TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

redblueredblue222 Archive

View 3 posts and 21 comments by redblueredblue222 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)
0

The Moderator gave a pretty clear argument. Neither of you has proof, so neither will be listened to until one of you backs your shit up with sources. The moderator's argument is that they personally would not decide. The problem is that they are fine with the information being posted as 'common knowledge' regardless of sources or reality. The second problem is when I did literally the exact same thing - I posted assertions without proper sources - and my posts were reported and deleted. We aren…
/r/TheRedPill17/12/13 09:00 PM
1

So you keep going back to your source which says hormones correlate to intellect. And again, that is what I said. Low estrogen = stupid is my argument. I'm not sure you read my argument before deciding to disagree with it. And ROFL directly lied about his sources. He went "IQ is linked to testosterone. Loom at this study!" Then linked some obesity study.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 01:36 AM
1

Sources? I don't believe you.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 01:31 AM
3

Cfroflcopter posted an article linking testosterone levels and obesity and labeled it as such, then explained that health and intelligence have a correlation. Redblueredblue222 posted a study linking weight and estrogen and then labeled it as a study linking IQ and estrogen. One of these is a lie. Actually, this is the lie. CFroflcopter posted a discussion linking testosterone and IQ and labeled it as such, and then posted articles linking testosterone and obesity. As for your own source, please…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 06:36 PM
1

I'm sorry but your source is invalid. It is behind a paywall and therefore inadmissible in this thread. Do you have any actual admissible studies that support your thesis?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 06:26 PM
2

That's not a contradiction, just an oddity. Perhaps these women are more likely to avoid birth control. There's any number of explanations for this. Just like how rich people have fewer kids. But rich people don't die out.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 06:20 PM
0

Not really, I assumed like the other 8 studies you posted previously in this thread that it was on an unrelated topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 06:13 PM
0

Also you should have said that high test = high iq, not low test = low iq. Feeling convinced enough for a post edit?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 06:11 PM
0

I'm sorry, but that is not what your original post says. Studies have shown that high IQ in men correlates with low testosterone. If we assume that testosterone makes men more "manly" or "alpha" in their personality, then we can also assume that the more naturally "alpha" men will have average IQ as opposed to high or low IQ.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 05:57 PM
1

First off: thank you for taking cues from my neonatal point :) It is the most scientifically supported. Second, your study disagrees with your thesis. High iq = high test. Would you like to change your original view/post?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 05:55 PM
0

Common knowledge? I've never seen that on any of the subs here before. As for your source, It doesn't mention IQ, now, does it? I would love to see a source that correlates IQ to testosterone.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 05:37 PM
1

This is the problem with pop-science summaries of research You are in blatant violation of the Sources agreement No more complaining about a source being too old or too pop-psychology. If someone's article presents false information, find a way to disprove it based on actual data, not just based on the source magazine/website/journal's characteristics. Reported.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 05:10 PM
0

First off Studies have shown that high IQ in men correlates with low testosterone. Reported because you don't provide any studies that show this, even when asked by Masterrod. You go off on a tangent. Second The theory of testosterone leading to variability in men (smarter and dumber) does not come from pubescent testosterone in the gonads. It comes from the knowledge that prenatal testosterone acts as a neurotoxin. The idea that sometimes this neurotoxin has unpredictable effects is what is tho…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 05:00 PM
1

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490309552164?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed&#.Uq3lm44o5pU Women lie about partners, even on official surveys. Tbp of course wouldn't want to agree with that science. Thus the downvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 05:26 PM
1

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490309552164?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed&#.Uq3lm44o5pU Based on this study, actually. Unfortunately science is not admissible on this forum, as per the moderators.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/12/13 05:25 PM
1

I agree that for your goals, your current position is best. However it also has coincided with all of the red pill regulars (with the only apparent exception of NiceThingYouCantHave, and the new roe_ who appears more MRA than TRP) to stop debating. I'm looking through the past few days' of threads, and it's basically all blue pillers, and an occasional RP poster making a one-time post. It does appear more changes are needed if you want the 'laymen' perspective from TRP to pierce the echo chamber…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:23 PM
5

Simple, you can't win. This is what it comes down to. Engaging in rediculous semantics to avoid accountability, and never taking a stance. Just 'you're wrong'. "Oh, you want to give evidence to support your view? I don't believe that evidence. But I don't need evidence of my own because I don't have a view, I'm just saying you're wrong"
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:51 PM
2

Honestly my thought on this is that if you are expecting to have a scientific sourced debate, then you better be in a position where you can access scientific sources. "I can't read the newest and most prestigious research" doesn't really get you far in an argument. But I don't think there's a way you can really allow laymen here to argue against the academics without being able to read their studies, and the current setup just alienates the academics in favor of the laymen. Laymen arguing over …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:54 PM
3

So all paywalled research is good, but would you say that not all good research is paywalled Technically correct but useless if 98% of all the best and newest studies are paywalled. If you want to talk about a common gender issue, you can find hundreds of articles, a few of which will be free. If you want to talk about a fringe aspect of TRP/TBP, there may only be 5 studies ever published on it, all of which are paywalled.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 07:33 PM
2

The only 'new' studies that will be free will be ones published by pop psychology journals like "psychology today" (which is widely mocked here) Research is published in research journals. Research journals are controlled by billion dollar publishing industries who keep subscription costs high so they can make money. There are a couple 'free' journals (plos one is making big leaps), and open access is becoming a bigger issue. But the 'free' journals are seen as second-tier to the pay ones. So if…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 05:53 PM
2

I know you're not an academic but it's important to realize that all "newly published scientific highly reputable data" is going to be behind a paywall.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 05:42 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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