The road to purity is drenched in the blood of the martyred.

It is not the Horror of War that troubles me but the Unseen Horrors of Peace.

I have to say this. I hate kids. I really do. To be honest, if I don't have kids, I can't see any immediate problem with that situation.

Do you know what I hate more? Neglectful, self-congratulating parents. More accurately, parents filling out the 'anti-vaxxer' movement.

I have not seen a larger group of misinformed, pretentious assholes in my life. They strut around, shouting how, with an hour of Google research beneath their belt, they are more informed and better educated than all of the scientific community arguing their case. They cite outdated resources, misrepresent facts, use propaganda and rhetoric in lieu of actual sources or links, and follow blindly this need for fear-mongering scare-tactics.

Why do I hate them? Because although I hate kids, what with them being loud, smelly, slobbering machines of uncontrolled destruction, they are innocent. They look up to their parents, and in fact any adult, as a source of knowledge, a means of staying safe, and a source of guidance. When these parents scream how vaccinations are bad you tend to have several problems.

First problem is the immediate issue of the child being in danger. Certainly, playing outside and eating right are great ways to build up ones immune system, but nobody blithely states 'Well, I'm gonna go catch measles and that way I'll be naturally immune'. Measles can be unpleasant; rash, coughing, runny nose and eyes. It can also cause inner ear infections that can cause deafness. It can cause encephalitis. I has a strong chance of bringing pneumonia into the picture. It can kill the child.

Kill them.

Dead.

Three million children are saved each year because of vaccinations. Nearly two million die from vaccine-preventable diseases like mumps and rubella, or Hepatitis a or B, or measles, or even the goddamned flu.

Any parent who doesn't vaccinate, in my opinion, is not only neglectful but actively endangering their child. And I've read so much nonsense from the anti-vaxxer crowd too. "Ooh, vaccines have mercury in them!" Your body naturally creatures mercury, and we eat it all the time. Also, there is a difference between ethyl and methyl alcohol, but you're not drinking both of them, are you? "B-b-b-but, what about the formaldehyde?" Your pear has 10,000 times the amount of formaldehyde as a vaccine does. "Well what about rat brains!" It's protein strains obtained to give the dormant or partial virus nutrients. It's also in a part per million amount and does not harm. "Well, I see there is aluminum..." What, you mean the most common metal on our planet, found literally everywhere, even in microscopic amounts in our own bodies? And you say you found it in a vaccine? NO SHIT.

The second issue that arises is that the children are losing their herd immunity. If one child is immunized, and no one else is, well, he would be safe, but everyone else is s.o.l. However, if, say, 90% of kids are immunized, there is no place for the disease to take hold and spread. You know who that helps? Children who are immunocompromised, or are allergic antibiotics, or have reactions to vaccines. This protects them because they can't be protected like the others. Now, when a bunch of quacks start running around screaming 'I dun want muh kids to get encephalitis', that herd immunity rapidly diminishes, and guess what? The unvaccinated and partially vaccinated kids are at risk. This wouldn't be an issue if one kid was unvaccinated. Or a dozen kids. But we are talking about numbers in the THOUSANDS.

Now it stops being a 'parents right' to not vaccinate their kid because their bullshittery is now having repercussions on kids other than their own. Do you think the grieving parents of the boy who died from the mumps your little sperm blossom gave him when he lugged it to school because he was unvaccinated would give a rats ass that you were just exercising your right to not vaccinate? Hell no. In fact, I hope the father punches you in the goddamned mouth, you'd deserve it.

Third, the mentality of these homes. I've seen so many variations, some sitting at the 'I'm not sure and need more info, lets talk to a doctor before we continue' mind-set (which I respect, skepticism is healthy, but be wary of your sources) all the way over to the other side, the side who smile while eating granola and their organic strawberries while getting acupuncture done by their masseuse who says that your emotional waves are causing distemper with the universe which is why you're in pain, just before they give you probiotics as a cure-all for everything.

Now, the majority don't fall on either extreme side, but the majority seem to push closer towards the 'fruitcake/nutbar' side of this spectrum. Have a disease of some kind? Drink some tea with ginger and apples, it will fix it right up! Have cancer? Inject some Vitamin C in there instead of going to chemo! Feeling down? Try oxygenating/ionizing your blood with this machine found on LiveWhole.org that costs 900$, isn't FDA regulated, and has no research done into it beyond anecdotal statements from strangers saying 'Yeah, sure, it works I guess...probably'. And that is a problem. Being skeptical of something is smart, it means you are considering options and facts rather than impulsively jumping at the first answer given to you that sets itself apart from 'corporate'. These people, however, are the kind who think that if they give probiotics to a child with autism, he'll get better. These are the people who think that, even though they don't have Celiac disease, they have a gluten allergy (Note: findings show that if you don't have Celiacs, you do not have a gluten allergy). These are the people who spend thousands and thousands of dollars at Whole Foods because they think eating only organic will make them healthier (Another Note: Organic food is NOT healtheir, the only difference is a marginally smaller amount of pesticides coating it. If you wash your veggies, it doesn't matter). And they force this diatribe onto their children. And if you hear a lie often enough, well guess what...the kid is going to start believing it. Why do you think religions are so successful? Next thing you know, you have another generation of misinformed, scared individuals who resent or refuse to acknowledge the information they obtain from professionals and medical scientists, because 'mommy taught me'. Nothing is more horrifying to me than a generation of stupid people calling the shots.

