rational wiki

Philipp Cole #fundie quora.com

[wanted to share my first run in with creationism on quora]

Original question:“What will happen if I could falsify the Theory of Evolution and replace ToE?„

Answer by Thraxas:
Well you would get a Nobel prize.

But not sure o get you down but the ToE is The best researched Theorie in all of scientific history, with the most evidence for it, even more so than the Theory of friggin gravity.

So you first had to discover something that fundamentally changes our perception of biology, chemistry or physics. But good luck

Comment by Philipp Cole:

Absolute nonsense. There is absolutely no observed evidence to support evolution. Evolution is just the science fiction writings of men.

Gravity has observed evidence.

Comment by Thraxas:

Erm no just no. While there is indeed observable evidence for gravitation it isn’t letting your pen Fall that could also proof intelligent falling:

[Link to the rational wiki Site about intelligente falling, the thumbnail is the pictured of jesus holding the Universe]

It is actually a lot more easy to get evidence. I actually read some papers about it and also you should know a common actual example which is COVID 19 and it’s mutants.

I also don’t see what you nuts get out of it claiming that there is no evidence for evolution, it’s easily verifiable, like you could actual do it. Also it’s just a Natural process not even directly contradicting your favorite fairy tail unlike a heliocentric Model or the fact that the world is round.

Comment by Philipp Cole

Regardless of how many times you make the false claim, there is still absolutely no evidence to support evolution.

LOL, the Covid variants are due to reproduction and genetics NOT evolution.

FYI, it is true that Jesus holds the universe together. Jesus created it and He could easily destroy it.

Lance Welton #conspiracy #dunning-kruger vdare.com

Smith wields a particular grudge against a Danish computer type, 29-year-old Emil Kirkegaard. Kirkegaard runs the online academic journal Open Psych and has published in high-impact journals, such as Intelligence [Are Headstart gains on the g factor?, by Jan te Nijenhuis, Birthe Jongeneel-Grimen & Emil Kirkegaard, Intelligence, 2014]. Smith’s fury with Kirkegaard extends to anyone who, like his Danish nemesis, attended the London Conference on Intelligence at University College London, on which I’ve reported before, meaning that Smith has created Rational Wiki articles about most of the academics involved. The Rational Wiki page London Conference on Intelligence [accessed January 11, 2019] starts “London Conference on Intelligence were a series of controversial pseudoscientific[3] conferences held annually at University College London (UCL) from 2014-2017, attended by far-right speakers, including white supremacists and most notoriously, Emil Kirkegaard…” and gets worse from there.

Kirkegaard’s own summary of the research into Smith’s background is most enlightening.

LeChampion1992 #ableist #conspiracy #transphobia #racist #wingnut kiwifarms.net

So I found this recent entry to RW’s Alt-Right Glossary;
View attachment 2657924
Is this true? Was #GoBaldForBLM a 4Chan prank? Or are they just scapegoating 4Chan to cover their asses? Cos they also claim on their “Social Justice Warriors” article that “most SJW nonsense is actually 4Chan’s doing” which is definitely not true.

Average rational wiki sperg
"No social justice cringe is something that 4chan does. Yes if you don't put pronouns in your bio or put BLM in your bio then yes you are racist. Sorry those are the rules now don't be a right wing bigot!!! Now anyways stop being a conspiracy and get fucking vaxxed yes those fat people are healthier than you because you're a supreme spreader now shoo!"
Picture of Le typical rational wiki user.

image

Conservapedia Editors #crackpot #ableist #fundie conservapedia.com

RationalWiki (RW) is an atheist/agnostic, wiki website.

As can be seen above, on May 17, 2020, the RationalWiki administrator who goes by the moniker DuceMoosolini, indicated that RationalWiki "attracts all sorts of weird people". The statement was made on their Discord channel (Discord is a chat website). See also: Atheism and social outcasts and Atheism and social skills and Atheism and mental illness

Message to RationalWiki editors: Gentlemen, birds of a feather, flock together!
RationalWiki administrator Oxyaena wrote: "it's just that i am probably raging too much most of the time to form coherent sentences."
[…]
Question: Why is the website called "Rational"Wiki if one of their administrators is probably raging too much to form coherent sentences? There is a lot of irrationality at "RationalWiki". See also: Atheism and irrationality and Atheism and emotional problems and Atheism and anger and Atheism and mental illness
[…]
Theodore Beale wrote: "This would also put Bruce Charlton's Mouse Utopia observations into context, as atheism appears to be one aspect of the nihilistic despair that is a consequence of the increased prevalence of genetic inferiority that results from easier circumstances."
Gentlemen, full exoneration. Just like I expected!
[…]
First atheist controlled, mainland China was shown to cause the coronavirus pandemic through their bizarre eating habits and deceit. And now this! 2020 is the worst year in the history of atheism gentlemen, just like I predicted! See also: Atheism and the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic

Brendan1903 #wingnut deviantart.com

(Image contains the logo for Rational Wiki with the words “When you claim to be “Rational” but instead use lies, deception and logical fallacies just like those you claim to be against.”)

