiments were soon stopped when people began to worry about possible side effects. Damage to the eye, headaches, a burning sensation at the application site, itching, and a strong garlic odor/taste in the mouth have been reported. Furthermore, because it can easily dissolve numerous substances, there is a risk of absorbing unwanted contaminants into the skin along with the drug(s) desired. For these reasons, the FDA has not approved the use of DMSO in humans for any condition exempting interstitial cystitis (i.e. a really, really, really painful bladder). The FDA also has put DMSO products on a list of fake cancer “cures” to avoid.

There is some evidence that DMSO might be useful as a drug carrier for the treatment of bladder cancer. However, further testing is needed.

Now for the mocking.

The initial excitement during the 1960s and ’70s for a wide variety of uses with natural, inexpensive DMSO […]

DMSO is “natural” now even though it’s an industrial byproduct? *raises eyebrows*

SCAM proponents have a weird definition on “natural”.

[…] was eventually suppressed by the Medical Mafia and followed by obligatory disinformation campaigns.

Because there was evidence of glaucoma when we were using it in animal models. That’s not suppression, that’s saying that the risk is too great.

The unofficial explanation for the Camelot raid and shutdown was that the clinic was using vitamin B17, or laetrile, an FDA-banned substance for treating cancer. Laetrile was banned even after it was proven safe and efficacious against cancer. Because as a natural substance, it wasn’t patentable for huge profits.

I went over the story of laetrile in a previous post. Needless to say, laetrile has been linked to cyanide poisoning, is not effective for anything, and is not safe to consume.

Also, just saying, but you don’t need to patent something to make huge profits. Acetaminophen isn’t patented, and yet it still brings large profits to the companies that sell it. In addition, much of the medicines that we have come initially come from natural sources (e.g. aspirin, digoxin).

(I really need to finish that series. Note to self.)

Instead of the chemo destroying everything in its path as usual, the DMSO escorted the chemo to cancer cells only, thus greatly reducing the amount of chemotherapy needed for a result.

DMSO can read minds? And it somehow intuitively knows to only go towards the cancer cells, and not to the eye or whatnot? And it’s smart enough to not transport chemotherapy drugs to surrounding cells?

The scientist in me finds it really, really, really hard to suspend belief.

Using only 10% of any chemotherapy drug and getting positive results adversely affects Big Pharma’s profits.

See: Damage to the eye, headaches, a burning sensation at the application site, itching, and a strong garlic odor/taste in the mouth have been reported.

Also, uh, if it worked, scientists would happy embrace the treatment and we’d call it medicine. If there was something better, and it worked, why would pharmaceutical companies NOT want to market it? And why would doctors NOT use it? After all, the goal of medicine is to treat and help patients—if there was something better that we can use for a treatment, we’d totally use it.

DMSO has been used by itself for anecdotal success with cancer.

Anecdotes =! data.

Now, NaturalNews was nice to us, and threw us a bone with a study done in India. This is the study in question. The actual text is behind a pay wall, so I can’t actually go over the methodology and see if it’s valid.

But let’s say it is. Let’s say that it actually does what it says it does.

One study isn’t enough. We still need to be able to replicate it, see if the results in rats can apply to humans, etc. So while it is promising, this is by no means the end of the controversy. That’s how it works.

The FDA requires DMSO to be sold only as a solvent. Please research thoroughly with the sources provided before purchasing DMSO.

Industrial DMSO is not pharmaceutical grade. There’s a huge chance that there’s contaminants (both chemical and bacterial, since it’s not sterile) inside industrial DMSO, and these contaminants might kill you. DO NOT DO THIS.

Needless to say, I don’t recommend you actually purchasing DMSO and using that to treat cancer. At least not at this time. More research is needed to see if it works.

Happy Saturday!

Apparently Heartiste Thinks Feminism Is About Cuckolding as Many Men as Possible

[citation needed]

You’re really going to need a [citation needed] sign for this post.

Bonus post! Because I’m a bit of a sadomasochist and I need something to mock!

