If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Brive1987 wrote:Dyatlov Pass is really interesting.

You probably have these already?

http://s001.radikal.ru/i196/1002/a8/9513e9e08557.jpg
Good typo map

http://www.aquiziam.com/dyatlov_pass_2.html
Good site

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=75
Good discussion

http://www.ermaktravel.com/Europe/Russi ... Syakhl.htm
Site

Brive1987 wrote:

another lurker wrote:The Mad Trapper of Rat River is also pretty interesting. The man suffered from scoliosis, had one foot longer than the other, and managed to evade the RCMP for 3 days, over a distance of 85 miles, in blizzard/-30 conditions, and even succeeded in climbing a 7,000 foot peak that experienced mountain climbers found to be challenging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Joh ... riminal%29


His identity is still a mystery. He appeared out of nowhere, fucked shit up, then died. Considering what he achieved, he almost sounds superhuman. When the cops found him he was skin and bone - from burning 10,000 calories a day. Un-fucking-believable what he was able to achieve.

The Charles Bronson movie "Death Hunt" was loosely based on the story.

Thanks, interesting article. Way to go tramping 90Ks to hassle a mad hermit clearly craving solitude. Hassle him, kick in his door and blow up his hut. Why not.

'Cause that couldn't end badly, could it?

Brive1987 wrote:Re Dyatlov.

I don't get how or why the party would "run" so far in impossible conditions straight down a slope. I mean at some point pretty soon the cold and lack of shoes and snow would outweigh the initial adrenalin of 'whatever' spooked them. And no I don't think it was a yeti.

Mykeru wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Dyatlov Pass is really interesting.

You probably have these already?

http://s001.radikal.ru/i196/1002/a8/9513e9e08557.jpg
Good typo map

http://www.aquiziam.com/dyatlov_pass_2.html
Good site

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewt ... c&start=75
Good discussion

http://www.ermaktravel.com/Europe/Russi ... Syakhl.htm
Site

Good stuff.

I'm currently getting a headache trying to get Google Maps/Earth to recognize these coordinates:

The cache: 61°44'39.3"N – 59°27'02.9"E

The tent: 61°45'30.29"N 59°25'50.88"E

Third rocky stripe: 61°45'38.0"N – 59°26'15.3"E

The cedar: 61° 45' 54.73" N - 59° 27' 13.65" E (Yuri Krivonischenko and Yuri Doroshenko)

Zina Kolmogorova: 61°45'39.6"N – 59°26'42.9"E (Igor Dyatlov and Rustem Slobodin found further from tent)

The flooring: 61° 45' 52.38" N - 59° 27'1 5.83" E

The Creek 61°45'53.2"N – 59°27'15.5"E (Ludmila Dubinina, Alexander Kolevatov, Nicolai Thibeaux-Brignolles and Semyon Zolotariov)

It's a pain in the ass. Most of the maps I have seen reproduced are crude or obvious guesswork.

Mykeru wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:Re Dyatlov.

I don't get how or why the party would "run" so far in impossible conditions straight down a slope. I mean at some point pretty soon the cold and lack of shoes and snow would outweigh the initial adrenalin of 'whatever' spooked them. And no I don't think it was a yeti.

Short version of the theory I ascribe to:

To pitch their tent on the mountain slope they had to dig deep through the snow and ice crust. Possibly a sheet of that slide down onto the tent injuring Dubinina, Zolotariov and Thibeaux-Brignolles, although they could walk at first. Although it wasn't an avalanche per se, it put the fear into them. They went down the mountain out of avalanche range, looking for the cache. Missing it, they made a fire in the Cedars, but it wasn't enough. Kolevatov tended to the injured, leading them into the ravine over the frozen creek out of the wind and started to make the flooring. Then Krivonischenko and Doroshenko, dying from being both burned and freezing trying to keep the fire going had their clothes stripped. Dyatlov, Kolomogorova and Slodobin, realizing how bad it was getting, tried to make it back to the tent and froze to death. Kolevatov, now with the frozen to death injured waits for their return and then freezes himself.

Here's an interesting archive of photos of the party, the rescue effort and recovery.

http://my.yandex.ru/hibinafiles/

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Incidentally, has anyone seen this craziness?

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/ ... s-rape-ok/

I wish it were a Poe.

The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out. Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception.

here are many other ways of becoming pregnant than through penetration of the penis into the vagina. For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant. Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for some sperm and apply it herself

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Incidentally, has anyone seen this craziness?

