TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Big_Tubbz Archive

View 2 posts and 64 comments by Big_Tubbz on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
38

What are the features that identify it as female? (Not denying that it's female, just wondering, because I don't know and I like gorillas)
/r/MensRights22/07/14 02:35 AM
1

But that isn't rescinding your money, and once again it would be entirely unfair to fire someone because they are producing the same relative amount compared to others. That's called the fallacy fallacy, your argument is invalid therefore the conclusion that your argument reaches is also invalid. That's not true, if I was an idiot and arguing for evolution would that make evolution wrong? No, it just means in using a bad argument. When I said "I want" I was demonstrating my opinion on what shoul…
/r/MensRights18/06/14 04:52 AM
1

When did I say that other factors were unimportant? I assumed that people wouldn't be expected to be payed the same when having different jobs. Effort has nothing to do with it, I can put a whole lot of effort into something and do nothing, but if I put a whole lot of work into something, it implies that something is done. Being good or bad at something has nothing to do with it, if you're bad at something then be fired, I don't care. But if you have a disability that means you are as good as yo…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 11:54 PM
1

They are relatively productive. If they pay you up front (most actual businesses do) then they cannot rescind your money later. That's the fallacy fallacy you're using there. Also saying my argument goes against my argument makes no sense. It does use economics as it shows how the economy and the taxpayers would benefit from it, which is economics. I want people to be payed the same for the same amount of work, feelings are entirely irrelevant, not once have I mentioned feelings. I have talked a…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 11:51 PM
1

"Why does my boss get more money than me?" Is adding the factor of having a different job "why do those who have more experience get more money than me?" Is adding the factor of experience. It's adding factors.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 11:18 PM
1

And they are continually productive Being promoted will get you more money, in a hippy commune there wouldn't be any money at all. Being payed more for a higher position that takes more work to run is completely fair. You get more money for more work, no problems there. After they've payed me for building I will build as many as I can, they can't rescind my money and they'll still get houses. If you understand what I am saying how do my arguments go against what my argument is saying? It uses ec…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 03:36 AM
1

You realize that the housing thing is a metaphor right? Building houses just means doing work. People do say "go do this continual thing" and then they pay them and then the person goes out and does that thing. The incentive for improving oneself is probably simply being better and getting promoted. You're not buying 6 houses for the price of ten, you're buying someone to build houses and they build how ever many houses they build. This entire exchange is me using economic and political argument…
/r/MensRights17/06/14 02:39 AM
1

"What can you do" "Build houses" "Okay build houses and I'll pay you" You're making it seem as though these people operate on a system like sales, which, for the majority of the world, isn't true. If you aren't doing the best that you can then you should be fired, that's the incentive.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 01:46 AM
1

But that is what people do, you usually give them money beforehand and then they do the job. So if they don't build as many houses as they can then they should be fired for not doing their jobs, but if the do build as many houses as they can then they should be payed an equal amount to anyone else who built as many houses as they can. This is what actually happens as well.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:27 AM
1

No, you payed them to build as many houses as they can.
/r/MensRights17/06/14 12:03 AM
1

Once again you are adding factors that make it different, obviously years of experience are going to affect you pay. The only metaphor for this is if you are doing x amount of work and a handicapped person is doing x amount of work and the handicapped person is being payed less, that is immoral.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:44 PM
1

No, because that's a different position. You should be payed as much as your peers for the same amount of work.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:35 PM
1

Look, my phone cannot handle this many words at one time, it starts lagging and I can't see what I am writing after a while, and we tend to cover the same points more than once, so here it is in short. People shouldn't be short handed for being who they are as that is unfair and immoral, it is punishment for existence. If people aren't doing as much work as they can then they should be fired, if they are then they should be payed the same as anyone else, to expect more from someone who can't giv…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:25 PM
1

The saying is equal pay for equal work yes? Well these people are doing equal work and to pay them less because of who they are is immoral, unfair, and inhumane. They cannot change these things about them, women can't stop their periods, and the handicapped can't suddenly become I handicapped. If their doing as much work as they can then they should be payed as anyone else doing as much work as they can.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 11:20 PM
0

Actually, I can. I actually explicitly stated that there is a big difference between having a slight hindrance and being able to do nothing at all. Meaning that the differences would be slight and the cost would be incredibly minuscule, not to mention how it would alleviate taxes. Paying people less because of how they were born is and always will be unethical. They are doing the same amount of work and should get payed the same amount.
/r/MensRights16/06/14 07:30 PM
2

a wage is a set amount that you are given, it is not always based on expected productivity, sometimes it is simply a base that you are payed. For example, engineers almost always start at a yearly wage of around 60,000 dollars, how productive they are expected to be is irrelevant. They will still be payed the same amount. Furthermore salaries are more based on how much work people have seen, or have heard, you do. This means that people see how much energy you put into your work and judge you ba…
/r/MensRights16/06/14 05:19 AM
2

