1 2 3 4 5 10 15 16 | bottom
Quote# 127581

People say if muslims are not allowed to take non muslim as friends. then how should you convert them to Islam?

There are many ways. We can hide our faith and preach to them, what we can do is lie by saying we can be friends, this is called taqqiya.

or allah can guide them to Islam. Allah says he guides who he pleases, and misguides who he pelases. Allah says that he has blinded some people.These ppl can not ever become muslim or understanding islam. Allah chooses who to misguide.

Muslims are allowed to treat non muslims kindly (Quran 60:8), and that wud NOT be taking them as friends. We are allowed to do that. However, just because allah says we are allowed to treat them kindly.Doesnt mean we shud go out of our way to do this, it is not compulsory. does not mean we should. The verse about kindess was reavealed in the context of Abu Bakr's (RA) daughter and wife. His daughter(who was muslim) did not let her mother (who was disbeliever) enter the house. So allah revealed this verse. Some wud say, muslims are only allowed to treat disbelieving mothers kindly. But in Islam gods word is final.

cloud360, Ummah 9 Comments [5/28/2017 3:30:45 AM]
Fundie Index: 9
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 127575

(About the number of homosexuals)

It's probably more like 1%, but with all the plastics in the environment, it may increase.

Jonathan David Farley, Hollywood Reporter 13 Comments [5/27/2017 11:34:30 PM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 127561

We cannot expect world Jewry to ever change without collective action.

Even as more and more Jews continue to slowly assimilate into Christian society in the U.S. and Europe, the core of organized Jewry continues on with their wicked ways.

First, purge the the Jews in America from power. Other nations should follow suit.

Second, remove the worst of the Jews from civil society and place them in Christian re-education interment centers.

This need not mean removing civil liberties from all Jews, a la National Socialist Germany. But all Jews who have violated domestic and international laws would be forced into internment centers or prisons and undergo harsh Christian re-education.

The general Jewish population would be able to live freely within society (provided they have not broken any laws) though would have to bear the burden of having the Jewish stigma. They would also generally be forbidden from holding positions of prominence in the media, finance, politics, education or anywhere they would stir up trouble.

Also, to hell with the “separation of Church and state”. We should Christianize all American laws so that Christian morals and ethics are explicitly written into a new and updated Constitution. Talmudic Judaism would be outlawed entirely for it is not even a real religion in any sense to begin with.

AJ, Real Jew News 14 Comments [5/27/2017 3:06:44 PM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Katie

Quote# 127568

Ambulance Chaser:
I don't think you get this. Although I believe there are constitutional grounds for judicial review, and we've been over it already, that's not the point.

I'm not interested in debating whether or not there SHOULD be judicial review. That's above my pay grade.

All I know is that there is, it's an indisputable fact, and it's the basis of American law. I simply don't care to debate the esoteric nuances of early constitutional history. That's for professors and historians to duke it out. I practice law, I don't write or theorize about it.

You can believe the moon is made of green cheese too if you want, doesn't make it any more factual.
Consider this, how can we have government by the people for the people if some judge can insert his/her opinion as law with no recourse? What would make the Supreme Court any different than the Communist Party in China? I see no difference other than the illusion of freedom with representation if courts can make binding (law) decisions.

Ambulance Chaser:
Again, you fail to listen. I'm not arguing what SHOULD BE. I'm telling you how it works.

I know you don't like it. You've made that abundantly clear. It doesn't matter. Your dislike for the system won't change it.

Could have fooled me.
There are many things wrong with this country, that is just a fine example. What is even more disturbing is that the masses are completely ignorant, even defending the wrongs (even as far as flagging my posts for whatever reason).

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, as we've gone over before: every lawyer, judge, law professor, elected official and civil servant in America is wrong about how judicial review works. Only you are correct.

Makes perfect sense.

Resorting to that now? Sad. When you have the inmates running the asylum, what do you expect?

Ambulance Chaser:
Here's the long and the short of it. There are two questions here. One is whether the courts HAVE judicial review powers and the other is whether the SHOULD HAVE judicial review powers.

To the first question, yes, obviously they do. That's not disputable. It would be like denying that the sky is blue.

To the second question, I think they should but simply don't care enough about it to argue. It doesn't interest me, has no real-world implications, and I simply can't be bothered to argue it.

The question is whether that "power" is legal or not, it is not and that is not disputable.