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/ ... s-rape-ok/

I wish it were a Poe.

Brive1987 wrote:In other words do you think the three in the pit with broken ribs, cracked skulls got these injuries in the largely intact tent and then traveled with them down the hill etc. I thought most people saw a correlation between the pit and the injuries?

If so how or why would 1 man be responsible for getting these to the pit and looking after them while the others mooched about the fire? I guess I can see some logic if the pit was 'only' 75 metres from the tree.

It's refreshing to have another theory to ponder.

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Incidentally, has anyone seen this craziness?

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/ ... s-rape-ok/

I wish it were a Poe.

Crazytime. They hate men so very much...to bad they can't go back in time and undo their own conception. That would show those dastardly PIV raping bastard/fathers a thing or two..

Steersman wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Jesus H. Christ wrote:I am a god. You can trust me on this one, because I'm a god. So follow me. Or no heaven for you.

But Jesus didn't write the gospels. Nor do I think he actually claimed to be god or divine.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: And your source for what Jesus really said is ...?

Steersman wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:Zen, Buddhism and Confucianism all have more to offer than Christianity. Especially Zen. Confucianism has that whole "respect for elders" doctrine that seems a bit excessive in places.

I don't know about that; seems a fine idea to me that you might want to consider in some depth.

And while you're at it, get off of my lawn! ;-)

another lurker wrote:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:Incidentally, has anyone seen this craziness?

http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/ ... s-rape-ok/

I wish it were a Poe.

Really...

The fact intercourse causes so many infections and tears and warts attests to the unnaturalness of intercourse, that it’s not meant to be. The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out. Penetration of the penis into the vagina is completely unnecessary for conception.

And..

here are many other ways of becoming pregnant than through penetration of the penis into the vagina. For instance, putting sperm on the vulva is enough to become pregnant. Women, if they wanted to become pregnant, could just ask a man for some sperm and apply it herself

They are almost as bad as the people who say that sex is for procreation only, and that little things like 'social bonding' don't play a role at all. In fact, they are as bad as that. It's just the same shit, with a radfem spin, as opposed to a Catholic one.

I talk of the PIV I was inflicted as rapes, because that’s what they are.

If you take the example of underage girls, whether she “sought” the PIV or not doesn’t change the fact it counts legally as rape, because it is understood that the girl has been manipulated and groomed and she is not acting under her own volition, she is doing that because of fear of retaliation or consequences if she doesn’t comply or please him. If you can understand that, why can’t you understand that the dynamics are EXACTLY the same for adult women? Why would the constraints on PIV, once women turn 18, suddenly disappear, and women are suddenly free and full of agency to want PIV of their own volition? This makes no sense whatsoever.

In the same way that prostituted and trafficked women don’t become happy free sex workers once they turn 18 or 19, women don’t suddenly become free to want PIV once they turn 18 or 19.

Middle class women are the slaves of middle class men. They are still slaves. All women are slaves to men. It is a big, serious mistake to believe that because some women have been raised in the family of a middle class man, that they have escaped our fate as a woman. middle class women are not less oppressed than other women because all women are oppressed as WOMEN. No woman escapes sexual oppression. There are no privileged women in patriarchy in terms of sexual oppression, only some women who have escaped the worst forms of male genocide, but those women may be from any class, and that is not privilege but luck. Money has never protected women from men’s violence, only staying away from men has. You would not call the survivors of the concentration camp “privileged”, you would call them survivors. Well that’s what women are.

yes there may be degrees in violence and atrocity between rapes, but it doesn’t mean they’re still rapes. Like murder may range from giving sleeping pills and dying in your sleep without pain and gruesome slaughter. Does the former make it less of a murder?

Also, if you say some PIV wasn’t traumatising, well we have no idea of the extent of trauma we suffer, or how far our behaviour and thoughts are conditioned by male invasion, and really we should never underestimate the power men and men’s system has on our psyche, how deeply controlled we are. Every day I make new discoveries as to how colonised I was on a certain thing, by seeing that I can be or think otherwise. And it may take a long time before seeing how deep or far-reaching the trauma goes. Sometimes we may live with it for a long time thinking it’s normal. I’m sorry but I don’t believe you weren’t traumatised by PIV.

this bears repeating: No woman escapes sexual oppression because the oppression of women is based on SEX, not class, race and other. Women are the only class divided by other categories such as race, class, type of rape system (etc.) because men are not divided by race and class from a sex class perspective. On the contrary, their class system reinforces the strength and power of their sex caste system. It’s the reason why they created it, they need this hierarchy and division of male labour in order to maintain the male totalitarian system – so that each man can always access a woman to rape, always, even the lowliest of the lowest men.

