You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘RPOJ’ tag.
Today’s Red Pen of Justice edition is brought to you by the clueless parvanimity of Neil Macdonald. Mr. Macdonald has many important opinions on Rape Culture and, shockingly enough, they are completely out-to-fucking-lunch-brain-gone-fishing, wrong.
“For people my age, the freedom to get drunk or high and then have sex with someone was a right guaranteed by the sexual revolution of the Sixties.”
Oh!! So you valued have available female fuck-toilets to bang when you were getting crunked in name of peace, luv and rock and roll. Wow, funny how the ‘sexual revolution’ that gave dudes more peentacular access to women is lauded while the current battle for female bodily autonomy and consensual relations is slandered.
One paragraph in and you need a machete to cut through the misogyny. Awesome!
“Heaven knows that much of the world, beginning with Islamic societies, still discourages or forbids such behaviour. Oh, and also Yale University.”
Ah yes, because Islamic religion and Yale are completely the same.
Idiot.
Islam is all about protecting women’s modesty from the phaser-like dick beams that emanate from Islamic men. Women’s bodies drive Islamic men around the jizz-tastic bend (tru-fax!!) therefore its into the gunny sack for Islamic women and most of their rights. No misogyny here, move along, move along please.
Yale is attempting to ensure that people are not unwilling participants in sexual and social encounters within their institution. Here is what the Yale Policy says:
“Sexual activity requires consent, which is defined as positive, unambiguous, and voluntary agreement to engage in specific sexual activity throughout a sexual encounter. Consent cannot be inferred from the absence of a “no”; a clear “yes,” verbal or otherwise, is necessary. Consent to some sexual acts does not imply consent to others, nor does past consent to a given act imply present or future consent. Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any time.
Consent cannot be obtained by threat, coercion, or force. Agreement under such circumstances does not constitute consent.
Consent cannot be obtained from someone who is asleep or otherwise mentally or physically incapacitated, whether due to alcohol, drugs, or some other condition. A person is mentally or physically incapacitated when that person lacks the ability to make or act on considered decisions to engage in sexual activity. Engaging in sexual activity with a person whom you know — or reasonably should know — to be incapacitated constitutes sexual misconduct.”
Whoa. You go Yale! Treating people with bodily autonomy and safeguarding their rights. Let us see what McShitstain, err… Mcdonald thinks about a treating people with dignity and respect…
“A person who is incapacitated by alcohol or drugs cannot by definition consent to sex, and is therefore a rape victim if sex occurs. If both parties are drunk, presumably, it would be up to Yale administrators to decide who was the rapist and who was the victim. This may all sound beyond the realm of common sense, but it is real.”
Do take note and sample the fine airs of special pleading that is happening here. The only case mentioned were both parties are drunk. McShitstain, you and other entitled man-children like you can fuck right off forever. If both parties are drunk then no action between either is predicated by the rules set out. This isn’t rocket science – the default action when consent is in question is to back off and not do anything.
Did you feel that that? As a matter of fact, I felt it – a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of man-bonerz suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
TL;DR – Your entitled man-attitude and fucking stiffy does not trump women’s right to be treated as a human beings. I feel like I’m giving shit-stains a bad name by associating them with you… Onward turd-lord!
“American universities are under serious pressure by federal authorities to do something about the “campus rape culture,” as some call it – 55 U.S. colleges and universities are currently under investigation for failing to protect students from sexual harassment or assault.”
Protecting your students from rape? GTFO! The nerve of some schools trying to provide a safe environment for their students. It must be a communist plot or even worse – a socialist one. And why is protecting students a bad thing? How is a raging sac of bollocks like yourself even allowed near a keyboard when it comes to this issue is completely beyond me.
“Alarmed at the growing perception that they’re becoming havens for rapists, the schools are coming out with codes of sexual behaviour that go far beyond criminal law.”
Good. Good, good, goodly-good. Because the law isn’t doing enough to combat the sexual abuse and harassment in our culture. This is what setting the bar higher looks and feels like – sorry about the bruise on your forehead, asshat.
“Therefore, if a college administrator thinks that you more likely than not violated a lengthy, highly detailed set of sexual rules, you’re not just expelled, you may also be shamed in the media as a sexual predator and stained for life.”
But, but, but, the ‘peen was meant to run FREE! Oh woe! The onerous burden of consent you must really know how Atlas feels eh? The president of Shitistan just called, he wants you to stop ruining his country’s good name…
We are not done with you yet, douche-nozzle in training. How dare you compare the shaming of sexual predators with victims of rape. How the ever loving frack do you do this? Have you discovered some sort of dark energy that requires you to have your head firmly embedded in your ass?
“Presumably, the government has decided that the need to avoid further traumatizing victims trumps an accused’s right to question the accuser. The intent behind all this is laudable. I say that as the father of a daughter who just graduated from university. But what the universities are doing is also frightening, and I say that as the father of a son who is going into his senior year.”
Shorter Douche McAsshat: My male right to a woman’s body is being violated, changing behaviour to make people aware of boundaries and personhood infringes on my right to be a dude.
“Not only are universities all over America substituting their administrators for police and courts, they are attempting, with the best of intentions, to parse and regulate human behaviour down to the least gesture and syllable.”
