Mr. Cappadocia

You may regret this.
Face*Book: patrick.cappadocia
Skype: mr.cappadocia
Twitter: @MrCappadocia

Israeli Professor: Rape Hamas Militants' Mothers and Sisters to Deter Terrorist Attacks

And this, ladies and gentlemen… is what we call “Realpolitik”.

Anonymous said: Children under the age of 18 do not have a right to privacy. A parent has EVERY right to snoop, spank, etc. Does it suck for the child? Sure. But until the child is a legal adult, that's life. Fucking deal with it. Corporal punishment, when done right, is EFFECTIVE. We are starting to see these entitled, spoiled little shit children because of weak parents who want to be friends with them instead of being PARENTS.

Anonymous said: The responses about parents reading their kids' media shows that many Tumblr users are just spoiled adolescents themselves. Part of a parent's JOB is to protect their kids from themselves. When my ex's 13 y/o sister was going thru a difficult family time she started sneaking out. Her mom read her diary & found out she was going to the local college & hooking up with 20+ y/o frat boys. Mom was able to stop it. Surely people can't argue she "shouldn't" have read the diary. Today it'd be Facebook.

Anonymous said: I'm not trying to imply you're some evil wife beater, but I have to wonder. Would you try to teach your significant other something important using physical discipline? If not, what's the difference between her and a child? (Do not bother calling me misogynistic, women usually behave like big children anyway)

There’s a difference between an adult and a child. A parent has a responsibility to instruct, guide, educate and discipline their child. That is the nature of the parent child relationship.

A relationship with a significant other is a partnership.

Anonymous said: No one is justified in reading anyone's personal messages, and if they are, you're just as justified to punch them in the face for it.

disneysmermaids:

mr-cappadocia:

Parents are justified in reading the messages of their children. And if my kid punched me in the face I’d knock him upside his head so hard police would be called.

And as soon as I was back I’d do it again.

I fully support corporal punishment where children are involved. Across the board.

Teachers, principals, parents. You name it.

I tell you this much, if Ms. Thang lipped off in class twice and got a sound paddling in the front of class she’d be a hell of a lot less likely to lip off a third time.

Kids live in a world where there are virtually no real immediate consequences for their actions.

This is why parents must remain vigilant.

To add to it all a teacher can’t fire a shitty student, and even if they could the student might view it as a reward.

This is why we have to manufacture immediate and painful consequences to negative actions.

I’m not talking about whipping your child raw and calling them a whore. That’s fucking psychotic.

But a measured dose of violence can have a remarkable effect on dogs, cats, and teenagers.

This is wrong regardless of any factors that come into play. You don’t own your child. You don’t have a right to touch them or look through their personal things. Even if a little bit of violence was somehow justifiable and worked well you couldn’t promote that kind of ideology because people would go too far. People can’t handle that kind of responsibility and it would make violence more mainstream and acceptable. Nothing about this is right.

I find it funny that you’re constantly calling me out on being morally wrong for identifying as a feminist when you promote the idea that feminism and diversity aren’t needed while violence towards children is. Your views and beliefs are old fashioned and so so hypocritical. 

What right do you have to impose your moral values on another person? What right do you have to imprison them in a corner? Or take away their things?

What kind of monster does that?

Anonymous said: No one is justified in reading anyone's personal messages, and if they are, you're just as justified to punch them in the face for it.

disneysmermaids:

mr-cappadocia:

Parents are justified in reading the messages of their children. And if my kid punched me in the face I’d knock him upside his head so hard police would be called.

And as soon as I was back I’d do it again.

I fully support corporal punishment where children are involved. Across the board.

Teachers, principals, parents. You name it.

I tell you this much, if Ms. Thang lipped off in class twice and got a sound paddling in the front of class she’d be a hell of a lot less likely to lip off a third time.

Kids live in a world where there are virtually no real immediate consequences for their actions.

This is why parents must remain vigilant.

To add to it all a teacher can’t fire a shitty student, and even if they could the student might view it as a reward.

This is why we have to manufacture immediate and painful consequences to negative actions.

I’m not talking about whipping your child raw and calling them a whore. That’s fucking psychotic.

