Screen Shot 2014-07-04 at 10.00.54 AM

I’m not exactly sure why I’m having no luck at Match.com. I’ve sent over 150 perfectly crafted emails in the last six months. I’ve received six replies. I’ve had two dates. One of them started sobbing in the middle of a restaurant (the power of an arched eyebrow?). Maybe it’s my choice of correspondents, who tend to be 10 years to 15 years my junior. Or my sardonic writing style. Or the firearms references in my profile, including a pic with the caption “Long range shooting is so relaxing. OK, maybe not for the elk . . .” So anyway, I added OKCupid to my nightly trawl. The biggest difference between Match and OKCupid is . . .

OKCupid’s endless series of seemingly random multiple choice questions. You answer the question, they answer the question. When scanning their profile, you get to compare answers. How often do you brush your teeth? Do spelling mistakes bother you? Would the world be a better place if people with low IQs were not allowed to reproduce?

Yeah, OKCupid’s queries aren’t all underhand lobs. Which is OK by me. In fact, it’s a revelation. Why not know how a woman feels about her natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, before you swap bodily fluids?

Oh yeah, there’s plenty of that on OKCupid. The “Two of Us” quizzes don’t ask you to name your favorite sexual position(s) or the relative importance of penis size in a sexual relationship, but then again they might. (I’m a newbie.) Sexually speaking, the women aren’t shy about coming forward, as the Brits are wont to say. OKCupid’s sexually forthright essays make Match.com’s profiles seem like tax returns.

But it’s the tough, non-sexual questions that tell me whether to initiate a wild goose chase or hang fire. Here’s a question that made me pull back from a particularly comely lass: should creationism be taught in public schools? I answered that it should be taught along with evolution. She ticked no way, Jose (paraphrasing). Which is how I felt about dating her after reading the reply.

I find that kind of intellectual intolerance un-American. If this country stands for anything, it stands for the freedom of speech. The freedom for each and every individual to believe what they want to believe, and share their beliefs with the world. Our schools should expose our children to as many different points of view as possible.

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t believe in creationism. I find the whole idea silly and unscientific. Science class may not be the best place to share it with the kids. But I respect the right of Christian fundamentalists to believe that God created everything pretty much all at once, and their right to tell others that’s the way life on Earth began.

Yes, there are some truly heinous, dangerous belief systems out there: racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, jihadist and more. Do we want to expose our children to that garbage? Hell yes. How can our children understand the meaning of liberty if they don’t explore its limits? How can we expect them to know how to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the ideas that inform our lives at every turn if they don’t learn what makes a belief worthwhile or worthless?

Gun control advocates exemplify this intolerance. They pledge allegiance to “gun safety” to the point where Mayor Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety attempts to co-opt the term. But they don’t want children exposed to guns or even the idea of guns. How many New York City schools include the NRA’s apolitical Eddie the Eagle gun safety program in its curricula? None. LA? Same answer.

Former Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Prez Paul Helmke’s opposition to the NRA’s Eddie the Eagle gun safety program tells the tale. He quotes the Violence Policy Center’s statement: “The primary goal of the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth… The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA.”

See how that works? Teaching creationism to children promotes religious fundamentalism. Instructing kids about gun safety promotes gun ownership. Heaven forfend! Educators promote diversity as if it’s the next step to divinity, yet they willfully ignore the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects our individual and collective liberty. Which does more to create and protect diversity than a million hours of classroom indoctrination.

Bottom line: I can date an anti-gunner. But she has to be open-minded. If she’s a patriot, if she really, truly shares our Founding Fathers’ love of individual liberty, if she’s willing to engage in free and open debate, there’s hope she can learn to cherish her gun rights. If not, I’ll pass. On the day we celebrate our independence from tyranny, it behooves us all to remember that tolerance does not mean compromise.

201 Responses to Random Thoughts About OKCupid, Independence Day and Guns

  1. In Tx I think you have to get you a hoss if you want to find a conservative lady try.

    Or perhaps you need to get the hell out of Austin (see also Berkley). Pretty sure you’re not going to convert either commune. Extract and Nuke from orbit.

    • You’d have to find a dude if you want to date/marry a gun-lover in Texas? Psh! You ain’t never been to Texas, bub.

      My (hot) wife’s Valentine’s Day gift was a 1911.

      • Yeah… I met my gf in Austin. We’ve been together over 4 years…

        Ironically I met her on OkCupid. 😛

        To RF – compatibility is tough. The fact is that the the more strong opinions you hold, the harder is is to find someone who’s company you can enjoy, much less stand.

        That’s just the way it is.

        Plus, going for women who are closer to 5 years than 15 years of you might help too.

        PS – a lot of people are stupid. I don’t mean that as a jab, but they are. What I’ve found is that a lot of people answering those questions on dating sites do so without a lot of weight behind them.

        For instance, my gf was ani gun on hers too… but that opinion had no conviction behind it at all. As soon as we started dating and I took her shooting once, she was pro gun.

        So… not everyone is political or trolls the internets all day looking for some new ridiculous shit MDA has said. 🙂

      • For my wife’s birthday I got her a 1911 also. She returned the favor on mine with an AR15. 36 plus years now. I got me a keeper!

      • Yeah, just head over to Red’s indoor range any evening if you think girls, and attractive ones at that, are not gun lovers in Austin. Not saying you are going to pick them up there, but they do exist and lots of them don’t come in with a guy. So they are either single or he doesn’t like going to the range… could be your in.

  2. “I respect the right of Christian fundamentalists to believe that God created everything pretty much all at once, and their right to tell others that’s the way life on Earth began.”

    I’m OK with this if it’s taught in the same way, and with the same weight, as Hindu or Chinese creationism or the World Turtle (turtles all the way down), and it never quite seems to work out that way.

    Good luck with OKCupid. And the answer to the opening question is unquestionably “more safe.”

    • With the same weight? As in, “Let me tell you straight out from the top, this is all nonsense. Now, to teach you…” How–ahhhh…tolerant of you. I daresay we have quite a bit of evidence that the world is not a hemisphere sitting on the back of a gigantic turtle. Like photographs, for instance. I also daresay that there are gaping holes in evolutionary theory as taught now, that are completely ignored, as evolutionary theory is taught now. If there are facts that support “creation theory”, they should be taught as such. If there are facts that militate against evolutionary theory, they should be taught as such. Personally, I am in the middle of my own faith-vs-intellect struggle. But the surest way to get my back up is for some fundamentalist evolutionist to pontificate as to how his theory–repeat, theory– is so firmly, unassailably established that it is the only one that should even be considered.

      • No, it’s not necessary to denigrate any of the religions, but simply say “These folks believe (or believed if it’s an ancient religion) this or that” and leave it at that. If you teach four or five religions, and poke holes in all but one of them (and admittedly, the world turtle is low-hanging fruit), is that giving de facto weight to the one you don’t tear down?