So what it means as well from an ethical standpoint is that it’s possible to consider a woman responsible for her actions in the sense that she’s the one doing it and she only has the responsibility and moral obligation to stop doing it – and at the same time see that it’s not her own agency and integrity acting because she’s been implanted with this horrible man-made self-destruction weapon inside her, telling her to go against her own interest, her own good and the good of her own kind: women.

See, this principle works with women only because women have a default humanity underneath the male layers of shit, and only women can be colonised by maleness / male violence. Women aren’t natural mindfuckers, we are born integral and healthy, or this is the way we are meant to be at least. We become more like men because we are forced to assimilate to them through violence and trauma which turns us into a sort of victim mirror image to them. But this isn’t how we would normally be. Men obviously can’t be colonised by maleness because men already *are* men, they *are* the male colonisers. It’s not only false but really dangerous to project our being and experience of oppression onto our oppressors, to apply the same kind of understanding with men because it keeps us exposed to their violence without the man or men ever changing for the good: it will only make them worse in fact, because men knowing exactly what you think of them and you intend to do increases their lethality.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
But Jesus didn't write the gospels. Nor do I think he actually claimed to be god or divine.

And your source for what Jesus really said is ...?

James Caruthers wrote:

Steersman wrote:

James Caruthers wrote:Zen, Buddhism and Confucianism all have more to offer than Christianity. Especially Zen. Confucianism has that whole "respect for elders" doctrine that seems a bit excessive in places.

I don't know about that; seems a fine idea to me that you might want to consider in some depth.

And while you're at it, get off of my lawn! ;-)

I could buy into the idea a little more easily if I didn't know so many fucking stupid old people.

James Caruthers wrote:Respecting wise old people is cool though. I'm still gonna skateboard outside your house every day, though.

James Caruthers wrote:

I talk of the PIV I was inflicted as rapes, because that’s what they are.
<snip>
Also, if you say some PIV wasn’t traumatising, well we have no idea of the extent of trauma we suffer, or how far our behaviour and thoughts are conditioned by male invasion, and really we should never underestimate the power men and men’s system has on our psyche, how deeply controlled we are. Every day I make new discoveries as to how colonised I was on a certain thing, by seeing that I can be or think otherwise. And it may take a long time before seeing how deep or far-reaching the trauma goes. Sometimes we may live with it for a long time thinking it’s normal. I’m sorry but I don’t believe you weren’t traumatised by PIV.

Holy hell. This entire thread is solid gold. I cannot believe people this insane exist. The comments are full of supportive comments like this.

James Caruthers wrote: Okay, this bitch is starting to make me angry. If she drew a little mural, with all men twirling little Hitler mustaches from their giant 12-foot patriarchal cocks while gassing women in concentration camps, she still wouldn't be any more bigoted than she is already.

Steersman wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote: <snip>
But Jesus didn't write the gospels. Nor do I think he actually claimed to be god or divine.

And your source for what Jesus really said is ...?

Good point. So we don’t know, as I think you mentioned in that last linked article of yours, precisely what Jesus said, and what was elaborations and fictions added later.

But I wonder: are you going to buck the trend, the consensus, and insist there’s no evidence or justification for thinking that there was in fact something of a “historical Jesus”? Absent all of the supernatural gingerbread tacked-on, of course.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Hey -- read my Nativity post!


Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Nativity, But They Were Afraid to Tell You
http://imaginaryfriendjesus.wordpress.c ... /nativity/

It's a deliberate tour de force, and contains lots of little bombs y'all can drop on your believer relatives at xmas dinner.

(Also guaranteed to cause steam to erupt from the ears of certain biblical literalist trolls.)

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Between the PIV raep blog and the creepy Dyaltov Pass story, I doubt I'll get much sleep tonight!

James Caruthers wrote:

this bears repeating: No woman escapes sexual oppression because the oppression of women is based on SEX, not class, race and other. Women are the only class divided by other categories such as race, class, type of rape system (etc.) because men are not divided by race and class from a sex class perspective. On the contrary, their class system reinforces the strength and power of their sex caste system. It’s the reason why they created it, they need this hierarchy and division of male labour in order to maintain the male totalitarian system – so that each man can always access a woman to rape, always, even the lowliest of the lowest men.