Overcoming patriarchal constructs is HARD, dipshit. If it was a walk in the park, unlike now because of your whinge-baby-mantrums dressed up as a noble defence of the status-quo keep getting in the way of progress, we’d be over the idea that consent is some sort of weird idea requiring two Rosetta stones and the wisdom of the ancients to decipher.
“[…]”
“Alas, this is not a public debate that encourages critical writing.”
You don’t say.
“After a White House task force declared in April that one in five women on campus has been sexually assaulted, and that only 12 per cent of sexual assaults on campus are reported, Dr. Mark Perry, an economics prof at the University of Michigan, ridiculed Washington’s math by using actual sexual assault figures from three schools.”
Too bad Dr. Mark Perry screwed up the analysis.
“Another key fact Perry’s analysis misses is that colleges only track certain types of sexual assault in their numbers. Typically colleges only report assaults that occurred on campus and/or assaults in which the accused perpetrator was also a student at that university. So, again, we expect the numbers tracked by a university to be smaller than the number of assaults their students actually experience and report to local police.
The take home point is that the number tracked by the college would only be a fraction of the assaults that George and Mark are using as a comparison. The mismatch doesn’t mean the prevalence figures are wrong — it’s that they have compared a select group of cases that are tracked by a university to a wider group of assaults that their students experience and report to local police.”
Whoops – hate to deflate your confirmation bias Neil.
“Conservative commentator George Will, a sober analyst if there ever was one,[…]”
As long as you’re into mostly irrelevant arch-conservative altiloquent drivel. His level of poisonous bullshit is an post unto itself. See the Michigan Chronicle for rebut of his asinine diatribe.
“[…] then cited Perry’s critique in a column, suggesting that colleges, with their extra-legal sexual conduct rules, and their “trigger warnings” about offensive languages in textbooks, and their campus speech codes, are treating students like fragile hothouse flowers, rather than preparing them for the world.”
Ah yes, the real world where, you know, patriarchy and misogyny are the gold standards and you just need to abide by them. Treating Patriarchy as some sort of inevitable force of nature is bullshit Neil, stop it.
“Four U.S. senators promptly blasted Will as an antique who trivializes and legitimizes sexual assault, perpetuating myths created by victimizers.”
See, we do have progress in society.
“There was similar blowback last year, when journalist Emily Yoffe had the temerity to suggest that while sexual assault must be punished young women might also want to avoid getting blind drunk Yoffe quoted Anne Coughlin, a professor at the University of Virginia and an expert on feminist jurisprudence, as saying more or less the same thing. Those who believe there is a rape culture on American campuses have called that “blaming the victim.”
Because blaming the victim totally doesn’t happen… Neil saying shit like this that puts you into multiple facepalm territory, your ignorance is dangerous and you should stop spreading it around.
“But every parent should certainly consider this: If the complications of human sexuality and its often ambiguous mating dance defy consistent definition by the intellectual candlepower of entire university faculties, what advice should you give children who might still be in their teens as they head off to college?”
What, exactly, is ambigious about consent? If you have it great, if you don’t, stop proceedings immediately. If you’re not sure, stop proceedings immediately. My God, the epic complexity of this notion – we need more SCIENCE on this one dudes…
“his would be mine if my son or daughter were ever to ask: If you feel the need for a sexual adventure, seek it off campus, where police have expert investigators and courts guarantee your rights. Due process, in other words.”
Because expert investigators and the courts are always so darn sympathetic to the victims of rape. I have no words for the sheer amount of stupid you’re doling out in your ‘advice’.
“And avoid sex with fellow students, period. It’s just too risky nowadays.”
Because changing the misogynistic ground rules of society is much much much MUCH too hard, so take your balls on go your own way. If this perchance helps exclude your type of thinking from the next generations gene pool, I think we can call your strategy a win for everyone.
RPOJ out.
It has been awhile since we’ve had a Red Pen of Justice post here on DWR. Thankfully(?) that void shall now be filled by krisman2013’s lovely post titled: Evolution – The Theory that Became a Religion. Can you feel it? The crushingly vapid ignorance about to be put on display is willing the RPOJ back to life where it must, once again, *wiggle* for the cause of justice and rationality.
Let’s just start this off slow and easy because unless you have your black belt in grappling with ignorance this shit will leave you flabbergasted and struggling for breath.
—–
“It is not uncommon these days for those that do not believe in evolution and the big bang as the origin of all life to be called names, denigrated and treated as if they were troglodytes.”
The reason that you are being called names and denigrated would be because you are demonstrating a dangerously incandescent white-hot grade of ignorance. To people who comprehend basic scientific facts and theories you may as well be stating the earth is flat and the sun is revolving around us.
“Nevertheless, even though I grew up on a steady diet of science”
And only saved by the thickness of your skull did not one iota of the “science” manage to slip in, god bless your heart.
“and heard the preaching of evolution as the definitive origin of life from grade school through college I have big questions.”
My veteran readership will already realize that our journey with Kris is going to end poorly for him. For even in his poorly punctuated thesis we can see one of the tells of insipid religious thought. Conflating the teaching of evolution with ‘preaching’ and thus setting up the entirely false equivalence of science & religion.
