"without your eyes I can't be blessed, for all I'll see is nothingness...

let magpies pick my worm-rid soul, and claim the two that others coined.

for when three and four are joined, seven's secret ne'er to be told...

what's to come is still unsure: in delay there lies no plenty.

I'll count your crookeds, sweet-and-twenty.

youth's a stuff will not endure. You'll be my Magdalena beating...

Journey's end in lovers meeting. "
 
        ~Frank.

Sjws are less idiots and more like Pavlovian dogs who have been conditioned to loudly bark negativity at specific stimuli in an effort to falsify crisis and provoke action. The sjws drive for censorship is specifically about pushing warped political agendas. They're not useful to governments or corporations, quite the other way around in fact. The quest for censorship is a wild hunt for the sjw. They are out to enforce their version of crazy, and punish anyone they can't control. Hence, their drive to use companies and the government as vectors to legislate or promote their egomania. The only reason these guys hold sway over businesses is because sjws instinctively attack and want them to lose money and get people fired. This was even brought up in Gamergate where anonymous industry insiders supported Gamergate but did so in silence. The real useful idiots are the morons who keep listening to, funding, and feeding into the attention-whore sjw mentality. Everyone knows the sjws are idiots, but they are too militant and irrational to be useful unless the goal is to foment discord and dysfunction.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1504964/jesus-never-existed/

"While I do believe that feminism has become a hate movement since the 1960′s, more specifically feminism is and has been a supremacy movement since its inception.

I’ll go back as far as the mid 19th century. Before 1839, it was custom under English law (and countries which inherited English law, such as the US) to automatically give custody to the father on divorce. Unfair, right? Was the feminist solution equality? Something like shared parenting, perhaps? (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/about-npo/political-platform)

Enter Caroline Norton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Norton) and the Custody of Infants Act of 1839 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1839), which was the foundation for the Tender Years Doctrine. This mandated custody of children under age 7 be granted to the mother in all cases. The father had no recourse unless he could prove the mother was an adulterer. In 1873 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custody_of_Infants_Act_1873) this was expanded to include all children under age 16. The Tender Years Doctrine was written into law across the US and remained so until the end of the 20th century, alienating generations of children from their fathers. Even today, with the “best interests of the child” standard, courts still recognize a maternal preference. Mothers tend to be automatically granted custody while fathers must sue for custody. This has resulted in a devastating 18% custody rate for fathers. (http://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf)

Next to World War I and the White Feather movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_feather), which used female power to shame men into dying en masse. (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/11/first-world-war-white-feather-cowardice)

Onward and upward to 1923. Ever heard of Alice Paul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Paul)? She was a real hero of the Women’s Suffrage movement. In 1921, a year after the 19th amendment was passed, she introduced the Equal Rights Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment). By 1923 it was soundly defeated by… guess who? Not misogynists, not conservatives… A coalition of feminists led by the League of Women Voters (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/102-years-ago-alice-paul-_b_6781812.html). Why? They wanted to preserve female privilege enshrined in law, which they would lose if the ERA made them truly equal. (http://harvey.binghamton.edu/~hist266/era/cott3.htm)

Let’s move forward to 1971. Erin Pizzey, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey) another true hero who opened England’s first domestic violence shelters, noticed pretty quickly that a majority of the women entering her shelter were “equally as violent or more violent than their husbands.” (http://www.webcitation.org/6UKWn9c2i) Feminists were so enraged by such an idea that she suffered harassment, death threats, and bomb threats which chased her out of England. The feminists followed her to America, though, where they shot one of her dogs and stole two others. (http://www.webcitation.org/6UKmcdccU) What is this once great supporter of abused women doing with herself today? She is now a leading voice in the Men’s Rights movement and advocate for equality in domestic violence support. (http://whiteribbon.org/)

Erin Pizzey’s findings have been reinforced by over FOUR DECADES of research. (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.372.5578&rep=rep1&type=pdf) What did feminism do with this? It created the Duluth Model, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model) which blames all domestic violence exclusively on men and the mythical patriarchy. It continues to be the cornerstone of domestic violence support across the US, despite being debunked in 1999 by its co-founder (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duluth_model#Criticism). Feminism and the Duluth Model is the reason why there are literally ZERO male domestic violence shelters in the US and men who call hotlines for help are referred instead to batterers’ programs. (https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/3977-researcher-what-hap-3977)

