TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

SudoTheAdmin Archive

View 0 posts and 296 comments by SudoTheAdmin 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)
0

The point is that he didn't advocate equality for all. After his civil rights career he began working on economic injustices. Why didn't he keep working on "civil rights for all"? If in his own mind he was seeking "equal rights for all" he would see that gay people are marginalized and didn't have equal rights. Yet that wasn't a concern for him. If MLK was alive today, do you think he would advocate for gay rights? I think you will have a hard time arguing that point given his religion. I guess …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 03:45 AM
0

"MLK wanted equal opportunity under the law. He wanted the same laws to apply equally to all people."
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 03:17 AM
0

MLK was a southern Baptist minister. He was not for gay rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 02:02 AM
0

"All studies"? Not sure about that. But anyway, To follow your reasoning, you need to somehow connect male vs. female justifications for going to war as being similar to rationalizing cheating on a partner (or other ways that TRP uses "hamster"). I would call these two as sufficiently different that it isn't obvious that one correlates with the other. From the Paciello paper... "Bandura has introduced the concept of moral disengagement to explain the determinants and mechanisms governing aggress…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 09:49 PM
0

Don't know. Never looked for one. But I do know it is not "negotiator ethics" which is what the most recent paper (Kray 2012) that you cited examines. It also has nothing to do with "moral disengagement in support of war" in the Grussendorf paper or moral disengagement in general in the last 2 cited papers.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 09:27 PM
1

Those studies do not deal with what the red pill calls "hamstering".
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:44 PM
2

What you keep skipping over is that Robots made the "nonsensical inference which the paper cannot support in any way." I did the same to show the absurdity of it. For some reason you fault me for it but not her. My entire point is that Robots' premise is not in the paper. That is all. Blue pillers love sources and citations. Well in this case making up something and saying it is in the paper when it isn't is OK as long as a blue pill person does it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/01/14 05:40 PM
1

I don't understand your argument in this comment, but I will try to comment anyway. My entire point is that RobotsPartsCorp made an unsupported comment. She is assuming something that the researchers didn't examine. That is all. Full stop. All I want is someone to point out to me in the paper where any discussion whatsoever of the gender of who is divorcing whom is discussed. The fact is that it isn't in there. Robots' claim that men are leaving women cannot be supported by that study.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 09:37 PM
-1

My stance is exactly this: "RobotPartsCorp has made an assertion that is not in the paper. I am requesting RobotPartsCorp admit this or provide evidence elsewhere to support it." That is all. Seeing as you have refused to supply the evidence and given that I have read, understood, and know that what you claim is in the paper is actually not in the paper, I will have to accept this is as far as we will go.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 05:28 PM
1

What you are failing to understand is that I linked to the study that you originally referred to. This was not by accident on my part. I tried a different path to get you to realize that your claims are not in the paper. You continue to fail to grasp what I am writing. You are making assumptions that go beyond the scope of the paper and you can try to avoid making that statement as much as you want, but it's true. btw a judge would have forced you to answer my questions a long time ago. Women fi…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 03:25 PM
0

I knew you wouldn't listen to me saying "RobotPartsCorp your facts aren't in the paper, can you point them out to me?" So what I did was make one up and have you disprove it by saying "that isn't in the paper." We are now stuck on step 2 where you are unable to provide ANY facts to back up your original position. That is what we are debating. You wrote: "Men are more likely to leave a sick wife where a wife will stay with her sick husband". That is completely unsupported. Let's try this from ano…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:57 AM
-1

Please tell me the page and paragraph where it says men are the ones who cause/whatever the divorce when the woman is sick. To save us some time, it doesn't exist. I know because I read the paper. That is what I am trying to explain to you. There is a difference between "the rate of divorce based on which gender is sick" and "who caused/whatevered the divorce based on which gender is sick". What you are claiming is what is unsupported.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:46 AM
-3

The truth is your claimed results aren't in the paper any more than my made up 99% is. The paper does not in any way examine which gender filed, initiated, caused, wanted, or otherwise brought about the divorce. The study only discusses the rate of divorce based on who is sick. You assume without any supporting evidence that when a woman is sick only the man files for divorce. Once again that isn't studied or discussed in the paper and you haven't backed it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:36 AM
-3

Interesting. Can you tell me the page number where it describes the person filing for divorce is 100% male when the woman has cancer and 0% of women file for divorce when she has cancer?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:22 AM
-3

I think you have to arrive via Google search for the link to work. Try this one and click the second link. The study showed it wasn't men leaving at all, rather it is the opposite. http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=Gender+Disparity+in+the+Rate+of+Partner+Abandonment+in+Patients+with+Serious+Medical+Illness&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:09 AM
-3

This source says that women initiate the divorce 99% of the time regardless of who is diagnosed with the serious illness. source
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 12:15 AM
1

Nope. Am I leaving R's off the ends of words or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 03:24 AM
1

I realize it is a mistake and you misread it. But you: Disregarded the plain meaning of the words written ("self described..." followed by a quotation), and Didn't do any fact checking. Your post required you to read into a comment what you wanted to see while ignoring what was actually written. I'm trying to highlight that this is what we deal with, and it isn't the first time nor will it be the last time.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 03:13 AM
1

This is going to read harsher than I intend it to be, but I will write it anyway. It is telling that you ignored the commenter's words when he wrote "self described..." and then followed up with a quotation. Not even direct quotations from articles are safe from being twisted to support straw man an anti-RP arguments. This is just the latest example. What hope do we have that our actual opinions will be read in the future more accurately instead of the current twisted interpretations we see all …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 03:00 AM
1

I doubt there is anything I could provide to you that would convince you I am a lawyer without disclosing my name. I most certainly will not do that. You should know that every state has its own law. On top of that there could be different laws in each Federal District plus law created by the Supreme Court, which applies to every state and territory. Then there is bankruptcy law, administrative law, patent law, trademark law, copyright law, product liability law, consumer protection law, tort la…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 02:48 AM
1

The "rhetoric" you see is a direct quote from the article author, who is a woman describing herself. "I’m your standard-issue late-20-something childless overeducated atheist feminist..." - Female author
/r/PurplePillDebate27/12/13 02:36 AM
0

It will show 1 minute old comments at the bottom of very deep threads with 2 downvotes. For a sub with 10 active people at a time that is telling. Let's be real here. Every comment in this sub is prejudged. It is obvious who is RP and who is BP. If you don't recognize the name then you recognize the argument. There is no mistaking which side a commenter falls on and there aren't nuances argued in the middle. If people want to downvote I think they should own it. The proof that hidden scores don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 03:30 AM
3

Downvoting using your mouse isn't possible but most people have RES and do it anyway. The bandwagoning is already here and nothing is going to stop it. RP=downvote BP=upvote. I, along with several other RP commenters, can only comment every 10 minutes due to downvoting. There is not a single BP person with that restriction.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:45 AM
4

Take away the comment score hiding feature. If people want to downvote, let them show it to the world. No need to hide the score so that unpopular opinions can be given fair treatment. This isn't a sub where it is ambiguous who is on what side. Everyone knows the players and what position each side will take (for the most part).
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 01:34 AM
3

It seems like you missed my point, so I will explain it another way. You wrote that "women who are sick are seven times more likely to be abandoned by their spouse than are men who are sick." To back that up you link to a study comparing divorce rates when men have a serious illness vs. when women have a serious illness. The divorce rate based on who is sick does not equal and does not imply WHO filed for the divorce, and therefore your "abandoned by their spouse" is either unsupported, or worse…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 12:30 AM
4

That study doesn't say who filed for divorce. It only discusses which gender was diagnosed and whether divorce occurred. Therefore "abandoned by their spouse" is unsupported. Given that women file for divorce around 70% of the time, something is needed to support a hypothesis that all of a sudden men switch roles and become the divorcer. The overall divorce rate among the diagnosed people is similar to the divorce rate of the general population. You wouldn't say the filing spouse in the general …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 12:06 AM
0

I'm not fighting against anything. I simply corrected your statement that "zero women" started businesses 100 years ago and corrected your follow up that women weren't allowed to go to college. That is all.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:38 AM
-1

It wasn't normal for MEN to go to college, just like women. Your understanding of economies a few hundred years ago is inaccurate. Women and men alike started small businesses and operated them. Some bootstrapped, and some were financed. Women operated taverns, pubs, bakeries, seamstress shops, etc. Working as a woman is nothing new. Feminists tell you it is because several decades ago rich white American women decided they wanted to work and made a campaign about it. All this happened while poo…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 12:23 AM
0

Once again, not close to accurate. Mount Holyoke, Vassar, Wesleyan, Wellesley, Radcliffe, Smith... Do any of these old and respected all women's colleges ring a bell? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_colleges_in_the_United_States
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 11:51 PM
3

This isn't close to accurate. Coco Chanel? Esther Howland? Elizabeth Arden? Mary Kies? I named 4 important women entrepreneurs off the top of my head. Women owned businesses is not new.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 08:47 PM
9

My point was the The Red Pill, to borrow feminist terminology, is teaching men how to get women to check their own privilege. The mere discussion of getting "women to check their own privilege" (read as: the existence of /r/theredpill and discussion there) has spawned a subreddit dedicated to satirizing it (r/thebluepill) and this subreddit dedicated to "debating" (read as: downvoting) it. I can only comment every 10 minutes because of the downvotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 06:27 PM
7

Just try and suggest that white men should examine their own privilege and suddenly there is a deluge of downvotes. I hope you can appreciate the irony in this. Change it to "Just try and suggest that [women] should examine their own privilege and suddenly there is a deluge of downvotes" is basically what happens on PurplePillDebate.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 06:07 PM
1

He never said there was a trend of you two agreeing. He is saying that you disagree with every red pill person no matter what, even when you two are saying the same thing and agreeing.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 01:12 AM
1

I see it, too. And I don't understand how someone can take "we agree on this topic" and interpret that as saying "we have always been in agreement". It really boggles my mind.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 12:52 AM
0

TIL Georgia still recognizes breach of promise to marry. I can absolutely find the case law to support what a contract is and what a promise is. Nothing on the planet will convince you so it is a fools errand. I won't comment on what you and Dana spike about. I don't feel like reading all of those comments and sorting out the situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 07:12 AM
1

