TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

soulcakeduck Archive

View 43 posts and 1,123 comments by soulcakeduck 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)
65

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 03:33 PM
26

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/13 01:20 AM
18

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 03:11 AM
15

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 11:03 PM
15

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 06:59 PM
13

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 05:58 PM
12

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 11:57 PM
11

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 02:46 AM
11

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 08:47 PM
11

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 09:10 AM
10

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 10:45 PM
9

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:03 PM
9

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 01:04 AM
8

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 06:37 AM
8

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 12:28 AM
7

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 12:11 PM
7

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 11:37 AM
7

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 04:46 AM
7

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 12:00 AM
6

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 03:45 PM
6

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/13 11:08 PM
6

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 07:32 PM
6

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 10:43 AM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:30 PM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 12:33 AM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate11/09/13 06:55 PM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 08:35 PM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:28 AM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 02:22 AM
5

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 12:33 AM
4

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 09:34 PM
4

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 05:33 PM
4

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 05:55 PM
4

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 10:32 PM
3

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/14 05:55 AM
3

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 05:13 AM
3

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 10:32 PM
3

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 03:15 PM
2

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 07:20 PM
2

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 06:16 PM
2

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/13 04:35 PM
1

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 02:16 AM
1

soulcakeduck/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:04 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 1,123 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Congratulations, you're full of it. This isn't a story "even RP might find abhorrent," check how low that bar is set. It's not even a story of "straight no." Don't tell your audience they would find you abhorrent if only they knew, and then act like a victim when they find you abhorrent based on that, your own testimony. This is either a case of unbelievably poor communication or intentionally stringing along your audience and testing boundaries.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/15 10:14 AM
2

You're right that, if driven away, extremism could fester elsewhere. You're also letting it fester here. I'm not objecting because you are "not allowing down-votes." I'm questioning whether your advice, which still can get your users shadowbanned, was really the most worthy issue to take up amid the extremists ironing out their arguments for disregarding sexual consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/15 09:42 AM
12

Please, consider the context of this. Your life. You're running a board that obviously gives some comfort to a serial rapist's mindset, enough so that they feel comfortable describing flagrant disregard for consent. But the problem you take the time to address is... his internet points being unfairly taken away. This is also bad advice because upvoting is brigading too. Ignoring the horrible prioritizing, this doesn't do a good job defending the petty principle you've come out swinging for, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/01/15 12:59 AM
2

I think if your partner abused you, say, by cutting your fingers off one per day you would care. Even though it's "abuse" (a word you think feminists control) you'd care. Right? And then, why don't you care about the abuse in this topic, given that you'd care about that abuse?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 08:52 AM
13

Multiple users here predictably fail to comprehend the word "amoral." http://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2h00um/rpw_and_trp_article_favorably_compares_techniques/cko45dq We don't? But the RP is amoral. That means: It does not discuss on the basis of what is or isn't moral. But people do choose what to accept after discussion. http://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2h00um/rpw_and_trp_article_favorably_compares_techniques/cko35iq You may have heard this uttered before: TRP …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/09/14 08:49 AM
4

Predators and manipulative people are by definition successful at preying/manipulating, so it is unfair to assume their targets are damaged. However there is still a correlation. Predators choose vulnerable targets. TheRedPill trains people to recognize vulnerability or strength. Thus TRP applauds eating disorders and low self-esteem while avoiding education or desire for equality (total shit tests).
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/14 01:07 AM
2

You guys twist this EVERY time. What he actually said was there would be nothing MORALLY WRONG with a perpetual consent contract arrangement where someone forces their partner to have sex "against their immediate will." http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m9rp8/red_pill_and_rape_what_do_you_think_do_you_agree/ I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she …
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/14 12:53 AM
3

This then? You might remember a UN campaign using Google autocomplete for phrases about "women." Sexist people use the word but thankfully that doesn't ruin it for the rest of us.
/r/MensRights28/04/14 05:56 PM
0

argument over morals and ideas is pretty useless because TRP is amoral. Surely that claim itself is open to debate though. Whether sexual strategy really is amoral is one of the topics that seems to come up frequently. I think this is part of what makes the morals a better topic: there are firmly established BP-RP differences of position here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/14 03:25 PM
0

You apparently intentionally attributed a user-generated comment to the official staff of that site. I did just the opposite. (1) My submission title included the vote total for the comment. Articles on RoK don't have vote totals. Comments do. This was an intentional indication that the quote was a comment. (2) The very first line of my submission was a screenshot where even the people who claim I was being misleading were forced to admit it was immediately clear: this is a screenshot of a comme…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/14 03:20 PM
-1

I'd permit most topics and let votes and comments determine PPD's interest. I don't think we should have dishonesty like "Do you club baby seals?" but otherwise, TRP purports to be relevant in most parts of life and I think most topics could stand some PPD pill-unpacking. I prefer debating morality to debating fact (cringeworthy false dichotomy though) because moral mistakes are more important than factual mistakes to me. I also prefer when there is previously existing pill discussion on the top…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/04/14 05:56 AM
1

The obvious answer is that women and men are both worth exactly what they're paid. That's the answer I am giving. If we assume the gap exists it means that men and women are valued differently, not that women are a bargain. You're agreeing? Hard to tell.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/03/14 06:01 PM
0

Great but that's not topical to this exchange. Here we are answering a specific hypothetical. OP asks, if we assume the wage gap does exist, then why wouldn't businesses prefer cheaper labor (women) over more expensive labor (men)? The answer is because price alone is not enough to decide, we need to know both price and value. If something is twice as valuable, it is rational to pay twice as much for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/14 05:36 PM
-1

In any case, cheaper store brand competition still exists even though people prefer brand names. Finish the analogy. Women's labor exists too even if people prefer men's. People don't think each has identical value, so they pay differently for each. There's still a market for cheaper, less valuable products though. Direct substitution just isn't saving money per value.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/14 05:11 AM
0

As a side note. In theory women get paid less than men for the same job. Why not start a company, hire only women, pay them less for the same work, destroy your competition, then revel in your success? For the same reason that name brand products continue to sell even when cheaper, store brand competition exists. People aren't paying more for what they consider identical value. They're paying more for what they consider higher value.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/03/14 03:07 AM
0

How is "what does PPD think" a leading question? Yes, how is that? :) I admit to enjoying the poetic irony. This is why we should be glad neutral titles are no longer required. Of course you only wanted to ask what users think, but anyone who is already convinced you have no interest in neutrality or debate will instead read your title as conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/03/14 08:20 PM
6

Because I know: TRP advocates social and legal inequality, is rife with advocacy and apologia for violence against women, is factually wrong about nearly every single claim it makes, and can be better replaced by nearly any alternative.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/14 04:06 PM
1

Hey guys, I am claiming that TBP doesn't think generalizations are possible, but all of my evidence shows that TBP actually thinks generalizations are possible. What can I do to win the argument, guys? Move the goal post: Are their generalizations good enough for you? Oh thanks guys! Go ahead and argue they give bad advice. You're tacitly admitting to being completely wrong on the topic: TBP does believe generalizations are possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/03/14 04:03 PM
-1

Hopefully this has been said by now. In every response. there are no generalizations to be made ... no real affirmative advice can be given ... No one thinks this. Even your selected quotes make that clear. Be attractive, be interesting, don't be a depressed loser--are we reading the same things?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/03/14 07:48 PM
3

Are you sure about that? You even call him a feminist but his post history makes it clear that he does not identify as one at least.
/r/MensRights11/03/14 03:48 AM
1

That's fine. Just want to point out the progress we made in this convo. Originally you were suggesting this was a point of hypocrisy, that critics treat (harmful) gender roles different for men than for women. Your objection here, that they don't share your gender essentialism, applies to their treatment of women too. They're not socially engineering men uniquely (excluding women) then. You'd presumably think they're being cruel to us all by denying our inherent traits.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/14 05:27 AM
1

Here's what I said But, and this is my third time pointing this out for you, I am dealing with what other people said. The moderators and OP here are making the generalizations that in your analogy amount to "Nevada is generally male" (and "Nevada is generally female"). You should take it up with them if you disagree. That's what I've done here by arguing they're wrong to do so. Again, I never said you thought as they do, I'm just arguing about what they do think. Not all discussions have to rev…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/03/14 05:21 AM
3

In any case, it isn't normal to react to a badly worded phrase with exclamations of worthlessness. "Nevada is generally male" is not badly worded. There's no improved wording that makes it better. It is worthless. Downvoting is against the letter of the rules I suggest If that hurts your feelings, report it to the moderators.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 08:36 PM
5

maybe you're just generally a hostile person, as opposed to focusing unpleasantness Skip the personal attacks. They're not in the spirit of the sub, see sidebar: Don't be a dick to other users. You: That doesn't say or even imply that TRP strategy is generally unsuccessful I never said you thought this. That's why I told you to take it up with those who do suggest this.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 08:24 PM
1

... refers to what men are, ... toxicity is an intrinsic quality ... Dead wrong. The entire point of critiquing "toxic masculinity" is that the critics do not believe these are inherent male qualities and thus object to conflating masculinity with those traits. There would be no reason to criticize if the inevitable conclusion was "boys will be boys." TRP might think men are aggressive, and stoic, and competitive, and all that--because TRP is far more into gender essential than the critics of "t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 08:20 PM
4

you wouldn't assume the statement was worthless Of course I would. You revealed that "Nevada is generally male" is a worthless generalization. Nevada is as gender-heterogeneous as possible, and that the opposite generalization "Nevada is generally female" is equally "true." ... as with TRP and "success," so long as we're simultaneously arguing it is generally unsuccessful. Of course you're free to take that up with TRP's leaders and orthodoxy though.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 03:36 PM
6

Perhaps? Of course it is. There goes the point. Both of those contradicting generalizations can't be true.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 03:19 PM
1

Women cannot/should not STEM. Women cannot/should not do physical tasks, like military combat or firefighting. Women are/should be domestic, housewives and caregivers. Women are/should be submissive.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 03:17 PM
10

This stretches credulity, but just in case: this is not doxxing.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 02:58 PM
8

This isn't about generalizations and their exceptions or limitations. It is about two, contradictory generalizations. If you're supposing there is room to believe both, you reduce both to meaninglessness. "TRP is simultaneously generally successful and generally unsuccessful" is worthless insight. are you pretty fucking stupid, or are you capable Sidebar Don't be a dick to other users.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 02:57 PM
1

There's, of course, no female equivalent, Yes there is. People absolutely think there are negative gender roles for women. They're typically just called "gender roles" because there's already understanding that the entire system of gender roles is generally not supportive of women. It's bad for men too, but its general design elevates the conforming men (above other men, and above women). it's a word used to shame any behavior that could be considered masculine, No, it isn't. It's a phrase used …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 02:06 PM
14

Mildly offensive, cheeky statements are pretty par-for-the-course in comfortable romantic relationships. You aren't special. I want to emphasize this. It is even one of the meanings of the word "intimate," a word we closely associate with this type of relationship (sexual). This edgy humor is intimate because you can share it intimately but not publicly. Think also of all the sex-related humor likely to be found in this context. Once again, I think TRP's mantle of "amused mastery" leads some peo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 01:55 PM
22

Your argument is wildly inconsistent with TRP's core message and misses the most important impact of this topic anyway. Maybe the most vocal dudes on Redpill are so hot, rich, charming or wealthy that they routinely get away with bullshit that bluepill dudes couldn't even imagine. Meanwhile, TRP moderators think redpillers are precisely those who struggle more to get laid, and bluepillers are the privileged, attractive (more easily laid) ones who thus can never understand their plight: Until the…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/03/14 01:46 PM
-1

What changed in the past two comments? First you said we'd expect demand to decline, then you said we wouldn't...? ? Yes. That was the point. Go review the discussion thus far. Mature/Milf porn is even more common.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 02:54 AM
1

Yes we can argue about or from definitions, and we can also make use of axioms. What does that have to do with anything? You claimed: we cannot prove negatives. I showed one (not the only) way that we can: arguing from definitions and axioms. they don't attempt to affirm a negative. Can you clarify what you mean by its resolved in this case? Since they do affirm, and since TRP needn't affirm (as you helpfully acknowledged), your complaint is moot. You did not address a single distinction I made …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 02:52 AM
0

Nope.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 02:48 AM
0

That is what I meant by "decline": decline with age of stars. You agree that this is evidence against TRP's wall, then? The expected decline doesn't happen.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 12:34 AM
1

True debates are about a clash of concepts, not trying to unravel meaningless, contrived, semantic contradictions. Such as whether or not their can be good evil or hot cold. You're simply wrong. Debates are resolved this way. They're not as silly as "Is there good evil?" of course. Yet definitions debate exists precisely because we can argue from definitions and other axioms in a way that resolves debate. It's a subtle difference between the evidence of absence and absence of evidence. It's reso…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 12:31 AM
7

They were clearly brigaded. TRP did not have 800 point comments 10 months ago. The author is no longer a mod. He left of his own accord for unrelated issues. If your examples say anything about the community is that it has a massively negative reaction towards rape apologism. And? I said TRP does have "unfortunate, significant exceptions" where it advocates rape. There are plenty of examples where rape apologia is more warmly received. This wasn't discussing apologia though but actual advocacy o…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 12:26 AM
2

And this is evidence against against that claim. If sexual market value declined, we'd expect demand for porn starring them to decline. Instead it increases to its peak.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 12:21 AM
1

When did RP state they wouldn't have sex with "post wall" women. That's what "the wall" means. It means they have diminished "sexual market value," ie, people don't want to have sex with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 12:19 AM
8

The only thing that offends a feminist more than the idea of rape is the idea that no one actually wants to rape her. Feminists who lamely try to handwave away rape fantasies as just another form of BDSM consensual sex are wrong. As the studies show, there is no consensual seduction as widely understood in women’s rape fantasies.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/02/14 12:17 AM
9

TRP never advocates rape. Except, your sidebar argues that "consent"-based sex is an absurdity doomed to fail and likely to lead to armed revolt, and that rape should be solved by making victims marry their rapists. You had a moderator literally and repeatedly discuss rape positively and another fondly recalled sexual acts with someone who could not consent. Usually TRP doesn't advocate rape but there are unfortunate, significant exceptions.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 11:52 PM
9

"women have rape fantasies they want to be dominated' Is a huge epiphany Hence this submission. Do men have cuckolding fantasies and want to be dominated? Is this a comparable epiphany?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 11:48 PM
1

Some of these are just semantic contradictions in language. I fail to see how that's relevant or advances the discussion. Because debates get resolved the same way. You can prove negative statements by arguing from definitions or other axioms. There is a huge difference between the affirmative burden of proving a negative (impossible), and the burden of negation. The burden of negation is showing something to be internally inconsistent or otherwise false, while the burden of proving a negative m…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 11:41 PM
1

I'm just illustrating how people like YOU avoid honest scientific debate by reframing the argument and skirting the issues at hand. That is something that "frustrates" you, by which I only mean something you think is bad and worth complaining about. Since you offered no proof of these extraordinary claims, just baseless assertions, you're guilty of what you decry: skirting the issues of debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 11:37 PM
1

Im going to outright say that a true alpha is immoral. Then you disagree with TRP when it claims sexual strategy is amoral, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 11:35 PM
0

For strategy, the context is undefined. No it isn't. Your strategy can define context as tightly as you want to. My war strategy is "Nuke anyone who looks at you cross-eyed, but only on Tuesdays in March." You even acknowledge that you can choose how much context to include in your strategies when you describe how much context TRP chooses to discuss. It doesn't matter. If we can judge those strategies in a given context, they're not amoral. They are able to be judged. They are in the realm of mo…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 11:33 PM
3

Your description is exactly the opposite of amoral, but I do suspect it is one many redpillers share when declaring "sexual strategy is amoral." All morality is contingent upon context. If we accepted your description, we'd have to conclude everything is amoral, which would make the concept of "amoral" a useless one. You were able to conclude when dread game is "Fairly evil" or good. That means dread game is in the realm of morality. Elsewhere this thread gave the example of a knife. A knife rem…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 09:09 AM
5

Not really. TRP is based on experience Experience and prejudice are far from mutually exclusive. A lot of prejudice is rooted in experience. The operative question is whether experience is a reasonable moderator of the belief. If you've been robbed by exactly one businessman, and it happened to be a Jew, it is still prejudiced to believe Jews (moreso than everyone else) are greedy thieving businessmen. Having experienced it doesn't make it less prejudiced. In contrast, a single experiencing with…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 08:22 AM
3

since they are contradicting morals intentionally. That is not what it means to say strategy is amoral and morals do not apply. Hitler is bad. Mother Teresa is good. A rock is amoral, neither good nor bad. It is a tool they could be used for evil by an evil person, or used for good by a good person. Morals like honor, loyalty, etc. do not apply to the rock. That does not mean the rock, or my use of it, is intentionally contradicting those morals. TRP views sexual strategies like that rock. They …
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 08:05 AM
14

Women lack most/all moral virtues and moral agency. Women are inferior to men in almost all aspects which is why society expects infinitely less from them than it does men. Women are incapable of real love that men experience (sidebarred). Women have inferior mental development, that of children (sidebarred). Gender equality is impossible. Gender equality is feminist crap. Nothing that comes out of a woman's mouth is important. ... Think hard about it. When has anything a woman ever said substan…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 07:56 AM
5

also admittedly immoral What is that even referencing? I certainly think TRP is immoral, but that's not their claim here. Amoral and immoral are different things.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 07:44 AM
10

I am eating an apple. Have I just said I've never eaten an orange? The fair comparison would have been, "I am eating an apple because apple-eating is a male abstraction. Women are more prone to orange eating than men because evolution selected women that lack the moral ability for apple eating." TRP explicitly argues that honor and loyalty are male abstractions. These are requirements for fidelity. TRP explicitly argues that women are biological "objects," selected to lack moral agency and to in…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/02/14 07:25 AM
0

This isn't a very substantive contribution, just a series of unsubstantiated attacks on how you suppose people contribute. I could say the same of TRP. Deal with those problems on a case by case basis. Particularly, don't punish TBP for enforcing the same rules that this subreddit requires of them (paywalled sources must have workarounds per subreddit rules; I suggest /r/Scholar). Pretending TBP is always anti-scientific and TRP is always scientific, without bothering to offer any evidence of ei…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 11:56 PM
2

Not really. I mean they could but it would futile. It is impossible to prove a negative. Now you're arguing TRP has the infinitely easier burden, directly disproving your original position. TRP needs only to find any evidence that women are hypergamous, but, you tell us, TBP's position is supposedly impossible to prove! There is no dry water or married bachelor. There are no (oxygen breathing) humans living on the moon. There are no invisible teapots in space, and there's no reason to concern ou…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 11:52 PM
2

As an example, a common redpill theory (as I understand it) is that women are hypergamous, while men seek sexual variety. Blue pill critics can draw on any and all evidence they like to refute this proposition, and then do not have to advance an idea of their own. They'd be advancing the idea "Women are not hypergamous." According to your submission, Given a few hours, any upper division philosophy class can shred pretty much any theory/thought system no matter how well thought out Why does this…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/02/14 11:27 AM
3

I think you should separate his advice, which he took the time to explicitly indicate, from the comedian he quotes which was probably partly for comedic effect. And that comic message is seriously the same as TRPs. Old men have lots of SMV and women hit the wall and get desperate. I'm really surprised TRP would find this offensive when it is identical, and when they argue sexual strategy is amoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 10:48 PM
4

Probably a result of the medium. Savage is answering in a few words. TRP has unlimited space to give details. There's no advice you can give that doesn't carry the potential to screw someone's psyche, either. We've certainly seen TRP have that effect. Do you think visiting sex workers ought to damage someone's psyche?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 10:48 PM
4

This is IMO your misunderstanding Your misunderstanding, since I took that cue from you: "What I take from TRPer's use of language is that the modern SMP is adversarial." I'm not disagreeing that hatred causes hate speech, but I am arguing (as you indicated) that the hate speech has the effect of indicating adversarial relations. Sports and courts don't have TRP's dehumanizing hatred. They don't argue their opponents are subhuman. underneath all the formal politeness. That's the topic here thoug…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 10:42 PM
13

My advice for you: Keep working on your depression, throw yourself into nonsexual pursuits that you enjoy, find a job you like and build a career, locate and patronize (and overtip) an independent sex worker (which can help you learn to interact with women), and don't allow bitterness to ruin you for all those women you're gonna get with in your 40s. What does TRP think is wrong with that advice? Self-improvement and ditching bitterness raises your "SMV" and is its own good. Sex workers get TRP …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 10:12 PM
11

Courtrooms are adversarial. Sports are adversarial. Neither relies on hate speech. TRP could deal with an adversarial system without dehumanizing people. That the effect of this dehumanizing language is to frame women as your enemy in an endless struggle I think only proves the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 10:06 PM
11

If you think something is rape, calling it rape is important, not objectionable. Satirical humor is also not the same as sincere, dehumanizing expression. John Swift arguing we should eat babies is not the same as TRP sincerely arguing we should kill judges.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 10:03 PM
1

you don't like the idea of people willfully entering into an agreement with eachother if you don't approve of it. That's right, I dislike the idea of enforcement-rape because you do not let people opt out of your sex contract when sex is against their "immediate will", and you have no problem with that idea. That's exactly the difference. I don't think there's any confusion here. Notice how you started out by thinking I did not correctly represent the issue? Here, we agree precisely about what t…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/02/14 09:54 PM
1

No, we established that you get upset when you try to move goalposts and somebody doesn't take the bait. I am asking a relevant question (is your comparison analagous? Do even you think it is?). You've evaded it what, 4 times now? Simply tell me if you don't think your analogy is analagous. But if you insist on standing by it despite evading that question, I am forced to conclude you think it is analagous. Frankly that's a very moderate, reasonable assumption in light of your continued push to u…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 02:32 AM
1

We have now established by your unwillingness to supply a direct answer: you believe that if someone consents to sex, they cannot withdraw their consent. Otherwise, your comparison here would not be analogous and would be off topic. Do you suppose that a man in a combat position ordered to make a dangerous move isn't court marshaled for disobeying orders? Do you think that contradicts what I said? Seems to support what I said. They don't attach puppet strings and physically manipulate your body …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 02:22 AM
1

The army actually does not force people to pull triggers. If you do not want a combat position, they will not force you to remain in a combat position. In fact, even if you break your obligation entirely they don't force you into combat: they discharge or place you in jail. Your analogy is NOT fine unless you ARE saying it is analogous. If you evade this one more time, I will assume you ARE saying it is analagous, which means that you believe people who have consented to sex cannot withdraw thei…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 02:16 AM
1

Are you sure that is the metaphor you want? Are you going to say that someone who consents to have sex can't withdraw consent at any time, they're in it for as long as their partner decides because of their earlier consent? Pretty sure you're the one not matching reality. If you don't consent-contract to "combat" and someone assaults you, you've been illegally assaulted. If you stop consenting, your assault-partner is expected to reasonably respect that. They might not be able to stop a punch th…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 02:06 AM
1

All valid contracts can be opted out of at any time. Did you contract a physician to help you commit suicide, then change your mind, and tell the physician you do not want to die, only to be killed anyway? That is a moral problem. It is murder. you've got an ideological mental block that doesn't let you see the finer points of free will I'm not the one denying people the ability to exercise their free will because they previously signed a contract.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/02/14 12:57 AM
1