        • If you want to teach comparative religions, that’s one thing. If you want to teach science, teach all the facts and implications, pro and con. If I poke holes in all of the “theories” except one, is that giving undue weight to the one I avoid poking holes in? Sounds kind of like “global warming is settled science” to me. Actually, I would think the evolution-as-established-fact crowd would welcome introducing creation theory into the discussion just so they could marshal all their presumably overwhelming factual ammunition against it to shoot it down for good. I would go for that.

      • Another Robert- perhaps you should learn the difference between “Theory” and “Hypothesis.” Understanding them will help you in your “faith-vs.-intellect” struggle. They are not interchangeable.

        • Here here! Far too many argue without solid understanding of what scientific method is.

        • Actually, I do know the difference–or at least I think I do. An hypothesis is basically just an idea with little or no empirical or factual support. A theory is an hypothesis that has been tested to some extent and has gained some factual or empirical support. My problem is with people–or educational systems–that do not seem to know the distinction between a “theory” and a “fact”. As far as I know, the Darwinian model ( I know about those too) is still nominally a “theory”. Yet it is the only “theory” on the origins of things that is taught in the schools, which gives it the undeserved cachet of a “proven fact”. And sadly, knowing the distinction between “hypothesis” and “theory” does not help at all with my intellect-vs-faith issues–especially seeing as I also know the difference between a “theory” and a “fact”.

        • “theory” and “hypothesis” are basically the same thing. The difference is amount of evidence that exists to support the idea. I don’t think it is necessary to teach religion in a science class, just to acknowledge that evolution isn’t the only tool in the shed. @Tim: you can’t apply scientific method to evolution, that requires being able to test your hypothesis. Since you can’t watch something evolve, you can’t test evolution. You can look at bones and form a hypothesis, but that is far from proving something.

        • Actually, hypothesis and theory are not the same. There’s a big distance between the two, in fact, and ideas aren’t called theories casually. Evolution is a theory in the same way gravity is a theory.

        • I’ve found that there can be just as much blind faith, ignorance of reality and/or dogmatic thinking coming from all sides…even atheists No sect of bozos is immune.

      • Religion / Creationism belong in the same class as Greek mythology. It’s absurd to portray myths and fairy tales as science.

    • How can you omit mentioning the Flying Spaghetti Monster? This religious intolerance has to stop.

      • Thank you. If you’re going to teach one creation story you’ve got to teach them all, no matter how kooky or weird. Then we have to teach the controversies about everything else. http://imgur.com/kuDTucW.jpg
        I guess if you made it its own class and used Michael Shermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things” as the textbook that might not be a bad idea.

        • Perhaps there should be a set portion of each Sunday School lesson hour devoted to Chemistry, Physics, Biology etc.

  3. maybe try chatroulette.
    it occurs to me that if matt in fl can post a response, he could maybe relate some timely topical stuff that we could digest… please?

  4. Evolution is science (based on experimentation, evidence, etc). Creationism is religion (based on faith). Should general public schools teach religion? Maybe as part of a history lesson, but not in a context of how the Earth developed because it is based on faith and not science.

    So especially given that you don’t believe in Creationism, I don’t think you should consider that she has a closed mind to other ideas. School is just not the correct context for lessons of faith. That is what Sunday School is for.

    • This. Anything more than “Some people believe that an omnipotent benign being created all time and space, but there is little if any scientific evidence to substantiate this theory.” is putting way too much credit into it.

      • Creation would actually make the “inflation” theory make a heck of alot more sense; otherwise that theory violates so many laws of physics….. As does the fact that we are a matter dominated universe.

        While I am personally a physics person and not bio, I will say that to the best of my knowledge evolution isn’t really something we can test. I can rig up things to test gravity, heck I could theoretically test e/m theory by shooting an electron beam through a magnetic field, or even qm with a frank-hertz appartus but evolution nah can’t repeat it, can’t falsify it, can’t prove it, can’t really disprove it. Therefore I don’t really trust it.

        • Can’t test it? What exactly do you think evolutionary biologists do for a living? Evolution has been tested and used to make accurate predictions many times. It is based on literal mountains of evidence that holds true all over the world. Creationism is not science, and should not be taught as such.

          Can’t be falsified? Fossil evidence that contradicts evolution would falsify it just fine. If you find that, you’ll get yourself a nice Nobel and all the nerd-tail you could ever want.

        • So how would one test evolution specifically? I mean genetics we can test, and natural selection sure. But you’ll never get dogs to produce anything but dogs (even though I consider chiuauauauaus or however they are speeled as rats)

        • Evolution is a scientifically observable natural mechanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment.

          The really murky part, as you pointed out, is not evolution, but how the universe came to be at all. And even murkier is the question of how life began. There are some nifty hypotheses, but no one has observed it happening. The belief that life on this planet spontaneously and mechanistically came to be is just that: belief. Bolstered by science-like conjecture, but belief without proof nonetheless.

        • Pure creationism is impossible to test, because it’s impossible to falsify (i.e. there’s no experiment that you can perform that could have a result contradicting creationism). The reason is that, if you have an omnipotent entity creating things, it can create a world that looks like it’s many billions of years old, compete with all the evidence. It doesn’t matter how much evidence you present, it can all be explained by “God tests us” etc.

          That’s precisely why creationism is not a scientific theory.

        • Well, you sort of answered your own question. Since we know the types of mutations that commonly and randomly occur during DNA replication (let’s say common specific defects of dogs for this example), we can genetically engineer a dog that has such a mutation built in. We can look at the result…is it a living creature capable of reproducing? What if we made two or three genetic mutations is critical parts of the dog’s reproductive system that do not allow it to mate with other dogs? If we did this on a large scale, we can come up with a new species. This is of course difficult and expensive with large, complex organisms like dogs, but we can certainly do it with bacteria or other prokaryotes.

          This experiment would show that genetic mutations identical to those commonly found to occur in nature can in fact result in a new species. That’s just one option. There are many, many more possibilities.

    • When you purport to reconstruct a whole species out of a piece of skull the size of a quarter, that is speculation, that is not fact and experimentation. When you construct a museum exhibit from different fossils found in temporally inconsistent geographic strata in different parts of the world and label it “the evolution of the horse”, and textbooks proceed to use that illustration as if the remains were found in a temporally consistent sequence all together, that is propaganda, not “fact and experimentation”. Someone may correct me on this, but I understand that no genetic mutation such as Darwinian evolutionary theory requires has been observed in nature. We are told that a whale is a mammal that “returned to the sea”, and that its flukes were at one point legs and feet. Yet there is no trace of any ‘transitional” land-based whale creature in the fossil record. That is not “facts and experimentation’, that is faith.

        • Really? Did they spontaneously pop into existence some time in the recent past? Or did they evolve from some different species or genus or family? Why don’t we see illustrations of “the evolution of the dog” the way we have all seen “the evolution of the horse”? Aren’t there any transitional forms in the fossil record? Seriously, I’m just saying these are the kind of questions that ought to be applied to evolutionary theory, the same as they are applied to other theories.

