TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Lumpy-Butterscotch50 Archive

View 0 posts and 207 comments by Lumpy-Butterscotch50 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

So sure, nuance matters - but pretending the data show “no difference” at all is just as inaccurate as claiming all men are more logical than all women. Same with pretending that the difference is statistically significant.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/25 10:37 PM
0

Men shouldn’t put up with bad behavior- period. This is the way, but that has consequences, too. There's a lot of men competing for good women. Way too many in fact. But there's a silver lining to that in that drastically fewer pregnancies will happen and that's good for our environment (no sarcasm). I'm not sure how "this is the way" if you're carving out exceptions for when it shouldn't be the way. If it's truly "Men shouldn’t put up with bad behavior- period" then that also means they shouldn…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/25 04:49 PM
1

The status does exist, if you know a man that is doing well with women, getting lots of likes and dates from dating apps, regularly banging multiple women, he is considered a higher value man Who is sharing their dating profile and DMs in the first place? The entire premise is based on some weird situation where men are just sharing things that aren't normally shared.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 04:26 PM
1

Buying sex is promiscuity. If it were the case that promiscuous men are respected then they'd be respected for paying for sex If you are not getting the status for being successful, you are not a man that is being viewed positively for being promiscuous. What does this status look like in a practical sense? My entire point is that this "status" doesn't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/09/25 03:15 PM
1

You’re dodging what I said. The point isn’t whether prostitutes create social proof, it’s that outsiders can’t tell the difference unless the man says so. If his reputation rests on appearances, then it’s irrelevant whether the women were paid or not, because as long as he doesn’t disclose that, people will treat it the same. The ‘social credit’ only depends on what others can see, not the hidden details.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:50 PM
2

Normal hookups leave a long list of proof No, they really don't. Why would you even need a prostitute if people just take your word for it Because if having sex is what gets respect, it wouldn't matter how the sex is achieved.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/09/25 02:44 PM
1

How would people know they're prostitutes unless the man says so?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 03:51 PM
1

but if you accept there is convincing evidence that one group has it a lot easier than the other I don't. Finding someone willing to sell sex for money isn't difficult
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 03:00 PM
1

Sure, I'm not the authority. But you're arguing semantics at this point. I told you what I meant so I'm not sure what saying "other people don't mean it that way" doesn't really contribute anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:25 PM
2

We aren't talking about who you're willing to date. Seeing promiscuity as a negative character trait is slut shaming, my guy. You don't have to date promiscuous people but using promiscuity as a judge of character is slut shaming. Especially when society views the same behavior done by men as a positive.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:19 PM
1

I don't believe they had actual respect for that. That's just the social circles they leveraged.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:05 PM
1

Ah I see what you're saying. I meant "respect" in that they are respected because they're a mob boss and because that's difficult. The "respect" a mob boss receives is usually fear, and folk tales beyond that (like Tony Soprano). I wouldn't say mob bosses get respect in the "I'd be proud if my child grew up to be a mob boss" kinda way. It's respect in a "you have the power to kill me, but please don't" kind of way. That's more fear than it is actual respect
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 01:55 PM
1

I thought we were talking about the "men being promiscuous is seen as a positive while the same is not true for women". ...that's slut shaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 01:49 PM
1

Yeah, but I never said they weren't respected. I said respect isn't tied to difficulty.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 01:44 PM
2

We're not discussing attraction. We're discussing slut shaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 01:39 PM
1

Sure, mafia bosses had a kind of notoriety and cultural fascination, but that doesn’t mean they were respected because their work was difficult. Any respect they had came from fear, wealth, or influence, not from the challenge of their lifestyle. Your example actually reinforces my point. Difficulty on its own isn’t what earns respect.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 01:32 PM
2

No, I'm arguing because the other person is just wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 01:20 PM
1

So...entitlement?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:50 AM
2

The latter feels way more important than the former.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/25 02:25 AM
2

Such a riveting argument /s
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:55 PM
2

Because that's the point of debate
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:19 PM
2

No
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:17 PM
3

So the Circular Reasoning fallacy?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:12 PM
1

Let's assume it's true that's not how it works. That doesn't make it correct If you can't provide a reason that isn't objective or appealing to a certain world view then you need to provide evidence why that's the case That's how burden of proof works with logic
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:03 PM
1

Meaning it's morally correct to judge men and women by different standards regarding sexual promiscuity
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 11:00 PM
1

My point is in the context of OP, so what's your point? Men are jealous. That's it. That's an explanation not a justification
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:57 PM
1

The entire OP is about it being morally correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:53 PM
2

No, I'm saying if people praise things they need to be able to objectively explain the praise. Just because a lot of people praise something doesn't mean it's good. Popular consensus doesn't make things right
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:44 PM
1

Whether it has a positive objective benefit to society beyond the short term.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:40 PM
1

Society, in general. Difficulty isn't a normal measure for whether the action is respectable
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 10:35 PM
4

You've given answers. You have not given the answers request. And just because you give and answer doesn't mean there aren'reltevant follow-up questions. You're the equivalent of Trump giving answers and refusing to answer criticism of those answers
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 08:31 PM
–