Muffin, your science professors were not preaching, they were hoping you might gain understanding on how science and the scientific method works, thus providing a rational framework and methodology for understanding what goes on around you.
Preaching is pretty much the opposite of that as you are *told* how the world works and not to ever question what you’ve been told.
We’ll have to leave it Muffin, as you launch into a series of questions that I’m pretty sure you don’t want the answer to because it will mean you’ll have to engage more than three neurons necessary for maintaining religious belief. Luckily, you have me to kickstart your atrophied mental apparatus. Do keep in mind that learning is hard though and not necessarily fun (for you) or comforting.
“Starting with the big bang, scientists explain that the universe we know of came out of this big bang at the start of it all.”
So far so good.
“In order to postulate that the big bang happened and that they know how and why it happened they use the laws of gravity and physics. “
I can feel the checkmate scientists coming… can’t you?
“At the moment of the big bang, when there was just some universe sized mass inside of a pea there would have been neither the laws of gravity nor the laws of physics. [1]So what were the origins of those laws? [2]If those laws were not formed, did time exist? [3] If time did not exist how are we measuring time? [4] When did time actually start? [5] When did the laws of gravity and mass get created?”
Ahhhh…there we go. Questions that reading for about an hour on wikipedia could answer succinctly. To answer these question, I will be referencing the Wikipedia article curiously entitled “Big Bang Theory“. I have inserted numbers in front of each of Muffin’s questions for easy understanding.
[1] – The origins of those laws came about as a result of the big bang, they did not exist before that time.
[2] – Nothing existed before the big bang, at least not anything we can measure since we require space and time to measure events.
[3] – Time did not exist before the BB. We measure time by arbitrarily by imposing a set of measurements that allow us to come to a commonly accepted understanding of how time passes.
[4] – Time started when there was a break down from of the previous state of being infinitely dense and hot. See, the Big Bang.
[5] – During the Big bang.
I am not a physicist, however you can listen to some people that are.
A short version of the Big Bang and Lawrence Krauss discussing the origin of our universe.
“Who created them? Wait,…. Hold On. I take back that last question. Science can’t have a who or something more powerful than itself. “
Muffin, science is not an person, it is a method for discovering information about the universe we live in. This just isn’t a question that applies.
“The laws must have been created by the people that discovered the laws. So, they created the laws of physics and then used them to explain why they existed to discover them. “
Err…what? People do not create laws of nature/physics/mathematics. They discover them and by using the scientific method attempt to show that this is how the world works.
“Yet, they can’t explain why the laws exist or why anything exists.”
Did you miss that part about the big bang? Just checking here because it sure seems like you want to insert a sky-daddy that will make everything right for you.
“They can’t even say how the laws actually came into being. Pretty flawed theory. (Yet no other option is allowed in the schools.)”
Err…they were discovered and tested, and eventually proven to be laws we can predict things by. The science in schools is being taught precisely because it is the most accurate version (disclaimer – much of what is taught in k-12 is watered down) of how we know the world works.
“As to evolution, if I mix a bunch of random chemicals together the result is generally a smoothy not life. “
Yet perform that mixing over billions of years and life can evolve and given the evidence it does. See Qualia Soup’s Evolution primer and of course Wikipedia to get started.
“The earth, in its hot violent stage would not have been hospitable enough for random chemicals to come together sufficiently that single living cells could be created. “
How long do you think this ‘hot and violent stage’ was? There were other stages where life could begin, necessarily so since well, we are here.
“The idea of life from stuff by chance goes completely against that law of physics.. “
In a closed system. The earth, by definition is not a closed system so Second Law of thermodynamics does not apply in the way you think it does.
“Just some questions regarding evolution as an improved state of the species.”
Evolution does not always ‘improve’ a species, there are some very disastrous adaptations that have caused species to become extinct.
I’m sure your questions will shed light on your understanding of Evolution.
“If we have been evolving for so long:
-
[1] Why are there stupid people? Wouldn’t evolution have selected against them?
-
[2] Gay and Lesbian people can’t have children. Wouldn’t evolution have selected against them?
-
[3] Mothers kill their unborn fetuses every day, Wouldn’t evolution have selected against that urge?
-
[4] Whether 7 feet tall or three feet talk. Wouldn’t evolution have selected against one of them?
-
[5] We are called homo erectus. Where is the next human species?
-
[6] If we evolved from apes why do the remaining apes not evolve?
-
[7] Why do we still get the flu?
Oh wow. So you haven’t read about what evolution is at all. Fantastic.
1 – I often ask myself that question, on some days more than others…
Firstly, people have developed cultures, societies and civilization. All interfere with the process of natural selection and therefore we cannot directly attribute characteristics like “stupid” to evolutionary pressures. More importantly, how do you know that stupid is being selected against? It might be a characteristic in a package of traits that makes the organism in question more fit to survive.
2 – You do realize that people who identify as homosexual are not a different species right? Just checking.
3 – Evolution is a slow and gradual process, at least in terms of human evolution. When you talk about women terminating their pregnancies, this is a social feature of society and therefore is not selected for in an evolutionary sense.