The site is literally what happens when useful idiots and trendfollowers get their own wiki.

Incel Wiki #sexist wiki.incels.info

Tanner

There is a tier between Melvin and Chad.

This tier is called Tanner. In the grand scheme, relatively speaking, Tanner functions as a Melvin if Chad is present, but Tanner does possess some unique traits.

Tanner is basically just a douche, kind of like some people think Chad is, but Chad isn't a douche, Chad is really funny and is just a genuine savage. Everyone loves Chad, even if it's just begrudgingly, unless they're insane and want to kill Chad out of envy. Okay back to Tanner. No one thinks Tanner is actually that funny. If they are laughing at his joke, it's because they overestimate his social clout and want to be adjacent to him to increase their own shit-tier standing. He isn't really popular, but he IS capable of making friends who aren't autistic and who do not interact with him initially only from things like dungeons and dragons.

Tanners can often be mistaken for Melvins, or a really, really third-rate Chad, but only by people who don't understand or at least recognize the many nuanced layers Chad operates on so effortlessly. (Sidenote: Chads don't necessarily have to understand their own behaviors completely in order to continue them or to be a Chad). Tanners also confuse people this way because they readily offer up their own resources, for example a Tanner will volunteer his parents' house for a high school party. In this scenario, Tanner hasn't actually brought anything to the table himself, especially not with his social skills (because they are poor - unlike Melvin's which don't exist at all). Tanner is attempting to buy social clout, likely thinking he can get laid with this method. He might, but he will not retain a truly valuable lady, an elusive Stacy, if he is even lucky enough to snag one for that fateful night. Many people besides Stacys and Chads will mistakenly believe having hard resources can make you a Chad. Chad is both a status, and a mindset, first and foremost. Hard resources are simply something that comes to Chads from their hard work ethic.

Tanners often do possess enough cleverness to recognize Chads. Tanners, because they are not completely oblivious to the repercussions of their mistakes like so many Melvins are, universally fear Chads. To be fair, it doesn't take a ton of cleverness to recognize Chad. Some Melvins can do it. The main motive for Tanners to identify Chads is to attempt to be adjacent to them, to swim in their wake so to speak. This nearly always ends poorly for them, because Chads can coexist with each other when in environments with plentiful Stacys, and with Chads in the picture, Tanner is basically invisible. Tanner will almost always end up with a Margaret in this scenario, but generally avoids Gertrudes as they think themselves too high ranking to stoop to Gertrude.

Through many years of efforts, poor quality as they are, Tanners can eventually develop a reasonable enough understanding of the power dynamics that surround them, if they didn't have that earlier in life. For this reason Tanners will attempt to occupy spaces that are vacant of Chads, to assume Chad's role and hope to fool those in that space. Stacys tend to instinctively know something is wrong, but while experiencing Chad-scarcity they find a way to rationalize temporarily stooping to a Tanner, especially if he or his parents have money.

Because Tanners do not possess the natural social skills, chiseled forms and sexual abilities that Chad does, it's only a matter of time before he slips up and Tanner's tactic of pretending to be a Chad blows up in his face. Tanner will likely go through a period of hard Melvining after the devastation of his one-sided bonding with a Stacy and then losing her.

Chad has total social dominance, and even if he's borderline retarded, he at least vaguely knows it. Margarets who cannot retain Chads and are aware of it may pretend to not be into Chads, and may seek out Tanners to try and pussy-whip into trophy boyfriends to present as a Chad, that may fool other, less experienced Margarets and Gertrudes. Stacys will always figure out Tanner isn't Chad in the end though, but then again Stacy doesn't like lowering herself to hang out much with Margaret and Gertrude in the first place.

Although inconsequential, Tanners may be identified by Chads as non-Melvins, but also as non-Chads. That's why it's inconsequential. Chads treat Tanners as Melvins because relatively speaking, with Chad around, they are. Tanners are generally competent enough to get degrees and decent jobs, though it isn't a guarantee for them. It isn't a guarantee for anyone. However this remains a requirement for any non-Chad to retain even the lowest level Margarets and Gertrudes. Again, going back to hard resources, they are most often a substitute for charm, tact, good looks, height, athleticism, sexual prowess, and humor, in this context. Only the inexperienced will fail to recognize this in "the dating market" free for all.

Tanners also confuse people because they can have, or mimic; popular fashion style, sense of humor, and entertainment media choices. They also may attempt a gym routine, but are often not dedicated enough to make substantial "gainz". Although at first glance a Tanner's style may seem on point, with careful scrutiny it becomes obvious Tanner is a try-hard. Chad wears whatever he feels like. Sometimes he puts literally zero thought into how he presents himself. Tanner never does this. Tanner is always self conscious. He also knows very little about the entertainment media he is careful to always present himself with. This is another dead giveaway of his real identity. Tanners also may have a witty remark to make in the ideal situation, if they speak up first, but it should be noted that it's usually memorized (mimicked from past experience with Chad) and practiced, and that their utter lack of natural improvisational skills will rear its ugly head fairly quickly in an evening of light hearted socialization, leading Tanner to lose the attention of countless Stacys.