Why some women do it? No. Same way some men do the same. Why women as a monolith would do it? Yes. Same way some men do the same but it doesn't describe men as a monolith If you're claiming women do it as a majority, I would require evidence that suggests they do so and that men don't do the same at a statistically significant rate.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 08:27 PM
1

Why some women do it? No Why women as a monolith would do it? Yes
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 08:24 PM
3

I'm not pretend anything. I'm responding to unsupported claims as unsupported claims should be addressed. You're not really going to try and pretend you think the men getting respect for sleeping with women are men paying for sex with prostitutes or homeless women Nobody would know unless the man says as much.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 08:12 PM
–

I don't believe there's any convincing evidence that justifies judging one as a success worthy of respect and another as a failure worthy of disgust just because of the gender that did it Assuming women having an easier time getting a sexual partner doesn't justify condemning that behavior from women
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:46 PM
–

The fuck? I fail to see why one would be seen as more or less deplorable. I don't think it's realistic to think society would judge a building full of beaten and murdered men any different than a building full of beaten and murdered women. That's a fantastical claim. What's your reasoning?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:42 PM
1

Sorry, you think Rhonda Rousey beating the shit out of, and murdering, all of the men inside of a building with her bare fists wouldn't be violent? The fuck?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:41 PM
5

No it isn't. You can pay for sex if you want.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:35 PM
2

No, the original argument I replied to was stating that there was actually more effort exerted. The study doesn't address that
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:31 PM
1

Per the abstract, that study is just saying that people perceive effort as a signal of good moral character. It doesn't say anything about them actually having good moral character. It's a study of perception, not reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:21 PM
1

Value is a subjective measurement.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:16 PM
1

Value doesn't mean morally correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 07:14 PM
4

Just because something occurs in animals doesn’t automatically make it morally or socially justified in humans. Humans have culture, law, and conscious reasoning that allow us to override instinct. Observing male lions killing cubs tells you what lions do, not what humans should do or how we should judge each other’s behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:49 PM
–

This is a very broad generalization that doesn’t actually explain the double standard. Not all men think this way, and some can separate a partner’s past from their current commitment. Even if dissonance is real, it doesn’t justify holding women to a different standard than men. Framing it as "natural" ignores the role of entitlement, insecurity, and societal norms in shaping these reactions. It's also an appeal to nature fallacy. Just because it's "natural" doesn't make it good or positive
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:45 PM
2

The Scientific Method
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:42 PM
–

That's just people feeling entitled. Doesn't explain why that doesn't apply to men. Nobody wants to think their special man was some other man or woman's slut for the night.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:36 PM
3

I don't think you know what metaphysics is. Metaphysics would involve speculation about the fundamental nature of reality itself, not whether a statement corresponds to objective facts
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:34 PM
3

Something is true if it corresponds to reality or facts, not just because most people believe it. Consensus might influence perception, but it doesn’t determine objective truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:31 PM
–

Even if some behaviors slightly influence biology and instinct, that doesn’t explain why men are praised for promiscuity while women are condemned. Biology might influence outcomes, but it doesn’t justify unequal judgment or social value. If the only justification one can give is "it's biological" then that denotes a lack of critical thinking.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 06:27 PM
7

It's not a biological question just because it's judgement over a biological process
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:49 PM
4

But it isn't human nature. It's learned behavior from society.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:46 PM
3

but I sincerely believe this would a very uncontroversial statement outside one of Reddits most autistic corners. You realize that popular consensus doesn't make something true, rightM
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:42 PM
–

That's an explanation, not a justification. Just because you can explain why something is the way it is doesn't mean it's justified
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:40 PM
–

That's inconsistent with your original claim
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:40 PM
3

If it were a truism, there'd be no counter-examples. I just gave you one where it's not the case so it can't be a true statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:32 PM
–

I understand the evolutionary reasoning you’re presenting, but even if these biological pressures existed historically, they don’t justify the social double standard today. Modern society has contraception, abortion, and legal equality. So the risks and investments you describe don’t inherently make male promiscuity admirable or female promiscuity shameful. Difficulty or reproductive risk alone isn’t a moral credential. Paternity uncertainty doesn’t diminish the real value of the parent-child re…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:28 PM
–

Because I don't believe something just because random people on the internet simply assert it as true. do you think any random man can sleep with as many people as a random women? I don't really know, to be honest. But I don't pretend to know the answer either. I kinda said that because it's a irrelevant to what's being discussed. I don't think them true because there's not much convincing evidence. There's just anecdotes, which I don't find to be convincing evidence. Having the word slut being …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:23 PM
2

So hacking into someone’s bank accounts without permission is more respectable than getting a check from them because it's more difficult?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:18 PM
–

Millions toil endlessly at difficult tasks with little respect, while others gain prestige for things they barely worked for. Respect isn’t a function of effort. Something being more difficult doesn't inherently make it something to be respected. Successful tax evasion is more difficult than paying taxes. That doesn't make successful tax evasion something to be respected.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:12 PM
3

