TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

heretodebunk2 Archive

View 0 posts and 195 comments by heretodebunk2 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)
1

Ok nice so you misinterpreted my comment at first, then you somehow still managed to misinterpret it just now No, it's simply true that you don't even understand the words you're using, which is why you're blind to your own contradictions. Looks do matter to value attraction, but it's not necessary to form a relationship. Absolute lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 10:38 AM
1

50% of the population are men, 50% of the population are women. There is no abundance when it comes to long-term relationships, there is only abundance for women when it comes to sex. I'm talking about long term relationships, not sex. You're simply misinformed. The vast majority of young men are single, whereas the vast majority of young women are in relationships, this would indicate abundance. It doesn't matter if the population is split 50/50 if the demand for sex or relationships is not equ…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 09:20 AM
2

How is it anyone's fault that you don't understand simple sentences like "ability to dominate"? Here, educate yourself I'll deliver it in smooth brained bites for you. Social dominance = social influence. Status = high position in a given social hierarchy. Looks = attractive physical appearance. Charisma = ability to charm and/or convince others.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 09:16 AM
1

If everybody had a looks threshold of, let's say 4, then there wouldn't exist any loving relationships with people that were less than a 4. Given that this isn't true, we can thus conclude that there isn't a hard looks threshold for everybody. Except this doesn't comport to reality, the vast majority of women do have a looks threshold above *6/10, we can therefore conclude that the vast majority of below average men will have a hard time finding a relationship. You're doing the common blue pill …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 09:10 AM
3

Dude your math ain’t mathing. I’m literally using the stats in the article YOU cited and the difference between 60% and a third is 27%. What the fuck are you even talking about? What are you even arguing against? Besides, this article itself is questioning the pew SELF REPORTED survey it cites. Self reported survey is another word for garbage statistics. You have no idea how statistics work, PEW accounts for self-reported bias in their methodology, PEW is one of the most trusted survey groups in…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 09:06 AM
1

You understand that two gross morbidly obese people can be genuinely attracted to each other for reasons that go beyond physical attractiveness right? How does this imply the lack of a look's threshold?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 02:16 AM
2

My argument is that physical attractiveness isn't necessary to date Sorry, I stopped reading, you're saying women date men they find unattractive?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 01:42 AM
1

A car's attractiveness to customers goes beyond appearance. Appearance is an important factor in a car, however I would be happy to buy a car that looks mediocre if it was low cost and high performance. Obviously I'd prefer if the car also looked good but I care about traits beyond just appearance when it comes to buying a car. Congratulations, except now you can order hundreds of different car apparels for the same low cost and high performance vehicle, in which case, the looks threshold which …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 01:41 AM
2

i think looks have an influence and so does being able to converse with people and connect with them If that's the case then you're seriously underestimating looks. Literal elections have been won based off of the physical appearance of the winning candidate.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 01:23 AM
1

Literally every guy I know has been in at least one long term relationship. Even the total losers and ugly guys and guys that are morbidly obese and a$$holes have somehow managed it by age 30. Most guys I know are currently in relationships that they've been in for years. I'm including virtually every guy I've ever known from highschool, college and work. I'm talking about hundreds of men here. Is your argument that, at some point post-birth, men will date and have sex, therefore men do not have…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 01:20 AM
0

Argument A: Looks threshold is a requirement to date. Counter-argument A: No, tons of mediocre men date once they demonstrate value beyond physical appearance. If the counter-argument was supposed to reflect why the looks threshold is unimportant, then why do you assert that physical value is a necessary prerequisite to build off of? By claiming that mediocre men demonstrate "value beyond the physical", you inherently presuppose the innate importance of the physical. If the looks threshold is ac…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 01:15 AM
3

No it applies to 10% that aren’t having sex. Do you consider a man who has sex once a year to have an adequate sex life? because women have a looser definition of relationships. Nice claim, where source? Specifically one that shows that 60% of young women have a different definition of single than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/24 12:50 AM
3

The ability to socially dominate, which requires a combination of high status and looks, with charisma being a nice bonus, but an unnecessary feature.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:38 PM
2

which is... being good at conversation. men who are good at conversation say stuff like this. Why do you refuse to admit that looks have an influence on how your words are perceived? Unless if your metric of a "good conversationalist" is someone who people like talking to, in which case it is a useless metric because it fails to account for multiple other variables, like the Halo effect.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:36 PM
1

Yeah they see it but these 150kg neck beards with horrific acne because they never bathe or go outside and horrible social skills due to never practicing because muh anxiety! Only want a super model gf who looks like the pron stars they watch. Do you think your comment applies to 60% of men 18-25?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:32 PM
1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can't negotiate attraction. If you do not pass the looks threshold, no amount of psychological indoctrination is going to make a woman attracted to you. Everybody knows a mediocre looking funny guy that is dating a girl way out of his league. Nearly 60% of Gen Z men are single, vast majority have also never even walked up to a girl to ask her out. A truly mediocre man is not shooting out of his league 99% of the time, in fact, the notion …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:29 PM
0

to demonstrate value beyond physical appearance. Lmao contradicted your own point within the first paragraph
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:17 PM
1