4 – No conception of survival of the fittest present in your mind is there? Why do you think most of humanity fluctuates around a couple of established means? Through evolutionary processes the outliers have been weeded out precisely because the package of traits they brought to the table was inferior to the average you see today, thus they did not reproduce, thus you rarely see three or seven foot people.
5 – Ummm…we are currently called Homo sapiens. Also, as mention earlier, evolution in humans takes a long time, no distinct species has yet evolved from Homo sapiens.
6 – We share a common ancestor from apes, and they are evolving. Will they take the same route we did, most likely not.
7 – Because the flu virus is evolving just as we are. That is the reason there is a new flu vaccination every year, because the virus mutates over time to change itself into a form that is virulent to humans, despite our best immunological responses.
“Interbreeding my explain small species variations in an isolated environment but non of these creatures shows signs of turning into a completely new species.”
A video on how we get variations in species. And how we get new species.
“Even scientists explaining the pre-cambrian explosion are at a lost to explain the rate of observed change and the creation of new species.”
*sigh* Yes, indeed we don’t have explanations for everything. We’re working on, see this video on the Cambrian Explosion.
“I would argue that there is an unseen hand directing all these processes. Science could never admit that. What a shame.”
Ah, everyone saw that coming. Well, then Muffin, please state the evidence for your claim that an unseen hand is guiding all of this and show us all how it is more persuasive that the current biological set of facts it is meant to replace.
This post made me tired, when I realized that this wasn’t so much a smackdown, but rather a lesson on basic scientific literacy. A sad commentary indeed, but not quite the calibre of what I’m used to for RPOJ articles. Oh well.. :)
What most abortions look like.
Having laid down the smack on this forced-birther, he then laments being called on his misogyny and fundamental disrespect for the female portion of the species. This is Red Pen of Justice Territory folks.
Before he gets deep into the anti-choice bullcookery we detour into his deep important thoughts about the Olympics and human rights. Let’s see what he has to say.
“No religion but Christianity can support them[human rights]. (Atheism certainly can’t, as is becoming increasingly apparent.”
Oh wow… christianity the saviour of human rights, but only if you happen to be a white heterosexual male. Hmmm,women…submit to your husbands (because submission has everything to do with human rights) and heaven forbid if you are a homosexual. Oh you’ll be burning forever in hell? Atheists – have you made fun of the holy ghost? See you in hell too. The love of jebus is thick in the air, I can feel it!
We’ll skip the philosophical wanking and get down to what makes this religiously deluded liberal dude such enemy to women and and their rights.
“Talking about abortion as a right “to choose” or a right to “have bodily autonomy” is flagrant misrepresentation.”
Yes, those noises women make when defending their rights – just “misrepresentations”.
“I don’t have the right to choose to kill someone else. My rights over my body don’t give me the right to kill someone else’s body.”
Funny how badly forced birthers argue are when trying to be all moral and prescriptive. Of course, when it is not their body and their rights being effected, the holy jack boots of jebus are forcefully applied, despite reason and logic.
We here in civilized society prize bodily autonomy – the use of my organs by another is by my consent or not at all. Of course, being christian he and his god have no problem with slavery, so slavery for women is a-okay because Mr.Noble High Horse is preserving life, all the while taking a shit women and their rights.
I do love the smell of religious hypocrisy in the morning.
“Abortion advocates mostly know this though, so they try to portray the fetus as being somehow less than a “someone else.” Human rights are intended precisely to protect people from that sort of move. “
Well when legal and medical experts define someone as alive, you know like possessing brain function, which a fetus does not possess for a good part of its growth cycle, then we can talk about human rights. Medical facts aside, we don’t let other adults with full humanity dictate how our organs are used so…Mr.fetus you seem to be straight out of luck.
“We don’t get to say that someone else doesn’t count, we don’t get to say that someone else doesn’t deserve rights, we don’t get to set standards about whom we protect and whom we abuse. “
Wow. Much morality. Much pretense. Little connection withe real world. Go try your little speech to someone in Afghanistan or Iraq, or anyone in Central America they will tell you how much American’s value “life” and what they do to preserve the sanctity of it. My god man, you must bathe in naivety, to make such blithely arrogant pronouncements such as these.
We say who counts and who doesn’t count. Ask any black person in America as to how much they “count” and how many rights they have and if they are treated the same as you. In your “christian” nation under god seems to be just brimming with equality for all!
No. We’re not taken in easily as you. Your magical whitewashing of the world and morality might be fine for churchy-churchy time and your churchy-church friends, but outside the jebus-bubble in this place commonly termed as, reality, facts matter. The world is much more complex that your simple moral prescriptions and you can’t handwave-away the geopolitical reality we inhabit no matter what your sky-daddy says.
So, take your pious moralizing and settle it firmly back in your church,where I’m sure your illusive bullshite makes perfect sense and has a receptive audience.
“The last few posts I’ve tried to be objective and rational. “
Couldn’t fool me. Charity? WTF is that?