I'm not trying to prove anything myself. I'm asking for evidence of a claim made that there are differences that justify treating male promiscuity as a positive accomplishment while it's not for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:07 PM
–

Even if some behaviors slightly influence reproductive success, that doesn’t explain why men are praised for promiscuity while women are condemned. Biology might influence outcomes, but it doesn’t justify unequal judgment or social value.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:05 PM
–

I don't think that explains why men being promiscuous is seen as something to be respected while women doing it isn't. Especially in a world where abortion is an option. Pregnancy risk doesn’t really justify the double standard. Why is male promiscuity praised while female promiscuity is condemned?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 05:02 PM
3

But that doesn't make it true. That just means it's an assertion that aligns with your world view. But your world view isn't inherently correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:59 PM
3

Well, why do you believe the claim is true?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:56 PM
3

Not really. I don't believe the claim that "things that are more difficult to achieve are generally more respected" is a truism.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:53 PM
–

Because "all else being equal" doesn't exist in reality. It's hand-waving.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:50 PM
5

We do. The majority of human societies have been patriarchal, and have tried to impose limits on female promiscuity, due to it being frowned upon. That's not what universal consistency means. Universal consistency means that there is no example of people who don't think that way. It's proof of scarcity. Which leads us to ask why these societies are comparatively rare. Sure, but you can't jump to a conclusion as to why simply because the explanation sounds neat and tidy to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:40 PM
–

Millions toil endlessly at difficult tasks with little respect, while others gain prestige for things they barely worked for. Respect isn’t a function of effort. What you claim isn't true. It's that simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:37 PM
5

Rarity isn’t proof of biology. Cultures change, norms shift, and behaviors that are condemned in one society are celebrated in another. If this were an evolved male instinct, we’d see much more universal consistency across time and place. You're just making a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:35 PM
–

Let's just humor your assertions as true for the sake of argument. Just because something is more difficult doesn't inherently mean it's inherently a positive accomplishment. You've not justified it as a positive accomplishment for men but not women. In both cases it's an accomplishment, but one being more difficult than the other doesn't make it a positive accomplishment. It’s harder to cheat on your taxes without getting caught than it is to just pay them, but that doesn’t make tax evasion an …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:26 PM
9

I don’t think that really holds up. You’re assuming men evolved disgust at promiscuous women just because of paternity fraud, but the evidence doesn’t line up. For one, attitudes toward female sexuality change a lot across cultures and time periods. If it were an evolved trait, you’d expect more consistency Women also face risks from male promiscuity such like STIs or partners spreading resources thin, so they’d have just as much reason to evolve sexual judgment if that’s really how it worked. A…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:21 PM
5

That's a trust issue, not a biological issue. Which is an issue with the men not trusting women.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 04:05 PM
–

First it’s biology, now it’s legal. Which is it? Before you answer, keep in mind that women’s promiscuity was condemned long before the legal concerns you brought up existed. So how does that justify judging them before those legal concerns existed?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 03:52 PM
–

Biology may explain behavior, but it doesn’t justify condemnation. Which biological differences make it okay for men to judge women but not themselves? People aren't slaves to biology when it comes to behavior. Part of being human is being able to recognize and override biological urges.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 03:42 PM
–

Ok, then in what way are men and women meaningfully different that justifies men condemning women for behavior they engage in themselves? If that's the case, you should be able to demonstrate this meaningful difference and why men shouldn't also be condemned for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 03:38 PM
–

Just because they're different doesn't mean they're different in a way that's meaningful given the context. How are they different in a way that is meaningful for being against women being sluts when they themselves act like sluts?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/09/25 03:33 PM
1

Who said you have to go every week? I go once a month, if that. And it doesn't have to be hundreds of dollars. Open Path Collective offers sessions for less than $100 each. Very few people do once per week for very long. That's usually for extreme cases and only temporary until the person feels comfortable enough to go longer stretches.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/25 04:02 PM
–

Nobody said you can't. But that doesn't make therapy useless. It gives people who don't have the skill the tools to help accomplish that. It also helps people who do have the ability to stay on track and not spiral. It's like learning to cook. Sure, you could figure out how to make a meal without ever taking a cooking class. But classes give you techniques, tips, and recipes that make it easier and more reliable. Some people can improvise, but even experienced cooks benefit from learning new met…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/25 03:54 PM
–

Therapy is not supposed to "cure" depression. It's supposed to help give you the tools to navigate and deal with depression in the way you are personally experiencing it. There is no "cure" for depression. If you have depression, it's something you need to learn to deal with for the rest of your life. And that's where therapy comes in. At best, it can help you recover from depression but it can't stop the relapses.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/25 03:45 PM
4

50-64 is 20% of dating app users, and 64+ is 13%. 20+13=33, so 33% of people on the apps are 50+. No, that's not what that says. That says 20% of people ages 50-64 And 13% of people aged 64+ have used dating apps before. That doesn't say 50-64 year olds make up 20% and 64+ make up 13% of dating app users. 33% is the percentage of people age 50+ that have used dating apps before. Your math is based on a faulty interpretation of the data. Those are the percentage of that group that have used datin…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 09:13 PM
4

