magmacannon Archive

Upvotes	Title	Category	Author	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
3	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument	Debate	magmacannon	/r/PurplePillDebate	23/02/26 03:45 AM

Upvotes	Comment on	Subreddit	Date (UTC)
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Experts from a video I watched on YouTube noted that women stormed into Versailles when they suspected the Queen was trying to escape and ran through the line of royal guards with axes and hatchets.	/r/PurplePillDebate	02/03/26 01:23 AM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Your claim is disputed by AI: “Seizing the Arsenal: To start the march, thousands of women ransacked the Hôtel de Ville (Paris City Hall), fighting past guards to seize roughly 1,700 muskets, pikes, and several cannons. Combat on the Road: During the 12-mile march, they used force to "recruit" more followers, sometimes dragging wealthy women from carriages to join them in the rain. Storming the Palace: On October 6, a radical group of women breached the Palace of Versailles through an unguarded …	/r/PurplePillDebate	26/02/26 10:14 AM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Look up the revolutionaries during October Day’s in 1789, Paris. Thousands of women descended on the Palace of Versailles, armed with weapons and the capacity to initiate force, killed several guards and forced King Louis XVI to accept the revolutionary decrees.	/r/PurplePillDebate	25/02/26 12:36 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument u/DashboardPilled It’s incredibly bad faith to change your comment without marking off where specific edits were made. I wrote a response originally to one of your counterpoints. You wrote a response to that, apparently deleted it, edited YOUR claim that I responded to, and then reposted your reply as if you never mentioned that last claim about Iran. You know exactly what you did, and I refuse to engage in this conversation with you any further. Have a good day.	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 09:38 PM
0	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument “Your premise of men must act as one is flawed, men only need to follow one. A man with an idea can easily get enough men to follow him. I will point to history as my proof.” You say that you’ll point to history to show an example where one man was followed by many. Then you point to an example of multiple men following a group of other men? However, even in the example that you bring up, men had to come together before they could bring about force. This my central argument that you appear to ag…	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 07:55 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Logically, for men to come together to enact force they need to ultimately come together. “Not all men need to come together as history shows. Why you keep ignoring real-life events and instead appealing to some hypotheticals?” Even in the event of smaller groups led by men, a commonly accepted social will led the group to form in the first place. “That's now how it usually works. By the same logic, if 2 countries have nukes, they would have already destroyed each other. When men recognize each …	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 06:24 PM
-2	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument So an unborn baby has no rights of its own because it has zero capacity to exert force or threaten it?	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 04:33 PM
2	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument In the famous words of your dear leader Andrew Wilson, “Semantics is meaning; it’s very important.” Logically, for men to come together to enact force they need to ultimately come together. If they cannot come together, there is individualistic force, an extremely weak, fleeting version of it, of which only the strongest of people will win. God forbid a woman trains a female lion from birth to kill a man. If it only came down to force, it would lead to an unstoppable cycle of violence where the …	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 04:24 PM
-2	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Where do they originate from? Physical force or a social contract?	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 02:13 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Correct.	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 01:32 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument You want to know what happened to Robespierre? The same people who rallied to his cause turned on him and killed him because they had the numbers advantage, both the magnitude and direction to implement effective force against him. So, yes, he needed people to agree with him. Since he didn’t, he got his head chopped off.	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 01:03 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument I can think of the French Revolution being an excellent case for your point. The poor were being oppressed by the rulers. So, in order for them to amass the force necessary to usurp the power of Louis XVI, they needed to form a social contract with each other around the idea of being sick of shit. When they did so successfully, they overthrew and executed the government. Robespierre couldn’t have done so independently without a force multiplier, which was the social willingness that others neede…	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 12:42 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument So, rights are enforced by a collective “we” threatening to use violence? If so, how did the collective come together?	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 12:22 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument It’s not just democracies. You can various forms of government systems come into existence when collective willingness to form a society free of arbitrary violence of the strong becomes desirable. People could advocate for monarchies, republics, oligarchies, etc.	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 12:11 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Everything you said still boils down to the fact that men have to come together to enforce. That enforcement power can only come into existence if they decide to act together. So, women are ultimately appealing to this decision of coming together. If that decision of coming together means that men act as the head of the household or that men have the only right to vote or that men can only be drafted in military, then that is the social will. We can argue whether those are good social contracts,…	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 12:00 PM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument What does this have to do with where rights come from?	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 11:36 AM
-2	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument I think my argument is going above your head. How will your “enough” men come together?	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 11:23 AM
0	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument In essence, that is what is being implied. However, they have to come together, i.e. man has to become men, for any force to be enacted in such a way that they can put this on any group. There must be a commonly accepted contract per se to exist before actual collective force to come to fruition. So, if this is true, the ultimate appeal is actually social will, not force. The reason why this is problematic for Andrew’s argument is because rights would then come from a social contract of sorts. F…	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 04:51 AM
-1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument Even in the examples you bring up about Iran and Afghanistan, regardless of your comment’s purported historical accuracy, it doesn’t change the fact that a social will was logically prior to the enactment of force. We can decide whether their social will was right or wrong, but it still came before the organization was capable of force. You need the multiplier and apparently they had that. Some men had to come together before they would be capable of utilizing that collective force. Force requir…	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 01:45 AM
1	The Force Doctrine’s Self-Defeating Implicit Argument I thinking you’re attacking a straw man rather than my actual argument when you went on a diatribe about physical differences amongst men and women. In fact, I agree with the fact that men are stronger than women. Even if I accept this as true, it still has nothing to do with the contention, which is that women, in the realm of reality, are not appealing to men to get their rights out of fear that they could be locked in a cage. Women and men alike are both appealing to each other so they can re…	/r/PurplePillDebate	24/02/26 01:28 AM