When the dudes at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog aren’t wistfully looking forward to the days in which sexbots and artificial wombs make mere flesh-and-blood ladies obsolete, they’re pondering the crucial spiritual questions of our age, like how to pick up hot sluts at church. Any church, really, so long as it’s full of hot sluts. The blogger there – who doesn’t give his name, so let’s just call him Anti – recently highlighted this observation, from commenter The Fifth Horseman:
[C]hurch would be a great place for a PUA to run Game …
1) There is a built-in structure to meet women that takes out the difficulty of doing a cold approach.
2) All other men there are so pedestalizing, that the competition to a man who actually runs moderate Game is nil.
3) Sunday morning = where else would you Game at that time?
4) Once you have slept with a couple women in that church, simply move on to another church. Who cares if one is Baptist and the other is Episcopalian and the third is Lutheran? Just use up the desirable women and move on.
Jesus wept.
But Anti didn’t, and added his two cents to the discussion:
All you need to do to use the “Sunday Morning Nightclub” is find a church with single women. Some churches are pretty much all families so avoid them. Other churches are supertraditional where everyone gets married before 20. … I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. …
When it comes to meeting the women there, you already have built in openers to use such as how “you have been looking for a church”. These women will put out for you. You aren’t going to find any virgins waiting for marriage (with the exception of a few outliers with very unusual issues). The women there are better described as “sluts for Jesus”.
Absolutely. All you need to do, fellas, is to approach them calmly and confidently, look quickly down at your crotch, then directly into their eyes, and ask them: “Would you like to meet … Little Jesus”
Verily, I say unto you, it works every time.
I love Kirby’s flavour texts xD Me and him make a good team :3 I do the technical stuff, he does the artistic (which is the opposite of how we normally work xD)
Darnit, he’s gone xD I wanted to ask him this…
Why is it every time something doesn’t fit the “theory” it’s either discounted or they have another “theory?”
Yes, plz tell us? :3 Why is that? Why are people lying about the truth?
There’s only one antidote to ICP and fuckin magnets.
Ooh a peaceful and friendly discussion about faith and science :3
Yay! :3
We left the bomb making materials at home…they are too bulky.
Aww man, looks like I forgot a card, so it gets two 😛
Trans Feminist Platypus Peacekeeper:
“Half beaver, half duck. All awesome.” (thanks Ami)
“Beasts hate me, birds fear me, yet they’re so caught up fighting each other that I am invisible. And being invisible has its advantages.”
NWO: Oh and someone futher back said Jesus hung out with sinners and whores.
This is true, but you always forget the, “and sin no more” part.
No. Because it wasn’t a given. The lepers he cured… he just told them to go to the priests (Judaism still having levitic priests) and be checked out.
The tax collectors… all we know is he hung out with them.
Because really, Jesus knew that committing sin is inevitable. So he didn’t really expect anyone to never again do harm to another person (which, when one examines the actual teachings attributed to Jesus is the summa of his teaching).
Then again, you don’t understand the Roman Catholic Church if you think it a Marian Cult.
Question: Are you a Trinitarian?
NWO: Gravity isn’t a theory. Something falls a so many feet per second, per second, at 1 G. This is a fact, not a theory.
Half right. Things in a 1G field fall at ‘x’ rate (roughly 32 per second, squared). So far you are right.
Why they all fall at that rate is a different question. To explain that one needs a Theory.
Aristotle assumed it was because things wanted to fall. They had a property (telos) which was their proper state. Rocks desired to be on the ground. Clouds proper place was the air. Heavier things wanted to be on the ground more than lighter things (and so, according to Aristotle) fell faster than lighther things.
Newton came up with a theory… all objects have mass. All mass attracts. The attractive power is a function of that mass. The greater the mass, the greater the attraction. He also said it fell off as an inverse square.
