Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
You are on death row, and you are about to die. What's your last meal? 1 item per section. 

Here is mine - 

Drink: Raspberry tea
Salad: Cabbage with sunflower oil
Soup: Clam chowder (specifically, from the Dreams hotel in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico)
Main course: Grilled sturgeon with baked potato and lobster on the side
Dessert: Lindt 70% Madagascar

You? 
Missing plane OMG WTF BBQ by IvanAndreevich

Can someone explain it to me? I don't get it. 
Response to I Need FeminismI need feminism because
It’s acceptable to call me a slut.
I need feminism because
It’s okay for a guy to slap my butt.
I need feminism because
It’s my own fault if a man rapes me.
I need feminism because
I should look good for men to see.
I need feminism because
People think it means ‘anti-man’.
I need feminism because
I can’t do things that men can.
I need feminism because
Girls think it’s cool to shame each other.
I need feminism because
The world has higher hopes for my brother.
I need feminism because
My femininity makes me ‘weak’.
I need feminism because
If I act masculine I’m a ‘freak’.
I need feminism because
My boobs are my ‘best quality’.
I need feminism because
I believe in equality.
 by CorporateRockWhore
I need feminism because
It’s acceptable to call me a slut.
You do realize that you are calling prostitutes inferior? If there is nothing wrong with being a prostitute, there is nothing wrong with being called one. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a prostitute, personally, so long as no coercion is involved.

If we consider the meaning "
Slut is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous" then the problem is even less obvious. Stop treating it as an insult and just say "Yeah. So what, Mother Theresa?"
I need feminism because
It’s okay for a guy to slap my butt.
You are talking about frivolous sexual harassment lawsuits, rights? I've had my butt slapped by girls. If they are crossing the line, I tell them. 
I need feminism because
It’s my own fault if a man rapes me.
Of course. We don't do stuff like put the person in jail if the guilt can be established, right? 
I need feminism because
I should look good for men to see.
Based on what most girls tell me, they look good for themselves. You aren't in Saudi Arabia where women are forced to wear head scarves. If you feel pressured by someone to look good, just say no to peer pressure. 
I need feminism because
People think it means ‘anti-man’.
Do you have an argument to prove the statement is false, or are you just dismissing the criticism that feminism mostly focuses on the problems facing only one gender without addressing it? 
I need feminism because 
I can’t do things that men can.
I need feminism because I can't do things that women can. I can't give birth. So what? 
I need feminism because
Girls think it’s cool to shame each other.
As you just did with prostitutes above, and I guess feminism didn't help you. Alternatively, it didn't give you the self-esteem to look past mere connotations.
I need feminism because
The world has higher hopes for my brother.
You have Internet access. You are far more privileged when it comes to access to information than Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. You have a computer. You are far more privileged than Leonardo da Vinci or Ansel Adams when it comes to art tools. Stop bitching and do something. 

If Marie Curie spent her time complaining about how the cards are stacked against her, she wouldn't have become an inspiration to millions. 
I need feminism because 
My femininity makes me ‘weak’.
Being female makes you physically weak due to less testosterone. Having menstrual cycles makes you occasionally slightly mentally unstable, or at the very least physically uncomfortable. Being susceptible to pregnancy potentially makes you very weak and unfit for a long period of time. Feminism isn't going to change that.
I need feminism because
If I act masculine I’m a ‘freak’.
Could this be the first valid point? Depending on where you live, I suppose. 
I need feminism because
My boobs are my ‘best quality’.
What you probably need is self esteem. Either that, or your boobs are world-class. Just poking fun.
I need feminism because 
I believe in equality.
You didn't mention any ways in which men are discriminated against, so I suspect not. 
youtu.be/_u_Jpm8MASg

Watch this, I think this is probably the most brilliant piece of oration I've ever heard. Funny, serious, true - all at once. 

