TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Japicx Archive

View 0 posts and 24 comments by Japicx 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)
1

In accordance with my ultimatum in my last post I shouldn't continue this conversation, but I will anyway because it seems like we're making some headway at last. If the ethics are defined by the purpose or goal it becomes obvious. Like: "If I want to cook the chicken, I ought to put it in the oven." It's just a trivial view of morals and ethics. If you defined ethics that way, it's true that ethics would be trivial. So trivial, in fact, they're not even ethics anymore, it's just practical advic…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/16 09:00 AM
1

Either, all that matters is that it isn't an inherent attribute. "All that matters" is that what isn't an inherent attribute? Human cooperativeness? Being worthy of help? Something else? Yes this is what I just said. If you agree that it's hard to tell which behaviours are natural, then what role does natural behaviour play in your worldview? I'm still unclear on what your position is supposed to be. This isn't really about racism. It's about how collectivism is about a duty to the group (which …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/04/16 06:21 AM
2

No, people tend to extend more cooperation to kin than to others. People draw lines at different levels. Except universal collectivist BPers who push it out to all people. What you mean by "cooperation"? Do you mean any assistance at all, or continued, stable cooperation for the good of all parties involved? A lot of kin relationships are of a non-cooperative "provider-dependant" nature anyway, so why use kin as a model of "cooperation"? When you say "People draw lines at different levels", what…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/04/16 07:37 AM
3

That is contradictory. No it's not. At first it sounded like you were saying the genetic relationship between a parent and child creates a basis for moral duty, because children partially "are" their parents. But now you're saying that because parents naturally feel that they should care for their children, it's moral for them to do so. On that basis, it would be moral for people to care for total strangers if that's how most people naturally (presumably genetically) felt, but according to your …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 08:13 PM
3

Well rational egoism stems from psychological egoism. It is the normative form. So you will have to consult biology for that. So what you're saying is that genetics is actually irrelevant, what matters is that people naturally feel a duty to protect their families. I also don't see how psychological egoism is normative at all, it's just descriptive. "People tend to behave in ways that benefit themselves" does not entail that people should act that way. And it's good for the community to have fir…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 06:59 PM
3

Doing things like protecting your children is also something that falls under psychological egoism. Genetically speaking other family members range as different percentages of you, so preservation is also extended that way. Neighbors are generally allies and have direct benefits in assisting. Percentage of me =/= me. So why does it matter? Genetically speaking, every person on the planet is a "percentage of me" simply by virtue of having a human genome. And why does it matter if neighbours "are …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 05:46 PM
5

Yes, well killing yourself is generally where you would have to stop. But preservation generally extends to children and some family. Also neighbors, generally makes a lot of sense. After that, it becomes more obfuscated. This makes no sense. If I want to kill myself, why should I stop? What if I think it's in my own self-interest to die? If I'm an egoist, I have no duty to anyone else. Whether they're my family or neighbours or whatever, the fact that they're not me is sufficient for me to conc…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 06:00 AM
3

It doesn't, that is the individualist claim. How do you prevent everything from being permissible? People can have just about anything as a goal, even if it's self-destructive. If I wanted to destroy humanity in a nuclear holocaust, myself included, could you say that I shouldn't? No, ethics, not identity. You are still mixing it up. Fine, I don't get the distinction you're trying to make. Explain it to me. They're trying to shame racist ethics, but not racist identity? And why is racists gettin…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 03:40 AM
1

I agree that it's wrong, even outrageously so, but the statements flying around are so laughably hyperbolic. The real issue is that someone was forced to take on a huge responsibility that shouldn't be theirs. All this other stuff about DNA and princesses and being "robbed of all his money" is ridiculous and distracts from the actual issue of false paternity suits. Like I think it's pretty uncontroversial that falsely identifying someone as the father of your child is wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 01:52 AM
6

First of all, what you describe as "individualism" is closer to "egoism". So for a long time I was confused about what you were talking about. Deontological ethics aren't inherently "collectivist". They don't rely on a collective of any sort. Kantian ethics, for example, is deontological and based on reason. In his system, every person on earth could, in principle, incorrectly think that something was immoral and it wouldn't change anything. I also don't see how "People shouldn't steal" is colle…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/04/16 01:21 AM
9