Finally, all this comes down to denying science. These parents turn to celebrities, bloggers, and journalists, all with none of the qualifications to make judgment calls on the benefits and risks of inoculations, to form an opinion. For a quick example, Sheldon's girlfriend, Mayim Bialik (Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler, for those who actually like that show). She is, in real life, a PhD carrying Neuroscientist, and a staunch anti-vaxxer. People pointed at her and said, 'She's a scientist AND a celebrity who hates vaccines!' No, I say. Just no. She is a neuroscientist. Does that mean she studied immunology? Does that mean she is a professional nurse? What about pharmacist? Has she vaccinated children in her office? Does she have experience in... no. She doesn't. She studied the nervous system. She didn't study diseases, she didn't study vaccines, she didn't study virology, she studied the sparks jumping around in our body that make us move and feel and react. This is a woman who thinks veganism is a healthy dietary choice (it's not), that homeopathy is a reasonable alternative to 'Western Medicine' (it's not) and she thinks that vaccines are bad (they're not). But people look at her, and the likes of her, and say, 'Well then, if SHE thinks it's bad...' and now we have measles coming back. And what do the anti-vaxxers say? "It's hyped up". "It's not bad". "It's natural".

You know what else is natural? Death.

But at least the companies that make child-sized coffins will profit from all this stupidity.

These people make me sick.

"Punch-fisted in the shitter by a bear with shark arms" has got to be the best description of post-Taco Bell indigestion I have ever heard.

Thought for the Day:
An idealist is one whose perception of reality is untainted by the horrors perpetrated against mankind.

ego homini lupus

Those who feel they are underappreciated greatly overestimate their worth.

Veritas vos liberabit

I've been considering this for a long time, and I still hold that upgrading our bodies and modifying our physical forms is one of the greatest sources of interest for me beside the biochemical responses that our body creates. The addition of circuitry to make our lives more easy, the enhancement of muscle tissues to make us respond more quickly, the introduction of specialized chemicals to create new levels of perception or distraction. I'm a bit of a singularitarian. I love the idea that one day mankind will be able to blend with technology, the next step in our evolution and allowing us to enhance, or altogether shed our weak physical bodies, lengthen our lives, and more. It has been suggested that we could be able to eventually download our psyche right into the internet within the next forty years. The possibilities that this would create are endless! If we could remove more of our biological components, long-distance travel between stars would be a matter of patience, no longer of generational planning. Medicinal technology and it's mysteries and issues would become fewer as the need for biological enhancements fill the market. And with how technology is developing so rapidly, and people are discovering new innovations to bypass outdated wiring or batteries, I can only imagine what the future holds for humanity.

"Collecting dreams like dew drops on a thread of spidersilk."

"In hoc signo vinces" meaning "In this sign you will conquer".

For the float:

6 ounces crème de mûre (blackberry liqueur)
7 grams (1 packet) Knox unflavored gelatin
1 package (3 ounces) grape-flavored Jell-O gelatin
1 cup hot water
For the gin sour:

1 cup gin (lemon infused)
2/3 cup fresh lemon juice
1/2 cup sugar
28 grams (4 packets) Knox unflavored gelatin
1 cup hot water.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36g3auOm9HA&feature=youtu.be

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/when-a-girl-hits-you/

Stop Violence Against Women aggregated legal writings and produced a list of determining factors for the primary aggressor. Below is a portion of the list:

⁃        The height and weight of the parties

⁃        Which party has the potential to seriously injure the other party

⁃        Whether a party has a fearful demeanor

⁃        Whether a party has a controlling demeanor

So, pretty much 'If you're a man'....

Morning Life For Nekko's Body

Have you seen this comic floating around lately? "The Friend-Zoner vs. Nice Guy"

http://imgur.com/gallery/RmAjE

Well, to be frank, it's pretty retarded, and honestly fills out the stereotypical Tumblr attitude. Thankfully, a kind and understanding soul over at Reddit offered a rebuttal.

