Thursday, 10 October 2013

Do I think man can destroy the planet? Yes, in every sense.

You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity.

Let me tell you about our planet. 


Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. 

Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. 

Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. 

Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? 

Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that’s happened?

 Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. 

Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. 

We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.

- Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park 

This is wrong. There's a lot of nasty possible outcomes. Let's assume the Big Rip idea is off the table.

A nearby supernova could extinguish all life. Just from radiation... it might not even visibly change the earth much, from a distance, for a while.

A big asteroid, or even another planet, could hit. The one that wiped out the dinosaurs was fairly large, but there's no limit to the devastation potentially. Our planet could be shivered into billions, nay, trillions, of fragments. Or thrown out of it's orbit, and wander the interstellar night.

And all the while, the sun is burning.

If life is wiped out, there's just no time here for it to restart.

By the logic of the Drake Equation, if intelligent life can emerge, it should be everywhere. It isn't. We could be the only intelligence in that bubble of the universe accessible at light-speed; and nothing we have ever seen indicates that barrier can be broken.

We are the last, best hope for life,

Everywhere.



800 million Carbon dioxide levels fall to the point at which C4 photosynthesis is no longer possible.[31] Multicellular life dies out.[32]


1 billion[b] The Sun’s luminosity has increased by 10 percent, causing Earth’s surface temperatures to reach an average of ~320 K (47°C, 116°F). The atmosphere will become a “moist greenhouse”, resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans.[33] Pockets of water may still be present at the poles, allowing abodes for simple life.[34][35]


1.3 billion Eukaryotic life dies out due to carbon dioxide starvation. Only prokaryotes remain.[32]


1.5–1.6 billion The Sun’s increasing luminosity causes its circumstellar habitable zone to move outwards; as carbon dioxide increases in Mars's atmosphere, its surface temperature rises to levels akin to Earth during the ice age.[32][36]


2.3 billion The Earth’s outer core freezes, if the inner core continues to grow at its current rate of 1 mm per year.[37][38] Without its liquid outer core, the Earth’s magnetic field shuts down,[39] and charged particles emanating from the Sun strip away the ozone layer, which protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays.[40]


2.8 billion Earth’s surface temperature, even at the poles, reaches an average of ~420 K (147°C, 296°F). At this point life, now reduced to unicellular colonies in isolated, scattered microenvironments such as high-altitude lakes or subsurface caves, will completely die out.[30][41][c]


3 billion Median point at which the Moon’s increasing distance from the Earth lessens its stabilising effect on the Earth’s axial tilt. As a consequence, Earth’s true polar wander becomes chaotic and extreme.[42]


3.3 billion 1 percent chance that Mercury's orbit may become so elongated as to collide with Venus, sending the inner Solar System into chaos and potentially leading to a planetary collision with Earth.[43]


3.5 billion Surface conditions on Earth are comparable to those on Venus today.[44]


5.4 billion With the hydrogen supply exhausted at its core, the Sun leaves the main sequence and begins to evolve into a red giant.[47]


7.5 billion Earth and Mars may become tidally locked with the expanding Sun.[36]


7.9 billion The Sun reaches the tip of the red-giant branch of the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, achieving its maximum radius of 256 times the present day value.[47] In the process, Mercury, Venus and possibly Earth are destroyed.[48]
 
During these times, it is possible that Saturn's moon Titan could achieve surface temperatures necessary to support life.[49]


8 billion Sun becomes a carbon-oxygen white dwarf with about 54.05 percent its present mass.[47][50][51][d]


14.4 billion Sun becomes a black dwarf as its luminosity falls below three trillionths its current level, while its temperature falls to 2239 K, making it invisible to human eyes.[52]

Are YOU good enough?

image


Is doing this okay?

What??

Is doing THIS okay.

What? I can't hear you!

IS DOING THIS ... OH FORGET IT..

What????

(*a girl wanders over and the two women start snogging without a word*)

"Well", thinks the gent, "I may not be having sex ever again, but at least I am a Feminist-Approved Good Man(TM)"

Image from http://david.sickmiller.com/pictures/dynslideshow/Florida/Girls_at_the_nightclub_take_1 licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Should laws be passed to suppress certain types of anti-feminism?

