TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Competitive-Solid-63 Archive

View 1 post and 52 comments by Competitive-Solid-63 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)
22

CMVCompetitive-Solid-63/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:03 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I’m not setting some kind of logical trap. Every religious tenet serves a worldly purpose. Many exist to support an ordered society, eg. Thou shall not kill, steal, etc. The focus on sexual purity - which, by the way, applies to men and women - falls into this category. Others exist to strengthen the church’s numbers. Homosexuality, masturbation, birth control? Those things waste the seed that could be used to make more Jewish, Christian, etc. babies (this is especially prevalent in the Old Test…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/22 01:26 AM
1

Yep. I’m not a scientist. Have stated that a bunch of times in this thread. Nowhere do I present it as anything beyond theory, and a paradigm that I have found helpful, and that others may benefit from considering. I’ve also acknowledged the error in regard to breast size and milk production a few times in the thread. Clearly I need to edit the OP to make that known.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 05:52 PM
1

I read your original comment and this one, and all I can say is that it’s flawed and unintelligible to the point that it doesn’t warrant the enormous amount of time it would take to refute. I think you’ll see that I’m reasonable in responding to reasonable arguments in this thread, but what you’ve written is either designed to be confusing or just plain shitty writing and reasoning.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 05:46 PM
1

Uh-huh. Then, when presented with evidence to the contrary, I acknowledged my error. That’s what people capable of having constructive discussions do. Would you feel better if I changed the OP?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 05:37 PM
1

To the contrary, if women have sex with more partners, it increases the supply of sex, thus spreading the wealth, so to speak.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:16 PM
2

Discussing this elsewhere, but why does the church hold the views it holds? There’s a reason for everything.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:11 PM
1

Absolutely, we don’t exist in a vacuum. The theories of ES are a baseline for human behavior. As humans, we can and do make decisions that run counter to that baseline based on any number of factors.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:08 PM
1

Yes, I do, it’s acknowledged and addressed in another thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:01 PM
1

I just asked a question. This isn’t a competition. Maybe you didn’t understand what happened was asking, though. Why do the religions you’re referring to hold the views they hold?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:00 PM
1

Brilliantly stated.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 04:50 AM
1

And what informs religion (assuming neither of us believe that god does)?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 04:46 AM
1

We’ll just have to disagree for now. There’s a lot to unpack there, and it’s late and I have work in the AM. Hopefully I’ll be able to come back to this later.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 04:44 AM
1

Yes, it’s extraordinarily varied, and there are certainly many other factors and influences at play. Indeed, what constitutes “strong” changes based on context. But what it means in a modern setting is at least one of: of healthy/fit, financially stable/a good provider or strong probability of becoming one. There are no contexts or societies that I’m aware of in which the norm is to seek or select a man possessing the opposite of those attributes. Does it happen in narrower contexts? Sure, all t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 04:39 AM
1

why are monogamy and purity men’s preference?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 03:26 AM
2

So you’re saying that women’s preferences are completely random?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 03:21 AM
1

I think the problem with your argument is that you fail to ask “why?” Do you think societal norms happen spontaneously? WHY is sex good? Just because it is? Or is it because we need an incentive to further the species? WHY is there not a derogatory word for a promiscuous male, but a million for a promiscuous female? Everything you mentioned can easily be correlated to evolutionary psychology.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 03:17 AM
1

Yes, it is not the only force at play or only consideration.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 03:05 AM
1

Do you mean heavily pregnant with another man’s child?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:43 AM
0

It doesn’t assume that anything happened always. It does, however, assume that, generally speaking, women have had some say more often than not. Incidentally, being married off can be seen as a form of natural selection by proxy, as parents determine who their daughter will wed based on at least one positive attribute - namely wealth. Rape occurs outside of female selection. If it had a basis in female selection it wouldn’t be rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:41 AM
2

I’m not sure I follow.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:21 AM
1

But what informs or motivates that culture? What other logical explanation is there for homophobia?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:19 AM
1

That sounds logical, and I’m not saying that everything that doesn’t conform to what I described is absolutely devoid of evolutionary advantages, just that there’s a norm that came to be because it’s the most evolutionary advantageous.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:18 AM
1

I think that’s a great question. First, I think that it’s seen as justification for all kinds of unpleasant things like male infidelity, and the previously mentioned double standard to name a couple. What I think these women fail to understand is that I’m not coming from a place of judgement. As far ad I’m concerned, people are entitled to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyones rights or otherwise harm them. But this is a discussion of innate traits with an evolutionary …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 02:03 AM
1

That may be the case. I’m not an expert or a scientist. Just a reasonably intelligent - and I’d like to think logical - person who things that the theories I put forth hold water, and as such, provide valuable insight into something men and women - especially those in this sub - struggle to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 01:41 AM
1

I absolutely concur. And I don’t think I stated or presented my view as fact. If I have that impression, it was not intentional.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 01:35 AM
1

I’m certainly not arguing that any of this is bulletproof, or that I’m an expert or scientist. It’s simply a paradigm that I read about years ago and have done some cursory reading about in the intervening period. I have found it to be helpful, and thought it may be helpful to the many people who seem confounded by the behavior of the opposite sex in general. The case of preference for strength vs stability that you bring up is a really interesting one, but i think it’s based on a false dichotom…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 01:33 AM
4

