TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

NidaleesMVP Archive

View 0 posts and 237 comments by NidaleesMVP 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

zzzzz weird logic. I never said in all cases the directly paid services are always cheaper. Admitting that it may not be the main intention does not equal to admitting that it's literally not the point that it's cheaper. Being cheaper can be a large byproduct of the environment the service is operating in, without cheaper being the main point of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:04 PM
2

Then you could have ignored it. Instead, you misread it, falsely attributed someone else’s argument to me, and switched to insults when corrected. Calling it irrelevant does not undo any of that, and it does not make it unrelated. It is an escape hatch.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 02:00 PM
14

Kind of yea, maybe not the main intention but in a lot of cases, it's still the case. Many services outside of sex are cheaper when they are explicitly paid for rather than having to obtain those services without directly paying for them yourself. It's a pretty common concept actually, since the dawn of time.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:53 PM
3

Something can be intentional and still be ironic.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:36 PM
2

That only works if every reply automatically proves you right. That is not a “case in point.” It is a claim made to avoid having to defend itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:35 PM
0

That explains her point, not her reasoning. If judging love through women’s sexual behavior is illogical, then bringing up women’s hormones and sexual satisfaction does not fix it. It keeps sexual behavior at the center of a claim about love. We don't view sex and love the same way that men do thus, their relating sex to love via women's behavior is illogical. This and “Women are not men” does not prove that women and men each have one shared view of love and sex. You are turning broad sex diffe…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:30 PM
2

You must really like hearing yourself talk. Very typical for a man. Not shocking. You ran out of arguments, misread the thread, and switched to a sexist insult. “Typical for a man” is not a rebuttal. It is just prejudice dressed up as wit. And that still does not explain how my response to your “just opt out” argument was irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:27 PM
0

So you didn't read to understand, then. Because SHE doesn't believe that. This is what men of PPD say. I understood that she was describing what certain men say, after she replied to clarify. That does not answer my criticism. My point is that her post accepts their conflation as its framework. She moves from a claim about “unconditional love” directly into women’s hormones, sexual satisfaction, and sexual behavior, without first separating love from sexual availability, in fact, her wording blu…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:24 PM
2

It is irrelevant. Repeating “it is irrelevant” is not an argument. It's contentless rhetoric. Your reply relied on the claim that men can simply opt out of dating women. My comment directly addressed why the ability to opt out does not invalidate criticism of dating norms. That is plainly relevant to the reasoning you used. Then you misattributed someone else’s analogy to me, and after being corrected, you stopped explaining your position, ditched it completely, and instead, started asserting ir…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:21 PM
1

You first claimed that I “literally” made the employment comparison. Now that you have noticed I did not, you are calling my comment irrelevant instead of acknowledging the mistake. It was relevant because your reply, “you can choose not to date women at all”, restated the exact “opt out” argument I was addressing. I explained why the ability to opt out does not make criticism invalid. Comments in a thread are not restricted to defending the person directly above them. I responded to the reasoni…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:18 PM
-4

Report her for "No Contentless Rhetoric", she isn't engaging with the criticism of her post in her replies, and her replies are empty.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:16 PM
21

And ironically, in a lot of times it's a far more efficient time wise, effort wise, and money wise.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:14 PM
0

No, I literally did not. The user named Barely-moral made the employment comparison. I replied to a different comment and explicitly said the comparison was not mine. The usernames are directly above each comment, so “you provided no other context” is simply false. My comment gave the exact distinction: opting out of dating is possible, but that does not automatically invalidate criticism of dating norms. You are arguing against someone else’s analogy and attaching it to me instead of addressing…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:13 PM
0

No, I’m criticizing the person whose post I am currently responding to. The fact that some men originally conflate love with sex does not exempt you from criticism when your own argument repeats that conflation instead of clearly separating the two. Quoting or paraphrasing a bad premise does not automatically mean you have successfully challenged it. And “you only criticize it when a woman repeats it” is an accusation you have no basis for. You do not know what else I criticize. It is also irrel…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 01:12 PM
0

That does not answer the criticism. It just says the men started the conflation. You still repeated their conflation as the framework of your argument, then explained women’s supposed capacity for “unconditional love” through hormones, sexual satisfaction, and sexual behavior. Saying “they did it first” does not make your own wording any less reductive. You also did not clearly distinguish love from sexual availability until you were challenged. In the original post, sex is not merely an example…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:59 PM
-4

Because I never said men cannot choose to stop dating women, nor did I compare dating to employment. My point was that “you can opt out” does not answer or invalidate criticism of dating norms. Men can choose not to date particular women, or women altogether, and still make valid criticisms of patterns they encounter. Saying they probably will not become homeless from opting out only shows that dating is less materially necessary than employment. It does not address what I actually said, nor the…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:57 PM
-4

Your reply is irrelevant to mine.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:54 PM
-2

"Now, this goes back to people who complain how women how women dont “love unconditionally” (for sex) like men do. Well….women aren’t men. Especially since women dont have the same hormones nor same satisfaction from sex. So expecting women’s sexual behavior to be like a stereotypical man’s is ridiculous." It doesn’t have to be stated explicitly to be invoked. You moved directly from people saying women do not “love unconditionally” to women’s hormones, sexual satisfaction, and sexual behavior. …
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:52 PM
-4

They are not wrong, they are a financial liability in most cases. The truth sits in between, it's true that men who complain shouldn't choose those women, and it's also true that the criticism of men does not become null just because they can choose not to date those women.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:41 PM
-1

So many things wrong with this post. All the way from binding love to sex, to striking down all social criticism on the basis of "just don't choose them"
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/26 12:40 PM
1

The same dude you couldn't reply to. But it's okay, I can state the same point here. “I have the pussy, I make the rules” is not logic. It is a slogan that only works on men whose standards collapse the moment sex is available. In other words, it gives you leverage over desperation, not over quality. Men’s preferences are not “cute” or “futile” if those preferences decide whether they approach you, respect you, commit to you, invest in you, or walk away from you. That is literally what makes a p…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 01:33 PM
4

Double cringe.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 06:46 AM
-1

Cringe.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/26 01:52 AM
0

And I have already answered your answer: You didn't reply to the essence of my reply. You just repackaged your argument to make it appear less vague while still being vague. You expanded a single question into a sweeping mindset and values judgement. You can ask AI yourself whether you are being vague and trying to act otherwise or not. The issue with defending sweeping statements that way by trying to stretch what the data you get from that question is that your judgment appears more and more o…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 11:15 AM
1

