1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | bottom
Quote# 136154

lol...There isn't a evolutionists in the history of the group that hasn't quit a debate with me. I have made fool out of everyone of them, including [...].

And, it do it by quoting different factions of evolutionists that rip the other faction's version of evolution to shreds.

The fossil record matches Creationist model and completely contradicts Darwin.

If you want to debate that point, I'll kick your ass.

It's ridiculous to think the first of all fossilized species appear fully-formed with no history of evolving. It's not possible. Nor is it possible we'd find soft tissue inside dinosaur bones if dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. REAL science on fossilization says that is impossible.

Leftists are deluded and arrogant. That will get you an eternal ticket to hell. So be it.

kirkz2006@yahoo.com, Realabortiondebate 7 Comments [1/21/2018 7:50:37 AM]
Fundie Index: 0

Quote# 136151

The homosexuals will tell you about a guy they know that was married with kids and one day woke up and discovered he was homosexual. They have no problem with that.

Why can’t the opposite happen?

The fag lobby is, or so it appears to me, in violation of the latest leftist bandwagon, gender fluidity.

It isn’t just homosexuals finding a religion that have this happen. The leftist mayor of Ew Yuck City, Michael Bloomberg’s wife is a former lesbian.

Fai Mao, Free Republic 7 Comments [1/21/2018 7:35:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 1
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 136155

The PP abortion **doctors** are often butchers. Right after an abortion, they have to get to the next one $$$$$ so the woman is expected to get right up and leave. They do not have the women back for a check. Sometimes baby body parts are left inside causing infections and even death. Often the uterus is perforated meaning she can never have children when she wants.

And they do not tell her she could get breast cancer according to some doctors who are real.

Hospitals do not want those **doctors** because of the liability.

There are no mammogram machines even though they take in a fortune.

They charge an arm and a leg for a simple infection. They prefer to do $$$$$ abortions instead.

Many of the premises are unclean...filth everywhere, blood on the cots, instruments unclean.

Again -- if you know a woman that needs care, tell her to go to a clinic, not PP. The doctors are real at clinics and they are cheaper. And they do everything PP won't do and then some.

BTW, they call it Planned Parenthood but are hostile toward any woman pregnant that wants to keep her baby and they do not offer pre-natal care.

Shar



sharaleigh23, Realabortiondebate 5 Comments [1/21/2018 7:50:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 136110

(He's talking about gay people and gay marriage)

Thats all well and good, but in 20 years time all the sods will have died out due to lack of reproduction. Non-muslims in general are rapidly becoming a minority due to low birth rates. Muslims will be the majority by then, easily.

Theres no point looking at everything negatively - what ever they plan always backfires on them and turns out best for us both ways.

aadil77, Ummah 13 Comments [1/18/2018 11:43:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 136114

And I never said there was a Constitutional right to discriminate.
Which is EXACTLY what the gay couple did.

The Bakery didn't refuse to sell to them. They were long time customers, which you dishonestly ignore.

The Bakery owners had sincerely held religious beliefs, beliefs that have existed for thousands of years. That gay couple had no right attacking the bakery owners for their sincerely held religious beliefs. All they had to do was to go down the street to another bakery.

So yea, the gays had no constitutional right to discriminate against the Christian bakery.

CHRISTIANS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TOO.

My statements stand.

The fact that Christians abolished slavery is very relevant. Give credit where credit is due and tell the truth. THat's pretty relevant, wouldn't you say? Christians were the ONLY ones that did NOT perpetuate slavery since they were the ones that abolished it. A little common sense here please! wow.

ALL THESE CASES (referring to a list of Supreme Court cases that said marriage is a fundamental right) defended TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE, which is EXTREMELY RELEVANT. Traditional marriage IS by definition, marriage between a man and a woman. AND the very foundation that civilization depends upon for it's existence.

Gay marriage is NOT traditional marriage. So they have no right to discriminate against, attack, or try to force change on an institution that already exists.

Like I said, they can find their own "institutions." Don't discriminate against Christian institutions or traditional ones.

klyneal, Christian News Network 27 Comments [1/18/2018 11:49:53 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: KingOfRhye

Quote# 136140

(commenting on the fact that Lady Checkmate's comments get so many downvotes)

ThereforeIam:
I wonder who is on the LC downvoting bandwagon?

