TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Kalcipher Archive

View 0 posts and 215 comments by Kalcipher 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

You can move on with your life without ever forgiving what they did to you. How? Genuinely want to know, really struggling with moving on after some things I have not forgiven.
/r/MensRights18/10/18 10:33 PM
1

Because sticking your penis in a chute that evacuates fecal matter is disgusting. There are enzymes to remove fecal matter actually. There are also enemas and condoms etc. Aside from that, there are gay people who don't have anal sex. Also, you say that vaginas contain remnants of piss, blood, cum, and fecal matter. Why is PIV any less disgusting then? Have you thought this point through even a little?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/18 01:29 AM
1

Waitwot? This is something I have not heard of.
/r/MensRights17/06/17 01:07 AM
1

Yes, but it's also not a point serious feminists are complaining about, only the TiA types.
/r/MensRights16/06/17 08:59 AM
2

I was mostly thinking of silly "attack helicopter" memes and similar in the comment section, though it does seem to have become less frequent recently, so perhaps my opinion on that account is a bit outdated. Still some cringey stuff going on with the focus on buzzfeed-like topics such as mansplaining or manspreading, too much focus on individual outrage cases to cries of "if this had been a women, nobody would have batted an eye" in cases where women would absolutely be penalized (admittedly le…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 12:09 AM
2

Believe me, I know, having recently debated with a bunch of crazy TERFs. It's difficult to get around there being some amount of cringe anarchy going on in this sub though.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 11:54 PM
3

I don't actually frequent this subreddit, being appalled at the transphobia I often encounter and seeing a lot of the silly edginess you're probably thinking of when you talk about neckbeards, but calling yourself a commentator for calling people virgins is so much more awkward than anything I've seen on this subreddit for a long time.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 10:19 PM
20

Well, I'm sure the world really values your commentary about which particular neckbeards you think are virgins.
/r/MensRights15/06/17 09:42 PM
1

Taking the statement entirely literally, I agree, we should use evidence and not proof. Proof is used in deductive reasoning and relies on assuming premises that can be essentially arbitrary. Interpreting the sentiment realistically, but charitably, I think a lot of women who make this kind of statement are thinking of somebody who has been raped and is immediately, upon opening up, met by people who say they don't believe her. Ideally, I say we should be supportive immediately to somebody who o…
/r/MensRights17/05/17 10:59 PM
6

I hope she's tried for child abuse and loses custody, because I'm pretty sure she'll be a hell of a toxic parent, but unfortunately the legal system is nowhere that sensible.
/r/MensRights11/05/17 11:11 PM
5

Meh, child custody and suicide both seem very relevant, and on another note, life expectancy is significantly lower for men than women.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 02:03 AM
10

Somebody is very bad at pie charts. Child custody pie chart and homicide victims are very noticeably off.
/r/MensRights10/05/17 02:02 AM
1

Then I've answered it already. It seems so yes. Not in the way you appear to be implying. Yeah, sorry about my phrasing, didn't think you thought so, just wanted to check to be sure. I do want to note though that feminists wouldn't really need a vulnerable speaker to scold her critics as a sexist or inconsiderate of her.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 08:38 PM
1

It is a serious question. So do you think it is a deliberate tactic? Are you just going to call them malicious and leave it at that? How are you on this sub and yet find this concept novel? People might answer the question differently. A lot of potential answers are already familiar to me, though. I go on this subreddit largely because there are still lots of political points where I am undecided, so I have a multireddit with various perspectives. I used to have feminism, but as you probably kno…
/r/MensRights09/05/17 08:12 PM
1

Why exactly would they push her forwards for her vulnerability?
/r/MensRights09/05/17 07:57 PM
1

If you use a cucumber to masturbate and the cucumber dislikes it because of the stupidity of this exact thread, did you rape the cucumber?
/r/MensRights09/05/17 07:13 PM
1

Oh yeah, you're initial comment that started this conversation, that's how. And I have repeatedly explained to you that I have read such posts (that were useful/inspiring/good/interesting) but that that does not necessarily mean I can provide an example when prompted. That was the entire point of my comment, nothing about insinuating it was uninteresting, as I repeatedly clarified for the next many comments. I would very much like to hear your view of TheRedPill, actually, just to see how bastar…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 07:07 PM
1

Okay, so it's simultaneously interesting and uninteresting No, how the fuck do you keep reading disinterest into it? I have literally never called it uninteresting, not even once. I don't give a shit. You're not going to impress me by agreeing with me and simultaneously agreeing with the opposition. I disagree with both you and most of your opposition actually. As my flair says, I am a general lunatic, not a red piller or blue piller. I could describe my view of the red pill if you'd like.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 06:50 PM
1

You started this conversation with me by saying that you also can't find anything of interest. Because the things of interest I've read were not memorable in particular, not because they didn't exist, as I specifically explained. I have said since the beginning that I have read interesting things from redpillers and at no point did I say that I hadn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 06:22 PM
1

I've literally never said it doesn't interest me. In literally all three of my posts I explicitly said that it does interest me. I will quote it to you: and the interesting RP content I have seen [...] Strongly implying that I have indeed seen interesting RP content. As I've said, I have found interesting RP content. Completely explicit this time. I find it interesting as I have said in the previous two comments. I have at no point said it doesn't interest me, that's complete bullshit and I thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 04:43 PM
3

I'll probably get downvoted to hell for this, but to be fair, most ideologies in general cause people to be wilfully and maliciously ignorant in some respects, and as far as that goes, feminism doesn't stand out beyond the rest, especially when you compare things like communism, fascism, religious traditionalism, etc.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 04:02 PM
1

I find it interesting as I have said in the previous two comments. I gave you the benefit of the doubt No you didn't. You immediately went to twisting my words after my first comment. I gave you the benefit of the doubt even though I know you're full of shit Those statements are in direct conflict. I know you're full of shit You know no such thing. All I've told you is that I find TRP interesting and that I read a lot. The rest is you attributing all sorts of things to me that I have never said.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 03:53 PM
1

I don't shift the goalposts. I will have you know that I was not the one to set these original goalposts you're attributing to me. Whatever ideology you're classifying me as, your classification is obviously incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 03:51 PM
11

Also some people seemed to think it would prevent homosexuality, which would not be very nice to all the men who wish they were gay because they're tired of how legislature and dating dynamics both are stacked against them in straight relationships.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 01:28 PM
5

Wilful ignorance is often associated with outgroup bias though and demonization. The root cause would seem to be misandry then as opposed to just conventional ignorance.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 01:24 PM
0

What's so wrong with open relationships?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 11:23 AM
0

Meanwhile I'm back here wondering why people feel the need to take all these strange pills to begin with.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 11:23 AM
1

For the record, I never said the article randomly started discussing it or that there was no topical relevance. From the article: Popular arguments that suggest it is unappealing to be female include a perception of being tied to domestic labour, body image pressures and a gender pay gap. It is hinting ambiguously at the possibility that girls might consider this an incentive for sex reassignment, and it is doing so specifically in the context of listing several things, some of them being very s…
/r/MensRights09/05/17 11:16 AM
3

what does that say about the people who gave her the platform? Who whoop and cheer and applaud her comments? It says pretty much what you think it says: They're complete idiots. What does it say about a movement that cynically pushes its most vulnerable adherents front and centre as the equivalent of a human shield for furthering its own political agenda? They probably liked her for her fervor, not her vulnerability.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 11:03 AM
3

