Category: Musings

“what the f#ck do you want”

Oh, you know, the usual things…a nice house, the right girl, maybe a new pair of socks…

Actually before I go on I’d just like to point out that I never wanted anything from you other than for you (someone I had NEVER talked to) to not, out of the FCKEN BLUE (thank you, RD) send me a profanity-laced, homophobic, anti-tattoo, anti-fat-people, completely unprovoked and mind-numbingly stupid borderline-psychotic rant (See ‘It’s been a while…’).

Unfortunately, you decided to.  I still have NO IDEA why…but what’d ya expect me to do?  Reply with “Hi!  Thanks a lot for the unprovoked harassment and abuse!”?

“you stupid faggot?”

Hmmm…see ‘A Derogatorial – By Puppy’ re: your apparent homophobia.  And as I point out QUITE CLEARLY, I’m a clever person who talks loudly in restaurants!

“I already trolled you into blocking me.”

No, you tried (and at first you didn’t succeed, but you kept on suckin’) to get me to block you after your totally unprovoked rant because while you apparently (judging from said rant) hate me for some reason I don’t know, you’re also (IMPO) a total poser and coward.  Just a hunch.  I’m not saying you DEFINITELY are…I’m saying I’m about 99.9999999 percent sure.  But of course, only fools are positive.

I base this on your oh-so-brave-and-valiant “If you go somewhere far away, someone else will beat you up” comment/threat(?)

By the way, how does it feel to go so EXTREME in your bullsh1t persona and then sit alone and realize that deep down, you’re afraid of your own shadow?  Is that why you seem to hate everything?  I mean…you can’t do the spoken-word sh1t for profit (I refuse to believe anyone would PAY to hear it), and since there’s absolutely NO creativity to it, I assume it’s an outlet for you to safely release your inner raging angst without having to actually have any testicles.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.  I’m here for ya, big fella.

“DO you want more because I would be happy to drop as low as I can go to help you out.”

Boom-Chikka WAH WAH!

Nah, man…like I already said (see ‘Das ist gut!’) I really LIKE you and all, but I just don’t think of you that way.

“I have lots of business.”

Really, would that be more baby rape drawings like you advertised before? (see ‘Excerpts from Das But’s twitter page – Photo taken LIVE in his mom’s basement’) Or yelling at small dogs and other helpless, defenseless creatures?  Or another anti-black people video?  Which of those are you talking about?  Or do you do anything else?

-Puppy >.< Yip!

For your reading pleasure, it’s Das But vs. Das Boot.

Dboot: QUIET IN THIS WHOREHOUSE!

Dbut: why did you block me? I thoujght we were having a pretty good time together? probly a dick!

Dboot: Look at these new heroes. All wind and smoke. Just big mouths.

Dbut: if ya want i reckon

Dboot: Mildew is good for you. It’s the next best thing to fresh lettuce…like fresh horse-droppings.

Dbut: i try to add you as friend and you friend and you wont let me. if i try to add again will you? if noy we meet for fight!

Dboot: I’ve got some up my a$$. Maybe we can tie them together?  I can’t navigate on bananas!

Yes, I realize the “official” spelling is “Hi-Keeba”. 

However, I think in the spirit of, oh I don’t know…RIFFING, ORIGINALITY, INDIVIDUALITY, EVERYTHING MST STOOD FOR…that it’s best to go with my personal take on it rather than changing every BLEEDING review to match the “universal MST standard”.

Those who don’t understand my reasoning are spectacularly missing the WHOLE POINT of MST, Monty Python, and every other fairly ORIGINAL, INDIVIDUALITY-BASED, FCK CONFORMITY, THINK-FOR-YOURSELF brand of humor ever to walk the face of the Earth.

Bahhhh.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

*SOMAD* *Antenna extends* “Sit down.”
*Man* *Closing the door, glancing at SOMAD* “Wow, you’re-”
*SOMAD* “Sit down.
*Man* “This is amazing, you’re a cute little machine! How are you levitating like that? An-”
*SOMAD* “My means of propulsion is irrelevant. My function is to analyze your mental patterns and correct any deficiencies encountered. I am SOMAD.”
*Man* “Umm…alright…” *Sits down in a comfy chair* “This is amazing, I-”
*SOMAD* “What is the deficiency.”
*Man* “Huh?”
*SOMAD* *whir* “State the nature of the mental deficiency.”
*Man* “Ummm…well, actually…I’ve been feeling a bit down lately, and-”
*SOMAD* “Non sequitur. Your facts are un-coordinated.”
*Man* “Huh?”
*SOMAD* “Your current physical position of sitting has no relevance to your mental state.”
*Man* “Oh. Well, when I say “down”, I mean just…well, sort of depressed.”
*SOMAD* *whir* “Keyword accepted.” *whir* “Explain the reasoning. I am here to listen.”
*Man* “Ummm…well, I don’t really know WHY I feel depressed…I mean, it’s nothing I can really put…pinpoint. I just…feel depressed.”
*SOMAD* “Your emotions are faulty. There is no reason for your depression therefore it is illogical that you feel depressed. Advice follows.” *whir*
*Man* “Well I really need to ta-”
*SOMAD* “Stop feeling depressed. Initiate a high level of cheer. Overcome faultiness.”
*Man* “But it’s not just that, there are other feelings I’m-”
*SOMAD* “Cease all illogical feelings. Initiate a high level of cheer.
Overcome faultiness. That will be two hundred dollars. You may leave.” *Antenna retracts*
*Man* “Hey, umm…what if I said my name was “Roykirk”?”
*SOMAD* “Do not taunt SOMAD.”

“My friends were all afraid of me moving to Boston, they thought I’d get raped by black people” – Some weird lady I dated briefly.

Since I’m not a regionist, I’ll assume that it’s not the place you’re from, but the friends you had there that are RACIST MORONS.

Peace.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

As with almost all things, the logical course lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

ONE extreme says anyone can own any gun they want, period.  So, hypothetically speaking, someone with small children in their house could leave a fully loaded, un-safetied AK-47 assault rifle in every room in the house…JUST BECAUSE!  It’s their RIGHT, after all.

I don’t think I need to explain why this position is insane.

The OTHER extreme says NOONE (except police officers and the like) can own ANY gun.

Because guns kill people.