His description is that the sex is "against the immediate will of the other party". I am only quoting his words because lord knows if I describe the same exact thing someone will say it was never said. But yes, you share his position, congratulations. We disagree: I think sex against someone's will is nonconsensual regardless of prior contracts. I think it is a moral problem. I think it is rape. You don't. RPS doesn't. And you can't imagine anyone disagreeing, which is why when I point out this …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/02/14 05:42 AM
1

But RPS didn't say, "and therefore I think consent contracts should happen." No one is claiming he said that. He said there would be no moral problem with them, and that if they existed, having sex against someone's immediate will would not be rape or immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/02/14 10:12 PM
2

I am willing to consider criticisms of IGT from actual neuroscientists and/or studies/papers. Perhaps you should shift focus there. I will, but your reasoning is sad. You're capable of seeing an uncontrolled variable. There are neuro-science claims we're not qualified to make, but recognizing an uncontrolled experiment doesn't (necessarily) require any neuro-science background at all. If IGT model works, the good decision makers will pick "correctly" (highest expected value). Here are three pape…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 08:30 AM
5

If one sex is categorically better at decision making (and they are according to our current understanding of neuroscience) No, they're not, and that's the point. They're better at one category or type of decision making, basically "making emotional hunches, not based on logical reasoning." But "decision making" as it is used in this narrow sense in the research is not the same as "decision making" in our every day lives or relationships of C/FO models. Women being better at verbal tasks and mem…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/02/14 07:00 AM
7

is it logical to conclude that the structural brain differences between men and women make a captain / first officer dynamic, if not the norm, certainly more common than other dynamics? I think not. A C/FO is supposed to be a fixed hierarchy, not something in constant flux. Yet your research shows that the gender differences do not favor one gender over the other universally, but rather that the "better" gender changes per category. Second link eg, Neurobehavioral studies show that men outperfor…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 11:10 PM
2

You already acknowledged above that you know this is not a true statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 08:29 PM
7

That wasn't the topic. Millions of hits on google scholar too though.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 08:28 PM
9

That's a major change and I'd underscore two things. First it is very recent. Today's young adults were raised by people (and culture) that knew a much more dependent generation of women. Second women are adjusting to this shift too. Some do as poor a job of it as I think TRP does. I see those mistakes as fuel for TRP's reactionary bend: women who do act like children (because they internalized this outdated role?) lead TRP to generalize incorrectly. The new direction seems like an improvement t…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 08:25 PM
4

I rarely if ever see people commenting I found evidence of millions of comments.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 08:10 PM
2

if RPS has no relation to Ian Ironwood You either need to read my reply, or be responsive instead of ignoring it and baselessly asserting the opposite. RPS has a relationship with Ironwood. That relationship is their collaboration on puerarchy.com (NOT PUarchy).
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 08:08 PM
4

millions and millions of google hits. I think a big part of the explanation here is that your perception doesn't match reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 08:00 PM
3

To describe Ironwood's bona fides for those unfamiliar. Particularly, RP users here have been quite upset before when subject matter is "TheRedPiil" but not /r/TheRedPill. Since some want a connection, I showed the connection that exists: the subreddit's moderator collaborates with the RP icon who thinks fedoras are most important. You seem overly eager to read more into it than is there. Maybe if you don't start with the assumption that I hate RPS and aim to smear him, you won't be driven to th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 07:57 PM
4

Don't make baseless assertions about participants here (that I hate someone). Also, you've misunderstood sorely. The article is bona fide TheRedPill. TheRedPill predates /r/TheRedPill. Puerarchy.com [not PUArchy] is a /u/redpillschool venture, and he chose to team up with Ian Ironwood, this bona fide redpill icon and author of that fedora article. I do not claim to know what RPS thinks of fedoras, but it is clear that Ironwood, a very authoritative person in TRP (authoritative enough for RPS) th…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 05:37 PM
1

And? Nothing you just said actually responds to my argument. Thought experiments may be "anonymous," telling us nothing about the experimenters personal beliefs. Schrodinger only describes what he expects will happen (which still tells us about Schrodinger), not what he thinks should happen. But experiments are not always anonymous. It is ridiculously easy to prove this. Surely you must admit experiments can be used to tell us what people think will or should happen: "We should cancel the picnic…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/02/14 05:17 PM
17

I'm asking how you know. It's a debate subreddit. Baseless assertions that you aren't interested in supporting cannot be discussed. Even if you're right, keep it to yourself if you don't want to discuss.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 06:32 AM
17

If anyone's concerned about your subscriber rate, they probably also know that ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. TRP sure pays a lot of attention to feminism, to TheBluePill, to everything it dislikes.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/02/14 06:31 AM
4

Puerarchy.com is the off-site RedPill website run (in part) by TRP moderator /u/redpillschool. This article was (I think) one of the founding articles on puerarchy.com (though I can't find it now). It's written by Ian Ironwood, a redpill author who has published books and is active in TRP (and I think co-runs the puerarchy.com venture with RPS?). At the very least, the article is all over TRP-sphere as is Ironwood. "If someone is looking to apply Game to his life, what would you identify as the …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 11:43 PM
1

Thought experiments are (usually) used to describe our own personal views. Saying, "if it rains, I will cancel the picnic" tells us about me--I don't want a rainy picnic. It's possible to make thought experiments "anonymous" and tell us nothing of our views, but RPS chose not to, as I explained Here.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 03:24 AM
1

I followed the rape argument, and soulcake was the one doing the twisting. This is the very latest exchange he and I had on the topic. Mods asked us not to talk to each other after. Notably, because, RPS claims I twisted his position but there is direct evidence that disproves his claim. It turns out he was the one twisting my position (my description of him) from the very beginning. soulcake translated consent contract to mean that one could have sex against consent under contract if one party …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 03:16 AM
1

Calling someone dishonest may be a personal attack but it has always been permitted here if there is reasonable evidence supporting that claim. It is relevant to debate, and if evidence is presented it invites debating that evidence, which can resolve the debate. In contrast, it has always been one of RPS's favorite tactics to assert (with no evidence) that someone is dishonest here. If you think these are banworthy, then you're giving far more ammo to use against RPS by these examples. Any user…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 03:14 AM
5

We still have overt racism even though racial equality has been a legal idea for at least 150 years. Without sounding too cynical, human institutions will always be flawed institutions, because humans are imperfect. I'm optimistic we can get there though. Racism also used to be more popular between different white races too. Romans did not think highly of the British or Germans. Americans said "Irish need not apply." Today we don't really treat those as even being separate races.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/02/14 02:53 AM
4

My god, do you guys not see that when you take /u/redpillschool or endorsed red pill contributors or other red pill users that have a lot to say out of the picture, it threatens the integrity of That is probably why moderators give users huge amounts of rope. If some people insist only on hanging themselves and never doing anything constructive with it, they leave moderators with no choice. Perception will be bad either way then. Let the rule breakers stay and it is actually undermining the subs…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 05:01 AM
7

It's because solipsism has been censored here. There's no logical discourse, Solipsism isn't logical discourse. It's also not censored here. Reducing solipsism suggests we've improved logical discourse though.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 04:51 AM
7

Also important to remember TRP mods effectively shut down the first debate sub, /r/RedPillDebate. They also explicitly tell users that debate is impossible and that debate subs disrupt their subreddit, even threatening to ban their users for debating. Pile heaps of rule breaking on top of that, and I'm not convinced that we should take this ban as evidence that "no real debating occurs here." Looks like maybe we removed someone who wanted very much to disrupt debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 04:43 AM
7

Tl;dr, reinstate /u/redpillschool or I'm gone/will only fuck around on this sub for the most part. Really not strengthening your case. PPD's banhammer is slow but this kind of petty & willful rulebreaking is the one way to get there. You may get your best results by discussing specific bans in modmail. Maybe mods will see the "initial aggressor" you believe they missed. But I have to guess their decision wasn't based on one event, but an ongoing problems.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 04:40 AM
16

Then you'd have had no problem demonstrating the censorship here, instead of swerving to an unrelated subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 04:35 AM
9

I think debate is good of itself. Some people here object that views don't ever change (which isn't true), but we at least strengthen our arguments and become better at communicating them. It's a better world when we better understand ourselves and each other, and PPD gives a platform to do just that on some contentious issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/01/14 04:33 AM
2

Yes, I'm sure. If RPS was speaking about others, that strengthens my claim. RPS is an authority about what TRP is, so when he says TRP is anti-suffrage, that is even stronger than if he (as a redpiller) says he is anti-suffrage. And yes, I agree that not all anti-suffrage sentiments believe that the proper action today is an effort to remove suffrage. "Women shouldn't vote but we would not succeed in removing this right, today" is still anti-democratic for example. Besides, my claim was that thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 11:02 PM
6

Most of the content I've seen around PPD and TRP doesn't express it in this fashion. It's quite the contrary. That's because it is cumbersome language, but you admitted yourself it doesn't change anything. The implication is the same. This understanding is already present. But "active" sentences (look at how many you use!) are more common in English. Not tear down women. Sentence predicates are not "torn down." What? I am referring to your sentence structure here. Subject, verb, direct object. Y…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:09 PM
1

Then I think you're agreeing with the "ridiculous" claims you rejected above. Lots of men are very concerned about appearing straight. And an important part of their heterosexual identity relies on not-looking-gay.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:06 PM
8

They have been promoting the idea that domestic violence is male for years, along with numerous other feministy sites. That's an empirical claim. It's not "on par" with anything above. One of their contributors is also a contributor on a site that advocates male targeted gendercide and eugenics. Which one is that? And why does this sound like 3 degrees of separation? The Guardian isn't advocating that policy, their writers aren't advocating that policy, but someone their writers know advocates t…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:03 PM
15

If you were right we would want to start batting more eyes, not responding with more extremism. I think we've refuted your headline though. This isn't "on par" if mainstream culture is not calling men morally inferior, advocating and supporting violence against them, advocating inequality, advocating removal of such basic rights. Eyes would bat, if that were the case. But those "reversals" are notably missing.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 10:00 PM
1

What makes you believe that men writing to ask if sex with their girlfriend makes them gay are gay? Do you think the same of those in TRP that are equally concerned, in the same ways, with appearing straight?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:56 PM
10

“Fertility drives hypergamous behavior in women.” I don't think you've changed anyone's understanding. We know TRP is about "fertility" (sexual strategy) and TRP already explains that evolution selected for [hypergamy/amoral women/insert whatever negative characteristic of women is the current topic]. All you've done is change to passive language. That might obscure the misogyny a bit but it doesn't remove it. There's no substantive moral difference between "women are bad" and "evolution has sel…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:54 PM
2

Exactly. TRP is unattracted to women that lack moral agency. In this context then when TRP objectifies women they're not merely describing how "we're attracted to each other" (as you said above) and there is no hyperbole: they just legitimately think women are objects in those contexts.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:48 PM
4

Doesn't that suggest that all the men interested in attracting women are or should similarly be concerned about appearing "straight"?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:40 PM
21

Is this supposed to link to something? The sentence is also difficult to read. If you're saying mainstream/western society says things about men comparable to what TRP says about women, I disagree because (frequently): TRP thinks women are not, should not, or cannot be equal to men. In contrast, mainstream society is largely egalitarian. A result: I do not see mainstream society petitioning to remove men's voting rights as often as I see this from TRP. TRP envisions that only narrow roles are ap…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:38 PM
4

How do you think this relates? looking gay is bad because we're an entire subreddit dedicated to masculinity to attract women. So I'll state it again. You should hide it because it's GAY AS FUCK. If you don't embrace masculinity and manliness, you are neither useful to society, nor are you useful to women who want sex. You're useless. Any man with self-respect cares. What kind of straight man lets someone fuck them in the ass? I will fight for the right of gays to marry just as fiercely as I wil…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:23 PM
9

Do you think Savage's readers are the only ones concerned about appearing "straight"? looking gay is bad because we're an entire subreddit dedicated to masculinity to attract women. So I'll state it again. You should hide it because it's GAY AS FUCK. Do you think Savage's readers are not straight, even if that's how they identify?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:08 PM
1

it drew a conclusion from a conversation that never mentioned women as objects That assumption is not in the question. That is all on you, inferring that OP's intent is for the question to be rhetorical, and that the only and obvious answer is "yes." We do this a lot with the question-titles here and it's not really fair (especially when mods insisted titles have questions). The question is a question because OP is questioning (what's behind the highlighted belief). We have to start with an assu…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 09:06 PM
7

The risk to heterosexual identity isn't that the number of gay people will somehow overwhelm them. The risk is that widespread acceptance of homosexuality will challenge the implicit values supporting heterosexual identity, particularly the (homophobic) parts of the identity that rely on differentiating "masculine" men from homosexual men. Straight guys can't have feelings, they can't have nipples. ... they can't worry about what their wearing, can't be at all concerned about their appearance. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:58 PM
5

When TRP claims women are moral or biological objects, is it similarly only to suggest that TRP is attracted to a lack of moral agency? This would be confusing because it is a shortcoming that TRP also commonly complains ahout ("hypoagency").
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:46 PM
2

That doesn't follow at all. The research found a correlation between low testosterone in men and certain kinds of intelligence. You're assuming it is a causal relationship instead of a correlation, and you're assuming that it applies to women's brain chemistry exactly the same way. You're also renaming this specific skill to general "intelligence" which might be a convenient shortcut but is not the finding.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:09 PM
4

These are not comparable. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is preloaded with an objectionable assumption: that you beat your wife. A direct, yes-or-no answer will tacitly imply that assumption is correct. "Are women objects?" is not similarly preloaded with an objectionable assumption. You might think the answer is no, but it could still be a reasonable question to ask. The question is a reasonable followup given the context, since it contains one possible answer and there is evidence suppo…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 08:01 PM
7

First off everyone is an object. Even your brain is part of objective reality and composed of the same chemicals and energy as everything else That's not what "object" means in this context. Objects aren't capable of doing things, only of having things done to them. Do you think people (women?) should be treated the same way that objects are treated?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 07:57 PM
8

Certainly TRP often makes the case that women are moral "objects," incapable of moral agency and instead only acted upon. For example a moderator, explaining why women are so lacking in virtues: I disagree. Biologically, women have always used hypoagency to effect their survival. Women are biologically objects, whereas men are biologically agents. Similar arguments resurface regularly around the manosphere, like AVFM arguing women have no moral agency likely because of evolution. Women, it is ap…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/01/14 07:51 PM
-1

I agree but since Hermann's model showed no interest in accounting for those repeats, and I was merely remarking on his model, that was not my concern at that moment. Notably though this simple model predicts so many cases from Kilpatrick's data that you'd have to eliminate 61% of cases (due to repetition of victim) just to get down to the "1 in 5" statistic. Unless we expect to eliminate considerably more than 61% of cases due to repetition, then Hermann's model cannot draw on this data to find…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 07:14 PM
1

Both sides need some thicker skin imo. Not to belabor the point, but "thicker skin" should definitely apply to people tolerating a title like "TRP and rape" too. It's literally just two nouns, the topics being discussed. Anyone who finds offense there would find offense no matter how the topic is broached because their objection is that the topic is being raised at all, which they think is unfair. Unfortunately the topic is at least debatable in good faith so those people who would object are th…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 07:03 PM
1

And is that comment about broad rules sarcastic? You literally just asked for a comprehensive list of all the things you aren't allowed to do. It's not sarcastic, and those are consistent. I want there to be a rule violation when you remove something. Removing something and saying "this isn't against any of the written rules" sucks for everyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/01/14 06:55 PM
3

I made some corrections. With the corrected numbers, about 95% of cases (instead of 88%) would need to be unreported for PITT to meet the 1 in 5 statistic. Assuming PITT actually does meet the 1/5 statistic, another way to look at this is that sexual assaults at PITT are only reported 42% as often as the national average.
/r/MensRights23/01/14 06:49 PM
3

I see errors in this reporting. Hermann says At the University of Pittsburgh, there are roughly 14,800 female students. If their chances of being sexually assaulted are 1-in-4, there should be about 3,700 sexual assaults each year. That is not what you would expect. The statistic from the White House is that 1 in 5 women is sexually assaulted during their college career, not per year. The average college degree now takes about 6.3 years. Furthermore the demographic data appears to be wrong. Herm…
/r/MensRights23/01/14 06:43 PM
2

I agree samsa should have been more polite. That said I also see lots of internal tension in what you're saying. 'Moderators are on a learning curve, the sub is an experiment in something new and different, the rules are changing as we grow.' Versus. 'Meta discussions are somewhat unwelcome or unfair, are calling mods out, etc.' Consider users here the same way you consider yourself: well intentioned, imperfect people trying to improve the quality and efficiency here. Mods ask for feedback and a…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:28 PM
1

Hoora, the death of the word "neutral." I hope this means (1) we're not longer "required" to ask questions in titles. (2) titles can assume things. Our current top assumes there's a red pill idea that honor is a male-only construct. And doesn't ask a question. And should be fine. Really appreciate that you're going for broad rules so that you can point to a reason when stuff is removed, rather than specific rules where a given violation might not be indicated anywhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:15 PM
0

It's not understandable. I may have understood his (exasperated, evaded) explanation of his rationale ("why I think this break the rules") but I am certain I never said I "understood why he did that", why mods (at great effort, with their limited time) retroactively enforced a new rule interpretation, trawling through 3+ months of content.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:12 PM
0

We've tried hard and fast concrete rules, and that just leads to people pushing against the boundaries and finding new loopholes to exploit. So add a rule (or change an existing) to cover it. There shouldn't be surprises where users think they're doing a great job, complete with moderator praise, only to learn retroactively they were breaking invisible rules. No one is asking you to predict everything. I think you overstate this problem though. There are a limited number of problems and you're n…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 11:08 PM
5

This mod strategy would also empower users who abuse the Report button.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 04:02 PM
4

I think we have to draw the line at deleting comments that do not break rules. The stickied meta discussion claims both: mods try to use the minimal intervention necessary, but also many things which don't violate a written rule may be violations nonetheless. This is terrible structure I think. Everything that could be a violation should be listed, and mods can intervene minimally by letting things in the 'spirit of the rules' stay up. It's not minimal (or predictable, fair) intervention to have…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 03:52 PM
1

The mods are too lazy to do their jobs. Can the modqueue be collapsed like comments and PMs can? Would be better to leave stuff up, then deal with it when things settle down and you have time. We know their time is not infinite. One suggestion would be to stop defending crazy rules that only serve to increase mod work load. I asked and don't think mods want us reporting rule violations per their enforcement criteria. But they're still enforcing them (somehow they find the time to go back 3+ mont…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/01/14 03:48 PM
2

What's up with these? I explained my perception that they easily fit the criteria: "Plainly not neutral, these argue their claims in the title and are full of suppositions." If you don't agree with TRP you don't understand TRP Why Women Can't Give Dating Advice to Men --- Find something wrong with the logic of this post. The massive flaw in TRP's methodology Why do TBP members assume TRP members are lying about their experiences? Getting laid isnt all that hard. Blue Pill isn't "beta" Why are TR…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 03:56 PM
2

I thought you were a woman, otherwise it makes perfect sense. I didn't even catch that actually, the whole thing is a trip. What magical circumstance makes it necessary for a man to confront, without the possibility of a woman confronting? Why would I suppose any confrontation, as opposed to: locking doors, calling police, fleeing, complying, etc? Why a solo confrontation instead of both? And you're begging the question--your proof that men protect and women do not is a hypothetical where you ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 08:29 AM
1

This is the most presumptuous fantasy I've ever encountered. It's so unbelievably convoluted yet it accomplishes nothing. I don't think any of the things would happen the way you think they would, and if all of them did, it certainly would have nothing to do with the causes you ascribe to it. How is one man protecting another man from a home intruder evidence of gender-based chivalry? And none of that related to my actual criticism anyway. Presumably the study did not define chivalry as "men dyi…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 07:53 AM
6

it's truly chivalrous when a man enters a burning building to carry you to safety. Did the paywalled study that found people want more chivalry define it this way? Were respondents asking for more men to die for them? That has at times been chivalrous but I don't think it was the topic here. Too medieval. Ask people today if they enjoy chivalry and holding doors is exactly what they think of.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 07:37 AM
5

I think you give up the game right here: Basically, as a man, I am more physically qualified for such task. Your benevolent sexism is carrying considerable baggage. Accepting this institution doesn't just mean women will receive nice treatment; it also immediately lends itself to disqualify women from certain activities (in fact you've already done this). You're showing the double edge. The assistance comes at a price. Those against chivalry would rather accept voluntary politeness and gender-bl…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 01:54 AM
6

You suppose nothing will be lost, yet TRP is among the first to use this 'benevolence' to justify substantial unequal treatment. If men think women need chivalry, will we let women serve in combat? Will we let women vote if they don't serve? Is the tradeoff that they must be happy housewives ready to cater to an alpha as soon as he's home? Will we see them as mental teenagers also? Nothing is lost if you choose to be nice because you want to be nice. I advocate that! But if this is an enforced i…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 01:14 AM
13

it's simply a sign of respect, but many women are no longer worthy of such deference, Maybe this constant evaluating of who is worthy is responsible for part of the decline in happiness. You also said some people do this out of hostility, just to screw with others. It's always my view that these kinds of angry worldviews are self-perpetuating. People won't be happy if this is how they want to view everything. Relationships don't need to be adversarial and casual daily interactions certainly don'…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 01:08 AM
2

If someone has a workaround for the paywalled article, I'd be interested in reading it. Speaking generally until I can: some happiness is often the tradeoff for more just, fair institutions. Unreasonable expectations of chivalry may fade over time too, and that tradeoff along with it. I lean towards the "polite" side of these exchanges. It's nice to be nice, and nice to have someone be nice to you. No gender lines needed.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 01:07 AM
2

That's the problem. I would like to make assertions to raise topics (everyone else does it), but the rules prohibit it: mods insist titles must have questions and make no suppositions. When I was told this, my very first reaction was to have a meta discussion in modmail and then PPD complaining that this is a recipe for "JAQing off" [Just asking questions, like Glenn Beck] where you raise a topic by "asking questions." It's terrible, but it's what they insisted I did, and they removed submission…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/01/14 12:41 AM
9

Good catch. You might enjoy the blogpost "Who Said It? Radical Feminists or The Red Pill?" by /u/MissCherryPi. A number of the quotes relate to the inherent, aggressive nature of sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 09:00 PM
7

They certainly don't have to but being productive is a common ambition that might compete.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 08:52 PM
1

No problem at all. Gender difference is a common topic here. I'm just curious if users here see a gender difference on this topic, and one reason they might is if they think Disraeli intended one.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 08:31 PM
7

No I definitely agree a concept of manliness exists. Disraeli is talking about how to live a full and rewarding life. I suspect he'd think the idea applies to women, and can't see any reason to suspect otherwise, even if explicit gender neutrality only became a popular concern later. That's actually further evidence; we could not reasonably expect Disraeli to have used explicit gender neutrality. But we can't know. Perhaps the more interesting question is how you read it. Is this, for you, a gen…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 08:20 PM
4

I think that only strengthens this observation. Even today people are unlikely to express this idea as "humanly." I'm not sure I've actually ever heard that. Fewer people might say "manly" today than then, but since "humanly" is not at all in favor they're not necessarily illustrating gender difference.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 08:02 PM
1

