“To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Freethinker's corner
I will not go quietly into the night!
-
Feminism is male hatred. Many feminists deny this, yet, since every single basis for feminism has been proven a lie and feminism continues it can only have one goal: Supremacy. The intention is to form a matriarchal government.
For the radical feminists to do this it will take some time. It is in progress, however, in schools, in society, as men are criminalized, denigrated, and even feminized. Eventually society will be conditioned, is already mostly so, to see men as bumbling idiots, incompetents, who cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. Society as a whole will come to accept that a matriarchal government, with men subjugated to lesser status, is the only solution.
“This can’t happen?” “When has this ever happened in history?” There is a first time for everything. Indeed, it may not be the first time. As Rome began its fall, women were ascending to power, men were leaving power.
Whenever men resist this march toward matriarchy they are met with immediate chastisement, criticism, whining, and crying. Men are loathe to resist women in any case, and easily become submissive in the face of humiliating rhetoric. How society ever came to believe women were more moral than men, I will never know. They are just as capable of evil, perhaps more inclined, than men. Ever hear of the old saying that concludes “… a woman scorned”? It exists for a reason.
I have heard women, and some hapless men, say that society would be better off if women were in charge. There have been societies where women have been in charge and they were every bit as war-like and immoral as any society men were in charge of.
Feminism has done nothing for women. It was never meant to. Its goal was always power, power for the radical feminists that are in charge.
-
Atheism: (from thefreedictionary.com)
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Although I disagree with #2 above, that is, that there is any doctrine involved in atheism, the other is the essence of the meaning that I observe. There is no set of principles by which atheism is observed.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. This does not include any other beliefs or personal preferences. This has no bearing on an individuals opinions or views concerning anything other than non-belief.
Being an atheist does not mean observing a set of views based on expectations of anyone whatsoever. It does not mean:
- … acceptance or support of feminist viewpoints
- … acceptance of “abortion on demand”
- … an individual desires the end of all religion
- … that an individual becomes an instant liberal
- … anything other than non-belief
It seems that a number, perhaps the majority, of atheists assume that to be an atheist you must observe and support the sexist and discriminatory set of views presented by feminism. It means no such thing. Yet, I have observed, most atheists parrot the talking points, the lies, of feminist doctrine. All of the reasons for the existence of feminism have been invalidated resulting in the conclusion that it now exists solely for the reason of garnering special privileges and considerations for women that are undeserved and that mock their stated goal of equality. If equality were their goal feminism would have disbanded years ago.
Abortion on demand cheapens life, making it disposable. This cannot be denied. It brings abortion into the realm of a contraceptive.
It is admitted that some people cannot live day to day relying solely on themselves. They need the crutch of religion to live day to day. For these weak individuals religion should remain available. However, religion should never be in control of government.
There are many conservative principles that can be held by atheists. Views on abortion as well as a myriad of other concerns are not written anywhere as a requirement of non-belief. There are, after all, liberal Christians. Why not conservative atheists?
All atheism means is: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, and nothing more. Whatever else a person believes or has opinions upon are unique to that individual. To deny this is to curtail freedom of thought. Make no assumptions.
-
Feminism has never been about equality ever since the “first wave”. (Even the first wave had questionable reason for existence) Feminism has always been about supremacy since the “second wave” on. It isn’t even about supremacy of women, it is about supremacy of radical feminists.
These radical feminists, the leaders of feminism, abhor their womanhood, abhor feminine behavior, and abhor masculine behavior. These whiners and complainers have wiggled their way into places of power through continuous false accusations and lies.
Now, through total control of universities of learning, they intend to force their view of the way things should be upon an unsuspecting public. The public has been fooled into actual thinking the feminists thrust for power is a struggle for equality. Atheists especially have bought into the lies and have for many years now parroted the talking points which eventually will bring the feminists to total power. Through “shaming techniques” feminists have silenced many critics. These whiners, who could not succeed without their cloak of “victimhood” are close to a social victory. Mothers have abandoned families, fathers have fled, children have suffered, all as a result of feminist ideology. The tipping point of no return may have already occurred. Women acting like men, men acting like docile puppies, all of this is prevalent as this is being written.
Some feminists claim they do not hate men while claiming men are oppressing women. I have never known someone who did not hate their oppressor.
-
Here I sit, inactive. I have been told I have no free will. What will happen is predestined. So, having given up the futility of making the decisions of what it is to do next, I await the predestined actions that must occur next since I am but a leaf pushed by the wind of destiny. I continue to have thoughts, however, I suppose in violation of the law that there is no free will, of what I might be doing instead of sitting here waiting for my predestined actions to occur. Seems rather boring sitting waiting, but then, predictably predictable, as we all are, you knew ahead of time that I would be bored sitting here waiting, waiting, for my body, motivated by some predestined orders, thought of ahead of the question, to spring me into action. I imagine eventually some chemical release somewhere in my head will prompt my body, over which I have no control, no free will, causing me to rise and seek sustenance. There are so many different variables involved in moving through that space we call existence. Whatever made me think that my puny brain could handle so many computations, computations necessary to navigate my frame around so many obstacles while also breathing, also seeing, hearing, thinking predestined thoughts. It must be then that we are simply actors on some stage, perhaps more like puppets at the end of strings. Destiny controlling the strings. Who then writes the program for destiny? Is it written in whole, or does it manufacture itself a few moments ahead of actuality? Can it be influenced? If so, by whom, as no one can manage to come up with something new since there is no free will. Have atheists proven God’s existence by claiming free will’s non-existence, or have they dis-proven it. Who is writing the damn play?
-
free·think·er (frē′thĭng′kər)
n. One who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation.
objectivity – judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Total objectivity is impossible. Therefore, would it not be true also that totally free-thinking is also impossible?