Then he posited some rules (three, actually, the Laws of Motion) and did a lot of math (real math, not just arithmetic: he had to invent calculus to prove it. Then he got into a big spat with Leibniz about it, because they were both working on it at the same time, completely independently. Newton was, mostly, the winner of the PR campaign, but Leibniz gets the last laugh, integrals, etc. are all his terms, and we use them instead of Newton’s “fluxions”) to prove the basics.
For the past, 300+ years we’ve been testing the theory.
Einstein was the first person to really change it, and all he did was deal with the way mass is changed when it’s really in motion. Quantum Mechanics is related, but really different, and only seems to apply (in practical terms) at the micro level.
All of that, is what we mean when we say theory.
A theory is a set of explanations for observed phemomena which is both testable and falsifiable, which has been tested, and proven correct so thoroughly that it is as certain as it can possibly be.
And honestly, if one theory uses another to be built, I have no problem with that. Why? Because something as rigorously tested as Gravity, or Evolution, is a pretty reliable basis (think build on rocks, not sand) to build on.
SallyStrange: I didn’t want people to think that Christianity has a monopoly on the brain-damaged foolishness that Footslave exhibits. But, I will point out again that Christianity, like pretty much every other religion in the world, sets up obstacles to people realizing that they are holding false beliefs, by teaching them that it’s a positive virtue to resist examining your beliefs and asking whether there’s any physical evidence to back them up.
That’s a strawman, and false.
Many modern christians take that view. It has been thought in the past (then again, the “rationalist” Greeks believed the world was pretty much foreordained to repeat itself; so it’s not as if Religion, per se, is the source of “don’t worry about fixing the present, because it doesn’t matter anyway).
Men like cuvier, Levoisier, Newton, Bolye, Decartes, Pascal, Kant, Linneaus, Mendel, were all devout believers. They believed that the study of Nature let them know Nature’s God, and so the work of science was fitting and proper.
Augustine abused religious individuals (such as Jerome) who tried to fit science into the rubric of the bible. He (and many other of the Church’s fouders) saw the bible as metaphoric, in most of it’s explanations of the world. This was (and remains) the majoritarian view. The Present Pope (Good Old Benny the Rat… no, I am not fond of him, why do you ask?) has restated this in a recent encyclical.
Modern “fundamentalists” (a largely American problem) decided this was wrong.
It’s not religion that’s the problem, it’s people.
Beth: The early church (and how early… Paul? Jerome? Augustine?) was much less dogmatic. There were still substantial populations of Arians and Nestorians in the West well into the 6th, and 7th centuries. The Irish Chuch wasn’t completely brought into the Roman fold intil the 10th century, perhaps the 11th (it gets fuzzy, there is a lot of braiding of traditions).
The Early Church was persecuted for the same reason Jesus was… it was a threat to the good order of the state. It was as much the idea that slaves should be equal to non-slaves, as it was the refusal to take part in the civic/religious rites of the Empire.
Rome was an odd empire, in that it needed a certain amount of homogeneity (this is, by and large, not true of empires, it is true of democracies). They got it by making everyone pay lip service to the state gods (about the only place it mattered was in the activities of the Vestal Virgins; whose virtue was essential, and the lack of same met with summary burial, and starvation). Christians threatened that.
That, and they said Slaves ought to be free.
@Pecunium:
And yet the bible (the old testament) specifically deals with how you should treat slaves, and lays out ways to enslave people permenantly. And the new testament doesn’t change any of that. Once Christians got into power, (specifically in the US) suddenly their religion was one of the main reasons why slavery should continue.
If you’ve ever heard the phrase “big book of multiple choice,” the bible is basically that. You can justify nearly anything you want with it. (case in point) The really terrible part, though, is that whatever you decide it says, suddenly God is commanding it to be so, the supposedly highest moral authority.
Aristotle assumed it was because things wanted to fall. They had a property (telos) which was their proper state. Rocks desired to be on the ground. Clouds proper place was the air. Heavier things wanted to be on the ground more than lighter things (and so, according to Aristotle) fell faster than lighther things.
Aristotle was a fucking stoner.
See that is why I am confused-how was the beginning Church (the first few dozen followers) such a threat that it required the reaction of the authorities that it got. I know that some of the ideas were revolutionary but not that wild and crazy.
“Aristotle was a fucking stoner.”
Yeah, but he meant well. 😛
I am STILL laughing about Slavey thinking it’s the Fact of Gravity, not the Theory. If Science is your friend, why do you treat it so badly?
@Pecunium, Descartes and Co. were the rare exceptions. Though I have read Augustine as well, and he endorses the views that Sally cites very specifically. The fact is that there are very, very few theists of the Descartes brand, and they are anti-faith, as it were. There are also those who are really good at compartmentalizing and playing the special pleading game-they do not put their religious notions under the same scrutiny. And religion still gets in the way of inquiry in many of those cases. Here’s a link to a long talk by Neil de Grasse Tyson on “God of the Gaps” and its history in science. It is an excellent lecture and makes some pretty good points on this subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY
Kirby: And a lot of that (chattel slavery in the post renaissance) was a reversion, and out of context readings of Paul (not only was koine no longer a common tongue, but the needed texts to understand the context weren’t being studied… for a really good analysis of the issues facing the nascent church I commend, “Paul Among the People, the Apostle Reinterpreted, and Reimagined in His Own Time, Sarah Ruden, Pantheon Books, 2010, New York: ISBN978-0-375-42501-1).
I won’t argue that picking and choosing verses lets one build any sort of system one wants, but if one takes it as whole, and looks at themes… The New Testament boils down to, “Love one another and Be Kind”.
Because (to use slavery as a different example) Ireland was a slave economy. Straight up. More slaves, per capita, than in the Ante-Bellum south. Patrick goes to preach the Gospel… and they gave it up. Inside of something like 30 years, there were no slaves in Ireland.
So it’s not the book, it’s people.
Wow, lots to catch up on in two hours…
“@theLaplaceDemon
What the fuck is the point of citations.
I give em all the time.”
You give them sometimes. Generally they are not peer-reviewed, methodology is sketchy (a UN search? srsly?), or it’s a single case (like that news report saying “hey! wouldn’t it be nice if the government reflected the diversity of the population?). None of those are very strong pieces of evidence. And, rightfully so, people point out the flaws.
“Yesterday clear proof of brain differences.
Discounted, didn’t fit liberal agenda.”
Not discounted. Thoughtfully discussed. No one disagreed with the finding. Did you read my response? Did you read the others? It did not offer 1) Proof that 100% of the difference was genetic or 2) How that lead directly to behavioral differences. All plausible answers must be explored before we go OMG THIS IS THE PART OF THE BRAIN THAT GENETICALLY PRE-WIRES WOMEN TO LIKE BON BONS.
“Do your own research, maybe you’ll learn something.”
…which is why I got into the lab at 9 this morning.
Here’s the thing. The point of citations is so I can judge whether or not you’re talking out of your ass or not. You state [fact] and give [citation] and I can judge for myself whether I think the evidence leads to your conclusion. You are welcome to demand the same from me for any fact I present to you.
You know, Holly asked a question a while ago that no one has seen fit to answer. So I will.
Two elephants!
You’re welcome!
No, no. Someone did! (I don’t remember who, now.) They said Mars. But we all know that that is a filthy, Elephant shaming lie.
I said it was Mars…because Mars has elephants right?
Nope. I’m not sure Mars even exists! How could something exist without elephants? Your just trying to spread lies to advance the giraffe agenda, aren’t you, Elizabeth?
But they eat my hair!
Well, maybe if your hair didn’t dress up like such a skank and wander around dangerous, African Sahara neighborhoods, that wouldn’t be a problem!
It only did that once…and they followed it home!
O_O
…BWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!