TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ChunksOWisdom Archive

View 0 posts and 33 comments by ChunksOWisdom 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)
2

Good point, among my friends consent and healthy sexuality is what we talk about, encourage, and practice so it's easy for me to forget that that's not normal sometimes
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 05:00 AM
2

I totally agree with all the points you listed, thanks for sharing them! That last one puts into words why I was pushing back against your statements about male sexuality, teaching men how to explore their sexuality without hurting anyone is extremely important but telling us that it's inherently harmful is not going to help I don't think
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 04:09 AM
3

What did you think about the rest of my comment? How do you think we should go about preventing men from raping? Do you think telling them that their sexuality is inherently harmful will help?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 01:08 AM
1

Like I said, any sexuality can be used to hurt others if applied nonconsensually. Anybody can rape, it's not their sexuality that's the inherent issue, and I would argue that labeling male sexuality as inherently harmful will lead to more repression and more repression is a recipe for disaster. Instead we should be focusing on targeting men with healthier porn and telling them their sexuality is valid but it's important that they explore it safely and consensually
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 12:59 AM
11

Neither male nor female (or any other sexuality, except ones like pedophilia and bestiality) hurts others though, so what's your point? Any sexuality can be used to hurt others if applied non consensually
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/21 12:07 AM
0

Not every drug is unethical to sell either (well there's the whole no ethical consumption under capitalism but let's not get into that rn)
/r/PurplePillDebate23/02/21 12:06 AM
1

Same. I would probably find it less flattering if it happened often or I ever felt in danger so I get why women don't like it so much, but the one time it did happen (or maybe the one time I noticed) it was very flattering and made me feel happy
/r/PurplePillDebate24/01/21 12:07 AM
2

She should do what she thinks is best and most moral. I can explain why I think certain decisions would be immoral, but ultimately it absolutely should be up to her. I'm starting to agree with you though as I think about the terms of the relationship, since nobody can know for sure that they'll be able to uphold such strong vows they can't really make them morally in the first place. Similar to how certain contracts are determined not to be legally binding in court, it could be that these kinds …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 10:25 PM
2

I care about the thought experiment because otherwise what's the point of having a thought experiment? I'm confused why you're shifting to getting upset about me having an opinion on what the moral thing to do is. Also, I'm not particularly upset or seething, first of all if I had to guess this scenario is extremely rare if it's even happened, but I still find it interesting to learn more about the moral framework I find particularly compelling. Second of all, in the grand scheme of things the n…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 09:49 PM
1

Then she shouldn't leave since she made a commitment not to and it's not harming her to keep it. We're not talking about dating, we're talking about a situation where two people have agreed to stay with each other till death. In dating the unspoken agreement is that anyone can leave any time no matter what, so inadvertently hurting someone by leaving is morally neutral now because they both knew the risks and did it anyways. If that's the agreement (even if unspoken) this married couple has then…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 09:14 PM
1

No, my point is that if you're dissatisfied with the relationship to the point of leaving, it's either negative utility towards you or you can see that it will eventually cause negative utility for you. Either way, it's moral to leave to end or prevent that negative utility She doesn't need to care what I think or what you think, isn't this a thought experiment?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 08:58 PM
2

You CAN, my point is that even an extremely small reason to leave still tips the scale from neutral to negative utility for the person deciding to leave. If the possibility of a different relationship even if it's worse sounds enticing enough to you to leave, then the current one is not actually neutral. Leaving someone is a pretty big change, so you'd need to be far enough into the negative zone (or foresee that negative utility in the future) to motivate that change Like I've said several time…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 08:43 PM
2

That was a typo, sorry. I meant to say the husband remained positive as per the original thought experiment I'm rejecting the premise that if she decides to leave that she was neutral. If she was neutral, why would she leave? If she was neutral she would wait until the better option was there before leaving, instead of leaving for a hypothetical one. If she thinks that her current relationship is preventing her from finding better options for whatever reason, then she's no longer neutral, the re…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 08:02 PM
1

And I've answered for the specific thought experiment where she always remains personally neutral and her husband always remains personally neutral. You're free to go back and read it, it's in the first and last sentence of my previous comment. I'm trying to bring up new ones because that one isn't very realistic. If she's truly neutral, why would she take action to change the current situation?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 07:11 PM
1

Ok, if it doesn't end up changing her perception of it and she's still truly neutral to the situation even being aware of the potential sacrifice, then she should stay If she's aware she's sacrificing and thinks it's a good thing, it's not neutral anymore, she views it as positive which is positive utility for her. If she's aware she's sacrificing and thinks it's not a good thing/it would be better not to sacrifice so much, it's not neutral anymore, she views it as negative which is negative uti…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 06:47 PM
1

So then that sacrifice, if she's aware of it, will end up changing her experience of the relationship from neutral to negative, which will lead to more negativity in the long run than just breaking up right away.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 06:11 PM
1

And I answered for the strict thought experiment, and you haven't refuted it besides by changing neutral to be negative, in which case I agree that leaving is the right thing to do No, it's not self sacrificing. If it was self sacrificing, that would be negative utility, and thus she could ethically, and probably even should, leave. If it's truly neutral it's either not self sacrificing, or it's self sacrificing with an equivalent benefit received from the relationship. That's why I keep bringin…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 05:58 PM
1