        • @ Sam. There hasn’t always been dogs but there has been similar species. Its not like it went: big boom from nothing, to frog, to fruit fly, to dog. Wolf to dog is more likely. Adaptation is different from evolution. No one denies that adaptation exists.

        • Ahh, yes, the coelacanth. Supposedly left by the evolutionary wayside, done in by competition from its more advanced, survival-worthy evolutionary progeny. Except it wasn’t.

      • When you create a supposedly scientific theory using a religious text as a basis and then attempt to cherry pick examples or fallacies in established theories in order to ‘prove’ that theory, that is also not fact.

        • Just so–exactly as cherry picking Darwin-supporting facts and ignoring discrepancies and cherry-picking fallacies and ignoring consistent facts relating to other –let’s say hypotheses–is also not “fact”. BTW, you mention “established theories”–are there any other “established theories” besides Darwinian evolutionary theory on the origin of species? Or did Darwin manage to create a scientific monopoly as to exactly what happened millions of years ago with no physical evidence extant to tell the tale? Also, are you saying that anything found in a “religious text” is necessarily untrue? Without the necessity of applying scientific method to it?

        • The fact that you are sitting there typing on a computer is pretty good evidence. The idea that 4.5 billion years ago lightening struck a cloud of methane gas and poof! there you are, isn’t scientific. That’s actually faith.

        • But at the end of the experiment you have a fruit fly. And if you do it multiple times, you’ll still get a fruit fly.

        • Do it for a billion years, and you can get something else.

          People don’t get timescales. If you can make minor changes in observable timescales, then why are major changes not possible, over timescales that are many orders of magnitude larger.

        • @CarlosT, do it for a billion years and you don’t get something else. A number of insects have been found encased in rock- still insects. Chance is not a force, it has no power to change, it is simply the way we describe probabilities. Oh, and yes, evolution is a theory, and should be taught as such.

        • So what if there were insects billions of years ago? All that tells me is you don’t get how speciation works. There’s no requirement that ancestral lines die off. If a species of fruit fly branches off, and over a billion years leads to something very different from fruit flies, that doesn’t mean all fruit fly species as we know them would go away, or even look very different over that time. Many could, in fact, remain entirely unchanged from their current form.

      • Ambulocetus natans seems like a pretty good example of a “transitional land-based whale creature”.

      • The fact of the matter is genetic analyses show that all cetaceans are more closely related to the hippopotamus than to any other land species.

        Even if no one had ever found a fossil of anything, the evidence for evolution would be overwhelming based on anatomical analyses, the distribution of animal populations, and genetics. So gaps in the fossil record don’t mean anything, and they certainly are not evidence against evolution.

      • >> We are told that a whale is a mammal that “returned to the sea”, and that its flukes were at one point legs and feet. Yet there is no trace of any ‘transitional” land-based whale creature in the fossil record

        You mean, like Ambulocetus or Rodhocetus?

    • Thank you. That’s a perfectly sensible response. Religion should be taught in a voluntary religious setting, anywhere else can be viewed as oppression.

    • Sam,

      Science cannot ever “prove” the origin of everything because:
      (a) No human was there to witness it and report the events, and
      (b) No human can recreate the origin of everything and observe it.

      Thus, all claims about the origin of everything are statements of faith, no matter how complex or how much “scholarship” people use in their statements. At any rate, if education truly is the goal in our schools, why cover some major faith statements and not others?

      What we should do in school is concentrate on what we can actually observe today and what concrete conclusions we can draw from what we observe.

      Consider our observations of human beings that no one disputes. Our individual cells are incredibly complex and rival the complicated factories that humans build today. The human eye is equally astounding in its complexity and ability. Our eyes can discern millions of colors and provide useable sight with little more than starlight on a moonless night … and yet we can also see a landscape in brilliant detail in bright sun. Of course our brain’s ability to process sight is something that no computer in today’s world can begin to touch. Now consider the human body as a whole and the complexity level increases exponentially again.

      So what can we conclude from our observation of human complexity? Claiming that random processes created human beings is at least as incredible as claiming that random processes could create a modern computer — complete with dual cameras, dual microphones, a speaker, thermal sensors, pressure sensors, damage sensors, scent sensors, taste sensors, and operating system as well as the ability to self-repair damage to both the hardware and the operating system. Anyone who believes random processes could create such a thing has more faith than I do.

      • Aha–my thoughts exactly. I have long said that it takes just as much faith to believe that “something” spontaneously appeared out of “nothing” as it does to say that some being created something out of nothing. Or that completely random processes (which, again, have not been observed in nature) resulted in the various life forms in all their intricacies that we see about us, rather than being created by some superior being. Which is not to say that provable facts are not out there. It’s just that they should be taught whether they support or detract from the “established theories” of the day.

        • Judeo-Christian CREATIONISM AND SCIENCE DO NOT DISAGREE! They both say the same thing, but they were written in vastly different times, vastly different styles, and for vastly different reasons. The purpose of the scriptures is to help humans in their relationships with God and their fellow man. Science does not address Spiritual or societal rules. The Bible/Torah is not a science textbook, and science is not a religious thing. That does not mean that what scripture says about creation is incorrect. The Scriptures actually agree very closely with the Science. See the next few paragraphs.

          The first few moments of Scientific creation:
          Everything began with The Big Bang. All the materials (matter/antimatter/elemental particles); All the space; and the beginning of Time itself began in that one instant. In other words, the whole Universe began in that one instant that Science calls “The Big Bang”.

          The first few moments of Religious (Judeo-Christian) creation:
          “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” There is no mention of any time before “the beginning”, because time did not exist before the beginning.
          What is “the heavens and the earth”? It is every bit of material and space in the whole universe. In other words, the whole universe began in that one instant that the scripture calls “the beginning”.

          If you look closely at the rest of Genesis 1, with an understanding that it is not actually trying to provide an exhaustive account of Universal History, you will find that it agrees very well with our current Scientific understanding of Universal History.

          But you say, “The Bible says it was all created in 6 days.” NO, IT DOESN’T. The original Hebrew word that has been translated into “Day”, does not mean a 24 hour period. It means a period of time, could be one day, could be a few seconds, or it could be several Billion years. This mis-translation has caused more problems for Creationism, than anything else. The Bible says that it was all created in 6 time periods, or that there were 6 phases of the creation. It does not say how long it took.

          Journalism says that a good reporter should put 5 things into every news report – What, When, Who, Why, and How. Well Science tells us the What, When, and some of the How of the creation story. Religion tells us the Who, Why, and some of the How of the creation story. Both are correct, but they are telling the story for completely different reasons.

        • Faith (religion) does not require you to deny the facts and the truth (science) that is in front of your eyes. Faith is what you do with the truth as you know it.

          You ask yourself, “OK, there is this huge universe with all these wonderful things, including all these different kinds of animals, and human beings like me, too. Science tells me where it all came from, but what does it mean IN MY LIFE?”