In other words, "All men are rapists or want to be rapists."

But I'm guessing this entire wordpress group would be called "not real feminists" (just like Dworkin) if an MRA brought these quotes up in a discussion.

Brive1987 wrote:

Mykeru wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:More Watson crap

More "secret patreon only" videos which I haven't yet had a chance to watch:

Interview between Watson and Julia Bourke for secular women.


Watson fixing her boyfriends car while filming herself with her iPad. I kid you not.


Amazing the contrasting styles when the PR autobot isn't there to control the environment.

Patreon, so it's just making the same old crappy videos but now people are throwing cash at you for it?

Man, I have to get in on that action.

Good idea - but cross promote.

Put notices on YouTube, setup your web page to redirect, add old videos to Patreon, setup bullshit rewards, promise the world (or at least 1 new video) if only someone would sling you a dime, beg vacula for airtime, offer your services to other podcasts and most important of all - create a new mock drama to get SJW SM kick in.

You can't be half a whore. :popcorn:

James Caruthers wrote:Okay, this bitch is starting to make me angry. If she drew a little mural, with all men twirling little Hitler mustaches from their giant 12-foot patriarchal cocks while gassing women in concentration camps, she still wouldn't be any more bigoted than she is already.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:
One does have to keep in mind that (East-)Asian-Americans are amongst the most self-selected demographics in North America. The vast majority of East Asians in North America are either first-generation immigrants or children of first-generation immigrants. That means their families were already rich enough to fly over and immigrate (and get accepted) in the first place. Outside of the rare refugees and illegal immigrants, you aren't going to see an Asian family start out poor in North America very often.

So the demographic already starts out dominated by a highly selected elite. Add to that stereotypical -- but nonetheless true compared to other cultures -- East Asian work ethics, which places extreme value on academic excellence and material success to the detriment of mental health, social activities, and personal welfare; it becomes no wonder that East Asians are so overrepresented in elite schools and universities.

But of course, not all East Asians can live up to that standard, especially amongst those who have been raised in North America and exposed to the principles of individuality. The East Asian work ethic is extremely dehumanizing; one's intrinsic value is determined by one's success at school and then at work, but academic excellence does not readily translate into material success in life, not when social life and mental health are so often neglected.

You don't hear about it often, but Asian underachievers amongst the elite have it rough, both in Asia and North America.

another lurker wrote:So I was perusing The Raw Story and I came across this interesting little article...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/20/w ... w+Story%29

Apparently, people say mean things about cats because misogyny

While all sorts of people have pets of both types, cats are associated with not just women, but single, childless women. A lot of what people are doing when they insist that you cat doesn’t really love you and you must be fooling yourself is a kind of mansplaining: Silly cat ladies, who think that their cats love them! It fits into this larger narrative about how women are dumb and needy and cling to cats, unlike sure-footed, bright men who pick a pet they know loves them: dogs. (Never mind that men have cats and women have dogs, too. There’s no doubt that these pet choices are imagined as gendered in the public imagination. I get at least 10 people a week sending me “clever” jokes about how I must be a lonely woman who only has cats for comfort.)

Amanda Marcotte has really outdone herself this time. The bonus, she links to a R. Watson article...

I think anyone could be an SJW. Just read the news, and blame Teh Patriarchy for everything, as the Pit has been saying, for months...

Amanda Marcotte wrote:Well, I think I have a theory, and yes, it’s sexism.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Here's THE central message to Jesus' teaching:

Jesus H. Christ wrote:I am a god. You can trust me on this one, because I'm a god. So follow me. Or no heaven for you.

That's repeated over and fucking over in the Gospels, with just a sprinkling of some touchy-feely concepts that'd already been bouncing around the hellenic world for a few centuries. But also with some doozies like: you must never, ever divorce -- except if your wife is a whore, then fine; try not to beat your slaves too hard; if you feel the urge to cut your dick off, go for it; don't ever take oaths; don't forget to pack two coats and two pairs of sandals on a road trip.

The parables contain zero useful moral lessons -- just confident predictions that the movement will grow.

In short, Jesus, real or fabricated, offers not one single new concept, not one unique insight, to philosophy. His 'life coaching' advice is pedantic. Jesus is a bust.