RIP Christopher Hitchens. 
I really appreciate it :)
Here's the controversial quote by Phil Robertson -
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there — bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”
First of all, nobody's up in arms defending adultery and bestiality. I do find that interesting. Supposedly, if he omitted homosexuality from his criticism, there would be no uproar. It's OK to criticize whoever the fuck you want to criticize -as long as it's not a race, and not a sexual orientation. Maybe I missed the liberal media list of taboos. It's OK to hate on prostitutes. It's OK to hate on people who like to bang animals. But but but.. it's extremely not OK to disapprove of gay people!

Obviously, I disagree with Phil. I think it's totally cool for consenting adults to fuck whoever they want to fuck in whatever hole they want to use. It's easy for me to say - I am not a Christian. However, in America, the vast majority of people who disagree with Phil are Christians. I think the only thing they can be outraged about is their cognitive dissonance. 

1. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said - 
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
2. Jesus never commented on homosexuality, like he did on slavery in Ephesians 6:5, for example. Therefore, he didn't override or supplement any OT rules regarding homosexuality. 
3. The definitive and unwavering quote regarding homosexuality is Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.
Dear Christians! Not only does the god you worship instruct you to condemn homosexuality like Phil did. In fact, he instructs you to go and fucking kill homosexuals on sight.

You are totally off base, let's be biblical about it. You should be bashing Phil for mere verbal condemnation rather than picking up some rocks and doing the work of the Lord. 

In reality, I hope you have a problem with this - just like I do. Do realize though, that the problem you have is not with Phil Robertson who is 100% unequivocally correct on the issue from a biblical perspectiveYour problem is actually with this character, so aptly described by Richard Dawkins below - 
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Based on the false premises that both you, and Phil Robertson, accept - the Bible is the word of all knowing and all powerful god - he is right, and you are wrong

I see three possible ways for you to move forward on this issue - 
  1. Start hating gay people like the bible instructs you to. Don't forget to stone all adulterers as well. 
  2. Continue being a hypocrite. Don't forget to get angry at people who cause cognitive dissonance by almost literally quoting uncomfortable shit from your guide to eternal salvation that you thankfully don't follow. 
  3. Recognize that the premises are false. Admit that the bible is fucking wrong on this issue which should be obvious to any moral modern human being.
In my opinion, only the third option allows you to extend the human dignity and respect to homosexuals, while simultaneously not being a hypocrite.

Oh, and Merry Christmas :D

Do you hold unquestioning down-on-your-knees-no-criticism-allowed reverence for anybody? I beg you to reconsider. Nobody should ever be beyond criticism. This doesn't mean that you can't genuinely like and respect somebody - just but be realistic.

Many people don't form their own opinion, but they readily adopt the opinion that is handed down to them - from the government, the mainstream media, the church, the family, etc. Such uncritical thought I dislike profoundly. I can't say I hate it, because hate is emotional. I vehemently dislike it in a fully rational manner. 

Do not be one of these people. Do your best to perform independent fact-checking. Don't be gullible and easily trust what someone else says to be accurate - myself included. Even if the other person has no ill intent, s/he is probably acting on bad information themselves and is just relaying it to you. Sure, it takes a bit more effort but being on your toes intellectually goes a long way in developing critical thought.

Nelson Mandela: what do you know about him? I'm sure you heard that he ended apartheid (the racist white-ruled regime) in South Africa. I'm sure you heard that everybody loves him. I mean EVERYBODY. He's revered like the second coming of Christ, but actually more so, since not only Christians love him. Obama loves him, Putin loves him, the Pope loves him, even Gaddafi loved him. Hell, you probably love him. You may even think I'm a tasteless prick because of the title. But what else do you know about him?

Why do you love him? After all, you likely don't know all that much about him. If you are one of the people who knows a lot about Nelson Mandela and you still love him profoundly - my apologies. However, I don't think that applies to most that do. Just admit it. You love him because everyone loves him. You love him because you were told to love him by the media. You love him because it feels good to believe that someone can be a genuinely good, and just, leader worthy of respect and reverence.  