I had already decided to (and already started to) petition modteam help to make sure I pick neutral submission titles. But I wouldn't call that "before" this debacle. The debacle started 4+ days ago. You took "correctional" action (against longstanding content with mod participation and praise) before making this suggestion for the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 07:59 PM
2

Which part of that do you believe is in contention? I know that only 1/14 was removed, used scare-quotes to indicate the non-literal way that you, yourself, said they had "been removed," and my submission now points to this clarification. If that was originally an oversight, it was an oversight you, yourself made, and evaded answering while I pressed the question no less than 6 times over a couple of days... Several of these have been removed, the ones that were in violation of rule number four,…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 07:48 PM
2

This is something we have control over. I do not buy the rationale that we should purposely make it worse, and for no advantage, just because other, unrelated bad things exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 07:20 PM
5

And do you think that is fair? or good? That months later you could be held accountable by a new, retroactive rule even if you were a shining exemplar of what mods wanted before? It's also debatable that we all take the same risk here. Has any other user had this retroactive 3 month treatment?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 07:12 PM
1

Noticing that no one really cares to engage the specifics here, but it was my hope that they would. What do you think about moderators praising a submission one day, then calling it banworthy 3 months later? Do you think the permitted titles are neutral, with no suppositions? Do you think "removed" links, like one where I ask a question about myself, do make suppositions about others?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 06:42 PM
2

I don't think he was consciously thinking "humanly." But I'm not sure this was, by design, supposed to describe a gender difference. Do you think it's a gender difference (even if one Disraeli never intended)? How so?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 06:39 PM
0

That's good advice and it's my current plan. It doesn't remove the problem though if they're free to praise a submission one day and call it banworthy later...
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 06:37 PM
3

I meant the quote to be left up to interpretation.. And it's a good one, I was just prompting some discussion about interpretation. It's not that I think relationships should be effortless, at all. I think fully committing to them (which feels like how Disraeli would want to experience living) requires total effort, and certainly their success requires effort too. I feel that to the extent the TRP mindset sees relationships as adversarial, requiring constant "gaming" to out maneuver your opponen…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:38 PM
2

I agree. If this was supposed to disprove something I said, I don't see it. Like I said, this entire exchange was supposed to be correctional, not punitive. If there was sufficient gray area, we often leave posts up and just reach out to the person who wrote them to prevent it in the future. and Several of [your submissions] have been removed, the ones that were in violation of rule number four, the neutral language rule. and Those [14 screencapped submissions], really. Just try to phrase them n…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:31 PM
7

I'm not particularly familiar with Disraeli. Is there any reason to think this is intentionally gender specific? It could be that Disraeli thinks [A hu]man is never so [hu]manly as ... Seems more about experiencing life fully than about gender. Feeling deeply, acting with frankness--these are problems I sometimes have with TRP which feels relationships must be 24/7 gamezones. I find Disraeli's description more appealing and at odds with that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:28 PM
4

We don't make assumptions about someone else's intent here, remember? That's your rule. You get this wrong and not for the first time. We do not make baseless accusations about intent. That is your rule (number 7) in the sidebar. We can look at evidence and see if it can reasonably support conclusions about intent though. Besides let's not forget the misleading statement originates from your modteam--that is where the claim that 14 of my submissions were removed is first made. It is what I was t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:18 PM
1

Can you take a moment to evaluate intent with me? I tried to use scare quotes every time I mentioned this "removal." I think it was originally explained in my submission text too but it must have been edited out (hard to believe but I really do try to keep these walls short). In fact I was just looking for a place to edit my submission to link to this explanation (I have done so). It seems needlessly punitive to make this, my first warning about misleading statements, to be so fierce.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:12 PM
2

I stand by that statement because (1) moderators messaged me to tell me "several" of my submissions were removed. When I asked for links to them, those 14 links were provided. (2) when I asked for clarification about why those submissions appeared to still be indexed (ie not removed), I was told this is just moderator leniency. My effective-probation-near-ban (as though all 14 were removed) is still in effect, but those rule breaking submissions were scare-quote-"removed" not literally removed. …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:08 PM
5

The moderator team will attempt to minimize official intervention in all but the most extreme cases Violation of the spirit of a rule can often be accomplished without violating the letter of it. Minimal intervention should go the other way, imo, with all possible enforceable criteria listed but mods sometimes recognizing things comply with the spirit while technically violating the letters of a rule. My conundrum now is that: when I used titles I think are good (perfectly in the spirit of the s…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 05:01 PM
7

I think there's something to be said for introspection. If you're running into trouble with the mods as often as it seems you are, then it's probably tied to something you're doing, since 99% of this sub's users are doing just fine. This is why I have so often called for moderator feedback, and it is why I have done backflips to try to comply with their demands. In both cases we see how it hurts my case: you think I attempt subverting the rules by those discussions, and those backflips to comply…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 04:48 PM
3

I did read your modmail screenshot, and I think including that hurt you if anything, because I agreed with the moderators. Thanks for the feedback. Actually I see how tempting it is to agree with them; I'm tempted too. I don't think the personal attacks are that big a deal on their own. Suffering a few "disagreeing" comments isn't terrible. I include it because it is clear that mods operate their neutrality rule under the same belief: that assuming my intentions are bad ones, that I am trolling,…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 04:33 PM
6

Thanks, that's a helpful clarification. I believe my observation still stands. As a result, other RPers will disagree with you when answering "what is a (wo)man?"
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 04:26 PM
4

"The mods and other users don't like when I dance right on the edges of the rules? How do you react to the evidence that mods praised the exact same content three months ago? Can you find the offending suppositions in the examples (of my "removed") I listed? Are you claiming there are no suppositions, no non-neutrality, in the permitted titles I listed? I realize (and apologize) that I am the squeaky wheel here and that it is necessarily tied to personal experience with the rules. It's unpleasan…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 04:23 PM
3

No one has to participate but clearly for users here it does become a point of interest sometimes. It's also worth noting that a lot of redpillers here "believe" in transgender people (and I don't think you do; forgive me if mistaken), so even among your own ranks there is debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 04:21 PM
5

This is revealing and mods have asked the same. 4 months ago I started reporting these personal attacks. About a month later I had reported 3 against me, and mods asked if I was the problem. 2 months in I had reported 5 and mods suggested I was making a personal attack by reporting baseless personal attacks. Like you, mods come to associate those that report rule-breaking with rule-breaking. Mods may even agree with some of those baseless attacks (in fact it's clear they do). If people don't lik…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 04:16 PM
5

Want an extra-technical example? Here a user asks a fair and interesting question: What exactly do we mean by the word "women"? Perhaps surprisingly, this is open to debate and might be relevant to discussions here. Any PPD title that uses "women" (or woman, female, girl, men, man, male, boy... or any word) is making suppositions: that there is a mutually agreed upon, neutral definition for these words. This demonstrates one of the claims I made in the abstract "neutrality" submission: all commu…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 03:16 PM
1

I said that you had been told over and over again not to repeat a behaviour. And I said I had never once been told any such thing. The words are different, and have different interpretations and usages. Polite and "not rude" mean very different things. Oh? Well I used the synonymously and am perfectly happy to stick with the meaning of "not rude" instead of the meaning of "polite," but I think you hang far more on the difference between these than actually exists. There's actually a lot of ways …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/01/14 12:04 AM
4

[Preaching] These years of your life are especially important for building the skills and history needed to support yourself as you age. I think you recognize some of your own shortcomings here and I hope you'll find it in you to work on them. Many people struggle similarly and often there is an underlying problem. Depression is a common culprit in zapping people's motivation to do the basic things we know need doing. You may find it a valuable first step to consult professional advice/help. [/P…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 06:37 PM
9

I'm sure you'll find your way, and it doesn't need to be feminism. I will say I am glad you plan on working a bit on your career/education though. Heaven forfend if you ever find yourself without a partner, you might depend on work skills and history to make ends meet, and going these particular years of your life without any education or work can really hurt those prospects. Sounds like ideologically you find the idea 'wrong' but you're being practical about it, which gives me confidence that y…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 04:34 AM
5

She explained in her submission that she plans to get a career out of economic necessity. But hey, implying she's just slutting it up is just as reasonable /s
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 04:31 AM
11

Sounds like you have good reason to be happy together and that's great. What do you think about these redpill ideas? paraphrased: Women don't know what they want. They think they want nice guys, cuddly teddy bears, but long term this is a formula for disaster. They need an alpha, first mate, someone taking control and treating them as unequal subordinates. They need to be constantly gamed and manipulated or they will lose interest because gameless betas are boring. Women are incapable of love as…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 04:22 AM
2

It is absurd to say something, deny saying it, and continue saying it. In such cases we do not need to take the baseless denials as meaningful. I'd welcome if he wanted to clarify substantively.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:40 AM
3

Ah I see. To be fair the male studies program itself may have been much better. I haven't looked at the planned course material and no one has seen the course play out. Dr Groth is certainly a much better person (IMO) than Roy Den Hollander. Still I think Shepherd was right to raise concerns about the inclusion of Hollander.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:39 AM
3

Nothing you said here is in question and I've acknowledged it all repeatedly. You're starting with a bad conclusion and arguing backwards. You think I already labeled RPS evil at this point when instead all I have done at this point is establish that he does indeed think these things. Also, it may help you to consider this meta discussion. You're also dramatically off topic. For this submission right here, we're asking whether I must take RPS's word as final if he claims he does not say those th…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:35 AM
3

but my first instinct is to condemn Shepherd and Bash Back! completely. This is what gives feminists a bad name I could not possibly disagree more. It is the opposite that gives feminism (or any group) a bad name and Shepherd did the right thing to report on this extremism. If we ignore violent radicals and let them move into mainstream positions within the movement, we damage the movement. Roy Den Hollander wants to advocate violent revolution, fine; but he's not entitled to a classroom to do i…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:30 AM
4

No one sabotaged that male studies course. AVFM is lying about the events. The course was rejected by the school in 2012. The article that AVFM pretends "attacked" the courses and got them cancelled is only a few days old. Supporting men and their problems does not mean that we should ignore the problems of violent radicals. Roy Den Hollander regularly advocates for armed revolution to overthrow society. For starters. Reporting on that is responsible, our obligation really. Similarly, I support …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:26 AM
3

Your analogy is that it's not ridiculous to have him prove otherwise when he says that "vanilla is great." So you'll have to come up with a different analogy if you want to follow your line of logic here. Removing the analogy, here is the events: RPS claims "I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent." He says this multiple times in many ways. I quote RPS claiming that RPS believes "I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/01/14 12:03 AM
1

I didn't realize that accidentally mislabeling someone's gender identity would be considered rudeness. Then why did you suggest it would above? Is it the use of the synonym, "polite" instead of "(not) rude" that makes you think requiring politeness will punish accidental pronoun problems? You do realize that the reason this rule is in place is due to Blue Pillers interpreting the position of Red Pillers as pro-rape. The rule existed before any rape related submissions. For example the topic "Red…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 11:58 PM
3

What is the difference between a cis person who bends their gender stereotypes versus a trans person who bends their gender stereotypes? Is it just their identification? Their assigned sex at birth is the difference. A gender-bending trans woman was assigned as male at birth, and is a woman who acts "masculine." A gender-bending cis woman was assigned as female at birth, and is a woman who acts "masculine."
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 11:52 PM
2

the experience and rationalization of the "incorrect" gender imperative. If this means the socially enforced gender roles ('imperatives') then I think this question is actually settled by our exchanges above. This "phantom spirit" is not merely a desire to bend gender roles to fit a different gender's imperative/role. Trans individuals are everywhere across the entire spectrum of gender conformity with their gender. It should be safe to conclude: "people do not transition only in order to comply…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 08:03 PM
3

I'm afraid I've never seen RPS say rape is great, so I don't think I follow your example here. Have you ever seen me claiming RPS said "rape is great"? The substitution here is not "vanilla = rape." If you must substitute to get to the specific topic, you should look at what I've claimed and make that substitution instead. Helpfully, I linked it for you above. My very first submission here on this topic begins with the words: Red Pill's sidebar and leaders are rife with rape apology. and conclud…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:54 PM
3

While such ideas seem great at first, it only takes a little while before the debate would become: "You didn't use the correct term to identify xir! You are not being polite!!! BAN BAN BAN!!!!" Are you aware that there is already a rule in place against rudeness? If you're so certain this rule is destined to degenerate as you've described, would you care to explain why we haven't see this yet? Do you think it is inevitably coming so long as we keep the rule against rudeness? I think the real que…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:46 PM
3

It's fine to say, you've discussed vanilla, do you like it? But I think he's got every right to say no and let that be the end of it, with no further need to clarify. I disagree. Further clarification is needed. I claim "vanilla is great" and continue making this claim. You claim that I think vanilla is great, and quote me saying vanilla is great. I claim I am misunderstood, yet I continue claiming vanilla is great consistently. You shouldn't have to take my word that I am misunderstood. Even th…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:44 PM
4

But if I make a detailed comment about the flavor of vanilla ice cream, how much evidence does one require to explain that I'm a fan of chocolate? What? There's no contradiction here and it is perfectly reasonable for people to point to your description of vanilla if it supports their claim that you like vanilla. We have to assume eachother aren't lying, because online debate would be pointless without some faith! For one thing, TRP is a primary advocate of the idea that people don't always know…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:32 PM
4

Great, then we agree that enforcing strict gender roles is a social institution, that women/men who "act like" men/women are nevertheless still women/men and that their behavior is the behavior of women/men. I guess you're right there with me being "ridiculous", "regressive," and "harmful to discourse." Glad you've come around to the dark side.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:26 PM
3

I agree. However, if someone does make a careful, detailed explanation on that topic, it is insufficient to merely assert "you must have misunderstood." Anyone is free to ignore any topic or to provide a substantive rebuttal of any topic, but a mere assertion with no explanation in the face of a careful argument is not good or (according to rule 7) acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:24 PM
1

Although it's admittedly a lame argument, your explanation does not meet my anecdotal experience. The purpose of the physical transformation is purely social What physical transformation? You're misunderstanding my explanation. I purposely, carefully said that for many trans people there is no physical transformation--you and I agree that trans is not defined by a physical transformation or by a need for one. What you described is exactly what I did, too, except you think my "phantom limb" metap…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:20 PM
1

Wholeheartedly agree. It is tiresome and bad for debate if people merely assert they've been misunderstood without explaining it. I can even show examples where dedicated months of this kind of assertion turned out to be wrong itself. If you never explain why you think you're misunderstood, then people are unable to show that you're actually not. In the interest of debate we should want and expect proportional evidence. "I'm misunderstood" is pretty easy to argue; just explain how. Unwarranted a…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 07:09 PM
1

Original submission text: Though radical violence was the topic of another recent PPD discussion (along with interpersonal violence as sexual strategy) I thought this is also noteworthy because it features a very specific, narrowly crafted call for violence. It also was very well received, in a popular thread, with no outright criticism of the radical violence itself. While another comment in the thread was apparently deleted for trolling, it seems moderators chose to leave these up. The judge w…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:55 PM
6

This is exactly the problem. If TRP is "kicking dogs" and there is sufficient evidence of it presented sincerely and politely, PPD ought to be able to discuss it. This also shows how the policy is not neutral at all. We can't describe things that TRP itself cops to.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:55 PM
6

Ask why the mod team didn't stay their ban of soulcakeduck. Why? And what ban?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:50 PM
6

nothing more than a Body Integrity Identity Disorder of the sex organs. It has nothing to do with sex organs at all. I explicitly said many people do not choose to get surgery, and I did not mention genitalia here. I do "reduce" trans to this "image" (just a helpful metaphor) discrepancy but I don't think that's reductive at all. Pretty sure that's the complete definition inclusive of all trans people. Iff your gender identity does not match your physical sex you are trans.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:25 PM
5

no matter how many times you say that, it will never be true. Our culture reflects our nature. Are you saying that women who act masculine cease to be women? I imagine not, and that is the point I was making there.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:21 PM
2

In general does TRP view judge-killing as a good strategy You're trying to insinuate that TRP supports murder. Surely not. There is a difference between asking if TRP supports murder (especially when the question arises very reasonably from the circumstances: TRP repeatedly supporting the idea of murder in the abstract and in specific cases) versus insinuating that TRP does support it. Otherwise it would not be possible to ask any question without also insinuating. But anyway even if I had argue…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:27 AM
2

Think we already agree: rudeness doesn't make someone wrong. Above, discussing why some people get downvotes, users offered both examples of bad debate and examples of rudeness. Both are unwelcome. And frankly, rudeness is usually bad debating too (even though it doesn't make an argument wrong). Debating is communication so merely being right is not good debating. Debaters must effectively communicate why their argument is right.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:14 AM
6

This is honestly the bigger problem. With the sub's low traffic it is easy to knock submissions off the hot queue with just one or two early downvotes, and plenty of users won't see submissions below a score threshold (unlike hidden comments there is no button to unhide). It's happened but usually those submissions also get reported and removed soon. Still, compared with comments, people should be even more reluctant to downvote submissions here if they do any downvoting.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:08 AM
10

This submission specifically used that user as an example. That's why the reply is limited to him. There are other trolls, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:01 AM
3

Being rude is not a debate tactic. It is orthogonal to debating. You're using an ad homonym fallacy to prove rps is a poor debater. Being rude is against the rules here. (#3) It doesn't make much sense to defend rude comments from downvotes, since the appropriate treatment would be to report and remove them. Downvoting is getting off easy, and if this is what we're defending then we must abandon the claim that this is about rule enforcement.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 06:00 AM
2

You can have both. Not in this sub. Both are against the rules.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 05:56 AM
6

The idea of "gendered behavior" (gender roles) is entirely social construct. Even if there are broad and accurate generalizations about gender differences in behavior, no one would deny that there are also exceptions. The idea that women must or should comply (and men must/should not) with "feminine" generalizations is a social expectation. I believe (please correct me) you may be operating under the impression that trans people are those that simply wish to behave as their "other" gender norm w…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 05:53 AM
2

You're talking about the legal requirement for incitement charges, which include other criteria too (like "imminence"). This discussion did not claim that the TRP post meets the legal requirement for an incitement charge. Basically: not all incitements are illegal incitements. TRP acted legally and TRP incited. TRP's incitement thus will not meet the legal requirements for an incitement charge, but it does meet the dictionary requirements for the definition of incitement.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 05:29 AM
2

The relevant difference between the example you've provided and mine is that your example from TBP is an example of satire ([responding to a false flag troll apparently from a PPD user). My example from TRP is a sincerely held and argued belief.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 05:28 AM
1

Sorry you felt that way but it is not the case. Radical violence is a common enough topic in TRP that it piques my interest and I sincerely want to discuss that topic with other users here. Moreover, your comment here is a baseless personal attack. You impinge my motives but do not offer proportional evidence supporting your claims. This is a violation of the subreddit rules as previously discussed and should be removed.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 05:18 AM
12

Things I've seen in my stay here: users explicitly tell us they don't want their opposition to understand them, and don't care. users explicitly say that trolling PPD with fake content is just as acceptable as sincerely debating honest material. uncontained hostility; endless, baseless personal attacks. users explicitly admit they have a vested interest in seeing this subreddit fail users explicitly admit they have stopped obeying the rules and/or stopping trying to debate well because they thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 04:40 AM
1

Do you feel like the call on TBP to end all men was a call to instigate the extinction of the human species? Probably not. You mean the PPD/TRP troll who purposely faked a redditlog to bring up the point here? No, for good reason I don't give that much weight here.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/01/14 03:19 AM
5

Are you seriously suggesting it would be OK to let feminist radicals who advocate armed revolution to teach mainstream college courses, and no criticism would be justified? I disagree. I think it is right to purge such violent radicalism from the mainstream cultures both of feminism and of the MRM.
/r/MensRights15/01/14 03:12 AM
4

Looks like AVFM is not giving us the story straight. AVFM claims (my emphasis throughout) The school made the decision after a flurry of false allegations were made by journalist Tory Shepherd in the online magazine Adelaide Now. . . . The university administration changed direction and turned against the initiative after the online smear campaign. Yet AVFM's first "source" article reports The university emphasised it did not endorse views of the suggested lecturers. It said the courses, which w…
/r/MensRights15/01/14 03:02 AM
4

Exactly correct. There's no one anywhere who could disagree with that, though perhaps you meant to be cheeky. It's circular. When it's agreeable it is agreeable. Redpillers here (I think you're included) seem to assume I am condemning TRP automatically when I question how violent it is. No, I am fully cognizant of the reality that how violent something is, and whether violence is justified are different questions. If you'd like to discuss how justifiable violence is in these cases, I think that'…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:41 AM
5

My point is certainly not that violence is never justifiable, if that's what you're leading to. Do you put TRP alongside other violent radicals such as these? That's very different from excusing their violent talk as completely insincere.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:36 AM
1

I've seen TRP and its moderators express concern about supposed, violent/death threats from TBP. Why not extend the same consideration ("locker room talk") to a self-described circlejerk? What doesn't the consideration cover? Let's not forget the TRP movement has a history shown here of not just specific calls to violence but also plenty of abstract theorizing about how great that violence is.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:32 AM
2

No premise of the post supposes that the individuals named here are in imminent danger. As you said, this submission doesn't "mention anyone directly threatening to kill anyone."
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:29 AM
8

I have more experience with men than you do, that's for sure. TRP is a subreddit about changing self and society to meet reality somewhere in the middle. When it explicitly says that killing judges to change the system is a good idea, it has different meaning than if someone at a bus stop randomly blurts out the same. In fact, you probably know TRP has considerable crossover with MRAs. Likely you know that one of the most prominent MRA figureheads, Thomas James Ball, self-immolated in front of a…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:24 AM
5

No one is seriously going to kill anyone. No one claimed they would.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:21 AM
7

What happens if he stops being able to afford giving away 25000 a month? He's entitled to have the payment changed if his income changes.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 02:21 AM
10

Some women are simply impossible to please, whereas men are easy to please. That's not necessarily the conclusion here. Perhaps women are likelier to think (or respond), "Sure, my partner is not perfect; no one is. But I love my partner despite or even because of their flaws." Men may be likelier to think (or respond), "my wife is flawless." After all, they are married in this study, and you haven't cited anything measuring their satisfaction with the marriage. Despite this datum, women may be e…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 01:24 AM
10

It's no secret that many who turn to TRP are upset, and that they've "awakened" after living a life where they supposedly swallowed the mainstream lies. That includes the lie that women are equal. They are often mad because they believe they've discovered women are unequal. In other words, even among TheRedPill, a huge number of men have wanted equal relationships. If they had only been pretending to want this, they would not be so upset at finding it impossible.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/01/14 01:20 AM
5

I think this is partly miscommunication. It might seem like dana is saying "[Feminists perceive] anything pro-men is anti-feminist," and then she'd be dismissing the idea that TPR must be antifeminist while explaining why the (undeserved) perception exists. But I think she actually means "[I know] anything pro-men is anti-feminist," and she is agreeing that TRP must be anti-feminist if it seeks to be pro-men. So the perception is correct and deserved, she's saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/01/14 11:40 PM
7

For me violence is not justifiable even if it is effective sexual strategy, and it's not possible to overstate how much I doubt its general effectiveness. Thus I am also forced to conclude strategy is not amoral, which means TRP has dangerously insulated itself from the most important questions of interpersonal relationships. I even see terrible advice like this as a likely effect of TRP's mistake, here.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/01/14 10:34 PM
3