Lady Checkmate:
It's Peewee the Crazy hon. He actually uses socks not yet banned, (lol), to dv my comments back-to-back (no break in between-it's hilarious). He hasn't yet realized that the only thing downvotes effect is a person's spot on the Contributor's List AND ultimately it weighs in a channel's favor as it contributes to the amount of activity on a channel.
In closing, we actually appreciate the support.

ThereforeIam:
We all have issues, some of them are laughable.

Lady Checkmate:
True that. The thing is, even with issues, decent people don't go out of their way to try and hurt other people just because they disagree.

For example, there are a couple of people I don't like nor respect on DISQUS because of the way they treat/ed us Christians (I love them, but don't like'm). As a result, I avoid them and their communities. I don't stalk nor harass them and I actually wish them well and hope they come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. But I'm a Christian submitted to God and grown like that.

Lady Checkmate, Disqus - News Network 10 Comments [1/21/2018 1:22:57 AM]
Fundie Index: 0
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 136016

Principles of Reactionary Thought

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.
2. Right is right and left is wrong.
3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.
5. Libertarianism is retarded.
6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.


______

1. People are not equal. They never will be. We reject equality in all its forms.

This is the most basic tenet of Neoreaction/Reaction. Equality is a lie. Neoreaction and Reactionary thought are fundamentally opposed to it. Aristotle said, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” The idea of equality ruins organic differentiation and makes humanity into a uniform, grey mass. Inequality does not necessarily mean “superior” or “inferior” (though it very well may), but it does mean different. Things which are different are not equal. They can never be. Equality is a failed ideal. It destroys excellence. We could not be more fundamentally opposed to the notion of equality. Evola was extremely clear on rejecting equality in favor of authority and auctoritas. In Men Among the Ruins, he said:
Let us begin with the egalitarian premise. It is necessary to state from the outset that the “immortal principle” of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. [...]
I believe these are mere empty words. This is not a “noble ideal” but some-thing that, if taken absolutely, represents a logical absurdity; wherever this view becomes an established trend, it may usher in only regression and decadence. [...]
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the “many” not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of “justice” is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines. Conversely, to posit inequality means to transcend quantity and admit quality. It is here that the two notions of the individual and the person are differentiated.

If Reaction/Neoreaction is against anything, it is against equality. If someone argues for equality, they are not a reactionary/neoreactionary, but something else.

2. Right is right and left is wrong.

To reactionaries, this is axiomatic. The phrase was popularized by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddhin, who along with Carlyle and Evola, is part of the central canon of neoreactionary thought. If someone disagrees with this phrase, they may be a perfectly delightful person, someone I’d enjoy having tea with, but they would not be a reactionary. Moldbug cites this phrase in his “Journey from Mises to Carlyle” post. In “A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations,” he says:
On the other hand, it is also quite easy to construct a very clean value system in which order is simply good, and chaos is simply evil. I have chosen this path. It leaves quite a capacious cavity in the back of my skull, and allows me to call myself a reactionary. To you, perhaps, it is the dark side. But this is only because the treatment is not yet complete.

Again, basic stuff. He also writes:
The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around. The more orderly a system is, the fewer people get to issue orders. The same asymmetry is why corporations and the military, whose system of hierarchical executive authority is inherently orderly, cluster to the right.


3. Hierarchy is basically a good idea.
In general, hierarchy promotes stability, order, direction, cohesion, and so on. Reactionaries object to the rigid hierarchies of totalitarianism, which turn men into cogs in a machine. (See Fascism Viewed from the Right by Julius Evola for a reactionary critique of fascism, or chapter four of Men Among the Ruins.) If you have trouble distinguishing reactionary thought from fascism, you must read chapter four of Men Among the Ruins, or you will never get it. Rather than advocating rigid hierarchies that crush human autonomy, reactionaries support the “organic State,” which Evola describes:
Every society and State is made of people; individual human beings are their primary element. What kind of human beings? Not people as they are conceived by individualism, as atoms or a mass of atoms, but people as persons, as differentiated beings, each one endowed with a different rank, a different freedom, a different right within the social hierarchy based on the values of creating, constructing, obeying, and commanding. With people such as these it is possible to establish the true State, namely an antiliberal, antidemocratic, and organic State. The idea behind such a State is the priority of the person over any abstract social, political, or juridical entity, and not of the person as a neuter, leveled reality, a mere number in the world of quantity and universal suffrage.