You know what else feels good? Doing drugs, getting drunk, eating junk food, having unprotected sex, etc. Do realize, though, that doing some of these things comes with very undesirable consequences. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the price paid for choosing to believe and revere charismatic leaders without criticism has been the death of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS throughout history. Enjoy responsibly. 

Nelson Mandela founded the “Spear of the Nation”, which was the violent wing of the ANC party. He was in charge, when this organization unleashed terror on mostly civilians. A few excerpts follow.

In the Amanzimtoti bomb on the Natal South Coast in 1985, five civilians were killed and 40 were injured when MK cadre Andrew Sibusiso Zondo detonated an explosive in a rubbish bin at a shopping centre killing five people, including three children, shortly before Christmas.

Orders from whom? Your favorite guy, of course.

A bomb was detonated in a bar on the Durban beach-front in 1986, killing three civilians and injuring 69. Robert McBride received the death penalty for this bombing which became known as the "Magoo's Bar bombing". Although the subsequent Truth and Reconciliation Committee called the bombing a "gross violation of human rights", McBride received amnesty and became a senior police officer.

You've got to love the irony in the naming of various government programs and such. Sounds like lies and coverup to me.

The bombing campaign continued with attacks on a series of soft targets, including a bank in Roodepoort in 1988, in which four civilians were killed and 18 injured. Also in 1988, in a bomb detonation outside a magistrate's court killed three. At the Ellis Park rugby stadium in Johannesburg, a car bomb killed two and injured 37 civilians.

Yes, soft targets. Mandela decided to target civilians instead of the military or the police.

From 1985 to 1987, there also was a campaign to place anti-tank mines in rural roads in what was then the Northern Transvaal. This tactic was abandoned due to the high rate of civilian casualties—especially amongst black labourers.

ORLY?

The TRC found that torture was "routine" and was official policy – as were executions "without due process" at ANC detention camps particularly in the period of 1979–1989.

That's OK, because the torturers all got amnesty later. Nelson Mandela calls that reconciliation.

Mandela by IvanAndreevich

Yes, I am being purposely cynical. Hopefully you recognize that this man was not without fault, and definitely not a saint.

Yesterday, I created a poll on which one of these heinous crimes was worse - ivanandreevich.deviantart.com/…

As of right now, the results are:

42% - 177 deviants said I don't know / Equal
34% - 141 deviants said Rape
24% - 99 deviants said Murder

To the people who chose the first two options, I would like to make the following argument. Speaking to a rape victim, you are in effect telling them -

"You've been raped. I believe rape is worse than murder or just as bad. You are alive now, but I'd much rather (or indifferent whether) you'd have been killed instead. Your life after rape is worthless, or it has negative value - you can't possibly enjoy your life. I believe rape victims can't recover, since obviously murder victims can't recover."

Furthermore, it's logical to argue that people who voted that rape is worse than death are recommending that rape victims should commit a quick and painless suicide after (or preferably before) being raped.

What nonsense. Rephrasing the title of the journal: Being a rape victim is better than being dead. 

EDIT: Great perspective from an actual rape victim - liliwrites.deviantart.com/jour…
Watch and be inspired - youtu.be/z-sdO6pwVHQ

Who's with me now, let's do this together!

The moment your realize.. by IvanAndreevich
Western governments sure like to talk smack about various dictators abusing "their own" people with this or that. What kind of phrase is that anyway? Does it mean it would somehow be less wrong if the people being gassed were not "their own"? Every time I hear that, I cringe. I know a bit about what the US has done on that front, so I can discuss it below. I am quite sure Britain, France, and other "high horse" bullshitters have done their share. 

To start, here is a nice list of what the US government has done to "their own" cattle (err, people) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethica… This chilling list concludes with "As of 2007, not a single U.S. government researcher had been prosecuted for human experimentation, and many of the victims of U.S. government experiments have not received compensation, or in many cases, acknowledgment of what was done to them." I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but these are only the acknowledged such programs. It's quite possible that there are far more of them. 

