🔥 | Latest

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^ Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
libertarirynn:

vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.

libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardb...

Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano
 @Alyssa_Milano
 Follow
 Ns
 NEWS
 MARIJU
 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018
 MAKEMAT
 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes
 主与玉丰丰
 --
vaporwavevocap:

cheshireinthemiddle:
napoleonbonerfarte:


cheshireinthemiddle:

pseudopupil:


cheshireinthemiddle:

hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:


hardboiledoldman:


cheshireinthemiddle:
But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. 
You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt.


At least I have a good argument. 
And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. 


A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker.
We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit.


A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. 
Your counterargument is…insults. 
You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. 
If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). 
And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. 

You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.
 If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug.


Another person who just insults and doesnt read. 
The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. 
If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. 
You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. 
The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. 
“I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. 

“maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now?


Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. 
There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. 
If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. 

It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution.

What she said ^

vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: c...

Bitch, Click, and Dating: guiltlessdeviant: aaliyahbreaux: big-mood-energy: aaliyahbreaux: girldont: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractandedgyname: libertarirynn: paradise-dream222: flyandfamousblackgirls: Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..” I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets. Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with. This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy. Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!! So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point. Imagine openly saying you don’t find your SO physically attractive, that’s embarrassing for yourself and the person you’re with. studies show no matter how old men get typically they are most attracted to women in their twenties whereas women are most attracted to men around their age. and yet, women are seen as being superficial and shallow for just wanting to be with someone attractive… yes, basing whether or not you date somebody on their looks is shallow. it’s the definition of shallow, in fact. shallow is dating some entirely for their looks. dating someone you find attractive is just how attration works Ugly. You need to be attracted to the person you date. That’s just logic. Don’t settle for someone you’re not attracted to. The issue here is not just saying “you should someone you find attractive”, the issue is saying “don’t date ugly guys” as though that’s some sort of objective classification and acting like you’re literally better than people because you’re more physically attractive and they should be thanking the gods if you even grace them with your presence. That’s the conceited bullshit. Also for most people attraction has to be more than physical. Physical can be a part of it but there are plenty of hot assholes.
Bitch, Click, and Dating: guiltlessdeviant:

aaliyahbreaux:


big-mood-energy:


aaliyahbreaux:


girldont:


flyandfamousblackgirls:

drdrunkpigeon-phd:


abstractandedgyname:


libertarirynn:

paradise-dream222:

flyandfamousblackgirls:

Shae Scott: “This is why I don’t date ugly guys..”

I’ve dated an ugly guy before and he was just a WASTE of my time. He didn’t get cocky, but he should’ve been a lil more appreciative of me. Seeing that no other girl would even look at him before I did. 

Holy fuck y’all are conceited. Those men are dodging bullets.



Hey, my boyfriend may not be conventionally attractive or the most attractive in the world but it’s almost as if when your personalities really click they become so attractive to you! But obviously, yall can’t do that as you need a personality to begin with.
This bitch fully is under the impression that she should date an attractive boring guy rather than an ugly boring guy, as if looks are the only defining things in relationships. How about, date an ugly [fun, interesting, caring, sex god] guy vs a hot [boring, simple, arrogant, sexually incompetent] guy.
Maybe all the ugly you’ve dated have been ugly on the inside too, must be if they date such a wretched creature as yourself, but news flash lady! Everyone is different for fuck sake !!!!


So when guys say women are too tall, too dark, too fat, hair not long enough, hair too “nappy”, her teeth, because she has tattoos or weave, because she wears makeup or they don’t wanna date her because she’s trans….Thats ok. But women are obligated to accept any man as he is? Interesting…yall are proving her point.

Imagine openly saying you don’t find your SO physically attractive, that’s embarrassing for yourself and the person you’re with.


studies show no matter how old men get typically they are most attracted to women in their twenties whereas women are most attracted to men around their age. and yet, women are seen as being superficial and shallow for just wanting to be with someone attractive…


yes, basing whether or not you date somebody on their looks is shallow.
it’s the definition of shallow, in fact.


shallow is dating some entirely for their looks. dating someone you find attractive is just how attration works Ugly. 


You need to be attracted to the person you date. That’s just logic. Don’t settle for someone you’re not attracted to.

The issue here is not just saying “you should someone you find attractive”, the issue is saying “don’t date ugly guys” as though that’s some sort of objective classification and acting like you’re literally better than people because you’re more physically attractive and they should be thanking the gods if you even grace them with your presence. That’s the conceited bullshit. Also for most people attraction has to be more than physical. Physical can be a part of it but there are plenty of hot assholes.

guiltlessdeviant: aaliyahbreaux: big-mood-energy: aaliyahbreaux: girldont: flyandfamousblackgirls: drdrunkpigeon-phd: abstractan...

Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!? Sl BAPU BAPTIST CHUR(H SUS DISGUST MyCHILD Dortyouatti? SaSin!God condemns W all! BRIAN heed to have a talk 0 CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE TH ISLAMIC TEMPUE I didnt die ona Cross for this BS RADICAL righte homoSexvality ar the last 2.000 yearsold. prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated.
Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!?
 Sl
 BAPU
 BAPTIST
 CHUR(H
 SUS
 DISGUST
 MyCHILD

 Dortyouatti?
 SaSin!God
 condemns W
 all!
 BRIAN
 heed to
 have a
 talk
 0

 CHRISTIANS
 CELEBRATE TH
 ISLAMIC TEMPUE
 I didnt
 die ona
 Cross for
 this BS
 RADICAL

 righte
 homoSexvality
 ar the last
 2.000 yearsold.
prismatic-bell:
the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


prismatic-bell:


broken-bits-of-dreams:

prismatic-bell:


aiko-mori-hates-pedos:

artbymoga:
Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP


Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.


WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” 

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. 

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 

4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy).


So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.)


Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:








Much appreciated.

prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymog...

Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread Zachary Fox and 3 others liked A$MR Rocky @ChristianMingel Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids can cause them to be violent adults" Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never turned out violent. That's why l can't wait to hit my own kids when l get them" 1/4/18, 2:44 PM 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes imfemalewarrior: thebaconsandwichofregret: asexual-not-asexual-detective: Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. Except they’re not. The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit. And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse) And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development.  Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them.  -FemaleWarrior, She/They  i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 
Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread
 Zachary Fox and 3 others liked
 A$MR Rocky
 @ChristianMingel
 Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids
 can cause them to be violent adults"
 Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never
 turned out violent. That's why l can't
 wait to hit my own kids when l get them"
 1/4/18, 2:44 PM
 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes
imfemalewarrior:

thebaconsandwichofregret:

asexual-not-asexual-detective:

Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. 

Except they’re not. 
The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit.
And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. 
Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. 
Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse)
And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. 
The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. 

We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development. 
Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them. 
-FemaleWarrior, She/They 

i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 

imfemalewarrior: thebaconsandwichofregret: asexual-not-asexual-detective: Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are d...

Clothes, Food, and Logic: Jakè Neidert Follow @Jakeandbake336 Fact: minimum wage is livable if you cut out entertainment, alcohol, drug, and eating out costs. Minimum wage isn't supposed to support a 6 figure lifestyle 4:27 AM-20 May 2019 480 Retweets 2,549 Likes AlwaysAshley @AshleyFrankly Follow Replying to @Jakeandbake336 Sit down, big boy. "A full-time minimum- wage job doesn't pay well enough to afford rent. In Kansas, where the state minimum wage is $7.25, you'd need to make $10.53 an hour to afford a studio. To rent a one- bedroom at minimum wage, you'd need to work 67 hours a week." 10:41 AM - 21 May 2019 397 Retweets 8,477 Likes Pé Resists Follow @4everNeverTrump Replying to @Jakeandbake336 Okay... let's try this in your city, Waco: Full-time minimum wage: $14,500/year. Splitting a 2 bedroom apartment in Waco: $5400/year. Utilities: $1500/year. Car (because it's TX): $6000/year. Income tax: $1400 WITHOUT FOOD, you're already at $14,300 in yearly expenses. 4:30 PM 21 May 2019 881 Retweets 7,612 Likes Pé Resists Follow @4everNeverTrump Replying to @4everNeverTrump @Jakeandbake336 Nor does this account for healthcare, pets, clothes, hygiene products, Mother's Day and Xmas gifts, etc. There's a reason why people work 60-80 hours/week at minimum (or close to minimum) wage jobs: BECAUSE IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE ON A MINIMUM WAGE. 4:34 PM -21 May 2019 296 Retweets 5,270 Likes Katherine Soutar Artist Follow @Kate_Dancingcat Replying to @Jakeandbake336 This Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. Oscar Wilde www.m ne 6:42 AM 21 May 2019 1,010 Retweets 7,459 Likes gahdamnpunk: Why is conservative logic pretty much “you can live on a minimum wage if you cut out LIVING”??
Clothes, Food, and Logic: Jakè Neidert
 Follow
 @Jakeandbake336
 Fact: minimum wage is livable if you cut out
 entertainment, alcohol, drug, and eating out
 costs. Minimum wage isn't supposed to
 support a 6 figure lifestyle
 4:27 AM-20 May 2019
 480 Retweets 2,549 Likes

 AlwaysAshley
 @AshleyFrankly
 Follow
 Replying to @Jakeandbake336
 Sit down, big boy. "A full-time minimum-
 wage job doesn't pay well enough to afford
 rent. In Kansas, where the state minimum
 wage is $7.25, you'd need to make $10.53 an
 hour to afford a studio. To rent a one-
 bedroom at minimum wage, you'd need to
 work 67 hours a week."
 10:41 AM - 21 May 2019
 397 Retweets 8,477 Likes

 Pé Resists
 Follow
 @4everNeverTrump
 Replying to @Jakeandbake336
 Okay... let's try this in your city, Waco:
 Full-time minimum wage: $14,500/year.
 Splitting a 2 bedroom apartment in Waco:
 $5400/year.
 Utilities: $1500/year.
 Car (because it's TX): $6000/year.
 Income tax: $1400
 WITHOUT FOOD, you're already at $14,300 in
 yearly expenses.
 4:30 PM 21 May 2019
 881 Retweets 7,612 Likes

 Pé Resists
 Follow
 @4everNeverTrump
 Replying to @4everNeverTrump @Jakeandbake336
 Nor does this account for healthcare, pets,
 clothes, hygiene products, Mother's Day and
 Xmas gifts, etc.
 There's a reason why people work 60-80
 hours/week at minimum (or close to
 minimum) wage jobs: BECAUSE IT'S
 IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE ON A MINIMUM WAGE.
 4:34 PM -21 May 2019
 296 Retweets 5,270 Likes

 Katherine Soutar Artist
 Follow
 @Kate_Dancingcat
 Replying to @Jakeandbake336
 This
 Sometimes the poor
 are praised for being
 thrifty. But to
 recommend thrift to
 the poor is both
 grotesque and
 insulting. It is like
 advising a man who is
 starving to eat less.
 Oscar Wilde
 www.m ne
 6:42 AM
 21 May 2019
 1,010 Retweets 7,459 Likes
gahdamnpunk:
Why is conservative logic pretty much “you can live on a minimum wage if you cut out LIVING”??

gahdamnpunk: Why is conservative logic pretty much “you can live on a minimum wage if you cut out LIVING”??