No, you did not “dumb it down.” You stripped the argument down to the only thing you had left: sexual access. “I have the pussy, I make the rules” is not logic. It is a slogan that only works on men whose standards collapse the moment sex is available. In other words, it gives you leverage over desperation, not over quality. Men’s preferences are not “cute” or “futile” if those preferences decide whether they approach you, respect you, commit to you, invest in you, or walk away from you. That is…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:34 AM
1

“Already presented, read previous comments” is just another dodge. I read them. I answered them. Then instead of defending them, you complained about length, tone, politeness, and compression. If your previous comments contained a real rebuttal, you should be able to restate the relevant point instead of hiding behind “go read it again.” What actually happened is simple: your previous argument was addressed, and now you are pretending its mere existence counts as a response to the criticism. It …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:21 AM
1

No. I’m not going to keep shrinking the argument because you want to dodge the parts that answered you. “Too long” is not a rebuttal. “I have a rebuttal” is not a rebuttal. “You drag everything” is not a rebuttal. Those are complaints about packaging because you stopped dealing with the substance. You made several weak claims, got answered, and then tried to turn your unwillingness to engage into my failure to “compress.” That is not my problem. That is you confusing your attention span with an …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:14 AM
1

No, the TL;DR is that you don’t have a rebuttal. You’re now arguing about the length and tone of the reply because you stopped engaging with the substance. “Politeness to reply doesn’t include politeness of content” is irrelevant. Nobody accused you of being impolite as the main argument. The point was that you claimed you were only replying out of politeness after spending multiple replies arguing definitions, making claims, and insulting men. That is not “just politeness.” That is participatio…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 03:03 AM
0

“Ask any normal person” is not an argument. It is just you outsourcing your inability to engage. And no, this is not politeness. You were not being “polite” when you called men brainless sex seekers, lame, losers, cheap, and available at every corner. So don’t suddenly hide behind manners now. You were invested enough to reply repeatedly, argue definitions, link a dictionary, and throw out vulgar sexual-market slogans. But when your reasoning got answered directly, suddenly the issue is length a…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:53 AM
0

“Too long, didn’t read” is not a comeback. It is you openly dodging after your argument got answered. You were invested enough to reply repeatedly, link a dictionary, argue definitions, call men brainless sex seekers, and rant about how male judgment does not matter. But now that the flaws in your position are laid out, suddenly reading is too much work. That is not lack of investment. That is intellectual laziness with a convenient exit door. If you cannot engage the argument, just say that. Bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:48 AM
0

“I give 0 fucks” is not an argument. It is an emotional disclaimer. A fat person can say, “I give 0 fucks that fit people don’t find me attractive.” Fine. They may genuinely not care. That still does not prove their weight has no effect on health, attraction, discipline, dating options, or how others judge them. A broke person can say, “I give 0 fucks that financially stable people don’t want to date me.” Fine. That still does not make their financial situation irrelevant. A lazy person can say,…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:38 AM
1

You linked the dictionary and still managed to miss the definition. Rejection is not only “someone says no after being asked.” Cambridge literally defines it as refusing to accept someone or something. So yes, a man can reject you by deciding you are not acceptable to him, even if you never approached him and even if he never announces it to you. Your street example is stupid because walking past random strangers is not a dating evaluation. But if you look at a guy, assess him as unattractive, i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 02:13 AM
0

“There was no leap” is just another assertion, not an explanation. Saying “no one else is confused except you” also doesn’t prove anything. That’s just an appeal to an audience because you still don’t want to or are unable to spell out the reasoning. “No one else is confused” is what people say when they want social pressure to do the work their argument isn’t doing. The issue remains the same: you are taking one question and treating it as proof of a broader mindset and values system. When aske…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:56 AM
1

No, I did not transform what you said in bad faith. I pointed out the implication you keep trying to avoid. You are defining rejection in the narrowest possible way: “I approached him and he said no.” Fine, under that childish definition, you are “never rejected” because you never approach. But in the real world, people can reject you without you first formally applying for their approval. They can decide not to approach. They can lose interest. They can decide you are not worth commitment. They…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:52 AM
1

You just proved the point harder. “I don’t approach, so I can’t be rejected” is not reasoning. It is a child’s definition of rejection. Rejection is not limited to you walking up to a man and hearing “no.” A man can reject you by not approaching, losing interest, not committing, filtering you out, or deciding you are not relationship material before you ever get the chance to frame it as your choice. Your entire argument depends on pretending that if rejection is invisible to you, it does not ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 01:21 AM
1

You keep saying “I’ve been consistent,” but repeating yourself is not consistency. It is just refusing to understand the criticism. Your position moved from “he’s judgemental, we’re not compatible” to “I specifically don’t want men who care about body count.” The second version is narrower, cleaner, and more defensible. The problem is that it is not what you originally said. You used “judgemental” as a cheap moral label, then when challenged, you tried to rebrand it as mere compatibility. That i…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 12:58 AM
1

You are misunderstanding the point, or pretending to. I did not say you asked repeatedly because I dodged the answer. I said you asked repeatedly while dodging the actual criticism. The criticism was not “do you personally want those men?” The criticism was that you moved from a broad loaded framing — “if he’s judgemental, we’re not compatible” — into a narrower and more defensible framing after being challenged. And your “they were never in the pool” argument is just another version of the same…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 12:23 AM
0

You had to ask repeatedly because you kept dodging repeatedly. I already answered “accountability for what?” The accountability is for recognizing that your choices, framing, lifestyle, and standards can affect the kind of partners you attract or repel. Now the question is whether you are capable of acknowledging that without immediately hiding behind “I didn’t want those men anyway.” You initially framed the man as “judgemental,” which is a loaded negative term. That does not distinguish betwee…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/26 12:07 AM
-1

Notice your tone demands an answer for your question despite the shift in position that you demonstrated, which is a dishonest appearance since neither did you refute the shift, nor acknowledge it. Yet I will still answer your question, self-accountability for recognizing that one’s choices, standards, lifestyle, and framing can affect the kind of partners one attracts or repels. It stems from that earlier framework that you yourself established which goes from sweeping "If he's judgemental. We'…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:37 PM
0

Ai response: This is exactly the dodge I’m pointing out. Nobody said you are not allowed to have your own criteria. Nobody said you have to find an “n count” question compatible with your standards. You keep retreating to “it’s my standard” as if personal preference magically answers the criticism of vagueness. It doesn’t. A personal standard does not become well-reasoned just because you personally hold it. The issue is not whether you can select against someone. The issue is that you are makin…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:35 PM
0