"has no real-world implications" Usurping power and violating the Constitution has no real-world implications? There's one.

"I simply can't be bothered to argue it." I suppose that's as good a cop out as any.

Ambulance Chaser:
"The question is whether that "power" is legal or not, it is not and that is not disputable"

Of course it is. I've told you that Article 3 Sec 2 gives the courts the power of judicial review. There, I disputed it. However, I'm not going to debate this any further because it's a pointless argument

"Usurping power and violating the Constitution has no real-world implications? There's one"

No, debating whether that happened or not had no real-world implications because we can't change anything even if it did (which I'm not conceding).

(Posts the entirety of Art. 3, Sec. 2)
Not seeing the striking down of laws anywhere in there, guess you were wrong, and the courts are acting illegally. But we can't change that so we'll just have to bend over, right?

Ambulance Chaser:
We've already been over this, and I said I was done with this stupid argument, so I'm not going to do it again. We obviously have differing views on this.

The only difference is that mine is the view held consistently by the entire legal system for 200 years, but by all means, don't let that stand in your way.

We obviously do have differing views, mine is constitutional, and yours is based on an out of control judiciary.
But by all means let popular opinion and tradition rule over what's right. Viva oligarchy!!

Oboehner, Christian News Network 16 Comments [5/27/2017 11:46:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 127567

Again with the single case court opinions as if they are relevant to others beside the ones in that case, hmmm...

Ambulance Chaser:
That's because they are, and your obstinate refusal to accept that reality does nothing to change it.

Citing case law is LITERALLY Day 1 material in law school. Citing cases is just about as natural to a lawyer as breathing. Any lawyer who doesn't cite cases regularly and abundantly is simply not practicing law.

The position you take is not just wrong, it's fractally wrong. It demonstrates not just an ignorance of the law in this case, but an ignorance of even the most fundamental basics of how law operates.

To attempt to put this into some kind of perspective, your position is the equivalent of playing Tetris and announcing that you're the winner because you got to the top of the screen faster than anyone else. Or thinking you won a round of golf because you got the highest score.

And to build on what Ambulance Chaser said, I was taught to look for the cases that contained numerous case citations themselves. You look for the most recent, most supported decision to bolster your case.

Let's see, reality...

Article I: Legislative
Section 1 -
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of

"Citing case law is LITERALLY Day 1 material in law school." Can you say the inmates are running the asylum?
Do explain how non-law is binding though, I'm all a-twitter with anticipation!

OK, I'll use small words.

Courts do not make law.

Courts examine the law.

They use the Constitution to examine laws.

The Constitution is the highest law in our nation.

This includes the Amendments.

Laws cannot violate the Constitution.

If the judge(s) find the law violates the Constitution, they issue a ruling.

That ruling says the law cannot be enforced.

It does not remove the law from the state laws.

It just neuters it.

States can appeal this decision.

But once SCOTUS has made a decision (or refused to hear the case) it is over. The last appellate ruling stands.

So, what can the state do?

They can try to rewrite the law to address what the courts found unconstitutional.

They can push for a Constitutional Amendment.

Or they can accept that they lost and move on.

This, by the way, is the reason Roy Moore lost his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage were in violation of the 14th Amendment. Moore tried to order county clerks to ignore the order. His own state's review board kicked him out of office for that.

OK, I'll use small words too.
Only laws are binding, court cases are not either.
Courts gave themselves the power to examine laws.
The courts examining laws is not in the Constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law in our nation.
This includes the Amendments (the Tenth as well).
Laws cannot violate the Constitution.
If the judge(s) find the law violates the Constitution, they issue a ruling, which is as pretty as Billy's kindergarten drawing on the fridge.
That ruling says the law cannot be enforced, but they have no constitutional power to say that.
The ruling is the only thing neutered.
States don't have to appeal this decision as it is unconstitutional.
But once SCOTUS has made a decision (or refused to hear the case) it is over. The last appellate ruling stands ONLY over the single case that came from a lower court.

"The last appellate ruling stands ONLY over the single case that came from a lower court."

That line of thinking makes no sense to me. When the Supreme Court rules, in an appeal that is brought before them, that a law is unconstitutional, how can it only apply in a single case then? The 14th Amendment gives equal protection of the law (the existing laws, not the laws you say they supposedly create) to all citizens.


And when the court rules the law applies in a certain way in one case, because of the 14th, it applies that way to everyone else.