The article: “The Feminist Push to Sanction Female Infidelity” (from Heartiste, a PUA)
Its inspiration: “The Upside of Infidelity: Can an Affair Save Your Marriage?” (Slate)

Now, the Slate article is interesting. The main thing you need to know is that some therapists think that for some marriages, if a person is found to have had a conflict avoidance affair (“generally found among couples whose arguments never escalate into screaming matches” according to Slate), it can serve as a wake up call for a couple to get their act together and discuss their issues, which may end up saving a marriage.

The article starts off with an hypothetical: a wife cheats on her husband while he was away in Afghanistan, and the two of them land in therapy. They talk about their issues, and slowly they stop blaming each other and start asking questions in order to resolve their underlying issues.

Then Heartiste read the article title, the first two paragraphs of the scenario, and then went off ranting on how feminists are trying to get men cuckolded.

Let’s get started.

Advanced apologies for the f-bombs. I should probably just add that to the about page or find a way to warn people ahead of time.

What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to fuck alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle.

What?

No, seriously. What?

What evidence is there that there is such thing as an alpha male, a beta male, or a “biologically innate female imperative” to bang and leech according to her period?

Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses.

You know what this thing is missing? Evidence.

Also, what is with the “alpha fux, beta bux”? Are you trying to emulate wannabe 12 year old gangsters who think that spelling words with an “x” at the end and maybe a gang sign or two is enough to make a person cool?

The divorce industrial and family court complexes are rigged against the interests of men, and getting more rigged by the day.

[citation needed]

An army of leftoids fed on the swill of legalese will barely break a sweat holding the contradictory beliefs that women cheat for good reasons and men cheat because they’re oppressive patriarchs.

[citation needed]

Eventually, with the help of dazzling sophistry, the law will be twisted to such a warped geometry that the people will come to accept injustice as fairness and lies as truth. And those who bitterly cling to old-fashioned notions of justice will be scorned as rubes and cast out of polite society, their reputations and livelihoods destroyed with the ease of smashing an insect.

Heartiste, you’re as bad of a writer as Stephanie Meyer.

No, wait. That’s an insult to Meyer. Sorry, Ms. Meyer.

The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term.

And now we’re at the heart of this post: letting men bang as many women as they want, without any consequences whatsoever.

Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, […]

[citation needed]

[…] and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them.

So many assertions. So little evidence.

A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife.

Because if a man cheats on his wife, it’s always 100% the wife’s fault because she doesn’t do sex on command.

And if a man cheats, a woman’s supposed to just smile and pretend that nothing is wrong in their relationship, ever.

A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”.

Because the only two settings a woman has is hate and more hate.

This isn’t to suggest that excusing male infidelity is good for the institution of marriage and the sustenance of an advanced, high trust civilization. Only that, if we are to set down this road of rationalizing the benefits of infidelity, it makes a lot more sense to grant husbands the generous latitude to pursue extramarital pleasures than it does to grant wives that same freedom.

“I have a right to cheat on you, because you refused to sleep with me the other night. You are never to complain, because I’m a logical man and I have needs, damn it! If you didn’t want me to cheat, you’d never say no to sex!”

Feminism is the sick, wheezing spawn of its parent ideology, equalism, the belief in a magical flying spaghetti monster that imbues all humans with equal ability and equal worth, […]

Hey! Don’t you dare insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

And what the hell is equalism? Is that like a new religion where we worship equal signs and give offerings to our masters “1+1=2” and “2+2=4”?

[…] interchangeable flesh cogs […]

We’re in a machine now?

[…] that can as easily master astrophysics as lawn care […]

Because women are inherently too stupid to understand science.

[…] given the right dose of self-esteem boosting pablum.

Because there’s something wrong with you if you have any sense of self-worth.

Whatever the self-professed noble intentions of their advocates, these ideologies are as wicked and destructive as any genocidal revolutions that have come before them.

Because an article saying that maybe an affair could serve as a wake-up call to resolve issues in a marriage is equivalent to mother freaking genocide.

Feminism’s proponents will suffer endless ridicule should they choose to fight, or they will retreat from the public square to lick their wounds in the comfort of their silent seething thoughts.

I’m sensing some psychological projection going on here.

And, if the spoils of victory are rich indeed, some will self-deliver to release the pain.

Ew, dude. I don’t really need to know what you’re wanking off to.

Happy mocking!