The goal of the organic State is to foster “a process of individuation and of progressive differentiation” of persons, rather than a universalist, leveling aesthetic. Some people are natural leaders, others are not. This is not about all reactionaries fantasizing ourselves to be natural leaders, destined for a spot up the totem poll Come the Revolution. The idea is creating a society that offers a pleasant differentiation and individuation from top to bottom. There are reasons why this actually makes being at the bottom a better and more interesting experience than it is now, but that’s a whole ‘nother topic.

4. Traditional sex roles are basically a good idea.

It’s tiresome to go into this one, since the feminists are so rabid about it, but reactionaries basically approve of traditional sex roles. In traditional societies, women did in fact take on some jobs and roles that might be considered careers by today’s standards. They were not all stay-at-home wives, and even if they were, many were extremely industrious. I’m not sure why staying at home, making clothing, cooking, gardening, and raising children is any less empowering or worthwhile than male activities like digging ditches, welding, or sitting at an office desk on a computer all day.

Conversely, if a man chooses to stay home and raise children, many other men will think less of him. No amount of progressive propaganda and reeducation camps will change this, because it’s hard-coded into our brains through millions of years of evolution. Men respect other men who go out into the world and do masculine things. Similarly, the pressure to conform to gender norms is stronger in all-girl schools than in mixed schools, exploding the myth that it is men who instigate and police gender norms, to the detriment of women. People can and do create bizarro-world bubbles where these roles are turned upside-down, but they are not very stable.

Women are less happy today than they were 40 years ago, despite all the alleged advances made by feminism during that time. One reactionary woman I’ve spoken with has said that feminism is fundamentally dishonest because it is a movement for women without children, while it portraying itself as helpful to all women. Another woman says, “I would prefer that norms strongly support functional families and that anyone who wants to do something else has to swim upstream”, which is a fair summation of the reactionary position.

5. Libertarianism is retarded.

Many reactionaries are post-libertarians, i.e., not libertarians. A rite of passage into reaction/neoreaction is the renunciation of libertarianism. I was never a libertarian, so it’s taken me a bit of time to fully understand the relationship between libertarianism and neoreaction, but I understand it now. Libertarians make personal freedom axiomatic, and refuse to consider the negative externalities of that freedom to traditional structures like society and the family. This is anathema to reactionaries.

Neoreaction has a close relationship with traditionalism, which upholds social obligations, norms, some degree of group conformity/homogeneity, and so on. Neoreaction has libertarian qualities, such as advocating for a smaller government and the exclusion of government from traditionally private spheres, but rejects libertarianism overall.

Libertarianism, if it could work at all, would only be suitable for a portion of the population, maybe 15-20%, who are willing to go Galt and lock themselves in a metaphorical fortress against the world. If a libertarian society would leave many out in the cold, libertarians seem not to care. Meanwhile, reactionaries foster community, family, and social cohesion. A couple months ago, I stated, “The “socialism” that traditionalism advocates is family and friends helping each other of their own free will.” That sums up the reactionary position on mutual assistance, which is theoretically compatible with libertarianism, but is not compatible with the mood and spirit of libertarianism as it is in fact lived and practiced. Also, reactionaries tend to view libertarians as excessively materialistic.

For a final tidbit of food for thought on this one, someone on Twitter said, “if you took libertarianism but made the basic social unit the family rather than the individual you would come close to what neoreaction is”. Debatable, but interesting.

6. Democracy is irredeemably flawed and we need to do away with it.

Democracy has been a disaster. Read Democracy: the God That Failed for an explanation. If you have not read at least some of this book, you will be lost. At the very least, reading some of it will give you exposure to serious academic discourse on the failure of democracy. Dismissing anything anti-democratic as “fascism” simply marks you as an idiot, a man of no intellectual depth. At least people like Scott Alexander are capable of going a little deeper and providing a defense of democracy that avoids relying on the fascist boogeyman.