Ai response: First you said essence was vague and after you got called out you dropped that claim entirely, which is a bad look. Second, I didn’t say the word “mindsets” is inherently vague, or that the phrase “selecting against” is inherently vague. The vagueness is in how you’re applying it here. You’re taking one narrow answer and treating it as enough to identify a broader “mindset” worth selecting against, without explaining the actual link between the answer and that broader judgment. So s…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:14 PM
0

AI analysis response: Saying “you don’t like my response” still isn’t addressing the point. My criticism is not that I dislike being “selected against.” It is that you’re taking a narrow answer to one question and treating it as enough evidence for a much broader judgment about someone’s mindset and values. That connection is the part you keep asserting rather than explaining. Calling that “not vague” doesn’t make it specific. A specific argument would explain why that particular answer reliably…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 10:17 PM
0

You didn't reply to the essence of my reply. You just repackaged your argument to make it appear less vague while still being vague. You expanded a single question into a sweeping mindset and values judgement. You can ask AI yourself whether you are being vague and trying to act otherwise or not. Your last paragraph also signals a psychological projection, this isn't about my person or my feelings or you being compatible with me, yet you seem to approach the matter that way which indicates to me…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 09:09 PM
-2

"Any negative reaction or judgment to my choices is automatically invalid, a proper partner wouldn't care, and therefore I never need to ask whether my choices are wise, attractive, disciplined, or aligned with the kind of partner I want, there is nothing to be accountable for". See the epitome of avoiding accountability is to reframe the situation or even just bluntly assert that it doesn't exist. Your example you listed at the end is your preference, not another person's judgement، that's a fa…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 09:03 PM
-2

You are switching your argument here. The issue wasn't a mismatch of values, you only started framing it that way now. Your broader comment made a sweeping statement about judgement in general as if anyone negatively judging you is automatically invalid and therefore incompatible without distinguishing between irrational and contemptuous judgement and valid/rational judgement.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 09:01 PM
0

Seriously? Your entire reply chain doesn't explain what you mean by his mindset and values beyond you feeling turned off by a single question about body count, which you seem to be using to somehow render a judgement about that person's entire mindset and values. Add the fact that you are using the word spirit to communicate your thoughts which in and of itself has mystical connotations which makes the already very vague statement even more vague.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 12:13 PM
-2

I didn't say incoherent, I said coherent... you know what just forget about it, you are barely reading my reply before replying.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 12:07 PM
0

That's a good catch. And to me the issue is less about seeing these guys as worthless for a relationship and more so about trying to avoid any self accountability by trying to pass that kind of dismissive judgement into those guys. The issue isn't the judgement, it's the reasoning behind it. It's like thinking "Any negative reaction to my choices is automatically invalid, and therefore I never need to ask whether my choices are wise, attractive, disciplined, or aligned with the kind of partner I…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 12:04 PM
3

I think it depends on the job, the company, the location, etc. But I can see a general probability where women have easier time maintaining middle tier positions while being less competent but also have harder time securing the very high level positions even while being more competent. This would explain the mismatch between the men who complain about lots of women being incompetent at their jobs and the statistics women complain about where more competent women have a harder path securing the e…
/r/MensRights05/07/26 12:01 PM
0

I think your position is more coherent, but it's too vague and general. There is a difference though between trying to avoid accountability by rendering any judgment as automatically invalid and between finding a value-related or moral gap created by fixation on that narrow question you mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:52 AM
2

Judgement is inherently connected to criticism, regardless of whether the criticism is valid or not. I don't think you understand the capacity of the word you are using. Humans naturally rely on pattern recognition that gets shaped into judgements, all the time, whether they admit it out loud or not. You seem to be trying to redefine the word judgment into a behavioral process that you don't approve of and would rather automatically treat as invalid when you don't like the judgement. So you are …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 11:39 AM
0

Sounds like a weird way to avoid internal accountability, which tends to lead to far poorer results in life. People can self-reflect and analyze, or they can simply throw out that poor "golden card" of "if they judge me, we aren't compatible" which is irrational. I'm saying this because your sentence implies holding the position of "Any negative reaction to my choices is automatically invalid, and therefore I never need to ask whether my choices are wise, attractive, disciplined, or aligned with…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/26 10:21 AM
3

You have a way with words I gotta give you that.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/06/26 10:38 AM
1

Where
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 04:50 PM
–

Yes
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 08:16 AM
–

PREACH BROTHER PREACH I'm a decently good looking guy, in shape, 6 figures in my account by the time I was 22 years old, all hard earned money. And I'm open to the idea of hiring an escort. I can waste my time and money going on Tinder dates to meet, tolerate, and sleep with subpar women who don't deserve a dime if I want to. But I rather pass on that.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 08:14 AM
1

Where
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 08:09 AM
–

Seems like a solid argument from you so far.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/04/25 08:05 AM
–

In this thread, every time someone beats you in an argument, you say, "I'm wasting my time with you, aren't I?" You genuinely don't feel embarrassed doing this? It's geniunly sad seeing people like you.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 03:28 PM
–

You got offended. You are changing the topic. You were wrong about what free speech is, and you should indeed get a refund on your master's degree.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 03:22 PM
1

I agree with you at heart, but I'm gonna disagree here in honor of the women who cry "wHY do yOU hAVE tO bRING mEn's sUFErING whEN tHE sUBJECT iS aBOUt wOmEn's suFFeriNg, dONt JuMP iN sAYing "men too"".
/r/PurplePillDebate19/03/25 03:58 AM
4

If all women were like you, earth would be an entirely different place.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/03/25 09:04 AM
1

You are probably right, though that wouldn't change the point I was making. But also different polls have found different results. A 2015 survey conducted by Vox and PerryUndem found that women were slightly more likely than men to describe themselves as pro-life. This study also noted that women were modestly more likely to say abortion should never be legal compared to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 10:45 AM
15

I'm not OP, but I would rather break up with someone if that's her beliefs and she is breaking them just because she likes me. Besides it being a huge turn-off, it's also very likely to come bite me in the ass down the relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 09:24 AM
12

Nah, it makes sense, asking for other's views and experiences to enhance his before making a move is not chicken shit. Assuming that it's chicken shit is chicken shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 09:22 AM
9

Besides the fact that it's such a lazy, unintelligent non sequitur, it's also that at least half of people who stand against abortion are women.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 09:20 AM
3

That's an extremely lazy non sequitur. Logic 101
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 09:19 AM
-1

God knows I don't indulge much with such topics, and even I know that incels are not necessarily men who hate women.........
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 09:17 AM
0

So how long are you planning to discuss this side topic of instagram tech instead of the topic of this post? Just wondering.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/03/25 09:12 AM
7