Those are just a few points in history that highlight what feminism is all about. While feminism was forgiven for its supremacy during the first and second waves because women actually lacked rights back then, it’s quite a different story now that women have not only legal equality but legal supremacy over men. (http://judgybitch.com/2014/01/22/five-rights-feminism-delivered-for-women-but-doesnt-want-to-share-with-anyone-else/) You can see in these points that things clearly changed from exclusively championing female power for much of the history of feminism to the more recent violent misandry. 

So what happened? Christina Hoff Sommers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers) has been a feminist longer than I’ve been alive (and I’m old in Tumblr years) and documents this well in Who Stole Feminism? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Stole_Feminism%3F) published way back in 1994 - which should give you a hint as to how long feminism has been lost.

My answer? By 1963 feminism had won. The Equal Pay Act was the last major legislative hurdle women needed to have all the same legal rights as men AND keep all of the female privileges the ERA would remove. Feminism had essentially fought its way into irrelevance. What now? What to do?

The bat shit hit the fan in 1967 when paranoid schizophrenic political lesbian Valerie Solanas published the SCUM Manifesto. S.C.U.M. stood for Society for Cutting Up Men. Here are choice tidbits:



“…overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.“
and

“…”the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion…. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.”


and my personal favorite

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”

With quotes like this from a murderous nutter like Valerie Solanas, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Warhol#Attempted_murder_.281968.29) any sane person would reject this entirely, right?

The SCUM Manifesto (http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm) helped set the direction of third-wave feminism. It continues to be widely read in Women’s Studies courses today. It gave free license to feminists to cast off the shroud of equality and embrace supremacy.

Today, feminism is a shadow of its former self… Wallowing in lies, half-truths, and fantasy. While it is most noted for its misandry, feminism’s primary victim is women. Third-wave feminism depends entirely on the victimization and infantilization of women.

It concocts fantastic narratives like the The Wage Gap myth (http://www.examiner.com/article/gender-pay-gap-is-not-what-activists-claim) (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/vickiwoods/7957186/Sorry-ladies-Im-not-worried-about-wage-gaps.html) (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap) based on a real statistic (https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.html) that shows no such thing. It invents Rape Culture by ensuring that men can not legally be raped by women thus allowing it to ignore the fact that women make up at least 40% of rapists (http://dontneedfeminism.com/post/71294252715/40-of-rapists-are-women-yes-get-over-it) and, in education, place the burden of proof on men (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/princeton-university-under-federal-scrutiny-for-treating-sexual-assault-as-a-crime/article/2555892). It flails about, searching for something, ANYTHING to make it relevant and lands on total nonsense like manspreading (http://forloveofreason.tumblr.com/post/113521351135/manspreading). It even spreads like cancer to make itself somehow relevant in racial equality despite its long history steeped in racism. (http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2014/02/18/trouble-with-white-feminism/)

In conclusion, third wave feminism is misandry. The two are inseparable… and both are an abomination to anyone who wants equality over gender supremacy.

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”

— Valerie Solanas, founder of S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men), attempted to murder Andy Warhol in 1968; S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1967)

“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.”

— Andrea Dworkin, author and anti-pornography activist; Our Blood (1976) p. 20

“[Rape Me !!!] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by whichall men keep all women in a state of fear.”

— Susan Brownmiller, journalist and author, co-founder of Women Against Pornography; Against Our Will (1975) p. 5

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.”

— Ti-Grace Atkinson, author, president of New York NOW and founder of the October 17th Movement; Amazon Odyssey (1974) p. 86

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

— Robin Morgan, author and editor for Ms. Magazine; Going Too Far (1978) p. 178

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”

— Vivian Gornick, author and educator at The New School; The Daily Illini (25 April 1981)

“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men … for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers.”

— Judith Levine, author and political activist; My Enemy, My Love (1992) p. 3

“There are times when a woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.”