It would be restrictive and uncomfortable, would majorly impact my job and would subject me to social ridicule. Perfect, finally. Restrictive definition: imposing restrictions on someone's activities or freedom. Guarding your drink is a restriction that you impose on yourself, the non-restriction would be to leave your drink unguarded. uncomfortable Utterly subjective, which is why I have to ask why is it uncomfortable? would subject me to social ridicule. So to be clear, if the act of guarding …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 11:14 AM
1

Nope you can simply give a simple explanation of the effect. How is it neurotic to glance down at your drink every couple of seconds? Because you're guarding against a risk that might as well not exist, like you dying of COVID if you don't wear a space suit.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:32 AM
1

It would majorly affect my life in terms of my work, my social experiences, my interests and the activities I do from day to day. Again, you are simply repeating yourself, what drawback does it cause to allow this effect to happen? Having trouble explaining your neuroticism?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:12 AM
1

A negative drawback would be wearing a gigantic restrictive suit every day regardless of weather, social appropriateness or activity levels. Can you explain how that's a drawback? An insignificant drawback would be looking down at my drink every couple of seconds to make sure that it's still in my hand and there's nothing in it. Can you explain why that's insignificant?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:09 AM
1

What is a "significant negative drawback" and what is an "insignificant negative drawback"? Like, how hard is it to directly justify your opinion dawg
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:06 AM
1

Sure, I think wearing a gigantic restrictive space suit every day in every situation is less reasonable than making sure to hold the drink that I am currently drinking at a bar. That's not an explanation, that's a reiteration, can you explain why that is the case despite them guaranteeing similar protections to similar risk ratios?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:04 AM
1

I think wearing a gigantic space suit around is less reasonable than keeping an eye on your drink at a bar? Can you explain how it's less reasonable despite guaranteeing a similar protection level to similar risk ratios?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 10:00 AM
1

Why is it more absurd when it guarantees the same level of precaution and allows for a similar outgoing (outside the house/to the club)?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:57 AM
1

Are you incapable of reading? Your question is moronic, that's why I'm not answering it. Cry about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:56 AM
-2

Why can you only conceive of someone taking precautions in the most cartoonish, over-the-top manner? When guarding your drinks against all men constantly, you guarantee a 99% chance of no spiking. I just logically applied a precaution that would guarantee a 99% chance of low infection while still allowing you to leave your house. Curious how you find one absurd but the other acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:54 AM
1

My argument is that your question is flawed and nonsensical, hopefully it goes through your thick skull
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:53 AM
1

Why should I answer a question that's fallaciously posed? How about you reword it so that it's logically sensible?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:46 AM
-1

So even if I was worried about catching COVID and dying So to be clear, with one risk you're not willing to take precautions to guard yourself completely, but with the other, you are, despite the risk levels being the same. Why is that?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:45 AM
-2

Did everyone who was cautious about COVID in 2020 wear space suits? No, what do this have to do with your personal moral consistency?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:40 AM
1

You are red pill. You are also immoral by association. According to whom? There exists no logical argument unless you're a rapist or predator why you are upset about women guarding their drinks? Presuppositional fallacy, who says I'm upset?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:31 AM
2

We don't like racism because it harms people, that's the whole point. So as long as someone is harmed you will stop watching your drinks?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:30 AM
-1

Wearing a gigantic spacesuit clearly isnt the same as watching your drink when you’re at the bar though is it? Logically untrue, same risk analysis taken with the same level of precaution, during COVID you would have had a 2% chance of dying, I'm sure you wore the spacesuit in 2020 right?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:28 AM
-2

Just admit that your feelings get hurt when women are justifiably guarded against you and you want them to cater to your pathetic feelings. Nah it's laughable, also calm yourself, it's the internet. Fuck you're moral consistency. Really not beating the immoral allegations lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 09:26 AM
1

Everyone has an in-group bias. That's what an in-group literally is. People you identify with and trust. That is not negative. It's also not particular to women. You are simply stating something about sapient (not even just human) nature. So... no... No, women specifically have demonstrated a much higher rate of ingroup bias than men, genetically and due to pre-natal factors. So.... you are saying, if I made a broad, sweeping generalization about the utility (or lack thereof) of debates, respond…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:56 AM
-2

The worst thing that can happen if you don't wear a giant spacesuit to protect you from dangerous viruses, is that you get sick and die. The worst thing that can happen if you do wear the spacesuit, is that some assholes on the internet (and real life) will make fun of your neuroticism. Better get that spacesuit :)
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:27 AM
3

It's literally what OP posted
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:25 AM
0

“Women need to stop complaining about rape and assault. If you keep yourself safe there’s no danger. Have some responsibility!” “Women need to stop complaining about rape and assault. Being worried about spiking is making women paranoid and fuelling anti-male sentiment. It’ll probably never happen, stop being worried about it!” These two statements literally don't contradict each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:24 AM
1

At what point did you make a negative claim or generalization about women?? Women have an in-group bias. You have not demonstrated where these generalizations are useful or helpful in... anything... to be useful or helpful an argument needs to accomplish something worth accomplishing. You can claim that all debates are useless, this is an irrelevant retort.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:21 AM
2