Oh, and judicial review is in the Constitution.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

In other words, unconstitutional laws don't apply. And if you're going to tell me next that it isn't the court's job to interpret laws...well, I'm no legal expert, but I don't understand how a court system could exist without doing that. If nothing else, they have to deal with old laws, and interpret how they would apply to situations that the people who made them would have never imagined.

"And when the court rules the law applies in a certain way in one case" is ONLY relevant to that case as anything else would be a usurpation of power and unconstitutional - rendering the rest of your argument null and void. In other words, unconstitutional laws or actions don't apply.

Oboehner, Christian News Network 5 Comments [5/27/2017 11:46:38 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 127566

The only thing that is going to save Western civilization is a more aggressive, a more violent Christianity,

Dave Daubenmire, Right Wing Watch 25 Comments [5/27/2017 11:46:32 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 127562

A self-published “study” claims that eating too many fatty foods can cause homosexuality or make you transgender.

Author Rita Strakosha, who says she has “an M.P.S. degree in Clinical Psychology from Albanian University”, sent the 56-page document to PinkNews after self-publishing it as an e-book on Amazon.

In the document, which she has also put up for free on her website, attempts to link homosexuality to an unhealthy diet.

It claims: “Homosexuals… [often eat] large amounts of high glycemic index foods and fat, or eating an imbalanced diet, leaning toward carbohydrates. Some studies show an increased rate of obesity among homosexuals.

“Gay men, lesbian and bisexual women report a higher odds of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption than straight men and women.

“Access to a high calorie diet and alcoholic drinks was limited to the social elite circles in the past. Homosexuality as well appears to have been more frequent among that group.”

The paper ties homosexuality to fats, sugars and alcohol, proceeding to claim that cutting them out of your diet can “prevent the return of homosexual attractions”.

It argues that following a healthy diet with no sugar and sleeping adequately will ‘cure’ homosexuality in an individual and prevent its return.

It directs people to avoid “steer clear of… heavy or rich foods, fatty or fried meals, spicy dishes, citrus fruits and carbonated drinks”, if they want to stay heterosexual

Rita Strakosha, Pink News 22 Comments [5/27/2017 11:44:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Demon Duck of Doom

Quote# 127560

Right-wing attorney Larry Klayman posted a video yesterday in which he said that Barack Obama is trying to “undermine the Trump presidency” by vacationing in Italy while President Trump is making his first trip abroad.

Klayman said that Obama is “running an evil [shadow] government” and “trying to upstage” Trump and fumed that Michelle Obama wore a shoulder-bearing top while touring the region.

“The thing that is really troubling about this,” Klayman said, “[is that] he and Michelle went into a church in Siena, Italy, and she basically had an open shoulder … showing a lack of respect to the Catholic Church and Christianity. Of course, that’s not surprising because her husband is, in fact, a closet Muslim, someone who worships the Quran over the Bible, who has fooled the American people all these years into thinking he’s a Christian … who wears a ring that says, ‘My only God is Allah.'”

“This is an absolute disgrace,” he continued. “He has blood on his hands and he will stop at nothing to destroy the Trump presidency, even in a petty way to go to Italy during the week that the president’s on a foreign trip. It shows you who he is, he’s not just an evil person, he’s low class.”

Larry Klayman, Right Wing Watch 22 Comments [5/27/2017 8:53:19 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Kuyohashi

Quote# 127559

Religious Right activist “Coach” Dave Daubenmire declared on his “Pass The Salt Live” webcast this morning that America needs “a more violent Christianity.” He cited President Trump and Greg Gianforte as examples of violent men who are properly “walking in authority.”

“The only thing that is going to save Western civilization is a more aggressive, a more violent Christianity,” he said.

Playing a clip of Trump shoving aside the prime minister of Montenegro at a recent NATO summit so that he could stand in front of the group of assembled leaders, Daubenmire heaped praise on Trump for showing that “he is large and in charge.”

“Look at him,” Daubenmire screamed gleefully while watching the clip. “They’re all little puppies, ain’t nobody barking at him … He’s walking in authority. He walked to the front and center and they all know it, too, man. He just spanked them all.”

Trump’s behavior is an example for the church, Daubenmire said. “The Lord is showing us a picture of the authority we should be walking in.”