          Faith helps you answer that kind of question and a few others – The kind of questions that Science is ill equipped to answer.

        • Another Robert, I used to be an atheist but after I received Jesus as my Lord and Savior He led me to resources that helped give me more facts to bolster my faith. I would recommend the Institute for Creation Research (ICR.org) for info on how God created the universe and how some of the events described in the Bible have been replicated in modern times. “Footprints in the Ash” by John Morris is a book about the effects of the Mt. St. Helens eruption and its subsequent changing of the landscape. The effects mimic the Grand Canyon on a smaller scale and happened very quickly. Many of the scientists that are revered nowadays were Christians. Sir Isaac Newton was a theologian and science was a hobby for him. Another modern work is “Starlight and Time” by Dr. Russell Humphreys who is a physicist. It attempts to explain how God may have created the universe following the creation account in Genesis. It explains the evolutionist theory as well. God bless you in your search for more reasons to believe.

        • Evolution requires random changes to DNA to create random changes in organisms upon which “selection” works. So yes, evolution absolutely requires random processes.

          More importantly, evolution requires not only random changes to DNA, but it requires meaningful changes to take place in the specific egg or sperm that manage to fertilize and create a new offspring. Oh, and those changes must NOT create a “new” organism that is sterile.

          Random events such as viruses or cosmic rays increasing the complexity of DNA in a meaningful way in a single egg or sperm that manages to get fertilized without creating a sterile offspring is more fantastic than creation.

        • That’s not how evolution works. Populations evolve, not individuals. And we know for a fact that macroevolution exists because it has been observed, multiple times.

      • Natural selection, the main driver of evolution, is non-directed but it’s anything but random. Individuals have different reproductive succcess based on various factors, including heritable traits. Heritable traits that increase reproductive success become more common in the population. Traits that decrease success become less common.

        There are random elements. Mutations can introduce new random variation. Genetic drift, which is the random change in frequency of gene variants due to sampling, can at times eliminate versions of a gene if it is very low frequency. But what drives traits to appear or disappear is natural selection, which acts on the variation non-randomly.

        • Carlos,

          Do tell how random processes can ADD the appropriate chemical markers in precisely the correct locations of the DNA of a sperm or egg to morph a fish’s gills into an amphibian’s lungs — without any intermediate steps being sterile.

          Your assertion is the same as claiming that random processes can morph the simple MS-DOS version 1.0 operating system into the staggeringly more complex Windows 8 operating system.

        • There would be very many intermediate steps. Look at a picture of yourself at ten years-old versus now. Obviously, there are some huge differences. You didn’t just immediately go from ten years-old to a man. There were many intermediate steps that happened over a time. In the case of evolution, it’s the same, but it happens over a much longer time, multiple generations.

      • The evolution of human beings is not the equivalent of a functioning computer just randomly popping into existence in nature. That is a straw man based on a misunderstanding of evolution. The evolution of humans took billions of years. Evolution answers to chemistry which is constantly occurring. There are not constant chemical reactions occurring within or between the parts of a computer. There is no reason for something like that to form randomly in nature, unless it is a something with chemical reactions occurring constantly and using energy constantly, like a brain.

        Also, to the person who said, “In the beginning there was nothing, and then it all blew up,” that is not what Big Bang theory holds either. All Big Bang theory holds is that in the beginning all the matter was compressed and then expanded outwards very quickly. Which we have a tremendous amount of evidence that that is in fact what happened.

    • You think that evolution involves no faith? Outrageous! 99% of people who believe in evolution have faith in their college professor or the guy they saw on the documentary. People hear stuff from “smart” people and hear a good point and have faith that evolution is true.

    • Evolution is overblown. It is a simple bio-mechanical process that is true whether the earth is 6000 years old or six billion years old. The problem with Neo-Darwinians is that they think it is a complicated thing.

    • +1 I am going out on a date this weekend because of Tinder. I, like Robert like younger women – I don’t know why so many 18 year old girls swipe right on me (I’m 46), but it boosts my ego a bit.

      • I was 55 when I married my last wife. She was 26! Cradle Robber you say? Maybe, but she is Asian, and it is not considered out of the ordinary to marry a man quite a bit older.
        I married her in her country, not here. She had not yet become “Americanized”, thank god!

        • Age is just a number.

          Preoccupation with age for compatibility is stupid but it’s very American.

          Our culture has a huge double standard when it comes to social class, though. For instance, the average soccer mom would be apalled if a 17 year old girl they knew was dating a man in his 30s. However, when the Olson twins did so at 15 (I think), it was all over the gossip rags and touted as cute.

          Moral of this story? If you’re rich, women don’t care what age you are.

          The irony of course being that men being attracted to younger women and women being attracted to men with money and power are both rooted in evolution, but both genders get all bent out of shape about it.

          Sheesh. People.

  5. The reason guys have a tough time on dating sites is pretty simple – eggs are expensive, and sperm is cheap. You have to look at it from a whole different angle. I guess a fair comparison is sperm is .22LR and eggs are .50 Barrett.

  6. Blergh. Online dating, don’t get me started on that soul-crushing endeavour. Partially it’s the relatively low and ULTRA-SUPER-conservative population where I live. So the good ones get snapped up quick, or never on line date. Which leaves the crazies.

    Although firing ranges do make great activity dates. Especially for those that want “different” and “exciting” dates.

    • Uh, Robert, I’ll just say this. many very nice women don’t like sarcasm. Excise that from your communications. If they say they don’t like guns, perhaps they’ve just never met a nice, normal , responsible, law-abiding guy who does. It’s like the old rap about southern guys being antisemitic. Now just how antisemitic can you really be if you’ve never knowingly met an actual Jew in your whole life? It’s like that. Winsome conduct creates acceptance. Now go practice.

  7. Try these folks for dating you do not have to be a working farmer
    FarmersOnly.com – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FarmersOnly.com
    FarmersOnly.com is an online dating service for farmers, ranchers, and people living in rural areas of the United States and Canada.

      • ya, heard if you want a gal to like you, then you should do something sexy to a tractor. so i put dingle- berries and fringe on the farmall, but consuelo still doesn’t notice me.

        • “Dingle berries and fringe? Try burritos instead, if that doesn’t work, trade in your Stetson for a sombrero!

    • RF is a farmer of specifically enumerated civil rights…

      The one only “1” away from Number One.

      Grow that crop, RF!

  8. Anyone posing that question in a dating forum labels themselves and should be a red flag for any critical thinkig person.

  9. Robert, go take some courses at UT. They’ll let you audit for no credit for a small fee or, maybe, if you talk to the prof you can just sit in. I’d recommend taking a grad course in the social sciences or a course at the law school (do NOT take education courses). The demographics in grad school have changed in recent years. Women usually outnumber men. Even when I was in grad school finding so many smart, beautiful women there made me think I’d died and gone to heaven. That’s one thing about Austin that I love.

