Social Justice Warriors do not view all humans as equal
Using a “privilege” hierarchy, SJW’s calculate the worth of a human being based on perceived injustices or wrongs that group has suffered since the time of ancestral man, using selective and narrow interpretations of history. SJW’s elevate groups that they believe have received the least amount of “privilege” in the past, and then use internet activism in the form of mobs and community purges to target those who are determined to have greater amounts of privilege. The idea of privilege is so essential to SJW ideology that a common debate tactic they use is to say “check your privilege,” which roughly translates to, “you must immediately halt or change your speech because your ancestors may or may not have done bad things to others centuries ago.”

For example, if a notable white American male makes a joke about a lesbian black woman who practices Islam, SJW’s will coordinate using a combination of blogs, Youtube, and social networking to dox him (publish his personal information, including where he works). They will then pressure the man’s company by flooding it with calls and messages with the goal to remove his source of income while engaging in a mass reporting campaign to get his online accounts suspended.

Their ultimate goal is to silence all speech that they don’t like and which they find offensive while also punishing the speech offender by removing his source of income. As they grow in power, the acceptable range of speech that would trigger a SJW witch hunt is becoming more narrow, and those who are high up on the privilege hierarchy (white men) have to speak through a careful filter if they don’t want to be subject to an SJW attack.

SJW’s make a big show of wanting “equality,” but as the Animal Farm quote goes: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” They absolutely do not believe that a man deserves the same treatment that should be given to a woman of his same race. When they say “equality,” what they really mean is to apply special benefits to protected groups in order to create equality based on their subjective perception and feeling. They even go so far as to claim that women and non-whites can not possibly be racist against white men, they are “correcting historical wrongs and injustices,” not being a racist individual.

If you want to do a simple test that hurts an SJW’s argument that she is about equality, ask her the following: “Do you believe a black woman is equal to a white woman?” They will squirm mightily and may look to the left and right at their SJW friends to know what they think first before giving you a muddled answer that is inconsistent with their other stated beliefs.

Circumcision, more points that should be addressed:

FUNCTIONS OF THE FORESKIN (http://www.drmomma.org/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html):

Protection: The foreskin protects the glans, keeping it soft, warm and moist. It also helps balance pH and keep the glans clean. Because the glans itself has no sebaceous glands, which keep our skin moisturized and soft, the foreskin provides this service.
The foreskin also protects the whole penis from insults such as abrasions, contusions, lacerations, and burns.

Self-cleansing: The penis is an entry point for foreign microbes, just like the mouth and other orifices. Luckily, evolution has already conceived a solution; the urine of a healthy person is sterile and acts as a disinfectant. In an intact male, the urine swirls through the inside of the foreskin, naturally washing away any dangerous microbes. There is never urea found in the foreskin, however, because it also secretes cleansing fluids, similar to the eye (or the vagina).

Infant protection: In a young human, the foreskin is attached to the glans and protects the urethra from foreign contamination. The neck of the foreskin puts the urinary meatus (the hole from which urine/semen flow) at a safe distance from the external environment. Even when the foreskin unfuses from the glans and becomes retractable, it still spends most of its time covering the glans, protecting it from contamination and injury. An infant needs the built-in protection of an immovable foreskin because it is not yet able to consciously protect its genitals.

Immunity: The foreskin contains glands that produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, which is also found in breast milk and tears. Langerhan’s cells, which are an epithelial cell found all over the body and a component of the immune system, are abundant in the foreskin. The mucous membrane of the foreskin secretes immunoglobulin, an antibody. The foreskin also houses beneficial bacteria, just like the vagina, our gut, our skin, and pretty much every other part of the body. The beneficial bacteria are similar to those found at other entry points to the body, and help kill pathogens.

Sexual pleasure: The foreskin is very sensitive during sex, and facilitates smooth, painless motions during an erection and intercourse. It can sense very fine changes in temperature, texture, and motion. Its own self-lubricating qualities (precum, if you will) allow the penis to slide effortlessly and pleasurably within the foreskin and the vagina, reducing friction and eliminating the need for artificial lubricants.