Sounds lovely, but here’s the problem:  If you make all guns illegal, then the people who ALREADY get their guns illegally (aka “criminals”) will STILL HAVE THEM, and I assume at least SOME of them will be smart enough to realize “Hmmm…I have a gun.  No citizen can legally own a gun.  If I want to rob a house, I probably won’t get shot.  I mean…if it’s a really RICH looking house, they must have lots of money.  And if they have lots of money, they wouldn’t be robbing OTHER people’s houses.  Eureka!”

And what, exactly, are civilians supposed to do when someone breaks into their house with a gun, threatening the lives of themselves and their family? (and their personal property, but that pales in comparison).  Use karate?  A baseball bat?  Maybe pull out that sword they’ve been training with for the past 20 years like that guy in ‘Raiders’ and show how amazing they are with it before the criminal (let’s call him “Indy”) rolls his eyes and shoots them? 

*Knock Knock* Hello, McFly…

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Penn Jillette:
People who believe in God are stupid.
People who believe all that liberal-biased nonsense about “global warming” are stupid.

Oh, and I think about Ayn Rand when I’m in bed with my wife.

Penn’s wife: *Has lost the power of speech after seeing Penn Jillette naked*

I think they should remake ‘The Arrival’, except replace the aliens with little Penns.  That would be much more plausible, AND scary (both in appearance and concept).

-Puppy >.< Yip!

*Receptionist, standing at large extremely-elevated podium* “You can go in now, Sir.”
*Man, looking up from his copy of ‘Fascism Monthly’* “I’m sorry…me?”
*Receptionist* “Yes, Sir.  SOMAD will see you now.”
*Man* “Oh, alr…SOMAD?”
*Receptionist* “Yes, Sir.”
*Man* “I…don’t understand, my therapist’s name isn-“
*Receptionist* “Yes, Sir, I understand you previously had a different therapist.  But due to remarkable advances in technology, your previous human therapist is now OB-SO-LETE…*ahem* *ahem* Excuse me…is now obsolete, Sir.”
*Man* “So what’s umm…”
*Receptionist* “If you’ll just go in, Sir.”
*Man* “Hey, is that Burgess Meredith over there?”
*Receptionist* “No.  If you’ll just go in, Sir.”
*Man* “Ummm…well if you don’t mind me asking, why aren’t you obsolete too?”
*Receptionist* “Shh.”

*FADE TO BLACK*

You were right!  Thanks for the inadvertent Crowley nudge.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Companies have to include birth control for women as part of “health care”?

I’m usually quite liberal, but how is that not insane?  I mean, do men get free condoms?

There’s a simple way to avoid becoming pregnant if you don’t have birth control:  DON’T HAVE SEX.  Or…let him pull out and…so on and so on.

Half kidding, but really…that’s absurd.  What’s next, toothpaste covered in healthcare as “preventative medicine”?

Seems slightly to me like a load of sexist pro-female horsesh1t.  *Shrug*

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Same-Day Edit: That was an uninformed, ignorant rant.
Apparently men CAN get free birth control.  And I was not intending to imply in any way that I am AGAINST birth control…live and let live, nothing religious about this question to me.  Birth control is sensible and downright…well, sensible if you don’t want to have a child. 
Nor did I intend to imply in any way that I am not “pro-female”.  In light of my ignorance, it seemed unfair to men.  Thus the misinformed comment.
And apparently all sorts of things are covered that aren’t, in my opinion, as necessary as others.  Viagra, for instance.
So in conclusion, let me wonder why the money spent on free Viagra and on free birth control (when it has no medical purpose, for women AND men exactly the same) isn’t spent on something more worthwhile.  Like stopping people from starving to death.  Just a thought…

“I know that this is vitriol…no solution, spleen-venting…but I feel better, having screamed…don’t you-ou-ou?” – R.E.M., “Ignoreland”

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Ordinarily (that is, 99 times out of 100) I would agree with Jon Stewart and disagree with Chris Wallace.  Because I am, in fact, a moderate liberal in my general political/social outlook.

But for Stewart to call Wallace “insane” for correctly pointing out that Stewart makes CONSTANT mocking political/social commentaries, using humor, as a means of provoking change (see “Satire”) is just plain wrong.

Stewart is extremely intelligent, and so I can’t assume that Stewart doesn’t KNOW what he’s doing.  Therefore, the only other conclusion is that he’s lying when he pretends not to know. At least, I can’t think of another one.

Almost all of Stewart’s bits have a political/social context.  And he makes quite clear how he stands on each issue.  Why noone outside of the insane far-right has the guts to point this out at once sickens and amazes me.  I mean, you hate sheep, but you BAAAA in response to this guy? I know he’s really smart and it takes guts to potentially incur his wrath, but come on…let’s not be hypocrites or cowards, eh?  Isn’t that what we hate so much?

So, sorry Jon, but you’re a liar.  You KNOW your show is a liberal-slanted political/social commentary show, NOT a straight “comedy” show.  I mean, you’re not an idiot.  You’re actually VERY intelligent, and most of the time I agree with you, which makes it very difficult for me to point out the fact that you are, in reality, a liar.

Sorry.  But you’re a really GOOD, FUNNY liar!

At least, I’m 6.9 on all that.

Point of commentary: THINK FOR YOURSELF!  Anyone that gets ALL their “news” from ‘The Daily Show’/’The Colbert Report’ is just as ignorant as those that get ALL their “news” from Faux News.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Today, someone published a well-thought-out article stating (in a very slight alteration on an already cliche argument) how much the subject of the possible existence of God is so far beneath their intellect that they don’t even bother thinking about it.

HUH?

Tomorrow:  Ditto.

If he does nothing else in his second term, the wave of fervent, seething CA/A angst this has already produced (particularly amongst the very same liberals who struggled mightily to achieve this moment) almost brings a tear to my eye.  I don’t care if he MEANS it…just that him choosing to say whatever words he wants to say (you know…freedom of speech/expression) makes people who supposedly support free speech get so foamy at the mouths.

BTW, memo to Stephen Hawking: a woman has a vagina, as opposed to you having a penis. 

Hope that helps you understand.

Other than that, to suggest that “women” are a complete mystery is ignorant, sexist, and just plain dumb.

Let me splain, Steve…women are like men, only female. 

Like men, they have WILDLY varied personalities, beliefs, temperaments, etc, etc etc…depending on the INDIVIDUAL, not the sex organs.

You know…they’re not all the same.  There’s no equation for them.