— Gloria Steinem, journalist and activist, co-founder of Ms. Magazine, prominent figure of second-wave feminism; McCall’s (October 1970)

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”

— Susan Griffin, author and recipient of the MacArthur grant and an Emmy for the play Voices; Rape: The All-American Crime; Ramparts Magazine (1971) p. 30

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”

— Barbara Jordan, United States Representative of Texas; Running as a Woman(1994) p. 266

“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known.”

— Hillary Clinton, American diplomat and former senator; First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, El Salvador, 1998

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”

— Mary Daly, philosopher and former professor at Boston College (women’s studies and others); “No Man’s Land”; What Is Enlightenment? (Fall/Winter 1999)

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

— Sally Miller Gearhart, author and former professor of women’s studies at San Francisco State University; The Future - If There Is One - Is Female (1981)

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”

— Germaine Greer, author, journalist and former lecturer at the University of Warwick; The Female Eunuch (1970) p. 279

“Rape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.”

— Mary Koss, researcher and professor of psychology at Kent State University; Sexual Experiences Survey (1982)

“We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds.”

— Gerda Lerner, former professor of women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, helped found the field of Women’s History; The Creation of Patriarchy, Volume 1 (1986) p. 225

“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not … He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … the vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above.

— Marilyn French, author and lecturer, advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign; The War Against Women (1992) p. 182

“[The falsely accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I did not violate her, could I have?’ … Those are good questions.”

— Catherine Comins, assistant dean of students at Vassar College; TIME Magazine(June 3 1992)

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”

— Catharine MacKinnon, philospher and professor at three universities, presently University of Michigan; A Rally Against Rape (1981)

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization … to be aware of an alien and hostile force outside of oneself … For some feminists, this hostile power is ‘society’, or ‘the system’; for others, it is simply men.”

— Sandra Bartky, professor of philosophy and gender studies at the University of Illinois; Femininity and Domination (1990) p. 15

“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and spray of semen.”

— Cheryl Clarke, author and former educator and dean of students at Rutgers University; Words of Fire (1995) p. 244

“If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal—a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students—I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment … of persuading students that women are oppressed.”

— Joyce Trebilcot, author and former professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Washington University; Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 92

"

on censorship and sensitivity
There’s a certain attitude that scares the shit out of me – let’s call it destructive sensitivity. It’s the philosophy that, if an idea is uncomfortable, it needs to go away. If an image upsets you, or reminds you of a bad experience you had, then not only should you not have to look at it, no one should be allowed to look at it. And if you can’t eradicate it completely, it should at least be buried so deep that a casual viewer would never stumble upon it. This kind of censorship is nothing new, but I feel like it’s becoming more and more common. So, why do I think it’s a problem?

FICTION
An important question we need to ask ourselves first is, what is the purpose of media, and particularly of fiction? Why do we read, why do we look at artwork, why do we watch movies? To only see happy things? As escapism? That’s certainly a valid interpretation, but it’s not the only one.

For the artist or creator, fiction can be a way to communicate the inner self to the outer world, through the use of symbols. It’s a means of expression. What they express might be deep, might be simple, might be beautiful or disgusting, might be for a niche audience or the whole world, but in the end, it is the artist taking pieces of their own experience and creating something new. 

For the viewer, fiction is a way to understand things that are outside their experience, and a way to expand their experience safely. Fiction allows us to go places and do things that we can’t or wouldn’t in our own lives, without risk, without physical harm, and without causing harm to others. Fiction can teach us what we fear, what we love, what we’re missing. It can show us how others live, how others see us, how we see ourselves, and we’re free to engage with it as shallowly or as deeply as we want.

But fiction is not equal to reality. Watching Friday the 13th doesn’t make you a murderer, and it doesn’t kill you. Reading Lolita doesn’t make you a pedophile. Writing a story where a character is raped is not the same as committing rape, and reading that story is not the same as being raped. Thought is not crime.

CENSORSHIP
Censorship is a way to force your interpretation of material on others, to reduce or destroy another’s experience by prejudging it as harmful to them. But part of becoming a well-rounded human being is accepting that not everyone has the same sensibilities, and not every experience needs to be positive. 

