TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Babylegs_O_Houlihan Archive

View 0 posts and 47 comments by Babylegs_O_Houlihan on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
-5

You guys are the ones making claims without proof, not me. I'm just saying people won't believe you because you've not met the burden of proof.
/r/TheRedPill15/01/14 04:13 PM
1

Men like girls with big tits, is it hypocritical to be a man without tits and want big tits in a girl? Which is physically impossible. It's not because you can't really hold yourself to a standard that is physically impossible. A statistic such as number of sexual partners can be compared. It's not a physical impossibility and everyone in the world starts at the same point. Do you have to be super feminine also? I'd honestly need you to define 'feminine' first. I don't know what you mean by that…
/r/TheRedPill15/01/14 02:32 PM
1

For most other guys in this sub, most of them don't plan on settling down. They're just gonna spin plates for the rest of their lives. Fair point, and if that's their plan I wish them all the luck in the world. I'm not really addressing that, though, as this comment thread started out being about LTRs. For a girl its a shitload easier. You just have to say yes, to accept mens offers. Its hard to be a stud, but its easy to be a slut. Let's call this the main point you're trying to make since, wel…
/r/TheRedPill15/01/14 02:11 PM
-4

And you don't seem to understand how logic works. In an argument, if someone makes a generalization and you can find just one example of where that generalization fails, their argument/point fails. If you want to generalize you usually use the words 'generally', 'most', or some other word to note that you're generalizing. Just saying 'women do x' is not a generalization, but a sweeping statement.
/r/TheRedPill15/01/14 02:00 PM
-18

You seem to be making large leaps in logic and jumping to conclusions. What makes you think everything a woman says has some hidden meaning to it, purposeful or not? Do you have a credible source that actually studies this using the scientific method? If not, I don't think you can safely say ALL women do this unconsciously.
/r/TheRedPill15/01/14 06:34 AM
1

It's only hypocritical because you come from the perspective that male and female desire is identical. It's not. We value different things in each other. No, it's hypocritical because your holding someone else to standards you don't adhere to. The definition of hypocritical does not even touch the topic of context or perspective. And, arguably, every male could do it if they wanted to. It's not that huge an accomplishment. Hookers exist, you just need a few dollars. A woman might demand I be fin…
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 10:35 PM
1

It's entirely on men if they wish to sleep around too and I just see it as disgustingly hypocritical to demand that of a SO in a LTR while not holding yourself to the same standards. And I'm not sure why guys on this subreddit don't find it that way as well.
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 07:09 PM
1

So how is it not hypocritical for a man to demand a low number of sexual partners for women that they have a relationship with while having slept with every (or nearly every) beautiful woman that will have sex with them?
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 07:07 PM
2

I respect you for your honesty and I really respect your view. I have a followup question if you don't mind me asking. How would you feel about a woman who does feel that way and demands the same from a man they fancy?
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 04:00 PM
1

It was the hitting someone for threatening you - illegal if just verbal everywhere and illegal even if phsical in a duty to retreat state if you didn't attempt to get away first. Regardless, this was meant as a quip and is not pertinent to our discussion. Legality has nothing to do with ethics, though they may overlap on some topics they are still mutually exclusive. True, you are entitled to disagree with the ethics and that was the heart of my question. I'm asking how someone could fly in the …
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 03:55 PM
1

Sin != ethics in any definition of the two words. Sins are breaking divine law, ethics are moral principles that are established by the zeitgeist of a society. Example: Owning a slave is not a sin at all but is ethically wrong. I'm not even going to touch the legal responsibility you're breaking with your example. So back to my question, how can you ethically do that?
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 03:30 PM
1

I understand and appreciate you taking the time to create the reply. I guess my question would not really be for you, then, since you don't really demand that of a partner. However, for a subreddit that constantly screams inequality of the sexes, it seems pretty hypocritical of those that do demand this of a woman to go sleeping around like a 'slut' and using the manipulation presented in this sub. And those are the ones my question would be more geared towards.
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 03:22 PM
1

Considering sin doesn't exist, no. However, my question was geared towards the ethics of the situation. I can't see how you can ethically demand this of a woman for a long time relationship while you purposely ruin the same desirability of another.
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 03:09 PM
3