That’s it.

I considered including “opposition to the Cathedral,” here, but decided to leave it out since “Cathedral” is just a lame neologism to outsiders, and I want my posts to be digestible by normal people with no prior exposure to reactionary thought. Also, the question of what the Cathedral is, exactly, is a very complicated one.

I limit the premises to six because I want them to be definitional and exhaustive — anyone who does agree with all six of these premises is almost certainly a reactionary, or at least on the Far Right, while anyone who disagrees with any one of them is almost certainly not a reactionary. We have to draw the line somewhere. Having in-groups and out-groups is another premise of reactionary thought.

(Emphasis original)

Michael Anissimov, More Right (via archive.is) 16 Comments [1/16/2018 12:13:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 136067

[From "These Bitches are Fucking Dogs Now"]

There is an epidemic of White girl dog-fucking that has gone largely unnoticed and unreported by the mainstream media.

But occasionally we get a glimpse into the underground world of dog fucking with stories like this.

A woman in Scotland who shot cellphone video of herself in a sex act involving her pet dog and whipped cream has pleaded guilty to two counts of possessing pornography.

[...]


The poor dog.

White women have become such fat whores that no decent man wants them. As a result, many are resorting to dog-fucking to get their fix of sexual attention. Animal rights organizations like PETA have remained completely silent on this shocking trend of abuse.

Shame on them.

The problem is hard to accurately calculate because these thots are keeping it going on the down low. Just like all those teachers secretely fucking their students, lots of these thots are doing the same with the pets that have been entrusted to them.

And they use a secret code to communicate that they are in the market, looking for dogs to bang.

But it can be cracked.

Whenever you see a girl using the dog filter on snap chat, it’s actually a code signal.

It means, “I’m looking to fuck dogs.”

In general, a good rule of thumb is that any single woman with a large dog is actually probably fucking the poor thing.

There’s no other reason for a woman to want a large male dog as a companion otherwise. Only men take an interest in dogs like that because they’re cool, fun to play with, great protection and our best friends…not our fuck buddies.

Be careful out there, Stormers.

Without White Sharia, these women are literally going crazy. We already knew they were capable of fucking animals when they started fucking niggers, but this is a new low…or an improvement, I’m not sure.

At least dogs are loyal, serve a function in society and are good around children.

Not sure what niggers have going for them when compared to niggers now that I think about it. Regardless, we opened the doors to all this madness when we repealed White Sharia and allowed mixed-race relationships.

It was only a small step to bestiality from there.

We need to do something though. Think of the poor doggos out there forced to copulate with these disgusting women.

Roy Batty, Daily Stormer 14 Comments [1/17/2018 4:00:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 136125



["Someone has to step in," Auernheimer, 32, said on the podcast Radical Agenda, hosted by Christopher Cantwell, one of the white nationalists who attended the deadly Charlottesville rally. “If you don’t let us dissent peacefully, then our only option is to murder you. To kill your children. To kill your whole families. There is only one thing absent free speech that we can do to express our dissent and that’s to slaughter you like dogs, and you’re gonna have it coming and your children will deserve to die.”]

weev, Twitter 15 Comments [1/20/2018 1:14:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 136136

(And more tales of co!minion wafers)

I did hear of a prison vicar who noted a quite different reaction and reception to himself from the inmate body when he went with communion wafers and when he never and decided to experiment with hidden wafers.

Private Frazer, Religion and Ethics 11 Comments [1/20/2018 12:46:31 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 136091

How I Feel In Modern America

As much as it pains me to cover parts of a painting dating back to the War Between the States, the message is clear.

(Image: a Civil War-era painting of a Confederate soldier hiding behind a tree, with Union forces advancing from the background bearing an American flag. The Confederate soldier has the Confederate flag edited onto him and the word "@confederatetruth" written above his head, while the Union soldiers similarly sport the Coexist logo, the LGBT pride flag, the hammer and sickle, the logo of the Antifa movement, the logo of CNN, the Democrat donkey and a Black Lives Matter icon.)