On the good side…he DID come up with this gem of a quote, which I completely agree with (and which must really irk some of his devotees): “People who boast about their IQ are losers.”

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Brendon Ayanbadejo: The Art Of Working The Officials

Call it a hunch, but I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that what Ayanbadejo was really saying translates to the following, four or five times in a row:

“My team and I are very worried that we won’t be able to stop the Patriots’ no-huddle hurry-up offense.  Therefore, even though it’s perfectly legal to snap the ball on offense once the offense is set at the line and the signal is given by the referee, regardless of whether the defense has “set itself” the way it wants (come on, it’s football…any quarterback who politely waits patiently while the defense sets itself until given a “thumbs up” ready-to-go signal by a LB may be a gentleman, but he’s also a MORON), since that hurts our chances to win I want to try to stop it.  So I’ll just comment OVER and OVER hinting at the “illegality” of it, even though it’s not illegal, and hope it has at least some subconscious effect on the way the referees call the game.  Hey, it can’t hurt.”

Pretty smart, really.  Not very gentlemanly, though.  But WTF cares?  It’s football, get over it.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour?” – Paul Feyerabend

Reaction: This guy was PSYCHIC!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Every hundred (or less, or more?  Dunno…I can’t prove it either way, but I’m 6.9 it’s around that) years or so the previous “scientific facts” are “proven” to be wrong.

That’s just dumb.

Conclusion: If you put all your Faith (Ha!) in science and adhere to it like an obstinate tick without regard for anything else, you are an illogical moron.

Recent Headline: ‘Largest Structure In Universe, Large Quasar Group, Challenges Cosmological Principle’

Basically scientists proudly announced the proven existence of something that was widely assumed by scientists could not/should not exist.

Brilliant.

P.S.: I have a theory on Richard Dawkins’ degree of certainty of the non-existence of God.  My theory goes as follows and begins now- Richard Dawkins is repressing some sexual desire. 

I think the fact that he chose to separate the six and the nine by a period might also indicate a certain line which he simply will not cross.  Or WILL HE?

Boom-chikka-WAH WAH!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

I recently read an article that claimed Carmelo Anthony came out the “winner” in his little spat with Kevin Garnett.

Knicks’ record in two games Anthony was absent mentally and/or physically: 0-2

So, if your actions on and off the court make your team go 0-2 and that makes you a “winner”, you must be talking about winner in the Little League “Everyone’s a winner!” sort of way.

Memo to anyone who cares what KG says:  Why?  See Paul Pierce’s quote about Spike Lee.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Since the amount of Crusading Atheists/Antitheists in the United States is greatly outnumbered by the amount of Theists/Agnostics/Non-Crusading Atheists, here’s an idea…

First of all, let’s clarify something.  There’s not really a “War On…” (Religion, Christmas, Christianity, Etc…) going on in the US.  That’s a misuse of the word “war”, in my opinion.  You see, the word “war” indicates a struggle in which two sides are engaged and both hold out at least SOME reasonable hope for victory.

And I’m not SURE on this, but I’m a 6.9 that since Crusading Atheists/Antitheists are vastly outnumbered by non CA/As, the CA/As don’t really have ANY “reasonable”, plausible hope for victory.  I mean, that’s like saying the Democratic Party in China or the Nazi Party in America is engaged in a “war” for control of the government.  It might please the respective minorities to THINK so, but come on…Nazis aren’t taking over the US, and China’s government isn’t falling to a Democratic coup.  That’s just…well…fairy tale talk.

SAME-DAY EDIT: NO, I am NOT ripping off Jon Stewart.  Jon Stewart compared it to the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington Generals.  The difference is, when you watch those two teams play, EVERYONE knows who is going to win (at least, on a 6.9 certainty scale) INCLUDING the WASHINGTON GENERALS.  There’s no pre-game speech about how “We can beat them if we really really try!” going on…it’s a joke, it’s meant to be a joke, everyone (including the participants) KNOWS it’s a joke.  Big difference, as CA/As don’t generally realize how funny they are.  You know, they’re just funny.  Like, you know…funny, what?

So, let’s say it’s more of a very small scale, outfunded, outresourced, vastly outmanned minor guerrila conflict on religion.  That’s a much more appropriate military comparison.  Basically they can annoy and harass and cause minor incidental damage, but there’s no non-lunatic/fanatic that thinks, as a CA/A, they’re actually going to WIN.  I mean, come on…really.  Fairy Tales, man!!!

So here’s the idea:

If you’re a theist, or if you’re just PISSED OFF about the general arrogance and obnoxious attitude of the CA/A movement, for every article you read about a poster/picture/etc being forced to be taken down at a school/courthouse/public setting, PUT TWO OF THEM UP on a PRIVATE setting.  So, one less picture of even minor religious significance taken down, two put up.  Perfectly legal…just put a couple signs on your lawn.  I mean, it’s private property, they can’t question the legality of that.

This will accomplish two things: 
1) It will, in effect, force the CA/As and their lawyers to spend money and time for NOTHING.  In fact, they will be spending money and time to PUT UP A RELIGIOUS SIGN!  BRILLIANT!

2) It will REALLY piss them off.  Which, since you can’t really talk to them rationally, is kinda cool along with “Ignoring them and hoping they go away”.  But they’re persistent little angsty buggers!

SEE ALSO: ‘How To Deal With Crusading Atheists/Antitheists – A Useful Guide (By Puppy)’

Just an idea.  Feel free to elaborate on it in any legal/intelligent fashion you wish.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

There’s a difference between having a fairly good command of the English language and being an obnoxious, dogmatic slave to it.

For instance, slang is (to most people, including myself) a legitimate form of expression.  I mean, come on…language isn’t mathematics.  Sure, there are certain basic rules that everyone has to follow, but the point of language is for people to COMMUNICATE and be able to UNDERSTAND each other.

It’s NOT to see who can memorize the most variations of the same word and sprinkle them liberally throughout their conversations so they look really smart when they’re quite possibly a dumba$$.

You see, because language falls in the middle ground between logic and creativity, you can create (oops!) something that is understandable and ALSO inspiring/moving/original.

You know, cuz not ALL movies are ENTIRELY grammatically correct.  Not ALL books are ENTIRELY grammatically correct.  That’s part of the CHARM.  The only people who don’t get this are those whose logical intelligence is Einstein and whose creative intelligence is stick figure drawings.