Sure. When you’re talking about human behavior, everything can and does happen. This discussion is really about a macro, rather than a micro, view of human behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:33 AM
1

I don’t think any of those definitions apply to the way I have approached the discussion, though I’m sure it’s presented as such by some. I think where things get sideways is when it’s applied to individual instances. I see it as a macro, rather than a micro view - maybe “evolutionary sociology” would be more appropriate?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/22 12:30 AM
0

Works for me. I’m not an actual scientist. Just someone with a paradigm that I find helpful in understanding innately complex relationships - it’s also great fodder for debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:25 PM
1

Agreed. It works for me, and nothing more.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:23 PM
2

Yes. EP is definitely theory that attempts to apply a logical construct to observed behavior. I just happen to think that it’s a highly viable concept.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:21 PM
1

I agree. It’s just a very interesting construct to me personally.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:19 PM
1

There is absolutely strength in genetic diversity.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:16 PM
1

Yes. A theory that I ascribe to on a logical basis.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:15 PM
1

Good points. I think the explanation is that societal evolution happens light years faster than biological evolution. Just because something is genetically advantageous or instinctual doesn’t make it advisable or moral.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:14 PM
4

She also has children that aren’t his that will compete with his offspring for resources.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:09 PM
1

Perfectly willing to admit that it’s not provable, or that it explains everything about everyone in every situation. But, personally, that in itself doesn’t shake my belief in the general validity of the concepts. What WOULD shake - or modify - my beliefs are logical arguments to the contrary. For example, a commenter pointed out that there is no correlation between breast size and milk production. I had assumed, erroneously, that there was. As a result, my beliefs around that particular aspect …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 07:08 PM
0

The commenter didn’t say anything about my being unwilling to change my opinion, nor am I. Read my other comments if you need evidence of that. The commenter’s assertion was that I was incapable of understanding or providing a logical response to his statements because I hold a differing view is an ad hominem attack. So, with all die respect, both of your assertions are patently false.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:57 PM
1

All valid points. And as I mentioned elsewhere, I’m not a scientist and don’t claim to be. The best “evidence” I have is a very high degree of correlation. I recognize that causation can’t be absolutely determined, but I am personally firm in the construct as a paradigm for understanding something that seems to confound a lot of people.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:46 PM
2

They are absolutely generalizations, but not necessarily oversimplifications. The correlation between strength and ability to defend one’s interests physically should be understood. The breast thing is admittedly a little more tenuous. Someone pointed out that there os no correlation between milk production and breast size, and that is true. However, I would argue that there is a correlation to sexual maturity and possibly health.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:39 PM
1

I can only speak for myself, but I’m not deeply invested in any interpretation. I am interested in a logical framework for things that otherwise seem to confound and often upset people - the often personal debates that occur in this sub being a prime example. From a scientific standpoint, I don’t think it necessary that anything be absolutely provable to be worth explanation or otherwise irrelevant to the way we view the world. But admittedly, I’m not a scientist.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:31 PM
2

Simple supply and demand. Lots of demand from men, relatively little from women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:21 PM
1

Your assertion about multiple mates is logical, but we have to ask where a general predilection toward casual sex for men, and commitment for women - and the double standard that it produces - comes from. If your hypothesis were true, it seems to me that the norm wouldn’t be what it is / has been. You make a good point about breast size. I would think there’s some correlation to reproductive maturity or perceived health, given the general preference, but that may just be confirmation bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 06:17 PM
1

The argument that things like selection for strength related to physical protection are archaic isn’t invalid, but the problem with it is that evolution lags societal changes, and strength still signals health and genetic viability.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 04:06 PM
2

I agree that it’s not linear. It can be true that, in a direct sense, homosexuality isn’t generally evolutionarily advantageous, and that there may be indirect evolutionary advantages.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:57 PM
0

Ah, the old ad hominem attack from someone without a logical leg to stand on.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:52 PM
3

Problem is, every shit example you give is, indeed, shit. Sure, YOU can make any assertion and draw fallacious correlations, but that doesn’t make the statements that are actually supported by evo psych less valid.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:41 PM
1

There’s no such thing as an incontrovertible theory. Incontrovertible concepts are laws, and nowhere do I argue that any aspect of evolutionary psychology is a scientific law. By the same token, I’m sure you understand that many things widely accepted as fact are not incontrovertible. Further, I hope I don’t need to point out the disconnect between implying that I don’t (and you do) know what evolutionary psychology “actually” is, then citing Wikipedia as a source of edification.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:34 PM
1

Can you elaborate?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:15 PM
1

Can you elaborate?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 03:15 PM
1

How about “everyone has different preferences?”
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/22 02:28 PM
1

I’m new to this whole discussion, but it’s fascinating to me. Context: I’m 48 years old. I’ve been married for nearly 20 years. My wife was objectively pretty, great body, etc. when I met her. (She still is.) She has her Masters in counseling. By most any standards a catch. Here’s the thing, though: looks wise, at the time I was maybe a 7-8/10. I’m 5’11” had a pretty average body, and I certainly wasn’t making anywhere near $100k at the time. I lived in a shitty apartment and drove a not great c…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/22 01:59 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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