Yes, it's not the same as racism because unless you look at forums the act of watching your drink is so insignificant you wouldn't even notice. It's literally the same logical consistency being applied. Insignificance of the act does not render it logically different. Not remotely the same as the negative effects racism has. Not even close. I fail to see how this is any different than refusing to walk through a black neighborhood despite your chances of being robbed or murdered being exponential…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:20 AM
-4

Achieving moral consistency. Also, maybe to help you get over your neuroticism and made up fears. You might as well walk out with a bumper dress every time you go to the club, who knows, you might get run over by a car.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:14 AM
3

Sorry, neuroticism doesn't care about facts
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:12 AM
0

I'm just saying if I was a non-consentual sex enjoyer or a permanent property borrowing facilitator, I would target short, weak men, as they seem to be way less neurotic and delusional than women about this shit and less likely to freak out.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:11 AM
1

Which generalization is that, which targets a group I identify with negatively, have you made? Women.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/24 01:02 AM
0

Not a good faith debate- It seems like your problem is that you interpret any generalisation that targets your group negatively as offensive. That's not really anyone's problem, getting emotional about a generalisation does not make it untrue, and you can feel free to debate the merits of the generalisation if you think it's untrue. Women like to shop? Not necessarily. The implication that men don't like to? Not necessarily. It's like you completely ignored my first comment where I said that gen…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 11:48 PM
3

People are not simply passive observers that have some objective take on what they see and witness. People notice specific things, ascribe intentionality to behaviors that may or may not be accurate, and use these "observations" to make statements (usually negative) about a large group of people. AND they may not even really believe what they are saying, but doing it to strike back at some individual (or multiple individuals) they perceive to have wronged them. Again, it depends on the truthfuln…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 10:29 PM
2

OP is strawmanning by arguing that general statements about women presume a collective conspirational disclaimer. When that's not the case at all, OP is just lost. Generalizations are USUALLY untrue. I completely disagree, I think generalisations aren't born out of thin air, and the vast majority of them are based on observed trends.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 10:17 PM
3

This is an argument against specifically untrue generalisations, in which case the debate will be about the validity of the generalisation. If however, the generalisation is true, then absolutely a good-fairh debate can be had about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 10:09 PM
1

Ok then stop responding lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 08:33 PM
1

It sounds like you can't read, I've quoted Meriem Webster for you plainly and simply
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 07:12 PM
1

its not giving if its paid back How do you borrow without the person giving you the object, exactly? One of the definitions of giving according to Webster: to put into the possession of another for his or her use Do you understand now?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 06:19 PM
2

No I think there is more nuance than that. You know that. I know that. Correct, which is why you framing all women who fall for abusers as assholes is reductive and useless, as I've stated. But you’re trying to win some sort of semantics argument that women don’t actually care about niceness because they’re tricked and abused. And abuse doesn’t work like that. No, the argument here is that niceness is not a useful virtue to find a relationship and/or have sex, its existence is irrelevant. She do…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 06:06 PM
2

So eventually she did filter for niceness. When he beat the shit out of her, do you think that's a valuable filter? And now about the nice girls who stayed with abusers, do you think they're assholes too? Yes. Yes I do. Well that makes your analysis quite reductive.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 06:00 PM
2

Or do you think he was acting nice when they first met and the bad things came out after they had already established a relationship? a) If women can't properly filter for niceness, then how is genuine niceness a requirement to get into a relationship? b) There are currently millions of women who simp for Chris Brown, do you think all of them are assholes?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 05:45 PM
1

and how is that related to borrowing? To borrow money requires the giving of money. it seems like you're trying really hard to make this not a scenario where one person cooks and one gives money I have no idea what this rebuttal even means.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 05:37 PM
2

There's no evidence of flat earth, there's evidence of female in-group bias.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 05:00 PM
5

you're only going to attract not nice women. Just World Fallacy, and there many examples proving otherwise. Do you think Rihanna is an asshole?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 03:28 PM
4

Where I differ is that I think everyone perfectly (lest we forget some people here do have an extraordinarily low IQ) understands that universal statements are applied on a near-totality basis almost every time. Which leads me to believe that the people responding with Not All Women™ are just bad faith actors pretending not to understand what generalisations are.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 03:26 PM
4

the idea that women or men act as a "collective" with their "collective" interests in mind and with the goal of "winning against" or "hurting" the other gender. Collectives need not be consciously acting to behave collectively, in fact, one of the core principles of a collective hivemind is that members of the collective show little variation and behave like automotons. Ex: women are genetically and due to prenatal factors more likely to show in-group bias, this is subconscious. In-group bias hu…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 03:21 PM
2

Does she read all this? No. Does she believe in all this for herself You'll have to be more specific, and I'm not sure why her opinion on anything we're debating on would aid in authoritatively confirming anything, unless if you want to claim that my girlfriend is omniscient?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 01:26 PM
2

So no. It's easier to just say you don't know what nature or nurture means. You haven't proved that, you've made a leap of logic. What causes us to produce oxytocin can absolutely be socially determined. Fetishes, for example. You've completely ignored the section on genotypical traits, either you're monstrously bad faith or your in-group cognitive dissonance is kicking in, I'm going with the latter. Also, oxytocin levels peak in a pre-natal environment, this has been studied and measured. Uh no…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 09:18 AM
3