Yes, that's how I understand it too. I just do not share your feeling that the difference between "we should have a violent revolution" and "a violent revolution is the best way to bring about our ideals" or "violent revolution is inevitable and it will be great/fully justified" is that impressive. Besides, I am mainly asking if they are right (edit: factually, not morally). You say they predict inevitable, violent collapse. Do you agree with their prediction?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/14 04:56 AM
7

Actually, a personal attack is about you. As a person. If I supplied a negative adjective, such as stupid, moronic, fat, idiotic, or insane, then yes, I would be "attacking" you, as a person. "intentionally misrepresenting" does supply a negative description of me: dishonest, insincere, liar. However, my issue, as stated, isn't with you. It's with your action- the action of stereotyping, specifically. You're free to say that I am mistaken--that you believe I have mistakenly stereotyped. You cros…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/14 04:49 AM
-2

The putative father registry is for fathers who want to get custody instead of their child being adopted...so custody is not being disputed. Wow. Fathers should sign registries even when there's no adoption, and you apparently did not read the article because custody IS disputed in this case. Father registries exist so that men can establish their paternity rights--REGARDLESS of whether there is an adoption (in most cases, there is not). That's because there is not always a presumptive father, o…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 04:33 AM
8

First, the idea of being anti-democratic, which is irrelevant since we aren't a democracy. It's relevant because western society is democratic, even though it is not a pure democracy (nor has any government ever existed as such). secession isn't inherently anti-democratic. I did not claim it was. I noted that TRP's antidemocratic streak includes many who celebrate (violent) secession. I think you're intentionally misrepresenting the masses of TRP. This is a baseless personal attack, in violation…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/14 04:29 AM
0

hey are not typical for women getting custody of their own kids when there is no dispute. And...? That is true for fathers, too. When there is no custody dispute, child care plans and family assessments are not required. Or are you trying to claim that a man seeking custody of his own child in cases where no one else wants custody, is equivalent to a woman seeking custody of a child in a custody dispute? I am claiming that because paternity is contested, he needs to (a) establish that he is the …
/r/MensRights02/01/14 04:20 AM
1

The point, which you are strenuously ignoring, is that any custody proceeding is needed at all. Why did the mother not have to undergo a custody proceeding before she gave this man's son away? That's the point. Maternity is not contested. Only one person claims to be the mother, and she has substantial evidence supporting this claim, including her history of labor, records of the child birth, and the birth certificate. That's in stark contrast with paternity in this case. Paternity is contested.…
/r/MensRights02/01/14 04:16 AM
10

While interesting I don't see how any of this is topical. Nothing you've said here is in contention. Yes, we're a democratic republic. Yes, base majoritarianism is bad. Yes, the will of the people could be secession. However the topic here is: TRP includes radicals who seek to overthrow the society you described--the democratic republic with checks against majoritarianism. They imagine a violent (if democratic) secession, or think one is justified or inevitable or the best way to advance TRP ide…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/01/14 04:09 AM
2

Actually you have this backwards. The problem in Strickland's case is that paternity was presumptive because of the marriage: legally, the husband is the presumed father. If not for presumptive paternity, his paternity might never have been disputed. It is an unfortunate result of the biology of childbirth (not the result of legal/social discrimination): paternity is not simply established merely by childbirth. Here we have a case with two men asserting paternity rights, so yes, a legal process …
/r/MensRights01/01/14 11:04 PM
0

If maternity is in dispute, women actually do need to sign paperwork swearing to their maternity. It's just incredibly rare for maternity to be disputed because of the biological reality of childbirth.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 10:52 PM
-1

Lol. That is exactly what Utah law does require of women. Child care plans are a typical part of custody disputes. Don't expect the idiots here to acknowledge that reality of course; they're too busy wallowing in ignorance about what custody disputes entail, too busy grasping anything to rage at women, and too busy ignoring that courts really do need to exclude some parents who genuinely are unfit parents. Sorry for trying to raise MRA activism to the level of reality.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 10:49 PM
6

I'm here to discuss TheRedPill. The result is that TRP's obsessions are reflected here. Please direct your question to /u/GayLubeOil, /u/2FAMOUS, /u/IllimitableMan, /u/cbarrett1989, /u/PancakeSlaughter and everyone else who raises this topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 02:24 PM
6

That's good info on false accusations, but I think TRP's "rape card" is not about false accusations like this, but about any time someone mentions their victimization, which TRP sees as a shit test.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 02:16 PM
-26

imagine if every mother ever had to sign that they are the mother, create a detailed plan of care prove they were finacialy involved(yeah no support here) "and more" and if they messed up at any point the state just swoped in and removed the child. They do. This is typical stuff when custody is disputed.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 03:49 AM
-16

I handled each. Demonstrating ability and desire to care for children is typical of all kinds of custody hearings, not just fathers asserting paternity rights against a mother's wish for adoption. This system is less onerous than the alternative users here are suggesting. I have to think people are clueless or just want to be angry and are circlejerking. If you have an alternative that you think is less restrictive while still fair to both parents and children, you should propose it.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 03:47 AM
-12

That just permits an absentee or even abusive parent with no ability or desire to care for the child to use custody as a weapon. Demonstrating ability and desire to care for a child is not a onerous restriction on custody. It's an element of every custody proceeding I know of. And you did not answer my question. You apparently agreed this requirement (parental registry) was onerous, but recommended a more onerous restriction. How do you reconcile that? It seems to me that you wish for a simple s…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 03:41 AM
3

(1) The scenario you described is not LMR. You're in good company though as research has suggested many people fail to identify LMR, which perhaps represents a methodological problem for other studies. Not consenting on Monday but then expressing consent on Tuesday is not LMR; it's inevitable. (2) Had your scenario been LMR, you still provided no proof of it. A porn clip? ... is probably scripted. (3) No one anywhere thinks having sex despite LMR is rape. They think sex without consent is rape, …
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 03:37 AM
-14

A signature on the birth certificate or positive paternity should suffice. A signature on a birth certificate probably would suffice here too, qualifying as investing in a pregnancy. Positive paternity results should not suffice for the same reason that positive maternity results don't guarantee custody either. Absentee fathers should not be able to return and use custody as a weapon against mothers/children they are not actually interested in. Parents that cannot and will not provide for their …
/r/MensRights01/01/14 01:21 AM
-29

Hutchins said Utah’s laws are onerous on biological fathers who try to gain custody, noting that they must file a paternity petition, get a sworn affidavit, create a detailed child care plan and prove they were financially invested in the pregnancy, among other requirements. That doesn't sound very onerous and it sounds like Strickland can easily meet those criteria if his claims are true. I sympathize that he is a victim here but it sounds like the law is already on his side despite the complai…
/r/MensRights01/01/14 12:55 AM
2

I'm guessing a clinical psychologist would actually know a lot about how people learn behavior, both good and bad. Can you explain why this is ridiculous? Is there specific advice in the article that is ridiculous? Seems mostly boilerplate; 'alcohol affects developing brains, underage sexting is dangerous.'
/r/MensRights01/01/14 12:43 AM
0

There are numerous different links under different titles. I'm not your retrieval service. I cannot retrieve the discussions you removed. They would not be indexed and I know of no way to find them. If you did not remove any, then your claims are false and this decision is based on a lie. There are no spammed linked; none are submitted more than once. There are 5 different links over a period of 6 months.
/r/MensRights01/01/14 12:37 AM
11

TRP imagines all relationships are endless adversarial engagements. It's no surprise to me they'd imagine a "shit test" where none exists. I think cases of women using this type of interpersonal manipulation are practically nonexistent in all likelihood, and I wouldn't buy this narrative without evidence of it. This TRP narrative is a very effective tool to punish victims and to undermine trust in interpersonal relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/01/14 12:35 AM
0

I've only begun deleting after at least half a dozen links. There's only one link in the index. So you backtracked and deleted old discussions once the count hit half a dozen? Can I see some of those discussions? Can I request Bill Burr be placed on the spam filter? 52 submissions of his stand up routines. When the Occidental drama wave hit we had at least a dozen posts on that subject too. I don't think it's appropriate to remove content just because it inevitably is popular for a moment. I've …
/r/MensRights28/12/13 04:27 PM
2

Seems like there is a hell of a lot to discuss about this topic in relationship to men's rights.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 04:18 PM
1

I wonder if people who think like this also believe there is a such a thing as toxic femininity. Yes, they do. Most of the people talking about "toxic masculinity" are feminists. And feminists have found countless problems with the gender roles assigned to women by society, too. Because I'm sick of hearing about "toxic" masculinity. Right but that response is when you ignore a submission or downvote it, then move on. With people as diverse as most feminists and Paul Elam talking about this subje…
/r/MensRights28/12/13 04:17 PM
2

Having criticism is a different league/game from saying it is not relevant. Paul Elam makes comparable arguments. MRAs all over this sub do. Banning the discussion with a moderator's a priori proclomation is misguided. Instead let the critics come out and improve all of us by forging stronger ideas.
/r/MensRights28/12/13 02:56 AM
12

Confused. I watched [the video](lol link removed since you've put it in the spam filter) and then searched and found the only MensRights submission for that link. There are other discussions on the topic but they're not reposts; they link to reactions, articles, kickstarters, etc. It is very clearly related to men's rights. Some (including a moderator) might see it as an attack on masculinity (... how?), but the intent is clearly to help men and boys. Most people miss that as oppression, or see …
/r/MensRights28/12/13 02:17 AM
6

TRP doesn't strip women of autonomy, Feminism strips women of autonomy. versus "Captain, First Mate" "Women are teenagers" Women are biologically objects, whereas men are biologically agents. She's a woman, by definition she is incapable of being objective and having any real agency The real reason men and women cant be friends is that women lack moral agency.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/12/13 07:08 PM
24

Is this really a common issue...? I can't think of a single time where I considered my partner childish. TRP pushes people to infantilize their partners ("women are teenagers"). I don't think it is correct, helpful, or common outside of TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 06:33 PM
-4

So, that would mean that at most, the spamming resulted in a rapist not being called down to the Dean's Office and warned. "At most." Interesting. Here again you say the outcome is quite trivial. So what was the protest here against? Being, at most, called down to the dean's office doesn't seem like an injustice to warrant this level of disruption.
/r/MensRights21/12/13 07:02 AM
-1

If you reported that you were raped through that form (assuming it was a true report), in no way does the form help you. It can't help the victim, even though it can have such serious consequences for the accused? Unless you can explain how the form helps victims who report? The tool collects statistics that the school probably hopes to use to help them combat crime. That could mean allocating resources, like campus police patrol hours, based on details like where crime happens most, or offering…
/r/MensRights21/12/13 06:59 AM
11

Most research calls it "token resistance" instead. Briefly "scripted refusal" was in vogue too but I don't know if that's still the case. There's a good amount of research. Unfortunately a lot of what I have on "token resistance" is behind paywalls (can't link in PPD). Here's an example that is free though: Contrary to the stereotype that only women engage in token resistance to sex, men also reported that they had been in situations in which they had said no to sex while desiring it. In the U.S…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 06:24 AM
6

Also TBP isn't making claims of free speech or using it to justify other controversial trash. In TRP we're told to tolerate lots of controversial bad stuff for precisely this reason though, and that doesn't hold water if other stuff still gets removed.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 06:14 AM
9

she worries about being labeled as a slut or simply feeling like one in a negative way. Studies typically find that men use "LMR" as much or more than women do so this explanation based in gender-difference should be very suspect. Devlin in the sidebar gives a great example of why people object to "LMR" mindsets. He wants to describe a situation where sex is completely consensual, and says: She seems confused, too, and he meets no more than token resistance (or so it seems to him). If your partn…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/12/13 12:29 AM
2

That certainly looks like parody to me. The point of the parody is not "feminists think this is caused by patriarchy," it's "feminists blame many things on patriarchy when they shouldn't." So they've copied the style (blame patriarchy) and exaggerated it. Parody.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 08:22 PM
4

“Lol faith healers don’t work” isn’t enough. Evidence that faith healers don't work ought to be. There are endless such scams I could spend my money on and I'd be out of time and money if I humored all of them for lack of an alternative. The alternative to a faith healer is a doctor. Doctor-alternative is a weaker refutation than "faith healers don't work." Your alternative leaves any case where a doctor doesn't help seeking a faith healer, which is a waste along with prayer-cropping and wrong-m…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 08:17 PM
7

Why are you okay with members of TBP using such oppressive and bullying language to describe members of TRP. In fact I am not. See also. Here you are asking loaded questions where the loaded assumption (that I am OK with shaming) was already explicitly answered/rejected above. In our other exchange I also found reason to question your sincerity. Again, I hope I've satisfied your curiosity as it is unlikely I'll answer further.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 06:57 PM
3

Is TBP is okay with objectifying women, as there is no orthodox set of beliefs? No. Do you believe that people only be defended when they're right, and offered no protection from abusive harassment and violence when they are wrong? No. Above, "defensible" asks whether there is a reason to do something. Knowing that prayer-cropping does nothing means the idea of prayer-cropping is not logically defensible. There was no question of force or harassment here until you invented one. This invention an…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 06:53 PM
5

What I am having problems with is understanding how TBP feels about comparing women to crops. Is okay to blue pillers to objectify women by comparing them to vegetables now? It's /u/nicethingyoucanthave's analogy. I think you should respond to him expressing your concern about his objectification of women if you feel this strongly, otherwise I'm going to take this at face value: you're trolling.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 06:38 PM
7

I feel that neither virgin shaming nor fat shaming are okay. A salesman insisting the diet they use works perfectly for all would undermine their credibility by being overweight though, the same that a salesman insisting their sexual strategy is great undermines credibility by being a virgin. That's not shameful, but it is evidence of error.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 06:31 PM
1

That's not what I'm arguing. Then I don't understand how anything you've said is relevant/true. I'd need an explanation that clearly reconciles this issue: Either prayer-cropping, wrong-maps, and wrong-TRP/TBP are better than nothing despite being wrong, XOR showing they're wrong matters and is all TBP must do.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 06:27 PM
6

In the above comparison, obesity is a stand in for sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 05:55 PM
7

Blue pillers here keep claiming that they don't believe anything (other than, TRP is wrong!), but that's demonstrably not true, as the comment you've highlighted points out. You've misunderstood. Individual blue pillers of course believe things but "the blue pill" is not a shared, orthodox set of beliefs. Atheists will have answers to TRP's question here too, but "atheism" is not a shared set of beliefs about whether getting laid is easy. Even if TRP is wrong, we're over there saying, "here's a …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 05:52 PM
5

Obesity is a widespread problem that (for most people) is simply solved or avoided. It, too, has spawned lucrative industries with endless, speculative crazes. Simple solutions are not always easily implemented, and there's a lot we can learn even about the simple. Sex is not alone there. Nor are men alone in struggling to get sex; some of the most successful/lucrative parts of the industry here are aimed at helping women. If the newest diet craze encouraged maligning other groups of people, jus…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 04:57 PM
3

Don't forget all the jokes about OJ killing his wife. Humor might be inappropriate but its concerned mainly with shock/entertainment.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:51 AM
6

Third link is dead/redirecting, currently.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/12/13 02:49 AM
3

This is a gag, a joke study. We discussed it earlier in PPD but it's not worth serious discussion, imo, because it is not serious.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 07:56 PM
5

Don't think there was any confusion except maybe in wording/shorthand. The research in the second discussion shows that women are more attracted when they correctly see their partner's negative emotions. That undermines the idea that they find suffering unattractive.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 07:36 PM
2

Wish I had seen the Tomassi article in time to bring it up in the first PPD discussion. The tension between the two is fascinating on its own but I tried to make the topic a bit broader so we're not stuck rehashing the same discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/12/13 05:59 PM
2

I want a plan for determining if that behavior is a result of culture or of an underlying instinct. Yet your own failure to create such a plan is, above, blamed on others. You suggest an experiment which has uncontrolled variables is unfairly criticized when someone points out that variables are uncontrolled. No, you haven't. Oh. k.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:49 PM
2

You have never once challenged someone who claimed a behavior was a cultural construct. Yes, I have. If you mean I've never challenged it in TRP, I do not contribute anything at all in TRP. In fact, we can see me challenging assumptions about culture right in the original submission here. Exercise some awareness. An no amount of proof will ever be sufficient. Brain scans? No, you're just measuring the effect of culture on the brain. Same behavior observed in other animals? No, you're just measur…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:39 PM
5

I read it as a joke. It is formatted as a real study would be, but the content makes it clear that everyone understands it is not serious. For example, take the "Strengths and weakenesses" section: The study has some limitations. There was no trial registration, no ethics committee approval, no informed consent, no proper randomisation, no validated test instrument, and questionable statistical assessment. We used the eyeball technique for single patient trials which, as Sackett says, “more clos…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:34 PM
5

If anything, the "results" of this non-study refute TRP. It seems that being right, however, is a cause of happiness, and agreeing with what one disagrees with is a cause of unhappiness. . . . The results of this trial show that the availability of unbridled power adversely affects the quality of life of those on the receiving end. . . . Many people in the world live as couples, and we believe that it could be harmful for one partner to always have to agree with the other. So much for Captain, F…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:31 PM
3

Also very not-blue: Based on the assumption that men would rather be happy than be right, . . . based on the assumption that women would rather be right than be happy, Baseless ideas about gender difference float pretty well in TRP, but they're a big problem for many blue pillers and frequently a source of mockery there.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 10:23 PM
5

But on the other hand, you readily accept any claim about culturally constructed differences. I think you're tackling straw. My position favors evidence supporting these claims which I've said are more complicated than the simple generalizations people frequently wish to draw.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 04:32 PM
5

should they be dismissed out of hand by people who havent read them? I don't think any book should be dismissed out of hand, unread. I think it is typical for there to be tension between debate formats and books for the same reason though. They're unread, and unlike many other articles can't be read "during" the debate because of length. They can't be dismissed or accepted readily in this format. As you say books are not themselves peer reviewed science either. We'd expect that if those books ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 04:29 PM
5

There is actually a lot of research into "seduction" so maybe it is not as ridiculous as you think. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/201101/the-most-powerful-law-seduction http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-attraction-doctor/201202/how-flirt-and-seduce-touch-part-1 http://yaledailynews.com/magazine/2011/02/01/the-study-of-seduction/ However, TRP does not limit itself to claims about which sexual strategies are most effective but also makes sweeping claims supporting their…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/12/13 03:09 PM
15

I was very precise in what I said, Yeah you were! For example, I noticed that the post was made by a self-proclaimed "shitlord". The OP has a long history in this subreddit. And self-proclaiming oneself a shitlord is probably more likely an anti-SRSer making fun of the fact SRS thinks so highly of them. a lot of very young accounts encouraging bad behaviour A lot? I checked about 10 of those upvoted comments encouraging bad behavior and only one account was young, the rest were 1yr+. You were pr…
/r/MensRights18/12/13 02:42 PM
11

For starters, I think any claim about essential gender difference needs to be heavily researched before it can be taken serious, for a number of reasons: (1) These supposed differences are often the basis of discrimination or oppression. Research in psychology suggests these ideas can even affect our decisions subconsciously. (2) Sciences (sociology, biology, psychology) constantly foil our attempts to generalize here and instead show we overestimate differences and that existing differences hav…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 11:03 PM
3

You went broad but it is reasonable to believe you meant to be remain topical as well. If the statement did not apply to "Race in TRP" then it was not topical. Today's cliche is racism. We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks. Maybe it was your intention to be off topic, I grant that's a possibility, but it doesn't make my reading "wrong" or unreasonable. You've done a bad job communicating here if you thought your words had nothing to do with race in …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 07:47 PM
0

This submission is about "Race in TRP." You're upset that TRP users have to be "hush about topics." Presumably, in this context, you're upset that users have to be hush about race. They have to be hush, you say, because otherwise pitchforks will come out. So you believe that if your users are not hush about race, others will identify them (perhaps incorrectly, I'll grant) as racist. This seems to be a tacit admission that the overlap between your users and the people that TBP would identify as r…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/12/13 07:24 PM
3

True. I haven't seen TRP's comparable theory of permissible shaming though. For someone who rejects all killing, the death penalty is wrong just as murder is wrong. And if someone rejects all shaming, then egalitarian-shaming is wrong just as biodiversity-shaming is wrong too. But big picture, there's no shame here; the debate is to air the topic not bury it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:51 PM
8

the intersection isnt racism, however, but the notion that certain ideas are suppressed in the culture and can only be discussed in a hush hush manner. That's interesting/possible but I'm not so sure. Lots of conspiracies have this same tone; in fact I think it's safe to call it "conspiratorial." Yet it seems plenty of "popular" conspiracies don't ever take root in TRP soil. I haven't seen the 9/11 truthers, or claims that the moon landing or Sandy Hook were staged popping up there. For that mat…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:40 PM
4

If you believe there is no overlap, discussing the evidence or reasoning that leads you to this conclusion is completely within the topic. Otherwise, I don't understand your objection. Particularly, We wouldn't have to hush about topics if the thought police didn't have pitch forks. Huh? This is like a tacit admission that the overlap exists, and certainly nothing in my submission should be construed as saying "don't talk about this topic"--just the opposite, really.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 10:29 PM
9

So in the tired metaphor, you'd choose to be the happy pig? Does happiness trump all else? It's an important metric but I think that beyond basic security few would give it supreme importance.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 07:59 PM
3

TRP has been calling this sub dead since before it even began. Since they pulled the plug on the first debate sub, a cynical person might think they have an interest in that prediction.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 07:46 PM
8

I never found this trend surprising, personally. Paternalism is a double edged sword that tries to gift recipients happiness and safety in exchange for essential human liberty. Liberty is desirable for lots of reasons but it is less tangible and not 1-to-1 with happiness. They say it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied though. That's related to their second explanation I think. I would caution those that use this to suggest women are "worse off today." That's not what the …
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 07:38 PM
3

He specifically said "consensual". The word does not appear on the page and I don't see it indicated in the OP. Can you help me find what you're referencing, here?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/12/13 04:50 AM
3

No mention of racism in first paragraph of KKK page, This article? which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically expressed through terrorism. it is classified as a hate group opposing the Civil Rights Movement and progress among minorities. frequent reference to the USA's "Anglo-Saxon" blood, harking back to 19th-century nativism White supremacy is racism. I assume you ctrl+f'ed for "racism" and didn't read this…
/r/MensRights14/12/13 07:21 PM
3

Trolling this subreddit is not equally valid as discussing a user comment. Is that your position?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 02:44 AM
-1

Right. For now he thinks I "actually agree" generally, but other times it is clear he does not actually agree with me, not even when we heap his baseless personal attack (which I promise you did not escape my notice) on top. His unevidenced assertion that I am constantly lying doesn't improve his argument, and he's the first to tell me when we've disagreed elsewhere.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 01:31 AM
1

His comment is describing what he thinks I generally/always do, not just what happened above. "What you do, on the other hand..." He concludes that no one would want to debate me knowing that there is zero change of agreeing even though I actually agree. So this is a trend he claims here he has seen before. It's a silly claim. There's no trend of me agreeing with RPS, and even he acknowledges that in I think every other conversation we've had to date.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 01:04 AM
0

There's no Indemnity from Rebuttal in a debate forum. Maybe you should not participate if this exchange upset you.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 12:40 AM
2