"The Friendzoner vs The Nice Guy is a cheesy web-comic strip that has been circulating around the internet for at least a year if not longer. Sketched by a feminist blogger on Tumblr, it portrays a nice guy being friend-zoned by a girl he had strong feelings for and a close friendship with. He flips out, presumably because he has faced this situation many times before, like a lot of guys have, and the whole thing blows out of proportion as they don comic book superhero spandex and duke it out with physical violence and insults being thrown at each other. In the end she wins and literally cuts him off as a friend because she feels like she doesn't deserve him.

Due to the way the comic has been written out (with the Friendzoner winning the bout, the Really Nice Guy having nothing to combat her words with, and the Friendzoner having the last say); it implies that any man who reacts badly to rejection is an asshole, not really a friend and is a bit rape-y in their intentions. However, this entirely misses the male argument of the whole friendzone debate.

1) Society's view of relationships and how they form may not tell the full picture:

Why did the nice guy pursue this woman? Why did he see his closeness to her - the fact she'd often come to him to talk about her problems whether it was her breakup, complaining about boyfriends or maybe (the last point is a mostly-baseless assumption) about how 'ugly' she is and how she'll never find somebody - as a sign of romantic interest? Because she (like many other women) told him she wanted a nice guy.

Various forms of media have taught us that romantic feelings and relationships start from moments of emotional intimacy whether that is helping somebody in distress, becoming emotionally close in friendship, or both.

I'll give many examples of anime, film and television series that have featured this in some way, shape or form. Beauty And The Beast, Aladdin, Pokémon, Suzuka, Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann, One Tree Hill, The O.C., There's Something About Mary, Love Actually, Hitch, The Waterboy, Sonic The Hedgehog, Back To The Future, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Cardcaptor Sakura, Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicles, Fairy Tail, Dragon Ball, Shaman King, Chobits, Love Hina, Tenchi Muyo, Harry Potter, Shrek, and many others.

It is even the central theme of a book called South of the Border, West of the Sun by Haruki Murakami in which the protagonist has a close female friend in the form of Shinamoto and bonds with her because he was asked to help her at school over her leg condition. Despite being really close friends, they drift apart when attending separate high schools and he only meets her again once successfully running a chain of bars in Tokyo and happily married; forcing him to make the tough choice of whether to cheat on his wife or not.

Then there's many examples in video-games...

Saria from Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a huge example. She is the only one to really befriend Link after he was left to the Kokiri as an orphan. As such, she develops a crush, much to the jealousy of Milo, the Kokiri village chief. This is not only implied through her friendly interactions and genuine joy to see him, but by her conversation with him when he leaves Kokiri Forest. It is later confirmed by Milo after Link rescues her from the Forest Temple.

As for other games with romantic elements that revolve around this? Tony Hawk's American Wasteland, Phantasy Star Universe, Second Sight, Prince of Persia, Final Fantasy IX, the Mario series, Castle of Illusion, Persona 4, The Sims, Tales of Symphonia and dare I say it... virtually any romantic visual novel or dating sim. You get the idea.

I'm not calling any of this misleading. But considering how romance is very-well present in the entertainment industry, can you blame men for wanting this to be a greater reality than it actually is?

2) The Friendzoner is a bona fide bitch:

As ridiculous as this seems to argue because of course there's going to be fighting; they are portrayed as superheroes, let's list some facts about what the Friendzoner did:

She provoked him by taunting him about being friend-zoned because he dared express his dismay at being rejected, presumably for the umpteenth time. Whether she did this sarcastically, as a form of exaggeration or because she's sick of hearing the friend-zone argument thrown around once again herself; it doesn't matter. She shouldn't have escalated the issue and provoked an even angrier response from him.

She assaults him. It is unclear who lands the first hit here. While it looks like she was assaulted first from what looks like her parrying a hit with her arm and circular lines of motion around his arm, the nice guy's posture in this panel doesn't seem to indicate that he actually made a swing for her and if he did, it was in the worst way possible. Rather, he is stood, tensed up, yelling his point to her. But then again, maybe it is useless to argue this because this is merely used as a metaphor to illustrate their shouting-match. Either that or the author is rather bad at drawing certain poses.

She refers to herself as a bitch. While this was most likely sarcastic and to parody how women like her are portrayed, it still raises a valid point due to how she is actually acting.

She accuses him of being an asshole and verbally mauls him apart out of disgust that he was even interested in her in the first place.

She kicked him in the head while he was down. Again, this could just be a metaphor but if literal, that is a highly dangerous situation that could have caused at least ABH (he also caused it too if you look at the bruise he made by punching her in the face but only in retaliation to being kicked in the face.) Somebody I knew from school died after attempting to break up a drunken argument, being punched to the ground then repeatedly kicked in the head like a football. The guy who did it is in jail for murder.

She spins every argument against him. More on that further below in Point #3.