You realize you're just making up stats when you say that those 50% of adults make up close to 50% of adults dating, right? I'm not seeing how you're able to confidently say 50% of one group makes up 50% of the total group. You can't just 'do math' on data and pretend they're real statistics. You haven't even demonstrated that claim to be true. and so anyone who was 35+ in that year would be 47+ now. Most married people do not use dating apps (unless they are looking to cheat), so the vast major…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 08:43 PM
3

The article mentions "About half of adults under 30 have used a dating site or app" which suggests a number closer to 50%. It doesn't give the breakdowns by gender though for women under 30. If you're just going to make up stats to counter actual research studies then there's really nothing more to say. I'm not sure why you think half of adults under 30 makes up close to 50% of people dating or why people over 47 don't use dating apps.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 08:18 PM
1

It's not useless. People of all ages date.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 05:50 PM
9

But that doesn't make their experience the average. Only 30% of Americans have ever used online dating. They're a minority, not the average. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/02/02/the-who-where-and-why-of-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 05:22 PM
1

But those results would only apply to online dating, which is a minority of people. Research shows only about 30% of young US adults have ever used online dating per Pew Research https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/02/02/the-who-where-and-why-of-online-dating-in-the-u-s/
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/25 04:45 PM
9

There is a significant increase in levels of unhappiness and depression amount unmarried women. 28% of 40 year old men are never married and without children which is up from 3% just 30 years ago. People are miserable from freedom of choice because thats an illusion... Where is the causation? This is just a simple correlation. It doesn't mean one caused the other. There's a lot of other things that could easily be the cause of unhappiness. Such as wage stagnation combined with rising responsibil…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/25 04:58 PM
1

From a legitimate research group, yes. Not to mention 10 years younger than the book. The interpretation of the data from okcupid is just bad. It's not been peer reviewed.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/25 11:03 PM
1

I'm not digging myself anywhere. Best seller and book awards don't speak to a book's merit. They're all just marketing material. Peer review and reproducibility are what speak to a book's merit That's a study of online dating. The average woman doesn't use online dating. Only about 27% of women and only 34% of men have ever used it. Only 30% of people have ever used it. They're minority populations. What happens in online dating doesn't speak to the average. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-rea…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 10:14 PM
1

A positive review from the wall street journal doesn't mean anything about the scientific merit. They're journalists, not scientists. They also give glowing reviews to self help books If it's not a peer-reviewed and reproducible study, it's just entertainment
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 09:40 PM
1

How do any of those speak to scientific validity? They're marketing awards not accreditations. Winning those awards doesn't mean that it's good science and data interpretation Just because it was published in a book and a best seller doesn't mean the science and interpretation is good. Self help books make those lists too and they're pure bullshit. If it's not a peer-reviewed and reproducible study, it's just entertainment
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/25 09:36 PM
1

The only awards that book won that I can find are a Goodreads Choice Award and a nomination for Most Entertaining Book from the Non-Obvious Book Awards. Not exactly a glowing recommendation on its scientific value. It didn't win any awards for its mathematical or scientific value. Saying it was "debunked" was probably the wrong word, but it doesn't really need "debunking" in that sense. It's marketing material, not scientific evidence. No, just because he went to Harvard doesn't mean he knows wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/25 03:10 PM
1

The only award it won is a Goodreads Choice Award. No, just because he went to Harvard doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/25 02:47 PM
1

They did a lot of research in 2022. I have no idea what research you're talking about. Do you have a link?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/25 02:50 PM
6

There's no baby to throw out. It's a nonsense interpretation of data from a dating site (the apps didn't exist) that was interpreted and published by someone who isn't a researcher. The CEO did it to promote their website and didn't even account for bots, catfish, and scammers.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/25 06:50 PM
11

The 80/20 thing came from a debunked (and removed) OkCupid study from like 2006 and the rule is borrowed from economic theory. It doesn't have any real basis in reality beyond a CEO publishing data and drawing conclusions without any actual research. It was published by Christian Rudder, a CEO not a researcher, and was never peer reviewed Crucially, this was not a study about who actually dates whom and the same OkCupid data also revealed that women do send messages to men rated as less attracti…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/25 06:43 PM
1

The 80/20 thing that you're referring to came from a debunked (and removed) OkCupid study from like 2006. It doesn't have any real basis in reality. It was published by Christian Rudder, a CEO not a researcher, and was never peer reviewed Crucially, this was not a study about who actually dates whom and the same OkCupid data also revealed that women do send messages to men rated as less attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/25 06:31 PM
1

The 80/20 thing that you're referring to came from a debunked (and removed) OkCupid study from like 2006. It doesn't have any real basis in reality. It was published by Christian Rudder, a CEO not a researcher, and was never peer reviewed Crucially, this was not a study about who actually dates whom and the same OkCupid data also revealed that women do send messages to men rated as less attractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/25 06:30 PM
–