No. You are being very silly if you actually read that into my comment. Maybe read it a couple of times to get an understanding of what it is actually saying, then do the same with the article.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 10:55 AM
2

Meh, at the risk of being downvoted into oblivion, she's obviously been through some shit and I'm not sure it's fair to pay her too much mind when she gets a bit out there. though she'd probably not like to hear me say any of that lol.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 02:46 AM
44

Seems more like a problem of lack of empathy towards men, ie. misandry. If it was just ignorance, they would have changed their mind when you cited credible sources.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 02:21 AM
1

I read interesting stuff on GCdebatesQT, but other than that, the interesting things I read are usually not on reddit, but places like thingofthings, lesswrong, slatestarcodex, unqualified-reservations, wikipedia and certain tiny facebook groups.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 02:02 AM
1

I do care. As I've said, I have found interesting RP content. It's just that I read a lot of stuff and am good at finding things that are particularly interesting and insightful. Sure, RP may not be on my top 5 most interesting topics, but saying I don't care is disingenuous as fuck.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 01:49 AM
3

I also can't, but that is because I read a lot of interesting things and the interesting RP content I have seen was not particularly memorable. I'm not a blue piller though (I think)
/r/PurplePillDebate09/05/17 01:36 AM
3

Skimmed through it. Did you not? It made a brief mention of the pay-gap, not even citing it as a reason to change sex, let alone a main reason.
/r/MensRights09/05/17 12:00 AM
5

Innacurate title.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 11:51 PM
-9

The second would still be an obvious safety violation. Since I don't consider fetuses to yet be people, I would not consider the safety problems of the first obvious, but there's still the point that stock traders and well, traders in general are largely male and they serve an important role in the economy, meaning we would be a lot worse off without them, probably resulting in shorter lifespans, etc, not to mention that straight women would be unable to find partners, firefighters would be less…
/r/MensRights08/05/17 10:50 PM
-1

Honestly all the feminists I've encountered in person (which is quite a few and quite a lot of different variants) have been very egalitarian. Unfortunately, they have also been extremely prone to censorship which is pretty bad.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 08:33 PM
10

And somehow the deaths of more than three billion people does not count as a safety violation. If they were genuinely concerned about safety and men committing violent crimes, they would suggest preventing births of new men, not killing those that are already born.
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:36 PM
-1

And she's basing the entire thing on her inability to understand what the True Scotsman fallacy actually is. Hint: It is when you try to maintain a universal affirmative categorical statement in the face of counterexamples by claiming they don't count. Saying "feminism is not about female supremacy" is not remotely the same as saying "no feminists want female supremacy"
/r/MensRights08/05/17 05:34 PM
2

Babies can and do thrive without any breastfeeding, just as babies can and do thrive without a hunter to hunt food for them. Do you consider all the body parts employed in hunting to be reproductive as well? If not, then your sentiment will need more nuance.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 10:43 PM
2

Men still have plenty nerve endings there for it to be considered sexual, to be fair. In general I'm pretty laissez faire when it comes to clothing or lack thereof, though.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 10:40 PM
3

As a gay guy, I'm more bewildered by the idea that the male chest is not sexual than the idea that the female chest is.
/r/MensRights23/04/17 05:15 PM
1

Red herring. Communism has nothing to do with this. You wouldn't recognize a red herring if it jumped up and bit you in the nose. What I gave was an example for the purpose of clarity, hence why I explicitly stated it as an example before raising it. Statistical methodology is fine print to people who read about the results from news (which is almost everyone). Your arguments are better suited to having people stop using statistics they hear about in the news. That is honest. However, pseudo-int…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/17 05:03 PM
1

This goes well beyond ensuring equality of outcome. This is social engineering. It goes beyond equality of outcome because they do not advocate the enforcement of a policy making women put in as much of their time and energy as men, but I could see how equality of outcome could be viewed as requiring people to be paid similar amounts even for different career choices, especially if it is just along one particular axis of discrimination, but as an example where it is more general, see communism. …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/04/17 07:31 AM
1

This isn't an academic argument, where a better caption or legend would fix the problem with a figure. I think the ambiguity was low enough already. When I asked whether you had read the post, it was in complete sincerety. I genuinely got the impression that you had skimmed the post at most. This number has been used cynically in public to promote a self serving narrative by feminists. Feminists who advocate equality of outcome specifically, which is an extremely relevant distinction. The public…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/17 05:40 PM
1

That is the case for most significant facts, and besides, you can't really effectively correct a fact's misuse without explaining what the number really represents.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/04/17 01:53 PM
1

OP is not likely to be convinced if you just contradict them without argument though, and OP probably doesn't agree that wage gap is a non issue. Also, I'm pretty sure I did understand what you were saying, but that you are not quite appreciating the full amount of possible positions on this topic. For example, suppose OP believes wage gap is mainly caused by women choosing lower paying careers, does not see their freedom of choice as an option but does want wage gap to be addressed. Suppose als…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 04:51 PM
1

If it's not due to discrimination it's due to freedom ergo no problem. Why are you under the impression that OP would consider wage gap to not be a problem if it is caused by freedom? Maybe because OP thinks letting people be free is a problem if it doesn't randomly lead to a 50/50 distribution. Or maybe you shouldn't arbitrarily exclude the other possibility I already mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 04:42 PM
1

Why are you under the impression that OP does not consider the wage gap a problem?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 04:16 PM
1

No, I think it would be tremendously bad in a lot of ways, but I also think it serves as an example of an opinion that would be opposed to the wage gap without wanting to change women's choices or limit their freedom of choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 03:38 PM
1

"Everything is cool no problem to complain that's why I wanted to make you look at this which is absolutely OK" Err... Do you think he is in favor of it? No, based on prior probability. and also The wage gap could be artificially removed through redistribution, as a quick example.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 03:08 PM
1

No, the fact that a number has been cited in a wrong context does not make citing it in the correct context dishonest.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 12:26 PM
1

Neither op nor the blog said that this means that the wage gap is actually something good since it shows that people are using their rights. It's presented as a problem that should be addressed. That neither means that the wage gap should be fully removed, nor that it should be removed in a way you would consider fair. The wage gap could be artificially removed through redistribution, as a quick example. Have you seen him explicitly saying that the problem of workplace discrimination should be r…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 12:24 PM
1

The 77c/$ figure is based on clumping all white collar jobs together - librarians and lawyers. OP specifically acknowledges this in the post. Did you even read it?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 02:41 AM
1

Obvious straw man is obvious. OP never stated that those factors of the wage gap should be removed.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 02:40 AM
2

What if being a woman is indicative of pregnancies meriting paid maternity leave, thus increasing the opportunity cost of hiring women? What if women are generally less capable of negotiating salaries well? Remember, employment is only an efficient market on the side of the employers, not the employees.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/17 02:37 AM
1