She ends her friendship with him. More on that further below in Points #3 and #4

3) Etiquette is improperly viewed as a manipulative sexual strategy:

"What about that time you got wasted at a party!? Any other guy would have taken advantage. But I drove you home safely instead!"

"You don't get fucking brownie points for not raping me!"

So it is wrong to be a nice guy all of a sudden? This is certainly what The Friendzoner is implying.

When we are taught from the point of childhood to be nice, morally respectable and law abiding citizens else face punishment whether by our parents, our teachers, our supervisors, the police, etc. When we get rewarded for doing nice things in many different ways, is it not surprising that men have made this assumption that being nice and befriending a girl is the best way to eventually form a romantic relationship?

When you are a child, you better obey your parents and stay out of trouble or else you'll probably get grounded or worse. Likewise, if you do really well at school, you'll likely get rewarded through them buying you something nice or through them taking you somewhere nice.

The same goes in schools. Good behavior is rewarded because they act as an incentive while bad behavior is punished because punishments act as a deterrent.

It similarly goes for law enforcement. Criminals are punished and sentences are often seen as a punishment. While some systems focus more on rehabilitation, it's safe to say that a lot of prison systems don't.

How does this link back to relationships? Simple, romantic relationships are often seen as much stronger, more significant friendships where a degree of physical and emotional intimacy are involved. Being an asshole and doing things like cheating generally lead to getting dumped.

And what about being rewarded? Look at Valentine's Day, one of the tackiest, most over-commercialized annual holidays in society. Things from flowers, chocolate, cards, teddy bears, even sexy lingerie are marketed to us as presents to spend on women; in return for what is perceived as a strengthened relationship, and yes, sexual gratification; especially since that's what buying lingerie implies.

Technically, aren't men manipulative assholes for buying women romantic presents in the same way that some men try to woo women by treating them like close friends and putting them on pedestals? Oh wait, they get a free pass because people who buy valentines day presents tend to be attractive, already in relationships and are buying material presents instead of just being nice.

And single people without a partner on valentines day? Like marketing departments seem to imply by pretending they don't exist, they can fuck off!

4) The Friendzoner heavily downplays the significance of her friendship with the Nice Guy:

When you broke up with that douche! I was always there when you wanted to talk!

I thought that was because we were - I don't know, actually friends!

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

Let's cut the crap for a second. If you confide your desires for a nice guy and your complaints over your boyfriend being a complete dickbag to a guy-friend of yours; is it not surprising when he'll interpret that as interest in himself, especially considering how much she likely emphasized it? In fact, I'm pretty sure lines like "I wish there were more men like you" or "I wish I could find a guy like you" came up. I mean, those are some pretty big compliments and you don't just say that stuff for no reason.

Sharing stuff like that isn't what you do with 'just a friend.' That's at least close-friend level, if not future-boyfriend level.

This stuff certainly came up about 80%+ of the time I was friend-zoned by a close female friend who I later developed feelings for. In fact, especially when they made compliments about me and my personality, I felt like I was being led on and for good reason. But of course if I express that, I'll be called the asshole.

Sorry that my friendship is a crappy consolation prize!

That is not the point. The man is clearly feeling discontented because he had his heart broken yet again. The hypocrisy that people would shower a girl with their sympathies (whether in film, television or in real life) should they be rejected by a guy while if a guy did it, they'd be seen as losers, manipulative assholes or even sexual pests in some extreme examples, is mindboggling.

Do you even know what friend-zoning is, douchelord?

What you just did to me.

Sure, but what assholes like you actually mean when you say you've been friendzoned is "This bitch won't let me put my dick in her even though I treated her like a human being."

Friend-zoning is when somebody shoots down your romantic advances and declares you only a friend, likely out of a lack of sexual attraction. It's not gender-exclusive.

And she downplays his generosity and friendly nature as 'treating her like a human being'? Technically any action from good to bad to downright despicable counts as treating her like a human being. So no, being treated like a human being is a bad term.

5) The desire for nice men is actually an oxymoron:

Well, I don't fucking care. When you girls are bitching and moaning about how you just wanna find a nice guy, I won't feel sorry for you. They're all in the friend zone where you left them!

This is a very valid point. Why should we continue to be close to women when that is clearly misinterpreted as nothing but friendship and not what women look for in a guy?

Why is this guy speaking so much truth?

That is because the desire for nice men is an oxymoron, a statement that contradicts what women appear to really be attracted to. Confidence, status, physical attractiveness and material possessions. This has been developed through millions and millions of years of evolution. Attractiveness helps determine a mate which can produce healthier offspring, confidence makes up part of what a male should be and is often a trait picked up by women that makes them initially attracted to jerks (as many of them display confidence), material wealth is dictated both by Western consumerist society and evolution and status is very important too as humans are social animals."