Daubenmire then cited Republican congressional candidate Greg Gianforte’s assault on a reporter the day before he won a special election in Montana as another example for the church.

“People are sick and tired of it,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘Yes, a fighter! Go, dude, go!’ … Who won? The dude that took the other dude to the ground.”

“That should be the heart cry of Christian men,” Daubenmire said. “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of God has suffered violence and violent men take it by force.”

"Coach" Dave Daubenmire, Right Wing Watch 15 Comments [5/27/2017 8:53:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: Kuyohashi

Quote# 127558

Definition of God:
Intelligence behind this life, creator (of natural laws, natural world, life etc.), purpose of life, etc.
Note for especially dumb people... Since God is the creator of the natural world (time, space and matter), the question -"where did God come from"- becomes irrelevant!
What God is Not
Mythical Creature
Invisible Man
Any human invented object (including but not limited to shapes, sizes, colors etc. Basically, FSM, Zeus, Pink Unicorn, Flying Teapot etc.)

Referring to God as an invisible skydaddy and thinking, that belittles his existence... is no more true than calling gravity an "invisible super power" and believing it doesn't exist
The fool says in his heart, There is no God - Psalm 14:1

1 Nothing Makes Sense Without God
That is how I am going to kick it off. Nothing makes sense without God (in other words without intelligence, purpose and meaning)... And please, spare your delusions that we can "make purpose", "Darwinism Offers Something Beautiful" etc. This is a simple, yet necessary assumption. Everything works with it, nothing works without it. We are only different from a rock by the quantity and behavior of atoms. There is no purpose, consciousness, or virtue in this life. Everything is subjective. We are a cosmic afterthought. An accident that happened by chance...
2 No absolute morality
Yup... Morality is subjective... Most common explanation is that the feeling of empathy is innate (which then makes us wonder why do we condemn Sociopaths, who biologically lack this "innate" feeling)... But again, you can spare this BS and at least be honest, there is no reason for morality. There is no foundation for morality... Rocks don't need morality, we are only different by the quantity of atoms and their behavior... So whatever we think is moral, gets to be right... Also, do not delude yourselves that you can be "descent" human beings, since decency DOES NOT exist... Simply because we make up what is descent and what is not, by consciousness that DOES NOT EVEN EXIST... Because again it is just a bunch of chemicals interacting in a specific way... (what a cursed worldview, muttered he)

3 Teleological Argument
Whether you want to gish gallop and bring "evidence" of "bad" design... or make up some other stuff... One thing is undeniable... Life is very complex. As David once put it: I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful. (Psalm 139: 14). The complexity that has been observed in the universe points to intelligence. Whether it is the feeling of balance, memory or the corneal reflex the proof is there... The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome. -John 1:5.
You can try to deny it, We can certify it!
4 The Prime Mover
Everything in this universe points to that one point where everything began (the clock turned on if you like)... Everything in this life has a cause, which in turn itself has a cause... and thus ad infinitum... There has to be a prime cause... an intelligent designer... This we know to be God

5 Fine Tuned Universe
Whether you want to invent the "multiverse" theory or "ancient astronauts", one thing is clear... The fine tuning of the world does not "go away". The ingredients necessary for life... The sources of ingredients (bananas etc.) being made up of the same DNA code (yes... DNA is an intelligent design argument, NOT one for common descent), air, ozone layer to protect us from UV lights are a clear indicators of INTELLIGENCE and not random occurrence!
As Paul once put it:
"Since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." -Romans 1:20
6 No Absolute Justice
How often have you uttered the phrase "It's not fair"? Well it is not supposed to be... Because, once again, we decide what is fair by using our consciousness (which DOES NOT EXIST to begin with)... There is no objective judge, no order, no consequences for actions... If you get away with something, (e.g Hitler, who after an exciting and popular life of 56 years, after having fulfilled life's dreams, peacefully, and with AS LITTLE PAIN AS POSSIBLE, departed!) that's it!
7 Non-Atheistic Reality
The reality, as we perceive it, literally COULD NOT BE further removed from an atheistic view... We live with purpose, sense of morality, sense of absolute justice (call it Karma or whatever). We live as intelligent beings, made in the image of God. NONE of you can tell me, that you were raised or continue to live as a random occurrence with no morality, respect or decency! So on one hand let's convince ourselves we are a meaningless afterthought. But let us live meaningful, honest, loving lives. And give our kids the same understanding!
8 Life
The very fact that life exists is a smoking gun that PROVES the existence of a designer behind it. The complexity and design is UNDENIABLE.
9 Atheist's Existence being Predictable and Compatible
The Bible is clear that atheistic, scoffers and mockers will come... It is also clear that no proof is enough for someone who WILLFULLY denies the existence of intelligence...
Here are a few verses... "you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires" -2 Peter 3:3
"For they look, but they don't really see. They hear, but they don't really listen or understand" -Matthew 13:13
"If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:31
10 No Good Argument for Atheism (EVER EVER!)
In the history of existence of the atheistic movement... NEVER HAS ANYONE GIVEN any reason for atheism... All the arguments center at scoffing theists... There has never been an argument for why someone should be an atheist--Kingdamian1 (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Kingdamian1, RationalWiki 13 Comments [5/27/2017 8:53:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 127557