What you find offensive, some might find enjoyable. What you find traumatic, some might see as an exercise in empathy, or a means of catharsis. Sad songs can be beautiful. Horror stories can be fun. When you decide to silence the things you don’t like, you’re cutting off others from that same experience. You’re making decisions for others, and you’re essentially saying that your feelings (and the feelings of people who agree with you) are more valid than anyone else’s. I find this darkly ironic, because the audience that holds these particular sensitivities also tends to be the first to champion acceptance and non-traditional viewpoints, while organizing witch hunts for those they feel disrespect them.

So, why is this important to me? Why does it scare me? Well, as an artist, the complaint of one sensitive viewer can erase my work in an instant. When complaints are made, content is removed first and questions are asked later. Artists are guilty by default, and viewers are treated as victims. No content host wants to be the one to stand up for freedom of expression at the risk of being seen as supporting offensive material. Most alarming of all, this is all seen as totally acceptable, or even justified. When an artist’s work is taken down, I see comments like, “Well, that’s the risk you take when you post stuff like that. Can’t be helped.” Even the people who disagree with censorship just shrug their shoulders.

SENSITIVITY
To those who are sensitive, I’m not trying to say, “just get over it”. Emotional hurt is real, traumatic experiences are real. I would never belittle someone else’s pain. But you have to realize as well that your experience is not the be-all, end-all of the world. Not all content is made with you in mind. It is inevitable, if we want to exist in a world with other people in it, that we’ll be exposed to things we don’t enjoy. The answer is not to destroy or degrade those things, but to try to understand them – and if that fails, at the very least, we can allow them to exist on equal terms. It is that frightening desire to homogenize the world, to eliminate that which we fail to understand or which causes us emotional distress, that can lead as to real prejudice, to real violence and real crime. Please understand that allowing content you dislike to exist is not the same as advocating it. 

THE ANSWER
What I would love to see is a perspective shift. I want to see a world where responsibility is on the viewer, not the creator or the content host. If you have a problem with something, it’s up to you to not see it, not for the artist to hide it for you, or add unavoidable warnings that prejudge a work. I want a world where, rather than censorship by default, censorship is a conscious choice for those who want it. No work is hidden until a user hides it themselves. Artists are not punished for merely posting content that some find offensive, only for not tagging it correctly. Freedom of expression and variety of content is seen as more important than protecting viewers from fiction, from discomfort, from viewpoints that don’t mesh with their own.

Accept others. Take responsibility for yourself (and only yourself). Understand that not all content is meant for you. Understand that fiction is not crime, and fiction does not equate to real-world harm. That’s all I’m asking.

REMEMBER COMRADES! WE ARE TANK!
THEY TAKE OUT TREADS, WE ARTILLERY
THEY TAKE OUT MAIN GUN, WE ARE PILLBOX
THEY TAKE OUT MACHINE GUN, WE BUNKER
THEY TAKE OUT ARMOUR, WE HEROES!

The wage gap is really non-existent, the statistic that shows a wage gap doesn't take into account that women often quit working when they have a child, which skews the data of salary per capita

Feminists don’t realize they’re constantly talking about the Earnings Gap rather than the wage gap. The Earnings gap states that because women take martial leave to have a child and take more days off, they EARN less than men.

Not paid less then men.

Then Samson said, "With an ass's jawbone I have made donkeys of them. With an ass's jawbone I have killed a thousand men."

Communism
Russia: bad idea
Ukraine: bad idea
Belarus: bad idea
The Baltic states: bad idea
Kazakstan: bad idea
Uzbekistan: bad idea
Kyrgyzstan: bad idea
Poland: bad idea
Former Yugoslavian nations: bad idea
Romania: bad idea
Bulgaria: bad idea
Germany: bad idea
Czech Republic: bad idea
Vietnam: bad idea
Cambodia: bad idea
Tumblrinas: it could work

Democratic socialism/socialist wellfare;

Denmark: Good idea.
Finland: Good idea.
Norway: Good idea.
Switzerlland: Good idea.
New Zealand: Good idea.
Scandanavian countries: Good idea.
America under New Deal regulations and Eisenhower tax rates; Good idea, helped build the biggest middle class in the world, sent us to the moon, and made our education system the envy of the world.