Reasons not to circumcise:

Circumcision has no beneficial medical effects (http://www.circinfo.org/AAP_in_retreat.html)

There is a notable decrease in sexual pleasure among circumcised men (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977)

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

Circumcision is linked to pain, trauma, and sequelae (http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/ , https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731 , http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/ , http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/)

Large damage is dealt to erogenous tissue by circumcision (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8800902 , http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/taylor.html)

Circumcised penises requires more care in first 3 years of life (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102?dopt=Abstract)

Circumcision leads to abnormal brain development and psychological issues (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682 , http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.0830s1093.x/abstract;jsessionid=D435164CDFE936C050A047F39518A9ED.f03t02 )

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

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

Circumcision causes difficulty gaining sexual pleasure (http://www.businessinsider.com/does-circumcision-cause-orgasm-problems-for-men-and-women-2011-11)

Compilation of notable complications from circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/)

Poorly educated doctors do not know how to clean a foreskin (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/what-is-the-greatest-danger-uncircumcised-boy , https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201110/doctor-ignorance-male-anatomy-harms-boys)

For most boys, there is no hygiene benefit from circumcision (http://www.cirp.org/library/general/wallerstein/)

The only benefits occur in arid areas with poor hygiene (http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/3/238.short)

The HIV/AIDS risk decrease from circumcision claim is inflated (http://jme.bmj.com/content/36/12/798)

There is no case for widespread implementation of circumcision to stop HIV/AIDS (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds)

Circumcision does not decrease the incidence of STDs (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693)

Parents choose circumcision for psychosocial factors instead of health ones (http://www.circumcision.org/policy.htm)

Although circumcision does reduce the risk of a UTI, these infections only affect 1% of boys. (http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/8/853.full) Circumcision as a preventative measure for a condition that rare is laughable.

Circumcision also reduces the risk of penile cancer, but again, penile cancer is so rare that only about 1 in 900 men will develop it anyways. (https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/prevention.html)

Medical institutions against circumcision:

Swedish Pediatric Society (they outright call for a ban) (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/02/19/Swedish-doctors-urge-ban-on-circumcision/UPI-61961329678560/)

Royal Dutch Medical Association calls it a violation of human rights, and calls for a “strong policy of deterrence.” (https://www.knmg.nl/web/file?uuid=579e836d-ea83-410f-9889-feb7eda87cd5&owner=a8a9ce0e-f42b-47a5-960e-be08025b7b04&contentid=77976)

College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia: “This procedure should be delayed to a later date when the child can make his own informed decision. Parental preference alone does not justify a non‐therapeutic procedure… Current evidence indicates that previously‐thought prophylactic public health benefits do not out‐weigh the potential risks… Routine infant male circumcision does cause pain and permanent loss of healthy tissue.” (https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf)

The German Association of Pediatricians called for a ban. (http://msnbcvvd.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/10/14347482-german-cabinet-approves-controversial-circumcision-bill)

The German Association of Child and Youth Doctors attacked the AAP’s claims, saying the benefits they claim, including HIV reduction, are “questionable,” and that “Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of non-therapeutic male circumcision in the US seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by doctors in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia.” (scroll to page 7 for the English translation.) (https://www.kinderaerzte-im-netz.de/startseite/)

The AAP was recently attacked by the President of the British Association of Paediatric Urologists because the evidence of benefit is weak, and they are promoting “Irreversible mutilating surgery.” (http://www.nature.com/news/doctors-back-circumcision-1.11296 is the article supporting the practice)

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan has taken a position against it, saying it is harmful and will likely be considered illegal in the future, given the number of men who are angry that it was done to them. (http://www.cmaj.ca/content/167/5/532.2.full)

The Central Union for Child Welfare “considers that circumcision of boys that violates the personal integrity of the boys is not acceptable unless it is done for medical reasons to treat an illness. The basis for the measures of a society must be an unconditional respect for the bodily integrity of an under-aged person… Circumcision can only be allowed to independent major persons, both women and men, after it has been ascertained that the person in question wants it of his or her own free will and he or she has not been subjected to pressure.” (http://www.childcentre.info/10595/)

The Royal College of Surgeons of England: “The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it non- retractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age.”……..“The parents and, when competent, the child, must be made fully aware of the implications of this operation as it is a non-reversible procedure.”
The British Medical Association: it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks… The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/error/not-found/?item=%2fpublications%2fdocs%2fmale_circumcision%2f&user=rcseng%5cAnonymous&site=website)

The Australian Medical Association has a policy of discouraging it, and says “The Australian College of Paediatrics should continue to discourage the practice of circumcision in newborns.” (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ama2/)