  10. I had a hard time with eHarmony – dated a dozen young ladies and almost all were creepy. Looking back, there were definitely some I could’ve given more of a chance. Match.com was filled with Mrs. “Right now” types. I think some of the online dating stuff is actually pretty cool. I was still able to work things out despite my intolerance of intolerance. Perhaps your profile stuff is too strongly worded and causes ladies to be put off.

    I think what RF believes about the 2A and the world (as well as I do – except I’m ok with denying gun ownership to child molesters, rapists, and such) requires a perspective that is often lacking in women. Although women may sometimes deny it, I think most ultimately crave a strong and decisive man who can defend his convictions.

    Then again, I’ve always been attracted to women who are open minded enough to give shooting a try. I knew that a “no guns in my house” perspective would absolutely disqualify a potential mate. A lady with a firearm has always had a certain sensuality to me.

    Keep on keeping on. In a drought, dating sucks. Sometimes all it takes is for one to like you, and then it seems like they all do. Either way, you’ve got an awesome car. Maybe a cute rescue dog or will put you over the top. Rrroowwrr!

  11. “See how that works? Teaching creationism to children promotes religious fundamentalism. Instructing kids about gun safety promotes gun ownership.”

    This is pure projection from the anti’s point of view.

    • In my experience there aren’t any women younger than 40 who are not over 300 lbs on eharmony.

      I paid for that site for a year and never even went on a date.

      • Reminds me of one time I answered an ad for a datable lady. In the ad she said she was “Rubinesque”.
        I had no idea in the world what that meant. Maybe some god forsaken religion.
        After I met her I found out what it meant. It means “FAT”

    • Do you know how EHarmony gets its high success rate? By rejecting anyone they don’t think they can match.

      Ask me how I found that out.

      • Well… they accepted me and I paid for the site, but apparently nobody seemed to care that I was looking for a lady around my age who lived at least a somewhat active lifestyle.

        In my early 20s I was not looking for someone who was out of breath going up one flight of stairs nor was I looking to raise someone else’s kids.

  12. Robert,
    Would you be open to dating women of another country’s? It’s not for everyone, maybe not you?? Twenty five years ago I gave up on American women, and decided to try something different, and it IS different.

    There were no online dating clubs then. I joined a club that dealt exclusively with Asian women, some from Indonesia, some from Malaysia, but mostly from the Philippines. Every two months the club sent you a pamphlet with pictures and a short description of over 300 gals. It was then up to you to write a letter to the ones you were interested in.

    I contacted hundreds of ladies over the next several months (the Post Office was the real winner here) and eventually picked one. I was able to call her a few times through a neighbor lucky enough to afford a telephone. In the end I proposed to her over the phone and traveled to her country to marry her, which I did. And just in case some of you reading this post are wondering what I would do in case she didn’t show up at the airport, I had that covered. I had a list and addresses of the 20 “runners up” in my pocket most of which lived in the same city………………………………………………..Just in case!

  13. Tried the online dating thing. I realized that all the gals online had completely unrealistic expectations, probably because they get bombarded with messages from guys with stolen male model pictures. So, I decided not to waste my time.

    • That and the probable fact that a lot of dudes think it’s “suave” to let them know how big their pecker is before they even date!

  14. I’m not going to debate the relative merits of my beliefs & your lack thereof. I just found it sad that RF couldn’t find a decent babe. I don’t know what I would do if something happened to my beautiful wife. I could never do better. Maybe you could try conservative Christian gals? The Jewish gun thing doesn’t seem to work with any Jewish gals I knew years ago. My 2 Jewish girlfriends tilted WAY left. I’ve been married a few times & feel your pain RF.

  15. “intellectual intolerance”

    We should also teach the controversy of the heliocentric solar system theory. And the theory of gravity. Wouldn’t want to be intolerant to anyone. Of course we won’t have any time to teach actual science, but being tolerant is all that’s important. Weird, I never hear that kind of sentiment- elevating tolerance above facts- from this crowd when it has to do with other beliefs.

    • Never realized evolution was a fact……. (thats really the thing that bothers us non-evolutionists, go ahead teach it as “the best theory we have” just point out that is has flaws here and there and is not the only thing out there)

      Heck evolution isn’t even properly testable, honestly why would I treat a theory as fact that I can’t even test or imagine testing?

        • You see that is exactly it. Gravity is easilly testable, heck in intro physics we measured the acceleration of gravity, also the potential energy and such. We don’t have the equipment at my school to go into the 1/r^2 nature of gravity, but theoretically we could.

      • Evolution is clearly observable through many now complete fossil records, clear family trees in different species through DNA analysis, and through current features in animals like vestigial organs. At this point evolution is as much a fact as the theory of gravity.
        What “flaws here and there” might you be referring to?

  16. I’ll tell you what I tell guys out on the rigs if they want to find someone. Go to church. You can still believe God created the earth without believing it’s 4000 years old or whatever. I’m a geologist so yeah, it’s not like I don’t know the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Doesn’t matter. Go to church and DO NOT hit on the women. Just go and be friendly and talk to people. Every church has a set of old ladies there and after your their a while, they’ll start introducing you to women they think are suitable.

    Yes yes, laugh if you will, but I’ve seen it happen.

    • Good thought, and it might work for some guys.
      The problem with meeting a gal in church is that as soon as you go on a date with them, they expect you to go EVERY Sunday!
      It’s never “Such a nice day, what would you like to do?” It’s “what do you want to do after church?”

      I dated this girl a couple of times, she went to church every Sunday. Then I met her mother, and she wanted me to go with them on Wednesdays also, and some Saturdays.

      Please don’t misread my post, I have nothing against religious folks, I just don’t want their beliefs forced on me.

      • I made the mistake of trying to meet women in church or at college Christian activities.

        The problem is that if you aren’t drinking the coolaid, it doesn’t work because .. well, they are.

        • @Gunr

          The problem was that while I consider myself spriritual rather than religious, I’ve read the Bible at least twice through completely and I took 6 years of Bible class. I’ve also read all the other major religious texts.

          My problem is with ignorant “Christian” girls who believe (with great conviction) shit that isn’t anywhere in the Bible.

          I respect deeply religious people who actually know what they believe, but people who take everyone on “faith”, and who don’t actually research stuff preachers claim are just sheep and I can’t stand them.

        • I hear ya T Bear,
          My wife is Catholic, I’m not. She has a lot of religious beliefs, but can’t back up hardly any of them with fact. It’s usually “mother told me so”

    • 4,600,000 years?!? You really think this earth could have lasted that long? 20,000 max. Probably more like 10k.

    • Every bad dating/marriage/other experience I’ve ever had has been at the hands of a Christian woman.

      Never again.

      • My bad marriage was with a woman who had issues… and those issues included issues with God (She hated God and had a fascination with Wicca.) Perhaps that view some Christians take more literally about not being “unequally yoked” can easily be applied to many aspects: religious views (as it is in reference to), politics, family, guns, cars, sports, …you name it…

        You’ll find crazies and dysfunctionals in any category you can come up with.