Right wing retards under failing trickle down economical schemes, privatization, and Miltonism: BAD IDEA! WHAT WE HAVE ISN’T WORKING AND SOCIALISM SOUNDS SCURRY TO US HUR DURR I’M FUCKING RETARDED

The old gods are calling, can you hear their song? Embrace your lust and come with me to the woods...

In Crockpot.

Put in two cans of apple pie filling.

Layer spice cake filling over it.

Put in 8 oz of butter on top of the spice cake layer, don't mix.

Bake on high for 2-2.5 hours.

Take out and eat with ice cream.

Mmm.

Nope , when you factor in things like job choice , hours worked , and use the median wage , instead of the average wage , its at most a five cent gap

Reconcile with your petty Gods, for all shall perish in the coming tempest.

WHY VEGAN DIETS SUCK


There is no one right way to eat for everyone.

We are all different and what works for one person may not work for the next.

I personally advocate consumption of both animals and plants and I think there is plenty of evidence that this is a reasonable way to eat.

However, I often get comments from vegans who think that people should eliminate all animal foods.

They frequently say that I'm giving out dangerous advice, that I must be corrupt and sponsored by the meat and dairy industry, or that I'm simply misinformed and need to read The China Study. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)

Really… I have nothing against vegans or vegetarians.

If you want to eat in this way for whatever reason and you are feeling good and improving your health, then great! Keep on doing what you're doing.

But I do have a serious problem when proponents of this diet are using lies and fear mongering to try and convince everyone else to eat in the same way.

I'm tired of having to constantly defend my position regarding animal foods, so I decided to summarize what I think are the key problems with vegan diets.

Here are 5 reasons why I think vegan (as in no animal foods at all) diets are a bad idea…

1. Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients.

Humans are omnivores. We function best eating both animals and plants.

There are some nutrients that can only be gotten from plants (like Vitamin C) and others that can only be gotten from animals.
Vitamin B12 is a water soluble vitamin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12) that is involved in the function of every cell in the body.

It is particularly important in the formation of blood and the function of the brain.

Because B12 is critical for life and isn't found in any amount in plants (except some types of algae), it is by far the most important nutrient that vegans must be concerned with.

In fact, B12 deficiency is very common in vegans, one study showing that a whopping 92% of vegans are deficient in this critical nutrient (1).

But B12 is just the tip of the iceberg… there are other lesser known nutrients that are only found in animal foods and are critical for optimal function of the body.

Here are a few examples:

Animal protein contains all the essential amino acids in the right ratios. It is important for muscle mass and bone health, to name a few. Vegans don't get any animal protein (http://authoritynutrition.com/is-too-much-protein-bad-for-you/), which can have negative effects on body composition (http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n3/2/v3n3-2pdf.pdf) (http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/17657359)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10584048) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19678968)

Creatine helps form an energy reservoir in cells. Studies show that vegetarians are deficient in creatine, which has harmful effects on muscle (http://authoritynutrition.com/5-muscle-nutrients-in-animal-foods/) and brain function (http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/) (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8207518) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691485/) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14600563)

Carnosine is protective against various degenerative processes in the body and may protect against aging. It is found only in animal foods (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-010-0749-2) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10951108)

Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA) is the most active form of Omega-3 fatty acids in the body and primarily found in animal foods. The plant form of Omega-3s, ALA, is inefficiently converted to DHA in the body. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18305382) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11083485)(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637947)

Two other nutrients that have been demonized by vegan proponents are saturated fat and cholesterol. (http://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/)

Cholesterol is a crucial molecule in the body and is part of every cell membrane. It is also used to make steroid hormones like testosterone (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-increase-testosterone-naturally/). Studies show that saturated fat intake correlates with increased testosterone levels (http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/49.full).

Not surprisingly, vegans and vegetarians have much lower testosterone levels than meat eaters (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1435181) (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/42/1/127.abstract) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/159772)

Bottom line: Vegans are deficient in many important nutrients, including Vitamin B12 and Creatine. Studies show that vegans have much lower testosterone levels than their meat-eating counterparts.