In favor of rational inquiry and speculation? I have heard many a theologian claim to engage in rational thinking. If rational inquiry and speculation is carried out via subjective perspectives does it really qualify as freethinking? A human mind, I think, is incapable of maintaining an objective perspective for more than a brief time. Prejudices, upbringing, many factors, tend to squash results that are not desired. Subjective thinking might be the normal state for all humans despite grandiose claims to the contrary.
How can your mind be free then?
The human mind is influenced by emotions, yes, feelings. This fact seems to omit the possibility of objective thought by itself. Is it then only those who lack compassion that are capable of free-thinking? I would think that if someone existed who lacked all emotions, that of compassion, greed, anger, hate, love, etc., they would be the only person capable of free-thinking, totally unfettered. A stinking robot then? A persona-less computer?
I like to think of myself as a freethinker. Of late, I have changed my mind, in the face of new evidence, about a great many things. Is this then the mark of a freethinker, merely the ability to change one’s mind?
I can at least state, I think, from my recent experience, that not all atheists are freethinkers. Theists have so many mental cobwebs I cannot imagine them hardly able to think at all, much less freely, at least where their faith is concerned. When I first declared my atheism I naively imagined all atheists, all non-believers, as freethinkers as well. Now, I think that actual freethinkers are in scant supply. Everyone has a hidden agenda. Every ideology can be co-opted, twisted, to immoral purpose. The best intentions often do not end that way.
I am sure I must have some hidden motive for presenting this post. Perhaps that motive is to get everyone to consider that their minds might not be so free after all. Maybe I am trying to get back at someone who has treated me badly? I hope that isn’t so. I would caution atheists, though, since I am one, not to criticize someone so harshly for being closed-minded until you are sure your mind is not locked up too.
-
“Shaming tactics.” This phrase is familiar to many Men’s Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too. (Male gynocentrists are males who place females at the top of the hierarchal ladder)
Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.
Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men’s issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples:
· “You’re bitter!”
· “You need to get over your anger at women.”
· “You are so negative!”
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples:
· “You need to get over your fear.”
· “Step up and take a chance like a man!”
· “You’re afraid of a strong woman!”
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”). Examples:
· “Stop whining!”
· “Get over it!”
· “Suck it up like a man!”
· “You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
· “You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
· “Your fragile male ego …”
· “Wow! You guys need to get a grip!”
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (“yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) – The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples:
· “Grow up!”
· “You are so immature!”
· “Do you live with your mother?”
· “I’m not interested in boys. I’m interested in real men.”
· “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”
Response: It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples:
· “You guys are scary.”
· “You make me feel afraid.”
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression. (I personally have had this one used on me just a couple of weeks ago by a woman)
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:
· “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?” At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples:
· “You’re one of those right-wing wackos.”
· “You’re an extremist”
· “You sound like the KKK.”
· “… more anti-feminist zaniness”
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are “out of the mainstream” is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of “False Compromise”).
Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question. Examples:
· “Are you gay?”
· “I need a real man, not a sissy.”
· “You’re such a wimp.”
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples:
· “I’m not like that!”
· “Stop generalizing!”
· “That’s a sexist stereotype!”
Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:
· “You misogynist creep!”
· “Why do you hate women?”
· “Do you love your mother?”
· “You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
· “You are mean-spirited.”
· “You view women as doormats.”
· “You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
· “You are going to make me cry.”
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or“argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable. Examples:
· “You’re unstable.”
· “You have issues.”
· “You need therapy.”
· “Weirdo!”
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits. Examples:
· “You are so materialistic.”
· “You are so greedy.”
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, “So you are saying I shouldn’t spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you —and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?”
Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) – The All-That-Glitters Charge
Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples:
· “If you didn’t go after bimbos, then …”
· “How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?”
Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, “high-maintenance” women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned. Examples:
· “I bet you are fat and ugly.”
· “You can’t get laid!”
· “Creep!”
· “Loser!”
· “Have you thought about the problem being you?”
Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation. Examples:
· “Stop being so negative.”
· “You are so cynical.”
· “If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.”
· “C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.”
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) – The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples:
· “No woman will marry you with that attitude.”
· “Creeps like you will never get laid!”
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
Reprinted from (http://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/)
-
Are you planning to die? Has some sort of vigil been established in your waning years wherein you are sitting, looking out the window perhaps, waiting for the grim reaper to appear? Maybe
you have already made your final plans, bought the grave site and the casket. Perhaps, in depressed anticipation you have finalized your personal affairs. No, you do not have a terminal disease, no insurmountable pain. No, your last doctor’s appointment and subsequent examination did not forecast a gloomy future. You have reached a certain
age, you think, where the end has to be near, it just has to. So you have given up life, for what’s the use. You’ll be dead soon anyway.No plans have been made beyond the day. No plans, in fact, have been made at all. Your continued existence is a waste of time. You have made your final preparations and it’s time to go.
Do you linger like this?
Many people have depression worthy of thoughts about the end. Usually, though, such thoughts originate due to some affliction, a life-ending disease, or agony. Yours, however, has nothing to do with those. You have simply reached an age where you think nothing more
can or should be done. In the absence of any organic malady you have simply started thinking yourself to death.Why not instead savor each moment of your remaining seconds? Why not instead live each moment as if the next moment will most certainly arrive?
I think I would rather keel over during some activity planned, rather than be sitting, waiting to keel over.
So make your plans, even years in advance,
even if you know that death is chasing you and could be waiting round the next corner.
Make death chase you, don’t wait for it to catch up.
-
Of what value are all these comments that land in my spam folder? Do they get seen by anyone? Do they generate traffic somehow? I dispose of them, just did 18, and they are gone, but are they really? I have noticed a hefty upsurge in these spam type comments. Has anyone else?
Freethinker's corner 