Valentine's Day
Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day

pics
pics

pics

2018
2018

2018

cat
cat

cat

said
 said

said

Tall Enough
Tall Enough

Tall Enough

Quotes
Quotes

Quotes

Animal
Animal

Animal

humor
humor

humor

Pictures
Pictures

Pictures

🔥 | Latest

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...

Birthday, Comfortable, and Confidence: reddit-tales What has been your worst "nice guy" experience? So, possibly one of the coolest things I've ever seen. I mean you know how you hear the "women want him, men want to *be* him" stuff in old movies? Well I'm a man and by *god* I wanted to be this guy. Anyway! I'm having dinner with my girlfriend at the time, and behind us are a couple on a not going well. Guy was being I rather inappropriate comments, the girl doesn't look at all comfortable. The girl finishes her appetiser really quickly my guess is she wanted to get it over with. Guy proceeds to comment on it and says "well, least I know you can swallow right?" Loudly Girl goes red and tells him that isn't appropriate, he literally waves his hand in a "shoo" type motion and says "oh calm down I was going to find out in a few hours anyway" I missed her exact re as she moved to a hushed tone, but it was fairly obvious what was being said-fuck no, fuck off, fuck this. He responded with "sweetheart I picked lost the colour in her face and said nothing. No. No. Fuck no. I'm one of those "get involved" type of people and there is no way I'm sitting here watching this go down. I get up. I don't know what I'm going to do, but I'm 23, fighting fit and happy to put that motherfucker through a wall. I may have had a slight temper in my youth. But anyway. I was halfway out of my chair when a hand came down on my shoulder and I look up to this mid-50s but super fit guy who says "Easy. I've got this one son". Absolute, total confidence in his voice.. so seeing as my current plan amounted to "stab him in the neck" and I'm already thinking maybe that's not the best idea, I sit down. He walks over, grabs a nearby chair, flips it around and sits down with the couple. Then.. he pulls out his police ID and puts it on the table. Now the guy doesn't have any colour in his face Cop: "So, I'm quietly celebrating my daughters birthday with my family when I distinctly hear you threaten this young lady, would you care to explain yourself?" Guy: "I, ah, well, um, you see. Cop: "That's what I thought. Now see, we take a *very* dim view of that kind of thing, so right now I'm deciding if I want to have some of my buddies come pick you up" Guy: "oh no well that..." Cop: "But that would disrupt everyone's dinner, so how about you hand me your ID, me, the dn't want yhe staff here and settle your bill., the full bill now, this young lady shouldn't go hungry on account of your poor behaviour. Or we can go with the first option, I'll leave it up to you. Guy: "No no! That's perfectly fine!" 1*hands over ID, gets up and walks very quickly in the direction of the counter Cop: while writing down the guys details 1* "Sorry about that miss, I hope I'm not intruding it just seemed like you could use some help. Oh and don't worry, if you want to pursue this further I'll have some of the boys pick him up on his way home, we can definitely take this further. Girl: "No, thank you so much, I wanted to run out 30 minutes ago but he drove me here". Cop: *shifts from hardarse cop to comforting father figure in about half a second* "Well I'm here with my daughter, she's about your age, perhaps you'd like to finish your meal with us? We can run you home afterwards if you'd like, unless you'd prefer to call someone else?" Girl: "Oh.. that would be really nice.. thankyou so much! *guy returns, so does the hardarse cop* Guy: "Uh so, I've paid the bill, if I could have back.". my Cop: "There you go. now I have your details right here so I *highly* recommend you don't go near or contact this young lady ever again. Guy: "Yes yes of course, I'm so sorry!" The quy pretty much fled the restaurant, the qirl went and sat with the cop and his family and by the time we left they were still sitting around talking and laughing about random crap. It was hands down the best way I have ever seen anybody handle any situation, ever. That cop is my hero. malicemanaged Dude. I hope that man has a great rest of his life. Wholesome cop via /r/wholesomememes https://ift.tt/2SkCLRT