2. There are no studies showing that they're better than other diets.

Despite what vegan proponents often claim, there are no controlled trials showing that these diets are any better than other diets.
They often claim that low-carb, high-fat diets (the opposite of vegan diets) are dangerous and that the evidence clearly shows vegan diets to be superior.

I disagree.

This has actually been studied in a high quality randomized controlled trial (the gold standard of science) (http://authoritynutrition.com/randomized-controlled-trials-in-nutrition/).

The A to Z study (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo) compared the Atkins (low-carb, high-fat) diet to the Ornish (low-fat, near-vegan) diet (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916).

This study clearly shows that the Atkins diet causes greater improvements in pretty much all health markers, although not all of them were statistically significant:

The Atkins group lost more weight (http://authoritynutrition.com/how-to-lose-weight-as-fast-as-possible/), 10.4 lbs, while the Ornish group lost only 5.6 lbs.

The Atkins group had greater decreases in blood pressure.

The Atkins group had greater increases in HDL (the "good") cholesterol.

The Atkins group had greater decreases in Triglycerides. They went down by 29.3 mg/dL on Atkins, only 14.9 mg/dL on Ornish.

Then the Atkins dieters were about twice as likely to make it to the end of the study, indicating that the Atkins diet was easier to follow (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diets-healthy-but-hard/)

Put simply, the Atkins diet had several important advantages (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-vs-vegan-vegetarian/) while the Ornish diet performed poorly for all health markers measured.
Now, there are some studies showing health benefits and lower mortality in vegetarians and vegans, such as the Seventh-Day Adventist Studies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies) (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/34/5/1225.abstract) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/).

The problem with these studies is that they are so-called observational studies (http://authoritynutrition.com/modern-nutrition-policy-lies-bad-science/). These types of studies can only demonstrate correlation, not causation.

The vegetarians are probably healthier because they are more health conscious overall, eat more vegetables, are less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise, etc. It has nothing to do with avoiding animal foods.

In another study of 10,000 individuals, where both the vegetarians and non-vegetarians were health conscious, there was no difference in mortality between groups (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8842068).

One controlled trial showed that a vegan diet was more effective against diabetes than the official diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16873779).

However, a low-carb diet has also been studied (http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-diet-meal-plan-and-menu/) for this purpose and led to much more powerful beneficial effects (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/).

A vegan diet may be better than the typical low-fat diet (http://authoritynutrition.com/do-low-fat-diets-work/) recommended by the mainstream nutrition organizations (http://authoritynutrition.com/mainstream-nutrition-has-failed-miserably/), but pretty much any diet fits that description.

Bottom line: Despite all the propaganda, there isn't any evidence that vegan diets are any better than other diets. Most of the studies are observational in nature.

3. Proponents of vegan diets use lies and fear mongering to promote their cause.

Some vegan proponents aren't very honest when they try to convince others of the virtues of the vegan diet.

They actively use lies and fear mongering to scare people away from fat and animal foods.

Despite all the propaganda, there really isn't any evidence (http://authoritynutrition.com/11-biggest-lies-of-mainstream-nutrition/) that meat, eggs (http://authoritynutrition.com/why-are-eggs-good-for-you/), or animal-derived nutrients like saturated fat and cholesterol cause harm.

People who promote vegan diets should be more honest and not use scare tactics and lies to make people feel guilty about eating animal foods, which are perfectly healthy (if unprocessed and naturally fed). (http://authoritynutrition.com/grass-fed-vs-grain-fed-beef/),

I'd also like to briefly mention The China Study… which is the holy bible of veganism and apparently "proves" that vegan diets are the way to go.

This was an observational study performed by a scientist who was madly in love with his theories. He cherry picked the data from the study to support his conclusions and ignored the data that didn't fit.

The main findings of the China study have been thoroughly debunked.

I recommend you look at these two critiques:

-Denise Minger: The China Study – Fact or Fallacy (http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/)

-Chris Masterjohn: What Dr. Campbell Won't Tell You About The China Study (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html)

Also… a new study from China came out very recently, directly contradicting the findings of the China study.