In what context would that same statement applied to races not be racist? Pretty much none that I can think of. I really don't like this thinking because it implies you can swap nouns in sentences, changing the entire semantics of what is being said, and it makes it sound like it's a racist take. "I don't trust lawyers" and "I don't trust cops" suddenly becomes racist because you can swap the nouns with "black person" and it is suddenly a racist statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/25 03:58 PM
1

That's hypocrisy, not hubris. But that doesn't mean they're wrong for asking for evidence as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 07:05 PM
1

Calling out a claim as unsupported is a stance.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 04:26 PM
1

Yes. Which is why I've been asking why they believe it's true and haven't gotten an answer yet. Why do you believe it's true?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 04:03 PM
1

No, it is. Calling out claims as unsupported is very much a part of debating.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 04:02 PM
1

Yes, because there's no evidence to support it. It's not fallacious to reject a claim that has no evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 04:00 PM
1

I didn't say OP is wrong. I said there's no evidence to support OP's claim so there's no reason to believe it's true. It's not a cop out, and you're clearly looking to make a tu quoque fallacy. I simply don't have an opinion on the matter because there's not really a reason to have an opinion on the matter. It's an unsupported claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 03:57 PM
1

I'm not claiming OP is wrong. I'm rejecting their claim because there is no evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 03:55 PM
1

That's not how settling out of court works. You're woefully misinformed about how cases are settled out of court
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 03:14 PM
1

No, I've never made a debate post here? Why does it matter for someone making an unsoppoeted claim with no evidence
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 02:47 PM
1

And how do you demonstrate that it actually is most common other than just asserting that it's the most common? Assertions alone aren't very convincing
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 02:36 PM
1

Nope
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 02:34 PM
2

I don't really have a belief on this specific matter other than rejecting the claim OP is making. So the burden of proof is on them and people agreeing with them. I'm not asking for studies. I'm asking for evidence; that is some kind of data that supports a claim. If you're going to make a claim, you should have some kind of evidence to support a claim even if it's a perspective. Otherwise there's no reason to believe it. Just because it's someone's perspective doesn't make their perspective cor…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 02:32 PM
1

Not universally, no. Do I think some are? Yes. Same for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/25 12:07 AM
1

You're not going to find data on how "people feel about men getting sexual too early" because it's not quantifiable Okay, so why do you believe it's true beyond just vibes?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 08:44 PM
2

It's on the lawyer to point out that the system is highly biased and discriminatory and that men are less likely to win custody of their kids if they ask for it? Again, just because a lawyer says something or believes a system biased doesn't make it true. Bad lawyers exist. Shouldn't a fair and equal system grant custody evenly between parents and neither needs to fight for the right to see their own kid? Most divorces with children never go to court or have to fight over this. It's worked out o…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 08:28 PM
1

I'm talking US. But a quick google search says it's given to all children in the UK equally. The HPV vaccine helps protect against human papillomavirus (HPV). It's recommended for children aged 12 to 13 years old and people at higher risk from HPV. https://www.nhs.uk/vaccinations/hpv-vaccine/ The HPV vaccine has had a lot of research done in the past few decades and in hindsight the medical community has realized it was a mistake to only roll it out to girls.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 08:08 PM
3

How is that on the system? That's on the lawyer. Yes, divorce is expensive because you're breaking a legal contract. And that usually requires lawyers to navigate the law and due process effectively.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 08:06 PM
1

The HPV vaccine also isn't free for anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:53 PM
6

An important statistic that's missing from your claim is the percentage of fathers that actually file for primary custody.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:42 PM
1

Let me put it this way. Why do you believe it's true? What piece of data convinced you? It's kind of important for the topic. If you can't defend your position of generalization, and demonstrate the generalization to be true, what's there to even talk about? It's just you making a claim and nobody can counter it Why do you even be
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:35 PM
1

No you don't. You can use quantifying words like some.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:24 PM
2

Almost like generalizations are bad arguments to begin with. If you come in looking for a debate (which you did), people are going to call you out on nonsense like sweeping generalizations if you can't demonstrate them true. Just because you make a claim doesn't mean people are going to believe it's true if you can't demonstrate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:23 PM
3

You can't make generalizations about billions of people without demonstrating it's actually true and that anyone going against it are outliers. Just because you make a generalization doesn't make it true. So you can't demonstrate they're extreme outliers? Why should anyone believe they are if that can't be demonstrated?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:20 PM
6

It's kind of on you to demonstrate they're extreme outliers since you're the one making the claim that they are. I don't believe they're extreme outliers.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:18 PM
9

Because sweeping generalizations about billions of individual people are rarely, if ever, universally true.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:16 PM
6

Men can get the HPV vaccine. I just got mine a few months ago at CVS. Child support is awarded based on custody. If custody is 50/50 there's not usually child support.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 06:13 PM
3

That's kind of impossible when it involves people intertwining their lives so closely and merge assets. Not saying it is always devastating, but people do end up in situations that are financially devastating when that happens. For instance, if one person being out of the work force for a decade in order to help support the other person's entrepreneurial venture. It'd be nice if life worked out so perfectly for everyone, but that's not realistic
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 06:05 PM
3