The amount of work is what people should be payed for. This notion that the product is what people are payed for is currently false. You aren't payed for the product, you are payed an hourly wage based on the work you do. Effort is irrelevant, work is energy put in, and you are payed for work. If you make 100 widgets you do a set amount of work, if the other person makes 60 widgets he does the same amount of work. So are you saying that people shouldn't be payed for the amount of work they do? I…
/r/MensRights15/06/14 10:51 PM
2

The two in this equation represents the state of the person, obviously this will not always be the same number as the people we are talking about will be in different states. The number given is the amount of leeway they get or in this case it's the less of the product that the person has created (the higher the number the less of the product that is created) and then the outcome is the amount of work done by the person, the amount of work done should equal the amount that the person is payed. S…
/r/MensRights15/06/14 06:18 AM
1

You're trying to simplify a complicated issue, which is a fallacy. There are almost always in-betweens, no complicated issue is black and white. "Either you want to kill babies or you don't" "either you want to protect America or you don't" "either you want to protect marriage or you don't".
/r/MensRights14/06/14 10:13 PM
0

It's not less work. It's the same amount of work, the maximum amount of work that they can do. Furthermore the cost is too minuscule to measure and paying them less is unethical.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 10:11 PM
1

Except you said it was for the same outcome, and changing X while having the two remain is changing the outcome. That would mean that every person (2) is already equal and the help you give them (x) is different. Which isn't the analogy at all, that is just helping reason strangers more than other random strangers, all of whom are equal. It wouldn't be punishing anyone, look at the Canadian system of healthcare, they help people with disease more than people without it, but it that a punishment …
/r/MensRights14/06/14 10:08 PM
1

Well maybe they should be subsidized if they have no control over it. Furthermore I still don't think it's subsidizing if they are putting as much work as possible into it. 2+2=4; 3+1=4; 2+2=3+1 But you aren't using unequal treatment, you just aren't expecting things that they cannot give. They are being treated the same, they do the same amount of work and at the same quality, in proportion, to everyone else. If we pay them less because of who they are then we are being unfair and cruel. My bro…
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:43 AM
1

Also it can mist, there can be showers, there can be fog, it could sprinkle. Water still falls from the sky, but a news station won't call it rain.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:25 AM
1

Then it's the black/white fallacy. I knew it was one of the two. Example: Whilst rallying support for his plan to fundamentally undermine citizens' rights, the Supreme Leader told the people they were either on his side, or they were on the side of the enemy. There is an in between, you're just over simplifying things to appear as the only good option.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:24 AM
1

You aren't subsidizing others, if you were then they would be treated better, you are supporting others. It's the same with public healthcare, you aren't subsidizing others, you are helping them be equals and getting them past their disabilities. Treating them as equals for something that is out of their control.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:22 AM
0

The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can expect realistic amounts of work from people and still have capitalism. If it were communism then people who do less due to a decision they consciously made to do less would be treated the same as those who work their hardest. At most it's socialism. We aren't talking about what's happening, we're talking about what should be and what is fair.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:19 AM
1

You can fix motivation, just look at /r/gemotivated for evidence of that. You cannot control biological processes like losing a limb or having a period.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:15 AM
2

Atheism is also on there. I am just making people aware that were on there, I included nothing else.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:13 AM
1

How is anyone being punished?
/r/MensRights14/06/14 05:12 AM
1

It's not a simple problem, trying to simplify it doesn't make it simple, it changes the issue. There's actually a name for this, I think it is called casual reductionism.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:15 AM
1

Then that's not they're fault and we shouldn't punish them for something they have no control over.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 01:14 AM
1

Same with anyone, they'll still do 100% of what they can.
/r/MensRights14/06/14 12:36 AM
1

No, because there wouldn't be a cost. Or it would be too minuscule to measure. The business wouldn't be harmed by the worker.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 11:01 PM
1

Yes. If it's something that they can change then they should change it, if it's not then we shouldn't punish them for being alive.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:33 PM
0

What is your point?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:32 PM
0

What I am asking for is fair treatment, not communism. I am not asking that people who do not work get the same stuff as those who do. I am asking that people who do as much work as they can regardless of medical condition be given the same stuff as other who do as much as they can regardless of medical condition. Not communism, it is far from communism. Just don't expect people who can't do as much to do more than they can.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:32 PM
0

If the one armed person has no choice in being one armed aren't we punishing him simply for existing if we treat him worse?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 10:29 PM
1

If they work hard then there would hardly be a cost. It wouldn't harm the company or any of it's employees. This of course has exceptions where the job becomes physically impossible for the employee to complete (I.E. Male wetnurse)
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:58 PM
0

Even if it's for a short period (pun)? If people with disabilities should be realized to have those disabilities and be treated equally. We should not force people to do more than they can, and we should pay them the same even if the quality of their work is less than someone else. Otherwise they are stuck forever being payed very little and hardly advancing in life, which is unfair and unequal. If it is out of their control then why should they be blamed?
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:53 PM
0

If you're lazy and don't do the work then you should be fired.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:22 PM
1

