TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SmellsLikeUpfoo Archive

View 2 posts and 42 comments by SmellsLikeUpfoo on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
5

I would like to go to one of these nightclups.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 12:47 AM
11

You might be fun at parties, but no one knows if you are because you never go.
/r/MensRights10/03/14 10:05 PM
1

See, we've more-or-less agreed all along, we've just been using different definitions. They're acting irrationally and without facts. As is a gnostic atheist, which is what I took the original post in this comment thread to be saying.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 11:16 PM
1

Sigh. You are still trying to make those who believe something by faith believe it by reason. If I'm a devout Christian or Jew or whatever, and I say, "I believe in God/Allah/FSM," it's not because I have seen evidence for it. If I had, then it wouldn't be faith-based belief, but a rational belief.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 10:54 PM
1

That's ridiculous. It is ridiculous, but that's the definition of faith. http://biblehub.com/john/20-29.htm is Christianity's take on it. There is the broader term "atheism" and it can be modified with the "agnostic/gnostic" modifier. I understand that. But multiple definitions of "atheism" are in common usage, as evidenced by: I used to be an idiot who thought I was "agnostic" before
/r/MensRights07/03/14 10:02 PM
1

Again, faith isn't acceptable reasoning in any other aspect of life. And I never said that it was. But it is acceptable "reasoning" for the statement "I believe that there is a god." You picked one third of wikipedia's definition, I picked another. This argument devolved to semantics several posts ago, so I'm sure we'll both be happier if we end it here. I believe that I do understand what you are trying to say, and I wish I was somehow able to convey what I am trying to say.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 09:44 PM
0

No we're not. The wikipedia entry doesn't contradict what I was saying: There are multiple parts to that wikipedia definition. My point is that we're arguing from different parts of it. You don't have to prove a negative to not believe in gods. That's silly. Because I started this argument with the definition of atheism: "belief that there are no gods", and you started it with "lack of belief in gods". I'm not sure how many different ways I can restate this. NO! I'm only measuring what can be me…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:42 PM
-1

There has to be proof in something's existence for one to believe in it. You still don't understand the concept of faith. No, I know what I'm talking about. Atheism and agnosticism aren't on the same plane: We're arguing using different definitions here, so we may as well quit. Wikipedia says: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the abse…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 08:11 PM
-1

An atheist only accepts what there is proof for. There is no proof that there is no god. There is no proof of gods, so an atheist doesn't bother with them. "Not bothering with" is fine. But that's different from knowing that there is no god. I think what you're thinking of is agnosticism, not atheism. If it is a fact that gods exist, then an atheist would acknowledge their existence. Which would make them not an atheist. Atheism doesn't mean "I have personally searched every square inch of the u…
/r/MensRights07/03/14 02:44 PM
-1

He said "atheism ... is fact based", meaning that he seems to say he has some fact that proves there is no god. Since that's proving a negative, I was curious to find out what what he thought it was. Someone who has faith does not have to prove their faith, because by definition that's what faith is: belief without proof.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 04:16 AM
4

It's much better to let people air their biases in public than make them illegal and keep them covered up.
/r/MensRights07/03/14 01:06 AM
1

It may be possible to prove that all existing religions' gods were fabrications, but it is not possible to prove that there is no god. How do you know that there isn't some supreme being in some remote corner of the universe (or outside the universe) that doesn't care about us Earthlings and whether or not we believe in it? Why should something only be a god if it has human followers to worship it? Perhaps there is a god, and it has created trillions of universes just for fun, each with billions…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 09:23 PM
1

Now, do you understand how sources, facts and data work? Nitwit. By the way, citing sources doesn't matter if your argument is fallacious or irrelevant to the discussion. I know this is true because in 1931 Canada won the World Hockey Championship. BOOM CIT'D
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:34 PM
1

Thanks for the excellent continued demonstration of my previous comment's veracity.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:23 PM
1

You have spent the entire time presenting me with insults, logical fallacies, and general condescension, without actually defending your points or answering my questions at all.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:20 PM
-1

And what about "viability", as it is currently defined, decides whether or not something is human with human rights? If that's the standard you're going by, does that mean that it's okay to abort a 24-week fetus in 1964 but not in 2014, just because now we have the medical technology to save a fetus younger at 24 weeks? What about in 2164, when they can save a fetus that's born at only 18 weeks? Is it human then but not now?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:12 PM
-2

I hate to tell cretins like you that it's a woman's body and it's her choice and Roe vs. Wade will remain the law of the land. Get used to it. Ignoring the fact that this is at best tangentially related to the rest of the discussion, it is important to recognize that a law's mere existence does not mean that it is a good and just law. You are making an argument from authority if you do so. With regard to the abortion debate in specific, it depends wholly on the point at which the fetus attains h…
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:58 PM
2

I'm not claiming that there is a god, just that there's no way to prove that there isn't one.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:48 PM
3

This may be helpful to you.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:05 PM
4

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate how you can prove a negative.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:01 PM
3

I never said that, did I? I said this: What facts, exactly, prove to you that there is not a god?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 07:00 PM
2

"There are no invisible cows located within 5 billion kilometers of Alpha Centauri." Can you prove that to me? No. Is it likely to be true, based on our existing understanding of the universe? No. You cannot prove that there is no god, because you do not know everything about everything. Your insistence that something is a myth, fable, or fairy tale does not conclusively prove anything. Conversely, the Bible/Koran/whatever cannot prove that God/Allah/whatever is true/exists.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:59 PM
-1

Settle down there cowboy. I asked you how you could prove that there was no god. Not to prove that some specific God/Allah/whatever doesn't exist or some event in some holy book couldn't have happened.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:49 PM
4

What facts, exactly, prove to you that there is not a god?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 06:39 PM
1

How exactly does someone "soak up a lot of money" but not spend any of it? Do you think rich people have rooms full of $100 bills or something? If they put their money in the bank or directly in an investment, it is being used. Please, read the illustrated book I linked four posts above this one, or read this updated version (.pdf). Your understanding of economics is leading you to some impossible conclusions, and those conclusions are probably affecting how you vote.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:03 PM
1

Those who don't need to work don't have to, but those who live off the labors of others are leeches and aren't doing any good to society. Those who are unable to work must depend on the charity of others. It's worth noting at this point that government welfare programs are not charity, but pseudo-charity that has undercut and gutted the real charity sector.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 03:16 PM
2

Why basic economics is so difficult for people to understand is beyond me.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:21 AM
0

There are hard and fast laws of economics, and pretending they don't exist just because you don't like them is about as useful as pretending gravity doesn't exist. Check out How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't for starters.
/r/MensRights23/10/12 04:20 AM
2

The amount of discussion on spelling and grammar mistakes in this thread is mildly amusing.
/r/MensRights07/10/12 02:55 PM
2

"quotes"
/r/MensRights02/08/12 05:25 PM
1

"This is proof that the law works! Men are now afraid to be violent toward women! Think of all the women who didn't end up in the hospital (or worse!) because of these great laws!"
/r/MensRights02/08/12 04:54 PM
22

Or maybe they like their kids?
/r/MensRights31/07/12 08:03 PM
1

Hopefully this guy can do something productive with this. Seems like good information, but a video rant is not going to do much good as-is.
/r/MensRights19/06/12 02:45 PM
1

If you don't like it, complain to the organizer, or just don't go. The right of someone to discriminate among their customers is more important than "fairness". If their customers are willing to pay the gender premium, then they have a successful business model. In fact, male customers may be more willing to pay the gender premium than they would be to attend an event with almost no women.
/r/MensRights09/05/12 08:32 PM
5

Not only is it against the law, but it's a mean thing to do!
/r/MensRights09/05/12 01:58 PM
1

So people probably also don't like internet vigilantism caused by posting phone numbers in threads.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 05:33 PM
1

Reddit auto-downvotes lots of things as part of its weird anti-spam measures, so don't get too worried over a few downvotes.
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:14 PM
5

Mosaics?
/r/MensRights08/05/12 02:08 PM
3

Never let anyone know you exist?
/r/MensRights01/05/12 04:14 AM
2

[citation needed]
/r/MensRights27/03/12 03:17 AM
6

And perhaps being together.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 04:32 PM
108

No, when there's $5 involved, then it's not rape, it's prostitution.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 08:47 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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