Because it's a legal contract that, when it ends, can financially devastate people depending on how the tower crumbles. Ending it can trigger division of assets, alimony, debt responsibility, child support, etc. Which makes people treat it as something meant to be permanent. It's basically built into the legal system to treat it as a permanent contract and ending it should be avoided at all costs.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:37 PM
2

I'm asking you what you mean when you say "feminist group" so that we aren't talking about two different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 07:14 AM
1

No, I really don't know what you mean by a feminist group. You said they protested at Miramar but all I can't find any evidence of any protests against the draft happening at Miramar ever. I mean, me being a first hand witness is evidence by definition (data that supports a claim). Whether you find it convincing is a different story.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 06:30 AM
1

There's a lot of people protesting many different things at those protests. Can you define what makes a group a feminist group? Because feminists can be, generally, against it without it being a cause taken up by a specific group.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 06:02 AM
1

They do it every year. I just moved away from the area in the past 3 years. Last I checked it still happens every time there's an air show
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:56 AM
1

I did. I've seen protests regarding this near Miramar naval base in the past 3 years. That's recent political activism, is it not?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:50 AM
2

If it becomes their concern then they're more than welcome to volunteer
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:28 AM
2

What would you consider valid? I've seen protests on the freeway near Miramar naval base within the past 3 years
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:25 AM
1

https://nnomy.org/en/
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:23 AM
1

I don't have a solution to that nor is it my prerogative to come up with one. I'm simply calling it out as forced labor and pointing out that forced labor is considered unethical to western nations. Just because governments can't come up with a solution that isn't forced labor isn't my concern.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 05:10 AM
1

That doesn't make it not childish. And it certainly doesn't make it correct. Forced labor is wrong in every context. Doesn't matter if the forced labor is on a farm or a battlefield. If they can't get enough volunteers they weren't offering enough for the labor. That's capitalism. The draft is incredibly communist
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 04:52 AM
1

That doesn't make it childish. And it certainly doesn't make it correct
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 04:39 AM
-6

Your main point was that if they weren't drafted for Ukraine they'd be drafted to Russia. Your enemy using forced labor doesn't justify you using forced labor It's childish schoolyard logic to think it's a justification
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 04:31 AM
-3

I don't really care about that. It has no bearing on my opinion on mandatory drafts. If they aren't drafted into x they'd be drafted into y isn't a very compelling argument. Other people doing something wrong doesn't validate you doing something wrong. And compulsory military service is always wrong because it's forced labor
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 04:25 AM
4

Well I never said that people don't push for abolishing the draft. I said it's more rare for people to advocate for abolishing the draft as a solution to inequality compared to people advocating for expanding the draft as a solution for making things equal
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 04:23 AM
4

What does that have to do with expanding the draft not being a solution for many feminists? Just because it's legal doesn't mean they have to agree. Legality doesn't determine ethics. It only determines what is legal I personally don't give a shit about what is legal. I'm against women being drafted just as much as men being drafted. Making women eligible isn't a solution to me. It makes the problem worse And if my son is drafted I'll be the first one to tell him to start shooting everyone on hi…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 03:52 AM
3

unequal requirements for military registration (making our voting rights and political participation rights conditional), The problem with this one is that the usual proposed fix is to expand the draft rather than get rid of it completely. Most feminists I'm aware of are against the draft so expanding it isn't a solution. It just makes the problem worse. They are generally anti-war and anti-military It's rare that the proposed solution is to abolish the draft, which I believe most feminists woul…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/25 02:40 AM
1

"I want kids but can't afford them" = "I don't want kids". No, that's a false equivalence. There's a nuanced difference between "I want kids but can't afford them" and "I don't want kids". The former says they want kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/09/25 06:58 PM
8

Birth rates are declining because no one wants kids, That's not necessarily true. The desire to have kids, as far as I'm aware, remains unchanged. The ability to afford kids and guarantee that affordability for 18+ years has changed.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 09:27 PM
–

Liberalism can involve universalist principles, but identifying as liberal doesn’t necessarily require embracing universalism. And most people use the term in a broader political sense, not to claim belief in universalism
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/25 02:42 AM
–

It's not really hypocritical if those men they're referring to don't want something deeper as well If you want both, and the people you meet only want one of those things, it's not hypocritical to complain about that. Even if it were hypocritical, so what? Being hypocritical isn't inherently bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/25 05:50 PM
–

You can care about both things at the same time. It's not an either-or situation. You want it to be mutually exclusive; as in you only get one but not the other. That's not how it works If someone wants something deeper, are you claiming they're not allowed to care about the superficial as well?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/25 05:45 PM
1

Why is their reaction to their feelings on the subject make it the fault of the blue pill? You're allowed your feelings. The way you react is entirely your own fault.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 09:08 PM
2

What you describe is sympathy, not empathy. Empathy means fundamentally understanding their perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 07:02 PM
1

If they're bisexual, what are they confuse and don't know about? Are you saying they don't know they're attracted to women I'm saying people can be bisexual and think they're gay
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/25 04:02 AM
1