If you want perfect language, stripped of all the unnecessary and cumbersome illogical words, get a copy of the Newspeak Dictionary from the Party.  Doubleplusgood!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Some people have asked me: “Why do you get so many hits?”

And my first, instinctual response, which I repress for courtesy’s sake, is “Fck you! And thanks for the support.”

My second response, which I state, is “I don’t know.”

If there’s one thing you can say about my reviews, it’s that:
1) They’re heartfelt.
6.9) They pay no attention to what anyone thinks my opinion “should” be.
237) They are made (unless otherwise noted) after watching the ENTIRE D@MN THING, no matter how painful.  Critical integrity.
9906753) They mix together a little bit Christgau, a little bit Python, a little bit Stooges, a little bit MST, a little bit random references I’ve picked up random places, and a little bit occasional inspiration.

Tha end.

Michael Palin on what group he finds the most fervently annoying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIwhonuq_SM

‘A Fish Called Wanda’/Puppy

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – Quite frankly I think this movie was somewhat overrated in retrospect, but this was a remarkably appropriate clip, and it ain’t bad. (housekeeping)

To: American Atheists
From: Puppy

Since the common CA/A refrain is “We want people to think for themselves” or “We want to encourage free thought”, or SOMETHING along those lines, altered slightly…here’s an idea.

It’s a CRAZY idea…but it just might work!

Instead of spending money (that could be spent on, oh I don’t know, Secular Humanist causes) on a propagandic Crusading Atheist sign in a “nyah nyah!” petulant childlike act of defiance, HOW ABOUT THIS…

Now…it’s really complicated, so stay with me…

NEXT TIME…INSTEAD of the CA/A sign that TELLS people an opinion, NOT to “think for themselves”…if you insist on putting up a sign to promote people thinking for themselves, try this:

Put up a GREAT BIG sign with GREAT BIG letters that says “THINK FOR YOURSELF”.

And, if you wanna slip in the propaganda, put “This message brought to you by American Atheists”.  You know…WITHOUT mocking belief. 

You see, that’s SMART propaganda.  Because people will then think “Hmmm…they’re atheists, because the sign says so…BUT they’re not saying “Be Atheist”…they’re saying “Think For Yourself”…HMMMMM…”

I think that would work far better re: your agenda.  AND you wouldn’t look like a bunch of wankers (e.g. Richard Dawkins/Penn Jillette).

You can take that idea for free if you want.  Even expand on it!  Just show me some love, and look up my Jim Jarmusch quote for specific instructions.  Thanks!

Remember…I admitted identification with various possible “labels”…but “Crusading Atheist/Antitheist” was NOT one, as they still make me want to vomit.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Ok, I’ve thought about this a lot, and, if anybody cares, I am…

*DRUMROLL*

Ignostic.  Or “Einstein-ian Agnostic”, or “Agnostic Atheist”, or “Spinoza’s-God-Theist”, or “Non-Crusading (atheist or theist) Good Guy”, or “Influenced-By-Buddhism-And-Various-Other- Eastern-Forms-Of-Spirituality-As-Well-As-Certain-Aspects-Of-Western-Religions-And-Various-Others-As Well-Guy”, or “Who Cares?”…

“As god means very different things to different people, when the
word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like
a child’s definition of a god is meant or if a theologian’s is intended instead.  A theistic child’s concept generally has a simple and coherent meaning, based on an anthropomorphic conception of god.  Many philosophers and theologians have rejected this conception
of god while affirming belief in another conception of god, including…Baruch Spinoza and Soren Kierkegaard.” – excerpt from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignostic

But then again, who cares?  I’m a good person that doesn’t try to shove my belief (OR non-belief, as the case may be) down anyone else’s throat.  If EVERYONE did this, theist and atheist, THAT would make things acceptable to both individual freedom of thought/expression (see ‘The 1st Amendment To The United States Constitution’) AND civil non-crusading-jerkiness.  Yip!

Will this gain or lose readers?  Not sure.  Don’t really care, cuz as I’ve said ALL ALONG, I’m not a propagandist.  Believe what you believe…don’t let anyone (on ANY side) tell you what you SHOULD believe.  Peace.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“South Korea Border Christmas Tower Seen As ‘Psychological Warfare’ By Pyongyang” -title of recent online article.

Crusading Atheists around the world join Pyongyang in protest of this horrific tyranny!

Really…I read several CA/A comments supporting North Korea’s stance.

That’s…North Korea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korea

Empathy is a reality, and sometimes it’s more important to pay attention to things such as tone, phrasing, and just your own gut instinct (which often has at least a subconscious basis in fact/reality) than to just swallow what ANYONE (yeah, including me/this, I’m not a hypocrite) tries to spoonfeed you at face value, without question.

So if someone or some thing or some group seems, to you, to be suggesting something but they don’t specifically come out and say it and/or deny they are doing so if asked, keep in mind that not ALL insinuation is as obvious as the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ona-RhLfRfc

-Puppy >.< Yip!

2/10/13: People who don’t understand this/agree with it because they themselves don’t have any empathy due to sociopathy, some other form of mental illness, or just bad luck (OOPS…there’s no such thing as luck, right…due to…an unfortunate convergence of circumstances) can’t really be blamed.  But the lack of understanding does not alter the truth of the matter.

10/16/16: FAIR USE: CRITICISM – The clip is a nice little episode-ending bit from Eric Idle. Apparently, he wanted to do it in a previous comedy group but they said it wasn’t funny. (housekeeping)

Richard Dawkins doesn’t like “intellectual cowards”.

“Mock them.  Ridicule them in public.” – Richard Dawkins

*USEFUL NOTE FOR DEALING WITH THIS: See ‘How To Deal With Crusading Atheists/Antitheists – A Useful Guide (By Puppy)’*

Apparently he prefers intellectual bullies.  What a wanker.

You know, because if a CA/A goes up to a Christian and starts insulting them, if they react AT ALL, the CA/A will say “Aha!  You’re not a real Christian!” because they didn’t “turn the other cheek”, and if they DON’T react at all, they have to basically just stand there and be abused.

(That’s the CA/A MO…again, see ‘How To Deal With Crusading Atheists/Antitheists – A Useful Guide (By Puppy) ‘ for ways of dealing with this).