My bad, I should have said she is experiencing neutral utility. That said, I think my point still stands, if she's indifferent, I don't see how that won't end up leading to net negative utility eventually. If it was indefinitely truly neutral for her, she truly is indifferent, and he experiences positive utility, then she should stay, because it doesn't make a difference to her, so why would she care enough to leave? If it's because she wants to try to go for the chance of even better, then she'…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 05:22 PM
1

If she is both indifferent and there is a net neutral utility, there would be no reason for her to break up the relationship. If she's fallen out of love with her partner and is unhappy with the relationship so much so that she wants to break up, she's not indifferent and that will end up leading to negative utility, if it hasn't already I said that without more information/at face value it's immoral. Here's my direct quote: "With specific info it's usually understandable why they do, and if one…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 04:54 PM
1

Incorrect. The divorce rate is over 50% and the the breakup rate for relationships is somewhere around 90%. Again, there is no guarantee. To a utilitarian, you wouldn't kill a child in the off-chance it might save two children in the future. You got me there, that's a really good point. I think ultimately it comes back to my argument about consenting people accepting the risks. Then a woman shouldn't ever divorce a man if she falls out of love with him If she fell out of love the relationship ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 04:03 PM
0

To a utilitarian, you wouldn't kill a child in the off-chance it might save two children in the future. Right, but based on what we know looking at the past, the chances are pretty good that both people will end up in a relationship they find positive utility in, so it's a reasonable bet to make. We don't have precedence where killing one baby almost always ends up saving two like we do with relationships. Well that's a different discussion lol the vows were already made from married couples. Ar…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 02:44 PM
1

I meant for him, why would he take action to end the relationship if he's truly neutral about it? I would say it's because in the long run it would be a net positive over a longer period of time since both of them can find a new partner. It may be net negative in the short term, but not the long term. The net negative utility from restricting peoples freedom to hurt themselves (or getting into situations where they could get hurt) would be far worse than the net negative utility of what people c…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 02:12 PM
2

Good point, so assuming it's truly neutral, why would one take action to change or preserve it? I disagree. I think it's totally understandable to act in a way that generates negative utility to satisfy ones basic needs (food, shelter), and I'd probably do it too, but that doesn't change its morality. That said, normally I'd say you should act to maximize positive utility/minimize negative utility, but if two consenting individuals agree to an at will relationship without coercion and with the u…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 05:29 AM
2

I think it would be pretty hard to find true neutral, after a while you'd end up frustrated being stuck with someone who you're entirely neutral to so it would still be net negative eventually. Either way, I think that's a known risk for her entering the relationship, and the positive utility of both of you finding a mutually positive relationship that lasts would end up being more than the negative utility of the breakup
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 04:12 AM
2

Kinda, most I've seen is more along the lines of "if she's acting friendly but she's at work (usually in reference to jobs like waitress or bartender), she's probably not as interested as you think" but I have seen a few like that, although it's rare and I don't really seek out discussions it. That said, you're right I don't think any other moral framework could even start to argue against asking someone out respectfully. Maybe if you start to use weird definitions of virtue or something, but th…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 03:53 AM
1

It really depends how you define utility, and there are different flavors of utilitarianism to account for it's issues, but yeah I get what you're saying. What moral philosophy do you tend to favor? I think all the ones I've seen have their pros and cons, however utilitarianism seems to be the best one so far. That or just using empathy to influence your decisions towards others. I mean yeah, it depends on the situation, but I agree it doesn't make sense to use it to argue against approaching pe…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 02:46 AM
1

Yeah, I just put the respect part in so people wouldn't take what I said and use it to justify being an actual jerk when approaching people, since there's some gray area even with utilitarianism but being disrespectful when approaching moves past the gray area into being wrong imo
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/20 12:32 AM
1

Even if you do subscribe to a utilitarian perspective, I think looking at the likely harm vs likely benefit of approaching people in a respectful way, you could easily justify it. The reality is, it's impossible for anyone to fully calculate the moral impacts of any action, so you have to end up doing fuzzy estimates and use the best information that you have available, as well as accept that most of the time you're probably not acting perfectly morally anyways, and this situation is no differen…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/20 11:30 PM
1

But pain and scars aren't really evolutionarily relevant. Yeah they suck, but unless you were gonna have more kids after but change you mind because of it, they have no impact on you passing on your genes, cause the baby is still out. In the past, without a safe c section, it could mean death for the baby and/or mother, which is evolutionarily relevant since then those thin hip genes didn't get passed on
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/20 11:16 PM
2

If you're intact you can put the condom on in a way where it doesn't, sexplanations on YouTube has a video demonstrating it
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/20 10:33 PM
3

Ops username doesn't lie
/r/PussyPassDenied29/06/17 02:19 PM
1

Lol I meant he's in the friendzone cause he did what he did in the video
/r/PussyPassDenied28/06/17 11:26 PM
-7

Lol that's probably why he's still in the friendzone
/r/PussyPassDenied28/06/17 01:54 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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