The Australian College of Paediatrics: “The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit…. Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication. (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/acp1996/)

The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons: “Despite uncircumcised men reporting greater sexual satisfaction, which was statistically significant, Kigozi et al (2008) concluded that adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.” (http://www.surgeons.org/media/292210/Male_non-therapeutic_circumcision.pdf)

The Norwegian Council of Medical Ethics states that ritual circumcision of boys is not consistent with important principles of medical ethics, that it is without medical value, and should not be paid for with public funds. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/gulbrandsen1/)

The Norwegian Children’s Ombudsman is opposed as well. (http://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/norway-ombudsman-proposes-setting-minimum-age-male-circumcision)

The Denmark National Council for Children is also opposed. (https://www.crin.org/en/library/news-archive/denmark-plan-ban-all-circumcision)

And recently, the politically appointed Health minister of Norway opposed a ban on circumcision, yet the ban was supported by the Norwegian Medical Association, the Norwegian Nurses Organization, the Norwegian Ombudsman for Children, and the University of Oslo. (https://www.thelocal.no/20120703/minister-says-no-to-circumcision-ban-)

An oldie but goodie.

The wendigo is a demonic spirit rooted in Algonquin-based Native American folklore. In some scary stories, this supernatural creature can curse and possess humans, causing them to suffer from cannibalistic urges that can never be sated. It’s believed many different individuals can be infected by this single ancient evil, serving as multiple extensions of it. These tales are believed to be the world's first zombie stories.

The myth originated as a way to prevent those facing starvation in times of famine from resorting to cannibalism for survival. The Wendigo mythology later morphed into a way to encourage moderation and cooperation within tribes. Anyone guilty of greed or jealousy, or anyone who had ever tasted human flesh, was considered tainted and prey for the beast. Tribes began to appoint Wendigo-slayers-for-hire, and those who were believed to be transforming into a Wendigo would be put to death. 

The earliest version of the Wendigo legend came from Algonquin-based Native American tribes and describes it as an evil spirit or demonic entity that was able to possess humans and in some cases, even transform into human beings themselves. Those who had previously been driven to commit cannibalism as a desperate act of self-preservation during a harsh winter could be affected by the evil entity, as could anyone with harboring feelings of greed. This malevolent spirit is driven by its insatiable hunger for human flesh, so any human possessed by it would slip into a savage state like some mindless, flesh-craving zombie.

While earlier Native American cultures spoke of the Wendigo as a spirit, eventually it took on the shape of a physical beast. This beast could also infect a person if that person was tainted by greed or had committed the sin of consuming human flesh. Like the spirit, the creature was able to poison the minds of humans, turning them into a Wendigo and forcing them to constantly crave the meat of other humans.

The emaciated creature - topped with a stag skull head, sunken eyes, and skin stretched impossibly tight over its bones - is known to give off the stench of death and corruption. This shambling skeletal beast is similar to a zombie not just in its seemingly mindless hunger, but also in its form. It’s strikingly tall yet seems fragile and haggard, falling apart from decomposition as it moves.

Whether in the form of a beast or a spiritual entity, the Wendigo possesses supernatural abilities that make it impossible to escape. Despite its gaunt figure, it is unnaturally large, fast, and strong, with heightened senses and endurance. The Wendigo is a hunter, immune to even the harshest climates. It stalks its prey and can mimic human voices, so its favorite pastime is luring people away from safety and driving them mad deep in the wilderness in order to consume or possess them.


According to Algonquian myth, once a Wendigo eats another person, it grows directly in proportion to the person it just consumed, making it impossible for it to ever be full. It is the embodiment of gluttony, constantly consuming yet never satisfied, always on the brink of starvation.


According to the lore, the longer a Wendigo walks the earth, the stronger its powers become. The savage creature can eventually gain the ability to control the weather and to call upon darkness before sunset. The Wendigo also gains the ability to manipulate other creatures of the forest: it can summon predators and force them to attack on command. Its speed and strength also grow with age, as does its ability to heal. 

The people of the Assiniboine, Ojibwe, and the Cree tribes took the Wendigo taboo so seriously that during times of famine, a ceremonial dance would be performed. The purpose was to reinforce the threat of the evil creature in the minds of the people during harsh winters. It also encouraged cooperation and moderation during trying times. These ceremonies were performed in northern Minnesota at Lake Windigo.