Not just women, either. I'm a guy who has dealt with a lot of violence from men and I am as you say permanently wary.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:48 PM
1

I'm curious, what exactly did you mean then?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:12 PM
1

I'm eternally stunned y'all imagine all women just sit back and passively wait to sort through the guys who contact her. You still cannot deny the part about approaching people though. less risk. In general, don't have to worry that the woman might be a rapist/murderer/sicko. While I'm willing to believe women are less likely to commit murder against their partners, I am not sure the rape rates are that different. On top of that, women have a lot of advantages in divorces that can essentially sc…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:10 PM
1

Sure, I just wanted people to keep it in mind, to not perpetuate the impression some people have of men killing women all willy-nilly.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 01:50 PM
1

Since I have no strong opinions on infanticide, this prospect does not particularly frighten me, though I wonder what she'd say about the straight girls and their difficulty finding boyfriends in such a society.
/r/MensRights18/04/17 02:55 AM
1

Oh right, forgot about different anatomies with regards to oral.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:34 AM
7

Men are also the victims of the vast majority of violent crimes though.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:31 AM
9

The men I know can find personality, status and charisma attractive as well, and I wonder why you included height as separate from body in men only and not in women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:30 AM
1

That applies only to intercourse, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/17 02:29 AM
1

Before we go any further, I will correct you on one crucial misinterpretation you've made: I am economically liberal, not a socialist. Economical liberalism is pretty much the opposite of socialism: I am in favour of deregulization in a lot of ways, and am pretty much an ancap except that I am in favour of governments to handle externalities only, and I am in favour of letting literally everything else be up to free markets. Before being so quick to misinterpret things, you should read up on wha…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/17 08:55 AM
1

I just don't believe you, ... You're not willing to take my word for what political opinions I have? Are you for real? "I'm a pretty girl now even though every single cell in my body has a Y chromosome" is as blank slate-ey and untenable as it gets. Obvious false dichotomy is obvious. Maybe you're too bound up in Americanized politics to realize, but there are other possible ways to model gender than either chromosomes or blank slate, both of which are obviously untenable to anybody who has eith…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/17 10:35 PM
1

Am I missing something? Why in the world are people upvoting this idiocy when it is so transparently obvious that you're straw manning the hell out of my position? Are people really that presumptuous? Like, you're not just putting words in my mouth, you're attributing an entire ideology to me based on one single position, and that is even after I have explained that I am not as intolerant as you'd be implying and after I strongly insinuated that I do not share a mainstay liberal worldview. I am …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/17 07:36 PM
1

I functionally interpreted your statement. By your admission, fairly well. The problem is you functionalized it in a way that has a superficial resemblance to attitudes that have a bad reputation, and yet my actual sentiment is directly opposed to those attitudes. Why pick the tranny crap as your critical wedge? Two reasons, one is a matter of pragmatism because I associate with a lot of transpeople, and the other reason is the one I have already stated (the one paraphrased by you as "if you dis…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/17 07:54 AM
2

That's a specific position, I'd say, and I agree with it on all points.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/04/17 07:39 AM
1

What about extremists in the grey area? I have a lot of extreme views, but they're not particularly correlated with either left or right. For example, I believe Communism is pretty similar to nazism, that opposition to immigration in order to protect workplaces is literally nazism, that immigration is great, that lgbtq rights are important, that there is definitely something along the lines of "sanctity of marriage" and it absolutely does need to be destroyed, that censoring dissent is a pretty …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 11:01 PM
3

To anyone who has remotely functional common sense (meaning perhaps 0.1% of the population) it is immensely obvious that biology is very irregular, not at all ontologically fundamental (meaning sex isn't either, obviously) and that what we classify as sex and gender are categories imposed on a bunch of very strongly correlated mostly binary traits. There are some additional relevant intercorrelations but that is overcomplicating things for this post. 'Social construct' does not mean the categori…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:55 PM
3

That's a way of framing it that while technically accurate is still connotatively misrepresenting my statement. It's not that I think disagreement with my views is inherently immoral, as your paraphrase is insinuating. Let's violate Godwin's law for a minute and say that I also have the opinion that nazism is immoral, and that if somebody disagrees with me on that, I will take it as a fairly reliable indication of their general character. IE. If you disagree with this particular view I hold on n…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:37 PM
1

Why would you need to repipe the water supply and tear up walls? As you describe it, it seems like doors are the only things that need replacing. EDIT: Also I find it curious that you say it is not a big deal for you, but still say that you would not be with someone who has a certain position on this issue. That seems to be making it a big deal.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:22 PM
1

Removing the cracks is not a big expense, nor does it cause additional space constraints. I don't see your point. (and I wonder why you focus so much on bathroom politics)
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:18 PM
3

I do not know enough of the psychology of your typical NYC citizen to comment on the harms from the loss of privacy resulting from gender neutral bathrooms, but from your descriptions it seems probable that gender neutral bathrooms are a bad thing in the places where the stalls are as you describe them, but I will comment that I think your current stalls are inadequate. In truth, I don't care all that much about bathroom politics. It is not difficult to avoid using public bathrooms.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:14 PM
4

A person's positions on trans rights are a surprisingly reliable indication of their general character. That, and I know a lot of transpeople. As for what I mean by trans rights, I am thinking of transition, both legal and medical, nondiscrimination in terms of employment and general societal transphobia (which I suppose I could categorize as right to not be harassed constantly)
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:10 PM
3

If a guy does it I can put the beats on him. What if the guy is stronger than you? Also, I don't think oogling really justifies violence. A stall is no place for privacy really. It's a small contained square with big cracks and no mirrors or anything. That is not what stalls are like where I live. They typically have a toilet, a sink, a mirror and a locking door with no cracks. Maybe the problem is with your stalls then. If you want to do it in your restaurant that's fine but it's not right to f…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 10:01 PM
3

I mean bathrooms are a place for privacy. Which is why we have stalls. I'm curious how you feel about the possibility of guys trying to sneak peeks at your cock while you're pissing and whether you think girls are uncomfortable with girls checking them out as they fix their boobs in the mirror. I live in a country where a lot of bathrooms are gender neutral (for unrelated reasons) and we don't typically have the problems you are expresssing, though, granted, we are more sexually liberal here.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 09:56 PM
3

I probably am someone you would never date, since I am a general lunatic, but that bathroom politics was not quite what I had in mind, though I will entertain it anyway: Small businesses should be under no obligation to provide bathrooms for anyone, though I think in a bathroom that has stalls, gender segregation is pointless. Perhaps we can segregate bathrooms into a stalled bathroom and an open urinal if that is desired, but stalls seem like they would provide all the privacy needed. As for se…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 09:48 PM
3

I could, though probably wouldn't if they were opposed to trans rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 09:42 PM
1

Are the bad things in question are mainly STD's and accidental pregnancies, or am I missing some other potential problems? Just curious.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/17 02:24 AM
1

That may be so. I confess I have never actually had the chance to debate a feminist, because they tend to censor discussions before they even begin. Feminists are by far the most prone to censorship of any political demographic I can think of. I have debated with vegans though, and they seem to overlap a lot with feminists and they do indeed employ such tactics as you describe.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 06:26 PM
1