Keep an eye out for the subtle indicators of a Tanner, and observe them in the delicate ecosystem that is human group interaction. It will be on the mid-term.

Ramola D #conspiracy everydayconcerned.net

Targeting is Real

Because there has been such a concerted effort made—over the past 20 years apparently–by CIA-controlled media outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, even Mother Jones, and The Daily Beast, The Los Angeles Times, and various other mainstream newspapers–as well as online sites like Rational Wiki and Wikipedia and, surprisingly, the moderated-Comments section at The Intercept [run by a certain avid Disinformation agent “Mona” who apparently is also the purveyor of fine lies on TIs at Rational Wiki]–to present all “Targeted Individuals” (TIs) as delusional in apparent efforts to:

1) negate all possibility of full public awareness of the reality of EMF-targeting,

2) keep Military/Intelligence usage (on citizens) of radiation weapons and neuroweapons covert (for the “National Security” cover story), and

3) permanently present Targeted Individuals as delusional, paranoid, schizoid, schizophrenic, and generally unreliable;

these facts should be set out for all educated parties the world over:

1. Targeting is real, and people the world over are indeed being hit covertly with military EMF/scalar/sonic technologies in covert weapons-testing, weapons-operation, and neuro-experimentation/Behavior Modification programs that have been ongoing for more than 25 years and that have gained steam in recent times. Please see more in the articles under Human Rights. Also please see my recent op-ed, Open Season on Targets, to get a sense of how people are being targeted, surveilled, and assaulted wholescale with deadly weapons while the uninformed sleep, and controlled-media keeps them asleep. Please understand as well there is nothing benign about these technologies and weapons, and that All reporting experimentees/TIs report these assaults as highly invasive, as highly detrimental, and as Torture.

2. Both random innocent citizens and activists/whistleblowers/journalists are being targeted in these extreme ways, with covert weapons.

3. The same parties trying to keep targeting under wraps while collecting field data on weapon-effectiveness from those being EMF-targeted—the whole JTRIG operation, the CIA, the DIA, DARPA, NSA, DHS, USAF, the Pentagon and all Defense contractors testing these weapons—have flooded the Net with disinformation: there are ample numbers of fake TIs online, acting suitably insane—with rabid narratives designed to make them sound delusional and designed to put you (the discerning journalist/physician/psychiatrist/researcher?) off the scent of the real and genuine faction out there, actually being hit with covert weapons.

4. The name of the game is Electronic Warfare. Militaries the world over—possibly working together–have figured out humans can be attacked, debilitated, and destroyed just like hardware with the right, bio-resonant frequencies of microwave radiation, lasers, masers, pulsed radar, ultrasonic weapons, infrasonic weapons, and are practicing or testing these deadly new radiation guns on humans, saying they are testing “non-lethal weapons” or determining anti-personnel “bio-behavioral” human effects. It’s a New Age in War, they say—they call it a Revolution in Military Affairs in US military documents—and it’s all about “Optics”: killing people on the sly, in the dark, and from a distance, incrementally–bit by bit damaging organs, or inducing “Death from Natural Causes”–heart attacks, strokes, sudden cancers—with No Blood being spilled, No Blown-Up Limbs, No Guts Spilled all over the place—none of the messy and visible detritus of war as we have previously known it. These are stealth weapons and covert weapons, by their nature.

5. The name of the game is also Neuro Warfare. What MK ULTRA began in the US, the NSA apparently continued, and the CIA continued, and DARPA continued. Military and Intelligence groups worldwide, indeed, experimenting with electromagnetic radiation and scalar technologies have understood that human brains, just as much as human bodies, are electrical organs, and can be affected, altered, and modified with electrical/electromagnetic signals. The human brain and central nervous system have effectively been hacked. Brains and bodies can be interfered with, using pulsed radiation weapons, operating remotely. Remote Neural Monitoring is not a rumor, and both EEGs and fMRIs can be performed remotely, with high-tech, undisclosed military/Intelligence weaponry that the “National Security” mavens may call “CLASSIFIED”, but which any non-consensual neuro-experimentee, aka Targeted Individual, including yours truly, who has personally experienced these horrors, can report as unswervable fact. Additionally, Electronic Brain Link technologies, Brain Computer Interfaces (BCI), and covert Neurostimulator and BCI implants permit brainwaves/thoughts to be read; the Neurophone, bone-conduction, microwave hearing and other technologies permit “synthetic telepathy” or voices to be piped into heads.

chimpburger, AnOminous, et. al. #wingnut #transphobia #ableist #senpai_noticed_us kiwifarms.net

[Highlights from a conversation about Fundies Say the Darndest Things on Kiwi Farms, where the OP challenged people to "find shit on there and their super spergy posts."]

chimpburgers: Haha these guys again.