Birthday, Comfortable, and Confidence: reddit-tales
 What has been your worst
 "nice guy" experience?
 So, possibly one of the coolest things I've
 ever seen. I mean you know how you hear the
 "women want him, men want to *be* him"
 stuff in old movies? Well I'm a man and by
 *god* I wanted to be this guy. Anyway!
 I'm having dinner with my girlfriend at
 the time, and behind us are a couple on a
 not going well. Guy was being
 I
 rather
 inappropriate comments, the girl doesn't
 look at all comfortable.
 The girl finishes her appetiser really quickly
 my guess is she wanted to get it over with.
 Guy proceeds to comment on it and says
 "well, least I know you can swallow right?"
 Loudly
 Girl goes red and tells him that isn't
 appropriate, he literally waves his hand in
 a "shoo" type motion and says "oh calm
 down I was going to find out in a few hours
 anyway"
 I missed her exact re
 as she moved to a
 hushed tone, but it was fairly obvious what
 was being said-fuck no, fuck off, fuck this.
 He responded with "sweetheart I picked
 lost the
 colour in her face and said nothing.
 No. No. Fuck no. I'm one of those "get
 involved" type of people and there is no way
 I'm sitting here watching this go down. I get
 up. I don't know what I'm going to do, but
 I'm 23, fighting fit and happy to put that
 motherfucker through a wall. I may have had
 a slight temper in my youth. But anyway.
 I was halfway out of my chair when a hand
 came down on my shoulder and I look up
 to this mid-50s but super fit guy who says
 "Easy. I've got this one son". Absolute, total
 confidence in his voice.. so seeing as my
 current plan amounted to "stab him in the
 neck" and I'm already thinking maybe that's
 not the best idea, I sit down.
 He walks over, grabs a nearby chair, flips it
 around and sits down with the couple. Then..
 he pulls out his police ID and puts it on the
 table. Now the guy doesn't have any colour in
 his face
 Cop: "So, I'm quietly celebrating my
 daughters birthday with my family when I
 distinctly hear you threaten this young lady,
 would you care to explain yourself?"
 Guy: "I, ah, well, um, you see.
 Cop: "That's what I thought. Now see, we
 take a *very* dim view of that kind of thing,
 so right now I'm deciding if I want to have
 some of my buddies come pick you up"
 Guy: "oh no well that..."
 Cop: "But that would disrupt everyone's
 dinner, so how about you hand me your ID,
 me, the dn't want yhe staff here and
 settle your bill., the full bill now, this young
 lady shouldn't go hungry on account of your
 poor behaviour. Or we can go with the first
 option, I'll leave it up to you.
 Guy: "No no! That's perfectly fine!" 1*hands
 over ID, gets up and walks very quickly in the
 direction of the counter
 Cop: while writing down the guys details
 1* "Sorry about that miss, I hope I'm not
 intruding it just seemed like you could use
 some help. Oh and don't worry, if you want
 to pursue this further I'll have some of the
 boys pick him up on his way home, we can
 definitely take this further.
 Girl: "No, thank you so much, I wanted to run
 out 30 minutes ago but he drove me here".
 Cop: *shifts from hardarse cop to
 comforting father figure in about half a
 second* "Well I'm here with my daughter,
 she's about your age, perhaps you'd like to
 finish your meal with us? We can run you
 home afterwards if you'd like, unless you'd
 prefer to call someone else?"
 Girl: "Oh.. that would be really nice.. thankyou
 so much!
 *guy returns, so does the hardarse cop*
 Guy: "Uh so, I've paid the bill, if I could have
 back.".
 my
 Cop: "There you go. now I have your details
 right here so I *highly* recommend you
 don't go near or contact this young lady ever
 again.
 Guy: "Yes yes of course, I'm so sorry!"
 The quy pretty much fled the restaurant, the
 qirl went and sat with the cop and his family
 and by the time we left they were still sitting
 around talking and laughing about random
 crap.
 It was hands down the best way I have ever
 seen anybody handle any situation, ever. That
 cop is my hero.
 malicemanaged
 Dude. I hope that man has a great rest of his
 life.
Wholesome cop via /r/wholesomememes https://ift.tt/2SkCLRT