But women are not cars, they are humans. Your metaphor doesn't really work here. I mean you can light a car on fire if you wanted and were on your own property without risking jail time (assuming no insurance fraud attempt, of course).
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 02:35 PM
1

Okay but based off what I read in this subreddit, and maybe I'm processing the information wrong or missing something, women literally can't help it but become seduced when the techniques presented here are used on them. If I am subscribed to the beliefs presented this is where I become flummoxed - How can you ethically have a one night stand, or even knowingly enter what you intend to be a short term relationship, and then when you are ready for marriage or a long term relationship have a requi…
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 02:09 PM
1

Okay but based off what I read in this subreddit, and maybe I'm processing the information wrong or missing something, women literally can't help it but become seduced when the techniques presented here are used on them. If I am subscribed to the beliefs presented this is where I become flummoxed - How can you ethically have a one night stand, or even knowingly enter what you intend to be a short term relationship, and then when you are ready for marriage or a long term relationship have a requi…
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 02:09 PM
15

Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. I don't get this mentality. You're trying to have sex with a woman but you don't want them to sleep around. But you don't want a long term relationship. So in your mind you're doing to her exactly what you don't want in a woman, driving up her number of partners.
/r/TheRedPill14/01/14 05:23 AM
2

I have not known anyone that went to marriage counseling that did not say their counselor was anything but neutral and allowed both to express their feelings and concerns.
/r/TheRedPill09/01/14 06:10 PM
1

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_retreat
/r/TheRedPill22/12/13 05:19 AM
1

Not literally run but you're obligated to attempt to escape before fighting back and as soon as you can.
/r/TheRedPill22/12/13 04:38 AM
1

That doesn't change the rules of logic. Sorry. You lose.
/r/TheRedPill21/12/13 11:02 AM
1

Actually, it does. That's exactly how burden of proof works. I don't believe you isn't a claim. It is a statement about belief of a claim you made. I'm rejecting the claims that were made because no evidence exists to prove them. That is debate 101.
/r/TheRedPill21/12/13 01:33 AM
1

I have not made a claim . I'm saying I don't believe the decision was reached based on the gender of the victim/accused. I don't need to provide evidence for saying "I don't believe you , prove it. ".
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 11:54 PM
2

For issues like depression therapy helps tremendously. But it is really just a supplement. The antidepressants help lift you out of the terrible mood you're in while talking to the therapist gives you someone to voice your problems and struggles to. Plus if they are any good then they will actually care that you get better. Therapy saved my life when I was a teen. For things such as marriage counseling, I can see it being nice to have a neutral third party to go to that can help sort out problem…
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 06:11 PM
2

Nope, I did.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 02:25 PM
1

I don't use this site when I'm near a computer. Doing it on my phone take significantly more work and when I'm on the go, I don't necessarily have the time to do that.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 01:41 PM
2

You're assuming I'm embarrassed or something. I really don't care. I'm not eligible on the subject and is both relevant and providing reason for some outcomes. Just because you don't like the wall or live in a place for the law does not count for you doesn't make it disappear.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 01:31 PM
1

Unfortunately, just because it is difficult to prove does not mean that the responsibility of the person making a claim to provide evidence changes.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 01:17 PM
0

Proving your point is not the job of your opponent in a debate.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 01:06 PM
3

Well most situations can be talked out of, if they can't I doubt they want to literally murder you so you should be able to leave or run away comfortably. They'll just call you names/make fun of you/embaress you but this is just grand standing bullshit so it can be ignored. Those that aren't can usually be solved by giving them your wallet (mugging/robbery). If their goal is to literally murder you, the evidence will be on your side, if you survive.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 12:45 PM
2

No but I teach self defense on my off time. I take it as a responsibility to know and teach this to my students.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 12:33 PM
3

If they chase you then that allows you to escalate because they are not allowing you to escape. You shouldn't really take run away literally. More, attempt to leave.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 03:40 AM
-3

I'm not trying to infer that you're bad at your job. It's just that a lot of people on this site safe things without any evidence to back it up. That just drives me nuts. So whenever I come across a post that does that I usually try to make a point to call them out on it. Please don't take it personally.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 01:54 AM
-5