“They throw around deliberately inflammatory terms like “forced birth” and “a woman’s right to her body,” so that people react emotionally and don’t notice the treachery. “
Ah! Women, when speaking up for their rights demanding to be treated as human beings as opposed to incubators, are actually making ‘inflammatory statements’. Your fainting couch has arrived, please use it at the first available opportunity.
“They deliberately cloud the issue so that people won’t think about it. “
So sayeth the prophet from the side that regularly lies about medical facts such as stages of foetal development, pregnancy, and effects of abortion on women. I imagine that makes you quite the expert on clouding the issue, no?
“Suddenly it’s not death, it’s liberty. They trick us into thinking that maybe the human beings we abandon don’t actually matter.”
Oh, you mean like the women you conveniently erase while pining for a forced birth dystopia. Yeah-no, your fetus-fetish stinks from here and can only be seen as hatred toward women and their status as human beings.
“God help us. God help the ones we won’t help. God give them peace and a home with a Father that won’t reject them and leave them in the clutches of a monster.We ought to be willing to die to save them. What have we become?”
Yes, I think you should pray a lot more. Significantly more, maybe so much more than you won’t have time to post your misogynistic forced birth opinions on the interwebs and save me the time of refuting your mendacity.
Find your helmets and the hazmat suits dear readers, we’re going into the high back-country of mendacity, where the stupid is rugged and the ignorance is thick. Yes, we’re going to go visit our dear friend Matthew again because it is so rare to find such a deluded ball of procacity and self-delusion all in the same person.
But before we go on our merry gasconade we should warn the uninitiated – Matthew is a rebarbative hunk of misogynistic shit, his hatred of women runs astonishingly deep and his words can be quite shocking for the uninitiated. Consider yourself warned. Let loose the RPOJ from its sacred scabbard and into the ferocious maw of puerile thought-fap we go.
“Even a Slut Doesn’t Deserve to be Raped”
Oh wow. Even the title is filled to the brim with malevolent idiocy. Pro-tip Matthew – women are people not objects for your wang-prophecies.
Modern “feminists” have this controversial idea known as “rape culture” that’s been bothering me for a while.
There is nothing controversial about rape culture fart-knocker. What merits attention is the lengths half-wits like yourself will go to deny the reality of what is happening to women in our culture, as I’m pretty sure this is the direction you’re going to take.
I did a little research to try to figure out what exactly they mean by it, and I was disturbed by what a bleak and one-sided picture they paint.
Oh really? I’m curious as to the depths of your research, as to date it has been a indisputably shoddy train wreck of fail. But, the optimist in me says maybe ‘this’ time you won’t bollocks things up, so let’s investigate what you’ve uncovered.
What some of them seem to mean when they say “rape culture” is:
- that women and girls who dress in tight/revealing/slutty clothing are supposedly criticized (“slut shamed”) for being slutty
*Looks at title of post – looks at this sentence* – You have not a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
- that if these women or girls ever do get raped then they will supposedly also be blamed (“victim blamed”) for it
Wow – still no clue. Par for the course for Matthew whose hyper-skeptical glasses have been set to 11 for all these mysterious claims made by feminists.
- that the rapist will supposedly not be blamed at all and will just be allowed to go free
Facts suck don’t they Matthew, especially ones that don’t agree with your fevered view of the world. Understand one thing douche-nugget, most rapists will never spend a day in jail. (Source.)
- that supposedly the key to ending this “culture” of rape is to continue to dress like sluts in order to convince people that this is just a normal way for women and girls to behave
Err..no. The key to ending rape culture is for men (and the societal norms that enable them) to stop raping women. This is not rocket science, Skippy.
But here are the problems I have with this, and it falls on both sides of the issue.
A fair and balanced analysis I’m sure….*facepalm*
First, I hate women and girls who dress in tight/revealing clothing, and I don’t mind that they are criticized (“shamed”), because they are creating a public nuisance. Showing off your body causes sexual frustration.
Important notes from your boner are irrelevant to how women look and dress. They are not responsible for your man feelings, not now, not ever. Try and act like a fracking grown up for once in your life.
This is biological sexual attraction, and if you don’t understand that then you are either a sex addict who has been exposed to sex so much that you’ve become desensitized to it or some asexual person who had almost no sex drive to begin with.
Ah, so why aren’t you out killing some meat for your clan in the jungle? What is it with dudes trying to use biology to justify their shitty behaviour? We live in this thing called society and is marginally civilized if you can’t handle that shit, then leave.
To what I think is a normal male, it’s like an itch that needs to be scratched.
Funny how your idea of “normal” coincides with what you believe to be true. Almost like it is a self-reinforcing cycle of ignorance and stupidity. You need to meet these guys – Dunning-Kruger – you’d get along smashingly.
Sexual frustration in turn can tempt a person to engage in unhealthy and desperate behavior such as impulsive forms of consensual sex, porn addiction, or solicitation of prostitution. Most of this is legal in some sense or another (depending on your geography), but it’s all arguably a form of humiliation, and tight/revealing clothing indirectly promotes it. In other words, women and girls who dress like sluts indirectly harm other women.
Wow how about you take a step out of the cradle and claim your agency instead of blaming women for all of your problems.