Only recently with alphabet mod has she changed her tone to call me a rape apologist. That's not recent. My very first submission here on this topic begins with the words: Red Pill's sidebar and leaders are rife with rape apology. and concludes At the very least, users should be unwaveringly critical of all of this rape apologia, and ideally should get their sexual strategy from another source that doesn't have it to begin with. Rape apologia has been the topic from word 1.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 12:18 AM
4

So your complaint all along has been that I actually agree with you? I disagree whole heartedly that debate will take place here on account that you still deny people their own positions. You mean follow me around reddit and repeat the lie that I'm pro rape? It's a smear campaign. Someone goes on a crusade to label me a rapist and that makes me butthurt to defend myself? That's just the single latest entry in our history of "actually agree[ing]." We don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/12/13 12:16 AM
3

The people who get upset here confuse me. If you don't like debates, don't go to debate forums. The personal attack is unwarranted, unproductive, and against the rules. I think most people would have understood the words "threat of force" as "a threat to use force." Your clarification here, "using force to threaten more force" is even more confusing because I think the way most use the words, "force" is not required to make a "threat." Glad we agree though. Not sure how you reach your conclusion…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 11:56 PM
5

You said "requires a threat of force [or punishment]" but quoted a definition with "... force or threats." Not all threats are threats of force. "I'll think you're a prude if you don't; I'll post your nude photos if you don't"--these are threats too. The degree varies (quite a bit as we see there) but force is not a requirement. Not all threats are explicitly verbalized either. Brandishing a knife is a threat of force. 4 hours of harassment might be construed as a threat of further harassment. T…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 11:44 PM
3

Stop evading the question at hand: where did you find the log, or did you make it yourself? Even when I already knew this log was faked, I did not throw it out. I answered it. I shared my thoughts on the position. And I shared the evidence that it is a false flag. That is a topical answer that tells us how important it is. Besides all of which your result is an absurd one. If we can't debate things that red pillers say or that blue pillers say, there's nothing left to debate. Everything here is …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 11:06 PM
1

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If Bill gets rebuked and they instead do something else (maybe they make out consensually, or tv/music/eat/drink/talk/whatever)... basically it's not harassment to politely ask again unless you're asked not to or you're knowingly making someone uncomfortable. But since you would maybe call this sexual harassment, would you agree with the assertion (not mine) that she was coerced into this rather than maybe persuaded, or just making the decision on her own? "On…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 11:01 PM
3

Both comments are in. We discussed both. The discussion of one revealed it was a false flag, which by design only the false flagger should have had access to. You had access to it. We're right to be concerned following that discussion. Discussing either comment is fine. Faking either to mislead this subreddit is not.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 10:36 PM
4

There's no need to restrict what we can debate though. If he wants to submit a comment no one saw or cared about, that's perfectly fine... but the debate might not be very interesting. Mostly I think he's purposely changing the topic here. "What's debate-worthy" versus "is he the one trolling this subreddit".
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 10:33 PM
1

The reasoning makes some sense. They're not (I think) worried about cases where someone is persuaded or convinced, only where people are coerced. If the only thing you do to secure consent is to make someone feel increasingly uncomfortable, that's a problem. Like others I am reluctant to call it rape; maybe "sexual harassment." Add anything other than coercion into the scene and I think you steer back into safe territory.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 10:24 PM
3

They were false flag trolls. They were held up as an example of something we cannot discuss, but my point is we can discuss them: we should completely reject violence, and the discussion uncovered they were false flag trolls, both very important conclusions.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 06:42 PM
5

I've found your contributions really helpful but they'd be even better without stuff like For heaven's sake, crawl back under your rock.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 05:35 PM
8

the intent would be regarding the intent to enter without license I don't understand how this is a distinction from what was said above. You need a license to enter a building or a person. Failing to obtain one, and entering anyway, you have intentionally committed a crime (in some jurisdictions).
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 05:31 PM
6

Not quite. Those cases still require a lack of consent in order to be rape. The victim has to convince the court they were not consenting. That's still a question of fact that most rape cases hinge on and that is difficult to establish. If they were not consenting, and their partner "compelled by force or threat" then Maine says it is rape. Other jurisdictions will require the partner to have intended to rape. But in either event, this is not consensual BDSM play. It is nonconsensual BDSM play. …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 05:23 PM
5

So at that point, isn't a jurisdiction that decides "no intent" is required for rape (which is not a universal position) no different from the state suggesting that it is reckless to have sex when you have no evidence of consent?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 05:19 PM
3

Wrong. This has nothing to do with what is acceptable to discuss in PPD. It has everything to do with those comments being verifiable false flags. You posted false flags that were created in a way such that only the false flagger was supposed to have access to it. Prove you were not the false flagger. This subreddit has a right to know if you're intentionally trolling it.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 05:17 PM
4

It is true in some places and contexts. For example in Maine USA the law is written so that "rape compelled by force or threat requires no culpable state of mind". I'm not a legal expert but my impression is that this probably does track more closely with other laws than dana is letting on here. If I recklessly endanger someone and they die as a result, I may still face criminal charges for their death (though I never intended to kill). That seems directly comparable--the Maine law is concerned …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 03:06 AM
7

Anybody with two brain cells doesn't walk away from this reading thinking it was a serious suggestion. If you get a chance, I'd love for you to reread/skim the entire "What is to Be Done" section (begins at the top of the Quarterly's page 33) and tell me which other parts are not serious there. Those read like incredibly serious suggestions which is why I included a few of them above. They come after Devlin has established that the current regime is an impossible absurdity and that he believes i…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 02:56 AM
3

:) It's true that Devlin talks about retrorape before that and it's not my intention to conceal that. I've mentioned it here explicitly before and I talked about it then too. There's nothing "convenient" about it, just the opposite. The article is massive and I'm already over post-limit for what I included. I did explain both why I picked up where I did, and why it should be understood to apply not merely to retrorape. And the invitation to discuss more context, which is always implied in a deba…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/12/13 02:45 AM
6

I like that; that particular excerpt might be limited to retrorape. It's still a big problem. First like you say it's still crazy to force marriage. Especially crazy considering he seems to think policing sexual consent by law is generally too invasive--so he's big on personal freedoms. Second I don't see how he intends to reliably distinguish between retrorape and sincere rape claims in this case. Does this mean that if a man gets a "not guilty" verdict (what if he is never charged, instead?) h…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 11:27 PM
9

Thanks for adding. If there was specific language I used that you feel misrepresented you, let me know and we'll work to edit it to something agreeable. The best justification for the distinction is choose to view sexual bodily autonomy/consent as a distinct value from physical bodily autonomy, and then reach the result from there. I think your reasoning would be that there's no reason to choose this distinction though. Reasons some might offer could include: humans experience a physical violati…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 11:18 PM
8

As far as I know, the entire "line by line" is in order--that was my intent at least. I proofed it quickly and found I had moved one part, and fixed that before submitting. Let me know if you find parts that are out of order. You're welcome to discuss any more context and how you think it changes the meaning of the line-by-line I've given. Clearly I'm going out of my way to invite absurd amount of context since that's the predictable criticism here. Your comment however is a series of baseless p…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 10:15 PM
7

[continued from above] If these ill-defined crimes persist, Devlin suggests men may come to use violence to oppose these laws: Men are being denied due process, ruined professionally, and threatened with particularly harsh punishments for any retaliation against the women accusing them of a newly invented and deliberately ill-defi ned crime. They may, for prudential reasons, outwardly conform to the new rules. But it is unlikely that the traditional reluctance in foro interno to use force against…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 09:36 PM
9

(PDF) Sexual Utopia in Power The single strongest argument (if only because it goes to such great length) favoring the historical damage measurement instead of consent-based prohibition of rape was deemed important enough to put it in the sidebar. The first time I see Devlin come directly to the topic of criminalization of rape is here, arguing that criminalization violates the freedoms on which we depend: The demand that law rather than moral principle and common prudence should protect women i…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 09:36 PM
3

The real problem is when people's posts are filled with logical fallacies (primarily strawman arguments) and insults. Insults, absolutely. But fallacies? Honest mistakes are not bad behavior and we can't have debate if there's a rule that everyone must be correct. We probably agree that fallacies alone aren't bad (it's dishonesty, or incredible absurdity). I can't be completely sure though without asking your clarification. That places me at risk of strawmanning you (honestly, no ill will) if I …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 08:12 PM
4

A mod recently indicated to me (if I understood) that the rule is for the title only, not the subtitle submission text, and it's meant to prevent intentionally loaded BS like the sidebar example "Why do you kick puppies?" I agree it is misleading as written and seems to prevent affirmative positions. "Neutrality" doesn't make much sense and I don't think is possible. Instead the rule should somehow focus on: sincerity, intent, evidence. Sincerity: this covers honest mistakes. Honest mistakes mak…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 08:06 PM
5

I'm not sure how we're applying this to women in relationships. I claim it is relevant because women ought to have a right to preserve this value if they choose. Suppose a woman wants to get married or settle into a long term relationship, and knows that TRP views her as bad LTR material if she increases her partner count. No one can guarantee after a third date, or a month, or any period that they've found "the one." If someone does have sex only to be "nexted" for another "plate," they've perm…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 05:25 PM
5

TRP believes women should be chaste when they're not in established relationships. Really? That's it? So TRP does not think that a single woman (no established relationship, at the moment) who has had lots of partners is bad "LTR" material? Pretty sure I can prove that is wrong. TRP frequently claims that women with a high, prior partner count are bad LTR material. Please stop with the deliberate obtuseness. Don't do that, you're one of the good people. You may think I am wrong, but you have no …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 04:17 PM
0

Blue pillers would come along and laugh and insult them and say, "lol praying doesn't work!" but if that's all they ever say, then people are going to continue to pray. Maybe this is a difference between typical TBP/TRP users. When I am convinced products don't work, I don't buy them, even if I desperately wished they worked. Or in this scenario, I would not waste my time praying once the evidence shows it doesn't work. How many TRP users do you suspect think TRP is wrong, but stick with it beca…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 07:53 AM
1

A lot of it is click bait and it seems like TBP doesn't recognize that and expects RP to defend it. I think this sentence is the misunderstanding. If the more moderate TRP members here share my rejection of some particularly odious TRP material, I'm thrilled to hear it. No one is demanding they defend anything, we're here seeking to learn, and one thing we might like to learn is the opinions of others here about specific TRP content. There's nothing wrong with users agreeing. You're taking this …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 07:36 AM
-1

What is the remedy to all this? Please explain why a remedy is needed. I see nothing wrong with PPD discussing what redpill users think (my first submission). I see nothing wrong with PPD discussing a claim made within PPD (my second submission), especially when it also offers a constructive position from TBP which is what it seems like you want more of.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 07:24 AM
4

I think you ought to try to show us where you found this redditlog, if it was circulating reddit. The evidence strongly suggests that you created it. The nature of the fake log guaranteed only the troll would see it. More, since PPD/TBP/TRP are really the only subs that would care, for the log to have circulated it likely would have been there and likely one of our users would have seen it. My last three submissions (including this one) have all been about my constructive positions. Feel free to…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/12/13 07:20 AM
1

I can absolutely find the case law to support what a contract is and what a promise is. Nothing on the planet will convince you so it is a fools errand. Lots would convince me. Case law, certainly. An expert writing on the topic, in any capacity. This is another baseless personal attack, not the first you shot here. All I asked was for some confirming evidence, which you first said you couldn't provide but now backtrack via insults. edit: Though I think it's far from definitive, I asked in /r/le…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:40 PM
1

Her only means to be compensated is through fraud in the inducement They also ruled in her favor for breach of promise (and recovered her attorney fees). The court entered a single award for damages for both the fraud and the contract claims. Not that it matters. That case is not meant to be an example of our topic here. The case has no third party interfering. The case only shows that these relationships have considerations: "Quit your job, we'll get married," which was partly acted upon. It's …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 06:50 AM
0

A promise doesn't become a contract, ever. Versus And I emphasize this, for the arbitration promise is itself a contract. You: You are getting messed up because the sources you cite is overloading the term "promise". This is my problem: if these are legal rulings using the term broadly, then, in law the term is used broadly. Which is my point. It doesn't make sense to claim it has a very specific, narrow usage that excludes consideration/contracts when... it doesn't; you're saying the usage is b…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 06:06 AM
2

Ah. I mean for these surveys which count how many people "file" the paperwork. Even if only one party seeks a divorce, I see your point, both names are needed. I'm asking about mutually-sought divorce because if the paperwork is still only "filed" by one person, then these surveys of "who filed" don't quite tell us "who wants a divorce." Similarly, surveying "who does the grocery shopping" does not tell us "who wants groceries," just who is doing the work for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:56 AM
3

I think perception is more powerful than reality here. Marriage does lots of things but for many it comes down to tax benefits and a large party. That party is most often a very expensive chore (if romantic) and the middle class is far more leveraged than just a few decades ago. The more we see of happily unmarried households, the less people will feel it is necessary for happiness. I think this idea was almost off the radar, not long ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:43 AM
6

With both parties getting screwed over, it's a lose lose situation. I know lots of people both men and women who don't think marriage is important or valuable, and the divorce harms are part of it. Whenever these discussions treat men like they alone are rationally opting out of marriage, I think we miss a huge part of the picture. In at least one survey marriage is now more important for men than for women. The factoid that more women initiate divorce proceedings is often mentioned, but by no m…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:34 AM
0

You: Part of the problem is you use English words that have one meaning but have different meanings in the law. For example, contracts don't allow penalties. Only actual damages can be awarded In response to me saying "... that the contract damages are sufficient." But anyway. Proving that words are sometimes used here colloquially isn't interesting if you can't show it changed the result somehow. So long as we agree what we're talking about, and not making an error as a result, colloquial langu…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:20 AM
0

You are using lots of words in ways lay people do I am using the words the way they were used in this discussion. If dana can use "promises" in a "colloquial" way that might cover promises with consideration (mutual or one-way), I will follow suit. Promises are not oral contacts because promises aren't contracts. They don't have the consideration requirement. That appears not to be the case. The law frequently describes contracts as promises, and promises as elements of contracts. Promises may n…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 05:15 AM
0

No, that does not happen at all. Contract breaches are awarded contract damages only. No tort damages are possible. I did not mean there is a tort charge for breaching a contract. I meant there is a tort charge for a third party illegally interfering with a contract. See: wrongful or tortious interference, or conspiracy to induce breach of contract. dana's position was that when the contract/promise is breached in such cases (illegally, because of third party interference) that the contract dama…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 04:06 AM
0

Thanks for the added clarification, this Sometimes a court may award remedies for failing to uphold a promise is really more to my point. Courts enforce nonwritten promises, in contrast with dana arguing that promises were not legally actionable. Also though, these unwritten "promises" can still be ruled legal contracts. Oral contracts, under most circumstances, if the terms of an oral contract can be proved or are admitted by the other party, an oral contract is every bit as enforceable as one …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 04:00 AM
1

So basically what you're saying is that your definition of "rape apologia" is in line with certain christian beliefs of "gay marriage apologia". My argument is that my use of the word is in line with the way everyone uses the word. As an effect of that, homophobes use the word the same way, too (they were your example, not mine). The distinction you wanted to make that RPS tolerates but does not "approve" is exactly why this is called apologia instead of endorsement.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 03:35 AM
2

I'm going to add another description of "apologia" that might provide helpful understanding of how it is used. This description attempts to reconcile the positive/neutral use of the word with the disparaging use of it (we'll come to see this is "apologia apologia"). In the broadest sense apologia/apologetics refers to any argument at all. In popular usage it is used almost exclusively for arguments that attempt to reconcile apparent contradictions. Here is an article about Matthew Vines, a gay C…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 12:54 AM
2

Just because, were a contract like this to exist he would not interfere with other consenting adults entering one, does not mean he is a rape apologist. It does. I think you're just asserting your opinion here without evidence. I know you do not consider this[1] sufficient to be apologetics, and you know that I do consider it sufficient. You've argued that in comparable cases (like "tolerating gay marriage") you still would not call this apologetics. I (if I were a person intolerant of gay marri…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/12/13 12:32 AM
2

While that may be the case, this specific thought experiment had a premise that the world we live in does not, I believe that is true of all thought experiments, by definition. Otherwise we'd be describing reality, not experimenting with thoughts. Everything I've said so far about "thought experiments" also applies to "thought experiments with a non-real premise" as well. This distinction doesn't refute anything, assuming it even is a real distinction. He has said that these contracts should not…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 11:37 PM
1

Because everyone knows that in THAT SPECIFIC thought experiment, noone was talking about the real world. I believe that in the thought experiment, RPS was describing his real world beliefs (maybe that's where we're missing each other?) not the real world of law/contracts that exist in 2013 USA. I gave two strong reasons why the thought experiment must be his beliefs in the linked discussion above: his conclusion no longer follows otherwise, and his lack of criticism still betrays a belief that i…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 11:16 PM
4

Inaction is not action. Physical inaction is not physical action. But it's worth being able to distinguish between these two cases: A person can effortlessly save someone's life, but never thinks of it, and does not do so. Another person can also effortlessly save someone's life, considers it, and chooses not to. Both result in physical inaction, but one of those physical inactions is "actively" selected. I'll gladly use a different word if you have a recommendation, but I want to emphasize the …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 11:06 PM
3

Your comment confuses me. Have you mistaken "amoral" (which means, neither good nor bad but instead "neutral" morally) for "immoral" (which means morally wrong)? The fact that people cheat indicates that there are people with sexual strategies that do not consider cheating amoral. Someone acting is not evidence of their moral belief about the action. People act in ways they know are moral, know are immoral, and know are amoral, all with regularity. there is no single agreed upon moral standard. …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 10:54 PM
1

A dependant is different than a loved one. There exist loved ones that are dependent, which is the case I discussed. Why does having a loved one obligate one to give that loved one your own property? Actively causing the death of someone in close proximity when you could, with no undue burden on yourself, prevent that death is morally wrong. It's not that being a "loved one" is particularly relevant (that has just been the topic until now). Though, less-loved ones are likely not in such close pr…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 10:41 PM
0

theres no contract to give the person the piece of furniture in my scenario, First, I am dealing with your scenario more generally. I admit that. I don't think either of us is interested only in this singular, narrow example. Second, courts often do find that a verbal promise constitutes a legal contract. So even dealing only with your narrow example, this is still applicable. Third, there's no moral reason that harming someone by interfering with their verbal promise would be more acceptable th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 10:34 PM
1

if X promises to give a piece of furniture to Y, and then decides to sell it instead and Z suggested he sell it, finds him the buyer and helps him move the piece of furniture to its new owner--is Z morally culpable for the moral failure of breaking X's promise? You're basically describing a "tortious interference," a "conspiracy to induce breach of contract," or some other charge for interfering with contracts. Legally and morally this is wrong, if it is deliberate. Deliberately acting in a way …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 10:14 PM
0

No, I'd say that you are perfectly allowed to refuse to talk to someone if you don't want to and I'd add that anyone who suggested otherwise was a moron. I agree. This example helps draw the distinction I like here. Merely withholding is never wrong (we can imagine someone physically or psychologically unable to speak if it helps). The problem is when this cold shoulder is intentionally deployed as a weapon. That's a problem. There's still no obligation to talk, but the intention to 'hurt' someo…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 10:06 PM
2

No one is obligated to provide a loved one with food either. There are times when this obligation does exist, for example caring for a dependent. Also, I think there is a more general obligation here too. If you're actively denying food (and it would not burden you to give it) to a loved one, you might be at least morally culpable for the physical harms even if they're not a legal dependent. I do not know what the law would say and this case seems unlikely: we expect an independent person (anyon…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 09:59 PM
2

I believe that's because he thinks they're morally wrong Curious, why do you think this? Keep in mind, I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. I agree he's not interested in one personally though. We could update my first description like this: RPS sees nothing morally wrong with [other] parties entering into a perpetual consent contract That doesn't change my conclusion about the importance of his position, so I'm satisfied with that sti…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 07:39 PM
1

In your opinion you did Yes. So you retract your complaint above, then? I have met my burden to lay this claim, by providing evidence. In my opinion you saying you had an agenda meant you had an agenda. That's not really topical here so I moved to continue it here.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 07:34 PM
1

They don't contradict. Great. Then we agree (?): you're not accusing me of admitting to trying to participate in an unbiased, sincere way, but rather accusing me of an agenda to smear someone dishonestly. If that's not what you meant, then you're incorrect to call this "an agenda to prove RPS is a rape apologist," because that would not be (and is not) my agenda if I am (and I am) intending to be unbiased/sincere. And we'd be forced to agree you're incorrect to call it "dishonest." Dishonesty is…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 07:32 PM
1

Right. That was my understanding. So we agree that we're talking about the same understanding of RPS's position, which only includes: RPS sees nothing morally wrong with parties entering into a perpetual consent contract. RPS would not interfere with or impede such contracts. Do we agree to those two things? If so, you've made my case for me in this thread. Previously, you thought I was misunderstanding RPS in order to reach my conclusion. Now, we agree about what RPS means and I still reach my …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 07:21 PM
5

Perhaps more to the point: I believe TRP may back itself into a corner where people are stuck suggesting abstinence is evil, because if they identified the actual evil in the cases they're worried about, it might reflect badly on TRP itself. The actual evil is purposely combative, weaponized personal relationships, but TRP argues that relationships must be adversarial and participants can never stop gaming each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 07:02 PM
3

I don't think that's true. If you still thought I misunderstood RPS's position, you never could have come to say this sentence: If that's what constitutes rape apologia then fine. It's ridiculous, but fine. The "that" in that sentence is referring to what you sincerely believe is (a part of) RPS's position. You're referring, in fact, to your own descriptions of RPS's position, that he is "'tolerating' or 'not impeding'." You could have more explicitly said, "If tolerating or not impeding is apol…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 06:19 PM
1

Sorry, that's not the standard you're entitled to. Otherwise, in modmail, /u/PurplePillDebate would have immediately agreed your comments needed to be removed, since PPD acknowledged they were accusations. The standard you're entitled to is freedom from baseless personal attacks. I provided evidence of your dishonesty, and you're welcome to argue the point. When you read my linked post explaining my position on thought experiments, how do you conclude that "[parody doesn't] matter because you be…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 06:11 PM
1

Yes you are, though you may not realize that is your position. Back to this link. Here is your argument: in thought experiment. That's all that needs to be said about everything you said before those three words. When discussing the thought experiment, the real world went out the window. The thought experiment had hypothetical premises, and conclusions drawn off of these premises. It's not the real world belief, that's the bottom line, and you should stop trying to conflate the two. You did not …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 06:07 PM
5

in soulcake's world, we're talking about literally running people over with trains No, we're not. We are, however, talking about our sincere beliefs of what we would do, our sincere beliefs about whether inaction is morally an action or not, etc. (unless we purposely frame the conversation to avoid sharing our thoughts on the experiment) Equivalently, when you created a perpetual consent contract thought experiment, you were not literally creating perpetual consent contracts. You did however rev…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 06:04 PM
2

I may just add into the rules something like "If you are claiming you have been misinterpreted, state why" so the issue gets resolved. That sounds good. My only suggestion would be making it slightly more general. Something like Any discussion about this subreddit or its users (including their beliefs, their intentions, their interpretations of something) should be well-evidenced. It's the personal stuff where users seem most likely to make baseless assertions and refuse to engage the arguments,…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 06:07 AM
1