I literally have a girlfriend. Do you think having a relationship means you're blind to women's tendencies or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 09:03 AM
1

i have no idea why you would compare giving something to borrowing something You're the one who decided to compare the act of cooking with the act of giving money. if someone cooks for you, do you get the food back? Yes, your other partner can also cook for you. But the fact that you're expecting a transactional return on investment is awful lmao I thank god my girlfriend is normal
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 09:01 AM
2

Do you have proof it is "part of women's nature" (rather than socialization) This isn't a nature Vs nurture argument, it's a mix of both. Here's a statistically significant (P=>0.05) study that shows correlative effects between the 5-HTTLPR genotype and in-group/out-group; women were found to have a significantly higher 5-HTTLPR and naturally showed a higher in-group bias in table 1 and 2. Indicating a genetic tendency towards in-group bias. Oxytocin is also causes in-group bias. It is also [sig…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 08:56 AM
7

That partner may be a man or a woman. Good thing that we agree that partner preferences can be gendered
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/24 08:33 AM
4

by listening to angry men on the Internet. Like this one, female in-group bias is well documented, you can feel free to call woke academia misogynistic but it is what it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:41 PM
1

like can i ask men to just give me some money? Yes? My god have you people ever even had a functional relationship? "Babe can I borrow some money I need to do X" <--- it should be that easy if your relationship isn't fucked beyond belief.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:39 PM
6

you were implying women lack the self awareness to know what they're talking about Most women are indeed either complacent with or unaware of their ingroup bias, that's why it exists. Feel free to not drown in straws in the rest of your comment there
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:37 PM
13

How exactly do most men prefer facially attractive men in the context of a relationship?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:33 PM
7

to you insinating women are naturally dishonest There's no insinuation of dishonesty, that is a strawman, in group bias is subconscious, dishonesty would imply an active awareness of your deceit
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:32 PM
8

I wonder if I went around saying "it's just men's nature to says something negative and dishonest completely unsubstantiated" in this sub, how men would react It depends, is your truthful statement backed up by evidence? Do you not think women have an in-group bias?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:26 PM
18

Exactly, most women prefer men. This is not wildly incorrect either.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:25 PM
20

That’s widely incorrect lol Most women prefer taller men. Most women don't prefer a micropenis. Most women don't prefer poor men. Most women prefer facially attractive men. Go ahead and send the stats and correct me.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:20 PM
9

Motherfucker is shocked when people subscribed to the debate subreddit are posting a debatable topic on the debate subreddit. Lmao bro if it's such a waste time go do something better with your time
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:19 PM
4

I don't see how saying "not all women/men do x" is not arguing in good faith when the other person is claiming an entire gender is something. Because it's a non-argument, a thought terminating cliché. It's only reasonable to expect your opponent to succumb to the "not all" argument if you are legitimately suffering from low IQ or are being monstrously bad faith, and know for a fact that he never realistically meant to imply "100%, all the time", in which case, yeah, disengage and mock appropriat…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:17 PM
12

You’re making a gendered implication that this specific behavior is characteristic of women as the majority. There's literally nothing to correct because shopping is statistically a female dominated activity. Women represent the largest market opportunity in the world, according to Forbes magazine. Globally, they control $20 trillion in annual consumer spending. In the next five years, it is expected that this number will rise to nearly $30 trillion. Women account for nearly 80% of consumer spen…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:13 PM
13

You're absolutely right, it's an in-group preference defence mechanism, it's just a part of women's nature to defend contradictory value statements as long as they're being uttered by the same in-group.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 10:10 PM
4

If you do not feel derision from being asked to cook, then you are not the subject of my comment. "No babe, I'm not going to cook for you, grow up" is a sentence uttered by an insane person. I would hope you don't feel that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 04:34 PM
3

If your husband asked you to cook would you say no and accuse him of being a man baby?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 04:23 PM
4

Women have more freedom in the west. Unless if you're referring to fundamental rights like free speech and the second amendment. The "freedoms" acquired by feminism are a sham. Your vote doesn't count, and if it does, it goes to the uniparty. You're not independent and never will be, you will always rely on other men, wether that be your daddy, your employer, your husband, or society at large. Tangentially the only ""freedom"" you have that is not easily available to non-western women is the abi…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 09:54 AM
7

I love how modern women act like throwing clothes into a machine that does the work for you is unpaid labour lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 09:53 AM
3

The dance between a good man and a good woman is beautiful. If you let go of the distain for men, you might see it. Nah, all men are lazy, fat, soon-to-be wife beaters, and all women are ran through, psychos with daddy issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 09:49 AM
9

Refusing to cook for your husband is absurd, any sane person who isn't cucked beyond belief would think their wife is insane
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/24 09:46 AM
2

Norah has documented proof dawg
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/24 06:09 AM
-3

You tell me. <image>
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/24 05:10 PM
–

We're in a debate subreddit, grow up. Unless if this is an attempt at emotional blackmail to win some internet points, in which case; average blue Piller.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/24 04:54 PM
4

Sorry, but I'm gonna need to see pictures of you before and after dressing up, it is extremely likely you simply don't pass and/or you're an extremely attractive "man".
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/24 04:34 PM
-4