Wholesome cop via /r/wholesomememes https://ift.tt/2SkCLRT

News, Precious, and Target: OUL vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are stellar examples of the artistry of jewelry making. The rings are made of a metal circle, molded to fit the would-be owner, topped with an architectural feature resembling a house. The goldsmith would then engrave something on the exterior of the “house”; engravings were also commonly hidden inside, in which case the “house” – or bezel – would slide open. The engraving would usually read Mazal Tov, or the Hebrew initials M.T. The rings’ houses varied in design from castle-like, to square, round or hexagonal. The structures were representations of either the Holy Temple or synagogues in the diaspora. Large in diameter and heavy due to the architectural features, many of the rings are practically unwearable. Morgan ponders the question as well, saying that there is no conclusive evidence, either in Jewish tradition or in the Christian documentation recording Jewish practices, of such rings ever having been worn. Trading in gold, jewels and precious stones was the trade of choice by wealthy Jewish merchants for hundreds of years. The memoir portrait of Gluckel of Hamlen, the daughter of a gold merchant of those times, depicts a wedding ring embroidered in gold thread, hanging from a necklace, which may have been the way the rings were worn after the wedding ceremony.  Jewish wedding bands are unique and although many of them are magnificent and expensive, none have stones set in them. The rings are devoid of their classical focal point due to a rabbinical ordinance barring setting gemstones in wedding bands, or engraving them with hallmarks – the latter first appearing in the 19th century. Also, Jewish goldsmiths were not allowed to join guilds and mark their creations until circa that time. (via)
News, Precious, and Target: OUL
vladislava:

mylistofthangs:

Antique Jewish wedding rings. 

These are absolutely gorgeous.
Some info:

Antique Jewish wedding bands are stellar examples of the artistry of jewelry making. The rings are made of a metal circle, molded to fit the would-be owner, topped with an architectural feature resembling a house. The goldsmith would then engrave something on the exterior of the “house”; engravings were also commonly hidden inside, in which case the “house” – or bezel – would slide open. The engraving would usually read Mazal Tov, or the Hebrew initials M.T.

The rings’ houses varied in design from castle-like, to square, round or hexagonal. The structures were representations of either the Holy Temple or synagogues in the diaspora.
Large in diameter and heavy due to the architectural features, many of the rings are practically unwearable. Morgan ponders the question as well, saying that there is no conclusive evidence, either in Jewish tradition or in the Christian documentation recording Jewish practices, of such rings ever having been worn.
Trading in gold, jewels and precious stones was the trade of choice by wealthy Jewish merchants for hundreds of years. The memoir portrait of Gluckel of Hamlen, the daughter of a gold merchant of those times, depicts a wedding ring embroidered in gold thread, hanging from a necklace, which may have been the way the rings were worn after the wedding ceremony. 
Jewish wedding bands are unique and although many of them are magnificent and expensive, none have stones set in them. The rings are devoid of their classical focal point due to a rabbinical ordinance barring setting gemstones in wedding bands, or engraving them with hallmarks – the latter first appearing in the 19th century. Also, Jewish goldsmiths were not allowed to join guilds and mark their creations until circa that time. (via)

vladislava: mylistofthangs: Antique Jewish wedding rings.  These are absolutely gorgeous. Some info: Antique Jewish wedding bands are st...

Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives o...

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...