It doesn't seem all that much more extreme than some of the worse conversion camps that exist all over the world (including places like USA and Denmark, among others), where teens may be raped, beaten or denied food and medicine over sexual orientation or disbelief in whatever religious dogma. Honestly, the only thing that strikes me as particularly dubious about the story is that they are calling it the first concentration camp since Hitler, which I'm not convinced is actually true. Remember we…
/r/MensRights11/04/17 12:28 PM
1

What's wrong with asking for a source? Honestly, if you're the type of person who considers it unacceptable to ask for a source, then I can sorta understand the sentiment that it's pointless to have a conversation with you.
/r/MensRights11/04/17 11:05 AM
3

You believe this is made up?
/r/MensRights11/04/17 10:59 AM
2

As a gay guy, I'm somewhat concerned about the seeming insinuation that gay rape victims don't matter.
/r/MensRights10/04/17 07:32 AM
1

The most common ones are LGBT and LGBTQ. Not all that many letters. As for "that goes for everything", I suspect that is an excuse. I think you're being ad hoc.
/r/MensRights01/04/17 10:17 PM
1

No it doesn't. It includes ANY penetration "no matter how slight" with objects, fingers as well as a penis. Either way, we can still infer that if female pepetrators forcing men to penetrate somebody is not counted, about 4.4million victims are excluded in that definition. You mean females forcing males to penetrate THEM. But it also doesn't count men forcing men for penetrate either. True, hence even the number I arrived at is a conservative estimate. Wellllll.. no there's no good reason to thi…
/r/MensRights01/04/17 08:56 AM
2

Will probably get downvoted for this, 'cause politics, but whatever. I'm mostly up to date on TT language I think. LGBTQ is usually considered all inclusive, because 'queer' is a catchall, but some people prefer LGBT+ because of the former word's historic usage as a slur. A longer abbreviation that's more exhaustive (arguably in both senses of the word, heh) is LGBTQIPA+, respectively lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex (somebody born with ambiguous genitals) pansexual and polys…
/r/MensRights01/04/17 02:56 AM
2

Since "completed rape" probably refers to actual penetrative sex, we can infer that if female pepetrators forcing men to penetrate somebody is not counted, about 4.4million victims are excluded in that definition, compared to the 1.5millions covered, which, if it transfers to homeless men as well, means the statistic on rape of homeless men is about 4 times lower than the actual rate. Multiplying the actual numbers gives that about 55.8% of homeless men are raped, meaning it is basically the sam…
/r/MensRights21/03/17 02:13 AM
2

This seems to be an extremely uncharitable (I dare say disingenuous) interpretation of the statement being offered.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 04:55 PM
6

'Respect is earned' is usually applied to respect in the regards to life experience or notable achievements. No, "respect is earned" is a sassy (and rather dumb) phrase people utter when trying to justify their discourtesy and disrespect towards somebody else. I've seen too many homophobes use the phrase in the context of justifying actual physical violence even.
/r/MensRights14/03/17 04:54 PM
1

I am not quite sure what you mean by this post, but I'm not exactly an average men's rights poster. I don't know if your example is referring to me, since I am a gay guy who sometimes defends feminism (though I can't recall having talked much about feminist friends) and I do often argue here, but I'm very much able to admit that men are discriminated against, both systemically and casually, and that men can and often do suffer. Though this may sound like an average MRA perspective, I come to thi…
/r/MensRights09/03/17 11:00 PM
1

That is dumb. When acting in a way that would cause you to think of them or classify them as 'feminists', then indeed they will be talking about gender-related issues, but even the most toxic feminists I have encountered can talk about topics without bringing gender into it (though they will generally retain their toxicity even then)
/r/MensRights09/03/17 04:12 AM
1

Because nobody could possibly disagree with you in an MRA subreddit and not be an MRA, right? I follow this subreddit specifically because I have a lot of disagreements with the mens rights movement, and it has been beneficial for me to listen to various political ideologies, but I suppose that point would be lost on you entirely.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 03:10 PM
2

You judge that based on a single response from me? I say you're using the affect heuristic and rationalizing your biases that result.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 03:06 PM
3

Right. When you have no retort you resort to meaningless and irrelevant statements. For your information, I unashamedly enjoy hentai and I do not need thesaurus because I am a nerd who actually remembers what I read about heuristics and fallacies.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 05:05 AM
6

You are very much into straw men though it seems.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:58 AM
6

Association fallacy, representativeness heuristic and genetic fallacy all at once. Somehow I am not surprised.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:55 AM
3

At least he actually produced an article, whereas you're making a baseless claim (that for your information is in direct conflict with medical consensus)
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:53 AM
4

I cannot possibly facepalm hard enough for this one. The level of stupidity that idiotic comment displays is so flabberghasting to me that I can confidently call it the dumbest misrepresentation I have seeen in my entire life. Though FlinkeRose may or may not believe female and male circumcision to be equivalent, this post was not about that and there is nothing in the title or image linked to suggest that. You are attempting to justify an invasive and transparently unnecessary surgical procedur…
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:52 AM
6

phimosis can be treated with manual stretching, if severe in combination with steroid cream, and if downright extreme a partial circumcision (like a slit in the foreskin) may be used. A full circumcision seems excessive though.
/r/MensRights06/03/17 04:43 AM
3

The idea is not completely sound in theory. It does not work in practise, which means you are making mistakes in your theory.
/r/MensRights05/03/17 04:29 PM
3

ERADIGATE lol.
/r/MensRights21/02/17 02:01 AM
1

I am not a feminist, but I for one hold myself to the same standard while at the same time making fun of the term pro-life by calling myself anti-life as well as anti-family.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 04:09 AM
-1

Scope insensitivity and affect heuristic at its finest. Please do not become a parent.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:43 AM
2

A religious lunatic John Harvey Kellogg popularized it as a supposed treatment for masturbation.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:40 AM
1

This is either the dumbest misunderstanding I have ever encountered or you're the most disingenuous person I have ever encountered.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:37 AM
4

Circumcision is an invasive medical procedure with risks of infections and its rate of fatality is probably higher than the fatality rate of the infections avoided. Phimosis is trivially curable without circumcision. Honestly, people yell about this like its a conspiracy or something. No, it has nothing to do with whether or not a conspiracy is at place, it has to do with systematic non-consensual sexual alterations of children involving intense pain.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:35 AM
3

What on Earth has given you the idea that it is non-quantifiable or subjective? I don't know how advanced neurology is on this particular area, but certainly there are theoretical ways to quantify this, and for pragmatic purposes you might consider the portion of nerves lost or the decrease in dopamine or endorphins. As for subjectivity, subjectivity and variance are entirely different things, which distinction is even more relevant when it makes a lot of sense to consider the average impact.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:33 AM
3

What hyperbole specifically?
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:28 AM
3

prostate exam Prostate exams do not generally permanently reduce sexual pleasure, have high risks of infection, cause agonizing pain, or permanently alter an infants body without his consent. Prostate exams also have medical merit and were not popularized by a religious fanatic as a means to control male sexuality. Your analogy is transparently ludicrous.
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:25 AM
2