Second, there’s the issue of blame. I actually believe that, objectively, tight/revealing clothing will increase a woman’s chances of being raped. It’s simply a combination of biological sexual attraction and self-control that some men lack. “Feminists” who advise women and girls to dress as slutty as they want and not care what people think are really doing them a disservice and endangering them. I am not “blaming” victims, but I am trying to give them some advice.
Wow, thanks but no thanks. Women hear shit like this everyday – and it is shit – because it places the onus on them for being raped as opposed to those who are responsible – the fucking rapists. Of course, blaming the victim is nothing new under the sun.
Finally, there’s the heart of the issue, the practical aspect of “blame”, which is how to deal with rapists. I actually don’t think even a slutty woman deserves to be raped. Rape is way too harsh a punishment for any behavior, no matter how foolish or irresponsible.
Redemption? No cookie for you! Saying rape is bad at the end an article that blames women for being raped wins you nothing but scorn and contempt.
No one deserves to be traumatized like that, which is why the rapist must still be punished. If the rapist were not punished, then he or future rapists might be encouraged to try to repeat the same horrible act (which I just said should not be allowed to happen to anyone regardless of how reckless her behavior was).
How magnanimous of you.
So, I say: (a) punish the perpetrator, (b) advise the victim to be more careful in the future, and (c) continue to criticize women and girls who dress or act sluttishly because this last point is really a separate problem.
One out of three is still a fail.
I’m not on the side of “rape culture”, but I’m not on the side of “feminism” either. I instead choose what I think is a realistic and sensible medium to encourage a more peaceful society.
Oh yah, you and rape culture are bros, dude; let me assure you of that. What you “think” is usually weapons grade bullshite with a heaping side of misogyny that attempts to make women responsible for shitty male behaviour. Let me know when that tune changes; then we can start talking about realistic and sensible.
It must be the holiday season as it seems that I’ve given the gift of knowledge to an intrepid crusader of the Manosphere. Slow days at work means I can spend time feeding my SIWOTI compulsion. This is Red Pen of Justice material, but in a different format as instead of interspersing my commentary into the body of the original work, I’ll post my analysis of the dudes arguments as they would appear in his comment section if he decided to publish it. Brace yourself folks, the “wisdom” flows hard and fast in this dude’s sage observations of all hardships faced by the menz. I’ll put it under the fold since it is a mighty wall of text.
Awww! Isn’t religion cute all snuggled into the framework of society!
Let’s play a game!
The game is called “I’m right because GOD SAYS SO” – and festoon it into a train wreck of an blog post. This mangled piece of sputum drips of religiously condoned contempt for human beings and their rights.
Nothing new right?
We all know that religion is the ripe ground that makes misogynistic, patriarchal bullshite flourish and grow. Regressive societal tendencies and religion go together like peaches and cream, MRA’s and rape culture or any other fetid combination that one can think of. Anyhow (back to my sanctimony), religion is the toxic worm that twists and festers in society, we can all see the harmful effects of religious thought, but most don’t (or choose not to) see it.
Religion is like Cymothoa Exigua, a parasite that eats and then replaces(!) the tongue of the hapless fish it infests. The fish, superficially, is fine. Only on closer examination can we see the damage done to the poor host fish and thus to make a kludge of a comparison, we can relate religion’s role as the ungainly parasite that quietly, invasively, despoils society for its own benefit (also, who wants an icky tongue like that? Sqicky!).
Today’s Disservice features a fine example of the religious rot that makes the world a shittier place for you and me. “Not my Law” by Oldguyvirgin hits all the suppurating highlights of the harmful nature of religious thought. Rather than directly interspersing my thoughts with this particular induhvidual, I’m going to try the blockquote format to see if that will improve readability, as well, there is a metric-fucktonn of egregious material to cover.
“As Christians we’re supposed to place God’s law above man’s, right? Absolutely, but in practical terms, what does that mean?”
Damn, here we go right off the bat straight to bug-nutz delusional statements about everyone’s favourite sky-daddy/ooga-booga, god. Let me offer an answer: the fireside stories and rantings of scared ignorant people written some 2000 years ago should never, by any means, supersede or transcend the rational evidence based laws and norms western society has come to embrace. We are still barbaric in what we do to each other, and you are fucking pining for a time when we had less civility. Awesome.
“According to the modern church in America, or at least the way we act, that means to pursue a vigorous, staunch, often demeaning and dehumanizing political campaign against anything with which we happen to disagree.”
The idea that there is one unified church in America is just wrong. In reality it is a sectarian paradise with more sects and factions than you can shake a bible at, all condemning each other to eternal torment in the various circles of hell in a festival of hatefappery happily condoned by their god(s). This kind of inconsistency doesn’t make a whit of sense, but then this is place were we get the natty idea that “God loves you, but ooooooh you’ll burn forever sinner!”, you know, the standard religious boiler plate notion of mandatory cognitive dissonance.
I’d like you folks to remember that last sentence from the quoted material as we’ll be referring back to it soon.
“Abortion is immoral. Therefore it should be illegal in any and all circumstances, no matter what the populace has to say about the matter.”
