Do PPD Debaters miss the point of personal philosophy?

hyperrreal · 2014-05-23T16:32:15+00:00

Another issue is that social science is only like 50% science compared to chemistry/physics. It's hard enough to create a hypothesis that resists falsification in those fields, where you can truly isolate variables.

GridReXX · 2014-05-23T18:15:17+00:00

It's not that TRP treats women a certain way.

It's that they assert their opinion as fact as to what women want or how women like to be treated.

Assertions like that are easily disproved the moment you meet a woman who doesn't like those things, which probably happens a lot.

Those_Who_Remain · 2014-05-23T16:46:58+00:00

I believe you are talking about me. You seem to not understand my argument.

I'm not saying TRP is incorrect. I'm not saying TRP has no succes with women at all.

I am saying that TRP should not think their limited experience to apply to all women under the guise of 'evolution' and 'biology'. Because if they start doing that, you can indeed call them out for a lack of peer-reviewed studies!

But the problem with disagreeing with our conclusions based on this is that you've got just as little proof for any decisions you make as the proof we do for ours!

But I don't claim to know 'the truth', whereas the Red Pill has 'the truth' ingrained in their sub-reddit's identity. 'Taking the bitter pill', discovering 'the truth' behind women etc.

I've said this to you in the last thread as well. I don't claim I have the answers. TRP does, and thus people may call them out for it.

nicethingyoucanthave · 2014-05-23T16:31:44+00:00

The problem I'm seeing here is an outright dismissal of red pill conclusions by the opposition because the conclusions, understandings, and beliefs are not backed by peer reviewed studies

The things I believe are backed by peer-reviewed studies. But, the things I believe contradict a lot of sociology (in my opinion, a lot of made-up sociology).

I think that most blue pillers are blank-slaters. They are (whether they know it or not) intellectual descendants of Steven J Gould, and a big part of what offends them is the idea that there might be an alternative explanation for patterns of behavior beyond "it's a cultural construct."

So you'll hear them use phrases like "biotruths" and "just-so stories" (that one was actually coined by Gould himself) but what's their alternative? Ironically, their alternative is really a just-so story. They see a pattern, for example that there are fewer women engineers, and they make up an explanation: "must be discrimination!" Well, maybe it's that men and women are different? "You just made that up!"

In their defense, plenty of people on TRP are idiots. It's easy for them to find crazy or even offensive statements to latch onto. But see, it's possible to do that with any philosophy. I could wade into /r/atheism and find posts by idiots too.

Just like someone can take the idea of atheism too far, and start discriminating against religious people, it's easy to take the ideas behind TRP too far and start hating women - especially when you're a male raised in a culture that fed you lies about women, and those lies resulted in pain and frustration.

For that matter, it's easy to take the ideas of blue pillers too far, and start talking about otherkin and the like.

we all use heuristic reasoning and deduction to make personal decisions.

This is actually just a good point. I do think that a lot of blue pillers hear TRP say something and they assume that we never adjust our beliefs to fit individual people that we meet in the real world. Like if I say, "women like confident men" they scream, "not all women!!!" Well okay, that is trivially true. If I happen to meet a girl who likes a meek, shy dude, that's fine. If I pick up on that I'm not so stupid as to continue behaving in a way that she's obviously not liking.

But as a general rule, it's better to assume they like confidence and adjust as necessary.

funkless_eck · 2014-05-23T18:03:19+00:00

I think one of the big issues I have is not that I require hard science over every claim but that in the thread you link to further down in the comments you say things like:

They want to protect women, it's a natural instinct.

And that may be true IN GENERAL, however, it does not mean that women don't want to protect men, and there are some men that don't want to protect some women (and may even want to hurt them), there are some men that want to be protected by their partner. There are some gay men that may not have strong feelings on the protection offered by or two women in a romantic sense.

I know you know this, but for the purposes of discussing methods of acquiring short-term sexual contact with a large number of women, I find it aggravating that the red pill would use manipulative techniques such as these to acquire it's own desires dishonestly.

Really, it has no desire to protect women, it's desire is to use (in this case) a (given) woman's better nature in order to manipulating her into a spinning plate, which she may or may not want to be.

