TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

dlouwe Archive

View 0 posts and 15 comments by dlouwe 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)
3

If you have any sources for #1 and #2 I'd be legitimately interested, because that's the first I've heard of it. As for #3, saving face from what? He already made it public that the alleged threats were made, and started accepting donations to cover additional security that the Doubletree was allegedly requiring. More than enough money was raised, but the venue was changed anyways. IMO it would do nothing but strengthen AVFM's position to be upfront and provide solid detail about how feminists h…
/r/MensRights03/07/14 02:31 PM
1

1) Were the threats against the hotel ever confirmed? 2) Is there anything that solidly indicates the source of the alleged threats, or what sort of ideology the source identified with? 3) AFAIK Elam cited capacity requirements for the move, and the Doubletree said something vague about obligations not being able to be fulfilled. So... Maybe that's not a great example to draw upon?
/r/MensRights03/07/14 07:25 AM
2

Valid by what measure? I literally don't understand why you think what you think.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 11:03 PM
2

Did anyone see who shot her dog? If not, and if there isn't any evidence corroborating any particular person with the shooting, then that is enough to cast reasonable doubt on your conclusion.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 08:03 PM
2

The phrase "feminists shot her dog" is a statement of fact (I'm changing "killed" so we can stop using the disclaimer). There is no part of it that leaves room for doubt. It's not the same as saying "There is evidence to suggest that feminists shot her dog" or "Feminists probably shot her dog" or even "I'm certain feminists shot her dog". Bringing into doubt the idea of knowledge itself does not give you license to say something that has tangible uncertainty in a way that implies certainty.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 07:30 PM
2

I never once said otherwise. I said there were facts to support the conclusion that made it reasonable to reach. I never said anything about definitive. It looked like you were trying to say that it would be reasonable to say that "feminists killed her dog" (if the dog had actually died). That sounds fairly definitive to me, but perhaps I misunderstood?
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:39 PM
2

I'll just say that I generally agree with what you're saying; I probably could have made my point better without bringing up induction in such a general way. It was more that Alzael was essentially trying to call into doubt knowledge itself in order to justify calling an uncertain thing certain, and then calling it "induction". I'm sure there could be cases where induction could reach a conclusion so close to certain that it might as well be, but this certainly isn't one of them.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 06:31 PM
1

This is nonsense. Of course we can know things. Inductive reasoning is probabilistic, so using it to reach a definitive conclusion is faulty.
/r/MensRights03/10/13 12:25 AM
1

Okay so, I came off a little bit hostile because people attemting to tell other people how they feel is one of my buttons, and that was the vibe I got from your initial comments. If you consider "cry for attention" to be a similar thing to "cry for help", then yeah, I much more agree with what you are saying. Of course not all suicide threats or attempts come about because the person wants to die, and in either case the person absolutely is in need of help, but I wholly reject the notion that si…
/r/MensRights06/01/13 11:54 PM
1

And this might sound harsh but this opinion is shit. Fuck trying to qualify any suicide attempt as "real" or "genuine". Women don't succeed as often because they use less violent and - as follows - less effective methods. That doesn't mean that the methods aren't deadly, they just have a lower rate of success and often leave a larger window for rescue. But a person isn't going to overdose on painkillers because they think "Well it's less deadly than shooting myself, so I'll probably live". Serio…
/r/MensRights03/01/13 11:15 PM
1

I'm not sure what your point is. Someone asked what this administration's biggest achievement for women has been, she answered with contraception coverage. How does that translate to "the most important issue in this election for Jessica Valenti is whether young women's birth control is covered."?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 06:49 PM
13

The actual question asked was: If you do plan on voting for President Obama, what would you cite as the biggest achievements for women by this administration The "for women" qualifier puts her answer in a hugely different context.
/r/MensRights11/09/12 05:25 AM
4

We don't. "Real men" bullshit is bad for men no matter what angle.
/r/MensRights06/09/12 04:05 PM
-1

Well, just keep in mind how such dismissive posts may come off to someone who isn't a frequenter of this sub (like myself) who hasn't seen the argument rehashed time and time again.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 09:13 PM
-6

You're demonstrating "argument from fallacy". The fact that an argument contains a fallacy is not enough to dismiss the conclusion as false. A responsible rebuttal also demonstrates the reasoning behind why the conclusion is false. If you dismiss a conclusion only because the argument contains bad logic, you can still find yourself in the wrong. For example: "All cats are animals. Ginger is an animal. This means Ginger is a cat." It's nonsense logic, but Ginger could very well be a cat.
/r/MensRights14/08/12 07:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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