They can shove their tranny communist white knighting right back where it came from as far as I'm concerned cause that's what this site looks like to me.

Proof of the blatant communism over there. Their pussy spines crackle when they hear about Trump.

[...]

AnOminous: It used to be actually about fundies. Now it's about them REEEEing at anything that triggers their euphoria and causes their fedoras to fly off.

[...]

NotCobalt: Yeah. But back then they actually made fun of the lulcows, known as fundies. Both sandniggers and jesustards were fair game.

I remember this fag was a huge target:
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/LoneWolf1984

[...]

StarvingAutist: One of the comments linked in the OP called us an "alt-right/GamerGate safe space", probably because he falls into the "if you complain about SJWs then you're a racist" bullshit.

[...]

TimeToTurn: A formerly great site. 2016 Presidential election pretty much finished off everything great about the site. It used to be "Look at some crazy nut on X site", now it's "look at some mean thing a Republican said" and most of the posts were reposts from other left-wing blogs. Once gay marriage got legalised in the US, even the funny homophobia mostly stopped. It's too bad, because there's still tons of exceptional websites run by religious idiots of all faiths, but they'd rather just whine about what Donald Trump did this week. Distind's departure was basically the last straw of the devolution of FSTDT.

Haven't been on there in a while. Don't really feel like it. It was fun being left-wing and being a self-professed authoritarian at the same time, which got me quoted so many times. I just have to play an over-the-top version of what I believe IRL and they would get so triggered. Lots of great discussion was to be had, both from the SJWs freaking out and then the people who were actually semi-intelligent.

My scientific analysis blames this on the fact that FSTDT emerged with the New Atheism movement (along with Rational Wiki and other shit) and as that movement declined into infighting and irrelevance, so did its offspring, which is a reason why Rational Wiki and FSTDT (a proud partner of Rational Wiki) are shite nowadays.

I'm probably reminiscing too much now. Eh, right now I'm about as drunk as I was whenever I'd post there. Thanks for the thread, you Kiwi Farmers, even though I'll regret posting here before long.

@FelineDarkmage

I'm trying so hard right now to see the remnants of good on this site. But TimetoTurn does have a point about us being autistic as fuck. And @autism420 is still Islamic IMO.

Thanks man. Should be no surprise to you that a fellow autist like me would show up here. Autists there hate me. But it was glad I learned that all spergs needed to believe the same things about autism OR ELSE.

[...]

NotCobalt: [in response to a user making a list of quotes from the topic] What list? The one of "people you want to have sex with" or the one "These exceptional individuals used to belong to an ancient forum with like perhaps 500 active members, so they probably know each other, and I wish I had been a part of that cool kids club back when, but instead I was too poor to afford internet, so I just cried all day instead"?

[...]

sikotik: The site started going down hill as early as 2008 when every other user became a tranny &/or easily triggered furry.

[...]

TimeToTurn: Never knew Marjan got banned, but I can assume he would with the new administration. Distind only banned spammers and shit. The new administration seems intent on making it a "safe space". Even though they always made fun of other websites like Free Republic and Rapture Ready for "suppressing free speech". I can't post shit messing with them (or I could, if I had a day to waste). So Marjan/caamib/whatever he calls himself can't do the same. I'd assume Marjan might be back at some point, but I don't really care to investigate. They really hate TOR, too, nowadays.

David J. Stewart I'm sure is as crazy as always, but him getting any crazier would take divine intervention and I'd just await either reports of his death (guy's a painkiller addict) or more dealings with the Guam government.

[...]

Dr W: The problem was that they didn't branch out into mocking SJWs. That's what kept Kiwi Farms rather politically inert. Instead, they allowed a core of crazy tranny furry dipshits to eject fecal matter everywhere.

Damn shame, I used to love that site.

[...]

rianzi: Shame how the site became infested by SJWS. It used to be a nice place where you could laugh at religious loons.

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

Romance is whatever will get a man laid.[1]

Women's expectations of romance

TornadoByProxy notes:[2]

Women want the emotional jolt from romantic movies but not all that faggy bullshit in real life.

Men want the emotional jolt from horror films but not all that murder and blood in real life.

Do you see the similarities?

Khan notes, "One of these tricks women often play is the notion of romance. Sure, they say they want romance. But they only want romance from men who sexually arouse them in the first place. Betas fall for this trap and believe they have to be nice to women in order to get laid - a type of behavior women find sexually repulsive, which a lot of us have learned the hard way - and thus weed themselves out of the game in favor of alphas."[3]

Man as true romantics

It is often said that men are the true romantics. Mage writes:[4]

[N]otice how there are almost no songs in modern times where a woman proclaims her undying love for a man. Most songs with a female singer today are about girrl power, how she needs no man and get some dude to pay hard for his cheating/lying/looking at other woman/not being perfect/just being a bore.