You are assuming that one is able to date all women, when this is just laughable. The small pool a man has access to may not allign with his expectations or desires.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 08:49 PM
1

What way doesn't work exactly? The existence of a feeling or lack thereof is not a proper metric for whether true love exists or not. This is a position that I have expressed several times so far and it hasn't been either addressed properly nor refuted. One could not feel true love due to lack of reasoning, and only feel it after growing their reasoning skills through things like maturity. In such a case, reason created the feelings, it created true love. Or in another case one could feel like b…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 03:17 PM
1

One can only find true love through reason. An individual relying on feelings alone to decide whether they are truly in love or not is prone to emotional impulsivity and self-deception, that's not true love. True love can only be guided and chosen by reason to avoid falling into the traps I just mentioned. Emotions and feelings alone are insufficient. They require rational oversight to ensure authenticity and alignment with reality. Whether the emotions and feelings themselves are emerging from …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 12:24 PM
1

To me, heart is reason. One cannot have love without reason. One can be very poor and in love, due to circumstances, or one can be very poor thinking that they are in love only to live a delusional story for years or for a lifetime. What distinguishes the former from the later is reason. Prostituting yourself for benefits and not recognizing that it's not love is lack of reason. Recognizing it for what it is, is reason, but at this point it has nothing to do with the subject of love. Reason is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 12:10 PM
1

It's definitely true that having money is not the only metric. One could have money and be a terrible partner or person. But from my observation those who follow their hearts without their minds in pursue of love almost never find it. A good partner is a full package, a mix of competence and other good traits. When one falls, both fall. When the heart wants shit, the mind needs to save it, otherwise the heart will break itself and the individual ends up wasting years of their life in a delusiona…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 10:01 AM
1

Admirable approach, but in my view an incompetent man isn't worth of love, likely to have tons of underlying red flags. Same applies for a woman honestly.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/25 09:52 AM
5

It's not a shit analogy, it's dogshit
/r/PurplePillDebate06/10/24 10:01 AM
6

Humans are different. It may be hard for you, but it is easy for someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 09:09 PM
6

Well, it's because the men are down IF the woman is down. If she is not, then most of them are not, that's the commitment. Pretty simple actually, quite sad that you have a hard time comprehending the subject.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 08:54 PM
5

Yeah, seems fair. Just because she likes something does not mean that I have to like it too. If she doesn't want me to do it, then deal. I don't want her to do it, it should be a deal too. That or each of us should find someone else.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/24 08:52 PM
-1

Your comments are wise. I salute that mindset.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/24 11:24 PM
–

Not gonna lie. You are putting some clever responses here.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/24 06:47 AM
–

While I'm not with the idea of asking my gf to delete instagram. I would much rather that my GF watches porn over her, trying hard to seek the attention of some randoms online on instagram. So I don't think it's the same. The latter tells much more about a person's personality than the former.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/24 06:43 AM
3

The "it can be" is doing the majority of the lifting in ur argument.
/r/MensRights11/11/23 09:46 PM
-1

Tho it’s just common sense & doesn’t need “backing up.” When your argument to back up your claim is "Duh, it's common sense it doesn't need to be proved". Then you are simply demonstrating your lack of a valid argument to present. Rendering your claim as irrational. It’s still men sir. It’s still men. Repeating the same statement twice does not change the fact that it does not back up your claim. Elaborate further on what you mean by " You cannot use your own gender against you." and "It's not t…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 05:57 AM
1

Tho it’s just common sense & doesn’t need “backing up.” When your argument to back up your claim is "Duh, it's common sense it doesn't need to be proved". Then you are simply demonstrating your lack of a valid argument to present. Rendering your claim as irrational. It’s still men sir. It’s still men. Repeating the same statement twice does not change the fact that it does not back up your claim. Elaborate further on what you mean by " You cannot use your own gender against you." and "It's not t…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/23 05:52 AM
5

And why is that? You are making a claim without backing it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/23 10:41 AM
4

Well said.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/23 10:40 AM
1

How am I not treating men as human beings? By admitting to putting your pleasure over treating men as human beings. The other person's argument was to remember to treat men like human beings, and your reply to them was an objection to treating men like human beings on the basis of your dislike of what they do. Why is using pleasure as a justification for sex and relationships irrational? Why else do we do those things? Because in this case, you are admitting not to treat men like human beings wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/23 08:13 PM
1

No, it's the act of you not treating men as human beings while attempting to use your pleasure argument as an irrational justification.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/23 12:45 AM
-1

What do you, being an Asian and immigrant, have to do with this then? Would you be okay with his false perception if you weren't an Asian immigrant? And what if there was an "infesting"? Would you still feel offended by his statement?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/23 12:36 AM
1

That's not the act I was referring to.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/10/23 12:17 AM
1

The motivation behind a certain act does not change how bad or irrational its impact is. The fact that you are struggling to comprehend such a basic concept is an indication of being quite self-centered
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 11:30 PM
1

Your questions are quite self-centered. It's like having a harmful notion to the whole picture and then asking why you would change because you like that notion. And this doesn't change the fact that it's bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/10/23 11:25 PM
1

Well said
/r/PurplePillDebate27/05/23 06:48 PM
-6

it's your feelings. they can't be wrong. What if I feel like there is an elephant in the room? My feelings can't be wrong? Have you ever heard of appealing to emotion fallacy? I feel x therefore x is true is not a valid argument.
/r/MensRights02/01/23 07:01 PM
-28

Weird argument. What does okay mean and why does having a standard hold any merit in such a discussion? is breaking up with my gf because she sneezed okay because I have standards?
/r/MensRights02/01/23 06:49 PM
-5

What does this have to do with her valuing herself? and how does that matter?
/r/MensRights02/01/23 06:30 PM
1

to partners who don’t view women as objects. What does this have to do with viewing women as objects? Amazing how such incoherent claims are getting sneaked into some replies.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 05:39 PM
8

Based
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 05:37 PM
5

What if you got no hole to fill mate?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 05:36 PM
2

Nah.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/23 05:34 PM
6

I think most women aren’t okay with bigotry towards men. My ass. Most women AND men are okay with bigotry towards men.
/r/MensRights31/12/22 02:11 AM
11

Everything aside though, we all know that Tate most likely doesn't have a small dick. And we all know for a fact that Greta has very small tits and a flat ass. She is 19 but she literally looks like she is 12. So it's just extremely ironic that she chose to resort to such a body shaming tactic when she is the one who is the most vulnerable to it.
/r/MensRights31/12/22 02:09 AM
2