Yeah I am. There is no interpretation, that is the law. Unless you can come up with an example of a case where the judge dismiss the charges of a woman reading a Man when he claims he was drunk, then you were just talking out of your ass. The default position this logic is to assume that they are treated the same because that is how the judge will treat it.
/r/TheRedPill20/12/13 01:32 AM
-17

I don't see why that would be the case. Do you have an example where the judge dismissed an allegation of rape in which a man presses these charges against a woman because he was drunk. The court systems take allegations of rape pretty seriously, regardless of gender.
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 11:04 PM
3

Well these laws exist because fighting is illegal except for sanctioned events. Which is why they defined self defense as such. A last resort with an obligation to retreat the moment you are able to. The logic being if you're fighting it's because you have an ego problem and need to prove something. If you're truly defending yourself you'd be running away the moment you get the chance to, anyway. Which is why I wouldn't recommend any form of self defense classes that focus on grappling. If you e…
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 10:39 PM
4

Well, pretty much. Unless you're 100% she won't cry rape the next morning. But I don't really see this as sexist. If a woman jumps a man's bone while he is drunk, he could theoretically press charges for rape against her if he truly felt she raped him.
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 10:03 PM
2

I agree it's not the best law and unfortunately no one law can account for every possible situation. But I see the reason it exists. Being beaten for 45 minutes, I don't wish that on my worst enemy. I really hope OP is exercising hyperbole. I was mainly offering an alternative reason as to the outcome. I try to use Occham's Razor when possible and I really can't see a situation where a cop arrives to a scene where someone was beaten for 45min and punishes the victim. Sexist or not. It doesn't ma…
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 07:58 PM
2

The charges would not have been dropped in duty to retreat. Both would be charged by the state and fined/jailed depending on prior arrest history. And based on the story, it doesn't sounds like OP called the authorities, which is a mistake. It sounds like she called the cops after the fact and told them whatever she told them (he hit her or whatever) meaning they only got her side of the story and will default to believing the person who reported it. Whether right or wrong, if someone reports an…
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 07:29 PM
5

Well I don't necessarily agree the laws, but the idea behind them is self defense (meaning fighting back) is the absolute last resort. You should look to escape the situation. Basically, fighting back is not allowed to be your go-to reaction. It needs to escalate to that first. If someone hits you, you need to try to run away/escape the area. If they follow you then you are allowed to retaliate within reason. Meaning if they fall down you can't mount them and arm bar them, you have to run away. …
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 07:19 PM
-8

It really sounds like OP was in a duty to retreat state. In those states, if you fight back in self defense without making a reasonable attempt to run away or leave the establishment you will be charged as if you squared off and fought the other person. This has nothing to do with gender. Basically, it is highly probable OP would have gotten the same judgement had the other person been a male. This is assuming he lives in a duty to retreat state. Which it sounds like based on his summary of the …
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 06:42 PM
1

45 minutes of a beating? I really hope this is hyperbole. But I do want to say that if you don't live in a stand your ground state then you would get the same results from a court if it was a man. If you dont try to run away in those states, you don't have the right to fight back. The sex of the other person doesn't matter.
/r/TheRedPill19/12/13 05:16 PM
0

I did. That's not an explanation, just an end result. I'm not following the logic where losing masculinity would cause the end of the human race.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 11:43 PM
-3

Please explain how that would spell the end of the human race.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 09:53 PM
-6

This reads like a Red Dawn masturbation fantasy for both sides. One where men are no longer needed and the other side where if masculinity isn't preserved it will spell the end for the human race as we know it. And neither side is producing facts beyond anecdotes.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 07:41 PM
7

Well if she told him not to hug her and he did that is sexual harassment.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 04:28 PM
1

Unfortunately that whole essay is nothing but personal anecdotes. Unless he has actual data to back it up, it really has no merit. Hell, I can discredit it easily by saying that my experience was nothing like that in high school or college and I can safely say that I was, and still am, a pretty big nerd.
/r/TheRedPill16/12/13 03:36 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter