WTF Is Wrong With This Man?

I've ripped into Mike Adams before. Politely, he's a fucking idiot who's stupidity wouldn't even be worth my time if he didn't spread his obscene arrogance over some of the most sensitive topics. Honestly, he's an obstinate moronic fucking idiot twit well versed in the arts of the anti-logic and anti-thought who's dribble wouldn't be worth the throw-away bib that it's on, were it not for the fact that he shoots his mouth off while knowing negative knowledge about sensitive topics. The article of him that I ripped into before remains one of the most popular articles I've ever done - Real True Men(TM), in which this dimwit decides that because he had a borderline bromance back in middle school, gay children are automatically women (and that's an insult, mind you) if they don't stand up and fight back against their bullies, rather than relying on the system in place to protect them (which is an attitude that, if anything, benefits the bullies). That article was a wonderful display of lack of empathy and his misogyny.

Well, Adams is at it again. In another astonishing article, Adams freely reminds the world that he lacks intelligence, empathy, and is well versed in misogyny in a way that makes one want to exile him from the species.

(h/t Ross on the Slacktiverse; original comment found in this thread here)

**WARNING. Townhall Link. I wouldn't give them the traffic if I were you.**

This garbage can be found here.

His article is all about exposing "liberal hypocrisy" - *sage nod*. Really, anytime you hear that phrase, get ready for a heapin' helpin' of projection, because that's usually what these fuckers serve up; hot and ready, too.

Dear PETA: I have a neighbor who is being extremely rough with his Golden Retriever. He kicks the dog with the side of his foot whenever she is in his way. The dog weighs about 80 pounds and is not likely to be seriously harmed by the kicking. However, the dog is pregnant. Is this animal abuse? Would you recommend reporting this to the police?
Mike Adams

Mike, thank you so much for reporting this to us! Is there any change [sic] at all of sneaking some footage of this? How hard does he kick her? Also, could you give me the name and address of the owner, and can you tell me what her living conditions are like- does she live inside, outside, chained, is she fed properly, etc? Please be assured that we take your anonymity very seriously.
Thank you and I look forward to hearing back from you!
Rachel, PETA

Is it animal abuse - no shit, you moron. What do you think it is? The animal is in obvious pain.

Most normal people wouldn't hesitate long enough to write to PETA. In fact, they'd probably call the ASPCA or the cops right away. Like always, I have a story about something similar to this. I live in one of the poorest parts of the country outside of Mississippi. The unemployment where I live at is 25% and counting. Poverty and slums are rampant here, but somehow, everyone can still manage to afford this big ass dog that will always bark at me when I'm walking past. This says nothing of those who just turn their dogs loose because they can't afford the animal anymore (so note; I'm not saying they're not poor because they can afford a dog, because that's obviously not the case. I'd rather they keep their dog behind a fence and care for it than kick it out where it can attack me while I'm walking.) Well, I live next door to a house that, for the longest, was a rental house. My city is home to a lot of slumlords; you get a lot of really shitty houses that are put up for rent because people have no place else to go. My neighbor's house was/is one of those houses. Well, the guy renting it had two of those large dogs I was talking about earlier. Both were a pretty big dogs - likely a pit bull/rot mix, so not a particularly dangerous breed of dog (at least, no more dangerous than any other breed). Well, he would chain these dogs up and leave it out there for days. He would leave them both out there for days, and they would bark and yep and howl at all hours of the night. My family called the ASPCA a few times to report it, and my mom called the police, but each time, nothing came of it. Eventually, they guy jumped town - likely on drug charges, given the fact that a few years after that the FBI raided the house - and left the dogs. One of them actually died. The other I'm not sure about, but eventually someone came out and freed the dog.

Those must've been miserable last few days. Even though I'm not a dog person, I still can't stand to see a creature in pain without trying to do something to alleviate. Now, he doesn't have a real neighbor with a real dog. He's making the story up. And he's making the story up to score political points with the petulant Neanderthals who read that article. He would lie about something as serious as animal abuse - something that happens every fucking day - to score political points.

We're off to a wonderful start already!

[sic]. I've used that before - it means "hey, I didn't make this mistake. It was already there." The [sic] there took me a second to figure out - that should be "chance", not "change." However, the typo at least tells me that this isn't another automated response, and that someone took interest enough to report back.

