TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

kborz1 Archive

View 2 posts and 154 comments by kborz1 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Dude I understand the concept. Do you understand how we can't have a meaningful discussion when you can't reconcile the definition of atheism with your personal definition of that word? In your gum ball example, belief in no gods is claiming that there is an of number of gum balls. What would you call that belief ( most people would call it atheism) or the rejection of that belief? Do you see how if those are lumped in with the definition of atheism as specifically rejecting the theism claim, mi…
/r/askTRP07/09/14 12:58 AM
1

Look that's the problem. There is no word for not believing that gods are present or absent. It is implicitly lumped in with atheism as you're leading me to believe. As is vernacularly the belief that no gods exist. Thus without words to explicitly differentiate between those the different meanings, the broad definition of atheism will cause debates such as the one we are having, since the current definition of atheism encompasses every other position outside believing that God or gods exist. Te…
/r/askTRP06/09/14 10:54 PM
1

If what you argue as the logical choice being agnosticism over atheism or theism, then yes we agree. If you don't explicitly state that you disbelieve the absence of gods, you are misrepresenting your position as an atheist.
/r/askTRP05/09/14 06:31 PM
1

That neutral position is not atheism and you can't claim it as such. True agnosticism is the neutral position because it claims nothing and suspends belief in both presence and absence.
/r/askTRP05/09/14 06:16 PM
1

Yes as much as you are. By only staring that you disbelieve in the presence of gods but not that you disbelieve in their absence, you are also arbitrarily choosing one and not the other thus committing wishful thinking logical fallacy. Don't claim the higher ground when you are just as guilty as I am.
/r/askTRP05/09/14 05:43 PM
1

If you define your terms at least make them similar. You can't change your wording from do not believe in their existence to do not have a belief as to whether or not they do for atheism without making the same change to the definition of agnostic theism. Either agnostic atheism is: I don't know whether or not gods exist but I belief they don't. Or agnostic theism is: I don't know whether or not gods exist and I don't have a belief as to whether or not they do. Saying you disbelieve the existenc…
/r/askTRP05/09/14 05:25 PM
1

Which one? I can't keep up with all your contents.
/r/askTRP05/09/14 04:05 PM
1

I don't believe in those things because I choose to as a personal choice without any evidence, just as I choose to believe in intelligent life outside earth even though it had not been found yet, because I like the world better that way. Just as I want to believe that we will come to an understanding since we are arguing for the same thing, agnosticism, even though all the evidence currently points to the contrary. I don't remember if you answered this before: Do you believe no gods exist?
/r/askTRP05/09/14 04:02 PM
1

So when though god existing is an ordinary claim to many people, for you specifically it is an extraordinary claim requiring additional evidence? That sounds like personal belief not logic.
/r/askTRP05/09/14 03:56 PM
1

No. I do not. Now answer my question. By that standard there is plenty of personal anecdotes of God existing and they are quite common. Why is that proof which is good enough for your personal interaction with people not good enough in this case?
/r/askTRP05/09/14 02:39 PM
1

I am not consistent, but then that's not what I'm arguing for. So your standard for burden of proof is that something is known to exist and is quite common? By that standard there is plenty of personal anecdotes of God existing and they are quite common. Why is that proof which is good enough for your personal interaction with people not good enough in this case?
/r/askTRP05/09/14 02:25 PM
1

At least you're consistent. When someone introduces themselves to you, do you not believe their name or anything personal they tell you without proof as well? How far does your concept of burden of proof go? And what do you accept as burden of proof? I'm assuming all personal non scientific data is excluded, right? I agree that belief in no gods has the burden of proof as much as belief in gods. Not believing either presence or absence has no burden of proof. In science, absence requires just as…
/r/askTRP05/09/14 01:40 PM
1

Only one way to find out
/r/trpGAME04/09/14 05:02 PM
1

Your logic for atheism: The statement that gods exist has no evidence, therefore I do not believe said statement. My logic for theism: The statement that no gods exist had no proof, therefore I do no believe said statement.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:04 PM
1