The reason why the man ordered was to pay $50k is not because he broke a promise. He was sued for fraud, more specifically fraud in the inducement. Basically he said "quit your job and raise our kid and we will get married". If he merely said "Will you marry me?" and she said "yes" she would not have won at trial. The dissent in the decision goes into this. That judge said the guy should have won because there was conflicting testimony that the inducement even incurred and therefore the plaintif…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 06:27 AM
2

There isn't a tort remedy for a 3rd party interfering with a promise because the promisor doesn't have any obligations and the promisee doesn't have any rights. The promisor can revoke freely and the promisee cannot compel performance of a promise. For these reasons a 3rd party cannot be held responsible for something the law doesn't recognize. Nothing actionable exists in the eyes of the law.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 06:01 AM
1

This is a promise (more accurately called a gift in the law): "I will give you my furniture tomorrow". This is a contract: "I will give you my furniture for $200". The contract is two side, the gift is one sided. That is the difference. A promise doesn't become a contract, ever. You are getting messed up because the sources you cite is overloading the term "promise". The distinction between consideration and mutual consideration is trivial semantics. When a judge says "we find consideration in t…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:51 AM
1

Part of the problem is you use English words that have one meaning but have different meanings in the law. For example, contracts don't allow penalties. Only actual damages can be awarded aka the only remedy is to put the plaintiff in the position he would have been in if there had been no breach, or in limited situations, put the plaintiff in the position had there been no contract at all. No penalties, ever. If a 3rd party is found liable for interference he still would not be bound by the con…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 04:28 AM
2

FYI I am a contracts attorney. You are using lots of words in ways lay people do, but these English words have very different meanings in the law. Here are some of the errors: Promises are not oral contacts because promises aren't contracts. They don't have the consideration requirement. People get hung up on oral vs. written contracts, but there is no difference in what they entail or the requirements to perform. All that matters is some contracts must be written and signed by the party to be c…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 04:18 AM
5

Courts never find a promise constitutes a contract. It just isn't possible. A contract always requires consideration (legal term of art) and that is never present in a promise. Sometimes a court may award remedies for failing to uphold a promise (awarded in narrow limited circumstances), but those are not contract remedies and the court does not say a contract ever existed. Edit: some more stuff Whoa just realized you wrote the law adds an additional tort charge. No, that does not happen at all.…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 03:00 AM
1

When mods delete your comment they stay in your history but are removed from the page. When you delete your comment it is deleted from your history and the page. Ahhhh irony of lashing out at people in TRP sub by saying "Dude, do you even reddit?" Coming out guns blazing usually isn't the best policy anywhere in life. There are better ways to bring this up.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 09:13 PM
1

Shadowban doesn't let some comments through and not others. All are blocked and the commenter doesn't know. You aren't even regular banned from the sub. You can submit and comment there. Maybe some of your comments were deleted, but you are not shadowbanned.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 09:01 PM
1

You aren't shadowbanned. People in the sub are replying to you. If you were shadowbanned no one would see your comments. No one. People replying to you proves you aren't shadowbanned. Read the shadowban definition that you quoted.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 08:50 PM
0

And once again I repeat, I am not talking about professors/researchers facing backlash within the workplace. Edit: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00F17FD385F0C718CDDAB0894DD404482
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 10:18 PM
2

You are missing it. The Rollo chart depicts his hypothesis for SMV vs. Age, and in other words depicts access to sex at a given age with all factors included. To link the two charts one needs to demonstrate that higher SMV people have more sex than lower SMV people (on average for the pedants). This isn't a controversial statement. So the actual Kinsey data matching up with his hypothesis chart lends support that Rollo's hypothesis is true and accurate. All someone has to do is repeat the Kinsey…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:55 PM
2

For comparison's sake: Kinsey data: http://iconicmen.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/smv4.jpg Rollo chart: https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/smv_curve1.jpg Too funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 04:45 AM
4

Hey, it can happen! Anna Nicole fell in love at first sight for this hot guy! http://i.imgur.com/3F1F94E.jpg
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 01:24 AM
5

It's not a daily hindrance. It doesn't negatively effect their careers. It's not a daily hindrance because they avoid publishing unpopular results. And it doesn't affect their careers, because like we already went over, their colleagues aren't the problem. The oversensitive lay people are the problem. http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/resay.html
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 12:49 AM
4

Uhhhh that's the point. People doing the race vs IQ research back in the day were met with stern criticism. I wonder what the outrage would be today with 24hr news cycles, blogs, FB, Twitter...
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 08:22 PM
8

Oh come on. Those graphs are near identical, just time shifted. If the labels were removed you wouldn't know which one to be outraged at. And these aren't close to showing SMV is "mostly age irrelevant". That would require a graph similar to a horizontal line for all values like y=5. That isn't close to what is shown.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 08:07 PM
9

The red pill mostly agrees with you, with the caveat that bald isn't always the wall for men. There are other factors. Just like age isn't the sole determinant for women and there are multiple factors. https://rationalmale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/smv_curve1.jpg
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 06:46 PM
3

Who cares about the researchers? Lay people are the ones who will harass the researcher, his/her family, and their 1,000 Facebook contacts. Great incentive to study controversial stuff.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 06:36 PM
5

It isn't that there is a feminist agenda. There just are things in life you can't say without rebuke from the majority, no matter how true the statement is. This is called the proverbial "third rail". Politicians know to stay away from them. For example, just yesterday one person messaged 1,000 people to warn them that an acquaintance has questionable character, in the messenger's view. It isn't unreasonable to expect a researcher will receive the same or worse treatment, given the greater expos…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 05:36 PM
1

Electrician is a bad choice to compare with teachers. Electrician's don't have a degree but they are still required to work ~10,000 hours over no less than 5 years and undergo ~750 hours of classroom instruction in order to become an electrician. That's a longer path than a BS in Teaching.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 09:54 PM
5

soulcakeduck will argue that men can and do decide whether to become parents. See the case I described above.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:42 PM
8

You are going to end up banging your head against a wall trying to argue your point. souldcakeduck believes men already have that equal right. He cites as proof the case of a person who was born female then underwent a partial sex change and now identifies as male gave birth to a kid. That is the evidence that men can get their own abortions. There is absolutely no point in arguing further.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:32 PM
2

Ummmm you're going to have to show something that backs this up. I've been to Singapore and this level of welfare is pretty much the exact opposite of their culture. The poor earn around $700 per month. No way in hell are the middle class getting $100k.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:18 PM
9

Women can unilaterally relinquish all rights and responsibilities to a child through adoption and parental surrender. Men cannot lawfully do that. Do you support fixing the inequality in that?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 06:02 PM
3

Because the abstract is a sales pitch for the rest of the paper. Often times the contrary evidence isn't written in there and you don't see where the author made incorrect assumptions, etc. in the abstract. It's in the paper. If I remember correctly you said you went to are a lawyer. It's just like reading the case headnotes. Good for searching, but the actual relevant case law, holding, reasoning, and limitations aren't in there. It's in the rest of the opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 06:15 AM
1

You don't have to accept my view, but you should certainly evaluate a paper critically, which you are not doing here. This paper has serious flaws. Let's look at some more. Notice Figure 2 on page 719. In the 90's there are about 14 people hired per year to 5 orchestras collectively. We are dealing with a very low percentage career. Let's look at some data. We can use table 5. Look at the proportion of women hired in a non-blind interview (0.017) and the proportion of men hired (0.027). It seems…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 11:52 PM
2

I don't quite understand your second paragraph, so here is a better description than the one I wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 12:18 AM
1

A strawman argument is when someone constructs their own opposition with flaws so that the person can easily defeat the strawman. That is what I did above. redpillhead was never saying "I want x, y, and z in a relationship." He was talking about a different topic altogether. I created the strawman by taking 9 words out of context to give the appearance me and him are talking about the same things. An even more blatant example would be if I quoted him as "I am a sexist dudebro a-hole" and then sa…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 10:02 PM
2

For someone who claims to be a skeptic you certainly do take at face value everything that seems to support your position. The authors have an agenda and make sure their paper fits that agenda. Table 4 is where to real data is. Table 5 is a non-controlled data analysis completed after the fact. Read Table 4. The all negative signs in the blind auditions means the women do worse. The all positive signs in non-blind means they do better when the judge knows she is a woman. To shoehorn this data in…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 09:51 PM
3

This is where they are being deceptive. First, the data doesn't show this conclusion. It is only their hypothesis. Here is how we know the hypothesis is wrong: Women in blind auditions had worse hiring rates at ALL of the steps in the audition process. If the worse rate was truly due to a greater number of participants, those lower skilled people would have been eliminated at the first step and the second and third auditions would show more favorable results. But that isn't what happened. The tr…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 04:52 PM
3

You mean when the quality of performance was variable there was an element of benevolent sexism in their favour, and when quality was held constant (i.e. men and women were equal), women did best in blinded conditions? No, the exact opposite happened. Read it again. Women did worse in the blinded auditions. "The relative success of female candidates appears worse for blind than not-blind auditions and this finding also holds for each round of the audition process."
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 07:54 AM
5

Sorry. I was just demonstrating how poor reading comprehension around here results in selective quotes being taken out of context in order to argue strawmen. What I did happens in this sub every day and goes unchecked.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 07:43 AM
2

I want x,y, and z from a relationship You aren't entitled to determine what someone gives you in a relationship. No one owes you anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 07:32 AM
2

Wow, that's pretty bad. I'd say in general people around here have too thin skin. It ruins conversations to have so many [deleted]. Mods should just message the person and tell him to modify/delete the offending statement. Too many comments are deleted because of a single sentence in a 200 word reply.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 07:22 AM
4

Hahahaha. You made the statement that "homeless man still has a far greater chance of being hired and receiving more pay when hired than the woman does" and you cannot prove it. You don't get to throw up your hands and claim sexism. Needs to be proven and that has not been done. The music paper you provided is even more laughable. Disregarding the fact it is from 2000 and you hate old stuff, the paper doesn't even support your thesis and I question the author's bias. On the last page they write …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 07:12 AM
2