I would love to insult you, but instead I'll inform u, why are you spreading false information abt ABA some of my closest friends help children eat properly, socialize, take care of themselves.How is helping some1 function in society a bad thing

“Look how gracious I’m being by not treating you like the subhuman I think you are. I’m going to inform you by demanding that you justify your position against child torture. Despite not actually being involved on any level, I’m an expert because some of my friends support torturing children to make them look ‘normal.’”

Notably absent from any of this is any sign that you’ve listened to what actually autistic people who have actually been through ABA have to say about it.

Fuck off out of my inbox, anon.

#aba #abused because autistic #ashlyn #isn't giving you brownie points for your 'restraint' either #Anonymous

wetwareproblem, tumblr 4 Comments [5/27/2017 8:52:11 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 127556

in response to this post

Hey I wanted to thank you for all the ABA posts you've been making. "Compliance" and "compliance training" have been major triggers (It's okay because I don't exist right now) for me for years and I've never heard anyone else talk about ABA using those words (and I've repeatedly questioned whether I imagined it all). I don't know. My brain feels wrong so this probably isn't coherent. But thank you. (I'm sorry if you've already gotten this but I wasn't sure I'd sent it so I'm sending it again)

Thank you, Nonny. This is… this is good right now and I appreciate it. I don’t think I realized quite how sensitive a subject this was for me until I got into it, and I definitely didn’t expect that post to explode the way it has. I’ve made variations on that post before and they never got anywhere near this level of attention. And while that’s a good thing - I want people to be aware of this - it also lead to people coming into my inbox to try and justify this stuff to me.

Here’s the kicker: I haven’t been through ABA proper. My compliance training was informal - but I can see the strong parallels between the ways I’ve suffered and the effects it’s had on me, and what ABA survivors talk about.

Compliance training teaches us that it’s wrong to say no, particularly to anybody in a position of perceived authority. It teaches us to do as we’re told, and to credulously accept what we’re told even if it makes no sense to us.

This is extremely fucking dangerous to do to disabled people, and kids, and disabled kids.

Disabled people have phenomenal rates of abuse and sexual assault - up to 80% for disabled women. And I am thoroughly convinced at this point that a large part of the reason why is that we have been conditioned and pre-groomed for our attackers.

Compliance training lead directly to my assault. I don’t want it to lead to anyone else’s.

wetwareproblem, tumblr 2 Comments [5/27/2017 8:51:25 AM]
Fundie Index: 3

Quote# 127555

I speak here as an autistic person who, as a child, had the police called on her for melting down. (Fortunately I am white and live in an area not coded as “poor,” and the officers responding were better people than skypig357, or I would not be here to write this.)

One time, I even went so far as to pull a knife and threaten to attack my stepfather.

wetwareproblem, tumblr 1 Comments [5/27/2017 8:50:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 2

Quote# 127554

[ on cops dealing with autistic people assaulting and threatening others ]

Cops do not have the freedom to let people meltdown, if their actions could harm other people. If they are alone and not self harming? Sure. Give it hell. Bust up their own property. I’ve let my son do this.

But if they are a risk to themselves or others? Or are damaging other people’s property? No. Cops must act and stop whatever is happening.
Look, your rights do not trump other people’s rights. And if it becomes necessary to use force to take someone into custody then so be it.

It’s been challenging at times not to rise to my son’s bait. The screaming, name calling, hitting. It’s hard to be purely defensive when someone is doing everything they can to hurt you. Especially when they are 6'2" and 180lbs and have been since they were 14. He’s one of the most amazing people I’ve ever known, but not when he’s in the middle of a rage. He’s almost evil sometimes. Even though he regrets it later.