Surely this is an outrageous question? Didn't we fight wars in which millions of people died, fighting for the freedom to speak the truth as they saw it?

Apparently they died for nothing...



"not at all, it would go underground and people need to know it exists in order to oppose it and prevent it from growing. "

Hmm... yeah, that sounds comforting... so opposing feminism is the equivalent of belonging to some sort of dangerous cult... people don't even talk that way about the KKK and they killed people..

"MNL_1221 answered 1 month ago
We already have some books that suppress certain types of anti-feminism: namely, laws that prohibit job discrimination, sexual harassment, unfair treatment of rape victims (such as prosecutors asking a rape victim during a trial about her past sexual experience), and such."

So opposing feminism is the equivalent of sexual harassment or discriminating against job applicants? But they are right about the rape trials; it's a venue where a male is presumed guilty and the accuser given elevated status.

"However, because of the First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, I don't think you can pass laws preventing anti-feminists from expressing their opinion about women's place in the world. They are free to express their thoughts, and so are those who disagree with them."

Damn shame.

"That said, certain rules in certain organizations--Yahoo!, for instance--allow some organizations to censor speech that they find hateful. Also, the media has rules and laws concerning certain types of speech that may hurt or offend others."

But here's a loophole we can use to suppress free speech! Yay!

"However, speech meant to incite violence against others--such as calling for violence against women who don't "tow the line"--would be censorable and prosecutable. "

"speech meant to incite violence against males"... that's not worth mentioning. Heck, they deserve it! It's "*fabulous*", to quote Sharon Osbourne.

"Freedom of speech should not mean freedom to defame. "

Yes, it should.. if it's true. Truth must be an absolute protection. If Richard Nixon is a crook, and I'm arrested for saying that, then what freedom do I have?

"dark eyes answered 1 month ago
No. In their manner of getting their cause "out" they are inadvertently indicating the necessity of the feminist movement!

Because arguing against National Socialism is proof we need National Socialism!

"They're burying themselves. They cuss, they threat, they go around with this "she has that,I want it, too" attitude."

How dare they demand equality from an organisation that claims it is about equality! Don't they realise it's equality only when it benefits women?

"They want the rights of having a uterus, without having a uterus."

Strawman. I don't recall any man demanding the right have a womb. Except maybe in Life of Brian...

"They want to rid lower standards, affirmative action, then complain women are weak, emotional, etc... then complain we DON'T take the dangerous, deadly jobs! "

This paragraph is incoherent.

Yes, we want to rid lower standards of education for men,
Yes, we want to rid lower standards of healthcare for men,
Yes, we want to rid lower standards of justice for men,
Yes, we want to rid lower standards of social value for men.

We are right to complain when women want to be paid the same as a man doing a dangerous job, without taking the same risks. That's anti-capitalism at it's finest. Even communist countries gave the worst jobs some sort of incentives.

You know what they call forcing a group to do the dangerous stuff without rewards?

Slavery.

And so on and so on.

finally, check these three links:


Google Inc., YouTube LLC: Categorize the MRM as flaggable for terrorism/promoting hate on YouTube.

Colleges offer credit to students who enter ‘feminist thinking’ into Wikipedia
NORDIC TAXPAYER FUNDED REPORT DEMANDS ANTI-FEMINIST VIEWS BE DEEMED ‘HATE SPEECH’ AND CRIMINALIZED

People are saying YES and doing their best to make it so that people like me will be silenced or imprisoned. Every mention of us will be controlled through wikipedia et al so that we will be defined by our enemies; or outright *erased*.

Tuesday, 8 October 2013

Men in Sweden are at least as likely as women to be victims of domestic violence


According to researchers at SahlgrenskaAcademy in Gothenburg*, men as likely as women to suffer spousal abuse.

*https://archive.is/l6MOT  16 Feb 2014 01:52:55 UTC


So what picture do they use to illustrate this?

Men as likely as women to suffer spousal abuse: Swedish study

That's right. They couldn't find a stock photo where a man is a victim. The idea is so much against the dominant narrative that even as they say it, they can't find one image to illustrate their point.