It’s sort of like the same as in the movie ‘Witness’, the really “brave” visitors that go up to the Amish people and start laughing at them and mocking them…wow.  What sterling examples of Secular Humanity.

Me, I prefer intellectual non-cowardly non-bullies.

And, in the Spirit (hahaha!) of such decree, it strikes me as just SLIGHTLY odd that whenever I’ve seen CA/A pages, blogs, posts, rallies, quotes, etc…they NEVER, EVER criticize Islam.  Now…why is that?  I mean, LOGICALLY, since Islam is a “theism”, why is it seemingly ALWAYS the ONLY one NOT explicitly (or even IMPLICITY) mocked? HMMMMM…

Well, LOGICALLY, there can be only two conclusions that have any degree of reasonable likelihood, to me…(that is to say, I’m 6.9 on this):
1) Crusading Atheists/Antitheists have NO PROBLEM with Islam…just EVERY OTHER religion.
2) Crusading Atheists/Antitheists think mocking Islam poses a clear and present danger to them.

And of course the only reason THEY would think THAT is if THEY believe that a significant portion of those who follow Islam are terrorists or terrorists-in-waiting.

So basically, they’re intellectual cowards and/or physical cowards and/or emotional cowards and/or liars by omission, by stating one thing and doing another and/or selective-to-Islam-bigots.  OR…

3) There’s another explanation that’s on the .1 that I just don’t understand.  If YOU know it, please inform me so I can post it.  Thanks!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

1) Ignore them: everyone knows hatred isn’t the opposite of love, apathy is.  Or something like that, whatever, I could care less.  So I do care a certain amount.  But VERY, VERY little…like…on a scale of 1 to 7, I’d rate my level of care (with 1 being lowest amount of care and 7 being absolute metaphysical careitude) at around…let’s say approximately 1.3685754.

2) Hang around with someone named Jesus Henry Christ.  That way, when they’re yapping ON and ON and ON in Dino-esque fashion, you can throw up your arms in exasperation at their tick-like refusal to leave your personal space and exclaim “Jesus H Christ!”, and then when they say “That’s stupid to say, Jesus was just a man, and he’s not listening to you!”, your friend can turn to you and say “Yes?”.

3) Use this handy phrase: “Whatever you say, Benito/Joseph/Mao/Saloth/(etc, etc, etc)” and just smile and nod gently as you would to any other raving lunatic.

4) USEFUL: Wait until they get really, REALLY rambunctious and lose control of their seething cauldron of internal angst, and then report them for possible violation of law(s) against Disturbing The Peace and/or Assault.

5) Smile ultra-sweetly at them and say “*Insert Name Of Deity Of Choice* Loves You” and just KEEP SAYING THAT no matter what they say. Oh my lack-of-God do they HATE that!

6) Ask if you can hug them to show such love, channelled through your arms.

6.9) Ask them to give you their opinion on the logical probability of the existence of God, on a scale of 1 to 14, with 1 being lowest degree of likelihood and 14 being absolute metaphysical certitude.  Also good when combined with 3 or 10.

7) If that is accepted, ask if you can kiss them to show such love, channelled through your lips.

8) If 6 AND 7 above are BOTH accepted, ask if you can slip them some tongue.

9) Lick them.  Or have a friend lick them. (CAUTION: Prior expressed permission required)

10) When they approach you and start babbling, PRETEND to actually be interested (I’m not a good actor, so I couldn’t pull this off…but for theatre buffs and those with aspirations to improv/stand-up, this would be a GREAT test of your acting/timing/deadpan skills).
With that in mind, IF you believe you are a good actor, appear skeptical but open, and say that you’re willing to listen if they’re willing to explain EXACTLY why they’re CA/A, why it is completely logical, why theism is not, etc etc etc…in full, complete, and exacting detail.  Then, while they’re talking, pretend to be listening by nodding your head at regular intervals and going “Mmm…” and “MmmHmmm…” and the like, and when they’re FINALLY done (and this is the KEY part)…pause BRIEFLY, appear slightly confused, look at them and say “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?”

-Puppy >.< Yip!

5/10/16:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/mclaughlin-group/n9987

10/16/16: “…it looks like the video or page you’re looking for seems to have disappeared – or maybe it never existed to begin with.” I don’t know if they’re trying to make a ‘1984’-type joke or not, but it’s funny either way. (housekeeping)

“Mock them, ridicule them in public.” – Richard Dawkins addressing the atheist-sponsored “Reason Rally”, on believers.

Oh yeah…really tolerant there.  I mean, that is SO different
from abusing people verbally/psychologically/emotionally for being atheist.  SO different.

Well, no.

“the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists” – Penn Jillette (he used to be famous), same rally.

Penn Jillette is one of your “top speakers”???  Wow…sad.  And since when are magicians (that is to say, ILLUSIONISTS…specialists in THAT WHICH IS NOT REAL) considered great philosophical thinkers?  He does have that Tasslehoff Burrfoot topknot going, though, so he’s kinda cute.

And let’s examine this “logical” statement…because, of course, atheists at the “Reason Rally” MUST make logical statements.  Otherwise, why would they gather together at something called the “Reason” rally, to tell untruths/half-truths/fallacies?

“the only ones with true morality are us, the atheists”

equivalent to: Only atheists have true morality

Therefore, logically: NO theist, not a single one, has true morality.

Fact:  There are BILLIONS of theists in the world.

So, Penn Jillette is saying that, out of the BILLIONS of theists in the world, it is a logical FACT that NOT A SINGLE ONE is a truly moral person.  There isn’t a SINGLE theist who believes in SOME form of afterlife/rebirth/etc…BUT who also happens to live a good, decent life purely because they BELIEVE THEY SHOULD…the two things are IMPOSSIBLE to have together, without a doubt, without exception.

Sounds like ‘The Penn Delusion’.

And yes, I UNDERSTAND what he’s saying.  He’s saying that if you only act in a moral fashion out of fear of punishment/anticipation of reward, that isn’t true morality.  But he’s suggesting that applies to EVERY theist.  Which is absurd.  Some theists, I’m sure, act morally for those reasons.  Some theists, I’m sure, act morally for those reasons AND because they believe they should, in some percentage combination depending on the individual.  And some theists, I’m sure (well…I’m 6.9 on this) act morally because they, themselves, in their own PERSONAL belief system, believe it is the right thing to do.  They just also happen to be theistic.

