PurpleEyeSmoke Archive

TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD Bro, I'm not going to keep explaining the same concepts to you over and over. Relationships aren't a market because relationships are a two way street, where both people are looking for certain values in another group or groups. You can keep having this fucked up commodification of relationships and view other people as goods, but it's a shitty, unhealthy way to view people. But hey, you really want to apply capitalist theory to people, have at it. It's just going to make things harder for you b…	/r/PurplePillDebate	15/02/25 02:45 PM
1	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD People don't need to be commodities. As long as you have parties exchanging something, market analogy and math will apply.The market model doesn't require commodities, it works with services and many other concepts. No, it works with goods and services. That isn't a relationship. Yes, there's a market. Wherever there's supply and demand - there's a market Even if that's true, your version is clearly modeled poorly, as I've already demonstrated many times. I'm not making it up, this analogy is de…	/r/PurplePillDebate	14/02/25 12:25 AM
1	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD Market is market. If there's any exchange of anything then the math works. It can be people, things, or services, or relationships. It doesn't matter. It does. Viewing as a 'market' is a choice you're making, and a very odd, strangely capitalist one. Because people aren't commodities. No, that's not my valuation, that's the value in the market. Bro, there IS NO MARKET. That's just a thing you're making up. There doesn't exist some 'relationship market' with little stock tickers floating around p…	/r/PurplePillDebate	13/02/25 08:18 PM
1	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD It is actually objective based on how market works People aren't a market though. They're people. Something that is high value can not be had by many. That is just...stupidly untrue, and ignores the entire point I was making. That's YOUR valuation of a thing. Not everyone has YOUR values, so those values are subjective. There is zero 'objectivity' here, and if fact, I'm quite certain you don't even know what objective means. But regardless, you don't get to claim something has 'objectively less …	/r/PurplePillDebate	13/02/25 01:59 PM
1	N COUNTS WEEKLY DISCUSSION THREAD A partner won't know exactly what you want based on what other men wanted. A partner whom many men could have is not high value. You know this is wholly subjective and just how you feel, right? If that's how you determine 'value', then sure. Not everyone is going to value things the same way. If you 'value' a person less because of the number of sexual partners they had, that's a personal insecurity you need to deal with, not tell us like it's some objective fact.	/r/PurplePillDebate	12/02/25 03:14 PM

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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