Bill doesn't know how to handle an aggressive Dipper. Not super happy with this picture, but meh. Bipper turned out okay, but Dipper can get fucked.

The Beast of Yucca Flats would stop at nothing.... And stayed there.

The second Pines Twin, Mabel.

Reality is an illusion, the universe is a hologram, buy gold, BYE!

All thinking men are atheists. — Ernest Hemingway

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." --- Albert Einstein

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches. --- Benjamin Franklin

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours." --- Stephen Roberts

Professor Stephen Hawking sets out to answer the question: "Did the Universe need a creator?" The answer he gives is a resounding "no".

"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense." --- Chapman Cohen

"Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions" - Blaise Pascal

"No man has ever been brainwashed by science" -- Unknown

"Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?" ---- Friedrich Nietzsche

"A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows." --- Mark Twain

"Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires." ---- Sigmund Freud

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

POST FOR FACEBOOK


Since apparently the right-wingers on this hellsite have either forgotten that right-wing terrorism is a thing that still occurs to this day, or they willfully choose to ignore that fact, I chose to provide a little reference sheet so-to-speak. You know, of right-wing terrorism, of right-wing suppression of free speech, of vapid, inane, and violent bullshit spouted as they try to say “The Left is crazy” with shit like this:

1. Islamic terrorism is right-wing Conservative Terrorism

1. Islamic terrorism is right-wing Conservative Terrorism

This really, really isn’t up for debate. Any actual look at what Islamic terrorism is and pushes for will throw this in your face.

It is a terrorist movement to instill traditional, religious values in a society. it seeks the enforcement of a millenia-old book of morals not because they independently agree with those morals and found something that parrots them (like liberals who find a secular rationale to agree with Jesus), but rather “Because Allah said so.”

All of the Islamic terrorism in the world, ISIL and Al-Qaeda and San Bernadino belong squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. This is basic political analysis, based largely on strict adherence to political texts and a denial of religious pluralism.

Since I have no doubt somebody is going to shout obscenities at me for “lying about leftist Islam”, here are 3 separate sources on the matter (https://www.thenation.com/article/islamic-terrorism-is-right-wing-terrorism/ , https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=FOcmCwAAQBAJ&rdid=book-FOcmCwAAQBAJ&rdot=1&source=gbs_vpt_read&pcampaignid=books_booksearch_viewport , https://www.routledge.com/Counter-Terrorism-and-State-Political-Violence-The-War-on-Terror-as/Poynting-Whyte/p/book/9780415607209 ) on the politics of Islam.

(Oh look, here come the Genetic Fallacy believers!) But let’s entirely rule out a large portion of right-wing violence going forward.

2. Right-Wing Institutions and Colleges deny Left-Wing Speakers just as frequently as Left-Wing institutions deny Right-Wingers.

The simplest way to measure this? Disinvitation from events and discussions, line panels or commencements or talks. These are all instances where a person was sought out to come to an event, invited, and then someone along the line took issue with them as people and their political stances. Them taking issue with these stances then ends the invitation process, and the speaker ultimately gets no-platformed for their political opinion.

Right now, the best people at tracking these (and similar issues on campus) would be F.I.R.E., the Foundation for individual Rights in Education. Browse through their articles and you’ll find them fantastic. They’re non-biased and come out strongly against all attempts at censorship in colleges across America, including Berkeley and Harvard both.

They’ve got a full database of all reported disinvitations from colleges across the country. It lists reported controversial speakers, the college where the controversy occurred, and whether or not the disinvitation attempt was successful. You’ll find that liberal colleges attempt to disinvite speakers slightly more often, and that conservative colleges are a bit more succesful when they try to disinvite someone.

You know that Milo gets disinvited from colleges and protested, but so does Ana Kasparian fromt TYT. 

So, which is worse, being slightly more likely to try to disinvite someone, or having more power to actually disinvite someone? Because they’re both making roughly the same amount of attempts. Here's the resource on that ( https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/ )

3. Right-Wingers and Conservatives use violence over words plenty in domestic policies they dislike. And it’s only getting more common.

Let’s ignore the right-wing Islamic violence for now and just focus on domestic policies.

Let’s get the elephant out of the room and just state, for the record, the incredible amount of violence associated with the anti-abortion arm of the Right. This is where I could post a shitload of pictures of burnt-out buildings, exploded cars, dead bodies, but i’ll sum it up in one benign picture from an anti-abortion protest.