According to this study, men eating red meat had a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and women eating red meat had a lower risk of cancer (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2013/07/31/ajcn.113.062638.abstract).

Bottom line: Vegan proponents often use fear mongering and scare tactics in order to convince people not to eat animal foods. They frequently cite The China Study as evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked.

4. Vegan diets may work in the short term, for other reasons.

If you look at vegan message boards, you will quickly find stories of people who have seen amazing health benefits on a vegan diet.
I've got no reason to believe that these people are lying.

But it's important to keep in mind that this is anecdotal evidence, which isn't science. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence)

You will find the same kinds of success stories for pretty much any diet.

Then you'll also find tons of people saying they got terrible results on a vegan diet.

Personally, I think that vegan diets can have health benefits for a lot of people… at least in the short term, before the nutrient deficiencies kick in (which can be partly circumvented by supplementation).

However, I don't think this has anything to do with avoiding animal foods!

Vegan diets don't just recommend that people avoid animal foods. They also recommend that people avoid added sugars (http://authoritynutrition.com/9-reasons-to-avoid-sugar/), refined carbohydrates, processed vegetable oils and trans fats.

Then they suggest that people stop smoking and start exercising. There are so many confounders here that can easily explain all the beneficial effects.

These are extremely unhealthy foods, that's something the vegans and I agree on (http://authoritynutrition.com/4-common-foods-that-kill-15-million-people-per-year/). I personally think that avoiding these foods is what is causing the apparent benefits.

I am 100% certain that a plant-based diet that includes at least a little bit of animals (the occasional whole egg or fatty fish, for example) will be much healthier in the long-term than a diet that eliminates animal foods completely.

Bottom line: Vegan diets also recommend that people shun added sugar, refined carbohydrates, vegetable oils and trans fats. This is probably the reason for any health benefits, not the removal of unprocessed animal foods.

5. There is NO health reason to completely avoid animal foods.

Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands (or millions) of years.

We evolved this way. (http://authoritynutrition.com/is-eating-healthy-so-simple/)

Our bodies are perfectly capable of digesting, absorbing and making full use of the many beneficial nutrients found in animal foods.

It is true that processed meat causes harm and that it's disgusting the way "conventionally raised" animals are treated these days.

However, animals that are fed natural diets (like grass-fed cows) and given access to the outdoors are completely different.

Even though processed meat causes harm, which is supported by many studies, the same does NOT apply to natural, unprocessed meat.

Unprocessed red meat (http://authoritynutrition.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-or-good/), which has been demonized in the past, really doesn't have any association with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or the risk of death (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300).

It has only a very weak link with an increased risk of cancer and this is probably caused by excessive cooking, not the meat itself (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21540747) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20663065) (http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet).

Saturated fat has also never been proven to lead to heart disease. A study of almost 350 thousand individuals found literally no association between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995).

Studies on eggs show no effect either. Multiple long-term studies have been conducted on egg consumption, which are very rich in cholesterol, and found no negative effects (http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8539)(http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189529).

The thing is that animal foods… meat, fish, eggs and dairy products for those who can tolerate them, are extremely nutritious.

They are loaded with high quality protein, healthy fats(http://authoritynutrition.com/10-ways-to-add-healthy-fats-to-the-diet/), vitamins, minerals and various lesser known nutrients that have important effects on health.

There may be ethical or religious reasons not to eat animals… I get it. But there is no scientifically valid health reason to completely eliminate animal foods.

Take home message:

At the end of the day, the optimal diet (http://authoritynutrition.com/how-to-eat-healthy/)for any one person depends on a lot of things.

This includes age, gender, activity levels, current metabolic health, food culture and personal preference.

Vegan diets may be appropriate for some people, not others. Different strokes for different folks.

If you want to eat a vegan diet, then make sure to be prudent about your diet. Take the necessary supplements and read some of the books by the vegan docs, I'm sure they at least know how to safely apply a vegan diet.