I'll explain again. You made the assertion that a homeless man will be hired more often than a homeless women. As proof you provided a paper where male students were hired as a lab tech more often than female students. You have not shown that hiring practices of homeless people is any way related to science students. The only way your paper could support your statement is if males are always preferred, with no exceptions. If that isn't true then there is a variable unaccounted for. So let's go t…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 06:52 AM
4

For your position to be true, in all cases men must be preferred over women when hiring. That is most certainly not true. Good luck being a single male applying to work at a day care center. Or waitstaff at Hooters. Or president of NOW. Or as an OB/GYN. And there are plenty of reasons why professors could prefer male students. Perhaps the job requires heavy lifting. Maybe the last 100 women hired quit after 3 hours because they didn't like washing beakers. Whatever the reason, it isn't automatic…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 06:37 AM
4

That study in no way deals with homeless people or your assertion that a male homeless person would be more likely to be hired than a female homeless person. Furthermore, the fact that female professors preferred male students to be hired over female ones is an odd fact. It seems like men and women preferred the male candidate. It almost seems like a variable was not controlled for and further analysis is needed to determine the actual cause, not simply throwing up our hands and saying "men have…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/11/13 06:16 AM
1

The post still exists. It just isn't on the front page and I don't think you can search for it. I got to it by following a reply from my inbox.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 01:35 AM
1

That would still be ridiculous. OP is wording the post to make people think 13 rather than 19. Simply asking whether it is condoned doesn't change that. If OP actually wanted to be neutral she would write something like "Should women be banned from dating or having sex with people too old for them?" Word it like that and the comments will change drastically. All of a sudden women who are over the age of consent should be free to choose to do what they want. Funny how when it is worded one way TR…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 08:30 PM
2

Is 20 the age of consent in Russia?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/11/13 07:25 PM
2

The US legal system operates on innocent until proven guilty. However, rape is a crime that causes immediate reactions in people that often is not present in other crimes (I am not saying this feeling is unique to rape). The feelings start tipping the justice scales away from innocent until proven guilty towards "prove your innocence, Mr. Defendant." Part of the problem is due to the nature of those trials. Verdicts often depend on whether a jury finds the testimony of the accuser or the accused…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 10:55 PM
7

I didn't limit it to rape cases. The care should be extended to all accused. The accountant should not have had that happen to him. It is a miscarriage of justice that mere accusations can ruin a person's life.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 10:12 PM
6

I see you don't have an actual rebuttal to my points. No one has ever said seal convictions. That's your own straw man. Innocent until proven guilty is all people are saying. Criminal accusations carry a stigma even after charges are dismissed or a jury acquits.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 09:43 PM
7

You're an attorney so you know that sealed court filings and records exist. You know that juvenile court does not publish identities. No one would argue the US has set up a secret court system to repress juveniles. Divorce cases can be filed with just initials as well. Look in your case books for cases involving a minor. Notice the names are changed to initials. Look at a family law case book and you will often see the same thing. What is being requested is preventing the DA and police chief fro…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 09:14 PM
2

Bayesian Probability isn't a two way equation. You measure a set of facts and then compute the probability that a result is true. Of course knowing the result doesn't allow you to deduce facts that compute the result. That isn't what it is used for. Your restriction of the knowledge space to just gender isn't a meaningful real world example. Add in race, education, clothing style, what car the person owns, model of cell phone, Mac or PC, and so on. Then individual 51-49 distributions become a 95…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 11:11 PM
3

So we agree that CFRProflcopter's final sentence isn't correct. He needs to add in qualifiers and caveats. And your second paragraph provides a nice segue into the next point. While knowing a person was born in Florida only tells you so much, adding in the knowledge that he/she lives there now, is of Cuban ancestry, does not speak Spanish, grew up in a home with $100k annual income, and purchased birth control 12 times in the last year by debit card tells you much more. These additional facts al…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 10:37 PM
7

And this is where the blue pill and reality diverge. Everyone accepts "close enough" throughout their entire lives, but the blue pill treats rare exceptions as proof that probability is meaningless. Watch the World Series tonight. Statistics and probability say the batter will hold the small end and try to hit the ball with the big end. But he could do the opposite! Which one is going to happen? No one knows and that's why the game is so exciting!
/r/PurplePillDebate30/10/13 08:20 PM
4

In scenario #2 the guy raped the girl. He never got enthusiastic consent, and just because she took his hand, lead him outside, unzipped his pants, and got on her knees does not mean she wants to suck his dick. Also, consenting to oral sex does not mean she consented to vaginal sex. We need to start telling men not to drink. Alcohol has blurred their ability to interpret social cues and they don't understand where the line is. If that's the case, then men shouldn't be drinking. http://www.huffin…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 06:11 PM
0

Well my comment is a top level one, i.e. a reply to OP. I chose to answer the question he proposed in the last line. OP began his post with "According to mrsamsa and company...", which set the subject for the discussion. So...
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 03:46 PM
-1

That is kinda funny. Blue pill people quote upvoted comments in the red pill and hold that out to be representative of the entire subreddit. mrsamsa's comments are equally upvoted so I guess by their standards he speaks for purplepilldebate.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 03:35 PM
-1

I'm sorry that you could not comprehend how I was talking about people who share mrsamsa's opinion. Nowhere did I say his opinion represented yours or anyone else's. I simply described the group that holds those views. Try again.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 03:25 PM
1

This crime is their lightening rod. It is what rallies their members and circles their wagons. It funds their politicians, drives viewers to their blogs, and gives their members a common cause to fight against. After all, it could happen to you at any moment! It may have happened to you and you didn't know it! They will never modify their view because of all that. Their unreasonable and inconsistent opinion is too valuable to the cause. Some feminist didn't wake up one day and come up with all t…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 02:07 PM
1

Yeah, well I wasn't trying to answer OP's question. I made my own as he suggested ("I encourage you all to ask your own questions in the comments to spur the discussion.").
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 04:11 AM
0

I find it interesting that you find the woman responsible for her actions in the pizza place and cab, but not the apartment. And for US purposes, your legal analysis is incorrect. The common law rules are above.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 04:01 AM
1

You didn't answer my questions. Change the woman's level of drunkenness to "unable to consent" if you want, but just indicate in the answer if you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/10/13 01:27 AM
1

A woman walks out of the bar drunk and over the legal driving limit. She goes into the pizza place across the street and says, "I want one large pizza." She is told it is $10. The guy cooks her the pizza, hands it to her, and asks for $10. She says, "Sorry I'm drunk and can't consent to a contract. Too bad!" She walks out of the restaurant and waves a cab. She says, "Take me to XYZ street." Cabbie drives her there and says, "That will be $10." She gets out and says, "I'm drunk and can't consent …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 11:42 PM
-3

You didn't even get the acronym correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 08:27 PM
-1

The post is a response to non-RP who say NAWALT. You need to read into the comments for how RP uses NAWALT.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:23 PM
1

You're saying that there's no unified belief, but given the posts and comments that are upvoted, isn't it logical to assume that there are concepts that are widely accepted by those who identify as red pillers? Some are and some aren't. If you read comment threads you will frequently see 2 highly voted top level comments that are slightly at odds with each other. Some people interpret various axioms differently than others and will reach a different conclusion than another, but both are red pill…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 03:48 PM
0

I can't help you if you won't even follow a link. Based on your questions I don't believe you clicked it. It's all answered in there.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 03:38 PM
4

NAWALT is "Not all women are like that". It is used to smack a guy upside the head when he thinks he found a woman that behaves in a manner inconsistent with the general trend. Of course in the literal sense not all women are the same. But NAWALT is used to tell the guy, "chances are you didn't find one and the more likely scenario is you are love blind" or something to that effect. http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1l72o4/nawalt/
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 03:23 PM
-3

Your understanding of NAWALT is wrong and pretty much the opposite of how TRP uses the term. It isn't surprising given all of your red pill critiques incorrectly summarize TRP. You really should avoid speaking for the group given how often you are so far from the mark, as you are now.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 02:20 PM
-1

That means one could at most judge the group on how the entire group defines itself. Any attempt to show additional traits or beliefs belong to the group runs afoul of OP's steadfast anti-characterization.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 02:10 PM
10

No, there isn't a single united theory. There are concepts and adherents accept, reject, or modify as needed. There isn't top down dogma at all. Furthermore, you are still left with the problem of reconciling how you can categorize a group and not encounter the listed pitfalls while a separate group could not do the same about you.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:43 AM
1

That feature doesn't exist. No way to tell which account is downvoting.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:33 AM
4

I hope the irony of you categorizing the red pill and asking a question of the group isn't lost. You should have addressed each subscriber individually.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:22 AM
1

I liked what he did here: http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1on68o/national_geographic_agrees_the_human_alpha_male/cctr78s FleetingWish said: "The question isn't 'does biology determine our behavior' it's 'to what extent can biology determine our behavior'." mrsamsa disagrees in a series of long replies. Eventually FleetingWish asks, "So then how much does our biology influence us?" mrsamsa said, "Generally speaking though, every behavior is, to some degree, a combination of biol…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/13 04:30 PM
1

You weren't downvoted by red pill people. You were downvoted because your words don't 100% agree with blue pill orthodoxy. That is why your edit didn't take you out of the negatives. It probably earned you another downvote from a blue pill person.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/13 03:45 PM
1

It got downvoted because it isn't what TRP believes. mrsamsa makes up red pill positions to support his own made up narrative. Notice how the one "source" he provided contradicts what he told you. Seriously, that sperm infecting the brain thing is delusional. Make up your own mind about the red pill. Don't let mrsamsa's lies do it for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/10/13 03:34 PM
1

No, you misunderstood my comment. I said the quote came out of nowhere because OP claimed to be neutral and then she put the pedal to the medal and went full blue pill. And no, I was not trying to take the moral high road. I was pointing out that what is considered equal behavior between blue pill and red pill isn't equal at all. Calling someone a rapist is libelous. Saying you downvoted me is not. These aren't close to equivalent. That just shows how biased these discussions are. Merely saying …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 10:36 PM
0