Alive, Animals, and Cats: Meg OVeganMegane Vegans who feed their pets meat: u guys have gotta see the bigger picture. We shouldn't support animal exploitation w/ our money That's it. 7/13/16, 10:50 PM aer @thelilmermade @VeganMegane yes um so how would I feed my cat? 7/13/16, 11:02 PM lI VIEW TWEET ACTIVITY Meg @VeganMegane @thelilmermade is your cat male or 7m female? :) check out this website for more info: vegancats.com/ veganfaq.php Meg @VeganMegane @thelilmermade I know you want to best for your companion, and I won't deny that there are risks, but you can minimise those risks! 5m someoneintheshadow456: nautica-the-savant: marbledmartin: thegrumpymathematician: nunyabizni: sarcasmsuitsme: skypig357: iswearimnotnaked: hi hello CATS!!!! CANNOT!!!! BE VEGAN!!!!! i cannot believe i have to fucking say this. dogs are omnivore and IF YOUR VET APPROVES your pooch MAY be able to go on an APPROVED(!!!!!) commercial vegan dog food like the brand “v-dog” which has all the essential vitamins, protein, etc. (the oldest record winning dogs have been vegan) cats are CARNIVORE and cannot fucking live on a vegan diet. a vet would laugh in your face and probably find some way to have your pet taken away from you because you’re obviously not fit to have an animal if you think you can feed a cat a diet based on your own ethics i’m vegan but this is so fucking harmful. it’s about minimizing your harm, not putting your animals on risky diets in an attempt to be perfect. DON’T FUCKING DO THIS TO YOUR PETS Idiot people If you see someone you know doing this, report them for animal cruelty and neglect. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This posts, and many of the notes on it, are bothering me. Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed colleagues from outside the confines of the gender binary; gather ‘round. Let’s throw some science in this joint. 1. Humans. Humans are not cats. Humans are not dogs. One would think this obvious, but people have a tendency to attempt such interspecies comparisons when discussing diet. Humans are order omnivora; we have essentially evolved in a manner that attempts to give us as much dietary flexibility as possible. We do, however, require a substance called B12 (or cobalamin), which is extremely important for brain and nervous system functions, as well as the synthesis of DNA and the construction of red blood cells. We cannot produce this vitamin ourselves–no animal, plant, or fungus can. The enzymes used in cobalamin production are essentially unique to bacteria and archaea–some species of which hang out in the digestive tracks of other animals. We get cobalamin in a roundabout way from fish, shellfish, meat, eggs, milk, and dairy products. While there is no naturally-occurring, vegan source of the vitamin that has been demonstrated effective in a human study of statistically significant sample size, effective synthetic forms do exist and can be used as a substitute.  Cyanocobalamin is one of the most common and is frequently found in fortified foods and vitamins. In short: Humans are omnivores. Humans have evolved for dietary flexibility, including viable vegetarianism. Humans did not evolve for veganism (be extremely suspicious of people who tell you that we did, as they are lying), but due to modern technologies, veganism is also a viable diet that humans can thrive on, should they so choose. 2. Cats. Cats are order carnivora. Cats require (amongst other things) an amino acid called taurine. We’re not quite sure how, exactly, but we know that it’s extremely important to feline heart wall tissue, retinal tissue, and brain tissue amongst other things. Cats cannot manufacture their own taurine, and must get it from other sources–primarily shellfish, fish and meat. Taurine breaks down when heated, so feeding your cat a home-cooked diet rich in this foods is also not necessarily a good idea (talk to a vet). Secondary (read: SUPPLEMENTARY. NOT A SOLE SOURCE OF TAURINE.) sources of taurine for cats include dairy, eggs, and seaweed- or yeast-based taurine supplements. In nature, cats don’t really need to worry about getting enough taurine, because (as you may have noticed), taurine sources are indeed the things that cats tend to catch and eat. However, a cat that lives in a human household is dependent on humans for food, and sometimes humans are utter fucktrucks. In short: Cats are obligate carnivores. Their primary source of nutrition is meat. They must eat meat, preferably as close to raw as possible. They have digestive tracks designed for digesting meat. There are vegan/vegetarian cat kibbles on the market. Do not buy them. Your cat is neither vegan nor vegetarian, and if you adjust their diet as if they were, you are a terrible person who is harming and possibly killing your pet. You suck. End of discussion. 3. Dogs. Dogs are slightly more nuanced here. They are facultative carnivores–meaning that they optimally should eat meat, but can survive on other things if resources are scare. Dogs also need the amino acid taurine, but can technically manufacture it themselves if the proper building blocks are in their diets. They also need vitamin D–D3 is preferable, but D2 can be used to some degree. Dogs are somewhere between us (the true omnivore) and the cat (the true carnivore). A vegan or vegetarian diet will keep a dog alive, certainly, but is unlikely to allow your pet to thrive as it lacks the recommended nutrients. You should probably be feeding your dog meat. The exception here–some dogs are allergic to conventional dog foods, or find symptoms of certain diseases alleviated by vegetarianism. In this case, a veterinarian (not you, layperson, I mean an actual trained veterinarian) may determine that the benefits of putting your dog on a vegetarian/vegan diet outweigh those of feeding your dog meat. This is relatively rare, but does occasionally happen. And no, actually, the oldest dog is not vegan–Bramble is the only dog on this list that I found had some indication of veganism. The oldest dog on record is an Australian Kelpie named Maggie, who was not vegan. It is more likely that Bramble lived that long despite the veganism, not because of it. In short: If a vet thinks that your dog may be allergic to dog food/require a special diet and recommends you try feeding it a vegetarian/vegan diet, listen to your vet. Otherwise? Dogs are carnivora. They do need vegetables and other sources of nutrients, but their optimal fuel, as it were, is meat. Your dog needs meat to be happy. Fucking feed your dog.  Now, I did manage to find two veterinarians who disagree with every other study I dug up and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Their articles are here and here. They don’t really have sources, and are essentially wholly dependent on anecdotal evidence (“my dog is a vegetarian and hasn’t died!”), but for those of you data cherry-pickers reading this, there you go.  As a rule, dogs and cats need meat. If that makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, not theirs. If you try to implement a vegan or vegetarian diet for your pets because you implemented one for yourself, you shouldn’t have those pets. That is animal abuse. (By the way, those of you not feeding your cats and non-allergic dogs the food they need to survive and thrive? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not love your pets?) TL;DR If you do not want a pet that must be fed meat, you should under no circumstances acquire a cat or a dog. Thank you for your time. Rebloobing for the more detailed info on B12 and obligate carnivore vs true omnivores Always reblog. Dear Vegans, If you’re not willing to at least feed your dogs and cats commercial food, get a rabbit or a parrot.
Alive, Animals, and Cats: Meg
 OVeganMegane
 Vegans who feed their pets meat:
 u guys have gotta see the bigger
 picture. We shouldn't support
 animal exploitation w/ our money
 That's it.
 7/13/16, 10:50 PM

