TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

RustMustBeAdded Archive

View 0 posts and 183 comments by RustMustBeAdded 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)
8

This article is laughable. A clearly biased website talking about how a study confirms their own views, by citing other biased jokes of websites? A review of a study that doesn't even cite the study, only what other terrible blog 'news' has reported about it? How can you consider this evidence of anything? Try reading a little closer.. A rat line prone to tumors was used, and the control group also developed tumors. They grew more slowly in the controls, but is it really shocking to anyone that …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/16 04:50 PM
1

Did you respond to the wrong comment...? This is entirely off the topic of mine.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/16 11:01 PM
1

There's also no evidence that anyone who doesn't rape kids is attracted to them, whether or not it's 'their fault'. Yet you're speculating that all men are secret pedos, while saying nothing at all about the women who demonstrably are pedos. Absurd.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/16 11:00 PM
1

Why are you focusing this on men? Women rape kids too. If you're going to apply it to all men it's likely more accurately applied to all people.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/06/16 10:15 PM
9

If her religious beliefs are against it, so was the fucking, and her beliefs weren't that important to her then.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/16 09:42 PM
4

Neither of the manic/depressive people I know had positive results from their first set of meds, more like fourth or fifth. You should have told your doctor and gotten them changed before giving up. Everybody's different biochemically so it's not as simple as these symptoms are fixed by these meds, you have to give them a chance to tune the meds to you. Both of my friends went through multiple failure prescriptions, but when it worked it made a huge impact on their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/05/16 01:06 AM
9

I know that RP advocates against physical abuse frequently, but a disturbed person reading the sub could easily dismiss that and use the RP-endorsed ideas such as women being children and needing "training" to justify this abuse. I know that Christianity, Islam and Judaisim advocate against violence frequently, but a disturbed person reading their so-called holy texts could easily dismiss that and use the Abrahamic religion endorsed ideas such as women being inferior and non-believers needing to…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/01/16 04:40 PM
1

The fraction of people you've seen is statistically meaningless. We don't technically differ on that, but from the way you talk about it I'd guess you think anywhere from 1/4-3/4 of the population would get little to no benefit from being more muscular. I'd call it 5% max.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 09:30 PM
2

You didn't bring up this stomach problem in the comment chain we were talking in. I mentioned physical and hormonal abnormalities limiting gains, if this applies to you then of course you aren't going to get big. You need to understand that unlike you most RP noobs are relatively physically sound though, and DYEL is an incisive way to figure out whether they're whiners or willing to put in significant effort to change their situation. For the vast majority of the population lifting and proper di…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 08:23 PM
1

Sleep is most important for recovery, so I'd try never to get only 4 hours after a day I lifted. In the same vein I try not to drink heavily at least 24 hours after lifting because alcohol retards the whole recovery and building process. If you only sleep 4 hours the previous night and still feel fresh enough to hit the weights hard, I don't know of any reason why you shouldn't. I do that sort of thing pretty regularly and feel fine after an 8 hour sleep.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 08:13 PM
1

That's pretty weak. From what you've said you have no reasonable basis to be disagreeing.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 08:08 PM
1

I am trying now. But mainly to get out of my comfort zone a bit, not because I have any pretence of becoming really muscular. This makes no sense. You're trying to get bigger, but not really trying? That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say the problem a lot of guys have is pussyfooting around, being soft and not really lifting hard. You can't have it both ways. I have seen fat guys get into better shape and lose weight. I have seen naturally strong guys get stronger. I have never once se…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 07:26 PM
1

'Will be'? Not was? Meaning you haven't tried? Somatotypes are bullshit by the way, so don't lean on that as a reason you can't build mass. The strict meal structuring you're quoting and implying as absolutely required to bulk is also ridiculous nonsense. You can eat whenever and whatever you want, it just won't necessarily be the most metabolically optimal. I've never eaten more than three meals a day and have no problem bulking. Literally all it takes for anyone without physical abnormalities …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 06:11 PM
2

Gaining muscle really isn't as hard as you're making it out to be. 90%+ of those 'no gains' cases are humans being typically bad at researching how to do something and properly applying the conclusions. It almost always comes down to not eating enough, which can be due to shittily or not at all counting calories, and sometimes the guys are just soft and not actually lifting hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/15 06:02 PM
1

No, it really isn't. First of all, that should have been 'if he can't know they did, you [I] can't know they didn't', but I never claimed that none of them feel cognitive dissonance. He said he believes denying reality is called cognitive dissonance, and that's what I originally refuted. He then claimed that he believes that all of those sociologists denying reality experience dissonance, and I said that's a ridiculous claim. That's it. I never intended to comment on the original hypothetical, o…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:49 PM
1

This entire conversation should have been me pointing out that /u/wub1234 didn't use a term properly, but it seems he both genuinely doesn't understand the term and is so convinced he does that he can't be bothered to google it, so on we go..
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:37 PM
1

Are you serious? You can't explain why you're right, so it's not worth your time? Please tell me what cognitive dissonance is, if it's not the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs. Nothing about that definition necessitates that it is always felt by such an individual. Cognitive dissonance is not simply denying reality. You're wrong. The term wouldn't even make sense if defined that way..
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:36 PM
2

Exactly! A term that needs to come into more common usage.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:30 PM
1

Your arguing makes me feel like you really don't understand that you blatantly said 'I believe denying reality is called cognitive dissonance'. That's wrong. I don't really care whether sociology professors hypothetically feel it when they hypothetically talk about patriarchy.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:29 PM
1

Are you monitoring their brains? I'm not the one making an absolutist claim. I didn't say none of them feel cognitive dissonance. It's idiotic to claim they're all feeling stress, there's plenty of examples of delusional people that appear to be perfectly psychologically content.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:28 PM
1

My comment had nothing to do with sociology professors, or whether educated people can be delusional idiots, it was about the term cognitive dissonance. Religious professors/scientists are the obvious counter to that opinion, unless you think they're just all stressed out all the time, which I certainly don't find to be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:25 PM
1

Speculating on the cause behind some behavior that wasn't specifically being discussed has no bearing on /u/wub1234 misusing 'cognitive dissonance'.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 07:16 PM
2

Denying reality doesn't necessitate psychological conflict. Plenty of crazies are so entrenched in delusion that someone else's contradiction doesn't faze them. The likelihood of them feeling some stress in their denial doesn't change that you used the term as if it just means holding contradictory beliefs, or as you said denying reality, rather than the stress induced by such.. This is common, and bothers me.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 03:47 PM
7

No, it's only cognitive dissonance if their holding contradictory beliefs causes them to feel stress of some sort.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/15 03:38 PM
3