Do you lack belief that there is life outside earth as well, because that also has the burden of proof?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:00 PM
1

Do you believe in aliens or that there is life outside earth as well, because those things also have the burden of proof?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:52 PM
1

OK. I get it your logic for your belief in non-gods is based on these two very specific definitions for theism and atheism and doesn't work when I modify either definition. Do you have any other logical arguments against theism besides this "burden of proof"?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 11:37 AM
1

No you have me all figured out internet stranger.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 11:34 AM
1

Second sentence on Wikipedia. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Three reputable curated sources? That is just crazy. Here is an example where the position of the negative does not change the meaning: I do not have a laptop vs I have no laptop. Thus moving the negative does not automatically change the definition.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 03:10 AM
1

Look I gave you examples of how my definitions are not the same, yet here we are still arguing about semantics. You claim disbelief in the absence of gods is making a claim, while disbelief in the presence of gods is not making a claim. That doesn't sound like logic. You want to redefine disbelief of absence of gods into a claim of presence of gods, while refusing to redefine disbelief of presence of gods into a claim of absence of gods. That doesn't like logic either. You can't have it both way…
/r/askTRP04/09/14 03:03 AM
1

Atheism is (normally) defined as belief in the existence of no gods. Your definition of disbelief in gods is the same thing. You're just switching the position of the negative to make it seem like you're saying something different when you're not. The position of the negative does not change the definition of atheism. It is still belief in the existence of no gods no matter the position of the negative. You can't define all the words in this argument. Anyway, as you should have figured out by yo…
/r/askTRP04/09/14 02:45 AM
1

Disbelieving gods exist is the same thing as believing no gods exist. You're just being verbose about it. We can play fair and accept each others definitions or not, but then this discourse isn't going to get much farther than this.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 02:15 AM
1

How is disbelief in the nonexistence of gods claiming something to be true while disbelief in the existence of gods not claiming something to be false? Or are you actively misrepresenting my argument by refusing to abide by the definition of theism I provided above?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 02:12 AM
1

You are misrepresenting my argument the same way you were just complaining I do to you. Do not define theism for me. For the sake of this argument since we're both being so pedantic, theism is disbelief in the nonexistence of gods (no confusing double negatives by the way). Theism is not claiming something to be false either, therefore requiring no evidence. Theism is simply expressing doubt.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 02:03 AM
1

Don't question my reading ability. I am using the definition from the article. Again, if disbelief (lack of belief) in gods logical, why is disbelief (lack of belief) in the absence of gods not logical?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:30 AM
1

Wow, resorting to questioning my language skills again? I'll use the definition from the article "disbelief in gods" if you're OK with that. Again, what is your argument against disbelief in no gods, theism?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:16 AM
1

So your contribution to this discussion is ... ?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:11 AM
1

Your quote: Yes.... I am agnostic. I am also atheist because I don't believe in a god or deity. Again, the question I posit to you is how is not believing in a god (atheism) with no evidence different from not believing in no gods (theism) with no evidence?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:10 AM
0

Damn dog, don't throw out so many ad hominems. It's not a good look for you. Do you have anything to contribute to the discussion?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 01:00 AM
1

Atheism, not believing in gods, Please address my argument, or will we continue to belabor these definitions?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:56 AM
1

There is no logical reason to believe atheism is true vs theism. And the only argument presented so far was that the burden of proof for the existence of gods is on the theist, which is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:50 AM
-1

Theism is perfectly logical too. There is plenty of personal evidence to the existence of gods which you dismiss because it's "incorrect". I don't believe no gods exist, so the burden of proof is on atheism to prove that they don't.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:46 AM
1

To complete your logical claims. "I don't believe in no gods" - is not a "truth claim" and therefore does not have a burden of proof. Atheism, belief in no god, has not yet met it's burden of proof. Therefore, it is more logical to not believe in either theism or atheism until those claims have met their burdens of proof.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:41 AM
-2

Exactly. That is the logical argument for atheism and against theism so far. Do you want to add something useful to the debate?
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:34 AM
1