If you're getting results, feeling good and are managing to stick to your healthy lifestyle, then that's great. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

But don't use fear mongering and scare tactics to persuade people to join your cause and scare them away from perfectly healthy animal foods. That ain't cool.

Mini masterpost about the problems with circumcision:



Circumcision decreases penile sensitivity (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract)

Circumcision associated with sexual difficulties (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21672947)

Circumcision linked to alexithymia (http://mensstudies.metapress.com/content/2772r13175400432/?genre=article&id=doi%3a10.3149%2fjmh.1002.184)

The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission (http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract)

There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full)

Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977)

Circumcision decreases efficiency of nerve response in the glans of the penis (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847)

Circumcision policy is influenced by psychosocial factors rather than alleged health benefits (http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm)

Circumcision linked to pain, trauma, and psychosexual sequelae (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/)

Circumcision results in significant loss of erogenous tissue (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902)

Circumcision has negligible benefit (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693)

Neonatal circumcision linked to pain and trauma (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731)

Circumcision may lead to need for increased care and medical attention in the first 3 years of life (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731)

Circumcision linked to psychological trauma (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/)

Circumcision may lead to abnormal brain development and subsequent deviations in behavior (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682)

The exaggeration of the benefits of circumcision in regards to HIV/AIDS transmission (http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798.abstract)

There is no case for the widespread implementation of circumcision as a preventative measure to stop transmission of AIDS/HIV (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2011.00761.x/full)

Religion does three things to people quite effectively: controls them, divides them, and deludes them.

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/04/jon_stewart_exposes_the_gross_and_blatant_inequality_muslim_americans_face_every_day/?utm_source=Tumblr&utm_medium=Tumblr%20Share&utm_campaign=Tumblr



I can’t find any evidence or eyewitness accounts of this happening. Only apologetic statements offered by United Airlines, which were probably only released to protect their image. Had they tried to deny it, they would’ve been accused of racism and Islamophobia. So they took the easy option and apologised for an incident that, in all likelihood, did not occur. Even her preening account, apparently written and posted mid flight, reeks of lies.



It has the well rehearsed, detailed, faultless aura that so many fake Tumblr stories have, much like the infamous ‘whole train started applauding’ type of posts. A big evil man stares her straight in the eyes and shouts obscenities at her while insulting her faith. The man next to her gets a beer while she isn’t even afforded the chance to have a soda. The comparison between beer and soda isn’t accidental either. It makes her seem innocent and childlike and thus more sympathetic. All she wanted was a Diet Coke and was denied, while the man next to her was given alcohol without hassle.

Then to top it all off, there’s a catchy hashtag. How convenient. A memorable hashtag to end her story with. This is a clear attempt to gain sympathy and to spread her victim narrative. In the same way that the #illridewithyou hashtag was proven to be based upon a false story, I expect this #IslamophobiaISREAL hashtag is also built upon a fictional tale. I suspect that it’s nothing more than a cynical attempt to manipulate media outlets and social networks into giving her attention, just like the fake Red Lobster receipt story and various other similar hoaxes.

Also, no stewardess is dumb enough to think that a can of Coke can be used as a weapon, especially since the drinks provided on planes have already passed through security and thus would not be a danger. Anyone who works with air travel is extensively trained in passenger safety and airline workers are well aware of the risks associated with terrorism. No one rigorously trained in both airport security and customer interaction is going to accuse a paying passenger of wanting to use a can of Diet Coke as a weapon.

Furthermore, no one who is shaken, upset and in tears from being aggressively humiliated would write a heavily detailed, calm and well written account in a matter of minutes. They wouldn’t be in the right frame of mind to do so. Reading her Facebook post, it’s clear that it was not written by someone who had just experienced a large degree of public emotional humiliation.

It would appear that my suspicions are also backed up by this account of the incident in question. I can’t verify that the passenger in that link was actually on the same flight but their account certainly seems to correspond neatly with my own deductions about this woman. Apparently, Tahera Ahmad views herself as some sort of activist, which explains why she felt so compelled to concoct a pathetic sob story to push her agenda. What’s worse is that her dumb story was covered on a huge show with millions of gullible viewers. Disgusting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/20/feminists-want-us-to-define-these-ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/