Save
/r/MensRights25/12/22 04:10 PM
2

And even more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:49 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:40 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:39 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:38 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:36 PM
2

And even more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:35 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:33 PM
2

And even more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:32 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:31 PM
2

Indeed
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:31 PM
2

And even more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:31 PM
2

Indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:29 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:29 PM
2

And more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:28 PM
2

Indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:28 PM
2

And again, there is more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:27 PM
2

Indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:26 PM
2

So again, there is more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:26 PM
1

Most of our scientific evidence and knowledge is based upon a correlation of variables. Still doesn't prove the causation part. Your own link states the following: "correlation is an extremely valuable type of scientific evidence in medicine. But first correlations must be confirmed as real, and then every possible causational relationship must be systematically explored. In the end correlation can be used as powerful evidence for a cause and effect relationship between a treatment and benefit, …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:22 PM
2

Indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:17 PM
2

And once again, there is more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:16 PM
2

Indeed, you shall think that all you want. Still non-sequiturs and therefore fallacious.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:16 PM
2

So again, there is more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:15 PM
2

So there is more. Knew it :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:10 PM
2

You can talk about feelings without feelings being involve in my points Exactly, you brought feelings into the discussion out of the blue. And again, if that was true you wouldn't have felt the need to announce this. So, non sequitur. Indeed. Yeah, claiming things without explaining why is your thing. Just babbling. you shall think that all you want. Still non-sequiturs and therefore fallacious.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:09 PM
2

If you say so.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:08 PM
2

Explain that again. Already did. To me it seem you just start saying stuff without understanding my point. You shall think that is all you want. Still non-sequiturs and therefore fallacious. I still doesn’t feel like nothing happened. If that was true you wouldn't have felt the need to announce this.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:06 PM
2

How is a contradiction? Not feeling bad about it doesn’t for contradict not having feelings involve. Because you brought feelings into the discussion out of the blue. And again, if that was true you wouldn't have felt the need to announce this. Sorry: I mention to say “still not fallacious”. See, you are lost. That’s a non-sequitur. The fact I announce it has no bearing in whether or not is true how I feel. Ups. Non-sequitur again.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:05 PM
2

Can’t be if I am not arguing. You are, with yourself. Specially when you yourself don’t have a point. You shall think that is all you want. Still non-sequiturs and therefore fallacious. Explain your point if there is one. Already did. Show which are my premises and my conclusion and where is the fallacies. Explain my argument. If a I’m commuting fallacies is because there is an argument is not working. Which is it? Read again, comprehend, and you shall understand. If you want more detailed repli…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 05:01 PM
2

No feelings involve. I don’t feel bad about it Nice contradiction. Very dishonest. Anyways, If that was true you wouldn't have felt the need to announce this. Still fallacious. True. I’m good If that was true you wouldn't have felt the need to announce this.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:59 PM
2

Don’t see your point. You don’t have one. Personal incredulity fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:57 PM
2

I have. I have make point. Yes, a non-sequitur. And I think still works. If being fallacious is your thing, then suit yourself. I you don’t, Nice English
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:55 PM
2

Yes. And since non of them apply to me because there is no real discussion. Then why are you still arguing and got your feelings into it? Anyways, still non-sequiturs and therefore fallacious. I don’t feel bad about it. If that was true you wouldn't have felt the need to announce this. You are not sustaining nothing nor disproving nothing specifically. Already did. Called out non-sequiturs, which is all I needed. And yes I am lost because you are not really trying to prove nothing but to appear …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:54 PM
2

Read, comprehend, and you shall understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:48 PM
2

I don’t even know what you are talking about. I know, you are lost. I think you haven’t even disproven one of my claims. You shall think that is all you want. Still non-sequiturs and therefore fallacious. But awesome if you won. Won? damn you are that type of person, turned it into a football game suddenly. Maybe is because you don’t even have a point. Since you are not even disputing anything I don’t feel like you refuted anything. Again, you shall feel that all you want. Still non-sequiturs an…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:48 PM
1

Non-sequitur? About what. I am not trying to prove anything. Just saying women have been oppress. Then it's a red-herring fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:43 PM
1

women and men are more alike than different Non-sequitur fallacy again. You are arguing with yourself.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:43 PM
2

Here. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/22/the-gender-gap-in-religion-around-the-world/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ There are no countries in the world where men affiliate more than women by more than 2%. There are 61 countries where women affiliate more than men by 2%. The vast majority of studies show similar findings. Women are generally more religious than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:40 PM
2

Why don't you read the study that was linked to me, as I did? Maybe then you'll actually understand my response. Because you gave your opinion on the study and used it to build an argument. I didn't do that. If you gonna give your opinion on a study and use it to build an argument, then you should have a decent understanding of it. Otherwise, you are giving your opinion and building an argument over a study that you didn't even understand. So let me repeat, how valid is this study compared to th…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:34 PM
2

What sentiment you have proven to be false? Not me, the other person. Read before you reply. That’s the problem. Funny considering that you don't even realize that I said that the sentiment has proven to be false by the person you are responding to, and not me. By dying those things you haven’t proven women flaw in any regard. dying those things? women flaw? your sentence is badly constructed that I can't even understand it. Women have been historically oppress. Non-sequitur fallacy. There is ma…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:32 PM
0

Nah, I couldn't care less. If it's true it's true. But regardless of my intention, and how I feel or sound. There is no need to refute a study that hasn't been proven. If it fails to show valid causation, and therefore saying "correlation does not equal causation" can shut it down, then it hasn't been proven in the first place.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:27 PM
2

It's not my study or my findings. Your study and your findings as in the study you are using in your argument, not in the one you conducted. I only read the study someone provided me and gave my opinion. Are you giving your opinion on a study that you didn't understand? In what way is it said that another study states a different study on a different type of primate showed different results with male monkeys being equally interested in stereotypical girl and boy toys? How valid is this study com…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:22 PM
2

Can’t say I’ve ever met a Personal incredulity fallacy. Your own example is a demonstration of my argument. I have, however, seen men and women’s lives very negatively impacted by fundamentalist belief in traditional religion. Studies show that women tend to be more religious too :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 04:18 PM
1

Thanks :)
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 09:01 AM
1

Nowhere did they admit that they "know nothing about methodology". You are putting words in their mouth. Nice try though.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 08:57 AM
3

That is because most men only mention those problems to usually put into question women’s oppression. This is a non-sequitur fallacy. None of this validates the sentiment that has been proven to be false by the person you are responding to.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 08:56 AM
0

They are right. Take care.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 08:53 AM
-1