In Vietnam, US sprayed "herbicides" (wink-wink it's all totally legit if we call them herbicides) which resulted in hundreds of thousands of birth defects and a few hundred thousand deaths as part of Operation Ranch Hand - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operatio…

Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds, and he gassed a lot of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. Who gave him the chemical weapons? Many of the precursors were manufactured in the West. Did they stop this flow once he started using them? Did they mention the high moral ground of how totally wrong it is to use chemical weapons? OMGWTFBBQ of course not! Here, have a read - dawn.com/news/1038806/cia-file… Around 5% of estimated 500,000 dead Iranians was from chemical weapons use. 

Then we have white phosphorus in Fallujah - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_ph… - "On November 16, 2005, BBC News reported that an article published in the March–April 2005 issue of Field Artillery, a U.S. Army magazine, noted that white phosphorus had been used during the battle. According to the article written by a captain, a first lieutenant, and a sergeant, "WP [White Phosphorus] proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes where we could not get effects on them with HE [High Explosives]. We fired "shake and bake" missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."[6] BBC News noted that the article had been discovered by bloggers after the US ambassador in London, Robert Holmes Tuttle, stated that US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.[6]"

I'll remind you again. Not a single. Fucking person. In the West, including the US. Was ever. Charged with any wrong doing regarding any of this. Ever. Never. Ever. 

Assad could gas 1000 people every day for the rest of the year, and he wouldn't even come close to what the US (and other western nations) have done with chemical weapons, ionizing radiation, and biological agents. Don't get me wrong. Fuck Assad, but fuck all other hypocritical liars and murderers of the innocent equally.
I've been involved in some interesting discussions regarding race and gender in the last few months. I've also watched a number of videos on YouTube, have a read a number of studies, as well as articles on the subject. 

From Wikipedia - "Racism is usually defined as views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races and that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior."

Study this definition carefully. It does not contain a judgement - it's a statement of fact. Based on this broad definition, there is no doubt in my mind: I am a racist. I'll go much further, and argue that you should be one, too. Not a racist who believes nonsense like "All black people are violent" or "All Asian kids are nerds", but one who believes reasonable things about race that are supported by evidence. In other words: a non-bigoted racist.

I'll start my argument for racism with one simple (and I believe irrefutable) fact: the dominance of West Africans in sprinting. Out of the top 500 100m dash finishes (www.alltime-athletics.com/m_10…, only 2 people are of non-West African decent. Both of them aren't exactly "white" either. That means 99.6% of those times were produced by West Africans who constitute only 4% of the world population. That means the other 96% (24x more people) of the 7 billion population account for only 0.4% of those finishes. Normalized for population, West Africans would get 99.98% of the top 500 finishes - in other words all 500 of them - if the same number of them were competing as non-West Africans. 

To me, this suggests that West Africans have a genetic predisposition to the ability (with hard work and training) to run faster than any other human. I am, therefore, a racist. 
I challenge you non-racists out there to provide an alternative explanation which explains this overwhelming discrepancy. 

An article on the subject - 
www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine…
I am heading to Banff shortly :D All these places I've seen and eyed so many times will be in my sights shortly. What's an 850 km drive when most people come from around the world to visit? 

Mt Rundle - Banff by LukeAustin  Moraine Lake by porbital Moraine Lake by andyietok Patience - Moraine Lake by LukeAustin

I am not coming back with less than 50GB of RAW files!
The Great Barrier Reef is the size of Italy, and I am fairly positive it does not contain any Al Qaeda elements. However, as they say: if you are not with us, you are against us. In an amazing display of precision, the US military bombed it yesterday. Anything to keep us all in the West safe, right? The government is looking out for you - big time. I feel safer already. 

In other news, the Edward Snowden is accused of spying for stealing information stolen through spying. Right, because like god, the rules do not apply to government. If you do it, it's spying. If the government does it, it's protecting your safety. If you kill, it's murder. If god kills everyone with a flood - he's all loving. Notice the similarity? 
A few years ago a random person messaged me on a social network. She was visiting Vancouver and had wanted someone to show her around. I decided to invite her for a hike to Garibaldi Lake.