 aer
 @thelilmermade
 @VeganMegane yes um so how
 would I feed my cat?
 7/13/16, 11:02 PM
 lI VIEW TWEET ACTIVITY
 Meg @VeganMegane
 @thelilmermade is your cat male or
 7m
 female? :) check out this website for
 more info: vegancats.com/
 veganfaq.php

 Meg @VeganMegane
 @thelilmermade I know you want to
 best for your companion, and I
 won't deny that there are risks, but
 you can minimise those risks!
 5m
someoneintheshadow456:

nautica-the-savant:

marbledmartin:

thegrumpymathematician:

nunyabizni:

sarcasmsuitsme:

skypig357:

iswearimnotnaked:

hi hello CATS!!!! CANNOT!!!! BE VEGAN!!!!! 

i cannot believe i have to fucking say this. 

dogs are omnivore and IF YOUR VET APPROVES your pooch MAY be able to go on an APPROVED(!!!!!) commercial vegan dog food like the brand “v-dog” which has all the essential vitamins, protein, etc. (the oldest record winning dogs have been vegan) 

cats are CARNIVORE and cannot fucking live on a vegan diet. a vet would laugh in your face and probably find some way to have your pet taken away from you because you’re obviously not fit to have an animal if you think you can feed a cat a diet based on your own ethics 

i’m vegan but this is so fucking harmful. 

it’s about minimizing your harm, not putting your animals on risky diets in an attempt to be perfect. 

DON’T FUCKING DO THIS TO YOUR PETS

Idiot people

If you see someone you know doing this, report them for animal cruelty and neglect.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


This posts, and many of the notes on it, are bothering me. Ladies, gentlemen, esteemed colleagues from outside the confines of the gender binary; gather ‘round. Let’s throw some science in this joint.
1. Humans. Humans are not cats. Humans are not dogs. One would think this obvious, but people have a tendency to attempt such interspecies comparisons when discussing diet. Humans are order omnivora; we have essentially evolved in a manner that attempts to give us as much dietary flexibility as possible. We do, however, require a substance called B12 (or cobalamin), which is extremely important for brain and nervous system functions, as well as the synthesis of DNA and the construction of red blood cells. We cannot produce this vitamin ourselves–no animal, plant, or fungus can. The enzymes used in cobalamin production are essentially unique to bacteria and archaea–some species of which hang out in the digestive tracks of other animals. We get cobalamin in a roundabout way from fish, shellfish, meat, eggs, milk, and dairy products. While there is no naturally-occurring, vegan source of the vitamin that has been demonstrated effective in a human study of statistically significant sample size, effective synthetic forms do exist and can be used as a substitute.  Cyanocobalamin is one of the most common and is frequently found in fortified foods and vitamins. In short: Humans are omnivores. Humans have evolved for dietary flexibility, including viable vegetarianism. Humans did not evolve for veganism (be extremely suspicious of people who tell you that we did, as they are lying), but due to modern technologies, veganism is also a viable diet that humans can thrive on, should they so choose.
2. Cats. Cats are order carnivora. Cats require (amongst other things) an amino acid called taurine. We’re not quite sure how, exactly, but we know that it’s extremely important to feline heart wall tissue, retinal tissue, and brain tissue amongst other things. Cats cannot manufacture their own taurine, and must get it from other sources–primarily shellfish, fish and meat. Taurine breaks down when heated, so feeding your cat a home-cooked diet rich in this foods is also not necessarily a good idea (talk to a vet). Secondary (read: SUPPLEMENTARY. NOT A SOLE SOURCE OF TAURINE.) sources of taurine for cats include dairy, eggs, and seaweed- or yeast-based taurine supplements. In nature, cats don’t really need to worry about getting enough taurine, because (as you may have noticed), taurine sources are indeed the things that cats tend to catch and eat. However, a cat that lives in a human household is dependent on humans for food, and sometimes humans are utter fucktrucks. In short: Cats are obligate carnivores. Their primary source of nutrition is meat. They must eat meat, preferably as close to raw as possible. They have digestive tracks designed for digesting meat. There are vegan/vegetarian cat kibbles on the market. Do not buy them. Your cat is neither vegan nor vegetarian, and if you adjust their diet as if they were, you are a terrible person who is harming and possibly killing your pet. You suck. End of discussion.
3. Dogs. Dogs are slightly more nuanced here. They are facultative carnivores–meaning that they optimally should eat meat, but can survive on other things if resources are scare. Dogs also need the amino acid taurine, but can technically manufacture it themselves if the proper building blocks are in their diets. They also need vitamin D–D3 is preferable, but D2 can be used to some degree. Dogs are somewhere between us (the true omnivore) and the cat (the true carnivore). A vegan or vegetarian diet will keep a dog alive, certainly, but is unlikely to allow your pet to thrive as it lacks the recommended nutrients. You should probably be feeding your dog meat. The exception here–some dogs are allergic to conventional dog foods, or find symptoms of certain diseases alleviated by vegetarianism. In this case, a veterinarian (not you, layperson, I mean an actual trained veterinarian) may determine that the benefits of putting your dog on a vegetarian/vegan diet outweigh those of feeding your dog meat. This is relatively rare, but does occasionally happen. And no, actually, the oldest dog is not vegan–Bramble is the only dog on this list that I found had some indication of veganism. The oldest dog on record is an Australian Kelpie named Maggie, who was not vegan. It is more likely that Bramble lived that long despite the veganism, not because of it. In short: If a vet thinks that your dog may be allergic to dog food/require a special diet and recommends you try feeding it a vegetarian/vegan diet, listen to your vet. Otherwise? Dogs are carnivora. They do need vegetables and other sources of nutrients, but their optimal fuel, as it were, is meat. Your dog needs meat to be happy. Fucking feed your dog. 
Now, I did manage to find two veterinarians who disagree with every other study I dug up and the American Veterinary Medical Association. Their articles are here and here. They don’t really have sources, and are essentially wholly dependent on anecdotal evidence (“my dog is a vegetarian and hasn’t died!”), but for those of you data cherry-pickers reading this, there you go. 
As a rule, dogs and cats need meat. If that makes you uncomfortable, that is your problem, not theirs. If you try to implement a vegan or vegetarian diet for your pets because you implemented one for yourself, you shouldn’t have those pets. That is animal abuse. (By the way, those of you not feeding your cats and non-allergic dogs the food they need to survive and thrive? What the fuck is wrong with you? Do you not love your pets?)
TL;DR If you do not want a pet that must be fed meat, you should under no circumstances acquire a cat or a dog. Thank you for your time.

Rebloobing for the more detailed info on B12 and obligate carnivore vs true omnivores


Always reblog. 

Dear Vegans,
If you’re not willing to at least feed your dogs and cats commercial food, get a rabbit or a parrot.

someoneintheshadow456: nautica-the-savant: marbledmartin: thegrumpymathematician: nunyabizni: sarcasmsuitsme: skypig357: iswearimnotn...