      • Before I found Christ; the women I’ve had a bad experience with were New Age new Wave, agnostic or athiest.

  17. I think if you want to have any luck finding a match on a dating site, the first step is to either be female, or be looking for a guy. Because I’ve been on several different sites, sent over a hundred messages in total, and never heard a word from anyone.

    Or it could just be because I’m a loser. I dunno.

        • Nah it’s a numbers game.

          When I was single I figured one response out of 100 sent messages was actually pretty good.

          Some of you guys who have never done the online dating thing should serious stfu and drive on.

        • Jim,
          Maybe it’s something in your approach, rather than your profile. I would suggest letting some gal look over your stuff, someone you know and trust, like a sister or cousin. They might see something your not.

  18. It sounds like the fundamental problem is too much information.

    Let’s be honest: anyone who is dating is “for sale”. Well, when you are selling something, if you go to the Nth degree describing everything, no one will ever buy it. Why? Because all the negatives will raise too much doubt and they will miss the true appeal and value of the entire package.

    Imagine a car for sale with the following details:
    (1) Hit 154 potholes.
    (2) Bottomed out on the suspension one time.
    (3) Idled roughly 4 times after starting.
    (4) Anti-lock brake warming light came on 6 times after hitting a bump in the road.
    (5) Air conditioning smelled bad 37 times.
    (6) Windshield wipers leave large smears on windshield.
    (7) Frequently leaves large puddles of fluid on driveway.
    That last description by the way is simply condensation from proper operation of the air conditioning but many people do not know that. Anyhow, no one in the world would want to buy such a car. And yet I just described a perfectly fine car like at least half of the cars on the road.

    Furthermore, dating sites cannot convey “chemistry”. If you have good “chemistry” with someone, many of the characteristics that seem to make you incompatible do not really matter. But you will never get there if you discount almost everyone before ever meeting.

    Provide some highlights about yourself and take care of the rest in actual face-to-face dates. The women should do the same.

    • Uncommon,
      Holy Christ man, how did you know? I mean you described my car perfectly! Except #7 the large puddle of liquid on the driveway. It’s OIL! not condensation from my AC, but the other 6 are right on!

  19. Its a numbers game. Moderatly attractive women get about 60 messages a day. Beautiful women get 300 plus messages a day. There are so many thirsty men that ladies cannot even read all the messages. Only send a message when they are logged on and keep the message short at all times. 2-3 sentences max. If the site your using doesnt let you know when they are logged in, your best using a simple copy paste script. A good opener is a statement about something you notice that you like, followed by making fun of the chick for something you dont like.
    Example…

    +10 for “insert positive trait”
    +10 for “insert positive trait”
    -5 for ____, whats that all about?

    This allows you to qualify and establish your own higher value at the same time.

  20. You lost me when you thought that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. I am still astonished that anyone with an IQ would think that. No wonder you can’t score: you are practically telling every woman that you are a fundamentalist moron with no brain of your own and who believes in sky fairies. Creationism: you have to laugh – no sane person would give it more than a nano-second before dismissing as utter rubbish.

    • I made a few changes in caps for ya.

      You lost me when you thought that EVOLUTION should be taught alongside evolution. I am still astonished that anyone with an IQ would think that. No wonder you can’t score: you are practically telling every woman that you AN IDIOT WHO THINKS HE IS A MONKEY, DOESN’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS, AND BEILIEVES THE ROOT OF YOUR FAMILY TREE IS A ROCK. EVOLUTION: you have to laugh – no sane person would give it more than a nano-second before dismissing as utter rubbish.

      Honestly generalizations suck, there are sound reasons for creationism, and supposedly evolution as well.

      • I made a few changes in caps for ya.

        You lost me when you thought that EVOLUTION should be taught alongside evolution. I am still astonished that anyone with an IQ would think that. No wonder you can’t score: you are practically telling every woman that you AN IDIOT WHO THINKS HE IS A MONKEY,

        Actually, no he isn’t saying that. Humans are apes, yes, but not monkeys. Monkeys are a different class of primates from great apes. Humans are the species of great apes known as Homo Sapien of the genus of great apes known as Homo. The other great apes (gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees) are members of their own individual genera, but have two species each. Homo Sapiens is a very short-hair, long-legged, upright-walking ape. Genetically, we have more in common with chimpanzees than chimpanzees do with gorillas. The idea of humans are apes is nothing peculiar or radical, we are just a highly-intelligent form of ape.

        DOESN’T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THE SECOND LAW OF
        THERMODYNAMICS,

        This is a tired canard, that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It does no such thing and it is the creationists who demonstrate a lack of understanding of it. Furthermore, evolution, both microevolution and macroevolution, have been observed multiple times in nature. So we know for a fact that it exists.

        AND BEILIEVES THE ROOT OF YOUR FAMILY TREE IS A ROCK.

        A rock? The root of all life would be in the oceans in which a self-replicating molecule began. This isn’t any kind of radical proposition because we know for a fact self-replicating molecules can exist. They can be created in a lab. Then after about three billion years of continual increases in complexity, the first cells as we know them would have been developed and reproducing. From there, the development of multicellular life forms would have been rather quick. We know this for a fact as scientists have been able to evolve single-cell life forms into multicellular life forms in a lab.

        EVOLUTION: you have to laugh – no sane person would give it more than a nano-second before dismissing as utter rubbish.

        If there wasn’t the titanic amount of evidence and proof for it, no.

        Honestly generalizations suck, there are sound reasons for creationism, and supposedly evolution as well.

        There are no sound reasons for creationism. It is not science. It is myth that masquerades as science, usually by developing straw men about evolution to twist the science about evolution into something it isn’t. There is only one reason for creationism’s existence, and that is that it disproves one of the core tenets of Christianity, which is that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus, who died on the cross to forgive humans of original sin, which we got because Eve messed up and ate the fruit from the tree. Evolution completely tears up that story.

        • eh monkey ape whatever I was meeting hyperbole with hyperbole.

          The minerals for that hypothetical ocean: where did they come from? rocks.

          Also I think I have a handle on increasing entropy and would like to see how that is gotten around.

          Finally there is a big difference between a protein that bends other sequentially identical proteins into the same shape, and a machine that can store data on one type of polymer, use that to generate another polymer which is fed into another machine to serve as a blueprint for another polymer. I mean come on irreduceable complexity comes into play somewhere with all this machinery

        • There are many discussions on the subject of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and evolution by evolutionists. In addition as said, we have witnessed macroevolution occur, such as evolving a species of fruit fly into a new species of fruit fly, witnessed new species of plant, and new types of bacteria that didn’t exist before. So we know for a fact evolution can’t violate the 2nd Law.