But he’s hit me and my wife numerous times. He’s put her in the hospital once. He broke my finger. He’s hit with fists and weapons.

We deal with it because he’s our son. No one else would be required to. Certainly no police officer. And we’ve taught him how to interact with police. It’s his job to comply with their orders, not theirs to figure him out. And he would be the first person to tell you if he tried to hurt a cop of someone else that he should have force used against him.

You have no idea what I have or haven’t done with my son. I’ve tried literally everything. Mostly we direct it and let it burn itself out. I’ve held him down. For over half an hour. Ever wrestled someone for half an hour to keep them from hurting you? I’m betting no. I stopped counting punches he threw at me once when he got to 200.


But you seem to think cops need to fix some kind of problem here. Be a social worker and therapist. It’s not their job. They are law enforcement. Peace officers. Public safety. You think they need to have this magical ability to fix your shit. They don’t. If you’re breaking a law you go to jail or receive a summons. If you can’t do that peacefully you will receive force until you comply. That’s it. It’s a simple equation.

In case anybody needed any further proof that all cops are bastards, seeking an excuse to lash out violently at people they consider “lesser.”

I’ll just add that this horrendous fuck has no idea how to deal with auties at all, if he thinks “deescalating meltdowns” means “holding the person down until they comply.”

This person has abused his child horrifically, called it love, and uses an abuse victim’s response to being abused as justification for why they should be murdered. While claiming to love them. I literally cannot think of a clearer example of pure malevolence.

wetwareproblem, tumblr 5 Comments [5/27/2017 8:34:18 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 127552

My hatred of sexual predators is not "performative" it comes from deep hurt and this is the EXACT manipulative bullshit I am talking about. Fucking. Stop it. Hating predators is not performative what the fuck

So you’re clearly too busy being an ableist sack of shit to think about things at all. See, here’s the problem: If your policy is that people are responsible for their thoughts, regardless of whether or not their thoughts ever translate into actions of any sort, then people who are literally incapable of controlling their thoughts are going to suffer. By fostering a culture where thought is just as bad as deed, where having bad thoughts makes you a bad person, you are causing direct and very real harm to people with intrusive thoughts.

My girlfriend almost died because of shitstains like you.

You are literally killing people by convincing them that their inability to silence their destructive thoughts makes them monsters.

But hey, as long as you can be seen to hate the right things loudly enough, who cares about the trail of bodies in your wake, right?

wetwareproblem, tumblr 6 Comments [5/27/2017 8:33:49 AM]
Fundie Index: 5

Quote# 127550

That day, I alone was leading a war against all the Western European regimes. I had the guts to do it alone. I felt traumatized every second, while blood and brain matter was splattering. War is hell.

What is happening in Norway is an ethnic cleansing of my people. What happened was necessary, for people to open their eyes for what is happening in Norway and Europe. A person like me almost sacrificing his life for the cause is noble. There is nothing nobler than sacrificing oneself for your own people.

Anders Behring Breivik,  The Breivik Archive 10 Comments [5/27/2017 8:33:30 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: X

Quote# 127549

We want to forgive you, those who condemn us who are performing the actions. We are willing to forgive everybody, even the traitors of type A and B if they recognize our efforts and our struggle.

Anders Behring Breivik, The Breivik Archive 8 Comments [5/27/2017 8:33:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Xavier Hugo

Quote# 127548

[Commenting under "Minnesota Supreme Court upholds consecutive sentences adding up to 90 years before parole eligibility for juve killer of three"]

"I can understand how those troubled by these SCOTUS decisions are not troubled by efforts to limit their application." Good insight.

Lawyers are the stupidest of people. Ivy grads are the stupidest of lawyers. The Supreme Court is the stupidest of Ivy grads, compounded by an acculturation to the arrogant, Washington rent seeking, self dealing culture. Supreme Court decisions have been lawless, unmitigated disasters, from the Civil War set off by Dred Scott to the American Holocaust of Roe v Wade. Every one has been a violation of Article I Section 1 of the constitution, giving law making power to the legislature.