I'm not surprised. I tried myself. Almost all of the images were comical.




"8 to 11 percent of men reported being victims of physical violence at the hands of their spouse in the past year. The corresponding figure for women was 8 percent...

"Both men and women use the kind of violence that can harm the other person... The respondents mentioned behaviour ranging from punching, kicking and pushing to strangleholds and threats at gunpoint.

The study also revealed, however, that between 8 and 11 percent of male victims reported that they had also been perpetrators of violence and Krantz added that the results should be interpreted "with caution".

"We do not know in detail what led women to use violence in aggression," she explained."

Even now, she's making excuses for the women. The men ... must have deserved it.

As this commentator put it:








actanonverba8
"Krantz added that the results should be interpreted "with caution".

Translation: Kantz doesn´t want the feminist mafia coming after her.
 "Researchers also found that female victims of domestic violence suffered
from more severe health effects than men, with women were more likely
to report depression, anxiety and difficulty sleeping."
 What a dumb comment. It is well known that women report anything associated with being vulnerable, weakened, or victimized more than men. It is also well-known that women false(sic) report these things more. I´m not saying that women are naturally bigger liars. It´s simply a case of what a person expects to encounter when they make a complaint or seek assistance.
 Women are far more likely to receive empathy and gracious help. In fact, for women, who is the bigger "victim" can almost be like a form of currency. Men are far more likely to be ignored, ridiculed, or told to "man up". Men, for the most part, are despised for being victims. The result: Women are far more forthcoming about perceived suffering and victimization, men are not.

Baroness Corston, how do you explain this? Still want to close all the women's prisons?

Further Reading:


1) Domestic violence is most commonly reciprocal

Saved from

no other snapshots from this url

24 Sep 2015 10:55:50 UTC
https://archive.is/UVAlN


2) If You're Not Straight, You're at Higher Risk for Domestic Violence - most help-centers and laws focus exclusively on straight female victims

Saved from
no other snapshots from this url

6 Mar 2014 09:18:24 UTChttps://archive.is/ZlUIL

Down with Halloween!

A Feminist Dictates what you horrible people had better not wear!

Good grief.

By this logic, Americans shouldn’t celebrate Halloween at all. It’s a European cultural tradition; how dare they appropriate it?!!!

Of course, another way to look at it is if we didn’t allow for cultural mixing and re-interpretation, we’d be back in the stone age. Just because Ogg has good idea with copper ingot doesn’t mean we should copy her… that’s appropriation!!!
"Dressing up as Pocahontas, and any other ‘native american’ outfit is a big nope. "

Pocahontas is a fantasy character. No-one dresses as the historical figure! “Native american outfits” are about as real as medieval damsel and knight outfits .. must they be banned too?

Do you think the Dark Ages were a joke to the peasants who lived through them and who were trampled by those people? How can you enjoy medieval re-enactment! Won’t somebody think of the peasants?!!

"Even worse if you’re white. "

Sooooo if you are native american, you can’t dress as a native american… because you would be insensitive to this person who represents all native americans whether they like it or not.

Think twice before putting on a ‘slutty’ outfit. There’s a fine line between being sex positive and an ally to sex workers, and another to mock and amplify misogyny through objectification and use of slurs. “

This is incoherent but it’s in bold so don’t think because.. PATRIARCHY.
You cannot say that women should be able to dress as they want without slut-shaming whilst simultaneously shaming them for dressing up as sluts!!

"Speak up (if the situation allows it) if you see any guardians pressuring kids to wear very gendered costumes… There is nothing wrong with things like little girls WANTING to wear all pink dresses and tiaras. That’s as awesome as them wanting to dress up as a superhero! "

Again, the author can’t see the self-contradictions!

"Be creative with your make up. There is no excuse for brown, yellow, and black facing, especially with so many online tutorials for amazing make up effects. Also it’s just fucked up."

Being something you are not for a day is fun. Why shouldn’t a black or yellow person try being white for a night? Or vice versa?

Poking fun of stereotypes is also fun, and the basis of a lot of comedy. Does the author want to dictate to Dave Chapelle or Eddie Murphy how to do their jobs?