We're talking about an unnecessary invasive surgical procedure performed on a newborn who is usually considered incapable of providing informed consent, and certainly does not do so, in circumstances that cause downright extreme pain since anaesthesia is dangerous for newborns; a procedure that leaves permanent and severe damage to the genitals, possibly causes psychological damage, sometimes results in severe injury or death and reduces sexual sensitivity, popularized by a religious fanatic (Ke…
/r/MensRights15/02/17 03:22 AM
2

What you have observed is that children raised by poor single mothers made worse life choices and led worse lives than children raised just poor by two parents. I am onboard so far and that all seems believable. I am asking how you have determined that the single parent was more impactful in the criminality than the poverty.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 08:43 PM
3

I was just trying to say that even when living in poverty the lack of parental supervision in a single parent household has just as much if not more to do with it. How do you quantify this?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 07:57 PM
3

Then, a man gets sentenced, No, because the unisex changing rooms would be allowed systemically.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 03:59 PM
2

Criminality is the crumbling of society. Just look at Syria or Honduras. I have never said it does not. No it's called keeping people safe. No, that is the pragmatic aspect, rather. Im curious, have you lived in a safe neighborhood all your life? Quite far from it, actually. Safe to most people, but I have been the target of rather a lot of violence, but if you are assessing my argument on this mostly, then you are committing the genetic fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 11:03 AM
4

Not even bothering, since I saw that the poster of the linked post was not yourself, meaning at the very best you're committing the tu quoque fallacy, further demonstrating how poor your understanding of science is, but the main problem with this one is that you have no idea how probability theory works, and are thus making unjustified and formally invalid inferences.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 10:58 AM
1

Er, wha...? I never claimed you were claiming to represent anyone or anything, I just pointed out the form of Hellkyte's argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 10:56 AM
5

It would likely be less efficient at first, because modern society is adapted specifically to having both men and women in it, but after their society has accommodated, I don't see why it would not work.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 05:35 AM
11

Honestly, I am in favour of replacing gender segregated locker rooms with a choice between an open unisex locker room and changing stalls. Pros: Makes the discussions about gender and sexual minorities in locker rooms essentially moot You would no longer have to stop a conversation with a person of the opposite sex just because you had to change Privacy is still possible for modest people Cons Modest people are inconvenienced a bit more Can't think of anything else.
/r/MensRights14/02/17 05:30 AM
2

So people aren't responsible for their actions. Splendid. It is pragmatic to hold people responsible as it disincentivizes criminality and incentivizes learning from mistakes, but ultimately, the entire concept of justice boils down to people wanting to validate their own vindictiveness as being somehow moral.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 05:14 AM
5

By the standards of your average debate subreddit, I would say this one is fairly serious. By my personal standards certainly, most people have poor understandings of basic science. By practical and objective standards, most people understand it too poorly to do science correctly. And in any case, your response here basically boils down to "lots of people make this same mistake!" which is an evasion that does not actually stop your assessment of the probabilities from being incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 05:09 AM
3

Any attacks on specific users qualities or personal characteristics is against the rules here. Hellkyte is exercising the representativeness heuristic here. While it is limited in merits, censoring it entirely seems a bit over the top, though I suppose it could sorta be seen as a personal attack if you squint.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 05:06 AM
4

Also according to formally and objectively correct probability theory, but sure, let us write it all off as political correctness, as if that combined genetic fallacy and ad hominem helped your case at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 05:04 AM
1

Pretty sure it's a feedback loop of poverty causing crime which then causes more poverty.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 05:02 AM
3

You don't take care of your kids they end up being raised by the street. Poorer streets are more criminal as far as I know, so wouldn't the problem be specifically with poor single mothers?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:59 AM
3

You seem to be confusing a high conditional likelihood from somebody being a criminal to having a single mother with a high probability of children raised by single mothers turning out to be criminals. Also, you should consider whether there is some other causal reason at play, and perhaps regulate according to that. GridReXX suggested poverty, which seems at least plausible. Should poverty-struck women in particular be discouraged from becoming parents?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:56 AM
1

No, firstly, what you're critizing is selfishness, which is the result of amorality in combination with caring about one's own best interests. In reality, most people don't meet that high a standard; they do not act according to morality (more great group norms and virtue signalling) and they certainly do not act in their own best interests. Secondly, if one were to be absolutely selfish, it does not result in the "I get what I want out of the relationship, even if it hurts my S/O" sentiment, be…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:48 AM
5

You guys bitch that only men fight in combat, and then you bitch when women ask to serve in combat roles. Usually, people will not hold those positions simultaneously. The people you're likely referring to are probably indignant about women getting to serve voluntarily without also going through draft. They do not want both of those things to change.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:34 AM
1

Have you donated to Planned Parenthood today? Blatantly unfair conceit, unless you want to tell us you have made donations to preserve status quo?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:31 AM
1

Men ejaculate outside of wedlock as well as in it. If they choose to ejaculate, they are every bit as responsible as the woman (who by the way can abort). Men do not have nearly as reliable options as women do in these situations, since women can do prevention after their mind is no longer clouded by horniness and since P-pills have lower failure rate than condoms, and since they can abort afterwards. The case you're arguing is separate and inequal. That is not inherently wrong, as it may still …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:29 AM
2

Yes he does, otherwise he can do a turn-around any day. No, if we are going for equality, then he can do a turn-around until the baby is no longer eligible for abortion. Someone has to pay for the baby. Alternatively, the baby could be aborted. He won't do it? Then the taxpayers have to. Which one do you prefer? On one hand, I think reproduction is being over-incentivized, but on the other hand, it seems much, much fairer for this expense to be covered by tax than as child support paid by the fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:24 AM
1

and they say women take more because they need a whole 'panoply of uterus check-ups'. I mean, that is just basic biology. No, the most commonly cited discrepancy to this effect is cancer research, where breast cancer (which mainly affects women) is given much more funding than testicular cancer (which mainly affects men) then you have to state-fund contraceptives and abortions. I am in favour of this. Tell them all to zip it up, then you'll have no pregnant women anymore. They fail to do so? Wel…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:19 AM
4

Conscription is certainly systemic, and under some jurisdictions, domestic violence and sexual violence laws are also systemically biased against men.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/17 04:15 AM
1

It is not hard. It is also not what I am disputing. You're committing the ignoratio elenchi fallacy. I agree that the easier access to casual sex is a female privilege, because I disagree with the insinuation that women scarcely value casual sex. I agreed with the validity of the argument given the premise, and that was what you were criticizing originally.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 05:31 PM
1

Again , having options is better than not having any. Still it should be transparently obvious that the significance of a privilege lies entirely in its desirability. Say society was somehow discouraging girls from squeezing mayonnaise unto hamsters, but without any side effects. I doubt even radical feminists would be indignant at that male privilege, and if you would be indignant at the reverse situation then I suppose that is the root of our disagreement (though I am not implying you would be…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 04:34 PM
1

Men are more likely to succeed when attempting suicide, which makes it more of an option. Would you argue this is a privilege?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 04:17 PM
1