Its decisions may be considered to have no external validation. They are the subjective, invalid feelings of stupid, East Coast elite, know nothing lawyers. All are biased, not in favor of criminals, but in favor of lawyer rent seeking and of big government, the industry of Washington. At best, they should be deemed advisory. No federal marshal will come to enforce any. That would require agreement with a decision by the executive branch. If any does, taser him, expel him from the state. Nothing will happen.

In Miller, the Court cancelled the decisions of more accountable state legislatures. The decision contains future forecasting, based on nothing, a finding of a 5% difference in myelination of the frontal lobes, continuing to age 30. That minuscule difference has not been tied to anything in behavior. Teens commit fewer violent crimes than adults. Teen crime is dropping. Adult crime is rising.

It is also illogical and harmful to the defendant. Say the mass murderer becomes a priest, and a saint. He qualifies for canonization by his good deeds and verified miracles. The flaw in logic is that his improvement has been within the structure of prison. Release would end the achievements. A diabetic was brought out of a coma with aggressive insulin treatment. He has been doing well for years, with no side effects on insulin. Let's stop the insulin since he is old and his blood sugars have been great, the Court is saying. That is its "feeling." No. Both conditions are defects, and will never improve, since a function is missing. Prison structure is the insulin that allowed the defendant to thrive.

David Behar, Sentencing Law and Policy 5 Comments [5/27/2017 8:33:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: JeanP

Quote# 127546

The idea of martyrdom was born when I moved back home to my mother, but it was put on hold for a year because I wanted to give myself a martyrdom gift, and play World of Warcraft (WoW) for a year first.

Anders Behring Breivik, The Breivik Archive 10 Comments [5/27/2017 8:32:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 6
Submitted By: X Hugo

Quote# 127544

Colin Rafferty:
If you disagree, please tell me why. I'll start: supporting rounding up people by religion and executing them is different from supporting people making their own reproductive choices.

You rounding up people by religion and executing them now too?
How is brutal murder a "reproductive choice"?

Colin Rafferty:
No, I'm not. I'm explaining how abortion and the holocaust are different.

Oh I get it, the Holocaust was killing people based on ethnicity, but abortion is just killing people for convenience.

Colin Rafferty:
No, that's not what abortion is.
"Hey, you're taking too long ordering your Big Mac. I'm going to kill you to move forward. It's more convenient for me."
I mean, if you just want to see how much hyperbole you can use to describe something, that sounds like fun. But it's not an actual discussion.

Don't see the difference between killing to "move forward" and killing to avoid responsibility.

Colin Rafferty:
So if someone saw me shoplift, and I killed him to silence him, that's "abortion". Because I'm killing to avoid responsibility.
If you want to frame "abortion" as something that it's not, and then argue against that, the term is "strawman argument".

A living human with a beating heart is brutally murdered because mommie dearest wants to do something else, you're calling that a strawman? I believe creating strawmen is more your forte.

Oboehner, Christian News Network 9 Comments [5/27/2017 8:32:41 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Jocasta

Quote# 127542

Bill Nye is a fraud who is using your childhood nostalgia to gain relevancy and push an agenda end of discussion.

Danielle Butcher, Twitter 6 Comments [5/27/2017 8:32:16 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Daspletosaurus

Quote# 127541

Saying Bill Nye is a scientist is like saying the cast of Grey's Anatomy are real doctors.

Danielle Butcher, Twitter 12 Comments [5/27/2017 8:32:08 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: Daspletosaurus

Quote# 127540

If we had free healthcare/college, what's next on the liberal agenda? Free housing, free clothing? Where does the philosophy of "free" end?

Danielle Butcher, Twitter 16 Comments [5/27/2017 8:32:02 AM]
Fundie Index: 3
Submitted By: Daspletosaurus

Quote# 127539

God will have demonstrated the "true equality" of the sexes as the statistics will show hell's residency, after subtracting all demons, to be 50% males and 50% females. By the way, all "trans-gender" confusion will be reset back to reality in hell.

Bulky_Bob, Yahoo! Answers 4 Comments [5/27/2017 8:31:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: zipperback

Quote# 127531

The goal is to take over Western Europe. A guardian council shall be established with national sovereignty. The Guardian Council will reverse the damage that has happened to our country. National commanders will recognize me as an ideological leader and one option is that I will be the new regent in Norway.

Anders Behring Breivik,  The Breivik Archive 23 Comments [5/26/2017 11:56:43 AM]
Fundie Index: 8
Submitted By: Xavier
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 16 | top