The faith is not in not believing but in believing in the not. In believing in no god (atheism) for example. It is a very critical difference that is difficult to clearly articulate but important for the sake of this argument.
/r/askTRP04/09/14 12:32 AM
1

Atheism is as much based on faith, faith in lack of existence, as any religion. So arguing that atheism is more logical is logically unfounded. I don't care what anyone believes or doesn't believe but claiming that one is more right than another is as stupid as arguing who's favorite color is better.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 10:23 PM
1

So by your logic "I don't believe in no god" as a lack of a belief has no burden of proof and is thus logical?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 10:09 PM
1

So you're an agnostic atheist. You don't belief in god because you have no evidence for the existence of god. Right? That is not logically different from an agnostic theist, someone who believes in god because they have no evidence that gods do not exist.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:24 PM
0

Let's use an example. If we were having this argument in the 16th century before Copernicus about heliocentrism, you would use this same argument to claim that the sun revolves around the earth since there was no evidence. That sounds like a logical fallacy to me.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:18 PM
1

Do you believe or know that no gods exist?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:13 PM
1

Yes. You're agnostic.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:11 PM
1

Is the onus not also on the person claiming something doesn't exist? Isn't believing no gods exist without proof also faith?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:10 PM
0

Claiming no evidence is a logical fallacy. Do you have any other logical agreements for atheism?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:05 PM
1

By definition, atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. How is that neutral? Agnosticism is neutral in claiming neither theism not atheism can be claimed as true.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:04 PM
1

Let me rephrase that. You claim atheism prevents you from believing things that aren't true. How do you know these "things" aren't true?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 09:00 PM
-1

Sounds a lot like our atheist friend.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:54 PM
-1

I'm not asking you to. The other guy is claiming atheism is the logical choice without possessing any logic.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:53 PM
0

Argument from ignorance and straw man fallacies. Got anything else?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:52 PM
1

OK. Neither of us has evidence. Do you have any other logical arguments against theism?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:48 PM
1

Now you claim atheism is true. Where is your evidence? You're confusing atheism and agnosticism again.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:46 PM
-2

So your atheism is based on the argument from ignorance fallacy?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:32 PM
1

Way to avoid the question. Why is atheism the logical choice?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:20 PM
0

You lack belief in gods. Which is the logical thing to do because...?
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:17 PM
-1

Theism is not a disbelief. It is the lack of disbelief. It is simply rejecting the claim of atheism. So do you know if god doesn't exist? Because you haven't cleared that up.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:11 PM
-1

Your initial claim is that atheism is the logical choice over "superstitious beliefs", yet you have not provided any of that logic. As you said atheism is a belief and I'm sure you have no evidence for that belief. That sounds pretty gullible.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:07 PM
-1

I doubt no gods exist. Now we're just talking at each other as neither of us has anything other than doubt. The original argument is still whether atheism is the logical position. And no one had provided any evidence either way so far.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 08:02 PM
0

Nice no true Scotsman The agreement is whether there is any evidence that God doesn't exist or if it's a belief held by atheists. I understand that you have not presented a counter argument to my statements so far.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 07:56 PM
0

Religion: a particular system if faith Which is how you described your belief in atheism.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 07:48 PM
1

What can you do? Every religion, including feminism and atheism, had it zealots and thoughtless masses.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 05:53 PM
-2

You claim god doesn't exist, thus the burden of proof is on you. I'm not trying to convince you that god is the logical choice.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 05:50 PM
-4

You've just described agnostic atheism not atheism. Regardless, since it is your belief without fact how do you claim it is the logical choice? The idea is also comparable to theism: why would you not believe in a god if there is no evidence that he doesn't exist? How do you claim that you need no evidence to believe atheism but require evidence to believe in a god? Your logic consists of "I don't believe you". Not a very strong argument.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 05:25 PM
-8

Are you really trying to argue for atheism being true because as was pointed out trp is about looking at things logically and based on evidence and none exists to support atheism or theism. I hope you realize that atheism is your feel good dogma of choice.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 04:43 PM
-2

If you are smart and logical enough to understand how religion benefits you over atheism then you will understand that this is a non issue.
/r/askTRP03/09/14 04:16 PM
9

