[Nekko Fox]'s diary
I did fan-art of a Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild character.
Which character you might ask? You'd probably never guess.
.
.
.
.
It's Sho, one of the kids running around the Tabantha Bridge Stable. He comments that Beedle's backpack looks like a bug, and he tells Link that the painter wanted to say 'Hello!' and who then painted Sho a picture of a bug.
So, I did the only responsible thing and drew the little shota blushing and spreading his butthole open.
Because why not?
I drew Chillhop Raccoon, then I framed her and hung her in the kitchen.
Sometimes art can be just as much of a release as an anal creampie.
I love drawing smut, and I love drawing my little fox cub.
There is a famous story told in Chassidic literature that addresses this very question. The Master teaches the student that God created everything in the world to be appreciated, since everything is here to teach us a lesson.
One clever student asks “What lesson can we learn from atheists? Why did God create them?”
The Master responds “God created atheists to teach us the most important lesson of them all — the lesson of true compassion. You see, when an atheist performs and act of charity, visits someone who is sick, helps someone in need, and cares for the world, he is not doing so because of some religious teaching. He does not believe that god commanded him to perform this act. In fact, he does not believe in God at all, so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality. And look at the kindness he can bestow upon others simply because he feels it to be right.”
“This means,” the Master continued “that when someone reaches out to you for help, you should never say ‘I pray that God will help you.’ Instead for the moment, you should become an atheist, imagine that there is no God who can help, and say ‘I will help you.’”
ETA source: Tales of Hasidim Vol. 2 by Mar
Written about Wednesday 2018-01-10
Written: (2508 days ago)
This is the "response" many have regarding rapists, muggers, and other outside threats. "He tried to rape me/rob me so I pulled out my gun and shot him." Everyone claps, a few people cheer, and a lot of people nod their heads and says 'Oh yeah, if you carried a gun then that's all the self-defense you need'.
Except people forget a few things about this mentality;
First off, if you're attacked, you have to fight for your gun, then fight to aim it at them, and then you have to fire. It's never so clean, cut and dry as 'Grab gun/Shoot Bad Guy'. That's juvenile level thinking and you should be better than that.
Second, just because you're attacked does not necessitate LETHAL. FORCE.
Believe it or not, there are 'rules' to fighting called laws.
A gun won’t settle all your problems. Murder is a real thing and will be contemplated if you use deadly force incorrectly. Imagine the scenario; the police pull up and someone is lying dead on the ground and their shooter is standing over them with a smoking gun and all you have to go by is 'Well, they were trying to rape me'. Congratulation
It may seem silly to say, but you cannot shoot someone simply because they attacked you in non-mutual combat. You’re only allowed to use lethal force in response to lethal force. A gun won't settle all your problems. The use of lethal force by use of a weapon is disproportiona
Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy are three things that are looked at;
They have to have the opportunity to kill you. If they’re 300 yards away and have a knife and yell “I’m going to kill you” they are too far away to have an opportunity to kill you.
They have to be trying to kill you.
The 300lbs guy or midget with an axe who is holding the door for you and not attacking you isn’t putting you in jeopardy. But if they suddenly attack you then you’re clear to draw.
Also- this is from the view point of a reasonable person. So if a guy who is 5ft away yells “you motherf*cker I'mma kill you!!” And reaches behind his back like he’s drawing a gun from his belt-
Technically he has demonstrated Ability, has the opportunity, and you are in jeopardy. Whether he has a gun or not, so long as you do not know that he doesn’t?
Clear to engage.
That said? You're still going to court.
A lot of times when a police officer shoots an “unarmed” man it’s because he made a move like he was going for a gun after demonstrating that he was a risk (being aggressive, evasive, or acting erratically.)
The only legal difference between you and police is that police are technically allowed to shoot someone who is likely to kill someone else at a later time if they cannot apprehend them. (Grossly oversimplified)
That’s for like serial killers, mass murderers, repeat killers, cop killers, etc.
That's the purpose of
SELF DEFENSE COURSES
They teach people to defend themselves, disengage, and give them the opportunity to flee. Self-defense is perfectly legal and should be the go-to response rather than this skewed cowboy mentality of 'grab muh gun and kill the sumbitch'. Life isn't that simple, and pretending that is IS that simple is going to get a lot of people hurt or killed, innocent and guilty alike, because we live in a country where everyone thinks that carrying a gun is the answer to all crime problems.
It's not. And the court system doesn't think so either.
‘Men’ are not a united, co-ordinated organisation with shared motives, methods or desires, and therefore men should not be held accountable whatsoever for the actions of other men
Feminism, on the other hand, is, and therefore feminists should be held fully accountable for the actions of other feminists and bear full responsibility for any and all actions committed by feminists
He was disappointed in the country’s behavior. The national anthem is a song. The flag is a piece of cloth. It is not pure. They are items. Things. Actual patriotism is not idolatry. This flag worship and demanded reverence for a piece of fucking cloth is idolatry. It is deplorable. It is not honoring soldiers or veterans. It is idolatry.
Actual patriotism says it is not only your right but your civic duty to stand up when your country has fucked up and say it has fucked up and demand it does better.