  21. Dating websites are nothing but ways for women to get more attention then they normally do.. Women are like dogs, they need constant praise and attention from other people. Stop wasting time and money on them and pick up girls at bars… Most women cannot carry on a conversation because they never needed to learn how to with so many avenues for attention. Women will not respect you for trying to setup a date, because that means you are too easy. The best tactic is to meet women at coffee shops or bookstores on a Friday afternoon.. Many women like 20+ in a day and start texting them around 10pm to see who is out.. Statistically you will meetup with at least one of them later that night and she let some other simp buy her drinks all night. After that night delete all the numbers except the one girl you hooked up with and save her number for next weekend as backup.. Girls do this they tend to have large male harems. Second wave feminism has destroyed the traditional dating scene.. And many so called femnazi’s are also rabid anti-freedom activists and want limitations on firearms and more female domination in the legal system, and more government handouts for women. Be smart take the red pill and embrace MGTOW.

  22. I’m not a theophobe by any means so I don’t mind creationism being taught–in a theology or world religion class, where it belongs. It has no place in a modern biology curriculum, philosophy is philosophy and science is science. Period.

    • Yet science wouldn’t be where it is today if it wasn’t for philosophy (Even Stephen Hawking admits this, although he feels that philosophy today is dead because its stuck a couple of centuries back.)

      Philosophy and science has overlapped in areas for as long as man (or woman) has tried to figure things out.

  23. It appears not to have occurred to anyone on this ‘site that evolution is a religion just like any other religion; regardless of the denomination.

    • But yet, because it doesn’t declare a god to worship and obey, it fails the definition of religion. This fits many atheist and anti-theist views quite well.

  24. No. Creationism shouldn’t be taught in school. What part of separate church and state is hard to understand?

    Yes, I am a religious individual.

  25. Yall can we file 6 this creationism vs evolution thing and just focus on the main issue that is getting Matt sprung so he can pen Daily Digest & getting RF laid?

  26. Sexually speaking, the women aren’t shy about coming forward, as the Brits are wont to say.

    No, the British saying is “backward about coming forward”. The whole point is to emphasise that contrast, and “shy” misses that point.

  27. I can demonstrate the depth of observations one can logically make without faith in something.

    I exist, and I can think. (to rip off descartes)
    Bam! thats it. You only get those because doubting your existence or thought requires you to think and exist.

    Notice I can’t say that I exist as anything in particular, I could be a brain in a jar/matrix deal, after all I can’t prove that these impulses my brain processes actually sync with reality. I have no proof without faith that you exist either, and you have no purely logical proof that I do either.

    • Yup, you may be a figment of my imagination… “You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato.”

      Although I do choose to believe that my senses don’t lie to me a vast majority of the time.

  28. Dating really sucks these days. I know of quite a few people my age who are single who cannot find anyone to date and if they do, its someone who has a few screws loose or they want a fast track to marriage. Its not limited to my age bracket. My son who is blonde hair blue eyed and has a well muscled physique who is on his way to becoming a fireman cannot find a decent girl to date. In my son`s age demographic, I know what the problem is. Look at how many young women went gaga over the Boston bomber. Or that convicted felon who now has modeling offers. Nice guys cant compete with the bad boys, gang bangers and thugs. That is what young women seem to be drawn to. I am thankful to God that I am married to a woman who shares my political beliefs including the right to bear arms.

  29. @Matt
    the only thing stoppin em from bein the same is RF hasn’t drank enough or gotten desperate enough that you look like an Israeli supermodel lol

  30. My favorite part of OKCupid are the gals with 4 children by their mid-20s and never been married but now they want to start being more discerning.

    • I knew this guy who married an Asian gal, and after he got her over here, she told him she had 5 kids. He was a man of means, so he got them over here also, then she told him she had 5 more. He died some time later.

  31. RF, check out the site Zoosk for dating, not so bad. Better than OK Cupid. Watch out for the scammers from Ghana and such as they are working every site hard nowdays. Patience, my friend, patience.

  32. Robert,
    If you want dates, sign up in high school (freshman) for. . . . . .typing class on an old beat up typewriter. I guarantee you will be the only guy in the class. Did that before you were born, all the jocks thought I was an idiot. . . . . .had dates all the time and it was only 1/2 a year. They wouldn’t let me sign up for home economics as they figured out my plan.

    FIND a high school with typewriters and a typing class. . . .youll be in like Flynn.

  33. I didn’t plan on posting again but it occurred to me why I was successful with the ladies( WAY back in the day). I like women. Fat , skinny , ugly, black , white ,young or old. I am comfortable with the most beautiful or rich. I never had a problem approaching females. Yes I looked great years ago but I had no money. If women see ( read ) your contempt I don’t blame them for thinking you’re a jerk. Sometimes it is HARD to see the guy is the problem. Work on yourself first guys.

  34. In like Flynn? Like a statutory rapist? Errol Flynn is my absolute favorite movie star but I sure WOULDN’T emulate his lifestyle and die at 50. Coincidentally the 1938 Dawn Patrol starring Errol Flynn is coming on TCM. Stay away from the teenyboppers RF. Not worth going to jail for. Hey I don’t think RF is even 60-let alone 70lol.

  35. “Our schools should expose our children to as many different points of view as possible.”

    And do you trust the public schools to do this fairly and impartially and allow your child to make up her own mind?

    It seems to me that exposure to competing viewpoints is a great goal and the best way to raise an intelligent child. But that’s a job for the child’s parents, not a government employee.

    Of course, I don’t really think the public school system should even exist, so I may be biased on the topic.

  36. OKCupid allows one to write comments to answers – this helps explain the nuances. I would (in fact, did) answer that question as “Hell no!”, but clarify that this is an answer to the usually implied part of the question that is about teaching it alongside evolution in a biology class, and that I don’t have a problem with it being taught in religion studies or such.

  37. Creationism is not science. If taught, it should only be taught in a theology class. The only reason for its existence in the first place is because evolution undermines one of the central tenets of Christianity, which is that the only way to Heaven is through Jesus Christ, who died on the cross to cure us of original sin, which we got from Eve eating the fruit on the tree. Evolution blows a hole in that.

    In a way, IMO, creationists are much like the gun control people. They continually distort the facts and create straw men regarding the other side. Note the Violence Policy Center’s statement here:

    ““The primary goal of the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth… The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA.”

    Note they mention nothing about the importance of the right to the gun rights folks. They could argue that the gun rights people are in their view wrong, but nope, to them it’s a nefarious plot. And they also make the mistake or the straw man of claiming that the NRA represents some ultra-powerful corporate gun lobby, which is nonsense as the gun industry is far too tiny to give the NRA the kind of influence it has.

  38. Let me begin by stating that I am a former Christian, turned atheist. I personally don’t see enough evidence to warrant my belief in Christianity’s specific higher power, that being an omnipotent, omnipresent creator/father figure who sent Jesus as his son to sacrifice himself to save us. Honestly, I would like that to be true, but blind faith is just not something my mind can rationalize. With that being said, I choose to life my life to the standards and basic tenets of Christianity, just without the god part.