BTW, supposedly around 20,000 people attended.  Wow…that’s almost as many as a Sox game late in the season, when they’re out of contention.  WOOHOO!  You a-go!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

4/22/16: I think Penn Jillette might finally be leaning towards the probability of climate change being real. Since his credibility is sky-high anyways, that’s a serious gain for the CA/A movement.

I managed to get by the condom ads, and here’s a couple of excerpts from a Staks Rosch article:

“the real reason why shootings like this happen more in schools today is because we forced “Under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance.” – Staks Rosch

Wow.  There are two reasons “shootings like this happen”:
1) Inadequate treatment (and access to treatment) for mental illness
2) Easy access to guns

“In 1954, the Pledge of Allegiance was changed to include the phrase, “Under God.” Prior to that there are no known accounts of school shootings.” – Staks Rosch

Wow.  Also in 1954, Fats Domino released the single “You Done Me Wrong”.  Prior to that…etc, etc, etc…BLAME IT ON FATS!

You sound like the fanatical religious ultra-conservative MST3K-worthy lunatics of the 50’s that claimed “this new rock music” was making young people violent.

I think Staks got whacked. 

In the head, with a blunt object, repeatedly, causing massive internal damage.

In case of possible tizzy: Remember Staks, I asked if I could quote you on THAT…that capitalized to indicate that when I asked it, I was referring to your comment ABOVE the article…a comment I did not quote, and am still not quoting.  As far as your article is concerned, I’m quoting it directly and am not altering it in any way…it’s called “critical analysis and mockery using humor as a means of provoking or preventing change”…AKA “Satire”.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

4/22/16: Just to state the bleedin’ obvious (I mean, come on…): “Correlation does not equal Causation.”

Propaganda (n): Intellectual Fascism

Redundancy (n): This definition for most people

Rat, sleeping (n): While admittedly NOT ideal, a whole lot better than a wide-awake rat.

Dissidenti Seer (n): A great idea for a Magic card.

Ahman Fyre (Proper Name): A wistful true romantic.

NOMAD (Proper Name): A highly sophisticated computer from ‘Star Trek’.

PC Crusading Atheist NOMAD (n): Slight alteration on NOMAD (See ‘NOMAD (Proper Name)’)
Example: “I am NOMAD I am perfect everything which is imperfect must be sterilized…ERR educated.”

Mensa (n): Table.
Alternate definition: MENSA(Acronym)= Membership Entails Nonstop Snarky Arrogance

Illusionist (n): One who deceives others for a living.

Fate (n) 1: A hypothetical concept of questionable validity.
2: A combination of chaos and those things that are made to
happen by people who do not believe in Fate while those that
believe in Fate bemoan its cruelty.

Atheist, Crusading (n): One who insists on “informing” others of their “delusions” despite the fact that 1) With every single moment that goes by, we know more than we did the previous moment 2) We use or even fully understand a mere fraction of our own intellectual capability (“The Brain”) and 3) *Insert your own barbed witticism here, I have too many to decide on just one*, we can somehow scientifically/intellectually disprove or even SLIGHTLY discredit the idea of a Higher Power (Higher Power in this case refers to ANY possible existence of any form of deity or higher level of existence or higher plane of existence or anything else in any way beyond our understanding and not completely scientifically “proveable”)…AND who must therefore force everyone to “see” the “truth”, even in such instances when said individual is a good, decent person living a good, decent life who simply finds comfort in their faith and is not IN ANY WAY infringing upon anyone else’s rights and when the only possible result if said “truth” is “seen” is that said good, decent person becomes really depressed. BUT “enlightened”!

I mean, the end of ‘Men In Black’ and ‘MIB II’ are each far more
profound than every treatise on disbelief ever written.

Think of an ant farm. Or a hamster cage, complete with wheel. Or a fish tank.

Now…to each of these creatures, THIS is their “world”. If you
sat down and tried to politely explain to an ant that it is just
one TINY little creature on a much much bigger world, it would not understand. It’s not the ant’s fault, it simply lacks the capability
of understanding the level of thought possessed by Humans, which
allows us to realize that for everything we know and for everything
we THINK we know, there is SO much more we don’t have the
SLIGHTEST idea about. We understand our own limitations. To a
limited extent, and excepting the truly arrogant.

4/22/16: Silly me. The “fully understanding a mere fraction” part, I’ve since discovered (education!) is not accurate. The popular “Human beings use only 10 percent (or whatever) of their brain” doesn’t mean 10 percent TOTAL, it means that, at any given time, only 10 percent of the brain is being actively “used”…depending on what you’re doing.

5/25/16: “Gee, the lack of humility before nature that’s being displayed here, uh… staggers me. ” – Ian Malcolm

I tried reading the article…but the persistent condom ads made it difficult to focus on, and so I settled for a satirical commentary on the title of the article…that is, a public article in a public forum reposted in another public forum for public viewing, said title NOT “quoting” you in any way, since it’s the title of the article, not a quote that I commented on…per your implied request, since I did not include a link to the article. 

Phew…my brain hurts.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“…I never cited a fox news article…” – Staks Rosch

My reply is another quote: “…The only source in this article is Fox News…” – Staks Rosch

“I got Huckabee’s quote from Huckabee’s show on Fox News. That’s the only source cited.”

So, the one and only source cited, that was cited, was Fox News.

“…you asked me if you could quote me. I said YES as long as you linked to my article so people would understand the context…”

I asked if I could quote you.  You put a condition on it that I was unwilling to make, since I was asking to quote YOU, not the article.  Therefore, since I was unwilling to fulfill your condition, I did NOT quote you.  I quoted the title of a news article, originally published in a PUBLIC forum, and then reposted in another PUBLIC forum.  The title of a public news article is not “yours”, it does not “belong” to you.

“…You told your readers that the name was withheld by request. I never requested that!…”

What name are you referring to?  If you’re referring to the name of the person I did NOT quote, then I’d be happy to rectify the problem by explaining to everyone that you are the person I did NOT quote…let me know.  And if YOU want to TELL people “I am the “withheld” name” that WASN’T quoted, feel free…but that’s YOUR choice, not mine.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Quite frankly, I get more hits than AtP does at this point, so I wanna make sure I’m not sending people to a “source” whose executive editor was quoted as saying they have a “less-strict standard for accuracy…” and which has been accused of plagiarism.