"Fat suits aren’t okay. Those are bodies you’re wearing as a costume for laughs, while for some of us, that’s a fatphobic stigma we need to deal with daily. "

I can only assume the author weeps throughout any comedy. Being thin is funny. Being fat is funny. Being tall is funny. Being short… is funny! And walking around in a fat suit… can build empathy. Which trumps your fucking super-fragile ego by a country mile, because if there’s one thing this world needs, it’s empathy, and not more professional victims.

"Don’t wear a kimono because you wanna ‘be a geisha’ bc that will end in awkward culture appropriation that you cannot back up. Trust me."

Pretending to be a geisha is pretty much what modern geishas do. There’s always been a conflict about whether they were sex workers or entertainers. And you know what? Modern Japan has no problem with using westerners as geishas, they are quite popular.

Does the author freak out when they see a chinese person dressed as a cowboy or medieval european knight? I doubt it, only non-white people have these ‘feelings’ according to the author, who seems to be on a crusade to save everyone from the wicked whiteys!

"having cis guys “dress up as women” by wearing a dress and terrible wig is just not okay. Halloween could be this amazing space to explore representation. Instead, usually this just states what you really think of anyone feminine. You think femininity is false and vain, and you will come off as an asshole. Not to mention this is just transphobic on a different level of NOPE.”
Fuck your gender stereotypes! If men want to wear dresses, paint nails, wear make-up, they can and will do so without your permission. Just as women smoked cigars, wore trousers and even fake facial hair without asking men if this would hurt their pwecious fweelings.

And transvestitism has nothing to do with transexuality. But fuck you for condemning everyone throughout history with that fetish.

DO YOUR GODDAMN RESEARCH BEFORE YOU GO AND WEAR SOMETHING THAT WILL DO MORE THAN HARM THOSE AROUND YOU…Your costume could trigger and be a micro aggression towards others.

Translation: I choose to be harmed by everything you do. PATRIARCHY!
PATRIARCHY!
PATRIARRRRRRRCHY!

Don’t question me don’t think STOP THINKING!

Mother pimped out her own daughter

Mother accused of allowing sex with young daughter, selling nude photos online

A mother is accused of selling nude photos of her 11-year-old daughter, and worse, investigators say she even allowed men to pay for sex with the girl.

Crawford County investigators say she had taken countless nude photos of her now 11-year-old daughter and sold them to men through social media.

The girl’s grandfather told News 4 he can’t believe it and now, he wants justice for everyone involved. “I hope they get him, the password computer dude, I hope they get him too and I hope he’s sitting beside her and I hope they are both in there for awhile,” the grandfather said.
(source: Lauren Trager / News 4)

I'm glad she was caught, but it's a shame the grandfather looks at this and just sees a third party as having equal responsibility, instead of acknowledging her agency. It was the mother's wickedness that caused all this to happen above and beyond all else.

No word yet as to whether Baroness Jean Corston will be flying to be by her side at her time in need. After all, women don't deserve to be in prison, do they, Baroness? 


Updated with a few more cases:

Mother-of-four, 25, charged with trying to SELL her 10-month-old baby girl for $500

Middle Tennessee mom sentenced to 40 years for raping own children

Cyber-Stupidity



In Australia, there are no protections for free speech. Every attempt to set up something has been blocked by the major parties.

People just have the illusion it exists.

For example, say you are talking to your friends, and one of them asks "so what were they like in bed?"

Now you might think that's something that should be private. I've often been surprised at how open women are to their friends about their partners, and I'm not terribly comfortable with having what we got up to broadcast! But it's a fact that many people take for granted that this is legal.

So if it's legal to do it face to face, why is it suddenly a serious crime to do it via technology? Why does slapping 'Cyber!" on everything mean you can pass any piece of draconian legislation you want?

"A group of young people created a
“Root-Rater” page on Facebook. The page
asked Facebook users from local schools
to send in information about the people
they had sex with, including descriptions
of their bodies and scores for their sexual
performance.

The page then posted this
information for all its friends to see.

The page was taken down, but local schools
threatened to expel students who were
involved, and NSW Police said that “RootRater”
and other gossip pages could
lead to criminal charges for the girls and
boys who participated."

(source)