Ironically that's one of the ways a discussion is started. You think someone is wrong, so you have a conversation with them about why you think so. Boom, discussion. You seem to be having a big struggle with comprehending this basic line of logic. I wonder why. Do you resort to this mistaken belief as an escape boat whenever someone proves something that is inconvenient to you here? But let's examine your claim a little further. So according to you, no women ever agree with those men? and no men…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 08:44 AM
2

What type of "stereotypical girl and boy toys" was used in that study? Also, keep in mind the majority of studies regarding this subject directly contradict your findings of yours.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 08:34 AM
1

Just to let you know your response to the other person doesn't appear to others. I know because I can see it in your profile, but not on the thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 06:52 AM
-1

These types of studies can be very flawed and are hard to use as evidence to support an argument. Correlation does not mean causation. How did they control for relationship length, education, race, income, age, and religiosity
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 06:50 AM
2

Not because they are, but because it’s women. No, it's because it's far more common in women than it is in men. Plus the general effect of the superstitious belief is generally higher in women than men. Take your own example as example. Someone believing that wearing a certain t-shirt will make their team win is far less likely to be harmful than someone believing in astrology and actively making life decisions based on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/22 06:37 AM
14

The whole "FGM is worse than MGM" argument is flawed. It presupposes that there is only one type of FGM, the worst one, and compares it to MGM. Some FGM types are as bad as MGM, if not less bad. Such an argument is dangerous not only because it's flawed, but because it also plays on people's tendencies to sympathize with women more than men, hence making it even easier for gullible people to buy into it. It harms the movement that attempts to expose and be against male genital mutilation.
/r/MensRights21/11/22 10:12 AM
3

Because men are held to the standard of their lowest, while women are held to the standard of their highest. Can you, or someone further explain what this means? English is not my first language.
/r/MensRights13/11/22 07:37 AM
5

Every time I see a post and say to myself "what the actual fuck is this moronic post", it turns out to be on "offmychest", it's since been a tragic joke for me.
/r/MensRights11/11/22 07:42 AM
4

I'm a man. I don't consider 30yr old women to be too old. I don't even know exactly what "too old is". I can really see a 40 yrs old man or woman, and not see them as "too old".
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/22 07:53 PM
9

because women have higher traits that relate to compassion, nurturing, etc. These aren't the qualities needed to be a good therapist or even a therapist for that matter. You simply need to be good at knowing how to do your job and help your patient, regardless of how much real compassion you have for the patient's condition. Plus it's highly debatable that women have higher traits that relate to compassion, considering that across history, men make up the overwhelming majority of people who stic…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/22 10:51 PM
2

Based.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/22 10:39 PM
5

Based
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/22 12:43 PM
9

It's toxic masculinity. Buzzword spotted.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/22 12:40 PM
6

The idea of not caring at all about anything but what's between her legs is bizarre to me. I care about her tits too.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/22 12:37 PM
9

And even if it was true regarding sex work. The solution isn't to not legalize sex work, it's to prevent sex trafficking. For example, the fact that providing more cars leads to increased car accidents doesn't mean that the solution is to provide fewer cars to the public. It's to prevent car accidents in more effective ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/22 12:33 PM
8

lmaoooo all the down votes and zero replies should say an awful lot. Sir, it's only been 6 hours and you already got several answers. Are you high? or did you smash that edit 5 minutes after putting your reply?
/r/MensRights30/10/22 07:09 AM
4

Feminists don't practice what they preach.
/r/MensRights23/10/22 03:35 AM
3

Wtf does this have to do with anything? Even if Andrew Tate has some valid points, he has still clearly demonstrated a misogynistic mentality through his various statements. Being against feminist misandry doesn't mean agreeing with Andrew's misogyny.
/r/MensRights23/10/22 03:34 AM
9

Like men should have the right to not pay child support the same way women have the right to have an abortion?
/r/MensRights23/10/22 03:27 AM
0

Islam is right about everything Wtf is that flair holy cow my eyes are bleeding.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/22 07:04 AM
3

I'm gonna be honest with you Easteuroblondie. You are embarrassing yourself so hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/22 06:36 AM
8

I don't blame them for being skeptical. Nowadays it seems you can pay for research to come up with the results you are paying for. I do blame them because when the research is in favor of men, they attempt to criticize every single detail of the research and try to dismiss it even if the faulty details don't disprove the overall conclusion of the research. But when the research is in favor of women, they take it at face value, sometimes even just from the title. And if someone criticizes, or dis…
/r/MensRights07/10/22 03:17 PM
28

Bruh. Women are born with significantly less physical strength/coordination. You are committing a non-sequitur fallacy. The fact that women face disadvantages too, does not change the fact that men are by far objectively more oppressed than women at most aspects of society.
/r/MensRights07/10/22 03:13 PM
17

To expect others to respect our grievances should involve some acknowledgements of the grievances of others. It's hard and practically questionable, to keep respecting the grievances of others when the overwhelming majority of those others have repeatedly demonstrated that even when their grievances are respected and acknowledged, they still don't respect or acknowledge the grievances of others.
/r/MensRights07/10/22 03:12 PM
2

The idea that only women were oppressed is the biggest lie ever told. I don't know. Every single time I try to reanalyze my beliefs, I still reach this conclusion. And then I wonder, is there something wrong with the way I'm thinking or are the people who don't see this really have that much of a lack of perception and self-awareness? Women, in general, have it easier ever since we used to live in caves, to this day. To be born as a woman is to have a higher chance of having your life on easy mo…
/r/MensRights04/10/22 05:20 PM
2

You don't mind accepting the argument that "men are terrible by nature"? Please read before you reply. As I said before, I don't mind accepting his argument, although it's not formulated in the best way. His argument is that due to biological reasons, men on average, are overall, more violent, and aggressive than women. This does not mean that all men are more violent and aggressive than all women, And his statement "men terrible by nature" is formulated in a bad way because what does "terrible"…
/r/MensRights29/09/22 07:36 AM
1

Would be interesting to know on behalf of whom and for what purpose. I don't understand your statement. Also whether violence is merely physical or not. It is merely physical. Anyone who tries to say otherwise is trying to play on words and is arguing either in complete bad faith or in a very unintelligent position.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 07:10 AM
13

I don't mind accepting his argument, although it's not formulated in the best way. But then, he also has to accept that for the same reasons he mentioned, men are on average, biologically more likely to be successful in different aspects of life. Determination, competitiveness mindset, brain reactionary times, ambition levels, willpower, mental tolerance, physical strength, some mental abilities, better agility, etc. And also for the same reasons that he mentioned, he also has to accept that men…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 08:38 AM
2