In terms of actual statistics, though, here’s the deal. In 2015 alone there were 3 murders, 9 attempted murders, and 94 death threats significant enough that police got involved and protected people, all tied to anti-abortion movements.(http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/abortion-clinics-report-threats-violence-rise-n719426)

This has been a decades-old problem. And I immediately know that people are going to say “oh, it’s going down! From 7 down to 3″ except it’s actually going up again (re: previous citations). 

Right-wing domestic terrorism as a whole is going up ( https://www.ctc.usma.edu/v2/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/ChallengersFromtheSidelines.pdf ) . It’s so significant that hundreds and hundreds police departments and law enforcement agencies label it as the #1 perpetrators of political violence ( https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html ) . The various right-wing extremist groups have even infiltrated local law enforcement agencies to the extent that the FBI has, for years, been treating them as potential adversaries ( https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/ ) . This isn’t something you can put as some “Obama hates cops” bullshit. This started under G.W. Bush in 2006. 

Bet you missed it, but right-wing terrorist Glendon Scott Crawford was arrested for trying to make a dirty bomb to kill muslims and liberals ( http://www.denverpost.com/2016/12/20/new-york-man-to-be-sentenced-in-x-ray-weapon-plot/ ) . 

A 52-year-old industrial mechanic who was the first person in the U.S. convicted of trying to produce a weapon of mass destruction under a 2004 law intended to stop terrorists from using radiation-dispersing “dirty bombs” was sentenced Monday to 30 years in prison followed by a lifetime of supervised release. Glendon Scott Crawford, of Galway in upstate New York, planned to kill Muslims because of their religion as well as other people whose political and social beliefs he disagreed with, U.S. Attorney Richard Hartunian said.

This was TWO MONTHS AGO

3.5 While republican administrations and governments entirely ignore right-wing extremist violence

Meanwhile, republican President Trump is re-purposing the department that actually would investigate and combat domestic right-wing terrorism into something explicitly focused only on radical Islamic violence ( http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/317465-trump-plans-to-reshape-counter-extremism-program-to-focus-on-islam ) . This is similar to Bush 43, who shrank the entire department in charge of investigating right-wing terrorism to one guy. This was even in the face of the fact that terrorism threats from foreign states was declining. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/politics/homeland-report-says-threat-from-terrorlist-nations-is-declining.html )

4. Fear Mongering about Nazis, and all of its inglory.

I mean, are people seriously trying to say “Leftists try to stir up fear and over-reaction over everything!” as if it’s something new, something unseen before? Even off the top of my fucking head this is laughable.

1.Leftists are coming to take your guns!! ( http://louderwithcrowder.com/leftists-want-our-guns/ )

a. Obama signed federal bills expanding gun rights onto trains and national parks ( http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35484383/ns/us_news-life/t/new-law-allows-loaded-guns-national-parks/#.WKRn3NIrKUm ). In terms of control, what he did was enforce the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/1117/better-enforce-gun-laws/ ) . This is the same shit republicans and conservatives say should be done instead of implementing new rules.

b.The NRA has literally called federal agents Nazi thugs in the past for enforcing existing gun control laws. ( http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/06/11/how-the-nra-hinders-the-atf-director-confirmati/194412 )


2. FEMA Concentration Camps are coming! (http://www.infowars.com/public-freaks-out-over-fema-camp-document/ )

3. Democrats are going to kill your grandparents! (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10/sarah-palin/sarah-palin-barack-obama-death-panel/ )

a. Which is coming back around now that Trump is president. ( http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/14/news/economy/obamacare-death-panels/ )

4. McCarthy. No source needed.

5. Sharia Law is taking over the country! ( http://www.teaparty.org/fax-blast-congress-stop-sharia-law-taking-america/ )

a. Here’s a two-fer. Obama is a secret kenyan muslim, (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sheriff-joe-arpaio-dives-back-into-president-barack-obama-birtherism/ )

b. Donald Trump lied and misled people about Obama being foreign-born for political points. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/us/politics/donald-trump-birther-obama.html )
I mean…give me a break. Are you serious?

I don’t need to go in-depth about crazy, radical-leftists. There are plenty of people who are more than eagerly doing so. But you can stop being personally affronted and amazed that anyone could be radical and violent, and how “those leftists are dangerous to society.”


Fuck your confirmation bias.