A liver, two lungs, maybe a kidney or two...
/r/askTRP26/08/14 12:58 PM
1

Slut shaming is the woman equivalent of man up (in the traditional sense, not the current feminine imperative version). It is a noble altruistic call to make sure all members of society act to presence civilization as we know it. Granted right now it is much more fun to watch the world burn with a slut under each arm.
/r/askTRP20/08/14 05:13 PM
15

It's easy for women to get sex while keeping yourself more chaste is very hard especially in today's hypersexual society, this it is looked up to. For guys being a virgin is super easy while going out and seducing lots of women is hard work and both men and women look up to the man that can make it happen especially if it looks like it takes him no effort. It's the same reason fat, flabby and unkempt people are looked down upon. it's easy not to take care if yourself, while maintaining a fit bod…
/r/askTRP20/08/14 02:44 PM
9

Tell her to come over. If she won't, radio silence. If she comes over but doesn't fuck, kick her ass out.
/r/trpGAME08/08/14 12:26 AM
-2

She tried to reschedule and you blew her off in a totally butthurt way. Should have given her another time and place. I don't know if calling her is a good idea. Text her to set up another date in a few days.
/r/trpGAME02/08/14 03:59 PM
2

Seems you were trying a bit too hard especially at the end but you got all the basics down and it looks like she still wants the d so good job.
/r/trpGAME02/08/14 12:27 PM
2

I think it's supposed to be a kiss as in xoxo with the o being hugs
/r/trpGAME02/08/14 12:20 PM
2

Trp teaches you sexual strategy aka how to get girls to want your d. Why wouldn't you want to use that knowledge? I think that is useful for any relationship no matter how casual or serious. A lot of it is based on traditional, evolutionary gender roles but you definitely don't need to follow them to use trp. I would say a majority of trpers want to be life long bachelors. Keep banging new chicks, eventually you'll find one not to have kids with.
/r/askTRP02/08/14 12:17 PM
1

Go ask 4chan
/r/askTRP01/08/14 08:30 PM
0

Props bro. Keep up the good fight
/r/askTRP01/08/14 07:10 PM
1

You would have to be one hell of an alpha to pull off laying all of that on a girl. Keep it to yourself especially at first. They don't need to know that sit about you anyway.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 06:56 PM
3

Yea all that stuff adds to the risk that marriage with her might not be happiest decision of your life. At least you're aware of her background. Caveat emptor.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 06:54 PM
1

Sounds beta. I would push for sex next time. Better to be to aggressive than not aggressive enough. You might already be in a hole if she wanted you to push through her no's and fuck her.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 06:46 PM
6

The lesson here is don't date 17 year olds that get drunk and fall off shit
/r/TheRedPill01/08/14 06:40 PM
3

High number is an indicator that she's probably not the best marriage candidate due to increased chance of divorce but if it's just for fun who cares. Just make sure the wrap it up to avoid any "accidents". She is getting to the settling down age.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 06:33 PM
0

You were doing right. Escalate and when she says no back off then try again later. If she meant no she would have stopped you immediately. She wanted the D but wanted you to work for it.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 06:28 PM
3

You were doing right. Escalate and when she says no back off then try again later. If she meant no she would have stopped you immediately. She wanted the D but wanted you to work for it.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 06:28 PM
4

Why would you let that bother you in a casual relationship like your? You can't expect many women to have a low count nowadays. Anyway everything else in your relationship sounds pretty good. If you're thinking of marrying her and having kids maybe then it would be relevant. Plus now you got a free pass for a threesome since she's totally down for that. If she's not, that's a bigger reason for concern since she won't do for you what she did for three random dudes.
/r/askTRP01/08/14 05:53 PM
9

How you're wrapping that shit up. You don't want any "accidents".
/r/TheRedPill01/08/14 04:10 PM
3

What is modern feminism then? Can you explain it please?
/r/TheRedPill01/08/14 03:10 PM
9

r/redpillwomen will probably give you better advice than a bunch of angry at sluts guys
/r/askTRP01/08/14 02:00 PM
2

If you're not gonna fuck her anymore, start calling her little sis in public. If that doesn't work,, give her the let's just be friends speech in private. Tell her you're too similar and it would be weird dating someone you're so close to, or whatever girls tell beta boys in that situation.
/r/askTRP31/07/14 08:16 PM
2

Cool story bro.
/r/trpGAME31/07/14 07:51 PM
2

You're complaining about her not responding to you Skype message? Dude, come on. You are acting like a woman.
/r/askTRP31/07/14 06:17 PM
0

Trying to attract an alpha pump and dump. Tattoos and piercings are a mark of loose women.
/r/askTRP30/07/14 04:17 PM
8

Pro reply. I think most people are afraid of that uncertainty so the next is an easy copout, but this is the way to handle it. If shoot for happen you can deal with it then. ♂
/r/askTRP30/07/14 02:26 PM
6

Can you give us some examples if the shit tests she won't drop?
/r/askTRP30/07/14 01:34 AM
4

Fucking lol. This is exactly how she'll be describing it to Jessica. Sometimes you just gotta take that L and walk.
/r/askTRP30/07/14 12:45 AM
1

That's honorable. You're young I assume, you've still got plenty of time to make mistakes and learn from them. But I hope you're right.
/r/askTRP30/07/14 12:25 AM
1

I would add that dumping her now wouldn't serve you well at all. I would pretend everything is fine while you go to some house parties yourself and make a couple of "mistakes" because you were "drunk". When she gets back, pump a few angry fucks into her and next her ass.
/r/askTRP30/07/14 12:23 AM
-1

Maybe 5s as far as having their life together goes. Sounds like the girl he's describing likes to get thugged out.
/r/askTRP29/07/14 03:16 PM
1

If she really was a quality catch, she would have done way better than that. If she thinks that low of herself, why would you want to invest into that?
/r/askTRP29/07/14 03:13 PM
2

Get a new girlfriend. Or several.
/r/askTRP28/07/14 03:31 PM
0

How about "I'm not convinced you deserve more than a Hey yet"
/r/trpGAME28/07/14 03:29 PM
1

I bet the guy she was talking about is the try-hard behind her.
/r/TheRedPill16/06/14 02:35 PM
2

It's funny because that's exactly the way they think about those bad boy murderers. "It's in the past. He has such a good heart underneath."
/r/TheRedPill13/05/14 08:33 PM
3

Some quick reading on the CDC shows high success rate of the vaccine. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled influenza virus challenge study among 92 healthy adults (LAIV, n = 29; placebo, n = 31; inactivated influenza vaccine, n = 32) aged 18–41 years assessed the efficacy of both LAIV and inactivated vaccine (Treanor et al., 1999). The overall efficacy of LAIV and inactivated influenza vaccine in preventing laboratory-documented influenza from all three influenza strains combined was 8…
/r/TheRedPill09/05/14 07:35 PM
7

How is it a scam? Are you saying they don't work? Please elaborate.
/r/TheRedPill09/05/14 03:31 PM
1

yea the problem is that it probably hasn't been approved in mexico either making any sort of legal operation out of it unfeasible. I doubt many people would want a back alley nut injection. getting government approval might be easier and cheaper in some third world country however.
/r/TheRedPill08/05/14 05:57 PM
1

I don't know how much the procedure would cost in india, but since medical tourism is getting to be a big thing you can fly to india for a week for about 500$. I imagine the total trip cost would be about 1k. Plus all the indian girls you want. Anyone want to go try it out for the rest of us redpillers?
/r/TheRedPill08/05/14 02:18 PM
4

I wonder if the ugly men and women "foreveralones" switched picture how many would date/sex the other. I'm sure for both parties most of this boohooing is unrealistically high expectations. If they accepted their own value they would find someone in a heartbeat. The interesting part would be the discrepancies. The TRP hypothesis would be that the ugly women are asking for too much with what they have to offer.
/r/TheRedPill01/05/14 06:41 PM
11