OddGarfield, deviantArt 28 Comments [1/18/2018 5:23:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: The Reptilian Jew

Quote# 14809

"Recently a strongly antiabortion Southern Baptist woman sat across from me in a counseling room and said, "I'm not like all those other women out there in your waiting room." She said that, unlike all our other patients, she had "no other choice."

The reason that her abortion was morally permissible? Because she and her lover were married, but (in the words of an old C&W standard) not to each other."

I still wonder whether she still would have seen herself as uniquely special had she known that among the \"other women\" on that day were a 15 year-old rape survivor, and a young single mother of two children whose cancer treatment could not be continued while she remained pregnant.

But it has been my experience that the answer very likely would have been "yes."

Unknown, Talk to action 28 Comments [9/11/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Archangel_Lucifer

Quote# 136018

(Extract from A gentle introduction to Unqualified Reservations (part 1))

The triangle of professors, bureaucrats, and public opinion is stable, because the professors teach as well as advise. Of course, there is a time lag. The system experiences some strain. But it will stay together, so long as the polarity does not randomly reverse - ie, because Cthulhu decides to suddenly swim right rather than left.

But no. Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. Isn't that interesting?

In the history of American democracy, if you take the mainstream political position (Overton Window, if you care) at time T1, and place it on the map at a later time T2, T1 is always way to the right, near the fringe or outside it. So, for instance, if you take the average segregationist voter of 1963 and let him vote in the 2008 election, he will be way out on the wacky right wing. Cthulhu has passed him by.

Where is the John Birch Society, now? What about the NAACP? Cthulhu swims left, and left, and left. There are a few brief periods of true reaction in American history - the post-Reconstruction era or Redemption, the Return to Normalcy of Harding, and a couple of others. But they are unusual and feeble compared to the great leftward shift. Nor, most important for our hypothesis, did they come from the universities; in the 20th century, periods of reaction are always periods of anti-university activity. (McCarthyism is especially noticeable as such. And you'll note that McCarthy didn't exactly win.)

The principle applies even in wars. In each of the following conflicts in Anglo-American history, you see a victory of left over right: the English Civil War, the so-called "Glorious Revolution," the American Revolution, the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Clearly, if you want to be on the winning team, you want to start on the left side of the field.

And we are starting to piece the puzzle together. The leftward direction is, itself, the principle of organization. In a two-party democratic system, with Whigs and Tories, Democrats and Republicans, etc, the intelligentsia is always Whig. Their party is simply the party of those who want to get ahead. It is the party of celebrities, the ultra-rich, the great and good, the flexible of conscience. Tories are always misfits, losers, or just plain stupid - sometimes all three.

And the left is the party of the educational organs, at whose head is the press and universities. This is our 20th-century version of the established church. Here at UR, we sometimes call it the Cathedral - although it is essential to note that, unlike an ordinary organization, it has no central administrator. No, this will not make it easier to deal with.

This strange chiral asymmetry implies some fundamental difference between right and left. What is that difference? What does it even mean to be left rather than right? How can an entire system of independent thinkers and institutions, without any central coordinating agency, recognize that everyone should go left rather than right?

Mencius Moldbug, Unqualified Reservations 14 Comments [1/18/2018 5:05:09 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: Pharaoh Bastethotep

Quote# 136059

[This is in reference to the murder of two lesbians and their child by a transwoman known as Dana Rivers.]



Anonymous, Twitter 13 Comments [1/19/2018 1:40:50 PM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Yossarian Lives

Quote# 136135


(on the subject of communion wafers and transubstantiation)



I have read that there is a value placed on the consecrated host by devil worshippers who pay for it in order to perform ritual abuse on the host. And apparently these devil worshippers can tell whether the host has been consecrated.

Alan Burns, Religion and Ethics 6 Comments [1/20/2018 12:46:02 PM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: NearlySane

Quote# 136111

(She's talking about gay people being killed)

Because it's not murder, it's capital punishment. I advocate all laws of Allah because He is the Creator and He says to do it. Muslims are the slaves of Allah and do as He says. Anyone who doesn't is the enemy of Allah.