It seems you have forgotten the context of our discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 03:34 PM
1

Whether something is good is another way to assess whether it is desireable. Sometimes it's a complex assessment, because people can be mistaken about what is in their own best interests, but with something like casual sex, it is much simpler, and casual sex is only good when desired.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 03:05 PM
1

The examples you listed are all highly desirable examples wanted by most people. Most people want sex and employment, and few would want speeding tickets. If anything, I would say your arguments seem disingenuous.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 01:42 PM
1

Undesired and unrecognized privileges are not the same, and desirability is a very large part of what qualifies as a privilege. For instance, consider that many privileges come in the form of easier access to opportunities. The reason we don't consider more workplace deaths male privilege is because men are generally not interested in dying.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 11:54 AM
1

A privilege that doesn't get utilized seems very inconsequential, aka. a moot point.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 04:25 AM
1

I asked myself whether I would trade my male privilege for female privilege (as in, if I'd want the situation reversed in all regards) and I honestly wouldn't, so that would point to men having the most useful privileges. I believe the trend in privileges is that men are polarized, allowed to succeed if they have the merits, but sometimes have their lives utterly crushed by systematic sexism. Women on the other hand are discouraged from excelling and are disadvantaged in achieving extraordinary …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/02/17 04:23 AM
3

They certainly seem to feel empathic joy in hearing eachother's confessions. They lack empathy only towards men, because they demonize men. The world would be a much better place if it took a psychopath to do what those women did. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting it is normal for women to do these things either.
/r/MensRights05/02/17 04:13 AM
1

Should the man have a responsibility to earn more? Responsibilities are a confused and messy concept. Rather, the man may have interests. If he is charitable, earning more would mean he could put more money towards charity. If he enjoys being wealthy, that too creates an interest in earning well. With regards to the relationship, it's his choice how much he prioritizes his wife's desires in this regard, and it is her choice how to react to his choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/17 04:28 AM
1

Hell, even in nature this is true. Everything that exists on earth is there thanks to the destruction of something (or many things) that came before it. Not quite sure what you mean by 'destruction' in this context, unless you're referring to a change of form, in which case I will agree that all mass on Earth has once held a different form. I guess what I'm saying is death is part of the human experience. Or if we want to get even more broad, the earthling experience. To me, it seems death is th…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 03:58 AM
2

Are there any specific ways in which death gives meaning to life?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 03:21 AM
1

Imagine meeting somebody who was immortal, but could choose to become mortal. Imagine trying to explain to this person all the meaning that mortality adds to life. Do you think this person would be convinced?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/17 03:06 AM
3

https://www.google.dk/search?q=glans+keratinization&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAlpbQm9LRAhWFCJoKHdtSAW4Q_AUICCgB&biw=1745&bih=860&dpr=1.1#tbm=isch&q=keratinized+glans (nsfw) Also immense loss of sensitivity after some time.
/r/MensRights21/01/17 02:44 AM
2

"Equity".
/r/MensRights15/01/17 01:35 AM
1

Maybe if you find such a tone bothersome, you should not have started on it. I for one am not bothered, but since you have now proven my point entirely, there is nothing more but to make a parting remark that I was being gentle in comparison to yourself in your last post, but I suppose that point would be lost on you.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 03:05 PM
1

I dunno if you have looked at it recently, but mwobuddy's comment had no context to clarify - which explains why you were using the words "maybe" and "might" all the time. There was the context of contrasting it with women, and considering the statement, it was clear that the person was not talking about cis-men only, as cis-men cannot get pregnant and it must be assumed that mwobuddy knows this. Again, the context is crystal clear. No, it's not! Trans women are BORN MALE, and CANNOT GIVE BIRTH.…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 01:03 PM
1

It can, but calling it "men" is already a loaded box. "Man" for humanity in general. "Man" for adult human males, and "Man" for all humans that identify male? That is really too much for one word to handle, especially when all the ideas are so close together. It's not even like "glass/the glass/glasses". It's just "men/men/men". I'm sure you can appreciate why that's confusing as fuck. Do you really want someone stopping you every time you say 'men' to ask "is that all humans, all male-identifed…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 03:03 AM
1

<Sigh> Seriously? Like, really super seriously? I can't tell if you're doing this to be a dick or if you're actually spacing the fuck out right now. I did it because I did not quite understand your statement, so I ran with my intuition and answered accordingly, which is usually an effective way of helping people know what parts are being misunderstood and how to clarify. ...I wasn't talking about the distinguishing details between the physical representations of trans-men and men. I was talking …
/r/MensRights10/01/17 02:04 AM
1

The default is not to believe they would be bad parents, and I see little reason to expect trans people to be significantly worse parents than the general population.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 12:55 AM
1

Congratulations, you have just committed the ad lapidem fallacy.
/r/MensRights10/01/17 12:53 AM
2

I'm not the one making a claim, Here's a list of claims you have made in this thread: "You should be allowed whatever treatment you want" - claim about your values, but if they're instrumental they might be derived incorrectly from your intrinsic values. "the ramifications of this aren't going to hurt the mentally ill 20 year old" - this may simply be for rhetoric effect and not intended as a claim. "they're going to hurt the baby with a loon for a single parent" "I take it you didn't read the p…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 12:53 AM
1

But it would render the statement he made totally inaccurate, because there is no distinguishing between trans-men, male-identifed, and men. That's like using just the word "red" to describe three colours. It doesn't work, it's confusing. Sure there is, trans-men generally have XX chromosomes, female genitalia and sometimes female secondary sex characteristics. If that's what is going on, then the poster shit the bed with his word choice. I don't think that's the case. I think he simply may have…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 12:43 AM
1

But what of the "legal definition"? Well, I looked it up, and the consensus appears to be that a man is a human being, or a human being of the male sex, or a male human that has passed puberty. In many countries, a person's legal sex can be changed, but if you need more examples, one might define sex by secondary sex characteristics, or as I mentioned before, gender presentation, etc. Except that his content did not imply at all that he meant male as in "anyone who identifies male", especially s…
/r/MensRights10/01/17 12:19 AM
1

On the off chance that you are genuinely silly enough to waste your time refreshing the page, I will answer: There is not a single interpretation I put high confidence in, but that does not mean I cannot put high confidence against yours, it is another false dichotomy you're imposing. However, I have already provided plausible alternatives, to quote myself: here are some examples: Mwobuddy might define 'male' according to gender identity, gender presentation, or some combination of both. Mwobudd…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 10:43 PM
1

I already listed potential definitions, but the important point is that from his statement, it is immensely clear that he is not using the definition you are imposing on his statement as a straw man. It seems you are not interested in honest discourse, but instead repeatedly consult dictionaries in a way that does not actually support your point. Though I have been known to debate people who have been very insular and obstinate, and debate people who might compartmentalize in various ways, I do …
/r/MensRights09/01/17 06:52 PM
2

Your definitions are useless because they push the problem back at defining male and female. Nope. Had to. Basics. "Man" has two definitions It has more than two. The phrase "adult human male" is not a single definition, as it varies depending on how you define adult, human, and male, so what you are presenting is a false dichotomy in order to twist my statement into using a different definition than the one obviously implied. Since you seem to be incredibly bad at inferring implied definitions,…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 02:21 PM
4