No song, no flag, no ritual of standing is worth more than human lives. They are not even close. If you’re putting them in a hierarchy and if gazing lovingly at a textile is above or even close to the lives of actual living breathing human beings, Captain America is disappointed in you. You are why he’d be Nomad again.
LITTLE FYI:
- Men aren’t defective women.
- We do not need you to save us more masculinity.
- Men are not inherently violent sexual predators.
- Being more like women is NOT the cure to all our problems.
Dr. Flug, stuck in a wall, fucked in the butt, creampied and gaped.
Because I can.
Fun fact, I live in Canada where we actually have gun control. Guns aren’t actually illegal. Canada has the 12th most guns on Earth, but guess what:
Murder rate:
Canada: 80th: 554 per 100,000 people
USA: 14th: 12,996 per 100,000 people
Robbery:
Canada: 28th: 94.2 per 100,000 people
USA: 18th: 146.4 per 100,000 people
Rape:
Canada: 97th: 1.7 per 100,000 people
USA: 14th: 27.3 per 100,000 people
Fun fact in a country like mine where we have gun control we have drastically less murders, robberies and rape. :)
"If you think there is no need for feminism, why are you so threatened by it?"
Because it has done things that actively hurt me. Things like the Duluth model of domestic violence, which led to Predominant aggressor laws. Laws that stated that even if my wife attacked me with a knife, I was injured, needed medical attention, and called the police for help, I’d be arrested based on arbitrary factors. Like the fact I’m taller than her, or I’m stronger. Even something as ambiguous as who is the more skilled fighter.
Because feminists fought for and achieved the “tender years doctrine” about 100 years ago, which declared that a child should go to the mother by default. Then they turned around and told the bald faced lie that the patriarchy did that, thousands of years ago.
Because they run campaigns like “Teach men not to rape” and “Men can stop rape” which not only defaults me in their views as a rapist unless someone has taken the time to swat me on the nose and say “no, bad man” when I get an erection, but also flat out denies the fact I’ve been raped by every woman I’ve been with, by one of their own definitions (by coercion).
Because they scream about the horrors of female genital mutilation, while ignoring the horrors of male genital mutilation in their back yards, and go so far as to endorse it with false claims of health benefits, and shaming that an “uncut” just looks gross.
So you tell me what isn’t reasonable about being threatened by a group known to harass, boast about beating your male partners, ban men from seeking truth about paternity, has behaved so poorly towards other groups their victims are being fined for it?
(https://jezebe
(https://www.ib
(http://equalit
Why do you get to say who is and isn’t a Feminist?
What is your authority on the definitions of Feminism and who is allowed to call themselves that?
You do realize just how many other thousands of people who identify as Feminists (and even those who don’t) have this attitude of “MY Feminism is the TRUE Feminism anything else isn’t Feminism and those aren’t REAL Feminists”. What is it about your beliefs that mean I should take your word for it when so many others are saying the same things but with different rules?
And my original post does not reference one person in particular. It references many, many people.
Third Gender
Because that is a common occurance. Some people pick out some ancient words, usually used thousands of years ago to refer to gay, trans or intersex (which is a defect in the first place and extremely rare) people when society still didnt viewed them as normal, but as something else and used those words to distinct them from normal society, to paint them as outcasts, and seriously use this words to prove how old civilisations where “Progressive” and “Third gender happy” when in relaity they mostly used these words as an attack to everyone who was different and indentified them to torture, outcast and distinct them from everyone normal.
Guys. Let it go. SOme civilisation 1000 years ago was NOT progressive! THEY USED THESE WORDS TO HARM AND HURT PEOPLE! IT WAS NOT USED AS THIRD GENDER BUT INSTEAD TO MARK SOMEONE AS AN OUTCAST AND OKAY TO HARM BECAUSE THEY WHERE ABNORMAL YOU FUCKING IDIOTS.
ALL of these words you pick out and use as “proof” that third genders exist IS NOTHING BUT WORDS TO DESCRIBE TRANS OR GAY PEOPLE AND TO HARM THEM. HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID TO NOT GET SOMETHING SO EASY.
On top of that, it could be construed as transphobic because it's denying trans people's acceptance because they are transitioning from one gender to another and denies that they are the gender they identify with.
"Just a peek?"
Rando sketch
They’re demonstrably wrong.
There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment-
https://www.su
“[The idea that the government may restrict] speech expressing ideas that offend … strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
When it comes to neo-Nazis, the right to promote their twisted thinking goes back to the 1977 case Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie. Organizers who described their group as a “Nazi organization” wanted to march through the streets of Skokie, Ill., which was at the time a village where over half the residents were Jewish, some survivors of Nazi concentration camps. The residents of Skokie argued the march would “incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry.” In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the Nazis’ right to march with swastikas, on the grounds that promoting religious hatred is not a reason for suppressing speech.
Notice the buzzword “incite.”
Notice they were upheld
Imminent lawless action” is a standard currently used that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), for defining the limits of freedom of speech.
OP is wrong. Meme is wrong.
Relieving some stress.
I'm a heavy sleeper.
The best part about being an individual is that your existence isn't justified by others; it's whatever you make of it.