And that's what's fucked up. We're not talking about what is, we're talking about what's fair.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:20 PM
0

No, but, if the company has a employees working at 100% and one employee is messed up biologically, they should not be punished for something they cannot change. As long as the employee can still do their job and aren't harming the company then they should be payed the same amount.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 08:20 PM
1

I think having one arm and juggling (even if only decent) improves the act in itself. Accounting (like most jobs) really only relies on intelligence and attitude, having one arm would affect the speed at which the work gets done, but if the work gets done then there would be no reason to fire you.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 07:29 PM
0

Do you know what determinism is? It's a philosophy. It's the idea that everything in the universe is controlled by physics and free will doesn't exist at all. Basically everything is genetic. It's entirely philosophy. We do pay people with ADHD the same as others. And once again I did say I was determinist so I do think most everything is genetic. But even with ADHD you have some control over how you act, you can try or not, regardless of ADHD.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 06:59 PM
1

Well now you're getting into philosophy, and while I am (much like you) a determinist, I still think that some things are more obviously influenced by genetics. When I talk about something being biological I mainly mean physical problems, not personality problems. Something they can't change whereas you do have some control over your intelligence and personality (or at least there is some semblance that you do).
/r/MensRights13/06/14 05:40 PM
3

Probably, I was just making people aware that it was a thing.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:56 PM
1

If the one armed man could juggle I would hire him as a juggler and pay him extra, that would be amazing. There is a difference between hindered and biologically impossible.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:56 PM
1

They are trying to do the same amount of work, and as soon as it becomes possible for them to do the same amount of work then they should do the same amount of work. But if they are being hindered by something they cannot change then they shouldn't be held accountable for it. If they are hindered by apathy or ignorance then they should be fired. Well you have to care for a child, you shouldn't be punished for being a good parent.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:54 PM
1

Is that a danger to themselves or others? Yes, it is both a danger to the man and the baby. There is also a difference between biology hindering you and biology making it physically impossible for you to do something, if the latter is the case then you shouldn't have been hired in the first place.
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:51 PM
6

Well once again it's biology, women don't really get a choice in having their period or not, at best they can't control when it happens, but it still happens. I mean I wouldn't fire a guy with one arm because that would be cruel, he's got no choice in the matter. They can still do a decent job, it's not like having a period makes them stop working entirely. I think it's entirely fair to men, if a guy has a medical problem that lowers his work quality I think that he should be payed the same amou…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:24 PM
1

I feel like a few of those options are a little biased. If you phrase them the way you do you're probably going to get less of some and more of the other, which would make the results come out in an incredibly biased way that doesn't represent the truth. You're probably not going to get many "psychos" or "feminazis" even though there are a few (not many but a few).
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:10 PM
19

I think that women should be payed the same despite the cycle. I feel that if it is something that you cannot change due to your own basic biology then you shouldn't be marked down for it. There is an exception to this in cases where your biology would come as a danger to yourself and others. This issue is the same as the issue for payed maternity leave, when women are giving birth people wonder if they should be payed for their job or not. I of course say yes they should as they are doing somet…
/r/MensRights13/06/14 04:07 PM
6

The problem with things like change.org is that it gives everyone a voice in the government, and the dumb people tend to be the loudest.
/r/MensRights12/06/14 02:12 PM
5

It's really sad when someone's presuppositions actually begin to harm them.
/r/MensRights11/06/14 05:36 AM
4

Oh, I didn't expect that. Sorry, guess I've been spending too much time on /r/quityourbullshit
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:50 PM
1

I notice you've existed for an hour and this is your only post. Is that because this is a throwaway or because you are searching for karma?
/r/MensRights29/05/14 10:05 PM
25

This just reminds me of the whole "do you drink water? So does hitler" thing. Even if it was connected MRA still wouldn't be bad at base.
/r/MensRights24/05/14 04:46 PM
5

I think that it is both incredibly funny and pretty sexist, but I think a lot of sexist/racist stuff is funny. /r/imgoingtohellforthis is one of my favorite subreddits.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 05:33 AM
2

Honestly, normally I see a system on abortion that I would see as unfair to women, but the way you portray this op, I think I have to agree with you. It's seems pretty balanced, but what would the mom do about the period where she is having the baby and can't come into work?
/r/MensRights08/05/14 04:27 AM
2

Yes atheism plus, no to the rest.
/r/MensRights13/04/14 12:41 AM
4

What is with the "atheist" thing? Seriously I see no connection between men's rights and atheism.
/r/MensRights12/04/14 03:18 AM
3

Any links to the actual photo? It looks nice and raises a good point.
/r/MensRights25/02/14 08:22 AM
2

Ok I don't mean to take anyone's eyes away from the point of the post here, and the picture is disgusting, but am I the only one who is reminded of Tina fey by mother (similar faces I guess)?
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:04 AM
9

Not nearly as bad, billy ray isn't undressing her.
/r/MensRights13/02/14 08:02 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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