There are plenty of songs where a male singer proclaims his undying love and willingness to self sacrifice for a woman while deifying her . . . .

To answer the question generally why men are the romantic sex - it's because men like to follow ideals. Not all men but many men have ideals about family life too and would like to have a house, a good wife and children. For other men political ideals are more important for other men the religious or scientific thoughts are more exciting, but generally most non-degenerate men will have some ideals in some or multiple areas of life that they fight for. and take pride of being warriors for this ideal.

For women generally no ideals are important they act based on combination on their procreation instinct, survival instinct and current social norms. This makes them more adaptable, shallow and treacherous. They are also given bigger rationalization powers to keep themselves and others in denial about their nature at expense of an ability to retrospect and understand themselves.

Disco_Volante notes, "Women are passive, men initiate and must run the seduction process. Creating attraction, knowing what her 'mood' is, etc.. Women control sex and only react to attractive behaviors, that's why men have to put in so much work to 'figure it out', whereas women are passive and don't really have to do anything."[5]

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

A shit test is a test by a woman of a man's mettle. To pass a shit test, a man must simply hold his masculine frame,[1] and put her in her place if necessary. Shit tests have been written about since no later than 1910.[2]

SmellyJelly22 notes, "A shit test is basically when a woman challenges a man with a bit of anxiety she has been feeling. If a man reacts with masculinity, he passes. If he reacts with anxiety, he fails. . . . If I can show the insult doesn't faze me I show myself to be a suitable partner because I can destroy weak emotions in a way she can’t."[3]

Rollo notes, "Women will shit test men as autonomously and subconsciously as a men will stare at a woman’s big boobs. They cannot help it, and often enough, just like men staring at a nice rack or a great ass, even when they’re aware of doing it they’ll still do it. Men want to verify sexual availability to the same degree women want to verify a masculine dominance / confidence."[4] According to Powers, everything women say is either a shit test or "Her telling you exactly what she wants or likes about you (e.g. 'you"re an asshole')." Chateau Heartiste advises, "Shit tests are essentially a woman telling you 'Please train me to respect you.' Oblige her."[5]

Women find it sexy when men don't take their shit and call them out on their shit.[6] Charles Sledge notes, "Women want you to put them in their place. They want you to tell them 'no'. To stop them, to put your foot down. They want a man they can submit to but they know that it must be a real man who isn’t going to change for them. So they test you and when you remain your dominant masculine self they love it because they know you are really what they thought you were and wanted."[7] He continues:[1]

Most men fail shit tests as most men have been trained by the media, overbearing mothers, the government, the school systems, and just about everything else that he is supposed to give in to women. Despite that this goes against the natural order of how nature works. The woman gives into the man not vice versa. This false belief that men should give into women has given many men problems with their relations to women. They get stepped on or a woman loses all attraction for them because the man gives in to them. . . . .

When a girl is giving you a shit test, she is challenging you. What she is doing is testing your balls to see if you actually have any or to see if you’re going to be like ninety nine percent of guys and give in to her (in which case she loses all attraction). She is seeing if you are actually a man or if you are a little boy pretending to be a man. She wants to see your masculinity, that is why she is testing you. To see if there is masculinity there.

While a guy can just look at a woman and see if he is attracted to her it doesn’t work that way with women when seeing if a guy is attractive. So a shit test is to see if the guy is actually attractive. Imagine if all women wore burkas a shit test would be the male equivalent of seeing what was under the burka. Is she hot or not. That is what women are trying to see. Is he masculine (and therefore attractive) or is he submissive (and therefore repellent)?

Oneitis as a reason for failing shit tests

The Rational Male notes:[8]

   The reason men fail most shit tests is because they subconsciously telegraph too much interest in a single woman. Essentially a shit test is used by women to determine one, or a combination of these factors:

   a.) Confidence – first and foremost b.) Options – is this guy really into me because I’m ‘special’ or am I his only option? c.) Security – is this guy capable of providing me with long term security?

Responding to shit tests

Heartiste also advises, "Learn to love the pregnant pause. When a girl shit tests you, don’t respond like a wind-up beta. Give her a blank, serial killer stare and wait— wait——. waiiiiit for it—. ANSWER!"[9]

Agreeing and amplifying

Agreeing and amplifying tends to be an effective response to sarcastic shit tests.[10]

Kings Wiki #sexist en.kingswiki.com

The ages of women and their characteristics and experiences at these ages are as follows.

Age 18

According to Heartiste, "This is the age — from teenager to mid-20s — when a woman is in her nubile prime. Physically and emotionally she is at her horniest, her most feminine, and, not coincidentally, her most discriminating. She’s on the prowl for an alpha male, and specifically for a charming jerkboy whose devil-may-care attitude speaks so forcefully to her deep desire to submit to a top tier man with limitless lover options."

He also notes, "Hard to believe, but it is often easier to bed a very young woman than an older woman, if you are an older man. This is because 20-40% of women are specifically attracted to older men. It is hard-wired in them, and this hard-wiring can be reinforced by poor family upbringing resulting from divorce of parents or absentee fathers. Single moms are the greatest source of future generations of slutty daughters the world has ever known. . . . You can bang an 18-21 year old surprisingly quickly because they have little ASD (anti-slut defense). This is because they do not have the long history of sluttiness common to older women which needs to be rationalized away by posturing as a paragon of chaste virtue. A young woman simply won’t perceive sex with you as an admission of sluttiness. She is innocent to herself as well as to you."[1]

Roosh notes, "She is child-like and mostly intolerable. Her speech sounds like another language. She will only have sex when completely trashed, and has few redeeming qualities beyond her body. Says a lot of things that make you think you’re wasting your time. Best game to use: jealousy."[2]

Age 21

Hank Moody notes that a girl 21-25 "appreciates that I'm not writing her odes about my undying love and affection, and seem to want to keep things casual. They're getting hit up at every angle, and they're confused about whether they want to fuck the bartender or the lawyer. Then they realize they can do both with little ramification. I like being seen around town with them. Horrible conversationalists, and I have to dumb down my text messaging. Most of their texts are 'lol ur funny..' Society has told these girls that they can be total whores with no consequences, and eventually some good looking rich guy will scoop them up."[3]

Age 22

The four-year carnival called college is coming to a close. During this time, she’s enjoyed the absolute ride of her life: non-stop parties (as a true Carousel rider), trips, and gorging herself on the buffet of cock available to an American college girl—without the uncomfortable social stigmas of generations past. At a time where previous generations of women were getting nervous if they hadn’t snared a husband, today’s girl is “just getting started.” At this age, today’s girl is irretrievably drunk on her power. Any cautionary advice will be greeted with hubristic ridicule and disbelief.

Age 23

Roissy notes, "The 23-27 year old feels she is at her attractiveness peak, despite her peak having passed a few years earlier. This is because she is surrounded by many more high status men than she was while in college (or working at the Piggly Wiggly) who are expressing sexual interest in her. This social dynamic will work to inflate her ego beyond the bounds of her actual beauty ranking."[1]

Age 25

The first alerts—which go unheeded—that this ride isn’t forever start to rear their heads. The combination of a few harsh pump-and-dumps, and the knowledge that some of her smarter friends are getting hitched, start to impart a hard edge on her personality. Still, with ample beauty left over, most girls will continue to draw from the bank account with impunity. Heartiste writes, "During this age window — late 20s to late 30s — a woman is powerfully aware of the beginning of decline in her number one asset: her beauty. Physically, she is noticing small changes in herself — the first nascent signs of decay — that, assessed from a distance relative to womanhood as a whole aren’t so horrifying, but compared to what she was herself just a few years earlier will split her id wide open. Urgency compels her (if she’s psychologically healthy) to escape the single lady lookatme scene and start seriously buckling down to achieve the goal of snagging a man who will commit to her and, hopefully, help her become part of a family. Naturally, this pressure to settle limits her options and the longer she waits, the more her “Mr. Right” will deviate from the Mr. Right of her teenage dreams."

According to Roosh, "After you wear the t-shirt a couple of times, the fabric loses elasticity. You no longer get excited when wearing it because people have already seen you in it. Your eye starts to wander on new t-shirts (25-29 years old)." Also, according to Roosh's T-shirt analogy, "When you leave the loaf out, it gets a little hard. You have to heat it up with a toaster first, but it still won’t taste fresh. (25-29 years old)"

Roosh also writes, "single women over 25 are emotionally damaged in some way, are alpha widowed, or are professional daters who are incapable of making the proper relationship sacrifices."[4]

Age 26

Hank Moody notes that a girl 26-30 is "Still hot enough to be seen around town with, but they start throwing serious girlfriend vibes - particularly public displays of affection. Sex is practically thrown at you after a few months of dating. You're that good looking rich guy who is going to scoop them up. They know the biological clock is ticking fast, and their family is pushing them to 'settle down.'"

Age 27

Rollo notes, "By the age of 27 women’s SMV decline has begun in earnest. That isn’t to say that women can’t remain stunningly attractive and vivacious in their post-peak years, but comparative to the next crop of 22-23 year olds, the decline progressively becomes more evident. Competition for hypergamously suitable mates becomes more intense with each passing year. The age’s between 27 and 30 are subliminally the most stressful for women as the realization sinks in that they must trade their ‘party years’ short term mating protocol for a long term provisioning strategy."[5]

Age 28

Roissy notes, "28-30 year olds are a mixed bunch. Some are riding a wave of career and social success that has nowhere to go but down, and their bloated egos reflect that. Others, less conventionally successful, are emotionally frazzled by the disappearing act of their heady youth and by the intractability of their singledom. You will find some of the cuntiest, and sweetest, girls in this age range."[1]

Age 29

After repeated pressings of the snooze button, it starts getting harder to ignore the clangor of the alarm clock. Having gotten her fill on the party lifestyle—and starting to feel, if not fully understand, the diminished effectiveness of her fading looks—she declares herself “ready to settle down.” Regrettably, the combination of having very little beauty-capital remaining and impossibly high standards—the product of years of enjoying the high life at the expense of her future solvency—will conspire to keep her single.

Age 30

According to Roosh, "If you leave the bread out for too long, mold develops. You can cut away the mold, toast the bread, and still be able to eat it, but you won’t enjoy it. You’d have to be starving. (30-34 years old)"

Hank Moody notes that a girl 30-36 "Is either divorced or has never been married for a reason. Anthropomorphizes their dog or cat. Struggles with depression issues. Sex is thrown at you. They know that the good looking rich guy is never going to come, and you're simply here for sex and conversation. At this point they would settle for almost any beta willing to commit and risk a geriatric pregnancy."

Heartiste notes that "a man marrying an over-30 woman is investing everything he has in a rapidly depreciating pleasure provider that has already lost a lot of its aesthetic value."[6]

The over-30 woman has likely amassed an impressive knob count. When you marry a 30+ woman, you’re marrying her 30+ cockas. Hope you like getting phantom cucked! As magically prehensile as your penis may be, she’ll never look up to it in cross-eyed awe like she did with her first cock when she was younger, hotter, tighter, and inexperienced.

The over-30 woman is bitter from a wasted prime spent on failed relationships she hoped would lead to marriage. Now that you’re marrying her, she should be grateful, but she's not. . . . .

There’s another, subtle, reason to refuse the wedded diss of marrying the over-30 woman. Now, naturally, if you marry an under-30 woman, the day will come, ostensibly, that she’ll be your over-30 wife. But you’ll have something that chagrined men who married women on the cusp of sagging cups don’t have: Years of very fond, very monopolized, very supple memories. If you maritally snag a 21-year-old minx and occupy her sugar walls for the next ten years, the spermatomically bonded cervix-splattered glue of all those splendid tumbles of passion accrue into something larger than the sum of your individuated speckles. All that young woman heat, heat which will never be replicated with the older version of your wife, captures into limbic amber a network of interlocked, superconductive emotions with the power to sustain lovingrapture a good ways past the poignantly brief era of peak wife ripeness, onward into the elevator muzak era of bland marital inertia (50 years, plus or minus).

You marry an over-30 woman and you’re left grasping at a grease truck menu of curdled, pear-shaped memories and wrinkled recollections for sustenance.

According to trav777, "a woman at 31 is looking for a marriage and kid as a BUCKET LIST ITEM. She is not looking for a husband or a partner or obligations. If she were into that more than herself, she’d have landed a decent man 10 years prior."

Relampago Furioso notes that at 30, the thousand cock stare often develops.[7]

Age 31

Roissy notes:[1]

In some ways, women in the 31-34 age range are the toughest broads to game. (By “toughest”, it is meant “most time consuming”.) It’s counterintuitive, yes, but there are factors at work besides her declining beauty which mitigate against the easy, quick lay. For one, it is obviously harder to meet single 31-34 year old women than it is to meet single younger women. Marriage is still a pussy-limiting force to contend with for the inveterate womanizer, but Chateau apprentices are hard at work battling the scourge of mating market disturbances caused by the grinding and churning of the marriage machine.

But the bigger reason 31-34 year olds are harder to game than any other age group of women has to do with the wicked nexus of entitlement and self-preservation that occurs at this age in women. When you combine a disproportionate sense of entitlement fueled by years of feminism, steady paychecks and promotions, and cheerleading gay boyfriends with suspicions of every man’s motives and a terrible anxiety of being used for a sexual fling sans marriage proposal, you get a venom-spitting malevolent demoness on guard against anything she might perceive as less than total subjugation to her craving for incessant flattery and princess pedestaling.

Age 32

The magical years are officially gone, and the long descent to complete invisibility to the opposite sex is well underway. Thanks to social programming (e.g., Sex in the City and the myth that “a woman’s sexual prime is in her 30s”), she can rationalize that her “Mr. Right” will arrive any minute. However, she’s likely to become little more than a second- or third-stringer in a player’s long roster of options. A few of these women will get bailed out by blue-pill betas, who still buy into the marriage trap, and don’t realize (or care) they’re buying a used car with the odometer rolled back. But this marriage is almost certainly doomed to divorce-failure, since nothing can ever compete with her 15-year prime-time binge. She will be nagged by dissatisfaction the moment her last party–her wedding–ends.

She enjoyed the Sweet 15, but she’ll enjoy little more.

GBFM writes that with 32-year-olds, it's necessary to get a "leaf-blower to get all the dust off".

Age 35

According to Roosh's T-shirt analogy, "Eventually, holes develop in the fabric. It has been used too many times. Now it is only good to clean the toilet bowl before finally being placed in the trash. (35 and up)." Also, according to his bread analogy, "If you leave it for even longer, mold takes over and completely destroys the bread. There is no way to excise the toxic portions. You must throw it away before the mold makes you sick. (35 and up)" Relampago writes:[8]

Women “expire” at age 35 for numerous reasons. Their fertility declines sharply at this age. Their beauty declines, no matter how much makeup they cake on. If not already married to her, from this moment forward she offers nothing to a partner but a well-used piece of anatomy and a manipulative, even predatory disposition towards men and their finances.

The expiration date may fluctuate around age 35 for a couple of reasons, i.e. good genetics or a sweet personality (usually being faked) but this age is a good baseline for the “expiration date” for females.

Age 40

Heartiste writes, "The final romantic life cycle for women (ages 40-death), this stage is the longest and, sadly from the perspective of one who adores women when they are at their most womanish, the dreariest, though it does offer as consolation a tranquilizing serenity that can safely usher a woman through her middle years without resort to painkillers. In this cycle, a woman still harbors those tingles for the alpha jerk, but they are sufficiently suppressed by biomechanic winding-down and stone cold circumstance — her wilted bloom — to allow the flourishing of her other female needs. Those other needs center around her desire to a) not be abandoned to a cold cruel sexual market and b) enjoy at least facsimiles of reciprocal love so that she does not feel abandoned within her relationship."

Creation Wiki #fundie creationwiki.org

Many studies have been done dealing with the possible hazy understanding of morality that atheists might have. According to a study done by Barna Group, it found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality. Since Nihilism and Moral relativism are ideologies that are usually endorsed by atheists, it is not unusual that atheism could in fact lead to an increase in immorality because the concept of moral values will be so diluted, that atheists might justify and rationalize any sin.

kingjameswriter1965 #fundie ihatetheinternetbutilovejesus.wordpress.com

Rational Wiki is IMMORAL and HATES GOD

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_Is_Savior

This is just one of the many wicked, reprobate websites that bashes Bro. David Stewart of Jesus-is-Savior.com. If you search for the term, “jesus is savior .com,” you will find many of such. Typical scorn and hatred for a true, bonified fire and brimstone preacher of these days. What about Pastor Danny Castle, another fire and brimstone preacher on YouTube? What about those here at WordPress who preach the true Gospel without apology? I KNOW the same goes for us.

People hate God and God’s Truth in His Word, the King James Bible, and will go to any length to discredit and wrongly accuse God’s man (or woman). They did the same exact thing to the Lord Jesus Christ, then they killed Him. They love the world, they worship Satan, and they’re all hellbound in their sins.

Anonymus commenter #conspiracy rationalwiki.org

The editor(s) of rational wiki are a joke. Paid and abuse truth. They call satan a conspiracy theory as well as Jesus Christ. They also called Steven Jackson vs. United States Secret Service WHICH is documented fact that it's made up. Remember if something is true, Rational Wiki will say it's false. They also say we landed on the moon and call this real? LOL Every German from the Reich moved to America and started NASA. This site is a joke and so is every writer in it. The government planned 911 yet this jokesters say otherwise. They work for the government and are paid to tell you whatever they want to hide truth. Believe nothing they say. CNN is their favorite news channel so that should explain their "information"....Now delete this...HURRAY!! Before you get exposed. A site is being built to debunk this ridiculous and useless site. The truth shall set you free and this trolls are demented rodeo clowns. Sincerely...and mKUltra Deprgroammer. I OWN YOU.

Kent Hovind #fundie freethoughtblogs.com

I think “fraud” may apply to a person who claims to teach “biology” yet routinely mixes his religious beliefs in class about all life forms having a common ancestor or humans being related to bananas and humans being a fish (as you stated in the “Evolution vs. God” DVD). Maybe “charlatan” is a better word for these false teachers. Maybe the courts will explain to the folks at “Rational” Wiki that words have meanings and it is not good to falsely accuse someone of the crime of fraud (unless you have proof).

The government was wrong in my case as is shown in many of the filings posted on 2peter3.com. The reason we even have appellate courts and a Supreme Court is precisely because the lower courts can get it wrong. Being convicted by one person does not prove guilt. 6 million Jews were convicted and executed in Germany in WW II. Does that prove they were guilty of some crime? Watch the news. Often cases are overturned on new evidence. Sometimes many years after the conviction. Simple history 101 will show many examples. I know you are rejoicing that the lower court ruled against me just as Jesus’s enemies rejoiced when he was convicted and sentenced. Well, it’s NOT over. If I DO get the case overturned and it is admitted by a higher court that the lower court erred and I did NOT commit a crime will you also admit it or will you then think the higher court erred?

Next page