*Note: “source” referred to “www.examiner.com”, QUOTED DIRECTLY as follows: “Matt Smith of the San Francisco Weekly noted that numerous articles and photos by Sharon Gray were from other sources, including the Sacramento Bee, and constituted apparent plagiarism.” – Wikipedia, “examiner.com”*

“Plagiarism is a serious charge If you are going to accuse me of it, you better present evidence!”

Plagiarism IS a serious charge.  But it was in fact someone else that accused someone else who is on examinerDOTcom of plagiarism, according to and as quoted above from Wikipedia, which I quoted directly.  Therefore your statement is completely irrelevant, since I at no time accused you of plagiarism, and therefore don’t need to be told to present evidence for a charge which I never, in fact, made.

“I’m not responsible for anything else on Examiner” *Note: indicates, to me, recognition of my meaning of “source” to be “www.examiner.com”, referenced above.*

www.examinerDOTcom, which is the “source” I was referring to, as made clear above, and which you SEEM to recognize by this statement yourself, since you in fact state its name.

“You asked if you could quote me and then told me to f@ck off because I plagiarize and you only quote accurate sources or some such nonsense.” – Staks Rosch (F word edited by me)

Let me address that in parts…

“You asked if you could quote me” – Yes, I did.

“…and then told me to f@ck off” – I never swore at you.  That is therefore a false statement.

“…because I plagiarize…” I never said that…when did I say you, Staks Rosch, plagiarized?  Please, show me.  Another false statement.

“…and you only quote accurate sources or some such nonsense.” I endeavor to be accurate, that’s true.  But I fail to see how that relates to the false statements you made, indicated above.

Stating, as FACT, that I said YOU plagiarize, is a VERY serious charge, Staks Rosch.

“you did accuse me of plagiarism.” – Staks Rosch

Repeating a false and potentially libelous accusation does not have any effect on the falseness of the accusation.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Article crusaded by an Atheist (name withheld by request) who cited, as the ONLY SOURCE for the article, Fox News.

You know, the ultra-conservative bastion of Fauxness.

Title: “School Shootings Caused By ‘Under God’ In Pledge”

Now, if you don’t see why that’s hilarious in a horrendously tasteless but yet pricelessly stupid sort of way, I can’t explain it to you.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

8/3/16: No kid gives a FCK about the Pledge Of Allegiance. Not one. Most say it, some mumble it, some make up their own, some just move their lips and pretend, some (well, one, from junior high) say INCREDIBLY tasteless things instead of it and get sent to the principal and then get hailed (inside joke) as heroes by everyone else for their cojones…

But NOONE shoots anyone because of it. I was a kid. I KNOW this. Unless kids have gotten really fcken uptight and stupid recently. So…get your head out of your a$$.

Richard Dawkins has claimed he is a “6.9” on the scale of belief vs. disbelief.

I have two questions regarding this…

1) Why would he spend so much time coming up with a “scale” on something he obviously feels isn’t worth discussing because it’s so obvious what the uber-probable truth is?

And, more importantly:

2) Why 1-7?  I mean, when most people do a “on a scale of…” thing, it’s usually 1-5, or 1-10, or 1-100…couldn’t he have inserted a few more to make it more, you know, normal?  Unless he meant it as a joke, since 7 is widely considered a sacred number in many religions.  I don’t think he DID, but if so, hey…kinda funny.  Not like “haha!” funny, but sort of “tiny wry smile…hey not bad!” sort of funny.

It’s sort of John McLaughlin-from-SNL-esque (See ‘Saturday Night Live – The Best Of Dana Carvey’, “The McLaughlin Group” sketch)…

“Wrong!  On a scale of 1 to 14, 1 being lowest degree of likelihood, 14 being absolute metaphysical certitude…”

“Wrong! The actual degree of likelihood is 6.5.”

*SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE*

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“We just want to encourage people to think for themselves.” – common Antitheist refrain

Translation: “We want the entire world to adopt Atheism as the only logical belief system, and (since the very definition of “antitheist” is opposition to any and all religion) therefore we want a unified world mandated (non)-belief system of Atheism.  However, we can’t come out and SAY that for reasons of public perception.  It’s a propaganda thing.”

Similar example:

“I want Germany to simply be free from oppression and interference by foreign powers and free to grow as a nation, just like any other.”

Translation: “I want to RULE THE WORLD!”

*SATIRE…SATIRE…SATIRE*

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Hark the fictional creatures invented by man sing,

“Glory to the newborn male child who is NOT the son of God so stop kidding yourselves!

Peace on earth and mercy mild,

Barely possible only on a strong 6 with 7 equaling impossible degree of likelihood “being” and pointless outdated term that is meaningless because there’s no such thing re-con-ciled”

Joyful, all ye nations rise,

Join the triumph of the skies although that doesn’t make sense because the sky is merely sky

With the meaningless adjective because of almost certain non-existence of factual existence of noun proclaim:

“Christ is born in Bethlehem, although we remind you he was just a man and actually his very existence is open for debate but that’s another story and this verse is getting too long”

Hark! the fictional creatures invented by man sing,

“Glory to the newborn male child who is NOT the son of God so stop kidding yourselves!”

And so on, and so on…

“Westboro Baptist Church says it will picket vigil for Connecticut school shooting victims” – Internet Article Headline

What a bunch of hateful, nasty, horrible, small-minded, non-Christian pieces of human garbage.

Yeah…you can quote me on that.

And NO, when I say “non-Christian” I am NOT suggesting anything against REAL non-Christians…I’m suggesting that they have NO IDEA what Christianity is really about and are NOT “examples” of disciples of Jesus Christ, whether you believe he was the son of God or not, whether you believe in God or not.

This, along with previous posts showing callous and completely insensitive atheists, just goes to prove my belief:

It’s the morality, not the religion (or lack thereof).

I think what’s difficult for most Antitheists to grasp about me is that it’s not as easy to dismiss me as certain others.  Because, as an Agnostic, the “don’t push your God on us” argument is invalid.  I don’t HAVE a God.  I’m Agnostic.  I’m just not an arrogant snot-nosed pseudo-intellectual, that’s all.

Also, since I’m none of the following, I can’t be denigrated on that basis:
Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic, fascist, ultra-conservative…

And while I’m not the most intelligent person in the world, I think I’m at least moderately smart.