Boom! Abortion is immoral! Most people when making a moral case tend to state a few premises first, but oh no and Oh Ho!!! Mroldguyvirgin(MOGV) has no need for the pale frippery of cogent argumentation. No sir! We skip the whole ‘premise thing’ and instead magnificently conclude, planting the confused flag of religious certainty, that Abortion is Immoral. Say no more.
“Homosexuality is immoral. Therefore homosexual couples should hold a lower legal status than heterosexual couples, including a lack of access to combined health insurance, a lack of inheritance rights, a lack of power of attorney, a lack of tax breaks, etc, etc, etc. These are the two major issues right now, but certainly not the only issues.”
Boom! Were these moral bon mots written on stone tablets that you can, only now, share? These nuggets of torpid wisdom might be too much for us poor schmucks that blithely purport to inhabit evidence based reality.
I have a hypothesis about these declarations and why they have been interspersed with talk of God’s law. To be taken seriously as a christian commentator you need to show the requisite amount of misogyny and bigotry to be part of the ordained ‘God Club’. Not a lot of love thy neighbour going on here as far as I can tell. On the other hand it is par for the course considering the unsurprisingly dogmatic adherence to shitty ideas that concomitantly spawn shitty ethical values.
Nothing like the honest words from the religious to illustrate the inherent toxicity and the hate religion breeds.
“However, what does placing God’s law above man’s law do to man’s law? In declaring abortion to be murder we effectively announce our dismissal of American law.”
Oh MOGV, I hate to break to to you but the bible says exactly nothing about abortion. Could it be that just plain old *you* are projecting what *you* think the ethical standard should be and then dressing it up in the skydaddy’s clothes to make it sound all authoritative and convincing to the gullible?
“Murder is a term that is defined by law, and American law does not define abortion as murder.”
If there was a whit of sense in this entire bunghole of stupidity, this sentence taken out of context would be it.
“Thus, when we declare that abortion is murder we remove ourselves from the conversation by declaring that American law is unimportant to us.”
And that’s how the South fell from grace… Seriously though, removing yourself from the conversation is the sane thing to do. Unfortunately, the religious can never keep it to themselves and feel the burning desire to distort society and impose their flawed notions on the rest of us.
[Skipping extra wordy bits about defending god]
“But wait!” You say, “doesn’t that mean that there’s no point in apologetics?”
I ask you, since when was apologetics the defense of God? There is every reason to pursue an apologetic defense of the faith. The task of apologetics is not to defend God, or his law, but to defend the rationality of Christian belief.”
*facepalm forever* There is no rational explanation of faith as faith is intrinsically irrational. Your magical claims hold as much weight as my cherished notions that pink unicorns regularly steal my car keys and hide them in obvious places (a thousand poxes on you little bastards).
“In light of questions like: Can God be real? Is the scripture trustworthy? Did Jesus really die on the cross? We must have an apologetic response. This is a part of what Peter meant when he commanded us to be ready to give an account of our faith. To answer reasoned questions with a reasoned and thoughtful faith is very different than spewing thoughtless rhetoric and pursuing a legal divine mandate of Church rule.”
(Arbourist looks up at previous paragraphs, then looks at this one. Looks up again… Riiiiiiiight.)
“In too many ways the Church resembles Senator Palpatine’s description of the Jedi in Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, we have held political power in this nation for a very long time, and we are loathe to give it up.”
What? No really, what the frack are you going on about? This blog post makes word salad look like a cogently articulated legal brief. MOGV continues to jump all over the place in spastic word orgasms that defy comprehension. However, what is predictable about MOGV’s inept ramblings is the periodic interlacing of untrammelled misogyny and bigotry heaped with righteous scorn, into this rotten corpse of an essay . We’re about due for another injection…
“However, make no mistake, the attempts to legislate marriage, sexual conduct, the handling of pregnancy, etc is less about the rule of God and more about the fear of the church. It shows a lack of trust and an extreme cowardice. Does this mean that there is no homosexual agenda bent on attacking the church?”
Ah, there we go. Those damn homosexuals and their agenda, protesting against an institution that think of them as less than human or somehow fixably flawed. Judge not, lest ye be judged – unless of course its going after the gays, then by all means judge away! If there is a constant in christianity it would be that black vein of hatred of one group or another that has somehow been judged to be impure or unethical (and maybe another constant is that its *all* desultory cockn’bull fapping).
“Of course it doesn’t, though it would be ridiculous to assume that all homosexuals are a part of this agenda. Certainly the nation is becoming more hostile towards Christianity, and persecution is coming. However, Peter does not tell us that when persecution comes we should fight for our power and rights tooth and nail, even if it means destroying the other side. Instead, Peter tells us to rejoice that we may share in the sufferings of our lord!”
Ah yes, the fabled persecution of the majority. It must be rough living in a society that is structured around your wants and needs. The audacity of minorities who think that they should not be treated like crap. They should be grateful for their place at the table, not trying to upset the natural(?) order of things.
“To those who would see the Christian faith persecuted, hurt, injured, and destroyed, I would say: Bring it on! Do your worst and find out just what our God is made of.”
Hollow words and comforting ideas for scared people. Your mythology is being rolled up and tucked away safely in the Fiction section of the library. Modernity and reason will see the end of the reverence of your cherished fairy-tales. And in my opinion, the sooner the better.