Brive1987 wrote:More Watson crap

More "secret patreon only" videos which I haven't yet had a chance to watch:

Interview between Watson and Julia Bourke for secular women.


Watson fixing her boyfriends car while filming herself with her iPad. I kid you not.


Amazing the contrasting styles when the PR autobot isn't there to control the environment.

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: In short, Jesus, real or fabricated, offers not one single new concept, not one unique insight, to philosophy. His 'life coaching' advice is pedantic. Jesus is a bust.

ROBOKiTTY wrote:

James Caruthers wrote: Okay, this bitch is starting to make me angry. If she drew a little mural, with all men twirling little Hitler mustaches from their giant 12-foot patriarchal cocks while gassing women in concentration camps, she still wouldn't be any more bigoted than she is already.

See, this is what I mean when I say radfems make me angry and radicalize me with their hateful rhetoric. Other SJWs have the same effect to a lesser extent, especially sleazy little turds like PeeZus, Oolon, and Aratina.

Badger3k wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: In short, Jesus, real or fabricated, offers not one single new concept, not one unique insight, to philosophy. His 'life coaching' advice is pedantic. Jesus is a bust.

One of the things I've heard over the years is that nothing in Jesus' supposed teachings was new or different - it was all found in Jewish (and maybe Greek?) thought or philosophy around the time frame the stories were supposedly written 91st-2nd century CE). Most of the good stuff is pretty common to many societies.

Hunt wrote:

ROBOKiTTY wrote:

James Caruthers wrote: Okay, this bitch is starting to make me angry. If she drew a little mural, with all men twirling little Hitler mustaches from their giant 12-foot patriarchal cocks while gassing women in concentration camps, she still wouldn't be any more bigoted than she is already.

See, this is what I mean when I say radfems make me angry and radicalize me with their hateful rhetoric. Other SJWs have the same effect to a lesser extent, especially sleazy little turds like PeeZus, Oolon, and Aratina.

What would be nice is to show unquestioning feminists like PZ sites like this just to illustrate to him, look dude, what you subscribe to exists on a spectrum, and there's a part of that spectrum that's batshit crazy, so you can't simply accept every piece of crap dictate that comes down the line. This should not come as a great surprise. Every school of thought needs to police itself for the crazy elements that inevitably materialize. And these crazies are using the same concepts, the same language and symbols as you are. So you really do have to use critical thinking when you give some things a pass, and you're really going to have to take a stand, no matter how distasteful or even frightening that may seem, when it is called for.

I think PZ, at least, is smart enough and not crazy enough (yet) to actually grasp this, but it's probably going to take someone actually rubbing his face in it before he snaps out of his trance. I think that day will eventually come (hope springs eternal). An excellent start would be for him to state unequivocally "radfems are crazy." That would be something that could be built upon. For a person like PZ, though, it's going to be hard, because he's an all-in or all-out guy by disposition. He's not used to existing on a spectrum that skews from valid and virtuous to insane and hateful.

I know as a matter of fact that some women do have the capacity to communicate with plants and trees and living beings in different ways, they ask the plant what kind of healing powers she has and the plant may reply, if she wants to.

dogen wrote:The comments below were fun -- a lot of people calling out Kim for criticizing American patriarchy when this anecdote clearly reflects more on Korean cultural values. Encouragingly, there seems to be a growing number of commentators in Comment Is Free (Guardian's comment section) who are pushing back at the recent spate of SJW shite that Graun columnists are churning out. Yes, I'm talking 'bout you, Jill Filopovic, you smug little ewok.

The main point in the previous post was to say that if we look at the truth on biology from a radical feminist perspective, it doesn’t just lead to conclusions on male nature but also inevitably to certain conclusions on female nature, which is we are doted with higher cognitive and sensory capacities than men, due in part to their cerebral asymmetry and smaller corpus callosum. Looking at female brain attributes is completely different from saying “gender is hardwired” since we know that women are not naturally subordinate to men and we are not explaining any form of female behaviour here but cognitive and sensory potential. What it means is that compared to men, women simply seem to have a fully functioning brain (or far better functioning than men at least). This fits to the fact that women are genetically the default human, and men a maled mutation from women.

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Between the PIV raep blog and the creepy Dyaltov Pass story, I doubt I'll get much sleep tonight!

