Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger) 2: The Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think Holden and the rest of the Loveshies could benefit from being assessed by The Crackpot Index:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary theories by crazy internet virgins:
  1. A -5 point starting credit.


  2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.


  3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.


  4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.


  5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.


  6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.


  7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).


  8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".


  9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).


  10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.


  11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)


  12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.


  13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.


  14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.


  15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".


  16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.


  17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".


  18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).


  19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".


  20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)


  21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.


  22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).


  23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.


  24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.


  25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)


  26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.


  27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".


  28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".


  29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)


  30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.


  31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).


  32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.


  33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.


  34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.


  35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.


  36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)


  37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Meowthkip, HickoryDickory and Positron
A serious question for @Holden: why do you think previous societies had healthier approach to sex and relationships? How did it promote breeding better people?
 
@Holden, why not promote state sanctioned vasectomies? Or, why not give women the opportunity to have their tubes tied? It seems cheaper and more practical than all those whore houses. Plus, people can have all the sex they want without fear of pregnancy. Therefore, rape apes and sluts can't have feral children.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: antisocial, Fareal, Meowthkip and 3 others
kuniqs said:
A serious question for @Holden: why do you think previous societies had healthier approach to sex and relationships? How did it promote breeding better people?
Click to expand...
Because "no feminism." That's seriously going to be his reasoning.
 
flossman said:
That IS a good question.
Click to expand...
Actual science - The increasing size of the human brain developed a need for longer childhoods than most of our primordial ancestors. Human children needed longer development times therefore it became necessary for human survival for bonds to be formed between mates to protect the children, also leading to bonds forming amongst societies and rudimentary villages. As time and intelligence grew the relationship boundaries where greatly influenced by religion, being that often it was seen as the norm to either to have found a mate or committed yourself to spirituality. This is also what gave rise to the want for virgin women; a stake of ownership can be placed on a woman by taking her virginity as afterwards she would be seen as 'spoiled goods' and therefore staying with the man who 'claimed' her was often the only viable option. This is also what led to the release of dopamine and oxytocin when with a partner; it was the couples who had these chemicals released more frequently and thus were more inclined to stay together to cause more of the hormone to flow who's children stood a better chance of survival due to having increased protection during their developmental years.

Marj - Rape apes feminism is part of evolution good cavewomen knew how to stay in the kitchen.
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: supdup, kuniqs, Owlflaps and 1 other person
Owlflaps said:
@Holden, why not promote state sanctioned vasectomies? Or, why not give women the opportunity to have their tubes tied? It seems cheaper and more practical than all those whore houses. Plus, people can have all the sex they want without fear of pregnancy. Therefore, rape apes and sluts can't have feral children.
Click to expand...



Sluts and feminists being driven into whorehouses could be useful for creating a permanent underclass of very cheap prostitutes. Rape apes could initially be killed in high numbers and later women wouldn't even want them.

Lalala said:
good cavewomen knew how to stay in the kitchen.
Click to expand...
Are you saying we stopped demanding chastity when we stopped being cavemen?

Btw, I can see you, 24cocksinhiswife, you little slurper. I have asked you for your own citations, which you never provide. So let me tell you - you have no idea how burden of proof works, you never slept with your whore "wife" and your entire sex life is just slurping the semen of truckers from her cunt. And you can't even grasp my own words and you're constantly making shit up, your latest invention being that I call myself an intellectual. Also, regarding Satan - you're a retard. I told you I can't prove it in the first post. So what did you do? You repeated what I already said.

So know this

They broke their legs
You're a noble god
They broke their teeth
Oh how worshiped rapists are
They broke their spine
There isn't a greater god
 
  • Dumb
  • Deviant
  • Autistic
Reactions: Nad, antisocial, Bernard and 6 others
Holden said:
Are you saying we stopped demanding chastity when we stopped being cavemen?
Click to expand...

There...was an entire brick of text before this statement when I clearly explained that why chastity was implemented to begin with and...hey...wait a second...

Holden said:
You might want to actually read my writings.
Click to expand...

Oh eat a dick, you ignored all but one sentence of my post and then tell someone else to read what you write? :story:
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: antisocial, Owlflaps, Meowthkip and 1 other person
Holden said:
no, i read your entire post but got this impression due to your last sentence. sorry if i was wrong, it might had been the case (and now seem it is)
Click to expand...
The last line was an oversimplification and flat out parody of people who think that chastity was created as anything other than an agent of control. But now I have your attention why DO you think previous societies had better attitudes to relationships and sex and how did that breed better people? Because, and call me biased here, I don't see it.
 
Lalala said:
The last line was an oversimplification and flat out parody of people who think that chastity was created as anything other than an agent of control.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and? So are many things that help create a society. Laws are control, social norms are control...hell, hospitals are.
Lalala said:
why DO you think previous societies had better attitudes to relationships and sex and how did that breed better people? Because, and call me biased here, I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you really should read my writings. Start with the Story of your incel post. I don't know what you mean by previous societies. Not all previous societies were good or good in every era. They usually collapsed due to feminism/liberalism or military conquest. Basically, successful societies didn't allow for seduction, which enabled actually useful traits men have to become further spread. I am now hated because I am polite, decent and would take care of a family. But what is a successful culture in one era doesn't have to be that in another. America is a great example of that.
 
  • Dumb
  • Disagree
Reactions: supdup, antisocial, Da Pickle Monsta and 3 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back