But this proves that women are neurotic, women are less likely to report loneliness than men, more likely to have friends, have an easier time finding relationships, yet they're more likely to use antidepressants and more likely to be depressed. Male suicide rate is probably higher because unlike women, men do not do it for attention or neuroticism, but because they are genuinely isolated and see no way forward. Sad situation for both cases, but I would argue that female suicidality is more born…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/08/24 04:27 PM
1

You seem to be of the belief that the fallacious argumentations of the no true scotsman fallacy are only limited to arguments of authenticity, and don't just apply broadly to category obfuscations like the one you just did 2 comments in a row. Do you want me to repeat it for you? Premise A: Normal women don't fall for abusers. Argument A: Normal women fell for Chris Brown. Counter-argument A: Mentally unhinged women for Chris Brown. If you want me to expand, your argument also has a touch of pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 10:36 PM
1

Sure I can, "Universal" in the context of my argument means a near-totality, don't like it? Cope, seethe, mald. Also no, because way more than .01% of people have a different number than 10 fingers. This is honestly the weakest form of semantical argumentation, such a bad faith distinction without a difference does literally nothing to help your case. Also bringing it back to penises, way more than the 2% of women op claimed do not care about a small to average penis. Your claim that a sexually …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 10:32 PM
1

So if I alter the term to mean 99.99% of cases, would this satisfy your weak semantic distinction?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 10:17 PM
–

Using my extremes is where you guys go wrong. There's nothing extreme about claiming that small penises are universally repellent. If that were the case no disabled people of disfigured people would have relationships. If I claim that humans universally have two 10 fingers, is my claim incorrect because some people are born with 11 fingers? Similarly, if I claim that physical disability is universally repellent, is my claim incorrect because an indiscernable subset of quadriplegics managed to ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 09:39 PM
1

I said nothing about true women. Yeah you did. Premise A: Women wouldn't fall for abusers. Argument A: Women fell for Chris Brown. Counter-argument A: Only mentally unwell women fell for Chris Brown. Sorry, but why are you denying this? This is the category obfuscation that's present in the true Scotsman fallacy, just admit that you were wrong and we can move on. But anyone who falls for a known abuser has some serious issues. Do you think if Chris Brown wasn't a known abuser that the women fall…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 08:48 PM
1

manipulation. So?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 08:42 PM
1

No, your argument has no logical bearing. Only true, mentally healthy women wouldn't fall for Chris Brown. Lmao
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 08:40 PM
–

Neither because no one knows about it until you have sex. And do you think the knowledge of it will make the person having it more universally repellent or attractive?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 08:39 PM
4

You framing male competition as fragility does not make it so, men who are high status can be subject to male competition, not sure why this is so complicated.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 08:27 PM
–

Do you think a small penis is universally attractive or repellent?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 06:28 PM
3

Some of them definitely will be, male competition is universal, HVMs aren't excluded from it, they simply win.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 06:22 PM
2

Never fails. All men love to tell hero stories, and all men love to give advice. All men are in constant competition with one another. Getting a man's attention and interest is a breeze, they all work the same way. Everything you just said is pretty much fundamentally true. Are you now shocked that men are more receptive to reality than women? Or are you more mad that the gotcha didn't work?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 06:21 PM
2

This is just the no true scotsman fallacy in spades. How do you know that all the women attracted to Chris Brown are mentally unwell?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 06:16 PM
5

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman Just no, high status is universally attractive, to act like only mentally damaged women are into high status men is insulting to the entire female sex
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/24 06:13 PM
1

Normal things can be done outside Nobody takes a shit in the streets, is taking a shit not normal?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:53 AM
1

Either way sex in general is a special bond as it invves things you wouldn't show to people randomly. And whether it's relevant or not that's my take on it and thus it is relevant This is just a word salad, sex is very clearly a normative experience, your personal feelings on the matter are in fact irrelevant. It's more like poor people are entitled to food due to laws while rich people aren't, however rich people also deserve food but they're not entitled to food What? So you do agree that poor…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:42 AM
2

As a demisexual, sex for me holds great value. It shouldn't be thrown around randomly. It's a special bond. That's not really relevant at all. Wether you personally value sex has nothing to do with the fact that sex is a fundamental experience that the vast majority of humans go through. People aren't entitled to normal treatment either Well this is just an ethical disagreement that we're never gonna agree on. I actually think hungry people deserve food, etc etc
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:36 AM
2

I guess that's the fundamental problem, you think sex and romance are special when they should be a normal part of any person's livelihood. The fact of the matter is, incels don't believe they deserve special treatment, they believe they deserve a normal treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:30 AM
2

Definition of entitlement: the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or special treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:21 AM
1

He was talking about escalating, not literal first contact.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:19 AM
3

Why are you conflating feelings of entitlement and deserving with rape? When a woman says "I'm entitled to a loving boyfriend", is the correct response: "you can't force men to consent into loving you, bottle it up whiney incel"?? This is just feels like such needlessly combative and ultimately untrue rhetoric.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:17 AM
2

Yes, they can. Although I'm not even sure why feeling entitled to the most basic aspect of existence is wrong in the first place. You think men don't deserve romance by default or something?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:13 AM
1

Is your opinion that lack of sexual or romantic success = basement dwelling losers?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:12 AM
3

Only 1.5% of the global population possesses a million dollars, is this really the road you want to take? Here, I'll give you a better example so that you don't hang yourself and give the 80/20 argument even more credence. I wanted a father but I never complained because it's weird and selfish to demand one. Sex and romance is about as universally accessible as a father figure, so obviously when a person lacks one as they lack the other, they'll complain, and it would be reasonable to do so. Bec…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:10 AM
1

Women are actually gravitated to universally attractive traits. Nerds aren't hot because they're nerds, nerds are hot because they're hot. jocks aren't attractive because they're jocks, jocks are attractive because they're hot. Etc etc
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:06 AM
5

May I ask what is wrong with feeling like you deserve romance and/or sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/24 02:04 AM
–

Science is general is having a replication crisis, EP isn’t immune to that. The replication crisis is not unique to psychology and affecting hard sciences too. It is not affecting them to the same extent, no. The only other field that suffers from a massive replicability issue in the hard sciences is, as you've mentioned, the field of Medicine, and that's mainly because of pharmacology and specialised drug treatments (like oncology related-pharmaceuticals), who coincidentally also rely on patien…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/24 08:22 AM
–

Yes, and I'm framing it as a category error, the truth is many of our findings that are relegated to EvoBio actually started in the field of EvoPsych, the two go hand in hand really.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/24 08:18 AM
–

The replication crisis is not unique to psychology and affecting hard sciences too. It is not affecting them to the same extent, no. The only other field that suffers from a massive replicability issue in the hard sciences is, as you've mentioned, the field of Medicine, and that's mainly because of pharmacology and specialised drug treatments (like oncology related-pharmaceuticals), who coincidentally also rely on patient feedback in a manner not to dissimilar from psychology. You'll be hard pre…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/24 08:17 AM
–

The point being that evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology are helpful in understanding human behavior, but it is vastly more complicated than “people with the warrior gene are violent” or “all women are hypergamous” or “men are wired to fuck anything that moves.” I don't think any serious EvoPsych study has made bold claims like the ones you're quoting. Even the original study that discovered the warrior gene was researching it with the context of the study participants being child a…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/07/24 07:58 AM
1

Social sciences have ironhard methodology and validity checks and have produced very reliable results whose use is widespread in multiple fields I'm not gonna even bother reading the rest. https://replicationindex.com/2022/01/26/rr21/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 02:22 PM
1

If EvoPsych too much then EvoPsych turns into EvoBio.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 02:00 PM
-1

What do you think of the warrior gene?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 01:59 PM
-2

You must be one of those people who think everything outside STEM and few natural sciences is a complete useless bullshit. Considering the hilariously low replication rate of the soft-sciences, I struggle to think why that's not a valid conclusion. The only even remotely rigorous soft science I take seriously is Economics. The fact that psychologists can't even form a consensus on foundational theories (see: Freud, Wundt) should tell you everything you need to know about the scientific polish of…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 01:58 PM
1

it's not that. It's a theoretical approach and largely untestable I think the warrior gene kind of disproves that, it's just that once genealogical origins are found, the research moves into the realm of evolutionary biology. Which at the end of the day, is what EvoPsych really is, a study of behaviour to understand if there are natural (as opposed to socialised) origins to our behaviour.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 01:53 PM
1

It’s just unverifiable. It’s basically always based on guesses about how we behave in nature. I think the problem is if you dig too deep into the nature of a behaviour, your findings will start drifting into the realm of Evolutionary Biology. (See: Warrior Gene). It's a fundamental category error, where research that was first based on observing behaviour and drawing conclusions (EvoPsych) ends up revealing genealogical/neurological origins (EvoBio, Neurology).
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 01:48 PM
-2

I deny its validity as a scientific discipline. Then you should deny clinical psychology as well, it has about as much scientific rigor.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 01:45 PM
2

not much in the way of having real, tangible evidence. This has never been a problem for the modern social sciences, a significant amount of research coming out of our soft science institutions today is irreproducible. At the very least, EP studies historical behaviours and doesn't needlessly prescribe a motive for the most part, it also runs parallel to a hard science (evolutionary biology) which makes it harder to fumble conclusions about datasets. I would trust modern evolutionary psychology …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/07/24 01:43 PM
5

I'm also assuming she puts a lot into her appearance. So does he. What limited time she has to spend with her child is being sacrificed as well. Acceptable. Let's not even mention safety risks as a woman meeting a strange man. How many women actually got killed on a date in US history?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/24 06:00 PM
–

“women who live lives of constant disappointment.” This is the case in the western dating world.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/24 04:29 PM
–

Well I was running with the premise that the women were normal.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/24 06:53 AM
–

No, I don't believe in the oppressor/oppressee dynamic purported by critical theorists or marxists. Men and women had different burdens and different benefits to motivate them both to shoulder these burdens.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 06:30 PM
–