Sister, Ummah 13 Comments [1/18/2018 11:43:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 136126

Believe what you will The sad thing is there are two places that are inclusive irregardless of who you are or what you have said or done. One of those is prison, and the other is Hell.

Michael Ralph Short, Facebook 15 Comments [1/20/2018 1:15:20 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 136086

I've been trying to produce an appropriate alternative for LGBT that may be useful in some secular contexts, especially in online forums. It could be useful to help stimulate debate or even just a helpful way to speak the truth.

The best I have so far is:
Lascivious
Gross
Brazen
Turpitude
I've also seen "Lettuce, Gherkin, Bacon and Tomato" posted by someone online.

Please help by posting any useful suggestions that we might all be able to use. I think both truth and humour have their uses in the right circumstances.

[Other letters are used as well, such as LGBTQI, but I believe that it's best to stick with LGBT only. In particular, the "I" needs to be avoided as this relates to "Intersex", which unfortunately is a genuine medical condition and not a lifestyle choice.]


Simon, Rapture Forums 18 Comments [1/17/2018 11:48:03 PM]
Fundie Index: 4

Quote# 136109

All species have variation within them. Natural selection, therefore can occur within species but it doesn't cause them to turn into different species. Since when has anyone seen a fish turn into a lizard or a lizard turn into a bird for example.

The theory states we all formed from single celled organisms from which all life came evolved, into different species. This is not scientific as it has never been observed. Where do you see the transition species? Like where are the ape looking humans that would exist between between the fully formed apes and fully formed humans? and I'm not talking about fossils real or not, because that doesn't prove anything. Why are all the transitional sepcied fossils anyway?

Has evolution stopped that we have to look to fossils and not live species? All of this happened randomly and by chance apparently. If the theory of evolution was true, we would see this. But it's nothing but complete rubbish and completely unscientific. It's like dropping pots of paint randomly and by chance onto a piece of paper and expecting it to form this amazing portrait with the most amazing detail ever.

It's ironic that those who worship science, the very foundation of their belief is far from scientific,

Umm_Hanzalah, Ummah 21 Comments [1/18/2018 11:42:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 136108

2018 will see the exhibition of the original stone tablets of the Ten Commandments.

Kept hidden since the time they were given on Mt Sinai, especially for this time.

Now we understand the current gravitas.

Satan’s full blown attack on the Ten Commandments is the 666 microchip which is his replacement for the laws of God and this is why God has reserved them for this time as tangible proof, along with a video of them being removed from the Ark of the Covenant.

The whole world will be shown the truth of the Bible in spectacularly simple fashion and they will be given the choice of Gods Commandments over that of the devil.

Choose life.

Open Air, Real Jew News 18 Comments [1/18/2018 11:41:58 PM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 136117

"And that is the whole point of SPLC. To direct the violent works of their fellow travelers. Much in the same way that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood are connected to terror organizations , it do not engage in such activities themselves."

"Discredited by whom? LGBT activists and their allies? The SPLC? Reading your posts, you sound like a propagandist. Which is typical of of a progressive. You believe in 'diversity', as long as it's a diversity of your ideas. Anything else is 'discredited', or 'hate soeech'.

Sorry, you're selling, but we're not buying."

"There is nothing credible about a far left fringe organization like the SPLC."

"The SPLC attempts to shut down any speech with which they disagree. An effort with which you agree. Typical progressive."

"It won't matter soon. There will be a cure for homosexuality within twenty years."

"Lots of progtarded twisted reasons to infringe on our rights."

"More of your hateful leftist lies. You're just another progressive propagandist."

"Like pretty much everything you've had to say. You're clearly a totalitarian at heart. I have no doubt you would force soeech codes based on your sensibilities on this country if you could. Criminalizing even the slightest criticism of homosexuality."

"SPLC is definitely an anti first amendment hate group."

"You're calling Stossel and asshole? Only a piece of shit would do that."