I've never argued that bisexual women are lesbians. I'm saying that people exploring their sexuality aren't suddenly fake because they're confused and don't know.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/25 03:49 AM
1

Ohhh, you're just gatekeeping lesbianism with a No True Scotsman fallacy No true lesbian would be confused and need to explore their sexuality
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/25 03:36 AM
1

You haven't really described someone who is two-faced. You described someone who is exploring their sexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/08/25 02:57 AM
2

You've presented a false dichotomy. We can acknowledge that attraction has irrational elements while encouraging people to reflect on unhealthy patterns instead of just condemning them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:36 PM
1

I mean, no. I was asking what your definition was so I could discuss it from that context.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 08:24 PM
1

But then nobody is really talking about the same thing. The entire discussion really begs for a definition of a successful marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 08:04 PM
3

Sure, but I was asking more to further the discussion. What is your metric for a successful marriage? It's difficult to discuss the topic if we're using two different metrics for success.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 07:08 PM
5

How are you determining success? Just because it lasts longer doesn't really mean it's more successful. And I'm not really sure missing someone or cleaning up and doing your makeup makes a marriage more successful.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 07:05 PM
4

Isn't that what swinging and orgies are?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 04:31 PM
2

Depends on what you mean by dating advice. A lot of people use it when they mean "I can't find someone and need advice". It's not usually used to request relationship advice or ask "How do I date". Those suggestions are a great way to meet people. And you can't date others without meeting others.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 07:27 PM
1

I thought it was spun as nutritional deficiency from only eating protein. At least that's what I remember.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 07:06 PM
–

It may be unscripted, but you only see the edited footage. The editors make the storylines happen. Footage gets played out of order. Reactions from other things are used to react to what they want the character to react to. If something doesn't fit the story it gets cut I'm not disagreeing with you. Just jumping in with more nuance
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 05:47 PM
1

Just because some people talk endlessly about therapy doesn’t mean that’s how therapy works. Most people go, work through issues, and make real progress without broadcasting it. It's a bit disingenuous to make sweeping claims based on anecdotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 08:16 PM
5

They were not attracted to her, they faked it to get an experience and for the ones who had it, they dumped her saying it was gross. So she was exploring? I'm not really understanding their motivations. I wouldn't call that a fake lesbian I'm not defending anyone's behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 07:21 PM
1

My guy, you never said any of that before just now. You said they "faked being a lesbian" because they wanted to get into a situationship. A situationship is a sexual relationship!
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 07:16 PM
4

Because it's still a woman that's sexually attracted to another woman. Which is what makes someone a lesbian. Lesbians can be manipulative assholes, too
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 07:11 PM
4

I also wouldn't really call any of those people "fake lesbians". They definitely aren't being performative with their sexuality for "social justice points" in any of those contexts.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 07:02 PM
–

Asking a relevant question and then addressing the answer isn't a strawman.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 06:20 PM
5

How do you know this?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 06:16 PM
2

Again, there are no base instincts. There are just instincts.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:46 PM
–

Well, what makes you think that list is supposed to be exhaustive and that it counters anything I said?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:44 PM
1

Good thing humans have instincts where they don't tend to do that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:42 PM
–

Traits like compassion, empathy, and patience are evolved instincts too. They’re just more socially oriented instincts. Instincts aren’t limited to hunger, arousal, or aggression. They include any behavior that evolved to improve survival and reproduction, including pro-social behaviors. And your wiki article demonstrates that. The examples of instinct isn't an exhaustive list. Something not being present doesn't mean it doesn't count From your link Among possible examples of instinct-influenced…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:36 PM
–

Just because it’s a useful way to think about instincts doesn’t mean such a division actually exists in reality. If the division doesn't exist in reality, then the original claim means nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:27 PM
1

It being an observation doesn't make it a fact. Your observations can be incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:17 PM
1

If you can't demonstrate it's empirically true, why should I believe in these distinctions in the first place?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:11 PM
1

That's not what it means for sexuality to be performative. Faking an orgasm isn't performative sexuality. You're shifting the meaning of the word "performative" to make "performative sexuality" something it isn't
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:05 PM
–

None of that makes instincts "higher" or "lower". Again, are there studies or is there empirical evidence that demonstrates the tier system exists as a fact? Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's true. It’s logical to think that if you drop a heavy object and a light object at the same time, the heavier one will hit the ground first. But that's not what happens Similarly just because it seems logical to rank instincts doesn’t make it true in biology.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 05:02 PM
1

That is a stereotype, not a widespread reality. It's banking on the misogynist narrative that women's sexuality is performative. It's used to de-legitimize lesbians, in general.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:55 PM
6

What is a "fake lesbian"?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:49 PM
4

How do you know what any one woman says online and that it doesn't match the reality of their actions in real life? How are you matching the women you encounter in real life to their online persona? It doesn't really seem possible to do that without knowing their accounts.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:41 PM
1

That's not so cut-and-dry. In some studies, lesbian couples divorce at higher rates than heterosexual couples, while gay male couples divorce at lower rates. In other studies, female/female divorce rates are closer to heterosexual rates, but still above male/male rates.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:38 PM
1

