How do I stop hating women 24/7? Its not like I want to, but I need to focus on something else

Focus on how gay your are. Open your ass to new possibilities, queer.

That which angers you, has power over you user.

My best friend is a women and I still hate women.

Stop buying into hatred that is spoon fed to you on boards like r9k. Yes. Some young woman act whorish and like having sex. But it's just human nature.

Chad has lots of sex and if u were born Chad you would too. If people wanted to have sex with you all the time, then I fully believe youd do it. You can claim not to, I've seen robots deny that to uphold their standard for women and partner count etc, but I don't believe it for a second.

I was robotic for a number of years but I eventually got my shit together, and regardless of what people on this board say, the average woman or mexican or black dude is the exact same as everyone else. They didn't choose to be born poor or in a certain place, and the amount of melanin in your skin or the geographical basis of your ancestry in fact DO NOT define your character or how you act. Racists will argue, but I've seen enough to prove otherwise to me, and you can do the same thing, you just have to do it.

>Some young woman act whorish
>"""some"""

Attached: 1547081406038.jpg (410x960, 41K)

Do you hate her?

>how do i stop being a typical gay robot?
just stop, no problem

Yes some. Since I made it out of my shitty neet lifestyle, Ive spent time around many young women, and I can personally confirm that the majority of them in fact aren't vapid whores. I don't care if you think otherwise, you just ate the meme and now it's all the proof you need.

Commend saged, sorry chief

The physical laws that govern the universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time. In classical physics, if the initial state of a system is specified exactly then the subsequent motion will be completely predictable. In quantum physics, specifying the initial state of a system allows one to calculate the probability that it will be found in any other state at a later time. Cosmology attempts to describe the behaviour of the entire universe using these physical laws. In applying these laws to the universe one immediately encounters a problem. What is the initial state that the laws should be applied to? In practice, cosmologists tend to work backwards by using the observed properties of the universe now to understand what it was like at earlier times. This approach has proved very successful. However it has led cosmologists back to the question of the initial conditions.
Inflation (a period of accelerating expansion in the very early universe) is now accepted as the standard explanation of several cosmological problems. In order for inflation to have occurred, the universe must have been formed containing some matter in a highly excited state. Inflationary theory does not address the question of why this matter was in such an excited state. Answering this demands a theory of the pre-inflationary initial conditions. There are two serious candidates for such a theory. The first, proposed by Andrei Linde of Stanford University, is called chaotic inflation. According to chaotic inflation, the universe starts off in a completely random state. In some regions matter will be more energetic than in others and inflation could ensue, producing the observable universe.

i got to know plenty of women personally in platonic ways (i wasnt romantically interested in them in any way) but they were all on the same kind of dishonest bullshit, it literally felt like they wanted me to want to be more than just friends with them to feed their ego and it only increased my hatred for women

The second contender for a theory of initial conditions is quantum cosmology, the application of quantum theory to the entire universe. At first this sounds absurd because typically large systems (such as the universe) obey classical, not quantum, laws. Einstein's theory of general relativity is a classical theory that accurately describes the evolution of the universe from the first fraction of a second of its existence to now. However it is known that general relativity is inconsistent with the principles of quantum theory and is therefore not an appropriate description of physical processes that occur at very small length scales or over very short times. To describe such processes one requires a theory of quantum gravity.

In non-gravitational physics the approach to quantum theory that has proved most successful involves mathematical objects known as path integrals. Path integrals were introduced by the Nobel prizewinner Richard Feynman, of CalTech. In the path integral approach, the probability that a system in an initial state A will evolve to a final state B is given by adding up a contribution from every possible history of the system that starts in A and ends in B. For this reason a path integral is often referred to as a `sum over histories'. For large systems, contributions from similar histories cancel each other in the sum and only one history is important. This history is the history that classical physics would predict.

You kind of sound like a sociopath, that isn't a normal way to think.

For mathematical reasons, path integrals are formulated in a background with four spatial dimensions rather than three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. There is a procedure known as `analytic continuation' which can be used to convert results expressed in terms of four spatial dimensions into results expressed in terms of three spatial dimensions and one time dimension. This effectively converts one of the spatial dimensions into the time dimension. This spatial dimension is sometimes referred to as `imaginary' time because it involves the use of so-called imaginary numbers, which are well defined mathematical objects used every day by electrical engineers.