Genuine pain would make many of us uncomfortable; I'm pretty sure he's talking about playful 'pain' things like spanking, biting, hair pulling, just enough to make you gasp. The same way for some inexplicable reason a female's fingernails digging into my back or tugging on my chest hair is electrifying. As for anal, I'm with the OP, that's for waste disposal and I don't understand the obsession. Nothing attractive about a brown eye for me, the vagina is too close to it already! I'm just realizin…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/15 04:37 AM
1

It's a sexual act yes, but not exactly sex in my mind. I don't think this is really a question of language as much as cultural norms; where I grew up if you'd had PIV intercourse once and oral 3 times, and you said you'd had sex with 4 people, you'd be laughed at. You have to go the distance to count it, at least in Small Town USA. I agree that if the question is how many people have you had sexual contact with then everything counts. That's just not what I assume is being questioned when I'm as…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/15 04:54 PM
3

Yeah that seems crazy to me, I wasn't going around telling people I'd had sex the first time a girl gave me a death grip HJ or toothy oral in high school, I wouldn't expect people to count them. But yeah, after I turned 18 that inclusion wouldn't change my number much either.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/15 04:11 PM
1

Yeah, college aged party girl types are quite limber in that area. But wait, do you think anything short of penetration does count as sex? Do most people? If so I've always under reported my number quite a bit
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/15 03:53 PM
1

I've heard multiple women claim with all seriousness that ONSs they don't remember due to intoxication don't count.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/15 03:45 PM
1

Interesting, I had never given Greek religion any thought except to lump them in with Europe; definitely wouldn't have expected it to be a state religion. Wikipedia says >95% of the population are members of the Greek Orthodox church, would you say that high a percentage are very serious about it? Would the average Greek Christian spout didactic 'truths' as if the bible is to be taken literally, without having actually read more than a few dozen pages all together? Does the passion tend to go ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 10:39 PM
1

'Some conservative' Christians? How much Christianity have you dealt with in Greece? I'd guess that what you consider exceptionally conservative Christians would be the norm in much of the US bible belt.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 09:54 PM
3

I agree with this; the points you made represent a large portion of the 'we were lied to' aspect of TRP that BPers here seem so unable to understand. Mentioning conservatives is the most salient part of this in my opinion; the South especially is rife with the angelic caricature of female nature. Every time BPers jerk about how stupid/autistic TRP must be to feel lied to by society about female nature, I wonder: 'Did none of you grow up in a religious, conservative area with family and friends t…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/15 09:08 PM
1

Ah. Interesting, I never once heard that abbreviation growing up in Texas.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/06/15 01:46 AM
3

Absolutely. I would believe it's less common in countries like his (I'm assuming Russia because he said 'proles' and mentioned Moscow) due to the pervasive leftness, but I don't believe that, as he's implying, none of the bully/athlete/popular crowd become intellectuals and all of them end up in the working class. Shit, look at Putin.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/15 10:03 PM
4

It seems like you think I don't understand why religion has fallen to disfavor in Europe the last couple of centuries.. I can assure you I do, and that none of that applies to America on a national level. I'm not in any way religious, but I grew up around it. Are you aware that being a professed Christian is essentially a soft requirement for the American presidency? The separation of church and state in America is simply not as you describe it, and religious belief doesn't carry the same social…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/15 09:19 PM
8

If you think the sort of behavior ProtoPill is describing is unusual, you've clearly never spent time around the middle class. Maybe you're from somewhere without one. The weekend he described is quintessentially rural/urban American. Minus the colorful language, shows like King of the Hill exemplify this. You seem really hung up on social stratification; there's no reason working class men can't be respectable. Your hypotheses seem to be presenting America as a special case; are you not aware t…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/06/15 08:46 PM
0

I think you mean the lack of apparent cognitive dissonance is astounding. That term refers to stress caused by holding differing views simultaneously, not the act itself.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/15 07:02 PM
1

if youre saying its best to know the truth earlier, we need to be harsher on men, not easier, do you understand? Lol yes, I do understand exactly what I and the other posters have been saying....... We think it's better to know the truth, whether or not you think that truth is harsh or somehow a bad thing. How are you not getting that? You can say not knowing the realities of female behavior is 'better' or 'a positive' all you want, but if you don't provide any reasoning why then it means nothin…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/15 02:15 PM
4

You didn't respond to his post at all. Did you not understand what 'At least women are told the score' means? He's saying it's better to know the truth earlier. You've repeatedly said it's easier for men to not know 'harsh realities' when they're younger, but haven't once bothered to explain how. What's easier about delusion that leads to inadvertent self sabotage?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/05/15 04:38 AM
1

The current subjective you wouldn't have that illusion, only the 'new' you would, and only if the knowledge of being a copy was excluded somehow. Some form of you lives on, yes, but I was assuming from the start of this that we were talking about prolonging one's subjective existence, one's enduring stream of consciousness. This is a very different situation than waking up with every indication that you continue to be the only 'you'. How is the self a trick of the brain? You're implying the self…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/15 02:17 PM
1

Uploading is copying- even if it's perfect, how would that be you? The 'you' that was copied would still die with your organic brain, having diverged from and being separate from the new 'you' since copying. This is like the teleporter thought experiment; copying into a virtual system or another body has always seemed to me to be a way to generate a different sort of you, not prolong life.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/05/15 12:23 AM
1

Absolutely. I've seen quite a few guys lose interest in a solid girlfriend when a (subjectively, to the guy in question) better one shows interest, or even seems to. I've experienced it myself. If it turns out the 'better' woman wasn't interested, or loses interest, he'll swing back, and usually not be able to explain why the original girl is back to being attractive and not annoying.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/15 07:42 PM
-1

So.... marriage is disempowering? Marrying someone doesn't have to mean they're the only option. /u/nomdplume is talking about the sort of unhealthy mindset that one 'can't live without' someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/04/15 08:21 PM
5

I think this pretty much nails it. I view the absurdity and extremism as a hook, and an effective one at that. The type of guy that bought into romantic ideals to the point of not being able to see the plain truths of interpersonal interaction needs a slap in the face, a violent shaking of the shoulders; it's the only way to get someone to 'wake up', to snap them out of their special snowflake, feel-good way of thinking, so that they can get the rom-com daydreams out of the way, admit their shor…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 09:13 PM
1

Does that include pursuing even the very least attractive women?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/04/15 05:03 PM
2

Haha, squishy hugs is not something I ever would have considered. I can understand the feeling though, I like very fit girls but there's something about that softness a little fat brings. Thanks for the insight.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/15 05:58 PM
2

Would you say there's a conscious safety feeling about it? I just don't think your first example, or even more so say the 30% example on that chart, are physically intimidating in any way, while your 2nd bulk/cut shot guy could be 75lbs lighter and I'd pick him in a fight. Wow I had to look up Aleesha Young, now she really does intimidate me.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/15 05:34 PM
2