Rollo is the guy who invented the SMV graph.
/r/TheRedPill29/04/14 07:15 PM
1

Those numbers might be a bit high. I don't know if most modern men could lift that much either.
/r/TheRedPill25/04/14 08:16 PM
-4

now
/r/TheRedPill24/04/14 06:11 PM
-11

Why it's so hard to separate the physical act itself from the decisions behind the action? It's not how many times she had sex that is important, it is her decision making/underlying moral compass that is to be considered. The high partner number is just an outward projection of what she values. You can't say that a relationship with a woman who has fewer partners but treats you like dirt is better than with one with more partners but worships the ground you walk on. Money is just paper. We only…
/r/TheRedPill24/04/14 06:09 PM
-5

I'd like Gordon Ramsey to be my personal chef.
/r/TheRedPill24/04/14 04:50 PM
-12

That's why most people aren't sex workers. But then again most don't want to be chefs either. Disparaging people based on their jobs is dumb. I'm sure there are plenty of wives you can find that would give you a bj for your birthday. Thinking they are all seriously damaged is absurd. And it is "no different" raping and stealing. They are both crimes with just punishments for their severity. Just as there is no difference in both a car or a diamond necklace and a bag of Skittles being gifts. One …
/r/TheRedPill24/04/14 04:47 PM
-32

I completely disagree. It's no different than a professional chef cooking dinner for friend's husband as a gift for him / favor for her.
/r/TheRedPill24/04/14 04:02 PM
13

Why do these things always sound like such whine-fests?
/r/TheRedPill22/04/14 08:46 PM
0

nothing to see here. just autistic neckbeards making rape threats. don't be a beta billy. internet rage is for chumps.
/r/TheRedPill21/04/14 08:51 PM
18

Boatgirl. The new slut princess Disney classic. Watch the brave heroine wade through buckets of loads to find her prince and defeat the evil biodad in horizontal combat.
/r/TheRedPill15/04/14 05:02 PM
1

some serious man hands on all of those guys
/r/TheRedPill15/04/14 01:42 PM
1

Paraphrasing Gene: Life is too short not to have delusions of grandeur.
/r/TheRedPill07/04/14 01:29 AM
1

Except women liking long hair is not a stereotype.
/r/TheRedPill29/03/14 09:55 PM
12

They do. That's why the golddigger stereotype exists.
/r/TheRedPill29/03/14 05:19 PM
-17

Since there is no evidence this happened, your acceptance of this story as nonfiction adds just as little to the conversation.
/r/TheRedPill24/03/14 06:54 PM
1

What does that have to do with the dad's contribution? She's still going to try to get the best seed she can.
/r/TheRedPill06/03/14 08:50 PM
13

Angelina Jolie would trade up to a US president any day.
/r/TheRedPill06/03/14 08:02 PM
3

"If you want the girl of your dreams, then I guess you have to take her friend out first."
/r/TheRedPill06/03/14 07:51 PM
2

Maybe now, but in our evolutionary past when alpha was more the physical aspects it would be much easier to explain. If your alpha fux was 6'4 250lbs and your beta bux a little scrawny guy, the chances that you hit the evolutionary jackpot with an alpha baby boy are pretty high. Even musical talent is a generic trait to some extent. I doubt beta daddy has a musical ear like Steven Tyler.
/r/TheRedPill06/03/14 07:40 PM
1

I would contest that the losers are the ones who have accepted their smv with no attempts to improve and the clueless are the white knights who have blindly bought into our pro-egalitarian reality. The losers can actually be helped since they know where they stand, if they're motivated enough.
/r/AlreadyRed06/03/14 07:30 PM
2

What they offer (money, power, intellect) is not what men desire in their women so their value is zero.
/r/TheRedPill04/03/14 10:32 PM
0

Treat her like you'd treat a guy friend you hang out with as much as her. Then again I doubt your guy friends would ask you to taxi them around.
/r/TheRedPill28/02/14 07:00 PM
1

I agree. The red pill world isn't preferable to the blue pill world. Less pussy for us that way.
/r/TheRedPill28/02/14 06:51 PM
1

Not revealing your number is a TRP principle for a reason.
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 11:17 PM
1

Everyone has their preferences, but are you saying that women place as much importance in the number as men?
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 09:35 PM
2

How about proving lack of consent by clear and convincing evidence for rape as well? I'm all for gender equality here.
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 09:17 PM
1

Yea I'm pretty sure it's deleted now. I'm a little surprised they're that against discussion.
/r/TheRedPill27/02/14 03:22 PM
23

Women expect to be coddled like children.
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 05:31 PM
2

Men shouldn't have bigger dicks than women and the only reason they do is because of discrimination
/r/TheRedPill26/02/14 03:01 PM
2

As long as you don't want to bang each other and I'd say that's friendship.
/r/TheRedPill24/02/14 10:52 PM
9

Of course. Nothing but misogyny and sadism here!
/r/TheRedPill24/02/14 10:46 PM
1

Sports or more aptly positions that rely more on thinking like quarterback do last longer while those that rely more on physical prowess like running backs don't last long regardless of gender. Although it can be said that male dominated sports do have more positions that emphasize mental acuity.
/r/TheRedPill24/02/14 10:43 PM
-1

Nothing like swooping up all that middle aged pussy.
/r/TheRedPill21/02/14 06:02 PM
2

Friendzone is to girlfriendzone as slutzone is to alphazone. These sluts should be ashamed of trying to force themselves on alphas.
/r/TheRedPill21/02/14 03:59 PM
20

What's not to love about being a woman. As long as you don't push your luck on the carousel too long, you're set for life. Although I'd sure miss my logical brain.
/r/TheRedPill20/02/14 09:32 PM
4

A quick point on the contraceptives in the water. A more potent concern is toxicants like endocrine disruptors which either mimic estrogen like BPA or affect sexual organ development like dioxin. So its not only the water but plastics and our everyday environment that's turning us feminine.
/r/TheRedPill20/02/14 07:56 PM
1

Or dumber.
/r/TheRedPill20/02/14 05:46 PM
7

To be fair, rich stay at home moms have always had nannies so it's not unprecedented. It's foolish to expect people not to be lazy when they can afford it.
/r/TheRedPill20/02/14 05:42 PM
3

Any suggestions for how to handle this shit test? Something more subtle than "boo hoo".
/r/TheRedPill19/02/14 05:14 PM
3

Is there any evidence that they do?
/r/TheRedPill19/02/14 05:09 PM
5

I would say that is very red pill woman of her then, if she's increasing her value. If you can't be thin and beautiful, might as well grow a beard.
/r/TheRedPill18/02/14 06:11 PM
19

I gotta hand it to her though. That's a mighty fine looking beard. I know a lot of dudes who would be jealous of being able to grow something like that. It's not like she was a model before, her SMV can't get much lower even with beard anyway.
/r/TheRedPill18/02/14 04:37 PM
3

Being an NBA player doesn't make one any less of a chump, I guess.
/r/TheRedPill13/02/14 12:11 AM
3

Seriously, I'd take that over slaving away for the man any day.
/r/TheRedPill07/02/14 07:28 PM
2

What are some ways to reward/encourage good behavior?
/r/TheRedPill05/02/14 05:04 PM
12

I would love to hear a counterargument to this comic, however.
/r/TheRedPill03/02/14 04:24 PM
8

The “hatefact” mentality assumes anecdotal evidence erases all the evidence of a general pattern. that's something to always keep in mind
/r/TheRedPill24/01/14 07:41 PM
13

I love how this falls perfectly in line with women loving psychopaths. Makes them horny to see their man beat and torture some other chump.
/r/TheRedPill24/01/14 01:09 AM
3

i doubt she will end up alone but probably unhappy. there are plenty of guys thirsty enough to put up with ten sexless dates with her. just not with the kinds of guys she wants.
/r/TheRedPill11/01/14 01:57 AM
1

drink a gallon of milk a day and do dead lift and squat workouts also make sure to have at least 30g of protein for breakfast i'm up 20 lbs so far
/r/TheRedPill15/09/13 01:43 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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