The success of path integrals in describing non-gravitational physics naturally led to attempts to describe gravity using path integrals. Gravity is rather different from the other physical forces, whose classical description involves fields (e.g. electric or magnetic fields) propagating in spacetime. The classical description of gravity is given by general relativity, which says that the gravitational force is related to the curvature of spacetime itself i.e. to its geometry. Unlike for non-gravitational physics, spacetime is not just the arena in which physical processes take place but it is a dynamical field. Therefore a sum over histories of the gravitational field in quantum gravity is really a sum over possible geometries for spacetime.

Thankfully lots of cute boys will be honest with you

The gravitational field at a fixed time can be described by the geometry of the three spatial dimensions at that time. The history of the gravitational field is described by the four dimensional spacetime that these three spatial dimensions sweep out in time. Therefore the path integral is a sum over all four dimensional spacetime geometries that interpolate between the initial and final three dimensional geometries. In other words it is a sum over all four dimensional spacetimes with two three dimensional boundaries which match the initial and final conditions. Once again, mathematical subtleties require that the path integral be formulated in four spatial dimensions rather than three spatial dimensions and one time dimension.

The path integral formulation of quantum gravity has many mathematical problems. It is also not clear how it relates to more modern attempts at constructing a theory of quantum gravity such as string/M-theory. However it can be used to correctly calculate quantities that can be calculated independently in other ways e.g. black hole temperatures and entropies.

We can now return to cosmology. At any moment, the universe is described by the geometry of the three spatial dimensions as well as by any matter fields that may be present. Given this data one can, in principle, use the path integral to calculate the probability of evolving to any other prescribed state at a later time. However this still requires a knowledge of the initial state, it does not explain it.

Quantum cosmology is a possible solution to this problem. In 1983, Stephen Hawking and James Hartle developed a theory of quantum cosmology which has become known as the `No Boundary Proposal'. Recall that the path integral involves a sum over four dimensional geometries that have boundaries matching onto the initial and final three geometries. The Hartle-Hawking proposal is to simply do away with the initial three geometry i.e. to only include four dimensional geometries that match onto the final three geometry. The path integral is interpreted as giving the probability of a universe with certain properties (i.e. those of the boundary three geometry) being created from nothing.

please explain, i have literally been worrying about being a sociopath without realizing it as of late. ive realized that my mother might be sociopathic and i do not ever want to take on any of her behaviors

In practice, calculating probabilities in quantum cosmology using the full path integral is formidably difficult and an approximation has to be used. This is known as the semiclassical approximation because its validity lies somewhere between that of classical and quantum physics. In the semiclassical approximation one argues that most of the four dimensional geometries occuring in the path integral will give very small contributions to the path integral and hence these can be neglected. The path integral can be calculated by just considering a few geometries that give a particularly large contribution. These are known as instantons. Instantons don't exist for all choices of boundary three geometry; however those three geometries that do admit the existence of instantons are more probable than those that don't. Therefore attention is usually restricted to three geometries close to these.

Remember that the path integral is a sum over geometries with four spatial dimensions. Therefore an instanton has four spatial dimensions and a boundary that matches the three geometry whose probability we wish to compute. Typical instantons resemble (four dimensional) surfaces of spheres with the three geometry slicing the sphere in half. They can be used to calculate the quantum process of universe creation, which cannot be described using classical general relativity. They only usually exist for small three geometries, corresponding to the creation of a small universe. Note that the concept of time does not arise in this process. Universe creation is not something that takes place inside some bigger spacetime arena - the instanton describes the spontaneous appearance of a universe from literally nothing. Once the universe exists, quantum cosmology can be approximated by general relativity so time appears.

People have found different types of instantons that can provide the initial conditions for realistic universes. The first attempt to find an instanton that describes the creation of a universe within the context of the `no boundary' proposal was made by Stephen Hawking and Ian Moss. The Hawking-Moss instanton describes the creation of an eternally inflating universe with `closed' spatial three-geometries.