[skipping more ‘woe is me’ blather]
“This is what we should be. A face of courageous love and truth that stands against hate and violence, not a face of hate and violence that seeks to oppress those who disagree. We should be better than we are.”
I hate to use the same device twice but….
(Arbourist looks up at the anti-woman and anti-homosexual passages, looks down at this one….Riiiiiiight.)
And that wraps up this RPOJ post. The navigating was treacherous this time, as the pontification was strong with this one. Also – question begging, internal consistency and the lack of any sort of rigorous argumentation. I hope your brains aren’t too mushy from our latest foray into the strange and wilde world of internet christianity, because there is plenty more where this came from.
Woo-haa?
The vast amount of shit the forced brith advocates spew into the interwebs lends new meaning to the word grotesque. Our anti-choice friends have been faffing on long and hard about Dr. Kermit Gosnell conveniently forgetting about Savita Halappanavar’s terminal experience with their fetid dogma .
Let me spell it out, you antediluvian, dim-witted, anti-choice bastion of fuckwitttery.
Cases like Dr.Gosnell’s are exactly what happens when you limit women’s access to abortion. His practice was under-regulated and in clear violation of any sort of reasonable set of medical expectations. We need less of what Dr.Gosnell did, not more. Yet, you cro-magnon bible thumping gits harass and scare away ethical doctors and practices – you know places where women can get safe medical care – and leave them with the back ally option offered by Dr.Gosnell. This case is squarely on your heads my forced-birth friends, now and forever as your insipid campaign against women and their autonomy creaks along.
We now get a closer look at the hollow arguments you put forth in your crusade against women with a helpful deconstruction to show exactly how wrong you are.
If a choice of any kind supersedes a right to life, then the choice is not only wrong but unthinkable. (Oh completely, because being forced to give birth is fucking freedom loving fun.) In 1973, a handful of people dressed in black robes (A.K.A The Supreme Court – You know, one of the bastions of a free secular society that is holding the religious theocracy your are pining for at bay.) told the United States that life will not impede law.
(ed. Adding paragraph break to mitigate the crazy.)
While it is broadly known that abortion has been happening since ancient times, it was not blatantly lauded as a personal right to save your own life from the burden of being a mother or father (Yes, because you know what is best for each and every woman in the world, the view must be positively rosy from your religious high-horse.). Abortion was not an assumed option for married couples, but it was and continues to be for adulterers and those who are sexual active before marriage (Your constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom from religion – follow your founding documents Theocrat and stop forcing your dogmatic shite down peoples throats). If you are prepared to have sex either before or outside of marriage, then be prepared for parenthood. (Yes, because all sex should be only for procreation…*facepalm forever*.) Sacrificing a child’s life for your own is the highest form of narcissism (Oh completely,because women need to be forced to give birth, mandatory pregnancy will only make family life and child-rearing easier. Why? Because god said so…)
But I love these idiot articles (I do as well, it makes showing how full of fecal matter Forced Birth Advocates are) ; it makes me thankful that I know THE God (Embracing mythology and fairy-tales to prove how right you are is prima-facie example of intellectual-assholery.) that knows the right answers (*ring-ring* It’s unsupported claims office, they want their statement back), that gives LIFE and loves us spite of us.
I’m smart enough(?) to know I don’t speak for God – He speaks for Himself while the prochoice rhetoric tries to speak for everyone despite our right to say no, which we have. (So, the god that happens to share your exact opinions is the only one allowed to speak, convenient that.) The only person that speaks for me is God (If you are hearing voices, you should consult a psychiatrist.) not some flippy idiot dressed in a ‘lady parts’ costume or a death-defying God hater (Kinda sounds like a superhero persona – The Masked Death Defying God Hater; it may have some mileage to it :).)
“He said MYTH, 1: Laws against abortion have always been based on concern about unborn life.”
The unborn have always been forefront in every illustration, every example and every instance of the Prolife Movement. The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE: If it weren’t for the unborn victims and dead or injured women, there would not be an argument: MYTH EXPOSED.
The utter lack of reading comprehension on display is amazing. This is what the article said: (editorial note: I quote here from the original article being thoughtlessly dissected by the idjit of the day)
“Abortion was generally legal in the United States until the mid-19th century. At that time, physicians eager to professionalize obstetrics pressed state legislatures to outlaw midwifery and abortion while granting doctors sole authority over pregnancy and childbearing. State anti-abortion statutes were primarily justified on the grounds that women needed to be saved from uneducated folk practitioners, infections, future infertility and other physical risks.
In the courtroom, prosecutors rarely discussed the unborn, instead accusing abortion providers of preventing women from fulfilling their destiny: motherhood. When early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony opposed abortion, they argued that the disconnect between sexual intercourse and maternity endangered women’s chastity — at the time considered their main basis for moral standing and personal dignity.”
So arguing against the veracity of the provided historical context is one thing, but coming up with a statement like this is nothing more than mere confabulating: “The statement that abortion was not about the unborn is just plain ASININE”. I hate to break it to you, but there is only one asinine person in the room cupcake, and it happens to be you.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…