Ah, no. Precious. My conditional is not dubious; you simply don't understand it. Dubious here meaning it is unsupported and does not follow without additional premises. I can show this formally if desired. This was what I was responding to. I have no idea why I'm going back to the basics, but here we go. A trans-woman is not a woman. A trans-woman was born male. Like anyone else born male, they do not give birth, unless they have some other manner of bizarre birth anomaly, like being born with a…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 03:34 AM
5

The problem is that stigmatized relationships with a large difference in maturity and power often end up badly, and children are legally vulnerable because they have little autonomy, meaning they could be trapped in extremely damaging relationships with somebody who has a lot of power over them and pressurizes them to not seek help. Stigmatizing these relationships might further harm the children, which despite being circular should still be considered for legislation. At least, that is the prob…
/r/MensRights09/01/17 03:22 AM
7

This shared blame is ridiculous. Women can "relinquish recognition" if and only if they have not committed violence themselves, and the same with men.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 03:08 AM
1

I'm not actually in a relationship atm, but I am very interested in open polyamory, so I can elaborate on what I find appealing anyway. I see a lot of needless drama in exclusive relationships that can be avoided through open polyamory, and it might help solve differences in libido (if one partner is hypersexual and one is hyposexual, at least one of them will likely find their sex life unsatisfying, but if it's an open relationship, this can be addressed)
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/17 03:06 AM
3

That's a logical fallacy, since trans women cannot give birth. Your conditional is dubious. It does not seem to be a fallacy, and whether trans women can give birth seems irrelevant to the logical validity of the contested claim.
/r/MensRights09/01/17 02:54 AM
2

Your reasoning seems to come from a misunderstanding of market values. Let us use chocolate as an example. We could use your reasoning and say that "chocolate cannot have an objective market value because consumers' tastes differ so greatly" but variation in taste does not mean that there cannot be a market value. In any market, you will have buyers and sellers, and each person may value the object of trade differently. Thus, we can draw a curve representing ask-prices and offer-prices, or suppl…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 01:44 AM
1

We already know of mechanisms that make people have heightened awareness to abuse against women in comparison to abuse against men. I can cite studies to this effect if required, though I will note that I am not claiming the presented discrepancy is explained in its entirety by this effect. However, I will note that men in general are more likely to be outliers in both good and bad, and that I am not convinced people are more likely to abuse women than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 01:32 AM
1

An interesting thing to note is that crimerate is inversely correlated with intelligence and that men have a higher variance in intelligence than women. I do find it odd to compare the aggregate utility of men vs women, and I am interested in why you are doing so. I suspect if one were to find a general factor of societal utility, that there would not be strong gender correlations one way or the other in comparison to things like class and intelligence and geography.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 01:02 AM
1

You are correct. I concede that men have a higher propensity towards intentional homicide, which seems to show that their higher propensity towards impactful violence is not caused merely by higher physical strength. This observation is the product of some characteristic of some men, and lowers the expected utility of men holding said characteristic, and by extension, the aggregate utility of men, this much I concede. I would note that homicides are still infrequent enough to not be decisive in …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 12:52 AM
1

You just said yourself that men were more inclined to impactful violence than women This statement is different both from your previous strawman version and from my actual claim. I said men have a higher propensity towards impactful violence than women. Note the words "propensity" and "impactful" especially. Women and men might commit the same amount of violence, for example, but men might be heavier and stronger and be more likely to cause bodily damage.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 12:32 AM
1

People inclined to aggression should not be targeted to do these jobs. I am not convinced that male police officers are more inclined to aggression than female police officers, or indeed even that men are more inclined to aggression than women. Do you have a study to back up this claim? So the solution is to fuck-and-run? Your right to have sex comes with the responsibility of raising a child if you happen to make one. How come women can handle a job plus raising kids and a lot of men can't? The…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/16 12:17 AM
1

1) Men have lower high school graduation rates, lower college enrollment and are more likely to be in special ed classes compared to women. The proposition that 'education caters more to women than to men' is just as strongly evidenced by the former two statements. 2) Men are more likely to become criminals, be violent or join a gang. Men do indeed have a higher propensity towards impactful violence than women, but this also makes them more likely to work as police officers and soldiers. 3) Men …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/16 11:46 PM
2

The point of the 80/20 study was not that it was wrong to find that many people unattractive, but that 80% of men were rated as less attractive than average, which means the judgement of the raters is skewed. (assuming average is interpreted to mean median, since I don't see how you would measure 'average')
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/16 04:48 PM
1

If you walked into a situation with those odds, would you bet on it being a male? if the odds were better than 4:1 against me, then yes. At 50:50 odds, absolutely yes!
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 08:17 PM
1

You're being heuristically inconsistent. That is a blatant violation of sanity.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 04:14 AM
2

To be fair, not all progressives are SJWs either.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 04:13 AM
12

You can stretch it gradually, but stop if you feel pain. If necessary, contact your doctor for steroid creams. Your condition is called 'phimosis' btw. If nothing else seems to work, you can get a small slit cut in your foreskin without getting a full circumcision. You have options.
/r/MensRights06/12/16 03:47 AM
1

When comparing gendered traits, it is important to consider not only the effect size (difference between averages) but also the distribution/variability. Let's say one gender was found to have 2 higher IQ on average, but both genders had a standard deviation of 15, then the difference wouldn't be very noticeable on an individual scope. Most physicists are men, but if you were guess that a random physicists was a guy, you'd be wrong 20% of the time. Though, if you were to make guesses, and your g…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/16 03:31 AM
1

but it certainly proves a lot of guys are having issues finding gfs. Which given how important relationships are to some people should probably be considered a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/11/16 03:08 AM
7

Makes you wonder why they gloss over baseline violence. What's wrong with fighting violence in general?
/r/MensRights27/11/16 01:08 PM
14

In fairness, the article explicitly calls her evil and says that your face-value impression is "pretty far from the truth." The article is not at all siding with this murderer.
/r/MensRights25/11/16 04:28 AM
2

To the back of the head, absolutely. So much it is instant DQ in the UFC. To the front of the head as well, though generally not if you don't already have health problems of some kind, but either way I don't think the officer checked to make sure she didn't. Still, this officer handled it better than it would have been in many parts of the world.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 08:24 AM
2

A punch to the head is actually potentially lethal, even when it's a relatively light one, though such deaths are quite rare.
/r/MensRights18/11/16 01:23 AM
2

I find the statement by the police department strange... Do kids usually never see exposed genitals in USA? Is that something generally thought to harm children, or do only religious zealots think that?
/r/MensRights17/11/16 03:33 AM
1

This creates an environment where no relationship a woman has with a man is ever a safe place to reproduce Not so, there is such a thing as a binding legal contract. The thing about this argument that always amuses me is that guys always want this to be able to happen after sex. They want to benefit from ambiguity over whether they'd support a kid before the kid gets conceived and only go "haha no I think you and my kid are worthless" after the fact. It could just as well be framed as being amus…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/16 02:48 AM
2