Spending almost a whole day with a new person from another part of the world, there are many interesting things to discuss. We talked about this and that, and eventually got to religion. She was raised a Catholic, myself - an atheist. 

I made the standard argument and she brought forward the standard counter-arguments. However, she was willing to grant me certain things and she was willing to think about it. After she left we still continued to exchange messages and ideas over the Internet. She would asks me a certain question, and I would send a link to reading material, such as on cognitive biases. We became friends. Around a year and a half later she said that even though she wanted to believe in god, she no longer could due to the weight of the evidence and all the information that she had considered.

A year ago I visited her in Vienna and she was already, at times, chuckling at various religions' ridiculousness. My point is that not all religious arguments are futile. If someone has an open mind and values facts and evidence it's more than possible for them to change their mind even if they are initially certain of their position.
1) Watch the video - youtu.be/bEcilTcjk9g
2) Read the comments starting from the bottom (i.e. old to new) - www.youtube.com/all_comments?v…

Two of the most popular comments take the familiar form, but I did not expect this from a liberal atheist crowd: 

12 likes - EmmittBrownBTTF1 "Only the extremely stupid could deliver such hate dribbling message and be surprised that have incited violence against themselves." - Free speech equivalent of rape apology: well she was asking for it by wearing that skimpy dress in the bar full of men!

So here's what this story boils down to. You are talking to someone about a computer game in a facebook comment thread, and this happens:

--------------------
A: 'Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head.'
B: 'Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts.'
B: 'lol jk.'
--------------------

Yeah, look you made a bad joke. Never happens, right? One month later, Police shows up at your house, throws you in jail for 3 months, and charges you with making a terroristic threat. You are now facing 8 years in prison.

--------------------
According to Justin's father, the woman alerted police about the comments after she googled his son and found an old address showing that he lived near an elementary school.
--------------------

..and then she found out that Elementary Schools are dispersed evenly throughout suburbia so that everyone could live near one. What a dumb cunt. 

The best part of this story? The 1 month gap between the issuing of "the threat" and the arrest of the "terrorist". Police is saving those kids no matter what, it's clearly a top priority. 
Don't you love the bullshit that the government feeds you? But hey, why argue with them? It's much better to take their line, apply it consistently, and run with it!

So, today the 19 year old moron who decided to blow up some random people was indicted on charges of using Weapons of Mass Destruction. Yes, you heard that right. A good old pipe bomb which killed a few people and can be manufactured in your room is now classified as a WMD. Preposterous you say? No, no! Let's grant them that, because they've dug themselves a hole. So then, if a pressure cooker bomb is a WMD, what does it make an actual bomb or a rocket dropped from a plane or a drone? A weapon of VERY mass destruction, no less.

Here's an animated sequence with detailed information of all drone strikes in Pakistan: drones.pitchinteractive.com/ That's only Pakistan, not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Yemen. That doesn't include mortar rounds, tank shells, RPG's, mines, etc which US troops use on the ground every day. Naturally, a large number of these weapons end up killing civilians, because that's the reality of pointless war. 

So there you have it, folks. According to the US government prosecutors - as per the indictment www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Tsa… - United States uses weapons of mass destruction. I guess it's finally time they came clean :o


EDIT: Link to story and clarification added below. Please read as presented, form an opinion, and then scroll down for actual link and details to re-read the original again ;)

So this is an actual news story, I'd like you to weigh in on this. I will link to the news story later, and also link to the Facebook post so you can see the comments for yourself. 

A man was told by his two boys that this woman who lives nearby molested them. Next thing you know, he sees her walking down the street, alone. In anger, he grabs a baseball bat from his car, chases her down the street and beats the SHIT out of her. Now keep in mind, the woman has no criminal record, and there is absolutely no evidence of any wrong doing other than the boys' testimony. After the police got involved, they found no physical evidence of the abuse at the woman's place either. Attached with the Facebook share of the news story is a photo of the father laughing in his police mugshot, very smug and happy about what he had done. The father doesn't deny the fact that he assaulted the woman. 