Because the quote was an hour old when this post was made. And the quote was at the bottom of a red pill post, nowhere near the top. OP would need to dig to find it. Based on this evidence, the circumstances suggest this is the quote that caused OP to make this PPD post. Furthermore, the quote would need to be read by someone who took enough offense to it that he/she would make a post in PPD about it. Given that the post would be considered offensive to blue pill, not red pill people, it is fair…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 02:33 AM
0

Well if you go back and read my previous comments with this new information they will make more sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 02:17 AM
1

No really, it is a direct word for word quote of what mazzyTuff wrote in the red pill 1 hour before OP made this post. The one that you link to is what lead to today's quote, but the quote that OP provided is root cause of this post.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 02:05 AM
1

This random quote sure is coming out of nowhere. You dug it up from the bottom of a relatively new red pill posting. I didn't even write it. Take up your criticism with the author. You said in your post that you don't associate with either side but your blue pill side is leaking. You couldn't keep the charade up for long. If I had to guess, this is the alternate account for the blue pill person called out in that comment thread.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 11:52 PM
2

OK, but your version of a red pill being an asshole is one saying "downvotes!" and the blue pill version is "red pills are rapists and misogynists!" One of these things isn't like the other. I also find it funny you wrote "stop being dicks to everybody else". Dick, slang for a male body part, is being used to label people negatively. I don't have a problem with it and recognize it is what it is. I just find it ironic that this is accepted without question within a community that likes to think i…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 11:34 PM
-1

"It's the Blue pillers that are downvoting us!" vs. "Redpillers are rapists and misogynists!" The hyperbole you use to describe each side is very telling. One might even say one is more hateful than the other.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 10:52 PM
7

That isn't even close to red pill. It is a manifestation of views invented by the blue pill so that they can argue straw men rather than topics actually discussed on the red pill. I challenge anyone to find any popular red pill comment or story that deals with men purposefully divorcing their wives to date younger women. Search any of the manosphere blogs. All of them fair game. It doesn't exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 09:30 PM
2

Don't worry. The summary RobotPartsCorp gave is not only wrong, it's the opposite of what she wrote. Males rate looks the same across all cultures and US women rate financial prospects near the top despite the US having among the highest "gender parity". http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1okxc3/why_are_blue_pillers_obsessed_with_negging/cctavmm
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 02:59 AM
1

Not sure how this relates to billionaires marrying younger and more attractive. On another note, your summary of the study is wrong. Male's preference for looks is uncorrelated with gender parity. Look on pages 1179 - 1180. Males rated looks basically the same across all countries regardless of gender parity, with US males rating looks the 3rd highest out of all 10 studied countries. Not only that, but US women were ranked near the top for "partner's good financial prospects". They were 2 out of…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 01:59 AM
0

Steve Jobs (26) married Laurene Powell (18) in 1981. Bill Gates (39) married Melinda French (30) in 1994. Warren Buffet (47) began living with Latvian immigrant Astrid Menks (30) in 1977, while still married to his first wife, Susan. Warren (22) had married Susan (20) in 1952. You should have shown pictures of what all these younger women looked like on their wedding day. I'm pretty sure these additional facts go against what you were trying to prove. Edit: Here is one for you. Laurene Powell (1…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/10/13 08:19 PM
-1

Whoa doubling down on the straw mans there. I never even said anecdotes = data. Listen man, if you don't think I can cook 20 batches of brownies, 10 cooked for 30 minutes and 10 cooked for 2 hours, and then decide which gives better results, then that's your problem. It's really that simple. I do find it odd you bring up witchcraft. Someone putting a healing spell on another person sure does sound like the spirituality that you discussed earlier. Almost sort of like a priest praying for a parish…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/13 12:58 AM
0

Experiences are not data, they are anecdotes. No analysing takes place, people just talk about their experiences in uncontrolled settings in ways that skew their actual perceptions and retelling of events. Then please explain how scientists were able to determine the health benefits of fish oil. I'll save you the trouble. They analyzed the diets of many people across many cultures and found those that ate more fish had better outcomes in several areas where non-fish eaters did not. In other word…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/13 12:48 AM
-1

Enough personal experiences combined together does allow us to determine accurately whether a method or approach works. It's called collecting data and analyzing it. You consistently say, "WE NEED SCIENCE!" and completely ignore even the most basic things that humans do that produce meaningful objective and repeatable results without first formulating a double blind blah blah blah scientific study to be published in Nature. Thousands upon thousands of men interacting with dozens upon dozens of w…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/10/13 12:01 AM
-4

Nope, just substitute your definition of "works" with regards to spirituality into the homeopathy comment. You know, to use consistent definitions and all.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/13 11:39 PM
0

"If spirituality and spiritual methods help with mental health, then promote that as much as you can." - mrsamsa
/r/PurplePillDebate14/10/13 11:29 PM
0

No, "in general" is not implied. That's why people write it or leave it out. And if you couldn't understand I specifically meant "not in general" after I wrote "I didn't say statistically" on the third try then there is no hope. Just so we are clear, "in general" means "usually, but not always". If I had written "in general", picking one class over another based on that trait would be discrimination and illegal. Because I wrote "group [A] does this and group [B] does not", that means no discrimi…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/13 12:33 AM
0

It's not my fault you read what you want to believe and make assumptions by adding in your own words. If I wanted to write "in general" I would have. I re-iterated my point multiple times when I wrote: If as you suggest, women work less and sacrifice less for their job, hiring men over women is not bias. That is an economic reason why an employer wants a male employee. and It is not bias nor discriminatory hiring to prefer one class over another when it can be proven that the preferred class has…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/10/13 12:16 AM
0

We agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 11:56 PM
0

sigh Let's try this from a different angle. How can there be no women in the NFL, NBA, MLB, and NHL, and none of those leagues have been found liable for sexual discrimination?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 11:46 PM
0

Go back and re-read. I didn't say "statistically".
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 11:29 PM
0

Well all of this came out of left field. You sure like arguing straw mans unrelated to our discussion. It is not bias nor discriminatory hiring to prefer one class over another when it can be proven that the preferred class has tangible skills that the other class does not. Examples: NFL teams don't have to hire any women to play football. 100% men there and nothing women can do about that. Athletic trainer is a different story. An OB/GYN office can hire female doctors exclusively if they can de…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 11:06 PM
0

That study was for a student job at a university. Male and female professors equally preferred male candidates over the female ones. The study did not control for potential reasons why males are preferred over females. If as you suggest, women work less and sacrifice less for their job, hiring men over women is not bias. That is an economic reason why an employer wants a male employee.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 09:55 PM
0

No it isn't. An employer may know that a man is more suited for the job for reasons beyond bias, and vice versa. For example, the job may require lifting 50 lb boxes and men are typically more suited to that task. You need to prove bias, not assume it.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 08:06 PM
1

Obviously more goes into hiring decisions than just a CV. That is why employers phone screen, interview, re-interview, give constant feedback, reviews, etc. and people are still fired because they weren't right for the job. The CV/resume doesn't tell the whole story about an applicant.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 07:19 PM
1

why?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 07:07 PM
1

My point is pro-choice people are quick to say a fetus is not a child when convenient, but then flip the script and say "but who will pay for the child???" when that is convenient.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/10/13 04:19 PM
3

That's clever. You could also provide the alternative of paying child support for a kid that she doesn't have legal or physical custody.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/13 04:49 AM
3

That is not US law. Per SCOTUS' reading of the Constitution: before viability, the woman has right to terminate any undue burden/subtantial obstacle on woman's decision before fetal viability is unconstitutional after viability, the State can regulate abortion as it sees fit, unless life of mother is at issue. The requirements that you allude to are considered undue burden. Before viability, if the woman wants it, she gets it.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/13 04:16 AM
2

Let's be consistent here: future child. And to answer your question, the woman has choices: legal surrender, abortion, adoption, raise the future child on her own, enter a relationship with a different person and raise as a couple, enter into a poly relationship and raise as a poly couple...
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/13 04:06 AM
2

Pro-choice people don't view the fetus as a child within the window being discussed.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/13 03:55 AM
5

Do you read the sources that you cite? For example, the second one has these quotes from the abstract: "Overall, I find that female defendants receive more lenient sentence outcomes than their male counterparts." "Finally, I find that female defendants in all racial/ethnic categories receive less severe sentences than male defendants in the same racial/ethnic groupings." "The findings of the current study show that gender continues to influence the sentencing process in U.S. federal courts despi…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/10/13 03:43 AM
3

This is from the top comment in this thread made by simaddict18: Women overwhelmingly work lower-paying jobs, and earn less money than men for the same jobs. Whatever the reasons for this are, feminism wants to correct them. Feminism will not stop until all men earn the same amount or less than all other women. Feminists do not care if women on their own prefer to work fewer hours, or work less demanding jobs, or work in careers that pay less money. It is long past "equal rights" and has moved t…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 09:21 PM
2

You analysis is even worse. Take money from rich people and give it to slightly less well-off people so that they have more kids. Those people already plan their families very well and don't need the government to tell them what to do. You haven't even established 1) why the birth rate needs to be higher, or 2) whether high income people want more kids than they already have.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 08:54 PM
3

Yours and Spartacus' comments illustrate why many people say feminism is all about taking money from men and transferring it to women.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 08:25 PM
2

You have to be kidding. Every time I have said it is paid though: Taxes, or Forcing employers to foot the bill. Literally every comment. I don't know how you miss this. That is how other countries have this benefit. And it isn't $115 per family. Your math is way off because you are counting citizens, not workers or households, and you are counting people who don't pay income tax. Let's do a real math example. The top 10% of households pay 70% of the income tax, so they will foot 70% of this bill…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 08:10 PM
1

$10,000 x 4 million births = $40 billion per year. There are much better ways to spend $40 billion every year. The money isn't a big deal to you because you are getting it. Free stuff!!! Yay!!!! Once again I will ask, why not just give every person $200k per year so that all household needs can be met?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 07:29 PM
2