"If you want to see a bigot, you need only turn to your nearest mirror"

Elias Fakaname, Reason 11 Comments [1/19/2018 4:22:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Shakesmyhead

Quote# 136031

Boys who are excessively "pretty", sickly, sensitive, non-athletic, youngest brothers, fatherless, or whose mothers are psychologically troubled are at greater risk. There is some evidence that adopted sons may be at-risk, perhaps because of separation anxiety or because the father may find it more difficult to bond with a non-biological child than the mother. "At-risk" does not mean that a homosexual outcome is inevitable, only that it is more likely than in a boy who shows none of these symptoms. The symptoms of an at-risk boy are:

1) Fear of rough and tumble play

2) Lack of same-sex playmates

3) Dislike of team sports

4) Doll play

5) Cross dressing or interest in women's clothes or shoes

6) Effeminate speech or mannerism

7) Playacting in which the boy takes a feminine part.

8) Frequent statements that he wants to be a girl or is a girl.

These symptoms usually appear between 2 and 8 and then in some cases fade away as the boy is pressured by peers. The fading away of the more external manifestations should not however be taken as a sign that the problem has resolved itself. Often it merely goes underground and emerges in adolescence as same-sex attraction.

When symptoms are observed, early intervention -- basically more father/male influence and less mother/female influence -- is usually effective, particularly if accompanied by counseling of child and parents. However, since these boys need male closeness, they are easily targeted by pedophiles and therefore need positive male relationships and extra support throughout childhood and adolescence.

A comprehensive review of the literature on how homosexuality develops in males leads to the conclusion that it is a cumulative process in which one trauma leads to another, Each trauma increases the chance that the boy will be retraumatized and each trauma intensifies the effect of the subsequent trauma. A boy who doesn't have a good relationship with his father, turns to his mother. This makes the relationship with his father worse. A boy who is over-identified with his mother and feels unloved by his father will find it difficult to relate to male peers. Teasing by peers intensifies feelings of alienation from his father and drives him to seek comfort from his mother. This child is particularly vulnerable to child molesters and likely to interpret the molestation as evidence that he is homosexual. And so on.

D. O'Leary, Fathers for Life 15 Comments [1/16/2018 3:15:26 PM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 135493

(This fundie is talking about Satanic Ritual Abuse)

Y’all aren’t even worthy of a response. Been through all that, been to dozens of funerals of occult victims, Counseled hundreds, and have seen more crime scene photos than anyone should have to see in a lifetime.

So sick of people hiding behind the ridiculous “it’s all satanic panic” bushwah Especially since none of them have seen any of it for real. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. Just stop talking like experts, you’re not.

Dr Gregory R Reid, Disqus 11 Comments [12/25/2017 6:51:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 136115


[what would you doif your friend admitted he is a serial killer ]



Get a lot of detail from them, look at the papers/online to see if it's true, and see if there's any reward offered.

If there's a reward, I'll do my civic duty and report them with name and details to the cops. I'll take the reward money! That, and in my state, there is no death sentence, so I can visit them in prison.

If there's no reward, let them continue and play dumb to the cops - just make them promise not to kill people I'm dating, friends, and/or my family members.

RandomCashier75 , reddit 15 Comments [1/18/2018 11:50:23 PM]
Fundie Index: 9

Quote# 54503

[when asked a series of questions about her completely illogical views on gay marriage]

1. I define marriage as the deep, lifelong, committal love between a man and a woman.
2. I've looked up the definition in the dictionary for marriage and have seen clearly what I stated above about a man and woman. I believe this to be the case just as much as it's impossible for a Christian to have a bar mitzvah, it's a Jewish initiation.
3. My personal experience with homosexuals has been bad. I was part of a group of them that were very promiscuous and they teased for being a goody two shoes to the point where I ran away either to end my life or finally have sex,(I was slow to develop physically and by that time I had no self esteem.) I've been in treatment for the last two years and have run into more types of people than a average person would in a lifetime. When I think of homosexuals I think of promiscuity.
4.Yes, it has to do with my beliefs, but that is not all of it. I'm not using God's commands as evidence, I'm debating my belief. An argument is an argument no matter what background the person comes from.

skinnybrunette20, gURL.com 50 Comments [12/19/2008 6:36:12 PM]
Fundie Index: 0
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 40 | top