Post shared ~30 times, liked ~200 times which is pretty high for this particular page. In other words, it's a popular story. These are the actual comments on Facebook about the situation (I am posting the ones with the highest number of likes to show the general sentiment of the crowd): 

----------------------------------------

Comment 1: "Good for him" (5 likes)

Comment 2: "Good, I'm glad he did it. Fuck if it were me, I would have killed her. Sorry, the judicial system fails way too much." (7 likes)

Comment 3: "Rebecca, only 2% of the child molesters are convicted even when most juries really believe that the molestations did occur. This is the worst crime of all, I'm not in favor of vigilante justice at all but the law enforcement really fails in this most crucial area." (6 likes)

Comment 4: "I'm sure a father can tell when his children have been hurt, Rebecca! Little boys do not tend to make up stories about getting [molested]!! Wake the fuck up! This kind of bullshit happens way too often! Damn straight, good for him!!" (4 likes)

Comment 5: "What if it was your children, Rebecca? Would you not want to beat the absolute shit out of the SOB who did it? If it were mine - this chick would be out in the Atlantic Ocean somewhere." (4 likes) 

Comment 6: "I'd suggest that all convicted sex offenders be required by law to have the words "Sex Offender" tattooed across their foreheads!" (4 likes)

----------------------------------------

As you can see, one of the dissenting opinions - Rebecca - is getting mostly a negative response. This is a US page, by the way, with mostly Americans posting on there. Do you not find this incredibly sexist and bigoted? 

Aren't we supposed to have the presumption of innocence? Shouldn't the person accused of a crime get a chance to defend themselves in a court of law?

----------------------------------------

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

OK, so here's the kicker. The genders are reversed. It was a mother who beat a man with a baseball bat. 

Here's the Facebook comment thread - www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbi…
Here's the news story -www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_16…

Do you now understand why comments 1-5 were made?
"To be for women is not to be against men. To be for women is the best thing you can do for men in this country." - Marie Wilson
------------------------------------------------------

I wholeheartedly agree, what a profound quote and insight!

Men currently suffer 95-99% of all work related deaths. Let's bring more women into dangerous professions like garbage collection, fishing, logging, roofing, etc. It's so horrible that women are viciously discriminated against in these prestigious and rewarding occupations. In the interests of gender equality, women should have their fair share of crushed limbs and broken backs - something they are really missing out on in our severely sexist society! 

Only men are sent to die in a war situation via the draft. Tens of millions of men have died on the battlefield in the 20th century, while women suffered a much lower casualty rate. That's just not right.  Let's make it fair and send women to die, too, so that they can get the opportunity to demonstrate their valor and get blown to shreds by IED's on the front lines. It's especially disappointing how women in the armed forces do not receive dangerous combat roles that they deserve, which is why currently their casualty rate is also orders of magnitude less than men. 

Unfortunately, women get to live this wretched life in which they are severely disrespected, abused, and discriminated against much longer than men on average. This is just not right. We should stop spending so much money and resources on women's health - such as these never ending breast cancer campaigns, while spending two to three orders of magnitude less on prostate cancer. Clearly, this is a clever plot by the patriarchy to get many extra years of constant demeaning and discrimination for each woman who lives longer. Women, too, should enjoy early death from treatable conditions that men currently enjoy. It's a basic human right, really!

Oh, I could go on and on here. There are just too many ways in which the women in the West are discriminated against. We really need to keep striving for equality!
Siblings by hateom This is how it ends by hateom Evening Walk by hateom Painting with Light by hateom Caves by hateom

Did I get your attention yet? These are well done in all aspects: technically sound composition, impressive work out in the field, and extremely proficient editing. 

Better yet, hateom has a HD video tutorial for you, along with some RAW files so you can follow along - as long as you have the right software. It's very much worth 20 minutes of your time!