But a measured dose of violence can have a remarkable effect on dogs, cats, and teenagers.

This is wrong regardless of any factors that come into play. You don’t own your child. You don’t have a right to touch them or look through their personal things. Even if a little bit of violence was somehow justifiable and worked well you couldn’t promote that kind of ideology because people would go too far. People can’t handle that kind of responsibility and it would make violence more mainstream and acceptable. Nothing about this is right.

I find it funny that you’re constantly calling me out on being morally wrong for identifying as a feminist when you promote the idea that feminism and diversity aren’t needed while violence towards children is. Your views and beliefs are old fashioned and so so hypocritical. 

My hair is so curly it’s started to braid itself. The fuck?

Anonymous said: I disagree with you. There should be consequences for misbehaving but having a physical consequence is a no.

Virtually every living creature learns via pain.

The issue with punishment in tgat regard is that you must be both dispassionate and merciful. You have to recognize that the application of force is a tool for the benefit of the child and not violence for the sake of sadistic violence.

Anonymous said: No one is justified in reading anyone's personal messages, and if they are, you're just as justified to punch them in the face for it.

Parents are justified in reading the messages of their children. And if my kid punched me in the face I’d knock him upside his head so hard police would be called.

And as soon as I was back I’d do it again.

I fully support corporal punishment where children are involved. Across the board.

Teachers, principals, parents. You name it.

I tell you this much, if Ms. Thang lipped off in class twice and got a sound paddling in the front of class she’d be a hell of a lot less likely to lip off a third time.

Kids live in a world where there are virtually no real immediate consequences for their actions.

This is why parents must remain vigilant.

To add to it all a teacher can’t fire a shitty student, and even if they could the student might view it as a reward.

This is why we have to manufacture immediate and painful consequences to negative actions.

I’m not talking about whipping your child raw and calling them a whore. That’s fucking psychotic.

But a measured dose of violence can have a remarkable effect on dogs, cats, and teenagers.

Anonymous said: Just because someone doesn't want people sympathizing with a rapist and treating their crime as some petty mistake doesn't mean they want the rapist tortured, mutilated, or killed. The complaints were about sympathy, NOT degree of justice. People acted as if the rapists were caught cheating or plagiarizing a thesis paper and not for committing a criminal offense. THAT'S why people were angry, not because they wanted blood instead of justice.

How many children do something mean spirited, cruel and vicious?

Right now in many states it’s perfectly legal for a teenage girl to engage in campaign of bullying and harassment so cruel it drives the victim to suicide.

That kind of malignant behavior goes unpunished.

Stick your finger in a drunk girls vagina however and the shrieks of hatred and rage are deafening.

What those boys did was thoughtless and stupid and terrible. But it wasn’t premeditated. It wasn’t brutal. There was no blood on the carpet. No bones were broken. No bodies found.

They aren’t getting a free pass. They’re being punished.

I ask “Isn’t that enough?”. And if the answer is no that means the crowd won’t be satisfied with anything less than blood.

If the demand is that we divorce ourselves from any recognition that these are human beings that now languish under the burden of their actions… then what the crowd wants is blood.

And the reason they want blood is because they’re trained to.

A girl and her mother drive a classmate to suicide and there is no great gnashing of teeth here. There’s no tower of feminist rage.

Because they don’t give a fuck. Because they haven’t *been told* to give a fuck.

Don’t believe me? Try this. Next time you’re in mixed company say “nigger” and gage the response.

The time after that say “10,000 African children die from starvation on a daiky basis”.

See which one gets you more horrified looks.

That will tell you why putting a finger in a drunk girls vagina means you’re no longer human while driving another to suicide warrants no punishment at all.

Anonymous said: Did you know you can misconstrue the contents of every single song to make them seem "rapey". Blurred Lines just happened to be flavour of the month at the time.

disneysmermaids:

mr-cappadocia:

The blurred lines between being good and bad.

As in a “moral gray area”.

Yes! It’s a moral grey area in the subject of consent! He’s saying what I do to you isn’t really bad if I know you’re just playing hard to get. 