We are back to the magic money tree problem again. This will kill small businesses. You want employers to be forced to pay people for not doing work. But the work still needs to get done so the owner needs to hire new employees therefore putting the owner in the hole even more. What about self-employed people? Who pays for their time off? A plumber doesn't magically get money for 12 weeks while he doesn't do any jobs. Small businesses make up 99.7% of employers in the US and account for 50% of a…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 06:58 PM
1

Countries should be judged on how well they allow citizens to choose what is best for themselves, not how much tax money can be taken from the top incomes and given to the middle and bottom. The US has a replacement level birthrate. Higher income people are having less kids than low income, and the pesky problem is that those lower income people require more government welfare, cause more crime, and don't study to become knowledge workers in a 21st century economy. Paying more money to low incom…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 05:06 PM
2

You should add outcomes to the list. Men have better outcomes than women- Feminism's response: increase outcomes for women Men and women have the same outcomes- Feminism's response: do nothing Women have better outcomes- Feminism's response: do nothing ex. See 60:40 female/male higher education population.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 04:55 PM
4

Still a magic money tree problem. Why don't we just give every family $200k per year. That way they can afford everything their child needs. I also think it's absurd to force a guy who would make more than the $21k to take time off. If a pro football quarterback has a kid in season is he forced to take 12 weeks off to match his wife? If the president's wife has a kid does the president have to take 12 weeks off? This isn't even close to a thought out plan so there is no point debating ghosts. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 03:49 PM
2

The whole "magic money tree" problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 03:29 PM
4

But that isn't what you wrote above. You wrote: "And it shouldn't matter who is taking time off, because the goal is to have the two parents earning close to the same salary." Can you clarify the two statements?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 03:31 AM
7

Are you saying that hair stylists should be paid the same amount as lawyers, or are you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to become hair stylists because lawyer pays better?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/10/13 12:31 AM
6

...the goal is to have the two parents earning close to the same salary This is totally absurd. How do you equalize the pay between a woman cutting hair at a salon for $30k and her lawyer husband making $200k? Forcing anyone to take 12 weeks unpaid isn't going to fix that. And you are hurting their family by forcing him not to work.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/13 11:46 PM
7

Mandatory paternity leave This isn't close to a good idea. Forcing a man to take up to 12 weeks off unpaid is just crazy just because the woman did. Money doesn't just magically enter a bank account so that it can pay for food and shelter. And assuming the parents aren't together that same money doesn't magically appear for child support. But you're right, if some woman that is a teacher making $50k per year married to a manager making $150k per year, it totally makes sense for the man to take a…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/13 11:20 PM
2

This comment is being made after CFRProflcopter edited the original post into the different one that it is now: If you can't see the difference between... 1) an article writer editorializing a study to fit her own agenda, and 2) a sub that is dedicated to discussing ideas through their own lens doing so by commenting on the article author's motivations to editorialize the study, then there is nothing to discuss.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 07:22 PM
0

Wow, it's kind of odd that you left out how the commenter started his list. Here is the line that appears before your quotations: "Here are some important (in my opinion) points..." He clearly states the list is opinion. You cut that out because it directly refutes your points. Pretty dishonest, in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 07:07 PM
0

Oh come on. It's called a joke. A joke to illustrate an overarching theme. It's absurd you can't accept a person can 1) critique an article, and then 2) critique feminist studies in general, but not the one cited by the article.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 06:57 PM
0

You are really grasping now. The commenter starts out his comment saying "The article was..." Literally the first 3 words in the comment. He is criticizing the article. The passage you quoted starts out, "On an unrelated note..." As in, I am changing subjects now and talking about something different than before, what I am about to talk about is not related to before.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 06:43 PM
-1

It's great that you argue it did, but that doesn't mean it's in there. It isn't. Arguments for decriminalization or anything or even reduced sentence for anything is not in that passage. You are reading into it what you want to see. I don't understand those questions. Too confusing to parse.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 06:33 PM
-1

Can you please explain how this contradicts my statement? The red pill emphatically accepting a gay person is exactly the opposite of being homophobic. your usual complaint about my submissions is that I found too many quotes No, not at all. My complaint is always that you provide a quote, distort what was actually said, and ignore the immediate reply that is higher upvoted and directly contradicts you baseless assertion. That is my complaint. Here is the relevant quote, with some [context]: Thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:31 PM
-1

Nothing in what you quoted argues against the criminalization of rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:21 PM
3

The author of the study is quoted in the article saying something very similar. The quote is, "Dr Kern thinks..." As in, this isn't found in her study whatsoever, it is merely a hypothesis to be tested later. That does not back up the author's views. Not science. Those links didn't appear until after I posted this, so don't be a brat. You are the one being unreasonable. The article itself has a two links to the study in the second sentence. You automatically assumed no one clicked those. You sho…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 04:35 PM
5

The study itself merely studies words used on Facebook by different age groups, genders, etc. The article author adds her own feminist spin onto the research to further her own agenda. That happens in the article when she writes: But remember the our Facebook statuses are not about who we are, but rather about who we wish we were. Social media isn’t about expression, it’s about performance. So the results of this study reveal less about who the subjects are than about how they want to be perceiv…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 03:40 PM
0

Nothing in what you linked argues against the criminalization of rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 09:02 PM
0

Your comment further proves my point. You cannot source homophobia nor source anywhere where Devlin says, "Rape should not be criminal."
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 08:47 PM
2

Bingo. This is correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 06:40 PM
-1

With regards to homophobia, this is literally the first link when you search the red pill for 'gay'. With regards to tolerance of "rape not a crime", the link you provided in no way shape or form discusses rape. You have once again lived up to your RES tag, "selectively quotes". This one is even worse. The quote isn't there. You are so sure of your red pill positions that you should have no problem finding direct quotes to support your thesis, but oddly you never provide those quotes. That's bec…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 06:30 PM
-2

Homophobia, and the idea that rape should not be a crime, are apparently tolerable even if wrong. You didn't source this because the sources don't exist. For every source you give we can point out that it was downvoted and replies condemning and stating the opposite are highly upvoted. You further your anti-red pill agenda by excessively sensationalizing and editorializing out of context statements.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 06:08 PM
2

Read the abstract you provided. The study created a student position at a university. The job you linked is for people with BS/MS/PhD in the workforce. If the study examined TA or RA hiring rates it would be more telling, as opposed to a grunt work job where science ability is irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 09:23 PM
3

This lab manager job is a student position. He/she isn't delegating to anyone. The professors, TAs, and RAs dictate to him/her what to do. The lab manager does all the grunt work so that the scientists can do science, whether it is setting up experiments or getting the lab ready for tomorrow's 2 Chem 1 labs and 2 Chem 2 labs. For whatever reason more people want men to do the job than women. Figure out why before prescribing a 50:50 gender split.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 08:51 PM
2

You do not know that. In an academic setting it is not inconceivable that a lab manager needs to go to the loading dock, retrieve boxes of chemicals and distribute them around the lab. In an academic setting desk and floor space is at a premium. Not all equipment is set up at all times. Lab managers may have to move equipment from storage to the lab as needed and then return it. Lab managers also put all chairs onto the desk and then take them down so that custodial staff can clean. Well, that i…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 07:30 PM
3

That takeaway would be wrong. First, the study doesn't reach the conclusions that you think it does and that is pointing you in the wrong direction. The data within the paper confirms that a person can correctly predict whether a respondent is male/female more often than not, and not by a trivial amount. Second, extrapolating the study questions to your own conclusions (no difference in sensitivity and logic) that were not studied is in reality just pure guesswork without you first showing a cau…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 06:50 PM
2

You do realize that the comment you just made directly contradicts the one that I responded to, right? You started out saying "we have 99% the same though processes" and then moved to 'men and women think different so it sometimes makes sense to market to them differently.' Also, pull the thread a little more and you will come to the conclusion that gender neutral advertising exists when it is most profitable for the company, and gender specific/targeted exists when that is more profitable for t…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 06:21 PM
2

Ok, but I answered your question "What can we do to change this?" and said that change is premature. Second, you cannot say the applicants were equally competent. They have identical resumes but we all know a resume isn't the complete story. Maybe lab managers need to lift 50lb boxes regularly and re-arrange lab benches. Men are more suited to that task. Maybe there is some other reason. The researchers don't know why and don't even know if it's a problem. Just because women and men aren't hired…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 06:11 PM
1

Except anyone selling a product knows that men and women react to stimuli differently and tailor their ads, trademarks, and marketing materials based on that. Researchers may say men and women are 99% the same, butnyone who wants to make money selling something knows the actual truth on the ground.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 05:59 PM
1

It is a mistake to make changes based on this study. The researchers haven't determined the root cause why men and women prefer male lab managers. Blindly making changes without logic and reason isn't a good idea.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 05:49 PM
5

It is not correct to state "the genders are more alike than they are different" when the researchers admit there are statistically significant mean differences by gender between respondents. That is the definition of a mean difference. The fact that the means/medians are difference is prima facie evidence that they are more difference. Secondly, the researchers curiously leave out a Bayesian analysis combining the research questions. What is the probability that a person who likes A and B is a w…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 03:40 PM
4

Definitely not because the paper does not prove what you think it does. It misses a critical step in analysis. They should have used Bayes to analyze the probability of a gender conforming to multiple "dimensional" traits. Their beloved "taxons" would have shown up then. The researchers hand-wave that work away. Ultimately this paper tries to make a case that there aren't two genders but rather a spectrum. Their reasoning is that "not all men are like this" and "not all women are like that". Tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/10/13 02:44 PM
-3

Do you think it is morally acceptable to lie in order to convince someone to have sex with you? You're right. Push-up bras and makeup are morally questionable.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 11:32 PM
15

Hahaha oh man this whole article is hilarious. I especially enjoy her obliviousness. She keeps going on these arranged dates because she can't get her own and desperately wants off the carousel (even though she pretends she is happy). She doesn't like the men so she hits eject and hopes the next one meets her criteria. What she doesn't realize is that guy doesn't exist. He got married 10 years ago or is looking for someone 10 years younger. Dad seems like a good guy. Lies on the profile for her …
/r/TheRedPill22/09/13 03:08 PM
10

You can't expect a BA in English to do all those hard math problems using facts. Unfair fighting by Taranto if you ask me.
/r/MensRights21/09/13 01:44 AM
2