The PIV rape blog seems to fit in with the ideas in the radfem 101.

http://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com ... #more-8305

It's from this sect of feminism that the culture of invoking 'rape culture', 'privilege' and 'mansplaining' has come.
A few years ago you never heard these terms in the online secular world but now it's hard to avoid them. All of them have the intended effect of shutting down their opponents argument, of shaming the other into stopping whatever they were saying beforehand.
In most cases the technique will fail if the opponent knows what is being attempted (an attempt to shame them into silence by associating whatever they are saying with some kind of support for rape) and counters this by pointing out the fallacious nature of the argument.
Usually the standard practice is to immediately resort to the ban-hammer and call the banned individual an MRA - but this requires the ability to ban opponents, hence they will avoid all online spaces where they cannot control who is allowed to speak.

Hunt wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Between the PIV raep blog and the creepy Dyaltov Pass story, I doubt I'll get much sleep tonight!

The PIV rape blog seems to fit in with the ideas in the radfem 101.

http://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com ... #more-8305

It's from this sect of feminism that the culture of invoking 'rape culture', 'privilege' and 'mansplaining' has come.
A few years ago you never heard these terms in the online secular world but now it's hard to avoid them. All of them have the intended effect of shutting down their opponents argument, of shaming the other into stopping whatever they were saying beforehand.
In most cases the technique will fail if the opponent knows what is being attempted (an attempt to shame them into silence by associating whatever they are saying with some kind of support for rape) and counters this by pointing out the fallacious nature of the argument.
Usually the standard practice is to immediately resort to the ban-hammer and call the banned individual an MRA - but this requires the ability to ban opponents, hence they will avoid all online spaces where they cannot control who is allowed to speak.

The mode of interaction between radfem and more moderate (i.e. sane) feminism is covered by the same framework Harris set forth in End of Faith for religion, the fact that moderate religions (or in general ideologies) run interference for the more radical elements. A few things will almost always be observed:

* The moderates will say they are "not like" the radicals and that the radical elements are not the defining faction.

* When carefully interviewed, there will be surprisingly little difference between the rad/moderate creeds on technical issues. It's just that the rads are more vocal/violent or active.

* The moderates will rarely attack the radicals and perhaps even vicariously revel in their actions.

* The moderates soften public perception of the religion (ideology) and shield it from active rejection by greater society.

So moderates facilitate, often actively, the more radical elements.

Phil_Giordana_FCD wrote: Yep, which is why I mostly give up when some SJW brings up the "the majority of [muslims, christians, new-agers, wiccan] aren't like that" argument WRT fanatism. On the other hand, though, I wonder if this is akin to the SJW's "your silence implicates you agree with the accused". Guilt by association and all that...

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:

Steersman wrote: ... a mortal Jesus had many important and sensible insights that are worth promoting....

Name a few.

People like eating fish, they don't much like taxes, and they are gullible fools who will follow any cult with enough woo woo

What Would Jesus Do?

Advocate child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.
Christians are always claiming, “he’s the lamb”, “our savior”, “the king of peace”, “the embodiment of love”, amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature. Jesus a nice guy? Not in my book. Nor in any other person’s who is capable of compassion and rationality. Let’s examine who the hell the Jesus character really is. These verses will show not only is Jesus’ “loving” nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him. Jesus’ real mission to come to earth:

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has “come not to send peace, but a sword.” Matthew 10:34

Jesus says, “Don’t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. “The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. “Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus advocates murder and death:
Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn’t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. “An all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Revelations 19:20-21

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:
Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, “lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them.” Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus advocates child abuse:
Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he’ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it’s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

A few other things about Jesus:
Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You’d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don’t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

Also, this thing with hunting and gathering, it’s very unlikely that women sat around in the cave while men did the hunting and the gathering and kindly gave the food to women. At the very, very best maybe they helped around a bit but given how parasitic they are I don’t think that happened either, it’s far more likely that the males lived off females’ work.

It breaks my heart that men have always found a way into feeding off us, to steal from us and feed their abysmal existence. They do not understand what life is because to their very genes they are decay, they are dicks, they are death. Here’s to a sincere hope they will die off before they destroy the whole planet and all Her living beings. I can see them trying their very best to take us down with them.