Whether it is true, or whether it is false, cannot be verified or disproven. But whether it is true, or whether it is a hoax, it is an isolated anecdote that affects only its immediate situation and has no larger significance that impacts any broader issues.

Veganism is retarded. It's not cruelty free, affordable, and is definitely not the best choice for everyone.

It's not cruelty free. 500,000 kids, some as young as SIX harvest 25% of crops exported to the US. People are literally starving in South America because all the Quinoa crop is being exported mainly for white vegans who want to live “cruelty-free” but don’t care about brown people as much as they do about animals.


And, contrary to what vegans would have you believe, none of us can survive on a plant-based diet. We cannot manufacture B12, and the so-called “plant-based” sources of B12, it turns out, don’t produce it in a form we can digest. Not well, and not the amount we need.

B12 is found in all animal products.

Additionally, although humans can manufacture taurine (only found in meat), not all of us can manufacture enough taurine. This is why some people get sick when they go vegetarian.

To survive on a vegan diet you need to artificially supplement B12 and possibly taurine. Period.

A diet that requires artificial supplementation is, by definition, unhealthy. And while the cost of vegan B12 supplements is low, when you’re already paying more for your food… Taurine supplementation, if you happen to be one of the people who needs it, is another added expense and hassle. A few vegans have also found it necessary to supplement carnitine, which is considerably more expensive. Oh, and most vegans don’t get enough calcium and end up with bone problems. Many are also Vitamin D deficient, especially if living at high latitudes, if dark skinned, or if religiously using sunscreen. And Vitamin D2 (plant derived) is not as easily absorbed as D3 (which ONLY comes from animals), so you need even more of it.

Then there’s protein.

For some people on thyroid medication, they are not supposed to consume large quantities of soy as it can make my thyroid worse, throwing off their dosage. You can have some, but cannot use it as a major protein source. This is also true for trans men (the phytoestrogens intefere with testosterone therapy), cis men with low testosterone (same reason) and women with a family history of breast cancer (elevates risk). Excessive soy consumption has also been linked to early puberty in girls (Again, phytoestrogens) and reproductive/sexual problems in both sexes. Eating a bit of soy is fine, but tofu should not be used as a meat substitute except for the occasional meal.

This limits you access to non-animal proteins to beans and grains. If you were gluten intolerant as well, it would be a real problem. The only dairy substitute available to many is rice milk (and rice causes many of the same problems environmentally as raising beef) or almond milk (which is TERRIBLE for the environment).

Oh, but it’s better for the environment, right?

Nope.

In addition to the already-mentioned quinoa, we’re cutting down rain forest in Mexico to grow avocados. Rice production is almost as bad for the environment as factory-based beef production for similar reasons. Also, plant-based foods, esp. fruit and fresh vegetables, are more likely to end up being wasted.

Studies indicate that if we all gave up meat tomorrow, all 7 billion of us gave up animal products forever, the good side would be the reduction in antibiotic use and greenhouse gas emissions.

How about the bad side?

1.3 billion people would lose their jobs overnight. 1.3 billion. 987 million of them are poor.

Another thing that Ban Eating Meat Tomorrow types forget is that veganism is not necessarily the most effective use of farmland.

Uh, what?

The statement that if everyone switched to a vegan diet we would need a fraction of our current farmland assumes all farmland is created equal.

It simply is not.

I suspect that a lot of this perspective either comes from city dwellers who have no clue about farming or from people in the US breadbasket where there is a lot of high quality farmland suitable for raising food for humans.

The last global census in 2008 said that at that time, if all 6 billion people went vegan, it would need 3,068,444,911 acres of arable land. At the time there was about 3,212,369,959 acres of arable land: That is to say land suitable for raising crops humans can eat.

However, we’re building on, or otherwise destroying, arable land at the rate of about 1% a year and the population has grown.

We literally do not have enough arable land to feed everyone a plant-based diet.

And there are parts of the world that have a worse proportion of arable land to land only suitable for pasture than the US. Scotland comes immediately to mind. People in these places would have to import most of their food. I’m not sure Iceland could survive without eating fish.

If we all gave up eating meat tomorrow many of us would starve. I’m not exaggerating or being alarmist.

I’m also not criticizing people who choose not to eat animal products (just please make sure you get the required nutrients).

I am criticizing the “I don’t eat animal products and nobody else should either” crowd. Because it’s not that simple.

