TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

ParsnipPizza2 Archive

View 0 posts and 26 comments by ParsnipPizza2 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

So you think they're less valuable than other people, but don't get upset if they think they're just as valuable as anyone else? Where did you get "almost always" from? And is "using the health insurance that comes in their benefits package" really "leeching"?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 05:39 AM
1

Okay, but we aren't talking about the obesity epidemic, we're talking about the inherent value of humans. You said a person who costs society more as a result of a choice they made is worth less. Therefore, an athlete who needs surgeries is worth less than an ordinary person who does not. We're not comparing how much the athlete costs compared to the obese person. I'm specifically comparing the athlete to the healthy person because I want to know the exact parameters you use when deciding someon…
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 03:55 AM
1

I think you misread my point. It's not that women are "the emotional sex", it's that women are permitted by our society to express emotions, which also makes it more permissible for them to study them. Men are conditioned not to show emotions, which makes it less permissible for study them. Men and women are equally emotional, it's just that men are trained to suppress theirs (which is horribly unhealthy and sad.)
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 03:51 AM
1

But an athlete who blows out their knee and needs a bunch of surgeries is more expensive than someone who is fit but doesn't play contact sports, right? So is the latter person more valuable? No, you don't get fat from eating one extra slice, but it's not hard or even indicative of particularly bad decisions to eat a hundred extra calories a day - say, by eating an apple every morning or something. That adds up too.
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 02:30 AM
1

But capitalism is a fairly new invention, so why would we use it to define human worth? Shouldn't we pick something more fundamental to our nature? And why is it relevant which sciences are "full of" women? Have we considered that those fields may be dominated by women because they deal primarily with feelings, which males are taught to suppress from a young age? In other words, it's less that they attract women but that men are repelled?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 02:28 AM
1

So if someone makes a choice that makes their existence more expensive, they're worth less? What about athletes? They tend to have quite a few injuries, which makes them more expensive. Are they worth less?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 02:02 AM
1

But this discussion started with someone who was upset that overweight women walk around with self esteem. Do you really agree with that? And why do you use money as a marker of human value?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 02:01 AM
1

I'm not really sure what your point is or how it relates to what I'm saying. I'm saying that basing a human being's value on how much they produce for society is extremely harsh (and quite modern - stone age societies took care of people who couldn't help the group.)
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 01:38 AM
1

So a person who's made bad decisions that result in costing money has less value? How about someone who fell out of a tree and broke their arm?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 01:36 AM
1

Do you not think there's an emotional quality to human existence? Or are we all just cogs in a problem solving machine?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 01:23 AM
1

My point is that a patient with terminal cancer is also a burden on the medical system and likely to die before 50, so should they also not feel valuable? I responded to your other comment with this, but I'll reiterate: declaring someone less valuable because they contribute less economically is a very cruel view. And being upset that someone considers themselves valuable despite not fitting your criteria says a lot about your ability to handle the world.
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 01:10 AM
1

So because people cost money, they should feel less valuable? That's a very harsh view on your fellow humans.
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 01:09 AM
2

Why should we judge people for how they look or their health? Is there some kind of benefit?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 12:26 AM
1

So should someone who is unhealthy feel less valuable? Should a patient with terminal cancer feel like they don't have worth as a human being?
/r/MGTOW22/07/20 12:25 AM
2

You don't have to overeat to a massive extent to gain weight, particularly if you have an office job. "Eating a dessert every night" isn't exactly an addiction, but plenty of women would gain weight if they did it. So you think people who make less healthy choices have less value and should feel less valuable than people who make healthier choices? Where do we draw the line with that? Should someone who goes to the gym twice a week feel less valuable than someone who goes five times a week? Shou…
/r/MGTOW21/07/20 11:50 PM
1

Being overweight does mean someone probably isn't making the healthiest choices, but "not making heathy choices" isn't a character flaw and it certainly doesn't mean someone is 'one mean comment away from a meltdown'. Are you projecting or something? And do you really think it's a bad thing for a person to feel like they have value regardless of their body?
/r/MGTOW21/07/20 11:21 PM
1

Why?
/r/MGTOW21/07/20 11:17 PM
1

Is there something wrong with a woman who is confident regardless of her weight?
/r/MGTOW21/07/20 08:47 PM
2

Uh, yeah? That's just biology. Women have more body fat in general because they need to be able to support menstruation and pregnancy. If a woman drops below a certain body fat percentage, she'll cease to menstruate. Is this a revelation for you?
/r/MGTOW21/07/20 08:30 PM
1

Yeah, I can't agree - I think attractiveness is one of the only things you can reasonably judge based on initial impressions. But thank you for discussing, it was nice to have a polite disagreement on the internet!
/r/MGTOW222/08/19 05:50 AM
1

Okay? I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding your point about connecting social justice movements to "discrimination" in dating. Yes, there are a lot of little things that get considered in a job interview. There are even more little things that get considered in dating. Attractiveness is important in relationships, it's not discrimination for people to use it as a criterion.
/r/MGTOW221/08/19 11:52 PM
1

Whether their job would be affected by outside forces isn't a reflection on their actual ability to do it, though. If I'm supposed to do xyz, and I'm the best in the world at xyz, but a customer refuses to work with me because I'm a woman, that doesn't make me unqualified for the job. And I doubt a court would accept that reasoning in a discrimination case.
/r/MGTOW221/08/19 11:46 PM
1

The reason it is similar is because a person can't help it if they're ugly - the same way that black people can't help it if they're black. It's also okay to not date someone because they're black. Hopefully the reasoning is that you just aren't attracted, rather than racist reasons, but the fact remains it is A-OK to "discriminate" - even for non-PC reasons - in terms of who you date. I don't know, I guess I just can't see "ugly" people getting fewer matches as discrimination - discrimination i…
/r/MGTOW221/08/19 05:25 AM
1

That's only discrimination in the barest sense of the word - the person doesn't meet necessary requirements, they don't get the "job". The other poster compared that type of "discrimination" to the things social justice movements oppose. But social justice movements want to stop discrimination based on things that don't actually affect ability. That's not applicable to dating, because anything can affect "ability" (i.e., suitability as a partner.) "I don't date people I don't find attractive" is…
/r/MGTOW221/08/19 03:17 AM
1

Yes, unless they're disqualifying someone for things that don't actually affect their ability to do the job. The thing is, in a relationship, literally anything might affect how suited you are to the "role". It's personal preference. The fact that you don't meet someone's personal "job description" doesn't mean they're discriminating, it means you're not qualified. Not to mention, you can't force people to give equal opportunity in their personal lives. Public, sure, but for things like who they…
/r/MGTOW220/08/19 03:26 PM
1

What exactly do you mean by that? The only "discrimination" in dating is people choosing not to date people they're not interested in. They make personal decisions in their personal lives. Why do you think that's comparable to someone being denied work/housing/services?
/r/MGTOW220/08/19 07:53 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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