I doubt this was intended to be degrading, but for future reference don't talk to me like this. It reminds me of how someone would talk to a dog that got into a garbage can. I find it rather insulting. My apologies for that. and lots of people seem to think you chronically misinterpret things. So? Is that really fair of you? I think you're causing the harm I am describing. This isn't a popularity contest. Lots of people also love my contributions, too. This is all still the wrong emphasis. You'r…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 05:31 AM
3

So none of the worst parts of cheating are applicable to the other woman/man. If not the worst parts, do you agree some of the other harms still apply? Has the homewrecker harmed the cheated-upon partner?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 05:22 AM
8

My question is "what is the measuring stick?" For me both are bad, but they're also very different. That's where I'd normally drop it. But if we want to know if they're equally bad, how do we measure? A cheater breaks an explicit, personal promise, injuring someone who trusted them deeply. A homewrecker breaks implied social covenants, but might not know the inured parties. I struggle to weigh different harms. I will say this example calls the "strategy is amoral" and "hypoagency" TRP arguments …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 05:15 AM
2

For something subjective, you'd be right. But what I'm talking about is the interpretation of another person's comments. Thats what people are complaining about. That's why people like RPS say they don't want to debate you: they think you're misinterpreting their comments. And I say they're mistaken in thinking I've misinterpreted. Don't you see that this is subjective? They need to interpret what my interpretation (of their words) is before they can conclude my interpretation is wrong. Their in…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 04:55 AM
3

I'm all ears for how to reduce the number of misinterpretations That's the wrong way to fix this problem. To improve the quality of this subreddit, moderators need to LOUDLY disabuse users of the WRONG sense of entitlement they have here. Instead, you're reinforcing it. Debates will often have people who are wrong. Many debates guarantee at least one person is wrong. If we're debating an interpretation, you're not entitled to expect every interpretation will be right. That's absurd. What you're …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 04:25 AM
0

I disagree whole heartedly that debate will take place here, on account that you still deny people their own positions. Another great demonstration of the argument I've made with this submission. I am not in every PPD discussion. Not by a long shot. If I am the reason debate will not take place here, then you haven't proven your previously stated position that debate can't take place here. Here, again, a TRP moderator discourages critical thinking by hastily asserting that debate is not possible…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 03:46 AM
4

Since you don't seem to recognize thought experiments as different from real life, Here was my previous comment explaining thought experiments. It's possible for them to be "anonymous." But yes, feel free to discuss anything in that post too, if you like. From here on out I can say that you've been trolling TRP for months as you have admitted here. You're welcome to argue that, and I'm welcome to argue otherwise. I would say: I was being satirical, as is clear from the context for a number of re…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/12/13 03:41 AM
2

As a late update, here is another problem: Your agenda is to identify rape apologia full stop. MY opinion is there is no rape apologia. That sounds like you meant that we merely disagree and that I am trying to truthfully identify rape apologia. In the other comment thread about this you said: "for my purposes" is what I interpreted as to meaning that you have an agenda to prove that RPS is a rape apologist. You're using dishonest tactics, imo, to try and do that. These two comments contradict. …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 08:51 PM
2

We don't all agree. I disagree because I think perpetual consent contracts are morally wrong. I disagree because I think having sex with someone against their immediate will (with a perpetual consent contract) is wrong and is nonconsensual. I disagree because I think the legal recognition that spousal rape can happen did not devalue marriage. I disagree because I do not think defending Devlin's insanity in the sidebar (for the sake of free speech or anything else) is appropriate. He should be so…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 04:08 PM
0

I have to say I think we made great progress. It's worth recapping the distance we traveled. Originally you thought I mischaracterized (perhaps only by accident) RPS's position. You had thought this about me for months. Now, however, you instead say (my paraphrasing) that my position is unimportant, "ridiculous." Not that I've misunderstood RPS, but that I shouldn't care. That's monumental after months of being stuck.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 07:37 AM
1

Right, he would not "support" one person raping the other under the contract. The same way he does not "support" the contract. But he thinks there is nothing morally wrong with the contract, and that such sex would be consensual. He would tolerate it, and not interfere, because contracts/freedoms are too sacred to violate just to prevent the violation of sexual autonomy/consent. He says this explicitly, and you've said he would tolerate it not interfere with it, and I've already quoted it above,…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 07:35 AM
2

Your agenda is to identify rape apologia full stop. This is still misleading because of your uses of the words "admit" and "agenda." We're both engaged in the same debate: "is this rape apologia?" Perhaps I could have better expressed myself by saying "for our purposes (identifying rape apologia)." This is our shared "agenda" here. But I did not do so because I was explaining how I was using words in contrast with how you were using the same words. Your response that this is an admission of "an …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 07:23 AM
2

He's not defending or giving vindication to anyone. That's from the wiki. He is defending the position "tolerate [rape/tattoos/marriage equality] even though it is bad." That's an example of "apologia" as the word is used in this context. Might want to read the rest of the wiki article btw; it's an article about what you'd more commonly call an "apology": "I am sorry for raping/tattoos/marriage." That's definitely not the topic here even though its the wiki entry for the word we're using. He's s…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 07:11 AM
2

How is "tolerating" or "not impeding" something the same as "apologizing" for it? Just because some religious people "tolerate" gay marriage, doesn't mean they're "gay marriage apologists." Actually, if someone were inclined to use the phrase "gay marriage apologists," the scenario you described would fit the description. "Guys, I'm on your side: gay marriage is bad. But let's tolerate it anyway." To someone who opposes gay marriage that is "gay marriage apologia" (though I don't expect the term…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 07:03 AM
2

I bolded the part to show my emphasis. The formatting is poor, I'll fix it. Your bolding is not a fix. It is a confession. You're admitting that you have an agenda here. "For your purposes." "Identifying rape apologia" where there is none, imo. First of all, this is now contradictory. It starts accusatory: that I admitted to something. But concludes that's not the case: it's merely your opinion, not my admission. Anyway. This now says that I did not, in any way, indicate I was trying to identify…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 06:59 AM
2

"for my purposes" is what I interpreted as to meaning that you have an agenda to prove that RPS is a rape apologist. Nah, that's not what "for my purposes" means. You looked at "identifying rape apologia" and inserted your own words after: "identifying rape apologia [where there is none]." You made this "reasoning" (which is not reasonable at all, and is completely baseless) very clear for us above. There are plenty of people that don't impede things that they also don't condone. It's ridiculous…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 06:51 AM
2

You're admitting that you have an agenda here. "For your purposes." "Identifying rape apologia" where there is none What I said is not evidence that I am looking to identify rape apologia where there is none. What I said is evidence that I am looking to identify rape apologia where it is, and not identify it where it is not. Your interpretation is not reasonable and is not based on anything other than you distrust of me. And it amounts to a personal attack. In violation of the rules here. A pers…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 06:40 AM
1

Your edit is not appropriate for this subreddit. And you know it. And you've promised in the past not to do it. I'm reporting it to mods. You're admitting that you have an agenda here. "For your purposes." "Identifying rape apologia" where there is none What I said is not evidence that I am looking to identify rape apologia where there is none. What I said is evidence that I am looking to identify rape apologia where it is, and not identify it where it is not. Your interpretation is not reasonab…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 06:24 AM
4

There are many people that don't condone tattoos but they don't impede others from getting them. So your argument is flawed. That's not a flaw with my argument. Tolerating tattoos is tattoo apologia, the same way that tolerating rape is rape apologia. Since I don't think there's anything wrong with tattoos I'm not concerned with tattoo apologia. It is morally wrong for him. "It." Well, here are some things that are not morally wrong for him: I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly …
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 06:17 AM
4

I don't disagree with any of it. There's one uninteresting part I am unaware of, and one part I would word differently. I've seen him say he would not want to live with implicit perpetual consent (ie, marriage contracts with no mention of sex/consent but with the legal system saying "spousal rape is impossible"). I haven't seen him say he would not want to live in a world of explicit contracts (unless that just means he prefers our current arrangement). he would not condone such a contract, thou…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 05:46 AM
2

I don't see why, after RPS has stated so many goddamn times that he is against rape you can still even have this argument. Because that statement does not contradict anything I'm claiming.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 05:13 AM
7

It doesn't matter how deep it goes. If the PPD account that submitted did not get it form somewhere else, then they're a troll regardless of whether they're red or blue.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 04:54 AM
1

I'm going to name the problem: this is intellectual cowardice. I did not jump to the "worst" interpretation. I carefully proved why mine is the only interpretation. Your burden is to offer how another is possible. Instead, you tell us debate is pointless and that I am just arguing "semantics," a meaningless charge which here (where the central debate question is what words meant) amounts to "you are completely right about the only possible interpretation of language but I refuse to admit being w…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 04:52 AM
6

So it's copypasta. I don't think there can be any doubt it is a troll then. If the PPD contributor who linked this trolling was sincerely taken in by it, they should let us know where they found the redditlog.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 04:12 AM
-1

That's all that needs to be said about everything you said before those three words. ... It's not the real world belief Incorrect. Thought experiments are not necessarily "anonymous." Contrast "If it rained, some people would be quite upset" vs "If it rained, I would be upset." The second one reflects on me, personally. That leaves us with two problems. (1) If RPS meant to talk about other's interpretation of the experiment, then his conclusion no longer follows. Hypothetically, RPS might have m…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 03:56 AM
3

As an aside, this part: "AS PER MY VALUES is the important part here. As can be seen here, where I am debating with u/mrsamsa and u/soulcakeduck. I explain that what RPS meant by that is that his values are in line with the current rape laws. doesn't indicate anything at all. The comment could just as easily mean "as per my values that lawfulness is generally good." I've explained this before as well. There's yet another weasel word in the sentence too. In the thought experiment, RPS concludes t…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 03:52 AM
12

As a male that frequents TBP I am pretty opposed to my dying. Good point. A TBP survey from two months ago found that 46% of respondents were guys, 50% gals.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 03:42 AM
6

but on the other hand is a few seconds enough time to switch accounts and do all of that? Yes. Easily. In fact, it's the only way I can imagine doing all that within 15 seconds. Here's one easy way. Log in to reddit on account1 in any regular browser window. Now open an "incognito" style browser window (Chrome, Firefox, I think other browsers have these): incognito browsers do not handle your cookies and you won't be logged in when you navigate to reddit, so you can now log in with account2. Put…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 03:17 AM
0

Thanks for contributing. I hope you'll take the opportunity to answer standing questions I've had about your position on this topic. You: You, /u/soulcakeduck thinks that he meant that because rape is illegal he thinks it's immoral (implying that if rape were legal he would have no problem with it) when in reality what he meant was rape is immoral and I agree that it should be illegal. The very same comment explicitly says that without the law, there is nothing morally wrong. The entire point of…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 03:09 AM
19

I'll start: I oppose these statements in the strongest possible terms. Only, I have a crazy suspicion... (1) Both user accounts are deleted: /u/marysunshine2, /u/rain_trf (2) Neither user is recognizable to me, and I have no life except for TBP lurking, so I know most regulars there. (3) The reply is within 15 seconds of the original comment. It is 89 words long. marysunshine2 must have loaded the page, read the parent comment, and submitted 89 words all within 15 seconds. That's 360 words per m…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 02:46 AM
3

TRP's sidebar article: Sexual Utopia in Power (PDF) PurplePillDebate discussion More recent TBP comment with other Devlin excerpts
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 02:24 AM
2

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1scxgu/does_usoulcakeduck_think_uredpillschool_is_not_in/
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 02:17 AM
6

I am sorry for this extraordinarily dead horse. I know this topic tires many in PPD, including the person who asked me to answer but insists I have a "rape crusade" for daring to discuss the topic. The same users also take the absence of these redundant answers (screencap) as evidence of evasiveness. Apparently I am both too eager and too evasive to discuss this topic, simultaneously.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/12/13 02:17 AM
6

Wow what a strange and interesting article. Am I correct that the "one dimension" the title objects to is treating homosexuality as similar among men and women, when instead it should recognize the stereotypical differences between gay men and lesbians? Because those stereotypes themselves are what I originally took as cartoonishly "one dimensional." And bizarre. Gay men are apolitical and lesbians are political it says, which is why there are no gay-male MLKs. But, there is Harvey Milk and I ca…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/13 02:01 AM
1

zion just denies marital rape, which i think is why he stepped down or was kicked out or whatever redpillschool said this was not related to why zion stepped down. but following the context of the entire chapter, you see the author is talking about regret-sex Not really. You'll see that elsewhere he also talks about regret-based rape, but I do not think it is possible to reasonably interpret that as being the topic of his troubling quotes.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/12/13 01:40 AM
3

"just agree[ing] with the law" is largely where TBP finds fault with TRP. Is spousal rape only bad because it is illegal? Would it be morally permissible if the law allowed it? For the most part, both sides agree with the law: spousal rape is bad since it is illegal. There are notable exceptions, like then-moderator zioncontroller who doesn't believe in spousal rape. I think there are two big cases people care about: (1) redpillschool thinks spousal rape is a core reason that traditional marriag…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 09:04 PM
3

He has some good points and some stupid ones. Some of his points show that he's severely out of touch with the way things are progressing. I'd love to hear examples of this, from you. Which points are wrong? This comment seems like inconsistent backpedaling: if Devlin is often wrong, then maybe we're not so crazy when we criticize what we perceive are his mistakes. If Devlin is rejecting "feminism's approach to rape," then maybe we're not wrong to suggest Devlin has rejected the feminist approac…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 08:45 PM
7

Early on I tried to do a larger submission to condense the big-picture repeating problems I see with TRP and rape. A few perceptions I've had since then: in a bit of irony, I am frequently accused of a "rape crusade" by the very red pillians who (by insisting on this characterization, and insisting that I answer to it) are actually the ones responsible for re-opening the topic, time and again. I can think of at least three users and four large discussions that fit this description. people on all…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 08:25 PM
2

whenever it's stated the way we're talking about the thread starts out with "You're cherrypicking"/ "I don't believe that"/ "Yes you do it's in the sidebar"/ "You're intentionally misinterpreting the sidebar"/ ---- And it goes on like that every single time. I don't think the rule, which prevents TBP from stating an affirmative position, has stopped any of that. Nor do I think it should stop any of that. That's part of the debate.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 07:28 PM
3

Leap to conclusions, very telling. I did not answer because my answer does not add anything to this thread that I did not provide already above, when I answered previously above, answered answered answered, and because your question was a needlessly snarky, personal attack that a moderator had to voice up to get you to edit. There are uncountably infinite ways I could have written. According to you, my submission was both clear enough (thanks!), and correct (thanks again!). It is different from …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 07:24 PM
-1

You want to discuss my beliefs/position. I'm willing to do so in a submission about it (or PM me, or whatever), but it is derailing here as it is not the topic of this discussion. Otherwise, I am also happy to point you to plenty of places where I've described my position before, and I don't believe it has changed since then. https://np.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m9rp8/red_pill_and_rape_what_do_you_think_do_you_agree/
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:59 PM
6

Your question is not very clear, as it can be taken to mean that TRP believes that heterosexuality is a choice. Allow me to clarify, definitely and authoritatively: My question does not mean that TRP believes homosexuality is a choice. My question asks whether TRP believes homosexuality is a choice (motivated by attractiveness). I hope that helps. In addition your original question is actually two questions, not one. I agree. Feel free to contribute to either or both discussions.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:51 PM
5

What a confusing way to express his agreement. Isn't he using that comparison perfectly wrongly? Chicken/Egg is an example of an unanswerable question ("we don't know which came first") in a cycle ("now, chickens lay eggs and eggs become chickens, and . . ."). Yet he's agreeing we know which came first (obesity causes lesbianism) and I think (???) he's rejecting the idea it's a cycle (lesbianism causing obesity was explicitly rejected). It's like answering "where does the circle begin?" by point…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:47 PM
0

Submit a topic if you want to debate it. This submission is about whether it is possible to debate here, and I don't want to derail.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:41 PM
3

The rule you're talking about was intended to stop posts being titled "TRP are rapists." So does it only apply to titles? Can our text-submissions state our position? Here are the first submission titles I had deleted: Rape is wrong, always. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. and Red Pill and rape I think these are neutral titles (assuming nothing about TRP, just identifying either my belief or the topic). I think the first is even remarkably close to the acceptable example you gave: "I am so…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:37 PM
1

Presupposes that TRP believes that heterosexuality is a choice. No. It doesn't. It asks if TRP thinks it a choice (motivated by attractiveness).
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:22 PM
-1

Every time we come to the conclusion, "ok maybe they really didn't mean rape is good, I guess we just misinterpreted everything.." Sadly, I've never been able to come to that conclusion, largely because redpillers prefer to spend the discussion talking about whether I honestly believe the things I carefully reason out in these discussions rather than replying to my reasoning.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:19 PM
3

mrsamsa is exactly as qualified as redpillschool to interpret Devlin's words. Ignore the irony that you've forgotten what RPS words were or where they were. You haven't described bad behavior here, but the exact, good behavior this sub wants: when RPS offers his interpretation, mrsamsa debates it by offering his own and his reasoning for it.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:16 PM
2

That rule shows how my submission is within the rules. Had my submission been, Why does TRP [kick puppies] think straight men choose heterosexuality because they're too ugly to be gay? then it would have been a loaded question. Asking what TRP believes, making no assumption about what their conclusion will be, is not loaded.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 06:13 PM
6

doesn't mean it's a quote from return of kings. I think I'm done with this: It is a quote. It is from the ROK website. It is a quoted comment from the ROK website. You're just adding your own interpretation that you admit no one ever said and then blaming others for that being wrong. You admitted the submission (the image) made the "user-generated" part clear. That is also the only purpose the vote totals could have served. And you've admitted no one said otherwise. The end. a completely anonymo…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:59 PM
3

I agree up until The mods would have to guard against posts with no more content than, "I believe that TRP's position is wrong. Change my view" - because that's cheating. Look, if I wanted to have a great discussion about any topic there are already lots of subreddits to discuss those topics, often populated with some very qualified, smart users. This debate sub is specifically for challenging red pill views. Standing for, "I believe TRP is wrong to think of women as teenagers [and here are my r…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:53 PM
5

I agree. Originally there was /r/RedPillDebate which I think is truer to the purpose (and ability) of these discussions.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:51 PM
4

Nobody, not one red piller has made the argument that rape shouldn't be a crime. When I claimed that this was nothing new for TRP I linked to some PPD discussions where I've established just that: some redpillers do argue rape should not have been criminalized, or should not be criminalized. Admittedly they were long discussions. This comment I made (warning: it is on /r/TheBluePill) was a more narrowly focused summary of some of those TRP ideas about criminalization and rape. I've always been w…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:45 PM
4

I'm sorry you misunderstood. You're right though: I was technically correct, which the moderator also acknowledged when saying he misunderstood after assuming it was written by someone else. I did not attribute it to Roosh or any TRP figurehead. You should not have leaped from the exact, literal, technical meaning of my words to anything else. Even if you had, your own submission here says that the screenshot made it clear it was a comment, and not an article. So far from proving I was intention…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:41 PM
9

In this thread, we have blue pillers literally mocking red pillers, not engaging in conversation. I have wiped my account because after this post, I am officially leaving purple pill forever. Mocking shouldn't be tolerated. You haven't proven your premise though since plenty participate here without it. Reporting it also gets it deleted, in my experience (thanks, mods!). Mocking does happen sometimes though. Your contribution to that thread can be considered an example, even if it was poorly cho…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:37 PM
7

Furthermore, after extensive searching, I can't even find the comment itself. Now, I'm not going to doubt that the comment itself is probably there- but nevertheless, it's a user comment and not an article on return of kings. You did not look very hard. It took me less than a minute to confirm the comment exists (Warning: ROK link) before I crossposted the image here (which is also how I copy/pasted it; too lazy to transcribe). Surely you also could have asked, in that submission, for confirmati…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:23 PM
9

In this thread, we have blue pillers making a false claim that the text of the OP is a return of kings article. This is blatantly false, it is a user-generated comment, as you can see from the formatting. Where was the false claim made? I included the vote totals specifically to make the context--that it was a user generated comment--clearer, since, AFAIK, ROK articles themselves are not voted upon. If people misunderstood that is unfortunate (and was clarified within the thread), but I don't se…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 05:15 PM
3

What's your point? Rape culture doesn't tell us "it is unlikely that someone is ever not-being-raped; rape is the likelier outcome of all things ever and if you ever hear someone claiming not-rape, you should instead assume rape." But yes, I think it is reasonable (and really only controversial if you're trying to be offended) to suggest that culture could have some problems with rape. Sex crimes are often mishandled, and we could do better. For example, lots of people think men cannot be raped …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/12/13 12:18 AM
0

Except the other side doesn't have a narrative that says "non-discrimination is uncommon and anyone claiming non-discrimination is actually suffering a psychological problem."
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 09:04 PM
2

That leaves us begging the question. Whenever someone raises the topic of victimization, TRP assumes the topic is victim culture instead. I agree they do this, and it's a problem for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 08:59 PM
6

Looking at the other examples of "victim culture" above, does that mean rape victims need to change themselves? Victims of workplace discrimination need to change themselves? It works for dating strategy because self improvement is viable there. In cases of actual victimization I don't think it does.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 07:59 PM
2

I think trp's "victim culture" narrative begs the question. Whenever the very question is "is this victimization?" TRP assumes the answer (no, not victimization, just "victim culture") to prove the answer: since there is victim culture, we know this is not victimization. Above is a great demonstration: when there is a supposed rape (with no one else mentioning regret), TRP assumes it is likely regret and not rape because they know victim culture exists, and they know vicitm culture exists becaus…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 05:34 PM
1

No, it's not. Consider another example. Democratic governments are made up of the people and are supposed to benefit their constituents. Sometimes, democracies commit atrocities. In fact, democracy itself may be partly to blame for encouraging some atrocities. This is why we don't have any pure democracies today; every modern government has many checks against the tyranny of majorities. Supposing a democracy caused a problem, and people called for a new reform to prevent that kind of majority ru…
/r/MensRights05/12/13 05:02 PM
9

Sounds like I missed a convoluted conspiracy theory, where I would have... made a fake account and a detailed comment on ROK that merely regurgitates ideas that TRP's sidebar already tells us in far greater detail presumably made a slew of other fake accounts to upvote my own comment magically prevented all other ROK contributors from downvoting the comment perhaps added some/all of the replies that agreed with the comment waited a month for someone else on reddit to post the image (or maybe tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 04:15 AM
2

Are there times when rape is a sexual strategy? Probably. But the majority of cases, it is not because sex isn't the goal. What about everything above? If I want to have sex to improve my relationship or gain intimacy with someone, is my approach no longer a sexual strategy? If I want to have sex to procreate, there's no sexual strategy? If I want to have consensual sex because it is empowering (comparable to why rapists may want to rape), there's no sexual strategy? This is just a needlessly co…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/12/13 04:13 AM
1

Having sex isn't even a consideration. Having sex necessarily is a consideration. It isn't rape if there is no sex (without consent). I don't see how to define or defend the position you're describing. At some point, if they become important enough, the underlying ("non-sexual"?) motives for sex mean that sex is no longer sex? or that strategies to get that sex are no longer sexual strategies? Surely rape would not be the only case of this, in any event. I appreciate your point that consent is a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:45 PM
1

Rape is "sex without consent." Therefore, rape is sex (without consent). Yes, there are ulterior motives. I talked about that above. Despite sex and rape being vastly different, they're similar here in the way that matters: they're both sex. Ulterior motives don't negative other "sexual strategies" and shouldn't here either.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:21 PM
10