Can you please give me some of those examples of feminist organizations advocating for advantaging women over men? or another post that shares such examples? I have seen a few on this subreddit but they are burried.
/r/MensRights27/09/22 04:23 PM
2

Does a woman's appearance really matter THAT much? I'm a guy, and my answer is a hard no.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/22 09:31 AM
2

Lmao, that was a great way of putting it.
/r/MensRights16/09/22 08:43 AM
43

Wait a minute, so this is why I'm banned from r/offmychest lmao
/r/MensRights13/09/22 05:00 AM
2

Please look up the definition of a strawman lmao. They are not wrong. It's indeed a strawman fallacy. Either the user named bunnakay is disagreeing with something no one claimed to be true, and they are talking to themselves, or they are committing a strawman fallacy. And the latter is much more implied and probably with a repeated pattern throughout the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/22 08:17 AM
1

I'm currently working as a waiter, and you basically explained why I try to avoid talking to little girls when serving people ;)
/r/MensRights06/09/22 06:00 PM
5

Based on fucking what? The best way to estimate the odds is by having a look at the woman's views, social skills, beliefs, and things like that. Not "body count".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 03:25 AM
5

What a dumb post.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 03:23 AM
16

In this case, the woman has no previous experience in a relationship, which can easily translate to drama. So even this correlation is nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/22 03:23 AM
3

I think men should avoid porn in general because it's bad for the brain. It desensitizes you to normal sexual stimuli, and constantly masturbating reduces libido and energy levels for men. I don't think that's controversial though. Wrong. Several studies and peer-reviewed papers published by medical experts have demonstrated that your claim has been proven to be false. Now, despite the fact that you didn't provide any substantiated evidence for your claim (which is a good enough reason to withho…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/09/22 06:26 PM
1

Did you read that OP? let me repeat it, "His pain isn’t diminishing her pain. I would never demand that my wife have to endure pain just because I have to. Only a sadist or a psychopath would demand their spouse experience pain for no reason."
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/22 05:02 AM
-1

You have absolutely no clue what its like to say this to a man and have to deal with the varying reactions. It doesn't matter what I did and didn't experience. Discuss ideas, not people. The fact that I haven't experienced something does not make your claim true. It's a non-sequitur fallacy. So no, it's not best to do this. Maybe if men actually took no for an answer and knew how to handle rejection like the other commenter said, but right now MOST of them definitely do not. In the last few year…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/22 04:51 AM
7

6' it is. 😎
/r/MensRights02/09/22 12:21 AM
16

What if I'm 5'5? lmao
/r/MensRights01/09/22 11:02 PM
-2

The problem is being honest would be "I'm sorry but I am not attracted to you or interested in you in that way at all." And a lot of men would consider that downright rude - even though it's just reality. So what? let's analyze your thought process. What do you consider to be "a lot of men"? is it 30%? 50%? 80%? and how do you know? you have met most of the population? or are you just speculating based on your own experience? Okay, let's say that a lot of men consider this to be rude. So what? i…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 10:57 PM
6

True, also, statistically, men are more likely to be killed by a stranger on the street than women are. So much for taking my physical well-being for granted.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:58 PM
8

Just take the fucking award ;)
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:56 PM
2

So many men here claim that women are worshipped and loved unconditionally by society, and it’s not true There are lots of women who think that this is true too. Because it is. Do we really need to get into statistics of wars, homelessness, street homicide rates, medical care receiving rates, psychologically controlled experiments, and genital mutilation laws? and much more? And the fact that you are getting this upset by me saying “teach men and boys to respect no” shows that you really don’t c…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:51 PM
1

The OP's example is a bit of a distraction. Society needs white lies and the such to lubricate it. So no, we aren't going to--nor should we--teach young women to refuse male advances in the most blunt ways possible. That would be dumb. Men will have to learn when to take the hint and when to persevere You still haven't demonstrated why it's men who are supposed to learn to take the hints, instead of women who are supposed to communicate clearly. All you did was call it "dumb".
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:34 PM
1

Good, then say no.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:29 PM
1

I don't think "reserving to judge someone as a creep" has anything to do with reading people's minds mate.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:28 PM
1

brutally honest approach In other words "downright rude"? yeah, but no. That's a moronic behavior, good luck getting positive results out of it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/22 06:25 PM
2

there are ppl in here calling the man’s wife a bitch There are no people. As of this moment, there is only a single person, and they said, "She sounds like a bitch.". Also, you didn't respond to the other person's point when they said "IMO you are overlooking the facts; his infrequent and low consumption and her threats/emotional blackmail.". You completely ignored this point and instead, you started accusing them of having "overly emotional extremist thinking". You are being dishonest.
/r/MensRights29/08/22 11:55 PM
1

I think you understand what subjective means. I think that I do too. And "having" in this sense probably means conceiving. You are wrong. This has nothing to do with subjectivity. Conceiving means becoming pregnant. And I made it very clear what I mean by "having" when I wrote at the end of the reply "Assuming that by having a child, you mean giving birth, so by abortion, one does not have to have a child).". If we were to replace giving birth with conceiving a child throughout the discussion, t…
/r/MensRights27/08/22 06:01 AM
0

So you're against child support, then? First of all, keep in mind that the subject was sex and abortion, and you shifted the subject to sex and child support. I don't mind shifting the subject to gain more perspective, but your reply was formulated like a gotcha attempt. Furthermore, your question is loaded. I'm neither with child support nor against it. The eligibility for child support would depend on the situation. If the woman can prove that there was a mutual agreement between her and the m…
/r/MensRights27/08/22 05:53 AM
-2

It's the same thing with abortion. The consequence of sex is the possibility of having a child, you tell them that they can use contraception then they say "its not 100% protection", but you know what is? Not opening your goddamn legs oh but wait you can't tell them not to have sex. How is this the same? You set your own arbitrary consequence, and they are simply rejecting it. Your whole argument is based on your own subjective view that the consequence of sex is the possibility of having a chil…
/r/MensRights26/08/22 02:46 PM
1

They can tell me that I'm privileged for being white and man all they want. As long as society keeps treating and viewing white people and men the way it is currently doing, then I will always consider white people and men to be the underprivileged groups.
/r/MensRights23/08/22 12:31 PM
15

If my take is wrong, then tell me to leave and I will. Leave
/r/MensRights20/08/22 10:09 AM
5

and I think they're dirtying the idea of the rights of men They are definitely dirtying it.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 06:06 PM
0

Why doesn't he become a muslim then? or are his talks regarding this subject nothing more than nonsensical speeches intended to boost his paychecks by exploiting the naiveness and foolishness of close-minded cultists?
/r/MensRights19/08/22 06:03 PM
27