I recently got over major stockholm syndrome towards a male abuser, and post traumatic stress from PIV. I think your posts really helped me get over that.I was traumatized for months and still might be a little.I’ve gone on a process to purge myself of heterosexual thoughts and urges and it’s been successful in helping me reclaim my body and sexuality. I just feel more fullfilled.
Too much of modern day radical feminism is pro-piv, and inclusive of transwomen. But your’s definitely stands against the bullshit.

we do have a fundamental right to kill our torturers, rapists and abusers – especially given that they never stop finding new victims as long as they’re alive, we’re certainly doing other women a service too, on top of saving our own lives. The only way it could work without risking severe male retaliation is for all women to do it at the same time, literally at the same time, so that the remaining males wouldn’t be sufficient in number and wouldn’t have enough time to organise repression harshly enough to terrorise women back into domestication. Although it would make it easier if they could all just vanish into smoke the minute all women would have managed to get away from men.

Heterosexual “thoughts and urges” are nothing but visual flashbacks of rapes that we have eroticised and dissociated from. It does take time for it to wear off, the dissociation/arousal part of it, and to be able to experience and see it fully as violence and disgusting and not this alienating urge and arousal.

My first essentialist thought on men’s violence was that only men could ever build an entire necrophilic society around the raping and controlling of women’s reproductive capacities because only men are biologically capable of doing it, using their own biology as weapons against women – penis and semen. So I saw that patriarchy fitted to men’s biology to the extent that it is only achievable through their biological capacity to rape and impregnate women. Also, I saw their hatred of women partly as an of envy women’s reproductive power and obsession with their own incapacity to reproduce life.

I’ve also been very interested in scientific explanations for male violence and male parasitism, and have looked at mitochondrial DNA some time ago. Then someone commented on that post notifying me about the difference in corpus callosum between men and women: which propelled me into even more biological essentialism.

I highly distrust male research on genome and neurology, which is just more objectification of femaleness and living beings. It is generally conducted through cutting down life, violating it, cutting it open. Men can’t understand or feel life so they’re obsessed by putting it to pieces to what happens to it. The only way they can measure and understand life is through machines because they can’t connect to it otherwise.

I certainly think that once men would disappear we would regain our powers back progressively. That potential is still there in us, I’m sure of that. It’s there in potential, that is, if we seek to reconnect with our senses, with other women and to our living external reality and to do so persistently over time, we can realize those powers progressively.

Jan Steen wrote: There’s lots more where this came from. It’s only slightly crazier than the stuff written by Twisty Faster, who is admired by Peezus, but not that much.

paddybrown wrote: **Yes, I do think there was a real person at the origin of the Jesus of the New Testament. The two nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are the smoking gun. They're both such obvious bullshit, but they're obvious bullshit in different and contradictory ways. In Matthew, Mary and Joseph start out in Bethlehem, flee to Egypt because Herod wants to kill the baby, and after Herod's death move to Galilee to avoid the attentions of his son (ignoring the fact that another of Herod's sons ruled Galilee). In Luke, they start out in Galilee and travel to Bethlehem to register for a Roman census that took place ten years after Herod died (ignoring the fact that Galilee was still nominally independent so Rome would have no interest in censusing them), and the first thing they do when Jesus is born is take him to Jerusalem, and then home to Galilee. They're two separate and incompatible attempts to solve the same problem - how can a man from Galilee be the Messiah, when everybody knows the Messiah's supposed to be a descendant of David from Bethlehem? If there wasn't a man from Galilee, why go through these contortions?

Hunt wrote:

Jan Steen wrote: There’s lots more where this came from. It’s only slightly crazier than the stuff written by Twisty Faster, who is admired by Peezus, but not that much.

It's about on par with Valerie Solanas stuff--men are parasite beings feeding off women. Men have enslaved women because they're secretly deficient in some key ingredient to a meaningful existence and require some sacred quality that only women hold...etc. etc. It's basically the mirror image of the craziest of the crazy MRA stuff. I hope (hope!) PZ would find it execrable, but like you say, it ain't all that far from Twisty.

JackSkeptic wrote:

Badger3k wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote: In short, Jesus, real or fabricated, offers not one single new concept, not one unique insight, to philosophy. His 'life coaching' advice is pedantic. Jesus is a bust.

One of the things I've heard over the years is that nothing in Jesus' supposed teachings was new or different - it was all found in Jewish (and maybe Greek?) thought or philosophy around the time frame the stories were supposedly written 91st-2nd century CE). Most of the good stuff is pretty common to many societies.