That's a comforting thought, but that comfort is the only evidence supporting the thought. None of the arguments here are anything new, and the vote totals suggest it was popular among readers. The language might be intentionally provocative but I think we should treat the ideas as sincere.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:18 PM
0

I'd define "sexual strategy" something like this: n., a plan intended to result in sex. The intended result of trying to rape someone is to have sex with them (against their will). There may be other motives for it, like power. Yet, it is still one plan that someone could consider that results in sex, so it is a sexual strategy. I don't see why an ulterior (power) motive would prevent something from being "sexual strategy." In fact, I think the overwhelming majority of sexual activity has a moti…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:05 PM
15

In previous PPD submissions I have detailed how TRP frequently believes rape cannot be consent-based (fidelity or chastity are more important than autonomy), or that rape should not be criminalized, or that sex against someone's "immediate will" is not inherently bad. We're also told sexual strategy is amoral. Here we see similar. Again, bodily autonomy is rejected as the standard for rape, and instead we're encouraged to measure economic damage. This is another demonstration of redpill ideology…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 04:03 PM
1

rape isn't a sexual strategy, Why not? What are the necessary criteria defining "sexual strategy" that rape fails to meet?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:47 PM
-2

I don't approve. Skeptical it happened as well. Does TRP's outrage here prove that TRP is wrong about sexual strategy? This is a strategy, and TRP claims strategy is amoral, so if this is offensive they've contradicted themselves. Is TRP's outrage inconsistent? We've seen TRP celebrate public shaming before, including spreading the image of a woman they admit was being sexually assaulted and celebrating that she got what was coming to her. What about the whole "makeup is false advertising" argum…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:14 PM
5

Does the facebook capture look like satire? That's my point. Most of the TBP submissions are sincere redpill material. That doesn't mean the subreddit has a sincere bluepill ideology.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:05 PM
0

You said "167 comments ... think that post is OK." Please show us the other 162.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/12/13 03:04 PM
2

That if the girl felt that it was rape then it was. In the situation being discussed, it was rape. Period. It doesn't matter if she doesn't think so. If you want to say that all unconscious sex, no matter how much pre-arrangement and consent is given to those exact acts, is rape that is your perogative. I'd certainly agree at least that it is risky. But outside of statutory concerns like "too drunk to consent, too young to consent, too unconscious to consent (if applicable)" and others, the desc…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 08:50 PM
2

What I'm saying is that "her being fine with it" should not have anything to do with In that context "her being fine with it" means "she consents to it." If she was not fine with having that sex, it was rape, even if she was not able to express her ... regret (lack of consent) until later. We're talking about after the fact here. The encounter is over. We're talking about what she wanted during the encounter but was unable to express during the encounter because you've purposely taken advantage …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 08:44 PM
6

If someone has had sex with you, and and not followed that up with a huge fight where they threw you out, this implies consent to have sex again. And it's pretty acceptable to initiate sex with such a person if they are asleep, or drunk off their ass. If for some reason they really insist that you stop, they'll let you know, either at the time or later. None of that really makes sense. No, having sex does not imply any future consent. It does imply they might be interested in sex in the future, …
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 08:42 PM
11

just like women . . . It would only be "just like" if the women in question were explicitly advocating that women should seek out casual sex while also slut shaming men for doing the same, suggesting they're morally inferior (and lots more besides) for it. If that's happening somewhere, I think it is just as wrong when women do it as when TRP does it.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 03:50 AM
4

Stating it the way it has been stated is pointless for the same reason that a post like, "why do feminists hate men so much!" is pointless. Feminists will come in and say, "we don't, actually." And anti-feminists will come in and say, "it's because they're ugly and bitter" You're not describing a pointless discussion, but exactly what a debate should look like. Each side stakes out their position and tries to prove it. There's room to discuss. Yes, any question (or any kind of communication at a…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/12/13 03:48 AM
5

If consent wasn't given, and I misread, then I'm wrong and I apologize. Consent was not given in the scenario I just gave you. That scenario was used to establish that what you call "a crime that occurs due to a attitude afterwards" is still a crime. In reality, I explained that the relevant attitude is the concurrent attitude but that we're (perhaps) not aware of this attitude or able to express it while unconscious. From there we move to the related case where someone consents to conscious sex…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:57 PM
10

Why then doesn't "unconscious sex" count as a "differentiation from agreed action" (in this case, nonviolent, conscious vaginal sex)? Unconscious sex is radically different from conscious sex. The unconscious partner is unable to participate or express nonconsent (or anything else). Elsewhere I compared this to BDSM play. One partner is severely restricted in crucial ways.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:54 PM
7

You're acknowledging it can be rape and there's no legal or moral reason that past, consensual sex would change its status. Consenting to other, past-tense sex acts is not consent for all future and radically different sex acts. Curious, would your opinion change if the unconscious partner woke up with (perhaps severe) injuries as a result of the unconscious sex? Does your opinion change if the conscious partner switches (for example) from vaginal to anal sex after their partner falls asleep?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:28 PM
7

A crime that occurs due to a attitude afterwards isn't fair. Yes, it obviously is fair and it's easy to prove. You don't know me and have never done anything to express any kind of consent to me. If I have sex with you while you sleep it clearly can be rape. This isn't about retroactive rape. It is about proactive rape that can only be expressed after the fact. If you don't consent at the time, it is rape, and you won't be able to express as much until after. So, assuming she liked it, it wasn't…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:25 PM
9

unless they were telling you to stop first it's beyond a stretch to call it rape. No, it's not a stretch at all. They did not consent to this sex act (sex while unconscious). It is radically different from what they did consent to (sex while conscious implies far more control, since they can participate, and can express nonconsent at any time). This is no different than if someone consents to vanilla sex, and instead their partner ties and gags them so they are immobilized and unable to express …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:13 PM
10

What I find possibly disagreeable there is if she seemed lucid when she consented, that should legally be consent. If she said "let's have oral sex and only oral sex," and then he had anal sex over her objections, that would be rape. Now replace "anal" with "unconscious." Unless someone explicitly expresses consent to unconscious sex, it is not reasonable to assume they've consented to it, particularly since they're unable to express (non)consent during it. This is not a hazy area at all. Consen…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:06 PM
3

Personally I only think it should be charged if the partner wants it charged. If I fire a gun into a crowd, it is only murder if someone dies. And if I have sex with someone who cannot express nonconsent (even if they permitted this scenario, which is not the case in this example) it is only rape if it lacks consent at some point. My objection is that it is obviously risky, which the TRP submission rejected completely. It is clear to me that it is possible to rape someone who is unconscious, but…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:02 PM
3

So, if she doesn't consent to have unconscious sex, you still think this is not rape because she's unable to express her lack of consent once she is unconscious? Rape is really a legal word, not a moral one. Right. Here is a court case on the topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 01:57 PM
7

She consented to sex with him. You could say that falling asleep revoked consent, but tbh I find it a bit hazy and would be hesitant to label it rape. Assuming they haven't talked about it before hand, and assuming she was upset about it afterwards (ie did not want that sex while unconscious), I don't think it's hazy at all. Consenting to sex does not imply future consent. Even if she had remained conscious, she could withdraw consent for any reason. It may not be rape, but not for the reason yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/12/13 02:32 AM
3

:) "Epitome of evil" is so dramatic. TRP is more like "the banality of evil" in my opinion. It's nothing new, unexpected, or exciting.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/11/13 12:33 AM
1

You're not talking about the same topic I was. I am responding to the logical leap that "if the gap exists, only women would ever be hired." That does not logically follow. I did not comment at all on whether or not there is a gap.
/r/MensRights30/11/13 12:23 AM
0

If it was real, only women would ever be hired. Employers might be paying women less because they think they are worth less. A pound of chicken is cheaper than two pounds of chicken but that doesn't mean it is a better deal. If employers thought men were twice as valuable, then they'd be a steal at anything less than twice the price of women.
/r/MensRights27/11/13 01:30 AM
1

And one of those solutions is reducing fatherlessness. You're treating both of the selections as though they are mutually exclusive. They are not. No. I'm not. I'm treating them as though it is OK to talk about one without talking about the other. Which you agreed was the case. No one's attacking the Dallas Morning News. Then I misunderstood. The language comes across both aggressive and, at times, accusatory: ignores fathers' rights ... at best totally ignorant ... So a noncustodial father’s mo…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 05:36 PM
1

OP said he understood that argument. I think what people want evidence of is evidence of the wrongdoing OP alleges, not the stuff OP is neutral on. Specifically, NOW california is starting to sue any and every mens shelter they can find on the basis of gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights24/11/13 05:20 PM
1

@edits, Nowhere in the linked AVFMS article does it say Hymowitz blamed fathers. Nowhere in the linked AVFMS article did it say people should not be permitted to discuss anything. Can you explain the quoted excerpt above? If all Dallas did is correctly describe the research results, and you agree there is nothing wrong with correctly describing research results, then what did Dallas do wrong? I assumed the excerpt meant that Dallas was guilty of going beyond the findings of the research and blam…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 05:13 PM
2

There are infinite topics that Dallas did not cover. Why is that so inappropriate that it deserves to be the headlining criticism of your article? The Dallas article is not tackling the problem "How can we reduce fatherlessness?" It is tackling the problem, "How can we help fatherless boys succeed in school?" Both problems deserve attention, but unless there was some particular oversight, I don't think this is a critical error. I view your article here as a worthy addition to the dialogue that b…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 05:03 PM
7

She has frivolously given away the thing that makes her most valuable to someone else. Does this mean that every relationship that ends is effectively the woman's fault, that she should have known it would end if only she had been less frivolous?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/11/13 05:00 PM
1

I had a hard time placing the headlining-claim in the article. Where did the Dallas article fail to mention fathers' rights? Then there's parts of this article like this: It’s misguided at best to judge a noncustodial father’s parental value based upon how well he is able to maintain a relationship with his children when selfish mothers are able to rampantly sabotage and destroy those relationships with impunity. But that’s what is being done here. Not really. Neither the research nor the Dallas…
/r/MensRights24/11/13 04:54 PM
3

almost 95% of the wage gap accounted for No. That would indicate that women earn between 4 cents and negative 42 cents per dollar that men earn, which was certainly not the raw wage gap they found. In fact the top summary explicitly gives us the number you wanted here: "Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is b…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 03:14 PM
3

It's worth noting that you've just provided an "uncontrolled" gap, exactly the thing the OP is rejecting. From the article, He attributes the earnings reversal overwhelmingly to one factor: education. For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do. Controlling for education closes the gap. There may still be underlying discrimination (why are women finishing more degrees?), but as soon as you admit that, you've also refuted the OP's position in the same breat…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 12:45 PM
0

Fathers can reclaim children that are placed in a safe haven. Because the safe haven is anonymous, the court orders a paternity test. Paternity rights are not waived by someone else using a safe haven. They're entitled to raise the child, and to receive financial child support from their partner. There is the practical problem that fathers may not know their child is in a safe haven or even that they have a child. That's worth discussing and proposing fixes. But it is nevertheless not a legal de…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 12:34 PM
6

The mechanism discriminates against people with a penis. Please stop being obtuse. You know exactly what man and woman, male and female mean in this context. We're not in your sociology class where gender and sex are distinct. Except, if we're talking about reality, not all men have a penis and not everyone with a penis is a man. This doesn't require you to even "believe" in gender reassignments; it is true at birth. If voting required a penis, then it would be discrimination against women and y…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 12:15 PM
4

How often would you say a man has a uterus and is capable of becoming pregnant? More than zero, which is all that's required to demonstrate that these legal rights do not exist solely to advance women over men.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 12:06 PM
2

The way the law is currently written, those who are capable of becoming pregnant have an inherent advantage over those who do not when it comes to reproductive rights. This is the point though. This distinction is made regardless of gender. This distinction may not lead to the ideal outcome. However, the distinction is not being made with the intent of only helping women. When it applies to men, it helps them in exactly the same way. The system has determined this is a relevant distinction for o…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/11/13 12:05 PM
-3

It makes sense when you realize that it's a trite argument to claim that a binary doesn't work because you can find a case in which it doesn't while the overwhelming number of cases it does. I don't think the argument needs to be about the number of people, but I do think you're probably underestimating that number. The exact question at hand is whether the binary works for everyone and the answer is a resounding no. Focusing on even just a single example, even if it were the only one in the wor…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 08:26 PM
3

Thought I'd share another example because some replies here focused too much on Thomas Beatie's gender reassignment. http://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2011/09/intersex-fertility.html My daughter was not of woman born. That is a concept that has fascinated people through the ages. My daughter's gestation was perfectly “natural,” I should point out--but I carried her, and I was never of the female sex; I am diagnosed as "true gonadal intersex.” I was assigned female at birth, and was living as …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 08:23 PM
1

Yes, since that is exactly the standard required of women. Women can only terminate their own pregnancy, which requires they have a uterus and be pregnant.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 08:16 PM
1

First of all, we can probably agree to limit ourselves to the "any events" that are actually being advocated. Secondly, attracting wild animals, leaving potentially hazardous and unattractive human waste in public, the destruction of human potential, inviting countless other unknowable outcomes (will criminals start harvesting black market baby organs in the woods? will the baby survive somehow [Samaritan, Baloo] and what then will become of it?) are also externalized costs. Mainly though, it is…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 08:06 PM
0

That does not make sense. You cannot simultaneously argue that those exceptions are just a semantic argument while also admitting they force you to agree with the conclusion that the gender binary does not work for everyone. You can't have it both ways. If you're forced to agree with the conclusion, then I have made a substantive argument. And we agree.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:59 PM
3

women have the right to choose when and if they will be a parent. I'm not arguing against the idea that men can get abortions. I'm saying that men cannot choose when and if they become parents. Just so happens that abortion is one of the mechanisms by which women exercise that right. I'm interested in the right, not the mechanism. I don't follow, then. Isn't it true that if the mechanisms all work exactly the same regardless of gender-swapping, then there is no gender inequality? Or, if so, then…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:50 PM
1

Uh huh. If a man could have sex with a woman and then say "surprise ma'am! you're now a mother!!" feminists would be rioting in the streets. They would describe that as rape. It would be the height of oppression. Besides being straw, this is completely irrelevant to the question of whether gender discrimination is the cause of the issue you're identifying today.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:48 PM
3

Because the father basically has no legal say in the choice, there is reproductive inequality. Can you explain which of those preceding statements is not true when the genders are reversed? I believe they are all true still. The situation may be less than ideal, and I think TRP or anyone should discuss alternatives. I'm only saying it is an error to attribute the cause to gender inequality.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:44 PM
20

Wage Gap is the only quantitative argument Feminists have. How do you figure? We can quantify the number of Congressmen by gender too, and this is another quick example where feminists see structural inequality. I will continue my firm belief that the Wage Gap is a myth. That's not a very scientific position to take. The gap exists. We can explain part of the gap by controlling for certain variables. The remaining gap is unexplained, and may be due to discrimination. The analysis you're doing do…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:37 PM
1

Excepting some deviants attaining normal status under some five sexes or gender classification of anne fausto-sterling, what are they? Read the rest. All of the people born who, without seeking any status or making any choice at all, do not fit in the gender binary.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:12 PM
2

I would absoultely call this semantics. How so? People really are born who really do not fit into the gender binary. Their existence is not a semantic trick. If you insist on a strict gender binary that classifies everyone in strictly biological terms at birth, you need to tell us what that definition looks like (because we haven't been able to find one so far), and yet you're refusing to do so... I will echo what simplepill has already said: But the law does permit disparate treatment, even aga…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 07:08 PM
0

The topic invites your alternative, that's why the discussion exists. Society pays for that baby in any event. Its destitution or adoption are just other, less effective ways of externalizing the cost. The other side of the coin is that society benefits from childcare. Taxpayers also did not explicitly decide to build each road across the country. That alone doesn't make the system of taxation and public roads unjust to me. If that's all it takes to be a leftist, I think nearly everyone is.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 06:35 PM
2

Nobody's going to have this argument with you so long as you conflate: laws that apply to vaginas are equal to everybody, if a man had a vagina he'd be fall under the law too, therefore equality. I don't think I follow you. Is your objection that only people (with vaginas) who are pregnant are allowed to terminate the pregnancy, and this is impermissible gender discrimination? If so, who do you think should be legally allowed to terminate a pregnancy?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 06:29 PM
1

Laws that create classes and then discriminate are unconstitutional, by no means does that classing have to be on gender itself. That's actually not true. For example, the law can discriminate by treating the legally-created class "convicted felons" differently from the general population. If you think this showcased legal discrimination--that only the person who is actually pregnant can terminate the pregnancy--is unconstitutional, I'd like to hear the legal argument. I am not yet persuaded tha…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 06:10 PM
2

Personally, I think any better implementation to address this issue would need to heavily socialize childcare costs. Simple "financial abortions for all" places an undue burden on one parent (and this could be used as a lever against them) to support, abort, or abandon a child. This also punishes the child by lowering their standard of care. A simple "financial abortion" platform is especially problematic when coupled with the tradcon streak in TRP, where women are the happy housewives and men a…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 06:08 PM
0

That's like saying that homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. No, it's not, because the law does discriminate based on gender in marriage. There is no comparable legal discrimination in the case of abortion rights. That would be wrong as well. The pregnant man would still be aborting not only just his child, but if he used his partners sperm, then my point still stands. I addressed this point earlier. I agree that the baby is "theirs" in every sense except one: that only one…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 05:30 PM
3

http://np.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1qzkdh/because_there_seems_to_be_some_interest_my/ Once a week (It's an hour on a Sunday afternoon) she is allowed to speak to me about any decision or action I made during the week, ask me to reconsider, or simply just ask 'why?'
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 05:02 PM
-1

Yes, gay people can marry, however the law legally discriminates against their choice of partner based solely on their partner's gender. There's no comparable legal discrimination in abortion rights. Show me how the law discriminates against men's abortion rights. Men can carry babies, and men can have abortions.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 04:58 PM
1

So they should have a right to a financial abortion since the female has a right to abandon or abort. Except women do not have this right to abandon. Had my mother abandoned me, she would have been obligated to pay child support, the same as my father would have. This is gender equality, exactly. You're free to argue that there is a better way to arrange these obligations, but the reason they're bad is decidedly not because of legal discrimination based on gender. All humans born females have th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/11/13 04:57 PM
1

Yes. Agreed. And the whole thing works exactly the same with the genders swapped as well. I'm satisfied this is both equitable and just.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:32 PM
-2

I rebutted the point you're bringing up. Men have identical rights to abortions as women do. In response, you made semantic mistakes but said nothing that substantively addresses my rebuttal. So, yes, I only dealt with those semantic mistakes and reasserted my rebuttal. That's all I can do in that scenario.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:31 PM
0

It doesn't matter if you believe the definition. You're making a case for legal discrimination. Yet, the law recognizes Thomas Beatie as a man, and the law affords him exactly the same rights it affords women for abortions. And you acknowledged above that logically men have the same rights here, too. So, at this point you've twice-over ceded your entire position. Men and women have the same reproductive rights of abortion.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:30 PM
-2

because men dont get pregnant, ever Yes, they do. Famously, here's a heterosexual man who had 3 children. Many women don't get pregnant, ever, either. Still, there's no gender-based restriction of abortion rights. Men and women, even those that never get pregnant, share identical rights to abortions.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:26 PM
0

Yes, it is "their" baby in terms of who is responsible for it. But it is "one person's" baby (either his, or hers) when we're talking about who is physically carrying the baby. I realize that there is no language at-hand to make this distinction readily. But surely we can agree that only one person carries a baby, but usually more than one person is involved with conception.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:21 PM
-1

What? It is also true that heterosexual men can unilaterally terminate not only his "baby" as you put it, he can terminate their, as in the two people responsible for the pregnancy's "baby" Sexuality is not gender. Heterosexual men can carry babies.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:19 PM
1

Yes, men should have paternity rights. In most cases they do, and women cannot unilaterally have their child adopted without the father's consent unless he has waived those paternity rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:18 PM
-1

Why don't you also conclude that "BECAUSE men can unilaterally terminate, women have no place in the calculus of an unmarried pregnancy. 100% mens' rights, 100% mens' duty."? That follows just as directly and by the same logic, and is a contradiction.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 07:17 PM
4

Mind rape. Financial rape. Raping the land. Etc. Not in courtrooms or in any context of interpersonal violence, crime, victimization. There, rape only means sex without consent.
/r/MensRights21/11/13 06:57 PM
-1

I'm not interested in winning points in a game of class struggle. You don't seem to be interested in deciding what is actually true about my argument. (1) A core TRP belief is that women are the favored class. (2) It would be possible to invoke this favoritism as an explanation for why women have abortion rights that they otherwise ought not. (3) Here is evidence of TRP doing just that. It's as if you just called global warming a purple monkey.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 05:47 PM
-4

Yes, they can. There is no law stopping men from aborting their (and their partner's, if applicable, as you used the word) baby. The only requirement is that they be the one carrying it. It's a gender neutral requirement. And men can and do carry babies.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 05:42 PM
-4

If you like. So can men. How does that undermine equality, then?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 05:36 PM
-3

You're saying men cannot unilaterally terminate their own child the same way that women can. I am providing that this is not true. Men can unilaterally terminate any baby they are carrying, which is exactly the same right women have. Expanding this to cover anything more (like, women being able to terminate someone else's baby perhaps because it has their DNA/they were involved in its conception [surrogacy?]) would not be equality, it would be a brand new right that does not currently exist for …
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 05:25 PM
-3

the woman cna unilaterally terminate the child. Women can only unilaterally terminate their babies. They cannot unilaterally terminate the baby that anyone else is carrying. The same is true for men.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 05:18 PM
-1

you're saying this is a anti-abortion (I don't like the label "pro-life") argument?? No, I am saying it is a "women are the favored class" argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 05:16 PM
0

It's easy to focus on the most abhorrent (in your mind) comments, while glossing over the more middle of the road, and observational ones. Similarly, the sky is also blue, which is not offensive. Nor worth discussing here. The submission is not an attempt to paint TRP as a monolith with one single viewpoint.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 03:43 PM
2

If it's possible, then it's open to discussion. Be critical of those that discuss it with absolutism and no humility, fine, but "only frightening because you want to believe it" seems a far cry from "it very well may be abusive."
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 02:49 PM
1

Yes. I saw. And responded to the more immediate, more interesting problem. Since it seems you want commentary though I'll offer thoughts: Your example is not persuasive. It barely misses being completely unremarkable, and instead showcases exactly the problem TBP already identified. Respectful deference is not unusual in relationships. Conflicts happen and get resolved. Commonplace. Any couple could have reached the same outcome as yours. Except that you've withdrawn your partner's ability to ha…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 12:56 PM
2

If I offered a 'safeword,' they'd only find some other reason to find fault. So your position is that you get to be antagonistic towards TBP for things they have not even done. And the thing they haven't done is: be antagonistic towards you for things you had not even done. Only you get to invent an opposition to attack, and you're outraged at TBP for doing that (though you tacitly admit they did not).
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 12:30 PM
6