Yes actually. The evidence I have to support this notion is not evidence I can easily share so you're entirely justified in rejecting my claim as unlikely at face value and unsupported by evidencce.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/16 04:57 PM
1

I don't really know where to begin to tell you that you're way off the mark, or that I really don't get your sarcasm. What's actually going on is that I saw this and identified it as an interesting thought experiment and didn't realize it was an analogy to women orgasming during rape. Still, I find your tenuous connection between orgasm and attraction both irrelevant and dubious.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/16 04:47 PM
1

I would probably consider it a form of rape and want him prosecuted. If people insist I wanted it, I remove them from my life if I can.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/16 04:26 AM
2

This is a personal example, so take what you will, but I'm one of the horniest people I know, and even I still can't get it up if a woman I am with is unattractive. No matter how well a guy might be able to give me a blowjob, there is simply no way I'd be able to ejaculate; I am not attracted to ugly women nor men. We're talking about a person who can physically restrain you. He is perfectly able to force you to take a powerful afrodisiac that will force an erection.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/16 04:24 AM
6

I think you're very confused about what the word 'gay' actually means.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/16 04:22 AM
1

i love how you people "you people"... Whatever demographic you usually discuss with, I am not one of them, and you need to be consciously aware of this fact if you want to avoid association bias. but, one woman carrying a mattress around 'proves' that we live in a rape culture. No it does not. How the hell would carriyng a mattress around prove anything? Is this another thing your usual debate opponents might say? why is that? Why don't you ask the people who actually believe that? It is obvious…
/r/MensRights31/10/16 06:03 PM
1

I think we're getting into pretty heavy metaphysical territory here so it would probably be best to end the discussion, which I enjoyed by the way :) You're one of the more reasonable feminists I've come across. Cheers. I'm not actually a feminist and I don't tend to be welcomed in feminist spaces, but thank you nonetheless. Thanks for the talk as well, it was interesting :)
/r/MensRights31/10/16 12:42 AM
1

Does the chimp spend most of its time in a cage? Is it well fed? Do many human beings prefer safety over freedom? I am not quite sure why you are asking these questions, but since you are, I will say yes to all three. No I actually agree with you on that point. My lived experience as a male are not transferable. So even if I recognize objectively that females have it much better, I still prefer my male identity. It's all I know. Here's another analogy: I recognize that Bill Gates has it much bet…
/r/MensRights31/10/16 12:27 AM
1

*perhaps "freedom" is the crux of the issue. Many would argue that the chimp is more free in captivity because his meals are guaranteed. Others would argue that he is a slave in a cage. I'd argue he won't amount to anything of note in either case and thus freedom is somewhat meaningless, especially when it is only lightly restricted. I may not have worded the previous well. Even though I think it is objectively much better to be a born a female in the West, I still would not want to become a fem…
/r/MensRights31/10/16 12:14 AM
1

You may be right but I'm not entirely sure. Chimps for example will not willingly return to the wild if they have been raised in captivity. Are chimps better off in captivity? In a certain sense yes, but in a certain sense no. I don't think chimps can evaluate this on a remotely rational level. I would say they are probably going by pure instinct. Gender actually provides an interesting analogy. I believe that males are now the oppressed sex, at least in the West. But I would not want to become …
/r/MensRights30/10/16 11:50 PM
1

It's not very difficult for somebody to move into a natural environment and live the life of a hunter-gatherer, assuming they had some other people with them who would do the same. Since not a lot of people have done so, I infer that on some level, people don't believe a hunter-gatherer life to be better. Well we don't really know. I was just trying to bring some nuance to the issue of "progress." You have to admit it's pretty interesting that medieval peasants got much more vacation time than m…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 11:35 PM
1

And yet anti-depressants fly off the shelves. Steven Pinker's claim that violence is at an all time low is actually disputed by quite a few anthropologists and archeologists. See eg this.pdf). Anti-depressants would have flown off the shelves for millennias if they had been around for millennias. The article on prehistoric violence you cited seems to talk mostly about intergroup violence, to which I will readily agree, there probably wasn't that much (although it should be near self-evident that…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 11:13 PM
0

True enough. But the fact that there is a large variance between different cultures and time periods indicates to me that men are not being served well by our current society. Well, this is one of the best times to be alive for both sexes. If you believe that current society is especially bad for men, I recommend http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/ (not trying to imply you're a reactionary, but it's a very informative breakdown on how the world has gotten better or wor…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 10:35 PM
-1

Higher suicide rate may indicate only a greater variability of wellbeing in men than in women, not a lower average. Alternatively, it could be that men simply have higher intrinsic propensity to commit suicide, for whatever reason. Also: Real sexism is having your gender stereotyped by society as being violent, abusers, etc. Well, men generally do have higher testosterone levels, and those behaviours are in fact correlated with testosterone. It may be a damaging generalization, but it is not a s…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 10:14 PM
0

Ask the feminists that, that's their contention, not mine, and I do not agree with them on that point.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 09:15 PM
2

It's not a straw man. It's what feminists believe. If they believed otherwise they would stress the issue of class rather than sex No, that's not how I was using the word 'class' here. I was using it essentially as 'demographic'. They are claiming that the demographic men is more privileged than the demographic women at a whole. This claim does not imply that for any selected man and woman, the man is more privileged. It is more like claiming men are on average more privileged (which is still a …
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:53 PM
-2

"Male privilege is a set of privileges that are given to men as a class due to their institutional power in relation to women as a class. While every man experiences privilege differently due to his own individual position in the social hierarchy, every man, by virtue of being read as male by society, benefits from male privilege." This does not in fact imply that that every individual man is more privileged than every individual woman. It says simply that his privilege is greater than zero, and…
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:28 PM
4

Yes, I have heard of privilege theory, but most feminists don't literally believe every individual man is more privileged than every individual woman, just that men in general are more privileged.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 08:01 PM
-5

Oh I'm so triggered - why are you raping me? /s
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:32 PM
1

Why exactly? What is wrong with gay sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/16 07:18 PM
4

There's no question that that's gay, and unnatural, and should rightly be criticized. There is a question. It is not necessarily gay as a woman can in fact penetrate a man, and it is not unnatural since it happens in nature, and I see no reason why it should be criticized. Does it cause some form of harm? Should things that do not cause harm be criticized? a person who's practically a woman anyway based on their behavior There are extremely masculine macho men who are into receptive anal sex. Yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/16 07:17 PM
-12

Yeah, no. I'm pretty sure most feminists would not call a homeless man privileged.
/r/MensRights30/10/16 07:09 PM
1

Both men and women are shamed for their natural urges, which is why masturbation is somewhat commonly considered shameful, and a lot of the modern day criticism about objectification, whether valid or not, are criticisms of natural urges. With that said, it is obvious that women were valued less in the culture that set our marital norms.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 02:55 AM
2

In fairness the people who subjugated women with those gender roles 1000 years ago are no longer alive, and the people alive today cannot be reasonably held accountible in such a way, so if those gender roles are indeed backfiring, it is a reason for concern, just as it is a reason for concern if they continue to exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/16 02:52 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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