Also, I want you to pay attention to that second line and third line, because this is where his intentions lie: "The dog weighs about 80 pounds and is not likely to be seriously harmed by the kicking. However, the dog is pregnant."

Oh yeah. We can see where this is going already.

Dear Rachel: Thanks for getting back to me. I am not prepared (morally or technologically) to surreptitiously film my neighbor. He is not kicking the animal very hard. It would not be an issue but for the pregnancy of the animal. She lives outside, is unchained, and appears to be fed properly. As an armed citizen, I am wholly unconcerned with the issue of anonymity. I am more concerned with wasting my time with the authorities as I just don’t know whether there is a crime to report. The litter appears to be at risk, not the mother. I wonder whether the owner is even liable if any of those unborn puppies is either stillborn or deformed. I honestly don’t know the answer. Any help you can provide is appreciated.
Mike

It's because you don't have a neighbor beating his dog, you fucking liar. You can't film something that doesn't exist.

I would not have an issue with the fact that my fictional neighbor is kicking an animal, except for the fact that the animal is pregnant. If it weren't pregnant, I wouldn't mind kicking it at all. This sums up his attitude towards people - women in particular - rather nicely, doesn't it?

Also, I'm not ready to morally report animal abuse. I think it'd be wasting my time to tell the authorities that this woman dog is being abused, except for the fact that she the dog is pregnant. It's only because she the dog is pregnant that I even care about the safety of this woman animal. This man is a sociopath. And not only is he a sociopath, he's an insult to the morality of all the sociopaths that I have met (and I've met a few. They tend to be really nice people, and no, they're not all mass murderers. They also tend to be intelligent, but Adams must just be an outlier).

Dear Rachel: Moments after I wrote you, I received an email from PETA containing the following passage, which is relevant to my inquiry: “We speak up for, among others, rabbits and foxes who are skinned alive for the fur trade, chickens and cows who suffer hellish conditions on factory farms just to end up on someone's dinner plate, and the dogs who should be treated as part of the family (emphasis mine) but are relegated to a lonely life on the end of a chain. PETA is the voice for animals who have none (emphasis also mine).”

I'm sure dumb-ass is against spaying and neutering pets too, isn't he?

I'm not sure if he's trying and failing to anthropomorphize dogs while degrading women or degrading dogs and women at the same time. Either way, it's an ugly, ugly thing.

It's only relevant to his inquiry because he's playing this "gotcha" game with PETA, basing a story on a lie to try and trap them into saying something that he can twist to agree with his points. I recognize this tactic, because I've used it before on Right-wingers. I won't vouch for the ethos of using it in an informal debate situation, but I don't have to twist their words when I use it on them.

Also, now is as good a time as any to address the massive elephant in the room: PETA does not speak on behalf of all liberals. In fact most liberals consider PETA rather extreme and cringe when their name is mentioned. Also, there's so much wrong here by this point I can't begin to deal with it all. It's like a freight-train of sheer wrong that drives itself right into your forehead, and after it's done, you stumble on the other side of the tracks and get run over again.

it appears that PETA does not draw a moral distinction between dogs and humans. Therefore, in answering the question of whether the dog’s unborn puppies are protected, we must look to the alternatives available to us if the neighbor had been striking his pregnant wife. There are three distinct possibilities:

1. The unborn has no legal protection whatsoever.
2. The unborn has legal protection contingent upon its mother’s intention to carry it to term.
3. The unborn has legal protection regardless of its mother’s intention to carry it to term.

Obviously, the third possibility is precluded by the ruling in Roe v. Wade. According to that ruling, the unborn baby human is not given absolute protection. According to PETA’s stated position of dog/human equality, the unborn puppy must also lack absolute protection. PETA cannot say that the puppy does have absolute protection without elevating animal rights above human rights.

I'm trying to figure out what the hell just happened. I didn't take anything out - nothing got cut. This is the exact order that he goes in - first he talks about how PETA believes that dogs should be treated as part of the family, and bolds "PETA is the voice for animals who have none" (har har. I know what happened here - a dog can tell me when it's hurt or upset. A fetus doesn't get hurt or upset; it doesn't need a voice, because it doesn't have enough of a brain to know what to do with it. Dogs know what they want. In short, a dog is alive. A fetus is not). He immediately jumps to the woman/dog comparison that I could see him drawing a mile away, in what must be one of the most epic false equivalences that I've ever seen.