Anyways like I’ve said multiple times before I’m not calling Blurred Lines a rape anthem or anything I just used it as one example. Also I said if you don’t like it as an example then move the fuck on and look at all the other examples I listed!! It’s pretty simple but it’s ok I understand that you have a thick skull :) 

No, dumbass… the blurred lines has nothing to do with consent.

The blurred lines… the moral gray area… is whether it’s wrong to have sex with a woman who is dating someone else when it’s clear she doesn’t really want to be with that guy because he treats her terribly.

Have you actually read the fucking lyrics? Here are the *actual* lyrics:

OK now he was close, tried to domesticate you
But you’re an animal, baby, it’s in your nature
Just let me liberate you
Hey, hey, hey
You don’t need no papers
Hey, hey, hey
That man is not your maker

She’s a free spirit in a controlling relationship…

But you’re a good girl
The way you grab me
Must wanna get nasty
Go ahead, get at me

And she’s obviously flirting with him in a very sexual manner. She’s thrown enough hints his way that it’s made her intentions clear.

disneysmermaids:

Blurred Lines has been confirmed to be about Robin Thicke not knowing if a girl wants him or not in a nightclub. So he says “you know you want it” to try and ‘convince’ her. The blurred lines mean the blurred lines of consent because she’s resisting but he ‘knows’ that she wants it. Literally it’s been confirmed that it’s about a girl in a nightclub so what the hell else does blurred lines mean in regards to that? Robin Thicke is not going to say “I raped her” in the song it’s not going to be that easy for you to see. Also I used that as one example. I also went on to list at least ten others. If you don’t like that example then pick a new one it’s that easy. If you refuse to see the meaning behind the song then fine but don’t sit here rehashing the same argument all over again. You can literally say “you don’t have to make everything about rape or misogyny” to tons of different things. You can say that about Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, etc. because yeah you can come up with reasons for why the blatant misogyny isn’t there but that doesn’t mean that a lot of young people (and others who are easy to influence) are exposed to inappropriate, unacceptable ideas and behaviour.

No more pretending
Hey, hey, hey
Cause now you winning
Hey, hey, hey
Here’s our beginning

And now they stop pretending not to be for one another and start a relationship.

I mean it’s pretty fucking obvious.

As for twilight/shades of grey, etc etc… those were books written by women, purchased by women, and creamed over by women. Yet it’s someone the fault of men. Or something, whatever.

Anonymous said: Did you know you can misconstrue the contents of every single song to make them seem "rapey". Blurred Lines just happened to be flavour of the month at the time.

disneysmermaids:

Blurred Lines has been confirmed to be about Robin Thicke not knowing if a girl wants him or not in a nightclub. So he says “you know you want it” to try and ‘convince’ her. The blurred lines mean the blurred lines of consent because she’s resisting but he ‘knows’ that she wants it. Literally it’s been confirmed that it’s about a girl in a nightclub so what the hell else does blurred lines mean in regards to that? Robin Thicke is not going to say “I raped her” in the song it’s not going to be that easy for you to see. Also I used that as one example. I also went on to list at least ten others. If you don’t like that example then pick a new one it’s that easy. If you refuse to see the meaning behind the song then fine but don’t sit here rehashing the same argument all over again. You can literally say “you don’t have to make everything about rape or misogyny” to tons of different things. You can say that about Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, etc. because yeah you can come up with reasons for why the blatant misogyny isn’t there but that doesn’t mean that a lot of young people (and others who are easy to influence) are exposed to inappropriate, unacceptable ideas and behaviour.

The blurred lines between being good and bad.

As in a “moral gray area”.

The difference between a Feminist Girl and an Anti-feminist Girl?

The Anti-feminist girl says “I choose knowledge over ignorance. Honesty over convenience. Integrity over selfishness. Courage over hate.”

They have, almost to a woman, chosen the harder path because it is right. Because they are free thinking. Because they have done the research. Compared the arguments. Made a decision.

The Anti-feminist girl doesn’t need a crowd to tell her what’s right and wrong. She won’t be herded like a slovenly mindless cow. She is a person in full command of her faculties.

Even though she knows she could benefit… knows she could profit.. if she’d only give in. She knows this and still she stands for what’s right.

The comedy of it all is that based on their own philosophy the Anti-feminist woman IS in action what feminist women purport to be with only words.

The ideal feminist girl is an Anti-feminist Woman.

I had some strange woman rubbing my balls today. No joke.

glrglrglr:

mr-cappadocia:

Sometimes even I’m amazed at how fast I work. I mean I know I’m a smooth talker but holy shit. Maybe it was preordained?

Either way, her name is Samantha. I’d never met her before in my life. When we first connected it was in an office type setting. We chit chatted a little. Sh got to know me, I…

At first I was like “damn! That was suppposed to be my job!” then I realized it was a doctor’s visit.

Yowzah!

Anonymous said: how can you deny rape culture is even a thing?

disneysmermaids:

mr-cappadocia:

mr-cappadocia:

Because I’ve never seen proof it or anything like it exists. If you’re going to make an extraordinary claim you have to provide extraordinary evidence.

There’s never been any.

If I busted into my neighbor lady’s home, raped her at knife point, then went home to eat a bag of peanuts I would be arrested, cashiered and convicted so fast it would make your head spin.

While this remains demonstrably true you’re going to have a hell of a hard time convincing me that our society supports, promotes, or encourages rape.

Rape culture is just a scare tactic to keep dopey fucks like you in line because you’re afraid.

Did you miss the part where a number of the links you posted.. if you check out the authors they’re feminists?

You’re a flat earthen presenting us “evidence” provided by other flat earthers… and don’t understand why we’re calling it bullshit.

I provide exemples of feminists authors because they talk about rape culture a lot and provide examples in their work. You’re supposed to look at the examples they’re using to back up their claims. I just link their articles because they add context to their story as well. Also it shouldn’t matter that they’re feminists they’re talking about real issues. And if you can’t take them seriously then how do I know you’re arguing fairly? A lot of anti-feminist people just blow off what feminists say and look for arguments to counter them instead of considering their point. How is the erasure of rape culture hurting you anyways? It’s not like feminists want it to exist it’s not like they want people to be blamed for being assaulted. Feminist ideology is about telling victims it’s not their fault and making society realise that. We want victims to feel more supported so they’ll report their crimes and not feel disgusted with themselves because of what happened to them. We want them to be able to feel confident enough to ask for help because of the psychological trauma involved with rape. We want society to realise that it’s never the victims fault so the bullying and shaming will stop. Honestly even if you don’t believe rape culture is a thing there’s nothing wrong with trying to get rid of those twisted ideas and help people. You’re fighting against people who are trying to help rape victims. And with convincing people that it’s not the victims fault a lot of men might feel less embarassed or ashamed after being raped because society often belittles men who claim they’ve been sexually assaulted or doesn’t believe them or thinks it’s not possible. The basic idea is that anyone get hurt and it’s never their fault no matter what happened and no matter what factors came into play. End of story.

(Lots of cleaning done to this post)

And what I read over and over is a lot of cherry picking used to characterize communities. If you can find two people to say anything like “She was asking for it” you’ve got yourself a news story.

And that’s assuming those people actually said those things. Feminists have a long history of just making shit up when it’s convenient.

I mean how can I take you at your word when the people you use to back up your points are constantly lying?

Even one of the things that Feminists repeat CONSTANTLY on here… the 1 in 6… 1 in 5… 1 in 4… whichever… statistic for rape victims is a complete and total bald faced fucking lie that is entirely detached from reality.

I mean you’re literally asking us why we don’t consider points you make when all the points you make are based on absolute bullshit.

Your movement makes shit up wholecloth, demonizes half the population, is myopic in the extreme, and has all the accoutrements of a supremacist organization… and you STILL consider yourself one of them.

Have a little fucking integrity, would you? Admit you were sucked in by them. Plenty do. They realize that they’ve been sold a bill of goods… a story… and they come clean.

Hell, I would argue *most* of the anti-feminists began as feminists or feminist leaning. They heard the lies, and even believed them for some time.

But things didn’t add up. They had the courage to call bullshit. Do you? I’m going with no… but hey, maybe you’ll surprise me.