Interesting. I've seen this plenty, and had moderate success when I was around 25%bf. At ~12% now, though, I have zero interest in going above about 15% again. As you say, preferences. I do want to point out though, I think there's a lot of variance in actual fitness in your examples. I find your 2nd and 3rd examples much more physicaly impressive than the first, and there's a world of difference between that and the 30%+ on the chart. Not saying you can't have a wide preference variance, I'm ju…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/15 05:10 PM
1

Curious about your #1 answer- what do you mean by 'decent muscles and some body fat over them'? Pictorial reference? The differences between peoples' opinions on what level of muscle definition looks good always fascinates me.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/04/15 04:29 PM
1

Only half of the sperm's chromosomes would be incorporated into the new baby You mean to say only half of the baby's chromosomes would come from the genetically engineered sperm, right? The entire genetic complement of each gamete is incorporated into the new organism. As for the question, as others say I don't see it changing much. The realities of the strain and cost of parenthood wouldn't go away just because the baby is tailored to desire. It would of course become very popular to alter the …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/15 12:16 AM
1

Cloning is possible, but that's only because it only requires cells to carry out their most basic function, replication. Genetics/biochemistry is nowhere near designer babies being a real thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/15 12:12 AM
1

This is exactly my feeling. /u/JP_Whoregan isn't wrong, but I wasn't talking about and wouldn't abide that sort of relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/15 06:02 PM
3

This has been discussed here before, although I can't think of specific threads. I think there's merit to the idea that ugly women have it worse than ugly men. I've known a lot of unfortunate looking or just overall unattractive guys that fixated on girls one might say were way out of their league, but not so much the reverse. And by fixated, I mean hardcore orbiting. I'd guess this translates all the way down the scale, meaning the lowest women are of no interest to most of the lowest men. Samp…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/04/15 05:47 PM
5

It's a question of self confidence, isn't it? The guys I know that would say something like that have never given a single shit about other peoples' opinions on anything, not just women. Guys I know who could convince themselves they don't like a girl because their best friend called her a horse face have low self confidence all around, but especially with dating and women, never having had much success.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 03:24 PM
1

Exactly. It goes in the negative column for me, but it's not something that would necessarily make me lose interest or stop getting to know a woman. I've known some such women long enough to see them make genuine changes; one I'd be willing to try a relationship with, and probably already would have if not for geography. As you say, though, knowing her past I'd be wary, even though I believe she's come a long way since what I would consider improprieties. I'm also not that personally interested …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 03:49 AM
1

You attacked a minor point of constructive criticism instead of answering hard questions about the implications of your claims. Your idea of debate is pathetically weak, and your accusation of intellectual dishonesty is laughable.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 03:24 AM
5

A correction: The RP stance is really more that from an evolutionary biology standpoint women are and should be inclined to be prude, and not being so indicates poor decision making and impulse control, meaning she'll cheat, these hoes ain't loyal, etc. On an individual basis I don't necessarily agree, because our past and its influence on our present and future is more complex than a set of specific actions. I would, however, call it reasonable for a broad sexual strategy, because in my experie…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 02:28 AM
1

I introduced the topic of genetics because it makes no sense to say biological/cultural. Culture is environment, and the impact of environment on development is biological. I see the distinction as you intended it, but it's a misunderstanding of biology to say biology and the impact of the culture one is raised in are separable. There is no influence of culture on an individual that isn't a biological process. I'm speaking of the broad and deep differences between all men and all women. That wom…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 01:19 AM
1

Yes, there are studies that back up an 80/20 split in regard to some groups of trait loci. There are plenty of other studies that back up 90/10, 70/30, 60/40, 50/50, and everything between, because genes and groups of genes vary greatly in how they are inherited and how they respond to stimuli. It's generally accepted to say 'about half' in regard to these things when you aren't trying to discuss specific genes/quantitative trait loci. You keep saying biological when I think you really mean gene…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 12:56 AM
0

I think most gendered traits are biological and not cultural. You're wrong. In the biological sciences it's a simple and uncontested fact that both genetics and environment play a major and oftentimes nearly equal role in the development of complex traits. Nature/nurture is long dead, because the answer is an emphatic both. As for your question, at birth we'd all be somewhere on a spectrum of gay possibility, and developmental environment determines whether that possibility becomes reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/04/15 12:33 AM
1

It's not deleted, still right there at the top.. I don't know why she deleted the one that's gone, but everything I quoted came from the original post. And like I said, saying it's a moderate RP stance doesn't change that she also called it "just common sense for men and women who wish to be respected by others." If anything that's saying that a moderate RP stance is common sense. The part you mention as being at the end doesn't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 11:40 PM
1

Lol, explain the 'prefix' then. It's not a prefix, by the way. The important part is "just common sense for men and women who wish to be respected by others." In what world does that not imply generally good ideas that the author agrees with?
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 08:47 PM
0

i have my off days, everyone does, and i believe most people (like the person you responded to) can recognize that. As I told her multiple times, I don't disbelieve this. I took issue with her saying always, then claiming she meant mostly. also, you have to realize that it goes both ways. unless your standards are super low, you shouldn't have to settle either. it should be mutual. I have no idea how you think this addresses anything I said, there was nothing about settling or even me being conc…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 05:09 PM
1

The so called role-playing is prefaced with the words "so not really "Red Pill"", and described as common sense any man or woman desiring respect would exercise. It's silly that you and others don't notice that /u/GridRexx explicitly stated she wasn't answering the prompt directly.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 05:07 PM
1

Aw, you're no fun.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 01:39 PM
1

We never would have devolved into these semantic discussions either time if you were willing to consider the possibility that you were wrong or mistaken. I disagree, paying close attention to small things and their consequences is enormously rewarding in my line of work. I'd counter by saying hostility, defensiveness and dismissiveness in the face of a potential chance to mentally better yourself is how many lose hard in life. Some of us are capable of paying attention to both small and large pi…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 03:29 AM
2

Haha wow, now it's gone from 'That is fact.' to 'for the most part', wonderful. Maybe we're actually making progress. Or maybe you're just using words nebulously again. My point was not about any hole or anything that moves, I even bolded it, how did you miss it? The difference is that you went from saying 'all men' to 'many men' in the space of a single comment. It's precisely distinctions like that that matter in these conversations. You not understanding or not caring about the difference is …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 03:14 AM
2

To say that more selection criteria means by default a better selection outcome is simply ignorant and lacks analytical thought . This was always my central point on the matter, and your assertion otherwise shows you have no experience in practical application of hypotheses. You also just changed from 'men will fuck anything that moves given the chance' to 'many men would fuck any hole...'. This is the sort of inconsistency I'm talking about, and it makes your arguments childish. You say I lack …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 02:50 AM
2

You had a hissy fit. I'd encourage you to go back and read the comments, both then and now. You're the only one that gets angry, and it's funny how obvious you make it, and how easy it is to stoke the flames. You used discerning incorrectly because you said more discerning, as I explained then. discerning means having or showing good judgement, therefore having or showing more good judgement would mean women make better choices. You insisted on arguing as if I had said men are more discerning, i…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 02:19 AM
1