He is a moron.
/r/MensRights19/08/22 05:59 PM
8

He's a cunt
/r/MensRights10/08/22 04:31 PM
1

You cant be this dense, you know its a medical procedure that needs to be done for lots of people, right? ...right? You can't be that dense, you know that within my statement I also said "might"? right? ... right? About you trying to argue that giving birth and pregnancy is not that risky, just read up about the topic? Here, let me help: What do you mean by "it's not that risky"? where did I ever say that giving birth is not that risky? What I'm arguing is that getting forc.ed to carry a pregnan…
/r/MensRights08/07/22 01:17 AM
4

I got circumcised as an adult Well, this already might say a lot about your critical thinking abilities. and you are soooooo wrong. You getting circumcised does not prove anything. I can bring you a severely circumcised woman from Africa who would give the exact same arguments as you are giving. Indoctrination, stupidity, and denial are some of the reasons that lead to these nuanced nonsensical arguments that you are presenting, which are based on nothing but baseless presuppositions, unverifiab…
/r/MensRights05/07/22 10:01 PM
4

"unsettles you"? is this how you gonna describe your feelings towards barbarically mutilating babies' genitals? disgusting.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 05:31 PM
15

Because they think getting circumcised is the same as being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Nah, circumcision is way worse. Ask any women whether they would rather choose getting forced to carry a pregnancy or get their genitals mutilated with a sharp blade. I bet money that they gonna choose the former instead of the latter at any time. So get your analogies right before you try to build a strawman next time. It's a victim complex. The irony.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 05:26 PM
71

I would rather if they cut my ear instead of my foreskin.
/r/MensRights05/07/22 05:23 PM
14

I'm seriously considering putting this quote on my Instagram profile, just to piss off morons.
/r/MensRights30/06/22 08:37 AM
1

Brave does not equal smart or morally good. Not brave does not equal stupid or morally wrong. One can be very brave in doing a very stupid and/or evil act. Ofc it all goes down to what your definition of brave is. But I'm talking about the most colloquial one.
/r/MensRights12/06/22 02:01 AM
1

What the hell are you talking about? The text clearly states that a woman's word is worth half of a man's word.
/r/MensRights17/05/22 10:56 AM
8

I find it both amusing and sad when I see people like you trying to use the subject of men's rights to advocate and/or defend a religion like Islam and a person like Muhammad. First of all, Muhammad's wife, the educated businesswoman that you are talking about, is Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife. She was a 40 years old wealthy widow when Muhammad married her, and he was around 25. This was before he claimed that he was a prophet sent by god. Before he started attempting to control people's lives…
/r/MensRights16/05/22 03:34 AM
1

Intelligence studies showed that while men and women are probably the same level of intelligent on average, men have slightly more outliers at the top and bottom But if men have only slightly more outliers at the top, then why in games like chess, they dominate way waaay more than slightly.
/r/MensRights06/05/22 03:38 PM
0

I think it enables some women and some men to become delusional.
/r/MensRights01/04/22 08:18 PM
5

Yes, a lot of modern feminists use the word "incel" as a buzzword to dismiss any criticism. Nevertheless, looking at your post and some of your replies, you seem like you are seeking some sort of validation. So let's sort out a couple of facts: 1- Infant male genital mutilation (circumcision) is cruel, inhuman, and barbaric. And the fact that it's a part of a religion that you subscribe to, does not change the fact that it's still cruel, inhuman, and barbaric. 2- Islam is undoubtedly a barbaric …
/r/MensRights25/03/22 01:40 AM
2

Yeah, could be.
/r/MensRights02/01/22 07:30 AM
5

Oh I see, morons in denial. Thank you for the explanation.
/r/MensRights02/01/22 07:30 AM
5

Oh, now I get the term, but why would they tell you that you are pretending to be a woman? what kind of mental gymnastics did they have to do to come up with such a response?
/r/MensRights02/01/22 07:27 AM
3

I'm not familiar with the "pick me girl" term. I also don't understand why would they tell you that "you are pretending to be a woman" for supporting men's rights? Where is the link? Can someone explain this to me?
/r/MensRights02/01/22 07:19 AM
4

Nah, I don't think so, society views women differently, they value them more, they give them more rights, empathy, support, education opportunities, etc, and a couple of corporations making huge profits will not cause society to accept such barbaric acts being performed on women. Even if right at this moment you could create trillions of dollars off of women's vulvas, society would still never accept FGM.
/r/MensRights25/12/21 07:41 AM
8

Haven't you heard? The rich and powerful want facial creams made from baby boys' foreskins and are paying big bucks for them WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCKING FUCK IS THIS. Holy shit, imagine if people used women's clitorises or vulvas to make beauty products. Holy shit the double-standard.
/r/MensRights25/12/21 04:58 AM
-13

Having privileges not enjoyed by one gender while not having the rights that gender needs to carry out it's obligations isn't oppression. Can you rephrase that?
/r/MensRights21/11/21 03:31 AM
26

white knight simp friend-zoned self-hating orbiters. I'm adding this to my dictionary.
/r/MensRights08/11/21 08:45 PM
17

What the actual fuck is this comment section?
/r/MensRights08/11/21 08:44 PM
46

Golden comment. Take the award.
/r/MensRights24/10/21 10:40 AM
21

Usually, the way I deal with such people in such situations, is that I never waste a single second talking to them. You should have broken up with her and disengaged immediately without saying a single word, you should have also blocked her sister immediately. There is no point in talking to such immature individuals/spoiled brats who just seek to exchange insults in an attempt to make themselves feel better about their fragile egos. Yet, I still understand that sometimes situations can be a bit…
/r/MensRights24/10/21 10:32 AM
10

I don't even call it circumcision anymore, I always call it genital mutilation because this is what it is.
/r/MensRights01/08/21 10:32 AM
6

The problem with circumcision is not that it exists, but that it's done to people without their consent. Honestly, both are problems. Circumcision is genital mutilation and in most cases it's harmful, why should it be okay to be performed in hospitals for religious or pseudoscientific reasons? And why is it okay when it's being performed on males while it's absolutely illegal on females even if the females give consent? If mutilating male genitals in hospitals for religious reasons is not a prob…
/r/MensRights01/08/21 10:30 AM
14

As long as it's not happening to women most people won't care. They are too busy screaming feminism and outraging about catcalling. So sadly, we gonna have to wait a couple more decades or centuries until male genital mutilation and similar sexual assaults towards boys and male infants become illegal in 1st world countries.
/r/MensRights01/08/21 10:18 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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