Also, bluntly, vitamin B12 deficiency can cause mood disturbances and paranoia…

But again, if you have to consume artificial supplements for whatever reason (unless it’s a personal absorption issue) your diet is not healthy.

Sorry, it’s just not.

“i nearly had to address your point but luckily you have an anime header/furry icon so tough luck pal haha”

This is Art-Pants' half of our art trade.

My fursona!

My half of an art trade with Art-Pants on Tumblr, her OC character Buck Cypher and Dipper Pines from Gravity Falls.

Now colored!

My half of an art trade with Art-Pants on Tumblr, her OC character Buck Cypher and Dipper Pines from Gravity Falls.

Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:

MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.

FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.

Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.

MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.

FACTS: This sensational claim is a favorite of politicians, celebrities and journalists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore turned it into a cause célèbre. Both conservatives and liberal reformers deploy it. Former President Jimmy Carter recently said that the sexual enslavement of girls in the U.S. today is worse than American slavery in the 19th century.

The source for the figure is a 2001 report on child sexual exploitation by University of Pennsylvania sociologists Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner. But their 100,000–300,000 estimate referred to children at risk for exploitation—not actual victims. When three reporters from the Village Voice questioned Estes on the number of children who are abducted and pressed into sexual slavery each year, he replied, “We’re talking about a few hundred people.” And this number is likely to include a lot of boys: According to a 2008 census of underage prostitutes in New York City, nearly half turned out to be male. A few hundred children is still a few hundred too many, but they will not be helped by thousand-fold inflation of their numbers.

MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%–35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence.

FACTS: This claim has appeared in countless fact sheets, books and articles—for example, in the leading textbook on family violence, Domestic Violence Law, and in the Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. The Penguin Atlas uses the emergency room figure to justify placing the U.S. on par with Uganda and Haiti for intimate violence.

What is the provenance? The Atlas provides no primary source, but the editor of Domestic Violence Law cites a 1997 Justice Department study, as well as a 2009 post on the Centers for Disease Control website. But the Justice Department and the CDC are not referring to the 40 million women who annually visit emergency rooms, but to women, numbering about 550,000 annually, who come to emergency rooms “for violence-related injuries.” Of these, approximately 37% were attacked by intimates. So, it’s not the case that 22%-35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for domestic violence. The correct figure is less than half of 1%.

MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted.

FACTS: This incendiary figure is everywhere in the media today. Journalists, senators and even President Obama cite it routinely. Can it be true that the American college campus is one of the most dangerous places on earth for women?

The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses:

“The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.”

Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.

Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But these studies suffer from some or all of the same flaws. Campus sexual assault is a serious problem and will not be solved by statistical hijinks.

MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work.

FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.

MYTH 6: Men are the privileged sex

FACTS: Neither sex has the better deal. Modern life is a complicated mix of burdens and advantages—for each sex. Women are assumed to be the have-nots because a massive lobby devotes itself to proving Venus is worse off than Mars. Mars’ afflictions go unnoticed. So let’s consider a few of them.

When it comes to being crushed, mutilated, electrocuted, or mangled at work, men are at a distinct disadvantage. Most backbreaking, lethally dangerous jobs—roofer, logger, roustabout, and coal miner, to name a few—are done by men. The Labor Department reports that nearly 5,000 American workers die from workplace accidents each year. Ninety percent, more than 4,400, ARE male. We are often reminded that only 24 women are CEOs of the Fortune 500. But what about the Unfortunate 4,400?

Education beyond high school has been called “the passport to the American dream.” Increasingly, women have it and men don’t. From the earliest grades, our schools do a better job educating girls. Women now earn a majority of associate, bachelor, masters and doctoral degrees and their share of college degrees increases almost every year. The intersectional narrative tells us that males—especially those of the white variety–are the group most in need of atoning for their privileges. But recent government data show that Hispanic and Native American women are now more likely to attend college than white men.

Finally, consider the mother of all gender gaps: life expectancy. On average, women outlive men by about five years. The numbers are starker when you factor in race and ethnicity. In the U.S., Hispanic and Asian women can expect to live to 88 and 85, respectively. For white and black men, the ages are 76 and 72.

Today’s women’s lobby deploys a faulty logic: In cases where men are better off than women, that’s injustice. Where women are doing better—that’s life.

Final verdict: If Mars needs to check his privilege, then so does Venus.

Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.

My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth.