The Goat Pen

IB, with his limited intelligence, has bought into a book of fiction and cherrypicks its most rediculous insanities and inanities. He reads into and embellishes the rest as a giant cherry on top of his crazy cake.

He is the perfect Christian!

Great reading...

AlabamAlum wrote:IB, with his limited intelligence, has bought into a book of fiction and cherrypicks its most rediculous insanities and inanities. He reads into and embellishes the rest as a giant cherry on top of his crazy cake.

He is the perfect Christian!

Far from it

AlabamAlum wrote:Great reading...

Even if you don't believe one word of the Bible AA, certainly, you have to see that I have clearly described what is happening in America in my last post.

Professor Tiger wrote: I love a good theological debate. I just ask that the person I'm debating be relatively sane.

IB continues to prove that he fails to meet this incredibly low standard.

Professor Tiger wrote:

Professor Tiger wrote: I love a good theological debate. I just ask that the person I'm debating be relatively sane.

IB continues to prove that he fails to meet this incredibly low standard.

You know, there isn't much of an actual "debate" when all you do is attack your opponent and not his ideas. It gives you satisfaction on the cheap, but it does nothing to foster intelligent debate. All it does, is make you look ignorant (the way any liberal would ignorant if all they can do is call a conservative a racist instead of really digging into the conservative's position.) Basically, you are throwing up a white flag and admitting that you have lost the debate.

Note, I did not insult any of you. I don't think any of you are that ignorant. I just think you are being lazy. Go back and re-read what I wrote and read it... S-L-O-W-E-R. Comprehend what I have wrote, comment on the point NOT on me.

My last few posts today have given everyone here plenty of meat to chew on. None of you have sunk your teeth in. You've simply called me insane. The clinically insane, don't generally follow logical patterns when coming up with their thoughts and ideas. They are (by their very nature) illogical. Spock may be any number of things, but insane would never be one of them. And everything that I have said over the last few posts today, is all based on current trends in society, data, analysis, and logical conclusions from that analysis. The fact that I can look at those trends and find something spiritual about them, helps me not lose faith in God. We are choosing the outcome of our own collective demise. And God is simply stepping back, allowing us to do ourselves in, while he stands there and weeps.

What an outstanding deal, you left off the tag line of each "I agree to ... " which is "because the alternative is to starve"

Oh those feminist ideas of women getting educated, being allowed to vote (and vote their own conscience at that), make a living on their own. How dare they!

The only solution is to repeal the constitution and set up a theocratic state. Those Iranians and Saudis know how to treat their women, we should follow their example.

I'll add one more thing to my tirade on the status of marriage in this country (the status of marriage in Western Civilization.) The following column was written yesterday. These are the outstanding marriage centric words of a middle aged, married woman, who loves marriage, who just so happens to be "atheist" (probably), and who deeply, DEEPLY regrets getting married so late in life. She turns 44 this year. She will probably never have children (perhaps, not of her choosing, if her current husband was her first actual "proposal" in her life.) In her anger towards her own situation, she has since written articles to try and motivate people to marry much younger in life.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -an-effect

Megan wrote:People who are familiar with the literature on marriage will be unsurprised at the answer: In most places, the children of single mothers are overwhelmingly more likely to experience a transition than those of cohabiting or married parents. Cohabiting couples, in turn, were in general more likely to transition (there were a few places where they were very slightly less likely to do so, but this tended to occur in places where the initial dataset wasn’t very large, and may therefore simply represent random variance).

Interestingly, the size of the marital advantage differed substantially between countries. Even more interestingly, it appeared to be unrelated to the number of cohabiting couples in the general population. Why is this interesting? Because it cuts against a longstanding theory: that as the level of cohabitation goes up, cohabitation will effectively start to look like marriage, weakening the correlation between children’s well-being and parents’ marital status.

Megan is pleading for people to marry. Please, marry. Do it for your kids. Your kids will be soooooooo much better off if they are born legitimately or at the very least (if illegitimacy is unavoidable), raised by two married parents. You are giving them stability, a stability that cohabitation simply can't provide no matter how "normal" that cohabitation appears to be. She has been making this claim for quite a while now, years in fact.

And in all the columns of hers that I have read, (and I have read everything she has said about marriage) never once did she say that marriage law (as it stands today) benefits "men/husbands" beyond stating that married men live longer and raise emotionally healthier children. Even Megan would admit, that there aren't many (any, really) reasons why childless men should get married. Society has done entirely too much damage to the institution of marriage such that we may never get our marriage rate up where it used to be. So men "opt out" on marriage. And our children suffer immensely from that.

Pay attention Goat Pen. This is how you attack a position without personally attacking the poster.

The Gray Ghost wrote:What an outstanding deal, you left off the tag line of each "I agree to ... " which is "because the alternative is to starve"

horsesh1t

No one (regardless of their marital status) starves in the United States. No one. You don't need to get married or you'll starve. That has not been any meaningful part of our short history of this nation, really not any part of living in the Western world. The only people in the entire history of the United States who "starved" were a few members of the Donner Party and the Jamestown settlers. And Jamestown happened 170 years before there was even a country. We have never had an Irish Potato Famine and with good reason. Our agriculture infrastructure is far too advanced (has always led the world), is far too vast, far too de-centralized, far too diversified in crops and abundance, far too productive and plentiful for there ever to be famine in the United States. Since the end of the Civil War, we have been able to feed basically.... the entire world if we really to. And that was as true now as it was true during the Oklahoma Dust Bowl. No one starved during the Great Depression, no one. People were hungry, but no died from hunger. Every church served a free bowl of soup. There was always some morsel somewhere where even our most destitute has something to eat.

The alternative has always been loneliness, childlessness, irrational decisions based on nothing more than emotions, and overall lifelong insecurity. There is no social standing in being a 45 year old cat lady. You spend your whole life believing you have less that that other lady (who is a "Mrs") because you DO have less than her. She has a man that loves and protects her, that would die for her. Women don't marry to eat. Marriage is not about eating. Single women have been able to live very long, boring, uninteresting lives, where they longed for a man who loved them.

The Gray Ghost wrote:Oh those feminist ideas of women getting educated, being allowed to vote (and vote their own conscience at that), make a living on their own. How dare they!

The only solution is to repeal the constitution and set up a theocratic state. Those Iranians and Saudis know how to treat their women, we should follow their example.

Nothing good has ever come of following Islam. Nothing. That said, I'm with Ann Coulter on this one. She is right. We need to repeal both the 19th and the 26th Amendments. There is far too much data and evidence leading to the fact that young people and single women are far too irrational and emotional to be given life or death civics decisions, every other November.

The 'I agree to ....' laundry list was in reference to a 'back in the day when things were good' era - an era when women had little or no alternatives than to become a man's partner/property. Literally starve? ok maybe not, then again we are talking pre-welfare state times. What was a spinster going to do after her parents died?

In your utopia a married man always loves and protects his wife, But what happens in the real world when he doesn't? What happens when he cheats on her, beats her, berates her or ignores her? In your model she has no alternative but to put up with it - and besides, its probably her fault anyway because she wasn'l loyal and loving enough, right?

Nothing good comes from following Islam - but the treatise you present closely matches its model marriage complete with a sneer of Western society.

The repeal of the 19th Amendment is a political argument - that can go back to the other thread. So single women should be barred from voting? Don't tell me, married women can vote as long as they vote the way their husbands tell them to vote. If the husband dies, she cannot vote anymore. What's next, not allowing women to own real estate?

As for the 26th, the same argument holds when it was passed - if 18-20 year olds are too young to be given life or death civics decisions, then we shouldn't be putting weapons in their hands to make life and death decisions in a battle zone.

"My last few posts today have given everyone here plenty of meat to chew on. None of you have sunk your teeth in. You've simply called me insane. The clinically insane, don't generally follow logical patterns when coming up with their thoughts and ideas. They are (by their very nature) illogical."

"Now this is the point. You fancy me mad. Madmen know nothing. But you should have seen me. You should have seen how wisely I proceeded --with what caution --with what foresight --with what dissimulation I went to work! I was never kinder to the old man than during the whole week before I killed him. And every night, about midnight, I turned the latch of his door and opened it --oh so gently! And then, when I had made an opening sufficient for my head, I put in a dark lantern, all closed, closed, that no light shone out, and then I thrust in my head. Oh, you would have laughed to see how cunningly I thrust it in! I moved it slowly --very, very slowly, so that I might not disturb the old man's sleep. It took me an hour to place my whole head within the opening so far that I could see him as he lay upon his bed. Ha! would a madman have been so wise as this?"

[youtube]osbODeD38qY[/youtube]

IB, I found the perfect place you can move to where people share your bizarre views on marriage (compared to America, where the number of people who share your views wouldn't fill a Cooper Mini):

Russia Decriminalizes Domestic Violence

https://www.google.com/amp/www.independ ... html%3Famp

IB is a fucking moron.

The Gray Ghost wrote:The 'I agree to ....' laundry list was in reference to a 'back in the day when things were good' era - an era when women had little or no alternatives than to become a man's partner/property. Literally starve? ok maybe not, then again we are talking pre-welfare state times. What was a spinster going to do after her parents died?

A lot of them worked. They were miserable that they couldn't "catch a man" like all the other ladies did, miserable for not having the social status of being a married woman, but being unhappy and feeling that you have less in life than others is a terrible position from which to enact policy change. I'm sure a stage-4 cancer patient doesn't think what happened to them is fair, either.

The Gray Ghost wrote:In your utopia a married man always loves and protects his wife, But what happens in the real world when he doesn't? What happens when he cheats on her, beats her, berates her or ignores her? In your model she has no alternative but to put up with it - and besides, its probably her fault anyway because she wasn'l loyal and loving enough, right?

Wrong. That is not my model. The following is my model. Bear with me goat pen. Read very slowly and very carefully. I think you all will like this.

(beaten woman picks up the phone)

"Daddy?" -sobs the girl uncontrollably

"What is it sweetheart?"

"He...." trembles a little "...hit me again.!"

(angry father) "I'll take care of it, where is he?"

"He got drunk again. He passed out on the couch after masturbating to p0rn!"

---------

45 minutes later, the girl's mom shows up at the house where his daughter lives with the abuser, and grammy gets the kids out of the house. 5 minutes after that, the wife's father shows up at the house. He is with his largest son and a Catholic priest. Dad, the son, and the priest, drags the drunken man, who is now fully sobered up, out into the back yard, throw a blanket over him, and the 3 men proceed to whale the ever-living-shit out of the abuser. The abuser is strong, very strong, very big, puts up an incredible fight, but its all for naught. He eventually goes fetal and the 3 men proceed to kick the abuser as he lays on the ground. After a couple minutes, everyone stops, they all catch their breath, and the now fully sober man with bruised and broken ribs, a black eye, a bloody nose, and (most importantly) a wounded pride starts to whimper about the police or lawsuits of some such bullsh1t. Daddy in law, cuts him off....

(dad) "Let me make this very clear to you. We did this so that we wouldn't have to have you arrested. If you were arrested, you go to jail and maybe you lose your job and maybe my daughter can't feed the kids and you both lose the house. Then social services gets involved, lawyers get involved, judges, and you get a criminal record. Then you can't ever get another job. Then you get divorced and your kids' live are destroyed. All because you got drunk and hit my daughter repeatedly. We choose this route, the patriarchal route. No lawyers. No police. No judge. No restraining order. "

(abuser) "I came home early and caught that slut of a daughter of yours in bed with my best friend! Again!"

(dad) "And when were you going to tell me this? If she is stepping out on you, if she is giving into her urge to hop up and down on your best friend's cock to fulfill her 'gina tingle the way soooo many married women do, her mother and I are your allies and we can help you. We can help you keep the house, keep your job, and get the kids away from her until she repents, throw her out of the house. She would be paying YOU child support. Believe me, she'd come back to you, begging you to take her back. We'd even let you spank her because she deserves it. That said, you don't close your fists and hit her like you did. You could beat her to death. Does infidelity on my daughter's part warrant a death sentence where the husband is judge, jury, and executioner?"

(abuser) "No."

(dad) "The patriarchy has built in protections for situations just like this, things that protect you and her both. What happened just now between the four of us is over. You will not be punching her again or the next time the 3 of us pay you a visit, the Priest will be praying over your body. Spanking your wife, I don't care. If she did what you say she did, and I'll be honest, I have reason to believe you, then my daughter most certainly deserves a sore ass. And you have my permission to make her ass as sore as you'd deem appropriate by any means that a husband can give a wife a sore ass. You could ream her ass with your hard cock for all I care as her body belongs to you and I know you don't really want to permanently hurt it. Now, the Priest and I are going to have a very difficult conversation with a daughter of mine who was not being forthcoming when she called me on the phone to come and rescue her. Believe me, she will be obeying you from here on out. Did you get your licks in with your best friend, or do the three of us have to pay him a visit now?"

(abuser) "I chased him down the street back to his house. He can run faster than me. He ran full sprint, completely naked. The whole neighborhood saw him. I think his wife is giving him what-for..."

(dad) "I'll send my son home."

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

Grey Ghost, I intentionally went way overboard in over-dramatizing a domestic violence scenario that feminists would say is not the least bit typical. Mothers and wives who are beaten never do what she did. Feminism would have you believe (have everyone at the Goat Pen believe) that husbands are just disgusting, abusive, monsters, and beat their wives for absolutely no reason what-so-ever (for sport, for dominance) and their wives live in fear and terror of their husbands with nowhere to go and no one to turn to. So the government has to step in, hire 5 times as many police as they really need, issue restraining orders all over the place, remove men from a house for (anything), and make the woman "whole" at the expense of the man who just can't help himself. I think we all know the feminist narrative is bullsh1t. We never get to hear what SHE DID in these situations because (according to the feminist narrative) nothing that she would do ever justify what he is doing to her as a result of her actions. In feminism, the husband has ZERO AUTHORITY to correct his feral wife.

But prior to feminism, the patriarchy fixed all these problems without hurting their kids, hurting the husband's earning power, without getting the wife killed (or even really hurt), without involving secular government, and without blowing up the marriage. The son-in-law knew that he could rely on her folks if the mother of his children was doing something entire immoral and despicable. That is because fathers knew that their daughters were not always princesses who could never do anything wrong and had to be held responsible for their feral actions. Feminism has turned father's of daughters into "white-knight cuck-servative manginas." This has to STOP.

The Gray Ghost wrote:Nothing good comes from following Islam - but the treatise you present closely matches its model marriage complete with a sneer of Western society.

Feminism is what is ruining Western Society. The west is the best. Remove the feminism.

The Gray Ghost wrote:The repeal of the 19th Amendment is a political argument - that can go back to the other thread. So single women should be barred from voting? Don't tell me, married women can vote as long as they vote the way their husbands tell them to vote. If the husband dies, she cannot vote anymore. What's next, not allowing women to own real estate?

As for the 26th, the same argument holds when it was passed - if 18-20 year olds are too young to be given life or death civics decisions, then we shouldn't be putting weapons in their hands to make life and death decisions in a battle zone.

Your mind is not fully formed and your reasoning ability is not fully aware until you are about 25 years old. They understand that now about the brain. They didn't understand that back in 1971. I don't want anyone under the age of 25 voting. I don't give a damn if a 19 year old can't have a drink, can't vote, but can die in a war in Afghanistan. I remember the 1970s and everyone in the United States has a car at the age of 16 and if you are drinking at 18, we turn our interstates into what they were in the 1970s, a demolition derby of young kids who ruin and end so many lives.

As far the 19th Amendment goes, men and women do not think the same. Men are more objective and rational, sometimes very coldly rational. Women are much more feeling and emotional. Men vote in what they believe to be the best interest of their wives and their children. Women vote in what they believe to be in the best interest of women's issues. These two things are most certainly not the same. One is voting to preserve Western civilization (as men would vote for political candidates who feel it is right and just and moral to only draft/conscript and kill men, never women.) The other gender is voting her body parts and her emotions when she is okay with so much government spending for lifetime support of never-married moms and their illegitimate thug spawn. We can't have women voting.

IB is a living, breathing chick track.


This is great.

AlabamAlum wrote:IB is a living, breathing chick track.


This is great.

thank you AA. I thought you'd like it

IB,

You are a moron. You think you're smart, which makes it even funnier.

You operate at some stone-age understanding of how the world should be, just like the fundamental muslims you purport to hate. The difference is, most of the muslims in those areas are goat herders or live in an area where their indoctrination is complete, all consuming, and starts at birth. They are not exposed to education or differing opinions that allows them enlightenment. You were, which makes your ignorance even more egregious.

But please keep it up. People of your ilk will continue to help people toward the truth, that is, that imaginary bearded sky-dads are much older than christianity and are a human construct devised by primitive peoples to try and make sense of things they didn't understand.

AlabamAlum wrote:IB,

You are a moron. You think you're smart, which makes it even funnier.

You operate at some stone-age understanding of how the world should be, just like the fundamental muslims you purport to hate. The difference is, most of the muslims in those areas are goat herders or live in an area where their indoctrination is complete, all consuming, and starts at birth. They are not exposed to education or differing opinions that allows them enlightenment. You were, which makes your ignorance even more egregious.

But please keep it up. People of your ilk will continue to help people toward the truth, that is, that imaginary bearded sky-dads are much older than christianity and are a human construct devised by primitive peoples to try and make sense of things they didn't understand.

There is nothing noble, moral, righteous, or just, about feminism. Nothing. All feminism does, is re-usher in, a new stone age. If you have no faith at all in the invisible man in the sky, so be it. Just don't tell me you have faith in the false god of feminism because your cuck-servative remarks towards my rational remarks, makes me think that you do.

Everything I said in the red font above was purely noble, moral, righteous, and just. And all of it would enrage a feminist. You are correct in that I was exposed to education, enlightenment, and differing opinions. And in my enlightenment I was finally able to see feminism for what it is. My enlightenment came when I took the red pill. I patiently await your... enlightenment.

And yes AA, I am very smart. So sorry if you are too primitive to see that.

They mostly want equal pay for equal work.

Get help, IB.

bluetick wrote:They mostly want equal pay for equal work.

(sighs) No. They've been getting that for decades. This equal pay for equal work thing is all a façade to cover their true intensions. And you fell for it.

bluetick wrote:Get help, IB.

I did. Thank God I got some help. I took a red pill. That was all the help I needed. It helped me make sense of a world that previously made no sense (and I wasn't able to figure out exactly why that was.) It is now you who needs the help.

Can someone please ban this moron? He's waisting my data plan.