Hahaha come on. The UofT protests were most certainly not peaceful. They blockaded the doors thereby preventing people from going in, verbally assaulted people who were delayed because of the blockade, and pulled the fire alarms once the talk began. If that's peaceful to feminists then no wonder people are running away from the ideology. Also, feminism is running a big tent strategy because upper class white women have most of what they need. Hence the "everyone is a feminist" and articles tryin…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/13 01:32 AM
0

11 and 12 are on their face apparent. Are you for equality? You're a feminist!!!! (#11) We need women CEOs, engineers, and to fix the wage gap! (#12) How about the U Toronto protests? (#8)
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/13 01:21 AM
1

Go to r/okcupid and learn the online component of game there. They have a better idea what gets a girl from first message to first date. On the first date you use your red pill knowledge in person.
/r/askTRP21/09/13 01:17 AM
3

Good idea. Coming out of the gate with "Tits Out Tuesday" may not be beneficial politically.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 09:51 PM
17

Maybe he is genderqueer and switches into female mode when acting as women's minister. Not that it should matter anyway because gender is a social construct and we're all the same without any biological differences.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 07:53 PM
2

As long as men who aren't the father are forced to pay child support it's a waste of time to make an argument that men who are the father shouldn't pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 03:12 PM
1

I have a feeling we just whacked a hornet's nest and will come to regret it later.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 02:58 PM
2

Hahaha ok. Feminism meets the same amount or more criteria. Feminism even meets #12 with its obsession with women in the workplace and fixing the wage gap.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 02:47 PM
2

"I happen to look over at a certain point during the meal and see a waitress taking an order, and I found myself wondering what color her underpants might be. Her panties. Uh, odds are they are probably basic white, cotton, underpants. But I sort of think, well, maybe they're silk panties, maybe it's a thong. Maybe it's something really cool that I don't even know about." - Frank the Tank, Old School C-Strings are the really cool thing I don't know about.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 05:19 AM
3

I'm pretty sure all the "I would definitely get an abortion if I was pregnant" was just this girl pretending to be empowered for her friends, who also happen to pretend to be empowered by saying they would get an abortion. Good thing no matter what she chose she would be fighting the patriarchy.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:33 AM
3

She was always acting rationally and making good decisions. I'm sure she saved all of it.
/r/MensRights20/09/13 04:07 AM
3

It gets worse... This guy is also a standup comedian. This article was supposed to be satire and it wasn't close to funny.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 04:01 AM
2

If Chinese spend more money on housing the banks are more likely to lend for housing, rather than making business loans. Decreased business investment leads to higher Chinese goods export prices. Americans now need to spend more for ordinary stuff and don't have money for new stuff. It's all connected. The divorce aspect relates to hypergamy (your first sentence said you didn't see a connection). Women divorce to trade up. Also 30yo singles are where they are because they were always looking for…
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 03:59 AM
2

But median incomes aren't so the Chinese need to spend a higher portion of their disposable income on housing than people in San Diego or LA. That leaves less money left over to spend elsewhere in the economy.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 03:54 AM
6

I'm fascinated that a person whose job is to research neutrally is able to stop doing that when confronted with an opinion he doesn't like. No doubt there is some explanation in the brain for it. I know I didn't miss the irony of a Neuroscience PhD failing to overcome this brain deficiency.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 03:51 AM
2

Let's say Mom and Dad have two kids. They divorce and have shared custody. Now each needs to own/rent at least a 3 bedroom home/condo/apartment instead of the single household they had before. The increase in buyers means prices go up. Similarly when men and women don't marry they don't consolidate housing, further keeping demand high. Even just delaying marriage, which is indeed happening, will raise prices because younger people leave their parent's house and look for their own housing but peo…
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 03:36 AM
7

Just get a government job. You'll fit in fine.
/r/askTRP20/09/13 01:20 AM
2

That's the patriarchy. See!!!
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 01:10 AM
8

The Onion does a great job satirizing women. Women Now Empowered By Everything A Woman Does This is my personal favorite: Empowered Man Murders Controlling Wife In Lifetime For Men Original Movie
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 12:59 AM
6

I'm would guess schools in New York and Miami would be at the top of the list. Probably one in LA and Washington DC, too.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 12:49 AM
15

"I've... never attempted to chat up an unfamiliar woman..." Yes, this scientist is using best science practices to prove or disprove a thesis. Oh wait, he never ran a test? He just jumped to a conclusion? Sounds legit. Let's pack it in boys.
/r/TheRedPill20/09/13 12:34 AM
1

you linked to mens' rights
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 12:06 AM
0

So there is no value it taking Tylenol or Alleve because the person hasn't participated a double blind study to confirm that they cure headache symptoms?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 07:12 PM
0

If I took Tylenol exclusively for 5 years and it cured my headache in 2 hours, and then switched to Alleve and every headache after that was cured in 30 minutes, I am confident that Alleve was the reason and not that my type of headache suddenly changed. Your last paragraph is irrelevant. If you change one thing and one thing only while controlling the environment you can be confident that what you changed fixed the problem. That's called common sense. Engineers do this every day and get paid fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 06:59 PM
0

I don't need a double blind study to tell me that being courteous to secretaries gets you further than being rude. Try a few times each way, think about the results, modify your behavior. This isn't a difficult concept and it is something people do every day.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 06:49 PM
0

It's called a hypothetical. I don't argue nor do I believe that healing crystals or homeopathy work. You underestimate people. I don't need a double blind study to tell me that burnt cookies taste worse than correctly baked ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 06:29 PM
0

Nope. You're confusing TRP aphorism that "what women say they want is often different from what they actually want" with your own view that "TRP says women don't know what they want." Big difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 06:18 PM
0

Double blind of course has it's value, but to say no one can know what they like or what works better in a general sense is ludicrous. A 4 year old knows that mom's fresh cookies taste better than Chips Ahoy. He doesn't need to double blind study to confirm that. Regarding wine tasters, they use double blind to show that some wine tasters cannot distinguish between expensive "top tier" wine and ordinary bottles. It has nothing to do with taste. Any wine taster can say which he likes best without…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 06:06 PM
1

You could have saved a lot of time and wrote, "The only people who know any facts about their personal preferences are those that took part in a double blind study and had the results reported to them. Even then they only know the probability and confidence interval that their preference is true, not whether it is actually their preference." You'd be wrong, but you saved time. I find it hilarious and fascinating that you don't think people can have real preferences between Bud Light/Coors Light …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 04:17 AM
1

But, obviously, your experience says nothing about whether Alleve actually works better at relieving headaches for you. It just means that you think it does. This is why we have blinded placebo-controlled studies, because people have no objective way of determining whether (in your case) Alleve is better at relieving their headaches than Tylenol. But it does. I know it does. Just because I didn't do a double blind study it doesn't mean I am wrong. Doctors did some and found that some people resp…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 03:14 AM
1

You are suggesting that we don't need blinded studies No, I am not. Let's be clear there. I am merely pointing out that people can and do act rationally and logically by assessing past results and modifying current behavior to improve the future. Alleve works better on headaches for me than Tylenol. I started taking Tylenol, it worked OK. I switched to Alleve and it works much better. I don't need a double blind study to tell me that. People do this sort of thing all the time and it is considere…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 01:04 AM
0

In those hypotheticals the homeopathy and healing crystals worked. They aren't anecdotal perceptions. Data collected with repeated trials showing failure, change one thing, collect more data with repeated successes = meaningful results to report. And I don't understand your first paragraph, specifically the second sentence.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 12:41 AM
2

You missed the part where he said: he tried blue pill and it didn't work, THEN he tried red pill and it worked so he will stick with that for now. Your hypotheticals skip to step 2 without doing step one. Your hypos should be correct to: A man tried antibiotics for a cold and they failed many times, and then he tried homeopathy and it did work most of the time so he will stick with that until it doesn't. A man tried antibiotics for athlete's foot and they never worked, and then he tried healing …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 11:41 PM
0

You're missing the overall point. Red pill talks about women's voting because women disproportionately vote to fund programs that disproportionately benefit women. That is the basis, motivation, and root cause of red pill discussion on women's voting rights. This has everything to do with gender. Men are subsidizing healthcare and welfare. They pay more and there is no way around that. Without men's subsidies both of these would need to be scaled back. You can ignore this if you want, I really d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:32 PM
0

Just because other group issues exist doesn't mean that the gender issue doesn't. You showed multiple can exist by classifying by both race and weight. And you won't find red pill men complaining about making gender, racial, and weight based welfare laws. You tried to say it isn't a gender issue at all which we know is false. We know there is a gender component because enacting the laws as I hypothesized would have a negative effect on women as a whole and a positive one on men as a whole. If ge…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:12 PM
-1

It is a gender issue and I can prove it. What are the chances a law stating the following would be passed: "Welfare payments must be received in proportion to the amounts each gender contributes to taxes that fund them." The answer is 0% because everyone knows men pay the majority of taxes and women receive the majority of welfare benefits. Merely proposing this law would be evidence of "The War on Women". How about this law: "Companies offering healthcare much charge premiums proportional to th…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:18 PM
-1

Your post is titled "Is TheRedPill's anti-democratic streak defensible?" If a small majority are anti-democratic in the manner you describe it is by definition not a representative view of the sub. You should have titled your post "Is the anti-democratic view held by 1% of TheRedPill's members defensible?" I have called out 2 of your links and exactly 100% of my callouts have resulted in finding misquoting or taking out of context. I am not giving you the benefit of the doubt that the rest are d…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:05 PM
-1

You obviously don't know what a representative sample is if all of the "samples" don't actually support her thesis. They are selectively quoted and either prove the opposite or talk about different subjects altogether.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:43 PM
-1

No, I am arguing that you are wrong by showing: You are intentionally deceptive, and you need to be because there isn't a red pill or men's rights movement to take away women's suffrage, yet you shoehorn quotes trying to prove your made up thesis, and You ignore the context of the discussion where we discuss why women's suffrage has resulted in working men subsidizing women and other groups. By ignoring the context you misrepresent the red pill position with your own straw man. Debate against th…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:29 PM
0