Being likable as a person doesn't mean you're likable as a partner. My best friend is a likable person, but I wouldn't date them if I were a woman. They're just not a very good partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:29 PM
–

There. Are. No. Base. Instincts. They don't exist in any scientific capacity. All instincts are just instincts. It's just an idea that sounds neat, but ideas that sound neat aren't inherently factual
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:08 PM
–

Except instincts aren't normally tiered in such a way. Instincts are just instincts. They're all kind of equal in evolutionary biology. All evolved traits serve survival and reproduction in context, rather than fitting into a moral hierarchy. It's just an idea that sounds neat to them, but at the end of the day it's bro science.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:04 PM
–

Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Instincts aren't usually tiered like that. They're just instincts. There's no "higher" or "lower" instinct. Your reasoning is very bro science. Are there studies that show this tier system actually existing or is it just something that sounds correct to you?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:48 PM
–

How are they higher when they help individualistic survival? Humans that are loyal and bonded have a higher rate of survival due to cooperating.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:33 PM
1

But the "base ones" aren't inherently destructive.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:27 PM
–

The issue with this line of thinking is that it assumes instincts are only destructive and "base." That’s just flat out wrong. Humans have instincts for bonding, empathy, fairness, and loyalty that are just as deeply rooted as sexual attraction. And they’re what make lasting relationships and societies possible in the first place. Additionally, society doesn’t exist in opposition to instincts. It exists because we build on the pro-social ones and find ways to manage the conflicting ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:23 PM
–

Ummm...you responded to a question about why you'd still be attracted to women and give them love if they're old and ugly and your example was the maternal relationship. They were talking about sexual relationships and you clapped back "you still love your mom, right?". Sure, but that's not a sexual relationship so it's either not a great analogy and doesn't address the question or your relationship with your mother is very strange
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:05 PM
1

If you don't know then why do you believe it's true?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 02:46 PM
1

Because sacraficing the well-being of your children to prove a point is unethical?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 06:04 PM
18

It's not necessarily legal, anymore. Six week abortion bans are effectively a ban on abortion. You can't even see an OB to confirm pregnancy until like week 9.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 05:39 PM
1

How do demisexuals fit into this claim of universally ugly existing? Wouldn't that mean if a person is universally ugly then they have a shit personality?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 04:40 PM
1

The data that shows the number of men who go through life never having a sex life. Who never be in a relationship, who never date, etc. Universally ugly does indeed exist. It is not a self-fulfilling thing. How does that demonstrate "Universally ugly" exists? Universally ugly does indeed exist. Then what is the definition? You've not even defined it, yet Universally ugly men never get a chance to date a woman. Ugly men who THINK they are universally ugly do can get a chance to date. They were ne…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 10:10 PM
1

Also, how do demisexuals fit into this claim of universally ugly?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 09:51 PM
1

No it’s not a circular thing at all. There’s legit meaning behind it. Now some may think they are indeed universally ugly but it turns out they’re just ugly since they’ve found who wanted to have sex with them. Then how do you define it such that it is not circular?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 09:40 PM
1

They're using the generic "you" that refers to people other than themselves. Not the specific "you" that is referring to /u/Mydragonurdungeon
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 09:14 PM
2

You’re married right? You’ve had sex right? That’s how I know you’re not universally ugly. Then the definition of universally ugly is circular. The moment someone has sex or gets into a relationship they retroactively don't count.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 08:45 PM
–

Riveting counter.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 08:13 PM
2

When it comes to ugly, yes it does. When it comes to universally ugly, no it doesn’t. Then your claim and arguments are invalid because they aren't made in good faith.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 08:05 PM
2

So any examplen where an ugly autistic person dates women just doesn't count?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:27 PM
3

Which is I said might. It’s absolutely fair to say the number of us in a relationship is 0 and always has been 0 throughout history. I'm a married, ugly autistic man.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 05:38 PM
–

They kinda do. There are a lot of us (universally ugly autistic men) that are in the same boat. No, they don't. Anecdotes don't demonstrate an impossibility. Not really. There might be 1 or 2 but it’s fair to say they are outliers. If it's impossible there wouldn't be outliers. Impossibility is a universal claim that no matter what, achieving it isn't possible. It's impossible to turn lead into gold without nuclear reactions. It's impossible for a square to be a circle. There are no outliers. It…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 05:18 PM
–

When I’m out; the only slobs that I see are the ones that are already in relationships Because they aren't trying to attract anyone. Personality is a lot more important. Dressing well and grooming is probably the least important because it can be changed in 20 minutes and maybe costs a haircut.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 04:37 PM
–

If you're not likable, it's your fault. Any specific individual liking or not liking you is a different topic. Might be your fault, might not be. If there's a trend of people not liking you, you're probably not likable. If people in general don’t like you, that’s on you. Any one person might not like you for random reasons, but a pattern says something
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 04:28 PM
–

Your personal struggles don’t logically prove a universal impossibility. There are "universally ugly, autistic men" that have a dating/romantic life. It's actually impossible to date women if you never actually get out and meet women.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 04:09 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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