Therefore when you say "Women want to be protected," many BP people will say, "prove it!" because they want you to admit NOT that you're factually wrong, but that your intentions are not to protect women but to exploit them.

So then, if you are exploiting rather than protecting women, you can't say that men have a desire to protect women (whereas someone else could), because you have just displayed that you don't wish to by posting in a forum that uses a woman's (alleged) desire to be protected in order to manipulate her into a short-term sexual relationship on false pretences. This is where the desire for a burden of truth comes from.

juswannabeanony · 2014-05-23T16:15:19+00:00

The thing is most bluepillers are already coming here with pre-conceived notions about TRP from here so the chance of debate or any change of ideas is null.

Most of them don't even understand half of the stuff on TRP. Try explaining dread game, the wall or alpha and beta mindsets to them you'll just hear emotional abuse, men hit it too and you're not wolves.

TBP automatically takes a moral highground (they created a sub just to mock TRP) so they can easily just shun what you say since obviously you're just a virgin neckbears fedora wearing misogynistic fatty in his mother's basement.

EDIT: Another thing. Bluepillers cant even accept that you're a well adjusted person. It ties into the the moral high ground I mentioned. If a bluepiller were to ever accept anything TRP proposes then to them, they are linked with all the not with all the silly comments in the link above so even trying to change their point of view is a difficult endeavour.

[deleted] · 2014-05-23T16:13:09+00:00

The problem I'm seeing here is an outright dismissal of red pill conclusions by the opposition because the conclusions, understandings, and beliefs are not backed by peer reviewed studies and are clearly counter-cultural.

My personal experiences with women differ from trps. I don't immediately assume that my personal experiences with women apply to every women, as opposed to AWALT, so that's why I disagree with red pill theory.

But the problem with disagreeing with our conclusions based on this is that you've got just as little proof for any decisions you make as the proof we do for ours!

You're absolutely right. The problem I have with trpers is that they use pseudoscience to try to back their conclusions. Biotruths are cited as evidence even though there is no such thing as a biotruth, it's just a made up word.

Can we have a conversation debating the merits of certain ideas, instead of whether or not they have the proper scientific backing?

Probably not. Trp believes that the dating game is amoral.

rulenumber303 · 2014-05-23T23:34:01+00:00

When it is some else's heuristic reasoning and deduction that looks dodgy to me, versus my heuristic reasoning and deduction that looks dodgy to them, and both of us are convinced we've got it right and are getting increasingly frustrated, then of course it is fair to suggest they do something more than repeat their reasoning ever louder and more rudely if they wish to keep attempting to convince me.

No-one's going to cut your balls off or set fire to your dog if you don't have studies, statistics etc to provide to support your heuristics. They'll just continue to see your reasoning as not all that great.... exactly what you're doing to them. Get over it.

pillburt · 2014-05-23T16:08:40+00:00

Before somebody makes the comparison to christians who say "but you can't prove god isn't real, so what's wrong with our view?" I will dismiss that argument front and center.

PK is talking about synthesizing and extrapolating information on the observable world to make best-guess choices in a complex world.

There is no right or wrong, there is only personal happiness and in this case, long-term-sexual success. If it were easy to define or achieve, we wouldn't have anti-depressants, a self-help industry, or any number of forums that discuss how to get what you want out of life.

So it's not exactly cut-and-dry on how to achieve happiness.

[deleted] · Fri May 23 18:03:53 2014 UTC

[permanently deleted]

nope_nic_tesla · 2014-05-26T15:12:40+00:00

Nobody would talk about scientific backing if TRP folks didn't constantly put forth hypotheses about biology and sociology that are testable or have already been tested. It's not a "personal philosophy" when you're claiming objective biological facts.

Title	Do PPD Debaters miss the point of personal philosophy?
Author	pk_atheist
Upvotes	8
Comments	36
Date	May 23, 2014 3:55 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/26b19g/do_ppd_debaters_miss_the_point_of_personal/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-ppd-debaters-miss-the-point-of-personal.285699 https://theredarchive.com/post/285699