You need to realize the context of this voting issue. The context is a discussion on how some groups have benefits without matching responsibilities. Many red pill people feel that certain voting blocks make sure to vote themselves benefits and put the costs on working men. For example we can talk about healthcare. To keep this focused let's put aside the arguments about the right to it and so forth and simply talk about the cost. Women use more healthcare services than men but men pay an amount…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:12 PM
-3

This proves your post wrong and you ignored it: "Obviously the way forward isn't taking away the vote." - redpillschool You failed the linked quote audit. I am not going to go read anything else you previously provided. If I click one link and it is proved deceptive I am confident that the rest are the same. PricewaterhouseCoopers would agree with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:43 PM
0

He may describe how it's a wrong statement, but he wouldn't take any personal offense to it. Like I said, we aren't concerned with feelings and we aren't sensitive to that sort of thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:30 PM
0

We wouldn't care if you wrote that. We disagree with it, but you can write what you want. Protecting everyone's feelings isn't something we are concerned about.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:08 PM
3

Thanks for proving my comment. Not only did you double down with the selective quotes, you didn't even provide links so we can talk about the totality of the circumstances. I found the first quote you posted. Why didn't you include a link to where redpillschool describes his position and provides context for the discussion? Here is a good quote from the first sentence that you ignored: "I don't think anybody currently supports removing women's right to vote..." - redpillschool http://np.reddit.c…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 04:50 PM
2

No it's not. I randomly clicked one of the links to theredpill and it is to a downvoted post, made by a person now banned from the sub, and the overwhelming top comment says: "Fuck this, everyone deserves the right to vote. Everyone deserves equal rights and privileges." The quote alone disproves the OP's entire post. There is no way soulcakeduck could find this post and not see this comment that proves her wrong. See for yourself here: http://np.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1dok0q/womens_su…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 04:06 PM
2

The society's attitudes determine the reasonableness, not the feelings of one person or even a group of overly sensitive people. I could pack 10 subway cars entirely with hypersensitive people who all consider being bumped into an assault/battery and I could know that they are riding those very cars. If I bumped into any of them I would not be guilty/liable for the contact. They don't get to determine what is reasonable. Society does. Assault is the causing apprehension of imminent harmful or of…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 05:40 PM
0

So very wrong. There is a reasonable person standard in the law. Nowhere in the US would a handshake be viewed as unreasonable. Maybe in an Islamic culture where you can't touch an unrelated woman, but not here. Let's not forget that the other person reached out his hand to complete the handshake. If that isn't consent then nothing in the world is consent. The reasonable person standard is also why being bumped in a crowded subway also not an assault/battery, despite there being actual contact. …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 05:27 PM
3

Now you're victim blaming. Maybe women just shouldn't shoot people.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 06:03 PM
0

Technically rape prevention through enthusiastic consent is best aimed at women telling them to speak up and say no. A woman or a man could be the person failing to receive consent, but every time there is a woman there. Or are you including male on male lack of enthusiastic consent? In that case it would have made sense to mention that, but you didn't. Just like you call all red pills bigots and misogynists but don't see anything wrong with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 02:28 AM
-1

People mean the words they write and you chose "she", "women", "girlfriends", "wives". I don't view that as you making a mistake. If you believed using gender neutral terms was warranted you would have.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 09:50 PM
2

You are either purposefully ignorant or deliberately misleading. http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1i6pb0/how_do_you_guys_feel_about_lesbians/
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 08:36 PM
2

Nah, just calling out your inherent anti-male and red pill bias that prevents you from discussing these topics as a detached scientist that you claim to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 08:25 PM
3

Sounds like you are the prejudiced one. Educate yourself before speaking on behalf of a group that you don't belong. http://np.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1bznek/are_gay_men_welcome_here/
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 03:58 PM
1

There are gay men on TRP and some people on TRP think enthusiastic consent for everything isn't sought.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 03:31 PM
6

You didn't write it that way. You wrote it as something a man gets from a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 01:20 PM
1

Why isn't enthusiastic consent gender neutral?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 07:45 AM
-1

That is the usage I am more familiar with. But I will disagree on TRP judging promiscuous women. On the whole, we really don't. Of course there are minorities who do, but as a "platform" (read like Democrat or Republican platform) we don't. In fact you will see the majority saying, "Thanks for them, it is good for us." As you said the colloquial version is used as a negative. Red pill views promiscuous women as a positive in life generally but negative for marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/13 05:03 AM
0

I am not conservative, a bigot, nor a misogynist. Assuming one needs to be in order to align with red pill, which you refer to as the diminutive term "biotruths", demonstrates your inability to examine a subject rationally and impartially like a true scientist. Being politically correct does imply strict standards on what can and cannot be said. People who do not speak in PC-approved manner are not bigoted assholes. They can be, but aren't as a rule. PC people can be bigoted assholes, yet speak …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/13 04:53 AM
-1

It makes sense and is a reasonable answer. I don't agree with all of it, but nothing major. With regards to the 1974 paper, hypergamy no longer being considered solely female is irrelevant. First, it doesn't negate female hypergamy. Second, red pills agree males are also hypergamous. They just want the most physical attractive mate, not the richest or most powerful. It should be noted that red pill ideas are controversial. An entire sub is devoted to satirizing them. This sub downvotes them. Red…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/13 04:04 AM
-2

So one source is "extremely new" and a second is published in 1974 and implied to be outdated. What is the correct year for a study?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/09/13 03:06 AM
1

From my new understanding it would always be judging. I guess I am missing something. Can you give me an example of a situation where it is not judging?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 03:21 PM
0

Would I be accurate in saying the Pepsi drinker is judging Pepsi as well? He did form an opinion that it is better after careful consideration.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 02:39 PM
-2

Except he said it, not did it, so... At least we moved off of the +8 comment that it isn't irony. We're getting somewhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 02:17 PM
-2

You covered it pretty well. I would just add: _4. Use TRP knowledge to sleep around and tell your partner if she asks. Some people see no problem with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 04:06 AM
0

No, just no. The stock market is most certainly not a random walk. Billionaires and millionaires on Wall St. exist because it isn't random. They don't care whether you care about them. They actually know what Economics is and how to use it. No, just no again. Traders most certainly do look at macro trends. For example, Forex and commodity trading heavily rely upon macro data, trends, and predictions. You are over your head.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 03:46 AM
-2

OK, I see what you are saying. It sounds like your church and family don't apply to the Dalrock or Sunshine Mary posts. No problem, neither of those authors will claim their words apply to all churches, and RP people don't claim their ideas apply to all women. They just say it applies to enough of them that it makes sense to use the information to develop guidelines on how to deal with it. RP doesn't claim to be based on evolutionary psychology. It is sometimes used to explain why things are, bu…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 03:36 AM
0

So is a Pepsi drinker judging Coca Cola?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 03:26 AM
4

Haha ok then. If you want to water down judging that much it is fine with me. Just don't get up in arms when it waters down the message and people stop being appalled at judging that affects people's lives. I'm not necessarily talking to just you. If that is the view of judging the blueppill and feminist community wants it isn't any sweat off my back. You can't expect people to modify behavior when you equate judging who to date/marry based on number of sex partners and judging based on hair col…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 03:15 AM
6

They are examples of personal preferences. But fine, we can talk about people only. A man who prefers brunettes isn't judging blondes. A woman who wants to marry a man under 500 lbs isn't judging overweight men. An Indian person who wants to marry another Indian person is not judging White/Black/Asian/whatever else people. A woman who doesn't want to marry a man who spent 20 years starring in gay porn isn't judging gay people, bi people, nor male sluts. These are just personal preferences. Peopl…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 02:45 AM
0

I used to just think you were crazy, but now I know it is clueless as well. If you can't understand how economics, finance, and business are interrelated then you lack any amount of reasoning skills above 0. I am stunned you don't know that traders eagerly await the release of various economic reports and then buy or sell securities fractions of a second later based on that data alone. Try watching the news. Hahaha my god this is too funny.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 02:35 AM
7

You are hypersensitive then. People don't judge Coke when they drink Pepsi. This is simple personal preference here. A man can't say, "I don't want to marry a woman who had sex with 10,000 people" without "judging" or "slut-shaming"? Is that your argument?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 02:22 AM
0

There is no way you are an Economics student. If you were you would know that leading indicators give insight at different points in the future. This is literally Macroeconomics 101. Consumer confidence goes up and signals consumers will make purchases in the future, those future purchases turn into future revenue for corporations, those future cash flows are discounted to present values and are then added to expected earnings, thereby increasing the stock price. CCI changes lead the stock marke…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 02:12 AM
0

Hahahahaha you are the worst Economics student ever. The CCI is a leading indicator. See #10: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_indicator#Leading_indicators
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 01:26 AM
-1

Hahahahaha rough guide? The CCI moves the stock market. "The index — which measures how consumers feel about business conditions, the job market and the next six months — has been recovering fitfully since hitting a record low of 25.3 in February 2009." - The New York Times This is as close as you will ever be to conceding being wrong. I'll take it.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 12:44 AM
0

Devout Christian living in Dallas/Ft. Worth area: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/ Devout Christian woman living in the south (I forget where): http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/ Example post: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/a-fathers-day-call-to-repentance/
/r/PurplePillDebate09/09/13 12:23 AM
-1

Wrong again SpermJack. And by the way, you're trying to split hairs between perceptions and feelings? My god you are difficult. Here is the exact text of the 5 questions asked to gather data for the CCI: 1) How would you rate present general business conditions in your area? [good/normal/bad] 2) What would you say about available jobs in your area right now? [plentiful/not so many/hard to get] 3) Six months from now, do you think business conditions in your area will be [better/same/worse]? 4) S…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/13 11:56 PM
-4

Several red pill blogs do emphasize religion, but often stop short of recommending church women outright. The reason for not recommending the church women is (now don't shoot the messenger) that the feminists have co-opted the church and those women aren't much different than nightclub women. One blogger even calls it "Sunday Morning Nightclub".
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/13 10:36 PM
8

That's because you don't understand the red pill view. The view is actually "We love banging sluts, they can do what they want judgement free from us, but we aren't going to marry them."
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/13 10:26 PM
0

Wrong, it is exactly a survey of people's feelings. The respondents can only answer their subjective opinions on topics with "positive, neutral, or "negative" or "better, same, worse" or similar type answers. No numbers are involved. Here is the methodology: http://www.conference-board.org/pdf_free/press/TechnicalPDF_4134_1298367128.pdf
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/13 10:15 PM
0

Economists most certainly do quantify "immeasurable" data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Confidence_Index
/r/PurplePillDebate08/09/13 03:41 PM
-3

That study lists many potential environmental causes, but none of them deal with adults reading posts on the internet. It has to do with children (at the latest), babies, or even unborn children. I have a hard time believing that a 22 year old male will develop a personality disorder from reading r/theredpill, and this research certainly doesn't show it. I partly agree with your last paragraph. Teasing for the wrong reasons can indicate personality...umm... issues, but rarely indicates a disorde…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 06:38 PM
-5

Verbal irony is a statement in which the meaning that a speaker employs is sharply different from the meaning that is ostensibly expressed. The ironic statement usually involves the explicit expression of one attitude or evaluation, but with indications in the overall speech-situation that the speaker intends a very different, and often opposite, attitude or evaluation. Your move.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 04:43 PM
-2

We disagree whether the teasing/negging rises to the level of a personality disorder. For example, for your position to be true, it would require that personality disorders could be learned as well as turned on and off. It is my understanding from the medical community that the opposite is true.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 01:44 AM
-5

That post is long and I don't want to make a longer, more detailed commentary on the whole thing, but here is a different tl;dr for you: teasing can work.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 01:33 AM
-6

We disagree. No use beating a dead horse. You sure about Thermo? At my uni some Civils took that class.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 01:08 AM
-7

You don't like people who use words to manipulate the thinking of others but you advocate lawyers using words to influence a judge so that the judge denies people's liberty without consent. The second layer of irony is you using words to convince others to change a current policy. That's pretty sly. Good job.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 12:23 AM
-8

I would deduct points on your physics exam because the number of significant digits are undetermined.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/09/13 12:10 AM
-2

Tell me about the odder ones.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 11:59 PM
-6

You missed the irony of a lawyer using words to convince a judge to institutionalize people against their will.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 11:49 PM
-8

Good ideas. I see no way deleting the 5th and 14th Amendments could cause any problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 11:19 PM
-1

You are free to believe that, but it isn't what I wrote nor what men believe.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 02:01 AM
2

There isn't an exact formula. It's probably better to group distributions based on personal preference. For example, where virgin brides are expected, the groupings for number of parters is 0 and everything else. Some guys are fine with 0-2, but start losing interest at 3-4, lose most interest at 5-6, and 7+ is a deal breaker. Some guys are fine with 1-9, 0 is a deal breaker and so is 10+.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 01:06 AM
7

The type of man is irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 12:47 AM
3

Does TRP believe that having sex can sometimes lower the value of a woman? With respect to sexual market value, yes. It doesn't have a bearing on her ability to be a friend, perform on the job, or change her oil. But men tend to look at it as a negative with regards to sexual market value. If so, would you like to apply TRP philosophy to my questions and inform me of the answer? I will not for several reasons. The assumption that you make in your second sentence ("However, having sex with a Qual…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 12:35 AM
4

Can you explain to me why you removed "Except for the first sentence" when you quoted me? That part of the quote is essential. It changes the meaning in an important way. I don't see how it is possible to have a meaningful discussion with you. You have already demonstrated that you will frame your questions as straw men. Now you have demonstrated that you will selective quote to create new straw men to attack.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 12:19 AM
6

With respect, there is absolutely no way you could read what I wrote and make that comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/09/13 12:05 AM
5

Except for the first sentence, literally nothing you wrote relates to any red pill idea in any way whatsoever. This is a stream of bait questions that demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of anything the red pill talks about. Seriously, it's all wrong. I can't imagine why you would take the time to type all of that out.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/09/13 11:46 PM
-1

Yes. We aren't all the different from each other. Not sure why we have to be so divisive and categorize people like that. Similarly, most men like a height-weight proportionate pretty girl with clear complexion, white teeth, and like seeing her in well fitting clothes. We are even more basic in what attracts us to women. No shame in that. It just is.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/09/13 01:28 AM
-1

So a barely used, dead for 3 months sub not affiliated with TRP in any way? Got it. No one takes bluepillers seriously because you can't understand language. To you people it's never possible to do something in moderation. Drink 100 beers or none at all. Drive 100mph and attempt to murder everyone or never get in a car ever. M O D E R A T I O N. Say it slowly. A person can be self interested sometimes and not be a sociopath. Everyone does it.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/13 08:02 PM
0

"I want... a destructive mental illness." - bonebroth "Pregnant women are... ridiculous." - bonebroth Are you going to at least give a link to your selective mashup?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/13 07:01 PM
0

I can only imagine how a physics conversation between SpermJack and Stephen Hawking would go. Hawking would be wrong at least 20 times, not even counting how much he oppresses women from his wheelchair.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/13 05:47 PM
0

You also have poor reading comprehension. I'll say it again: Some people (like you) exhibit dark triad traits too often. People like you wish to stop that and fit into society better. Some people have the exact opposite problem as you. They are doormats and are taken advantage of regularly. They need to assert themselves more. By definition that means adopting some of the dark triad traits OCCASIONALLY. Both types of people end up IN THE SAME EXACT SPOT PERSONALITY WISE. You just got there by go…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/13 05:37 PM
-4

It means exactly what it says, which is the opposite of what you say. Your reading comprehension is 0%. Answer this: After OP receives treatment and the doormat modifies his personality, where on the personality spectrum do both end up? Is it: A) the same exact place, or B) different places Here is a hint: exact spot
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 06:38 PM
-4

Is English not your first language?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 06:06 PM
-6

Lot's of high horses around here. Take out the breast implants and botox and I described 90% of American women. I mean, seriously? You all get your jimmies rustled over someone merely mentioning women wear heels, padded bras, dye their hair, and remove body hair? This place is an angry one. You guys should step back from the ledge and relax a bit.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 05:56 PM
-7

So you dated a bunch of women, but only think one was "red pill". Do you know why the others didn't want to date you anymore? We do. Western culture has encouraged women to stop acting in feminine ways. red pill works here because now women's primal urges are allowed to run free, as opposed to the stereotypical victorian era where one couldn't swear in front of a woman. We simply meet their base desires.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 05:46 PM
0

No one likes talking with you because you take what someone says, amp it up to 11, and then argue that exaggerated point, which they never actually made and explicitly stated the opposite. Example: go to the top of this thread, which you replied to, where I wrote doormats should move to the personality middle road just like OP wants to move to the personality middle road. Doormats and OP are heading in opposite directions yet ending up in the same exact spot. Same spot personality-wise. No one i…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 04:45 AM
-2

Nope, not an adequate source. You need one showing people with dark triad traits are more likely to crash and burn or go to prison rather than be successful on the job. And you can't cite only psychopaths either. We aren't advocating people become psychopaths, so that is irrelevant. Not all people that employ dark triad traits are psychopaths. Stop taking our arguments to the limit and then refuting your own mischaracterization of our point.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 04:11 AM
-8

No, there are many things that go into being desired by another person: appearance, personality, intelligence, financial status, kindness to children, kindness to animals... They are all part of the total package we present. Work on one and not the rest and see how far that gets you in life.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 03:59 AM
-1

You like weasel words when they benefit you. How about those sources you love so much showing a greater percentage of dark triad people crash and burn or end up in prison than middle to upper management? Dishonest of you to automatically assume they have to be taken to the limit, too. Yup, the man has to become a criminal rather than just stop being a doormat and learn how to work a room at work, at a social gathering, or in a bar. OP has a personality disorder and wishes to move more towards th…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 03:49 AM
-3

You are choosing to ignore what I wrote. I pointed out that the red pill techniques are equivalent to a woman (or man) changing their appearance. It isn't lying. A man who is unsuccessful with women isn't lying when he learns how to make himself more emotionally attractive to them any more than a woman is lying when she dyes her hair blonde from black or even black from grey and black. It is just improving yourself, as several people have mentioned. Stop misstating what I and other people here w…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 03:38 AM
-7

We don't view red pill techniques as any more manipulative than hair dye. We don't think either technique should be shamed. It just is.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 03:04 AM
-4

What was your actual point? Lots of text above us.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 02:54 AM
-8

No, it's manipulation. I thought I met a 28 year old curvy, 5'10 blonde with larger breasts (my preference) and no wrinkles. It turns out she is 5'5 without the heels, not curvy without the butt lifting jeans and padded bra, the breasts she does have are fake, her hair is actually black, and the wrinkles were removed last week with botox making the 35 year old look 26. I thought she was wealthy like me, but in reality the diamond earrings are cubic zirconia, the lady rolex is a knockoff, and she…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 02:31 AM
-6

In our experience it works on way more than some. Try somewhere in between most and all. As far as the types of women, the more "western" they are the better it works. To what extent varies widely. There are so many different facets to the red pill and women respond to different ones more so than others, so it is necessary to modify your approach on the fly based on feedback from the woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 02:21 AM
-8

In red pill people's experiences the techniques work in the most to almost all range. And I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole on how you characterize them as "manipulation". Actually, hold on a sec. If anyone does want to talk about that, makeup, bras, pushup bras, padded bras, tight pants, high heels, low cut shirts, breast implants, butt lifts, teeth whitening, hair coloring, body hair removal, and botox need to be included in the "manipulation" discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 02:10 AM
-1

Maybe you are the ableist one. Society rewards people that have dark triad personality traits with money, wealth, and fame. Now you are shaming people who seek to acquire that which you were born with. We think it's fine that you are receiving treatment for your disorder. That's your choice and yours alone. But on the flip side it isn't fair to force others to be stepped on and used by dark triad type people for the rest of their lives, on the job and socially. With some help and encouragement t…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 01:26 AM
-1

...when they're manipulating girls nearly half their age with the RP techniques, that's something I believe deserves to be shamed. Are you admitting they work?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 01:16 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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