Yep, the sermon on the mount, a terrible speech anyway, was a rip off and of course the 'treat others as you would be treated yourself' is the Golden Rule, which had been around for centuries before. It may be one reason why it got popular in the Near East first due to the populations ignorance and lack of education in what was already known. A bit like people not realizing a film is a remake.

By the way guys, calling people bitches and whores plays right into their narrative.

VickyCaramel wrote: So it isn't a smoking gun for a historical Jesus, it could work either way. The only thing it is a smoking gun for is that the story was being re-written by people who were essentially pretty clueless about the region within the given time frame and had only a shallow understanding of the old testament.

paddybrown wrote:

VickyCaramel wrote: So it isn't a smoking gun for a historical Jesus, it could work either way. The only thing it is a smoking gun for is that the story was being re-written by people who were essentially pretty clueless about the region within the given time frame and had only a shallow understanding of the old testament.

To be more specific, I think it's the unanimous geographical association with Galilee, which the nativity stories are desperately trying to explain away, that's the smoking gun. If I may take another character that some think is a historicised mythical figure, King Arthur, for comparison, he has associations with places all over Britain, including ones that can't be identified and may never have existed, like Camelot, as well as real ones.

Brive1987 wrote:

Brive1987 wrote:In other words do you think the three in the pit with broken ribs, cracked skulls got these injuries in the largely intact tent and then traveled with them down the hill etc. I thought most people saw a correlation between the pit and the injuries?

If so how or why would 1 man be responsible for getting these to the pit and looking after them while the others mooched about the fire? I guess I can see some logic if the pit was 'only' 75 metres from the tree.

It's refreshing to have another theory to ponder.

Actually, the more I think of it the more I like it.

The trick is now to convince:

The tent was damaged worryingly by external forces sufficient to injure the three campers.

The injuries (broken ribs, fractured skulls) were consistent with the proposed scenario.

Injured people could actually get physically from tent to pit in their condition.

That's its logical to on the one hand have sufficient panic to leave without everyone having shoes on or any supplies, but on the other hand there was sufficient presence of mind to strike out on a plan to get to the cache while supporting 3 critically injured team members .....

The idea of spearing off into the night, unprepared, with injured team members in tow must be a candidate for *worst idea in hindsight ever*.

Hunt wrote:

Dick Strawkins wrote:

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:Between the PIV raep blog and the creepy Dyaltov Pass story, I doubt I'll get much sleep tonight!

The PIV rape blog seems to fit in with the ideas in the radfem 101.

http://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com ... #more-8305

It's from this sect of feminism that the culture of invoking 'rape culture', 'privilege' and 'mansplaining' has come.
A few years ago you never heard these terms in the online secular world but now it's hard to avoid them. All of them have the intended effect of shutting down their opponents argument, of shaming the other into stopping whatever they were saying beforehand.
In most cases the technique will fail if the opponent knows what is being attempted (an attempt to shame them into silence by associating whatever they are saying with some kind of support for rape) and counters this by pointing out the fallacious nature of the argument.
Usually the standard practice is to immediately resort to the ban-hammer and call the banned individual an MRA - but this requires the ability to ban opponents, hence they will avoid all online spaces where they cannot control who is allowed to speak.

The mode of interaction between radfem and more moderate (i.e. sane) feminism is covered by the same framework Harris set forth in End of Faith for religion, the fact that moderate religions (or in general ideologies) run interference for the more radical elements. A few things will almost always be observed:

* The moderates will say they are "not like" the radicals and that the radical elements are not the defining faction.

* When carefully interviewed, there will be surprisingly little difference between the rad/moderate creeds on technical issues. It's just that the rads are more vocal/violent or active.

* The moderates will rarely attack the radicals and perhaps even vicariously revel in their actions.

* The moderates soften public perception of the religion (ideology) and shield it from active rejection by greater society.

So moderates facilitate, often actively, the more radical elements.

Hunt wrote:

Jan Steen wrote: There’s lots more where this came from. It’s only slightly crazier than the stuff written by Twisty Faster, who is admired by Peezus, but not that much.

It's about on par with Valerie Solanas stuff--men are parasite beings feeding off women. Men have enslaved women because they're secretly deficient in some key ingredient to a meaningful existence and require some sacred quality that only women hold...etc. etc. It's basically the mirror image of the craziest of the crazy MRA stuff. I hope (hope!) PZ would find it execrable, but like you say, it ain't all that far from Twisty.