Taking the US as an example. Women weren’t allowed to vote Neither were men. In the 1800, only three states in the US had universal white male suffrage. I specifically asked for a real privilege, the right to vote hasn't been available to most men for most of human history as well, and still isn't. were limited in their higher education pursuits (a considerable amount of universities did not admit women until the late 19th or early 20th centuries) If you're referring to the first colleges, it is…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 06:28 PM
–

it’s about the freedoms and societal standards that propped men up and tore women down. Give me any example of a legitimate western societal standard that actually existed and I can reframe it in a way that benefits women and shackles men. Not every statement must be taken literally. I was merely phrasing that they have more rights relative to the past. Right, and you specifically referred to autonomy, a right which they don't actually have and never had.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:38 PM
–

https://content.api.news/v3/images/bin/c32d95982f93b02a219907a0bd935e9b?width=650 Man, I wish I could've been those boys' therapist, I would be swimming in money lmao Also we need women for more than just breeding, they also provide comfort and nurturance for the family.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:31 PM
–

It's not really a diminishment if it's an accurate framing of the problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:28 PM
–

The idea that "women have autonomy now" hinges on the presupposition that; a) They actually have autonomy, they don't. b) Men had autonomy, they never had. men had more rights than women. And had more burdens to shoulder than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:27 PM
–

Yes, and their suicide methods certainly lends credence to that conclusion. Men are more likely to pick deadly methods because they are truly alone.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:26 PM
–

What privilege did men lose?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:24 PM
–

99% of humans never had autonomy throughout all of human history, this is a fantastical myth that should be relegated to fairytales.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/07/24 05:23 PM
–

Your question can be answered, the only problem is it'll take fucking forever. The man a woman ought to be attracted to is one who is at minimum slightly above her in a non-delusional SMV.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/24 08:40 AM
2

Drastically improving your social skills is about as possible as forgetting a language. Sure, you can do it, but it'll take you about a few decades, and by then you'll be undesirable to the women you want the most anyways.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/24 08:33 AM
1

Survivability serves no function?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 05:39 PM
1

Vast majority of the contention being posed in your link spams is related to the randomness of evolution being incompatible with teleology. I'd like to criticise science direct for fundamentally misunderstanding the impossibility of separating teleological phrasing from evolutionary biology, to which they themselves admit in the first paragraph of their article, when they claim that evolution has selections and adaptions that can accurately accommodate for Aristotelian teleology. Evolution has a…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 11:16 AM
1

from the theological terminology. I thought you were just misspelling the term but shit lmao We're not talking about religion, we're talking about teleology. All modern scientists use teleological language when describing evolution. If English isn't your first language then maybe you should research what the terms mean before you start arguing.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 10:02 AM
1

Where does evolution suggests that success can be achieved by being a biological failure?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 07:24 AM
1

Absolutely not. You deny that evolution doesn't optimise reproduction by forcing members of a species to change in order to better suit their environment? It's hard not to use theological words, but it should be avoided. Why? No institution in the natural sciences agrees to this conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/07/24 07:12 AM
1

Are you talking about what is the goal of reproduction or what is the goal of evolution? Sorry but it's not very clear.... Also, evolutionnary biology really tries not to use teleological terminology. It's a big problem in the field, we lack compact and clear terminology to speak about functionality and how things were selected or counterselected. But the use of goal oriented vocabulary is extremely problematic as it causes deep and very true misconceptions which are extremelly hard to overcome.…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/24 06:22 PM
1

Yee, goal of reproduction need not be a conscious decision.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/24 05:39 PM
2

Evolution is the practice of progress/change, which is achieved through reproduction in all living things.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/24 05:26 PM
2

Reproduction.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/24 05:11 PM
1

Ok, just don't be shocked at the psychological and genealogical consequences
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 10:00 PM
1

If it was a subconscious goal that I had no control over... You seem be confusing a goal with a requirement. No one says you are forced to reproduce, and it doesn't mean that reproduction is not the teleology of all animals.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 09:51 PM
1

This is great stuff, now show me where I said that reproduction is a conscious goal that you choose to have?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 09:29 PM
1

Reproduction is an inherent primary goal of the overwhelming majority of animals as well as most humans, but not all of them. No, reproduction is a primary goal even if you fail at it or ignore it.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 09:03 PM
0

Lots of tech companies are aiming for a 50/50 gender split amongst men and women in the private sector.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 07:30 PM
0

Those jobs male up a small and shrinking percentage of men and death is unlikely. The wage gap is also a "small and shrinking" percentage of the total wages earned by both genders. I'm not sure what point you're trying to to argue here. Men work the most dangerous jobs. Men work jobs that pay more than women. Men therefore earn more money than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 07:28 PM
0

Which point did I ignore? I would like to understand before you run away.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 06:05 PM
1

to survive. And what is the purpose of survival? Why don't animals just immediately die as soon as they're born? That answer assumes biology is the only thing that determines purpose, which is inaccurately reductive. Feel free to give any other purpose to a species' survival that supercedes reproduction. I'm sure your teleological arguments will be flawless.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 06:02 PM
1

Which aren't the only choices available.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 02:38 PM
1

It’s not the goal, it’s literally a side effect. You don't know what teleology means. You’re placing a human level consciousness No, goals aren't necessarily consciously created. Ex: the womb nurturing a fetus is not a side effect.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 02:37 PM
1

Your dichotomy did.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 02:01 PM
1

Claims to understand biology Denies that reproduction is even a goal. And which prominent institution in the natural sciences has stated that the goal of a species isn't to survive long enough to reproduce? Surely, when you speak with such affirmation about science, you couldn't possibly be talking out of your own ass.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:59 PM
2

There’s no dodging dude. Literally at no point in an animals consciousness do they go “wow I’d really like to save up and start a family”. I don’t know why you think that happens? Because it doesn’t. Oh ok, so you deny that reproduction is an inherent, instinctive primary goal to every animal?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:53 PM
1

It's hilarious you think there are no consequences to relegating yourself to a permanent, childless whore until you die. The psychological and genealogical consequences are pretty well understood at this point.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:53 PM
2

And why are animals programmed not to die? The dodging is getting hilarious at this point, it's such an easy answer that has been commonly held by the natural sciences since Darwin, but go ahead I'd like to see where this is going.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:50 PM
0

And what is your evidence of this supposed only possible dichotomy? Sex follows the same biological incentive that motivates men to give birth. Men who fuck without giving birth are still biological failures and will still feel the effects of their failing wether they like it or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:47 PM
0

You don't understand basic English? I'll reword it, why does an animal live from an evolutionary perspective?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:44 PM
2

Then you should have said that instead of the hyperbolic "100 babies"
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:43 PM
0

And what is the primary goal of an animal's life?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:38 PM
3

No, biological success is defined with reproduction and continuous lineage, nowhere in evolutionary studies does it state that "100 babies" are required.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:36 PM
1

And quote to me where I said that?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:28 PM
2

No... no, most men can go through their days not minding if women exist that don't want us to cum inside them, that's sounds pretty insane It's pretty insane to suggest that men are okay with being biological failures.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:12 PM
0

Your personal experience does not constitute a scientific fact What is the primary goal of any living animal?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/24 01:08 PM
1

This wasn't the question you were asking, you said why would any woman willingly get with an abuser.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 08:06 PM
1

Ok lol, again I didn't say she was an idiot.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 04:18 PM
1

I literally have a girlfriend... Too hard to consider the argument being made on its own merits
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 03:33 PM
1

You said that women describing their own experiences were wrong. Again, you are just making shit up, I said "most of the time", I did not say all women, and I did not call them stupid either, you can be the most intelligent person in the world and still be in denial about basic facts of life. you might be a misogynist I don't know how any of what I said means that I hate all women, but then again it seems that you're looking for reasons to get offended.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 03:08 PM
1

No, I said what women often say and what often happens are not similar. I'm not calling all women liars, they're perfectly capable of being in denial.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 03:04 PM
1

If you assume all women are duplicitous, this might be your problem Can you quote to me where I said all women are duplicitous?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 02:52 PM
1

I have been married since before dating apps existed, but from what other women tell me, there’s a huge shortage of actual decent guys on the apps. What women say and what actually happens are two often very different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 01:10 PM
1

Sure, because women are going to match with any man they swipe right on because men are swiping right on literally everyone. The rest of this is the numbers game. Women don’t prefer to use dating apps, and men see them as a way to get low effort sex. Which is why I ask again, are you saying that women don't receive matches as well messages from decent men who are more than enough for the average woman on online dating apps?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 12:14 PM
2

Massive claim, go ahead and prove the premise.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 12:13 PM
-1

Why would women willingly get with abusers? <image> Same reason they react this way when they see Chris Brown; Status>Looks>Charisma>Rest of your personality.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 12:07 PM
1

Your entire theory falls apart because women do not only get swamped with matches but also messages, and dating requests.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 12:01 PM
2

So, in your opinion those matches don't include decent guys who would be a good fit for an average woman? If that's the case then I have a funny experiment that was deleted on this sub to link to you.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/07/24 09:57 AM
–

When has he unironically advocated for a religious state?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/07/24 11:39 AM
1

A fascist cannot by definition put God above the state.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/24 08:44 PM
1

I agree, but I despise the term "christofascist", it's literally an oxymoron. Candace Owens is definitely not a grifter or she wouldn't have risked her job at the daily wire.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/07/24 07:36 PM
8

Yeah, Walsh literally has 7 kids and actively debates politicians in courtrooms to change multiple laws in his state To argue he's just in it for the money is just ignorant.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/07/24 07:11 AM
1

It is impossible for both of these facts to be true; dating apps to be sausage fests and for nearly half of all relationships to be made online. It is far more likely that women are in fact highly present on dating apps (if not equally present), but because they meet their match far faster, they don't stay on as long.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/24 09:35 PM
14

This website calls Matt Walsh a grifter, the term "grifter" has been redefined to simply mean; non-left leaning opinion that disagrees with me.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/07/24 09:31 PM
2

I didn't know the penis was removed during a circumcision, I'll make sure to tell my parents to give me my penis back. You can be against circumcision all you want but the medical science on the benefits of the procedure has been settled for hundreds of years.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 01:40 PM
0

Europeans also have higher rates of balanitis and phimosis as a result.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 12:36 AM
2

Circumcision is a supported medical practice with verified medical benefits, it has been done for hundreds of years, societies that practice it commonly don't report any sort of long-term problems with getting it up. Am I wrong, or is there literally no benefit to non-circumsion beyond cultural derision or an obsession with personal freedom at all costs?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 12:33 AM
3

How exactly do women stop wearing a pussy and tits exactly? By hiding them with the human invention referred to as clothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/24 12:19 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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