Normative statements and identity have literally nothing to do with each other. Example of a normative statement: People shouldn't steal one another's belongings. Example of identity statement: I am a heterosexual white man. How do these have any bearing on one another? There is no logical reason to think that they impact each other at all. There are some normative statements that include identity (like "Men shouldn't cry"), but these are inextricably bound up with culture and so cannot be objec…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 11:34 PM
4

You seem to be a very confused person. I can't make any sense out of what you're saying. "Racist" and "misogynist" can be used as terms of identity too. If I call someone a racist, I'm making a statement about (to some extent) their identity. They can be identified as a racist, which is an identity that most people (especially BPers as you understand them) dislike intensely. Identifying with an unusual sexual designation ("trans-bi-poly-queer" in your words) is evidence of individualism. It show…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 11:12 PM
6

So the logic here is that because men are more individualistic, they form groups because as a group they are better able to meet their individual needs. That's hardly different from being collectivist. The only differences I can think of are that the individualists would be less likely to have a concept of collective responsibility or mutual accountability, and that an individualist would be more inclined to leave the group if he felt he could better provide for himself on his own. But by your o…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 09:35 PM
1

You're talking about the non-father being made to pay child support? He can still pass his on his DNA, it's not like the situation makes him infertile or something. And he's not "paying for the privilege of a princess", he's paying for (a part of) the upbringing of a child. If it's not his child and the woman forced this responsibility on him against his will, that's fucked up, but the stuff about princesses and DNA is moot.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 07:44 PM
3

The Jezebel article doesn't say that the female bombers are absolved of moral responsibility at all. Your quote says "female suicide terrorists are aware of their actions, they are not innocent bystanders". The quote is just saying that the methods used to coerce women into suicide terrorism are different than those used on men. It doesn't claim that coercion = zero responsibility. But anyway, my point wasn't about coercion, it was about viewing women as moral agents. The posted I responded to s…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 07:33 PM
3

I don't understand. Men are naturally individualistic, but masculine individualism is normative (meaning that it is a culturally instilled value that men should be more individualistic), which is why men "try to group together from an identity standpoint"? So does masculine individualism come from nature or culture (or both)? The "grouping together" thing doesn't follow at all; if men are more individualistic, they shouldn't have a strong tendency to form group-based identities. The problem that…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 06:17 PM
0

Maybe the woman actually cares who the dad is. Also, this doesn't at all affect men's ability to pass on their DNA. It still gets passed on even if they don't know about it, so I don't know what you're on about there.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 11:38 AM
1

Canadian actually, but Dutch by heritage :)
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 11:22 AM
-1

Explaining Red Pill is not the same thing as explaining why it's the real nature of the world.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 10:28 AM
1

I could be a lot more delusional, as I've literally never seen it happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 09:08 AM
1

But we don't treat women as moral agents. When it comes to women, we don't examine their behavior through the same lens as we would with a man. We put on a "goofy girl" filter, even when she does something that if it were done by a man, would get him beaten or killed. "We don't treat women as moral agents" as an unqualified statement is total nonsense. If you actually believed that, you wouldn't hold a woman morally responsible for blowing up a hospital or something like that. What kind of thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 05:54 AM
1

No, I've only been in one relationship, which is in its fifth year now. No, shit-testing seems supremely dickish. No, I never saw casual sex as attractive. Yes, but I don't see how it's possible not to be solipsistic sometimes. I usually blame my failures on myself (sometimes to an unreasonable degree). No, I don't think I've ever even had a bad dream about her. No, I actually can't think of a time that I manipulated someone for selfish reasons. No, I don't think any women besides my SO have any…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 05:13 AM
-1

You're not making any sense. First you say "I'm talking about real life observation", then you say "First-hand experience is flawed." Every observation is a first-hand experience. And yes, I do notice the "subtle nuances" of people (including women) interacting around me, they're not that subtle really. And am I supposed to understand that you just watch people go on dates and make detailed notes about body language and somehow think that you can use that to tell what people are like "naturally"…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 04:30 AM
-2

My observations don't lead me to any of these conclusions. My observations tell me that women carry most of the responsibility for raising children and that women (at least modern young women) usually don't allow/expect men to pay for their drinks/housing. Even if they did, that wouldn't necessarily make their behaviour "natural". You could easily see stuff like the buy-me-a-drink expectation as a cultural holdover from a time when women had less money. Your spiel about "weak" and "strong" men i…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/03/16 04:01 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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