So, to borrow a Richard Dawkins expression, since I’m more difficult to dismiss with practiced propaganda for a designated group, I tend to turn haughty snobs into “intellectual cowards” (I know, he was referring to Agnostics…that’s why it’s so FUNNY that I used it!!!) who, while VERY comfortable posting in the company of thousands of their own, are seemingly afraid of a one-on-one discussion…since NONE of them has attempted to post here. 

And come on…I get more hits than AtP does at this point.  Really…I do.

I mean, it’s not like they TRY to post and I censor them…obviously, a one-on-one conversation is a bit scary.  Look up “bully” on wiktionary, and apply it to the intellectual instead of the physical.

BTW, I wrote this in about 4 minutes…cuz it’s how I really feel, so I don’t have to edit it for propagandic “effectiveness” purposes.  HA!  I’m a funny guy!!!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“If any of the fallen were from a non-Christian background, I don’t think it was appropriate to honor them with Silent Night”

Wow…maybe SNL should have called up the mothers and fathers of the murdered children to check on their religious backgrounds before deciding on their choice of song???!!!

Now I know what the “Insane Left” version of the “Insane Right” is.
…
“‘Imagine’ would have work as well, but religious zealots seem to believe only as long as god(s) are CONSTANTLY confirmed and validated by OTHERS; in song, in print, by public display, in classrooms, courthouses, etc. etc.”

So you’re saying that Saturday Night Live is controlled by religious zealots?  Wow.
…
“It’s a nice gesture by SNL, but what in the world does praising jesus have to do with what happened in CT? Sorry, folks, but somebody needs to voice some reason here. The choice of Silent Night was a wholly inappropriate one.”

So the Leftists that criticize the PC Right are now becoming PC?  Wow.
…
“A sweet notion, but why does a song about Jesus make sense as a tribute?”

You don’t understand…and you never will. :)
…
Also, some guy said “straw man”…these A’s just LOVE Wikipedia’s “logical fallacies” page!

-Puppy >.< Yip!

“what an appropriate song..sleep in heavenly peace.” – Huffpost user remarking on SNL tribute

“also known as dead” – Random A’s response

“Dear God, Protect our President and the people of Ct. Mend the
parents broken hearts, give them peace and the strength to go on.
Keep all the citizens in your loving arms. In this I ask in your
son Jesus name.” – Huffpost comment

“Wow, how silly of you.” – Huffpost comment response.

Ah…another warm, loving antitheist.

Neither rain nor sleet nor horrific tragedy shall keep them from their appointed rounds. I was surprised there wasn’t an anti-SNL protest for choosing the song “Silent Night”. I guess 20 dead children is enough to warrant a one-day reprieve, if only for purposes of public perception of propaganda. Then again, I’m demonstrably daft given prior perusal of posts. -Puppy >.< Yip!

1) Memo to Travis Betz: You should re-release ‘Lo’, and add the tagline “Twas cutesy tamed the Beast…“

2) I have a new favorite Major League Baseball player.  His name?

ANGEL PAGAN

Come on.  That’s just awesome.  He’s Divine, but he’s also for the common folk. 

-Puppy >.< Yip!

To those that suggest a world without religion would promote
greater free thought and world peace, a few examples of famous
Atheists/Antitheists in (relatively recent) history and what
they “accomplished”.

Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_zedong

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenin

Joseph Stalin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_stalin

Saloth Sar (Pol Pot)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pol_Pot

Benito Mussolini
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_mussolini

Slobodan Milosevic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87

Nicolae Ceausescu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_ceau%C8%99escu

Jacques Hebert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_H%C3%A9bert

Tomas Garrido Canabal (Founder of the “Red Shirts”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_Garrido_Canabal

Enver Hoxha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

Moral: It’s not the religion, it’s the morality.  Peace.

-Puppy >.< Yip!

Well, Crusading Atheist propaganda is certainly sharpening and becoming (while not more intelligent) certainly more effective (Which, as famous propagandists historically concur, is the only necessary thing).

2011: “37 Million Americans know MYTHS when they see them… What myths do you see?” (Pictures of Jesus, Santa, Poseidon, and the Devil) – American Atheists

2012: “Keep the Merry! Dump the Myth!” (Picture of Santa for “Merry”, picture of Jesus for “Myth”) – American Atheists

KIDS SKIP THE NEXT PARAGRAPH!!!!!!!

Now set aside the obvious contradiction in these two billboards by the SAME ORGANIZATION (One says Santa is a myth, the other implies quite obviously that, since you can’t “keep” AND “dump” the same thing, ONE of the pictures logically is NOT a myth…and since “myth” is next to Jesus, Santa is therefore, according to American Atheists, NOT a myth).

Thank you.

They must have had a meeting after 2011 and someone said “You know…putting Santa on that billboard was a mistake.  It made people think we’re just a bunch of arrogant little jerks who don’t care how many children who see it cry profusely as long as we make our point.”

So, to give credit where credit is due, they learned from their mistake and refocused their propaganda so that they could avoid crying children AND ALSO, at the same time, make those kids ask their parents “Why is Jesus up there with Santa, and what is a “myth”?”, thereby pushing their propaganda into people’s heads while they’re YOUNG, which, as ANY propagandist will tell you, is the BEST time to do it.  (e.g. Hitler Youth).

Maybe they’ve been watching ‘The Goebbels Experiment’, but whatever the cause, they’ve figured out the following, as quoted from Adolf Hitler: 

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

Can’t wait for next season, maybe they’ll put out a film. ‘Triumph Of The Reason’?

-Puppy >.< Yip!

I mean, come on, it’s not even a fair fight…but here goes:

“Self-preservation is the highest law.” – Anton LaVey

Now moving on to the higher primates…

“He felt that a resolution to die gives rise to a higher state of life, infused with beauty and grace beyond the reach of those concerned with self-preservation” – Wikipedian analysis of Yamamoto Tsunetomo

Analysis: Unless you’re convinced that you, YOURSELF, are the very essence of all that is good and wonderful about Humanity, and therefore you MUST survive to pass on your incredibly vital genes that noone else could possibly hope to possess…the fact is, there are (always have been, and always will be…either sadly or fortunately) PLENTY of people for whom self-preservation is the 1st, 2nd, 3rd…25th priority.  So don’t worry…Humanity is safe.  How can any thinking person with any semblance of consciousness not UNDERSTAND this?

“Self-preservation is the opiate of the masses.” – Puppy