My meaning? We're talking about definitions here.. Oxford definitions, and literal interpretations of sentences using those definitions. So you remember being wrong about 'discerning'? Similarly I suspect you didn't mean 'platitude' the way you used it, unless you were just contradicting yourself again, of course. I may be pedantic, but I much prefer that to the pathetically misguided certainty of intelligence that you display. Although deep down maybe not so certain, given how quick to anger yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 01:59 AM
0

I mean really, do you pay any attention to the things you say? Not just typographical errors and misuse of words, but this whole conversation, claiming you were TRP-izing everything in your original comment, which you prefaced with: so not really "Red Pill," just common sense for men and women who wish to be respected by others. Let's lay it all out: You say this would be an unbiased RP man, even though it indeed reads as common sense, except the one blatantly ridiculous part, the only one I ori…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/04/15 12:24 AM
1

It's strange that you're so certain of your diction, in light of all the other writing errors you make.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 09:53 PM
2

Intentional, and yet you can't explain it without saying something patently different, how strange. Gosh, dang those words and their literal meanings!
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 09:24 PM
2

Lol. No matter how many times you repeat what you intended to say, that's still simply not what you actually typed. If you intended it as idealistic, say so, don't call it common sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 09:06 PM
2

You should be more clear in what you say if you want to avoid so-called pedantism. I believe strongly in interpreting someone's words exactly as they say them, and you said your post would be exhibiting common sense, specifically a 'not really redpill' view. I've understood you from the beginning, I simply wanted you to admit that what you said in the name of common sense was unreasonable. This all could have been rapidly over if you were ever willing to admit a minor fault. It's funny to me tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:56 PM
2

I didn't say I don't believe it. Lol it must be great being able to say something, then later change your mind and pretend the first thing you said doesn't matter. Everyone but me gets that you say your whole post is common sense and not really redpill, but some of it is redpill, though it's only clear to you and these others what's what... Lol beautiful. Enjoy the upvotes of simple minds that don't notice how self-contradictory your posts are.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:40 PM
3

You're the only one that takes an ideal like "strive to be your best" to "be perfect always." You didn't say strive to be their best. You said they should be their best. Always being one's best would obviously be perfection in their context.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:23 PM
2

I'll pretend I'm not a bitter man whose ego is only sated by belittling women. AKA I'll try to present as a RP man who isn't terribly biased and thus my example will not demean women or men in any way. Ya know. A balanced perspective, so not really "Red Pill," just common sense for men and women who wish to be respected by others. LOLOLOL, keep claiming you don't believe what you said originally, but you yourself said it's common sense. Anything else you say, even if totally reasonable, doesn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:22 PM
0

Interesting, I haven't read David Deida, I'll make a note of that. I've been really liking a blog I found a couple of months ago, The Rawness, it has a lot of good material.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:20 PM
3

You can take that literally and pick it apart or you can have it mean that standards are important. Here's the crux of the problem! You don't think it's important that the words you use exactly represent what you mean. That's absurd, but enjoy being constantly 'misunderstood' by people who take you at literal face value. To be clear so you don't reiterate the same argument again, I agree with having standards. Expecting someone to ALWAYS meet a standard that amounts to perfection is simply stupi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:04 PM
4

I never said amused mastery, nor was the concept I brought up in any way related. You should try to keep your unrelated opinions out of things... It seems to me that you think having expectations of people is somehow a bad thing. I never said that in any way. I've repeatedly been clear that expecting someone to always be at their best, which you outright said you do, is unreasonable. Or that I think highly of myself. I did indeed imply this, in the context of it being true that you expect a pote…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 08:02 PM
2

I'm just saying be content and try to find someone who meshes with your idea of that. That's not all you said. Regardless of your actual views, you started by saying people should always be at their best, and you've refused to address that and turned to repeating something completely different. I've attempted in every comment in this chain to get you to address what you originally said, and you keep claiming you said something else, even though the evidence is right there in the comment. I also …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 07:58 PM
1

Agreed, I've found forcefully asking "Why?" and not standing for wishy-washy cyclical answers is the best way to make people realize the absurdity of their behavior. I actually picked that up teaching a biochemistry lab, it seems like it's the best way to teach in any situation I can think of. I was into the redpill subreddit for a while starting almost two years ago, but the continual increase in prevalence of the extreme aspects of it all drove me away. I had recommended it to a few friends wi…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 07:51 PM
3

I'm talking about your original statement of expectation of the best version of someone. It's phrased as if it applies to all people. I shall expect nothing more than the best version of myself, and I expect others to only show me the best versions of themselves. Unless by 'others' you mean potential SO's...? Jesus Christ. What part of "I don't have unreasonable expectations" are you not getting? You say your expectations aren't unreasonable, but you began by clearly stating that you expect a po…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 07:20 PM
0

so not really "Red Pill," just common sense for men and women who wish to be respected by others. I thought from this that I could assume that what she wrote aligns with her personal beliefs. Thanks! I've never really had a flair I liked, listening the The Avalanches recently I realized I've 'prescribed' the red pill to friends, albeit with a fat helping of salt, and it made me laugh at what we all do here, pushing our pill variations with no concrete science behind any of it. The insanity of th…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 07:09 PM
3

I don't see how you can think I missed your not unreasonable bit when I directly addressed it. You initially framed the expectation as applying to your interactions with all people, but now you've changed to SO so we'll go with that. So, you're completely uninterested in anyone that's not fully self actualized? That must require a pretty lofty opinion of your psychological state and self mastery.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 06:33 PM
4

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect that someone worth dating would consistently be trying to be their best, but expecting that everyone is always at their best (and presumably basing your actions/interactions on that expectation) seems like a good way to get burned. You didn't initially frame it as something that only applies to a potential SO. I think there's major problems with the idea that there's 'versions' of self at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 06:16 PM
4

What reasoning do you have for expecting others to only show you the best version of themselves? That's not realistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/04/15 05:58 PM
3

No idea what you're trying to argue by giving examples of societal stupidity in the name of virtue. You didn't refute what I said in whole, or even that small part you quoted; I didn't assign purity only to women, and I clearly linked ideals of virtue to the psychological development of humanity. 'Virtues' like purity are illogical and in most cases counter to individual interests. Your examples illustrate this perfectly, in that they reek of ignorance. Psychological needs are better met by unde…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 06:52 PM
11

Please explain how that justifies your willful ignorance. The statement clearly acknowledged there are others, but purity is the direct female complement of honor/loyalty in men, by society's standards, making it most relevant to the topic at hand. Refute that if you want, but blatantly misrepresenting what I say is despicable. There's nothing constructive about expressing offense that I didn't use an example you personally think matters when I started by saying none of them matter. What you mis…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 05:12 PM
10

And yet you decided to completely ignore the rest of my argument and pretend that I was advocating purity as a virtue. What the fuck is the reasoning behind that? I very clearly was not supporting the idea of any virtues at all, how does it make you look anything but stupid to respond to me as if I declared purity the most important ideal women should aspire to? Your queasiness about ideas is not my concern, there's nothing useful about your comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 05:08 PM
12

You must be joking. Did you read any of the preceding paragraph? I literally started by saying virtues are bullshit. "Purity" is a made up value created by insecure men and has little to do with the actual woman. It's not a value made up by men alone, it's a collective construction of society. Nothing about your reply refutes my assertion that purity is a societal virtue mostly expected of women and ignored by men, complementing loyalty and honor for men. You appear to be trying to disagree with…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 05:00 PM
7

What is a virtue? Why is it something I should strive for? You could just say selfishness can be useful and leave out the virtue bullshit. I don't disagree with your title sentence, is that going to get this comment removed? Either way I think the important thing to talk about in regard to these honor/loyalty/empathy discussions that have been going on is that those so-called virtues are characteristics that are good for society, not individuals. Men are more likely to buy whole-heartedly into l…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 03:10 PM
1

how you knew that this was a positive ad in favor of Steve? In my opinion such statements imply the context of the society of their target audience, because I see them as empty symbols without that context. Recognizing societal ideals is not the same thing as believing in societal ideals. What I personally believe is irrelevant. You're right, I shouldn't assign you beliefs. I do think that you asserting that in general 'honorable' is something positive regardless of context means that you confor…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 02:33 PM
1

I will say the subreddit has gotten much worse since I stumbled across it and found it useful. The inherent flaw of using bullshit extremism with a useful core to get through to people is of course that it glorifies narrow-minded extremism, and such groups decay in value as popularity grows, just humans acting in groups tend to take everything too far. Even if the sidebar ideas are still useful in some contexts, I'm not sure I'd still say the subreddit itself is. I agree that human nature and se…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 02:44 AM
1

I can understand what the ad you suggest is saying, of course. That doesn't mean I have to believe someone's sense of honor makes them a better person. Why do you believe in the value judgments of modern western societal ideals? I call that naive. only that in general calling someone honorable is making a positive statement about his character That's assigning inherent value to an idea. What the society we live in thinks is not relevant to whether or not many, like me, don't believe societal vir…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 02:20 AM
2

I was originally pointing out that the list is biased, but everything is. That doesn't mean it's not useful. I don't agree with the sidebar stuff, but I think it can be useful so I'll in some respects defend TRP's existence. Coming across it a couple of years ago broke me out of an idealized, rose colored glasses view of women and relationships, and while it wasn't long before I discarded TRP and went on to more complex ideas that come closer to truth without bullshit, it was valuable for me, an…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 02:13 AM
1

Yes, I do disagree. They are only value-laden statements in some contexts, one of which is the one where you think honor and loyalty are positive things. This is not necessarily true. What this boils down to is that you believe societal virtues are inherently positive character traits, and simply I don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/04/15 01:42 AM
1

That question has absolutely nothing to do with what this comment chain was discussing (or at least what I was discussing...), and I don't see the point of it when in another reply to you I explicitly stated that I did not make nor do I agree with that statement. Even if you thought I was referring to men in the last part of my reply rephrasing your list, how could that possibly be taken to mean that I believe those things? Right above that I outright said neither mine nor your list contain true…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 11:28 PM
1

The value isn't objective, though. Without any context, what would be the value expressed behind each of the statements Without context the words are meaningless, and there is no value. I don't understand you quoting me saying the value is subjective, and then asking me what the objective value is... The words themselves imply a societal context. They're biased in context, and just sounds or empty symbols without it.. I do not agree that words which necessitate a frame of reference are inherentl…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 11:23 PM
1

Of course they are. The value isn't objective, though. I also didn't make and don't agree with those statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 10:29 PM
1

I think very few people are in very good control of their own mind, and that makes me extremely wary of trying to interconnect them. It's pure speculation of course, communal thought could be absolutely beautiful, but I think it would be more likely to drive people hopelessly insane. I suspect depersonalization and psychosis would swiftly follow the confusion of the merging of the average person's stream of consciousness with others'. Aside from that, there's the very real danger of such a thing…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 10:27 PM
2

If had said 'thought up by men' that would be reasonable, even though I still could have been talking about humanity and conforming to the norms of the English language, but really? When you hear a narrator say 'Since the dawn of man' or some such phrase, you think they're purposefully excluding females, rather than referring to humanity in an old and accepted way?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 10:19 PM
1

Why? What is inherently positive about loyalty and honor? I can't think of a single example where the value of actions we would call loyal and honorable isn't entirely context dependent.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 10:16 PM
1

Read neuromancer and watch Ghost in the Shell and you can start imagining the possibilities. Your repeated assumption that I know nothing about this topic and have given it no thought is condescending and annoying. These ideas are far older than your examples. Of course I understand the desire, but in my opinion people who want such a thing don't understand the implications. This is very similar to the popular quest for development of a general artificial intelligence. There is at least as good …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 08:39 PM
1

Gee, thanks for so generously allowing me my choice. I'm well aware that modulating brain function is fully possible, but I'm against it, as I am with the flippant use of any technology with unforseeable consequences. The pill popping culture we live in is a perfect example of why its a bad idea to fuck with brain chemistry. My distaste goes double for something like this that's a question of want and not need. Modulating neural activity is less invasive than something hormonal, but still a majo…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 07:59 PM
-1

So then you're unaware of how commonly people, in an attempt to make rational decisions, over analyze and choose badly, against their initial 'gut instinct'? And you believe honor and loyalty are inherently valuable traits, regardless of context? Thats... strange.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 07:26 PM
1

The ghost, as you put it, is entirely you in regard to consciousness. Something that modulates brain activity is fundamentally altering you, because you are nothing but neurochemistry. As I mentioned before, the idea of advanced prostheses is very exciting to me, and I hope one day to be able to work on such a thing, as well as apply it to myself. That's very different from brain implants though, either that alter neural activity or act through hormones/signaling molecules (you've been vague and…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 07:17 PM
2

After the rest of what I said you can't honestly think by 'man' I meant the male sex exclusively, can you?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 07:05 PM
1

You clearly have a very vaguely defined, soul-like definition of the self.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 06:17 PM
3

It's not even hard, because your list is biased by perspective. Flip it and all of this can be construed as positive for females, and negative for males. 1) Women, by generally going with feeling over logic, avoid thought traps and save time spent agonizing over minor points. 2) Women reach their adult stage of decision making maturity faster. 3) Women are less bogged down by 'honor', 'loyalty', 'empathy'. 4) Women are less likely to become emotionally chained to a partner. 5) Pragmatism. Obviou…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 06:13 PM
1

It really is.. I'm fascinated by how much tech has already influenced culture worldwide, and how much it will continue here, and (foolishly, maybe) hoped this thread would have some interesting discussion. Instead I find myself trying to refute a laughable misunderstanding of genetics. Unfortunately, exactly that makes up like 90% of my chances to talk about genetics on the internet..
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 04:43 PM
1

Anyone willing to downregulate major players a system-wide hormonal network in the hopes of doing away with sexual impulses has no understanding of what makes them them. Implanting some major hormonal regulator would be fundamentally changing a person's biochemistry and therefore consciousness. Cyberbrains? You realize that means full on not human, right? By full prostheses I mean everything but the brain mechanized, going beyond that is just anthropomorphic artificial intelligence..
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 04:37 PM
1

Whatever, if you want to wave your hands and say anything is possible because transhumanism, that's fine, but sexual dimorphism won't disappear because of technological advance. Going all robo-Nixon could make sexes irrelevant, yes, but that's not evolution and nothing is 'evolving out'.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 02:11 PM
1

Lol, no. Processes of life intrinsic to the development and physical characteristics of all higher organisms aren't going to 'evolve out' on any time scale relevant to a point you could be making. Human civilization won't last a thousandth of the time needed for such a thing, and even if it did evolution simply doesn't work that way. Established traits don't disappear suddenly because they're no longer inherently favorable, that requires a negative selective pressure. Genetic traits not under si…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 05:44 AM
1

we can alter ourselves hormonally to repress behaviors Hormonal pathways aren't even close to that simple, you don't understand the scale of what you're suggesting. Full prostheses is manifold more likely, and I agree the implications of such a change are staggering.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 02:43 AM
1

Utterly impossible unless done prior to conception, and even then the interconnected nature of biological processes at the cellular level makes it unlikely we'll ever be manipulating major, complex characteristics like behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/15 02:41 AM
4

You have absurd ideas of what's possible. You probably would have been one of the people in 1970 predicting flying cars by the year 2000. The people that simply had no understanding of physics, like you obviously have no understanding of biochemistry/genetics. Our testing is extremely accurate, and whole genome sequencing, much more complex than paternity testing, is under $1000 a person now. Far from rudimentary. Your idea is useless and stupid.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/15 12:19 AM
3

We have one. Nothing more than participants' cell samples is required.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/15 12:10 AM
3

Neither of those has to do with the fact that we do indeed have the tech to easily determine paternity. A handheld device is simply not going to happen. Further simplification may eventually be possible, but over the top sci-fi ideas like handheld devices which accomplish what multiple large, expensive machines currently do are laughable. Condensing every part of a multistep process for snap-of-the-finger results isn't feasible, and even if it was there's nothing important to drive the developme…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/15 12:06 AM
4

Not at all.. robots and computers can do literally every bit of standard genetic analysis except acquire the actual sample. It's very easy.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/15 11:47 PM
4

You must be confusing 'not so easily done' with 'takes some time and is justifiably somewhat expensive'.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/15 11:04 PM
5

It's already easily done, why do you keep implying it's not?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/15 10:04 PM
5

Lolwut? That tech has existed for a long time..
/r/PurplePillDebate21/03/15 09:56 PM
0

Certainly not, my point is that if you're going to use ambiguous terms you have to define what you mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 05:01 PM
2

We're just as 'close' to both phylogenetically, our nearest shared ancestor with chimps is the same as bonobos. We share more genomic identity with chimps though, yes. There's a lot of subtlety in this though; the same paper that figure comes from found that in ~3% of our genomes we're actually more closely related to either chimps or bonobos than they are to each other. 3% is actually a lot. Genetic closeness isn't a great metric by which to compare intraspecies behavior.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 04:32 PM
1

This whole chain is pretty comical. I feel like I'm back around undergrad girls who just took their first Women's Studies class.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 01:07 PM
0

That actually made me laugh out loud, thanks. I have explained how you're wrong by definition, but I'll lay it out even clearer since you're having trouble understanding: You say women are more discerning. Discerning means "exercising good judgement" or "able to see things/situations clearly and intelligently". So what could you possibly mean by more discerning in regard to mating choices other than 'objectively better'? Or are you going to dispute now the definition of 'good' or 'clearly/intell…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/15 01:06 PM
0

Jesus.. I didn't say you misinterpreted polite. I said if you think what you said in response to my sentence containing 'polite' conveys what you subsequently said you think it does, you clearly need practice at English. How in the fucking world are you not grasping that 'discerning' literally means exercising good judgement? Saying someone is more discerning is unambiguously saying their judgement is better. I think the biggest problem here is that with this, cantankerous, and probably multiple…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 10:19 PM
0

Gee I don't know, maybe you can fill me in on why you'd respond to something I didn't say to you, and then pretend you didn't start the argument? We're still here because I'm unwilling to let you flip the board when the game doesn't go your way. Your reading skills clearly need work if that's the message you think you conveyed when you quoted me saying 'polite'. And the multiple other places here where you've said something ridiculous and tried to explain it away as not what you meant. When that…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 09:22 PM
1

Good god how are you not getting this? I never said that men are more discerning. I never sought to prove that, or to disprove your statement. The point of my original disagreement, not even replied to you by the way, was that you're making claims you can't back up, and that's stupid. The entire point was you're in essence saying 'better' when all you can reliably prove is 'different'. If you didn't get so emotional about being disagreed with you might have seen that without this ridiculous back…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 08:57 PM
0

I've clearly said I don't disagree with your overall argument, but rather its finer points. Discerning means exercising good judgement, and nothing about the different evaluating factors/approach to the decision necessarily makes the general female choice one of better judgement. What you (amusingly) seem to be refusing to consider is that what women think is the better choice will as often as not be wrong. Yes, hurr durr was clearly intended to belittle your repetitive argument. Explain what's …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 08:31 PM
0

Lol...k. Panties in a bunch, defensive? I'd love for you to point out how, since I'm sitting here calmly amused, and you appear to be defensively lashing out with insults. You clearly asserted that women are more analytical and make more informed decisions about mating, and by using the word 'discerning' in your reply to the OP you outright said women have better judgement. If you don't want to call what you're saying women do 'better', that's fine, but it's clearly implied. If that's not what y…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 08:16 PM
1

And again, you saying that means absolutely nothing. You can go ahead and think that including more factors in a decision makes the decision 'better', but that's simply not true unless you've defined a metric for 'better' and another by which to judge the quality of various factors in the overall decision. The entire 'argument' you've put forth is basically 'Hurr durr, men think with penis, women much better at think', for which there's plenty of disputing evidence. But yeah go ahead and just ke…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 07:46 PM
1

Lol you disagree, but don't respond to the actual content at all? Reiterating this caricature you've put forth of male thought doesn't further your argument or respond to mine, and claiming it's fact that women are more analytical, even in mate selection, is just ridiculous. What you're saying is as stupid as 'AWALT'.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 06:59 PM
3

IMO the decision making is, on a population scale, different but equally irrational. It may be true that women in general consider more factors in the their equation, but I also say /u/GridReXX's claims are absurd. More factors does not equal better or more efficient selection, that depends on the quality of those factors. Attention to detail and thorough risk evaluation are entirely based on individual analytical thought processes, and I would be surprised if there were any gender correlation. …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/03/15 02:59 PM
3

I read it by following the full text link on your posted link...? What kind of question is that? Studies should absolutely make conclusions about their work. I said you misrepresented their conclusion. I didn't read the Rochester self promotion article because the conclusions of the actual study and it's methodology are what's important, not the 'broad strokes' interpretation.. I'm not going to read that one either, because I actually read the study. It's really amusing that you're accusing me o…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 09:02 PM
6

This is their summary data table. As you can see they tested a lot of characteristics, and few showed any kind of significant correlation. The methods for the traits I looked at seemed sound, although the sample sizes vary a lot and some are small. The less quantifiable traits are answered by survey too, which has its problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 04:36 PM
6

It's a piece by someone at Rochester promoting the work one of the Rochester faculty published, it can't help but be an opinion piece. I actually read the study, and it doesn't claim what you think it does.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 04:20 PM
14

It's not good that you consider linking an opinion piece about a study to be linking a study. You really should read your own purported evidence.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 02:21 PM
7

It actually also includes sexual attitudes and behaviors, intimacy, gender-related dispositions, etc. However, their conclusion actually admits the RP point- that at population level men and women are clearly different; this study concludes only that none of the attributes they tested were sufficiently skewed toward one gender to say those are male or female attributes. People are too heterogeneous individually to look at behavior from a strictly male/female standpoint, but not as a population.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 02:19 PM
5

Is the article paywalled? I have access if so, I'm perusing it. If you want to look at the methods let me know, I'll figure something out.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 02:12 PM
13

That's absolutely not how science works, not among professionals. If you're going to talk about someone's work you read it and assess its validity for yourself.. unless you're a shitty scientist. The peer review process is flawed, publication does not mean someone's ideas are correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/03/15 02:11 PM
1

I'm glad the Manic Pixie title caught my attention, good read. Mostly though it got me to read the Reader Letters #1, part 1 is a very good read, I'll be continuing. I feel like I've been linked to this blog before, but must have been turned off by old layout/donation/search setup and social media buttons. Edit: Writer seems to bring up personality disorders a lot, though also saying this stuff applies widely to varying degree, which I agree with. The PD stuff is centered around media, seems lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 04:42 PM
2

Oh gosh yes, I'm just so offended I can't stand it! That must be why I've calmly asked at least 3 times for you to explain yourself. And yet you again have decided to simply say 'it's not' and back that up with nothing but 'it's much more complex than that', and childish insults. Multiple times I've explained how metabolism is simple energy transfer, you've explained nothing, but sure, keep telling yourself you're the one who knows things. You're amazing. I've multiple times said that my stance …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 03:36 PM
2

Oh those noble trainers. Lol. Time does not expertise make. 'Typical' means the same thing everywhere bub, and it's the exact opposite of the specificity you're asking for with 'Which ones?'.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/03/15 03:13 PM
2

They quit because they're not professionals, they're people in relatively good shape who needed a job. I've repeatedly said your perception of how hard you went at it is flawed. I say that because just about everyone is like that beginning lifting, especially those that listen to idiot trainers, but also because of the little pieces of your attempt that you've brought up sound like you worked out like a typical novice.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 11:22 PM
2

Hooooly shit this really is astounding. I asked for proof that metabolism is not at its root thermodynamics, and you keep pretending I asked you to prove your claims about muscle growth. Go ahead and try to redirect and tell me to fuck off again, it's getting really funny at this point. I've openly said that people have different experiences. I was referring to you repeatedly saying I called you a liar, when you're the only one doing that. I'm 'compounding' metabolism with thermodynamics? Care t…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 11:19 PM
2

Here's something that will probably blow your mind: personal trainers at gyms are usually complete idiots. Gasp, I know, they had to work so hard for that non-degree requiring job! Again, I'd love for you to actually point out where I claim anything but that your perception is flawed.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:21 PM
2

How do you miss the point so completely with everything? I want you to back up your claim that I'm wrong about metabolism. I don't really give a shit about your life, which is why I've never said you lied about anything, just that your view is skewed and I doubt you worked as hard as you think you did. I say that because you're definitely not the first person I've heard these lame excuses from. I believe that assuming the other person is lying simply because their account disagrees with your bel…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:16 PM
2

Working untrained muscles to failure is a bad idea. Did you ever start with low weights and master form? The nervous system has to be trained to handle lifts just as much as the muscles do. Isn't it funny how I continue to take your statements at face value, while you just respond to everything by telling me I'm a liar and know nothing? It wouldn't look so pathetic if you actually refuted my statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 10:01 PM
2

Gosh, you're just so good at demonstrating why you're right and I'm not. Does this actually work for you in life? You can't refute someone's statement, so you repeatedly say that they're actually just stupid and fail to ever back up these assertions with some evidence that they're wrong? That guy elsewhere in the comments that said you sound like a fat person who claims they can't lose weight really got it right. The self deception is incredible. You may actually be right that I couldn't explain…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:57 PM
2

Proof that when humans devote themselves fully to an activity they work harder and experience better results? Are you fucking serious?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:53 PM
1

There are no somatotypes champ, not just endomorphs, how was that not the obvious to you? If you had ever done any real fitness research in this heroic attempt of yours you'd have found out that somatotypes are colloquial bullshit.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:52 PM
2

You really are a whiny little bitch. Ever wonder if that's why your instructors ditched you? Again, you have nothing to contribute so you turn to pathetic attack. If I have no idea what metabolism is, what is it? I could explain catabolism and anabolism to you, but at it's base it's heat transfer, which is thermodynamics. I did not say you were breaking a law, either, again you attempt to twist what I said. You poor, poor little special snowflake, no one understands you. Anyone who's life isn't …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 09:47 PM
2

You never approached lifting with the right mindset. Going to the gym as a chore will never get you anywhere. DOMS goes away after less than 2 weeks of consistent lifting, bud.. sounds like you didn't go very hard.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:08 PM
2

There's no such thing as an endomorph, believing that shit is part of your problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:07 PM
1

Lol again this guy that tried sooooo hard can't describe the attempt.. I remember how I lifted and ate 5 years ago, why don't you?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:06 PM
2

if you don't understand what I mean. Good god you must really be bad at reading. You quoted something I didn't say. You added a word. Learn to pick up on when someone is mocking you, not asking a serious question. You're just desperate for anyone that describes a better life than yours to be a liar, aren't you? I never claimed to research metabolism, but you're still comically wrong about their being some schism between biochem and physics.. Since you're so much better at my subject than me, exp…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 04:03 PM
1

Exactly, you brought up a book about aerobic exercise, and studies that have nothing to do with what I was talking about... So your point is?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:48 AM
3

I looked up both of the studies that T-nation article cites.. The Hubal study only gives an abstract, the full text is on some paywalled cite I haven't heard of that isn't loading.. I have access to most biomed related paywalls so I'll be able to look if it ever works, but the abstract methods don't mention food. I looked at recent articles that cite it, and I'm shocked there's no mention of food in their methods. The Petrella study doesn't mention food either. I'm amazed anybody funded these.. …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:43 AM
0

Describe vigorous exercise?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:31 AM
1

Right, everyone was being tested on aerobic capacity and the ability to increase in strength but not muscle size.. aside from being only old people, it was not a study on muscular hypertrophy in any way. If by 'the genetic test' you mean the one whose title specifically says aerobic capacity and nothing about strength, and doesnt say anything about strength training in the Methods, then no, it doesn't. Even if it did, testing RNA expression in response to exercise has nothing to do with building…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:29 AM
3

Lol what do you mean by "It's not "in thermodynamics""? I didn't say anything was 'in' thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is the physics of energy transfer.. A subset of which is chemistry.. a subset of which is biochemistry.. do you really not get that? You must not know very big ripped guys. The bodybuilding community generally tells people to get 1g/lb, although research shows ~.7g/lb is all you need. For that reason I eat ~135g a day. Before I lost weight and did more research I weighed 200, ate…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/02/15 01:20 AM
2

Everything you've linked is about aerobic capacity, and from looking into that book that's the focus there too. I know nothing about the book or the reputability of the sports science researchers at Loughborough in the UK, but the reviews of it aren't stellar. Blood testing for aerobic capacity would be relatively simple, given that oxygen is carried in the blood by well studied proteins. This research doesn't apply to building skeletal muscle.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 10:27 PM
1

What are you talking about? There was nothing genetic in that study, no blood testing either.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:47 PM
1

That's interesting, but not something I would have refuted. Those people were all 40-60 year olds. All your shit starts falling apart at that age if you didn't stay in exceptionally good shape all of the preceding years, it's not surprising that some members of any decent sample size would be in bad enough shape to actually damage their muscles or lungs with lifting or cardio. More significantly those who lost ability in one of the metrics lost an insignificant amount compared to the largest ind…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:35 PM
2

You're right in that it probably essentially lies in what you could call inefficient metabolism- in this case most likely a deficiency in uptake of protein, carbohydrates, or both. For carbs specifically that might manifest in both absurd eating with no exercise without getting fat and having trouble putting on muscle. That's an interesting point, because I have a really close friend that eats like a madman year in, year out, never exercises, and remains a slightly doughy 5'11 165. If I remember…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:13 PM
3

Spot on, in my experience people that say they can't gain muscle just haven't taught themselves to love tearing their muscles up.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:06 PM
3

Link to any research into this small rare subset? I've never heard of it, and I'm extremely skeptical that putting on muscle is anything but harder. Edit: Rereading, you didn't say impossible. But still, it'd be very interesting to know the mechanism behind this. And either way, you could get huge, it's just harder.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 09:01 PM
3

It's not about protein, although that's certainly required. Calories in>calories out = weight gained is thermodynamics. Given your lack of answer to TDEE and surplus, I'm skeptical that you've ever actually gone at it the right way. Protein consumption does not equal muscle gained, you need the overall calories and you need to lift intelligently as well. What does the massive increase in the biomed/biotech research sector of the last few decades have to do with anything? The percentage of the po…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 08:53 PM
4

So what's your TDEE? What caloric surplus were you keeping when you defied thermodynamics? Because if you were truly eating enough and gaining nothing, you're a medical phenomenon and as a biochemist I'd love to study you. I've heard this argument in myriad forms, as well as the other side, bullshit about not being able to lose weight. What it all really boils down to is their brain making up excuses in order to hide and feel better about the truth, which is 'Wah wah wah, I'm a little pussyboy.'
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 08:29 PM
5

It's less of a miracle if you nut up and do the working out, shaving, and wearing multiple outfits thing first.. You say it's not as simple as hitting the gym, and you're right, it's not. Becoming attractive by simply getting fit obviously isn't an option for ugly people.. that's why you get huge. No matter how weird you look, there are girls that will squirt over an absurdly muscled physique. Ugly huge guy still won't have the same female access as any cut handsome guy, but it's a huge step up …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/15 08:02 PM
2

You're the one that tried to label me blue, champ.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 05:08 PM
2

Each gender is 'more equipped' to manipulate the tasks/situations that have, for that gender, experienced significant pressure in sexual selection across the development of man as a thinking being.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 04:59 PM
3

Manipulation is a cornerstone of human interpersonal interaction and probably the development of consciousness. Man is manipulation, not just men or women.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 04:38 PM
1

I'm not sure if the vehemence here is directed at me or the religious? Either way I agree, it's an extremely effective socio/cultural strategy. That doesn't lessen my distaste.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 04:35 PM
11

Gee, it's almost like people made up religion to reinforce societal rules rooted in mate guarding. Those bits of 'wisdom' don't read like a male power play at all. Are you really trying to use extremely dubiously sourced quotes from a logically inconsistent set of beliefs to support the extreme end of red pill ideas?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/02/15 12:29 AM
1

Very interesting. I've never really considered a polyamorous situation as realistic, but you make it seem so. What moves you to put Feminist in your flair? How are you defining that?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 04:53 PM
1

Your life sounds interesting. Around what age were you for the marriage and subsequent relationship opening? Purely curiosity, I agree with what you've said to the extent that I have experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/02/15 04:27 PM
3

we've been conditioned not to compete with or outshine them. This is not the experience I had, either at home or in the public school system.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/15 07:43 PM
3

largely produces boring, unpleasant women many interesting female scientists There's no conflict here, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'actually', or what relevance a TRP argument which I haven't read, you didn't link, and that is (by your description) patently absurd has here. I'm not very familiar with its president but he and Turkey still openly base their choices in Islam, so yes I disagree, and I suspect deeply. Masculinity is a vague term, I despise the Islamic ideal of what a man should …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/15 10:30 PM
8

I tend to agree with /u/cxj from what I've seen, definitely on this. My thoughts: About their treatment of women, I despise their treatment of women. Oppressive behavior rooted in mate guarding largely produces boring, unpleasant women, and it's not an environment where either sex could be said to thrive. As for masculinity, I despise everything about the way Islam wants men to be raised, but that's all rooted in religion, so I'm not sure I should get into that. It does make for overly confident…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/15 08:43 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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