If your brain refuses to process that leap, don't feel bad. Mine did, too. What he's basically saying here is that because PETA is a liberal organization, and therefore speaks for all liberals and left-wingers and pro-lifers/choicers, all liberals must therefore believe that women and dogs are conflated. He then goes on to say that because liberals are pro-life, and they want women to have the choice in getting an abortion and want that option to be available, that we put more value on the puppies of an unborn dog who can't choose whether or not she wants an abortion either way. At least, I think that's what's happening here. I keep trying to process it, but I feel like I'm slamming my head against a brick wall because I'm not short the genetic material that asswipe here is short.

No matter how you cut this, this is probably the most epic non-equivalence fallacy that I've seen all week. And that's saying something, because I keep up with the Republican primaries.

I have some hesitation about asking PETA to join the pro-life movement. PETA has a disturbing history of following women in mink coats to the opera and giving coloring books to their children with pictures of dead animals inside. The captions in the coloring books read “Your mommy is a murderer.” Those words are hurtful to children and we must remember that children are just as valuable as dogs. PETA has also used large “Your mommy is a murderer” signs in other venues.

I know many women who have had an abortion and regretted the decision later. Some have partially assuaged that guilt by going on to have children. I hope that PETA will not locate women who have had abortions and hand their children coloring books with pictures of aborted babies. The words “Your mommy is a murderer” would be especially harmful to children who have lost a sibling to abortion. We must remember that children are just as valuable as dogs. It should be our guiding principle as we work together. The evolution of a grate [sic] organization depends on it.

I think this last piece speaks for itself. And honestly? You can have PETA. We liberals don't want them anyway.

Okay, that's fine. I know many people who've gotten tattoos that regretted the decision. Does that mean we should ban tattoos? I know plenty of people who've gone to concerts they've regretted - let's ban concerts! Let's ban music - I know people who've bought CDs that they regretted (hi, that'd be me. Never trust a CD jewel case). Let's ban computers - I know I've regretted trying to work at some computer stations before at work. Let's ban clocks, because I've left late for work and I've regretted that for sure. Let's ban everything that people might regret, because it's the job of the government and society to keep me from doing things that I might regret. And before you come back and say "oh, but they don't kill people" - you mean people haven't been killed because someone regretted being late for work and run a red light? I think we should ban traffic and cars too, while we're at it. We gotta let that Nanny State protect us and our good morals.

PETA. Is. Extreme. And besides, I'm shocked that certain churches haven't already jumped on that bandwagon. They stand outside of women's health clinics with graphic signs that show "aborted babies" (most of which aren't aborted, none of which are 'babies'.) Abortion is not murder. To say it is is to flat out lie - conception is a process, not a single, definitive point in time. You can't say "aha! this is when conception happened" no more than you can say "aha! This is when writing happened!" or "this is when science happened!" You'll note that in doing so, you're discussing periods longer than a few days. Conception takes place over a period of time, and to make the claim that life beings at conception is completely arbitrary and without any evidence to support it. At all. And if your basis of argument is that it's a cell, so are sperm and so are ovum, and both are alive with their own unique genetic data. When a woman is menstruating, she's committing mass murder. And male solitary sexual practices that orchestrate genocide is probably better left... ahem... untouched.

Fuck, even The Holy Bible agrees with me on this one:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

There goes Mike's argument. If a man hurts a woman and her child dies in utero, then he pays a fine. It's not murder.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Such wonderful misogyny, too. Female babies are worth less than male babies are, but the point is, if it's under a month, you don't get shit, because it's not considered a person.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

Abortion - God Approves!

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

The Divine Abortionist strikes again!

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Once more, unto the breech. God still continues to cause abortions. And this is in addition to all the miscarriages that God must on a regular basis - he's probably the most prolific abortion provider on the planet.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

So what we have here is pro-life combine with misogyny to equal one large helping of shit. Sounds like most religion to me. 

I believe absolutely none of that. But I often wonder how people who take the Bible "literally" jive that with their anti-choice/anti-life stance, until I remember that they don't, because they're impervious to all outside facts, figures, and even quotes from their own Bible.

But hey, let's not let the facts get in the way, shall we? Someone's gotta kick this dog.