    As far as teaching kids evolution and creationism, I strongly believe that it should all be taught concurrently. The way I see it, the most fair, inclusive, and useful-in-terms-of-knowledge way to do it would be to teach evolution from the scientific standpoint, and then have representatives from each of the top 3-5 religions in the USA come in to present and explain their faith’s beliefs on the origin of life/the universe/whatever. I am sure that there would be countless religious representatives willing to volunteer their time to teach students about their faith.

    I know this is off topic as far as TTAG as a whole, but I would love to hear what my fellow POTG think of this idea, and if anyone else has opinions or ideas on the subject.

    • Hey Marcus; I was an agnostic before I became a Chrisitian. I first found the connection to the higher power, then it continued through American Indian teachings and then it added becoming Baptized in Christ.

      But the process of my own journey showed me that the journey is as unique as the unique individual involved. So the more people are exposed to different beliefs, the better each person can find the “truth” that resonates with them.

  39. I hear a cry for help. Best of luck in your search for the golden fleece. It only exists if you believe in it.

  40. Rather than church try going to SASS matches lots of nice ladies who like to shoot and the larger state and regional matches have dance evenings as a part of the weekend in mant cases… Also they put the fun back into shooting for me. If you don’t have a pair of single action revolvers a lever action pistol cal rifle and shotgun ( side by side or pre 1900 pump or lever design) or gun leather or costume don’t worry lots of folks will loan you what you need the first few times you show up at friendly local weekly matches which are the best introduction to the sport. One of these places is sure to be near you.
    http://www.sassnet.com/clubs/Clubs_list.php?state=Texas

    • Indeed.

      Further, as founder and primary operator of TTAG, RF would likely be considered some sort of minor Deity about such places.

      Good hunting, RF!

  41. I disagree with your premise that allowing evolution theory and disallowing creationism is unamerican. Whatever subject you teach in this realm must sit within the larger body of biology, and creationism has nearly zero value as a biologic topic. It’s like trying to teach a course on rifle marksmanship and giving equal space to the first week of class to gun control topics. How would teaching gun control make better marksman? So I say, how would teaching creationism make better biologists?

    I admit the analogy isn’t perfect, but I hope you see my point in the details.

  42. anyone “struggling” with the idea of creationism vs. evolution should read richard dawkins the god delusion, or download the audio book since your probably not capable of reading an entire book.
    (also here are some videos if books are to hard)

    -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&list=PLAC3481305829426D&feature=share-

    • “…or download the audio book since your probably…”

      “If books are to hard…”

      So you’re not only a jerk, you’re an ignorant jerk?

    • Eye halve a spell ling Czech cur-
      et came with Maipy see.
      It plane lee Marx four my reeve ewe,
      Mist aches aye wood knot sea.
      I vrun this Poe Emm threw it,
      Iam Shur yore glad too no;
      Its let her perf ectin it’s whey –
      Mitch Eck her tolled miso.

    • It’s OK Duzt; you have shown yourself to be ignorant, bigoted, closed minded, arrogant, elitist, hateful and intolerant. In other words; a person that hates themselves and because of that; hates those they consider less than themselves because it helps to cover up their own self-loathing.

      G-d really is about unconditional love; you to can find that love; all you need to do is ask, and The I AM will answer.

      • Ha! That why so many un-baptised babies must burn in hell for eternity! And more have died in God’s name than any other! ignorant indeed! Self-righteous Christians are the scourge of humanity…

  43. Um, RF? Schools should expose students to as many points of view as possible – in a class on comparative religion or philosophy.

    They should however not teach as fact things which probably aren’t.

    Would you be comfortabe with a medical school giving equal emphasis to the Cristian “Science” perspective that prayer is the only acceptable medical practice, and trauma surgery? Were I in a wreck or gunfight, I’d want my doctor’s first impulse to be to do what was known to be effective, rapid treatment.

    How would you feel were the SCOTUS to rule that a private employer (even of the size of Hoppy Lobby) could force all female employees to take the burka and veil? Or not permit meat in the lunch room? Or never bathe?Those are issues of “religious freedom.”

    There are a great many wackaninny origin stories out there, and were they all taught in school there’d be no time for anything else.

    Schools attempt to impart the basics of how things work, theory and practice. Flimsy hypotheses have no place in that environment.

  44. I know you think my ideas are strange but I bet my school of philosophy could be a lot more useful to you in finding a true mate than any main stream propaganda is going to be. And get sub 30, really pretty women, too.

    I hold my nose a little because he’s a bit limp wristed for me, but Athol Kay will get you on the right road faster than any of the more radical folks I follow. Google “Married Man Sex Life” I know you’re no longer married, but trust me it will help in your search & next relationship. Try it. If you don’t like it, ditch it. 🙂 What harm can it do? You’re down two, can’t hurt to try something different.

    My good deed of the day.

    • There is a LOT of truth on that page.

      I wish I could go back in time and teach my young self even half of it.

  45. I happen to love your sardonic writing style. It’s what keeps me coming back to this site.

    Be yourself. If my gun-collecting/enthusiast, 72-year old dad with stage-4 colon cancer can find his “soul mate” on Match.com, finding a gun-shop-owning super model should be no problem for you.

  46. If you are literally getting that many rejections or non-responses from emails at Match.com you really, really need to step back and take a look at what you are writing. It’s been at least a decade since I used Match.com but I remember dates almost every night and the odds of a lady going home with me on a first date were maybe 80%.

  47. I have ALL the luck… a girl I mentioned above that I was going to meet on Tinder has a unique first name, and she told me the occupation she was in. I did a little cyberstalking, and found her on LinkedIn and Facebook.

    I guess (and know) it would have to happen to you, but it looks like her Sister and her Brother both committed suicide with guns about 20 years ago roughly 4 years apart. She had posted “There is no reason for anyone at all to have a gun in the household, if you are worried about crime you need to move to a better neighborhood”. She is also a lefty and likes moveon.org, so I knew that this was not worth pursuing. I feel bad what happened to her family, but if there were no guns her Sister and Brother would have used a different tool to achieve the same affect (or is that effect?)

    Not to mention my views on 2nd Amendment for hunting, and protection against tyranny, and even great neighborhoods have crime and and home invasions, and since this happened to her I know it would be a giant sore point. Can’t say I blame her – but she is blaming the tool rather than the reason(s) her siblings did what they did. Sad situation though.

    Good thing new matches keep popping up on Tinder. Maybe I can find someone that would think a trip to the range would be a good first date 🙂

    • Her argument is stupid for two reasons:

      1) Not everyone can just up and move out of their neighborhood. Does she all the people in high-crime neighborhoods live there by purely choice? The “up and move” argument actually sounds really rather elitist to me. If she is such a lefty, I’ll be she is one of those lefties who would be raw meat for a conservative.

      2) The notion that keeping a gun means one is “worried” about crime is like saying that keeping a fire extinguisher means one is “worried” about fire. It’s a precaution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *