[The Adversary]

I've started my own Religion. I've presented it on ISF and in the following discussion(s) interesting things about the academic world were exposed.

Most interesting are these points :

1. Feminist academic 'math' cannot understand Quaternions or anything related to Euler's Formula.
2. Feynman's Invisible Angels is a scientific/philosophical dilemma that they can't handle, either.

But please read the entire thread carefully, especially the part where the concept of 'consent' is called into question and my opponents are
forced to uphold a contradiction.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...p?t=311311

Thanks for your time.

[The Adversary]

This exchange shows how they think about the Manosphere, and my own opinion on the matter.

ScepticalWoman Wrote:

I expected something like that

Preaching to the choir of disaffected autistic man-children with a grudge against women and teachers isn't going to expand your base of followers. You can't convert those who already think like you.
Communicating with those who do not share your views is very important if you want to convince anyone.

No, there's just some technical issues that need to be explained. For example, a lot in the Manosphere still believe in psychology and neuroscience when
that's part of the problem : The denial of Free Will. Also, a lot of them are still arguing from an egalitarian perspective that's a sure-lose
condition against Feminists since they're the ultimate egalitarians. That's why they always lose the argument and nobody takes them seriously.

[The Adversary]

A word on IQ testing that seems to be necessary. IQ tests are always normalized for the population which means that on average, fifty percent is going
to be below average, just because of the normalization. This will therefore then hold for any group, no matter if we're talking about a group of
morons or geniuses. The only thing that indicates that there's something wrong with the entire population then is the tests themselves in that
they start testing for more and more irrelevant things. So it just becomes a competition of who's best at trivial stuff. Because of this, women
will win the IQ test competition in the end, if they haven't already. So holding on to the delusion of IQ and/or Psychology as sound science means
another sure-lose condition against the Feminist opponents.

I'm also of the opinion that Game is pseudo scientific bullcrap that, like those 'get rich quick'-schemes, merely serves the interest of the original
authors.

[ColSpanker]

Nothing about Aiwazz? How can this truly be The Book of the Law?

[AboveAverageJoe]

Ahhh, nothing like a good troll-banning for breakfast.

[Phoenix]

He's not a troll. He needs to work on his writing style and formatting, but he's said nothing trollish whatsoever.

I don't fully agree that "game" is pseudo-scientific bullcrap, but the definition is so vague and broad that it certainly gets used in that way (e.g. by RSD & Co).

[The Adversary]

The problem with formatting is that those internet text fields never like hardcoded returns, such as I like to use when I'm writing.
In this way, I can make the text look however I want. But this is not popular, people seem to like it when a machine decides for them
how their text should look. The most egregious cases are those 'modern' programming tools that add crap to whatever you're trying
to write and ... it becomes harder and harder to turn that sort of stuff off.
If you copy and paste my text back to a text editor like Notepad++, it'll look fine.
I'm not going to adapt my writing nor my programming style to meet the demands of crappy tools.

But, on topic :

1. Feminist academic 'math' cannot understand Quaternions or anything related to Euler's Formula.
2. Feynman's Invisible Angels is a scientific/philosophical dilemma that they can't handle, either.

These are Weapons. Hard, mathematical, proof that academic, feminized, science is corrupt.

[Phoenix]

(09-19-2016 10:27 AM)The Adversary Wrote:  

I'm not going to adapt my writing nor my programming style to meet the demands of crappy tools.

You ought to reconsider. This crappy tool kicks out the recalcitrant with rapid vigor. Not my rule, just precedent.