Im with you,

worst part is I work with nothing but women, who are all hypergamous and talk about dating fucking 2-3 men at a time and having them buy them food and designer purses. They spend so much time on their cellphones on instagram it makes me almost want to blow up and yell

Attached: FaithFamilyFriends.jpg (875x1024, 155K)

It is presently an unsolved question whether our universe contains closed, flat or open spatial three-geometries. In a flat universe, the large-scale spatial geometry looks like the ordinary three-dimensional space we experience around us. In contrast to this, the spatial sections of a realistic closed universe would look like three-dimensional (surfaces of) spheres with a very large but finite radius. An open geometry would look like an infinite hyperboloid. Only a closed universe would therefore be finite. There is, however, nowadays strong evidence from cosmological observations in favour of an infinite open universe. It is therefore an important question whether there exist instantons that describe the creation of open universes.

The idea behind the Coleman-De Luccia instanton, discovered in 1987, is that the matter in the early universe is initially in a state known as a false vacuum. A false vacuum is a classically stable excited state which is quantum mechanically unstable. In the quantum theory, matter which is in a false vacuum may `tunnel' to its true vacuum state. The quantum tunnelling of the matter in the early universe was described by Coleman and De Luccia. They showed that false vacuum decay proceeds via the nucleation of bubbles in the false vacuum. Inside each bubble the matter has tunnelled. Surprisingly, the interior of such a bubble is an infinite open universe in which inflation may occur. The cosmological instanton describing the creation of an open universe via this bubble nucleation is known as a Coleman-De Luccia instanton.

>she likes her ass eaten
that's a keeper

Remember that this scenario requires the existence of a false vacuum for the matter in the early universe. Moreover, the condition for inflation to occur once the universe has been created strongly constrains the way the matter decays to its true vacuum. Therefore the creation of open inflating universes appears to be rather contrived in the absence of any explanation of these specific pre-inflationary initial conditions.

Recently, Stephen Hawking and Neil Turok have proposed a bold solution to this problem. They constructed a class of instantons that give rise to open universes in a similar way to the instantons of Coleman and De Luccia. However, they did not require the existence of a false vacuum or other very specific properties of the excited matter state. The price they pay for this is that their instantons have singularities: places where the curvature becomes infinite. Since singularities are usually regarded as places where the theory breaks down and must be replaced by a more fundamental theory, this is a quite controversial feature of their work.

I was just kidding, user. If you are worrying about it then you probably aren't one. If your mom is as bad as you say she is then it makes sense that you don't like women. All I can say is that you need to keep trying, if you can try to have empathy for others who are different than you. I know it's hard to do but you have to try to see things from the pov of other people. Your mom probably judges people before she even knows them, you can make sure to try to catch yourself before you do the same thing. I think you can do it even if it takes a lot of work.

You'd probably be surprised that most guys talk about fucking a new girl every week.

Ive actually worked with men
in the same profession for much longer and we never had these sort of conversations, nor were we glued to our cellphones

Nah almost all of them talk exclusively about sluts they fuck and sports. Even the married ones brag openly about meeting new girls at bars.

roastie gettin toastie

grab your peace pipe

Realize that 90% of men and 90% of women are shitty people/you won't get along with them/you disagree with their beliefs. Women suck, but so do men. I agree that women suck in particular ways that enrage the male spirit, but you just have to wade through the dumb cunts to find the, like one girl in your area who is decent. It's just life: everyone's a piece of shit.

Just go for a good christian woman. Doesn't even matter if you're christian, as long as you're a good person. The only women I've ever liked have been my two brother's wives, who are pretty laid-back christians, and are some of the select few women I truly believe aren't stupid backstabbing whores. I attribute that wholly to their religious upbringing, because let's face it, you have to keep bitches in line, and there's no stronger pimp slap than the back of God's hand. Get yourself a god-slapped bitch

Not him but I hate all my female friends.

is your mother is inferior to your father, to you ?

I think it's all about your relationship with your mother.

>a good christian woman

Get a lobotomy.
Hating women is sensible and sensical. If you want to go back to being ignorant, oblivious and vacuous, just abuse narcotics, research chemical and just push an icepick under your eyeball.

Attached: 1525146008112.jpg (652x960, 137K)

Lmao holy shit the world is fucking doomed

i had this "problem", until i read some shit that some other fag posted. i know it sounds corny as shit but it really changed my perception of women into something positive:

Attached: 1548852728750.jpg (1210x6307, 1.86M)

reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/aq5ur4/a_feminist_critique_of_hormonal_contraceptives/ege6al4/

roastie would rather force-sterilize all young boys (but not girls!) than use "dangerous" hormonal birth control for women (or just, you know, not have sex!), to "equalize" the biological reality of women getting pregnant and men not because they are being "impregnated against their will" when they choose to have birth control free sex with men.
also asserts that vaccinations have no benefit for the vaccinated, only those around them!!! haha!

Attached: forcedsterilization.png (888x1626, 277K)

Oh I know. They're the biggest whores out there. You know how many mormon girls I know who are absolute sluts? My point was only that out of the small pool of women who are actually, truly not dumb whores, on average they'll be better if they're religious because it just further locks in the attitude. These chicks have to naturally be like this, though -- otherwise it leads to repression and further whorishness later on. I'm just trying to increase OPs probability of getting a girl who is good for the long term. I'm atheistic as fuck but I still think this. Anyway.

part two of this fucking train wreck

Attached: forcedsterilization2.png (888x1626, 369K)

this cant be real lol

Attached: 1548852770680.jpg (1210x6291, 1.83M)

we should really destroy virgins

If only you knew how bad things really are.
You would beg for the sweet release of nuclear hellfire.

Attached: 1536700287030.jpg (1080x1080, 117K)

woops i posted the same image, this is part two.

Attached: forcedsterilization2.jpg (861x2355, 957K)

>hating women is because you are in an echo chamber, user!

Attached: 1541509599329.png (940x978, 65K)

dont worry i have a pretty good idea of how fucked in the head women really are, but i just dont take them seriously. i will never have another relationshit ever again, let alone marriage or kids. i dont even keep women as friends because theyre so childish and annoying.

>user, what if you have to pay for their abortions, birth control and pap smears? Don't be hateful and let's vote in more afirmative action legislation!

Attached: 1524253832851.jpg (1193x1642, 722K)

Get a gf. I used to be obsessed with getting laid but then I got laid and realized its not that great

>Let them in!
>Let them in!
>Let them in already, you fucking incels!

Attached: 1519754926346.png (540x600, 229K)

Relax, it isn't real, the photo-shop isn't hard to spot, and the dialogue is pretty fucked up, nobody speaks like that. It was probably made by a foreigner trying to troll.
This, however, is real.

The article is actually very real.

dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/494488/The-Jungle-Calais-woman-migrants-camp

thesun.co.uk/news/1837590/british-women-are-travelling-to-the-calais-jungle-to-have-sex-with-migrants-and-some-have-multiple-partners-in-a-day/

thesun.co.uk/news/1837590/british-women-are-travelling-to-the-calais-jungle-to-have-sex-with-migrants-and-some-have-multiple-partners-in-a-day/

independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html

I posted the same article twice, meant to post:
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3802351/Calais-aid-workers-regularly-having-SEX-migrants-Jungle-camp-FEMALE-charity-helpers-likely-sleep-refugee.html

Did I say the article isn't real? No, I said that image isn't real, Jow Forums tards seem to like pulling random articles off the internet and saying "SEE, MUH GENOCIDE", the image is trying to make it a bigger deal than it actually is.

Whatever. Spin it however you want.
The image is literally in the actual article. It is in no way doctored.

>MUH GENOCIDE
Yeah, it's a figment of our imagination. Pic related.

Attached: 1524089797973.jpg (1111x728, 361K)

Coincedentally, all western countries are miraculously below replacement levels!
Fancy that, from overpopulation hysteria and articles about how bad it is to have kids - to extinction levels of fertility rates.

Interesting.

Attached: 1519253639750.png (1659x943, 114K)

Women are fucking garbage but you can use this fact to your advantage. Treat them according to their true nature

Don't you have a board to drop some redpills in? Hmm Hans?

Don't you have a cornershop to rob or a passerby to mug, nigger?