It's only frighteningly controlling because people want to believe that. There was absolutely nothing he said that indicated that his SO didn't go along with the relationship dynamics 100%. He said his partner can only express otherwise 1 hour a week. The other 167 hours (99.4% of the time), his partners can't express criticism. That has potential problems. Maybe his relationship has navigated those problems and has reasonable solutions for them, though. It's only impossible for his relationship…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 11:03 AM
8

its because your relationship is GENUINELY centered around the male needs and not the female's that youre "bad". The objection (I see) offered is that his relationship does not offer a "safeword" to withdraw consent at any time. Please. Link me to a single TBP comment that even suggests the problem is "this satisfies male needs." Otherwise, admit you just invented that out of your own straw-imagined prejudice against TBP.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/11/13 11:01 AM
1

Besides exaggerating the difference here (exactly what TBP is liable to mock), I think you're showcasing a different viewpoint about education. For many, education is not career training.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/11/13 04:03 PM
1

That doesn't mean they [thought experiments] have to [describe your beliefs]. Two things. (1) You now admit that hypothetical thought experiments can describe our personal beliefs. So it is insufficient for you to insist that RPS is merely using a hypothetical thought experiment: that does not prove (as you intended) that he was not describing his own personal beliefs. You have no longer proven your case; your argument collapses unless you're amending it further. (2) Yes, it does. Explain what e…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 05:23 PM
1

I also don't understand how you think another level of abstraction (the contract) changes the two scenarios we offered. Neither of them is the "real PPD." In mine, I invented imaginary people who hurled imaginary insults. In yours, you have the same but also add an imaginary agreement. That doesn't make the experiment any more or less real. Neither happened. It seems you were forced to admit my experiment would have told us your personal beliefs, so you added another abstraction and concluded it…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 12:32 PM
1

that does not mean that I condone people insulting one another in the REAL Purplepilldebate. All it means is that in this hypothetical world where people were allowed to enter into such a contract, if the contract was allowed by the mods, regardless of my personal opinion on the matter, I would not delete insulting comments, as that would go against the contract. Right. So that STILL describes your belief. In this case, YOUR BELIEF is that such a contract should trump your personal preferences o…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 12:23 PM
4

The Holocaust was morally wrong but I could still agree about the color of the sky with Hitler. No one thinks TRP is wrong about everything, even if they find moral problems with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 02:16 AM
6

This sure is a persistent straw man. This is not the first time we've had a slew of bluepillers all agreeing there is nothing wrong with specific, happy, successful relationships, but rather with the hateful, inaccurate, and often violent generalizations that TRP draws. Most TBP posts here carefully document what leads them to their conclusions. We either get a specific TRP submission to discuss, or a large amount of TRP material all apparently agreeing with some general point. Yet it is still c…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/11/13 12:30 AM
5

Well there you go. You said it yourself. Hypothetical. So how can you acknowledge that I know he is using a hypothetical thought experiment, yet offer me three separate replies arguing that I was unaware it was a hypothetical thought experiment. It's that they're being attributed to him as if they were his own personal beliefs. They are his beliefs. If I ask you, "Hypothetically, if someone broke the rules of PPD and started hurling insults, would you delete those comments?" and you answered "ye…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 08:08 PM
6

But that's not his ACTUAL definition. This is where things are getting lost in translation. In a hypothetical thought experiment my definition of rape could be anything. This is where the TBP and RPS definition vary. For TBP, in a hypothetical world with perpetual consent contracts, it is still rape to have sex against the immediate will of your partner. For RPS, it is not rape, it is not morally wrong, it is fine, it is merely bad people skills. That's part of his "actual position" btw. The tho…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 08:05 PM
5

I did not forget that. Point out to me where any of my 3 sentences, above, forgot that. Which of those 3 sentences, above, is false or changed by what you have added? I'm a little sick of the bullshit on this topic. Naturally you've already decided to get the last word and "leave it" there. How magnanimous. You're the one guilty of misrepresentation on this topic. Nothing I said suggests I was unaware of what you added, here. In fact, the same language is included in the parts I excerpted. That'…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 08:03 PM
7

Separately, I think this is the keystone of your misunderstanding: He repeatedly says he is against rape. His own claims are not infallible, and moreover, he's not talking about the same thing. The entire point being discussed is that he has a different definition of rape, so those words you keep mentioning do not prove what you claim they do. We can think of it this way. For TBP, rape includes both "set A" and "set B" but for RPS, it only includes A (B is not included). When TBP claims RPS is p…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:15 AM
12

His position is that he believes that withholding sex is grounds for divorce. It may be grounds for a divorce, but he also thinks it would be permissible to have sex against his partner's immediate will. There's no contradiction there. He says, It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the nature of consent having been signed away earlie…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 09:11 AM
10

Here is how you "put this topic to bed" previously: I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. And in case there's any doubt as to the result, It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the nature of consent having been signed away earlier So yes. Your position is quite well establish…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 08:13 AM
5

Like I said, to me the main thing would be my kids. Fine but you still can't claim an institutional bias there if you're not challenging the evidence, which shows courts favor men and the reason men get lesser outcomes is that most custody is decided by mutual agreement outside of court.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/11/13 08:06 AM
6

Results indicate that wanted sexual debut in later adolescence does not directly increase the risk of marital dissolution but is linked indirectly as a result of subsequent premarital sexual outcomes. Sexual debut that is not completely wanted or that occurs before age 16 is associated with increased risk of marital dissolution. The results suggest that the timing and context of adolescent sexual debut have important implications for marital stability. So, for starters, this study finds no direc…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 08:58 AM
1

Fine, then you seek not to engage, you will be treated as trolls with no honor and no quarter given. In PPD, bluepillers are seeking to engage. Why do you assume bluepillers would not oppose problems outside of TRP? I promise you, they do. To come over here under the guise to seek to discuss is disingenuous at best. How do you know? The only evidence of anything like that happening here is from you. You're the one saying any opposition to you must be disingenuous. That's a convenient way to prec…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 08:47 AM
3

I was banned from TRP for saying that for any viewpoint, it is possible to find someone who will discuss it politely. I've seen other bluepillers banned for asking completely neutral questions, and others banned without ever posting in any of the TRP subreddits.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 08:42 AM
2

I don't have access to the first (medscape) study, but the second (ncbi) again contradicts the TRP position, here... It says: As predicted, we found that compared with men, women were more likely to be reported as depressed by a family member when they report themselves as not depressed. We also found that family members were more likely to attribute depressive symptoms of females to internal causes. We did not, however, find any differences by gender in attribution of depression to external cau…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 08:36 AM
3

You've only demonstrated (again) what I said in this submission though. Yes, the data shows women are likelier to seek treatment. TRP describes that as overstating their problems and overmedicating. The implicit argument is that any treatment is overtreatment. Where does the CDC say that the women seeking treatment with higher frequency than men are being overtreated?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/11/13 08:28 AM
5

What's the distinction between loyalty and fidelity in these relationships? I'd guess you might mean "loyalty" as a broader term (ie "I'd take a bullet for you") while fidelity might only refer to sexual affairs...?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 03:43 PM
4

I'd bet one reason red states get more than they pay is that they're anti-birth control. That means more unwanted children and more poverty, less social mobility and all that fun stuff. And this, Married men do benefit from having their wives' birth control subsidized, but single men do not. You know how often this sub talks about (single) men that are forced to pay for children they don't want? They'd definitely benefit from free birth control. More birth control means fewer cases where financi…
/r/MensRights11/11/13 03:40 PM
7

Not incapable ... taught ... less likely ... Previously you have described their lack of virtues or moral agency not just as the result of their upbringing, but as the result of millions of years of the evolution: Biologically, women have always used hypoagency to effect their survival. Women are biologically objects, whereas men are biologically agents. . . . They are this way because of evolution. These preferences and behaviors ares biologically programmed into us from millions of years of ev…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 09:36 AM
6

Well you have someone else asking me if I am 'sure' they don't have the moral high ground so clearly you guys have some wrinkles to iron out and that's now addressed and done. No we don't. I don't have to agree with mrsamsa, and his claim is completely separate from my statement anyway. I said what happens in TBP is different because it is parody. He's free to argue it is also superior in PPD in this category, but that doesn't follow from or relate to my position. So if you DO need to define or …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 09:18 AM
15

Does TRP have a general problem with empiricism? For example, the claim women are more likely to categorize their problem as severe. is a very testable hypothesis. But no data is provided. And the statement isn't qualified, like, "Maybe women are..." or "I think women are..." Instead, women "overstating" is treated as a fact and even hyperlinked to other discussions that don't even mention this hypothesis. Where did it come from? Is the standard in TRP really so low that if something sounds plau…
/r/PurplePillDebate11/11/13 09:14 AM
6

I know I am not the only MRA to be against TRP and I'm sure you know that too. TRP and MR generally don't want to associate with each other, and neither group is feminist. In fact, the biggest MRA website AVoiceforMen is very publicly anti-"manosphere" and regularly finds problems with redpill types. I had a submission touching on just one such example. This is an explicitly anti-feminist organization that is also critical of TRP.
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:51 AM
0

Here is how I described the original hypothetical: Person "ABC" asks Person "XYZ" to bind them and have sex. ABC will use "Safeword" if they retract consent at any time. XYZ complies. ABC shows enthusiasm, is able to speak throughout, and does not invoke Safeword. Now all we do is add one more factor and we're back to OP's hypothetical: "XYZ cannot (or somehow does not) consent." This doesn't change ABC's culpability--ABC is exactly as responsible for sex as they were a moment ago. Surely you're…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:44 AM
0

He consented to sex once. That does not mean he consents to sex forever. Yes, generally speaking that is completely true. However, in the hypotheticals we chose to discuss, he consented to bondage sex the entire time. You're right that any partner can withdraw consent at any time and for any reason (or for no reason). However, that's not the case being discussed. The question is whether someone who consents to bondage/sex, consents to being immobilized, with a partner they know does not consent …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:35 AM
1

Point is, you or ANY one that try to give TBP high high moral ground of 'but we are satire' and turn around to do the very same actions they rail so hard against has no leg to stand on. You have 100% misunderstood the discussion. First, parody is not supposed to be a moral high ground. It is merely different from a sincere attempt at an engaging logical argument. Second, I am not denying danabanana faces mistreatment. She may even recall that I reported a comment here that insisted she must be a…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:33 AM
6

Discussing the findings of scientific research is a bigoted political philosophy?
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:19 AM
0

The rapist is the person who had sex with the partner against their consent. The person who placed the ad is guilty of conspiracy. The person who placed the ad conspired to have sex with their partner against their partner's consent, and proceeded to do exactly that. Are you agreeing then that they're guilty of rape...? This is not even vaguely related to what we were discussing Actually, it is exactly the discussion. The question those two were asking was whether it is possible for a person to …
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:13 AM
1

The man was forced into sex. Then that's not the hypothetical I am discussing. I have said repeatedly, if he is forced into sex he is not guilty of rape and is likely being raped. The hypothetical I am discussing is one where a person willfully consents to have bondage/sex with a partner they know does not consent. Yes, consenting to bondage/sex, even if you're consenting to be immobilized, with a partner that does not consent can be rape. If you think a woman engaging in a sex act with an immob…
/r/PurplePillDebate10/11/13 04:09 AM
1

It's kind of worthless without context. We know they love their satire, so I can't tell if that's trying to be 2edgy4me or serious.
/r/MensRights09/11/13 09:27 PM
2

I particularly like how this 3-day old comment received an edit from you 20 hours ago. You even removed some of the worst-logic'ed parts (still preserved in my response), and purposely changed the gender-neutral example into a gendered-hypothetical to suite the TiA bias. Good job cleaning it up for your TiA brigade.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 05:53 PM
2

@your edits, It's not topical at all. You've been saying that the man was the rapist even if he could not physically move. The 'rapist' in your scenario can't "stop" anything because he's immobile. That's exactly why this is topical: I am pointing out that "could not physically move" is not the same as "can't 'stop' anything." Since this person can still express their non-consent, and since expressing non-consent is probably the single best way to stop sex, this person is very far from powerless…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 05:14 PM
3

If the man wasn't tied down and unable to take any action, most everyone would claim that she had been raped. Nice straw man. No, changing your mind and deciding to have sex does not prove you were "too drunk to consent." If you're saying you think that scenario is rape, then once again we disagree, but it seems likelier you're just pretending other people think that situation is rape. I certainly don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 04:44 PM
1

The person who is immobile has no power. The person who initiates the act has all the power. Initiating the act and continuing it without making any effort to stop is consenting. Back up a step. The bound person consented to bondage sex, and is able to express themselves (should they choose to express non-consent). They can say "stop" and there's a damn good chance of sex stopping. If an adult puts up a craigslist ad inviting a minor to bondage-sex, surely you'd agree they're a statutory rapist …
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 04:18 PM
3

I just want to be clear, and I really shouldn't have to, but this seems like it may be what you said: If someone thinks at one time "I don't want sex," but later decides to have sex (coincidentally there are some drinks involved but this person is still "sober enough"), then no, they have not been raped if they proceed to have sex. That describes like, everyone ever. Previous non-consent does not imply permanent-future-non-consent.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 04:14 PM
3

Everything in that scenario is the same No, you just changed two things in that hypothetical. First, you added back in "too drunk to consent." Above, we're talking about the possibility that the person in this scenario never was, and never could have been too drunk to consent. If that's the case, if this person is not "too drunk," then there is no "too drunk" rape. Second, you added that this partner does not consent to sex, full-stop. Meaning, regardless of intoxication, they don't want sex. Th…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 04:11 PM
3

Great, so its irrelevant to you because it's a contradiction, and you won't entertain the possibility even to answer the hypothetical. I can respect that. I, however, did entertain the possibility that this person was "too drunk to consent." We're only kidding ourselves if we pretend I was talking about anything else.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 04:07 PM
0

Reverse the roles. There's no need to reverse anything. I was gender-neutral as much as possible throughout the entire discussion, except when asked specifically to answer someone else's gendered-hypothetical. But since you want the genders reversed: Yes, if a woman consents to bondage and sex with a man she knows does not consent to sex, she is guilty of rape. It's not victim blaming to blame her for choosing to have sex with someone who doesn't consent. On the contrary, you ignore her culpabil…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 04:01 PM
3

Here is the very first reply I made to /u/nicethingyoucanthave, and it begins: If either party was too drunk to consent, and the other party willingly has sex with them, then that other party is guilty of rape, regardless of what the unable-to-consent party said or did. His very first reply to me asks, And yet because she is too drunk to consent, she is being raped by this man? Ctrl+f "too drunk" appears 22 times. He continued the discussion with another submission where "too drunk" appears anot…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 03:55 PM
3

This conversation unfolded over days and yes, the hypothetical he wanted to discuss was where this person was "too drunk to consent." There are two quick ways to make this clear. First, I will say unequivocally, if the drunk partner is not "too drunk to consent" in these scenarios then there was no rape. Surely you're not going to tell me this is a fringe belief. Second, I will invite you to ask /u/nicethingyoucanthave, or to read the original threads themselves. If you ask, you'll find he wante…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 03:51 PM
3

But then we're not disagreeing. I was not the one that posited that someone who was too drunk to consent would actively and enthusiastically engage in sex. That was the hypothetical that was offered to me. I was asked: if this person acting this way truly is "too drunk to consent," is it rape? And I answered--yes. They've acknowledged repeatedly that it is an absurd hypothetical. So maybe they even acknowledge that contradiction. I don't know. Looks like you share my lunacy. Better get help.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 03:40 PM
2

I don't know what you're talking about anymore or why gender matters. Either person willfully and knowingly having sex without the other's consent is rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 03:24 PM
2

How is ABC supposed to know? I have expressed elsewhere (repeatedly): rape requires both non-consent and that the would-be rapist reasonably ought to have known there was no consent. We already agree that if he doesn't know, it wasn't rape. Most of the hypotheticals (and all of my answers that conclude a case is rape) are cases where he does know and still decides to have sex with a nonconsenting partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 03:05 PM
1

Your response is a nice red herring. You obviously do not know what a red herring is. I claimed expressing non-consent could stop sex. You said a rapist would not stop, and I agreed, but said a non-rapist probably would stop. That's topical, not a red herring. You literally argued that the man is the rapist unless he tells the woman to stop. It's not "telling her to stop" that prevents him from being a rapist. It's his refusal to consent to sex-with-a-partner-that-doesnt-consent: that is what wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:58 PM
2

So when someone talks about brigading on reddit, you think they're talking about persecution? I think you're projecting. So you're just ignoring the part where I said you suggested TRP could not evangelize on the radio/in public? I think you're dodging. But let's see what some of the redpillers said in that thread. feminists want to silence any opinion that isn't theirs. That's why they brigade us. So brigading is an attempt to silence opinions. Don't expect subs like TRP to get any favorable or…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:51 PM
13

Where legal equality requires that laws treat people equally, social equality requires that society (choose to) treat people equally. So for example, schools choosing racial segregation (if legally permissible) is social inequality. Schools choosing integration (without a legal mandate forcing them to) would be social equality.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:28 PM
13

is it a true equality that is forced on the population at large at gunpoint? Feminism includes social equality. Equality enforced through law precludes social equality--if we had social equality it would not need such legal enforcement. Feminists may prefer legal enforcement over anarchy but that is never anyone's goal.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:24 PM
6

Blue-pillers use the narratives and rhetorical devices of feminism to buttress their criticism of TRP. You can no more talk about patriarchy, institutional oppression, and rape culture and then say, "no seriously guys we're not feminists!" I honestly do not see rape culture and patriarchy as a cornerstone of TBP, or of PPD's debates. Honestly I can't recall a time they were mentioned here (though they probably have been). Also, it is odd to simultaneously suggest that believing in the history of…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:21 PM
-1

I have not seen those insistences in this subreddit, no. Misgendering in a parody subreddit might sometimes match the reason for misgendering here, but I bet most of the time it is for the sake of humor or intentional self-delusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:18 PM
12

You can't find anyone in TRP claiming to be persecuted because of TRP. Here is a thread from today claiming they're being silenced by feminist downvotes. Besides, your own comment (re: Rush) suggests that TRP would not be well-tolerated in public. TRP (like many) loves to suppose it has the uncomfortable truth.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 02:17 PM
3

My position is unchanged. Here's the confusion: All throughout, both of us agree that "someone who never is able to act, and never is able to express consent" is not guilty of rape. All throughout, what we've disagreed over is what scenarios fit that definition. For you, it has been every time someone is immobilized. For me, someone initially consenting to bondage and sex, knowing bondage will limit some of their normal expressions, and (in many of the hypotheticals) still able to express themse…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 01:47 PM
2

What if instead of the adult woman, a 17 year old girl enters the room, climbs on top of the man, and puts his penis inside her. The man cannot move or take any action. But in his head, he's thinking "wow, this is cool." Assuming you want 17 to be underage in this scenario. This is the same as the drunk cases above. If he took action by consenting to bondage and expressing his consent to sex (before he became less- or un-able to express himself) then he is guilty of rape. If, in contrast, he had…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 01:29 PM
4

Why do you harp on changes to the hypothetical? These thought experiments aren't written in stone. Uh, I completely agree. But if I say something that applies to one hypothetical, and then we start discussing a related but different hypothetical, I'm certainly allowed to explain why they are relevantly different and how it has changed my position. You ought to be able to give an answer in every case. That is exactly what I am doing. this is incomplete. Rape requires force, threat, coercion, dece…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 01:13 PM
9

We've also seen a good amount of misgendering (sometimes intentionally). Not everyone who disagrees with TRP is a woman. Again, I think it's more revealing than they intend. They believe feminism controls mainstream society and they're the persecuted fringe alternative. And they believe women are irrational, solipsistic, and so on. Basically it is very convenient to group everything together and dismiss it all simultaneously.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 01:08 PM
4

He could express nonconsent. This might be enough to stop sex. I assume most people (I believe around 94%) are not rapists, so hearing that their partner does not wish to continue is likely a very effective way (in general, but not with rapists) to stop sex. He doesn't really need to do even that, though, unless he has given his partner reasonable expectation to believe he consents. In general, it is the partner's obligation to be sure there is consent. If he is not consenting and his partner do…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 12:46 PM
2

I agree that if the partner does not know his partner is nonconsenting (either because the partner chose to withdraw consent, or is unable to consent) then they are not guilty of rape. That was never in contention. /u/nicethingyoucanthave added the part about leaving in the middle to get drunk. The original hypothetical, and all of mine, do not feature that absence. For good reason--that is not what consensual sex looks like because he is leaving the tied up partner unable to withdraw consent an…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 12:42 PM
1

I said "can stop" not "will stop." No, not everyone will stop having sex just because they know it is rape. Some people would, though. For example, every single time I have sex (and I imagine this goes for the 94% or so of the world that is not rapists), if my partner expresses they no longer wish to continue, I stop. Are you saying it is impossible to imagine that one person saying they don't want sex could be enough to make their partner stop?
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 12:40 PM
1

Yes, in this scenario there's no reason to expect he would want to stop it, because he has committed himself to raping his partner. If you consent to being tied up and having sex with (1) an 8 year old or (2) someone being physically forced (by a third party, by your arrangement eg) to have sex with you, you're guilty of rape. A non-rapist would care about that and would instead choose not to consent, and might even express their non-consent. But in this particular hypothetical, our rapist of co…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 12:38 PM
3

Not all rape involves coercion. Statutory rape, for instance. Surely you'd agree a 45 year old sleeping with an 8 year, even absent any apparent coercion, is guilty of rape. Another example, having sex with someone who is unconscious requires no coercion but is clearly rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 12:11 PM
2

Yeah, because they're identical in the only relevant way: they're all rape. That's exactly the point. Rape takes a variety of completely different appearances. Not all are forceful, not all involve minors, not all involve someone too-wasted-to-consent. See, including all these cases is exactly the opposite of what you pretend it is. It is not an attempt to say those factors (force, minors, intoxication) are identical, or the impact must be the same, or anything else--except that they're all rape…
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 12:07 PM
3

I'd agree that just using those terms as insults is dehumanizing. But there's also a world of difference between insulting people based on identity (gender, race) versus insulting them based on their unacceptable behavior (stalking, selfishness, hatred). It's good to discourage unacceptable behavior, but only hateful to undermine human value based on identity.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/11/13 05:02 AM
10

I think this reveals far more than he'd like to admit. He'd allow even violence, yet users critical of racism get banned and comment-deleted. So apparently that "free speech" defense is one sided, only used when its convenient... and racism and violence are the convenient side, while criticism is inconvenient.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 10:21 AM
6

Here are some mentions I found. http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1esxf0/an_anonymous_letter_from_a_mom_one_of_the_best/ca3ntgh http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/18qbtf/rooshs_review_of_the_manipulated_man/c8h761x http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/18qbtf/rooshs_review_of_the_manipulated_man/ http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/16ge0o/as_requested_my_field_tested_guide_on_breaking_in/c7vugn7 http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1fyx2o/beta_blocker/ htt…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 04:15 AM
20

I think it's a corny tip for anxiety. Like "picture everyone in your underwear." Unlike the underwear tip, this one undermines not the appearance or comfort of others but their character as well. That's sad and unhealthy, that someone would feel this is needed to overcome their anxiety. Also, if I decide it makes me feel safer to think of black people as monkeys, that is still racism. It's hateful to propagate stereotypes like this (even if it stays in your own head; here it did not) that attemp…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 02:02 AM
1

Except, they're mocking your use of mockery to attempt to egg on a debate they've already expressed a position on. So... pot, kettle.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 01:55 AM
5

if XYZ were drunk (unable to consent) and ABC asked her to tie him up, that would be wrong. Are you saying the relevant distinction is that it is wrong to ask for sex from these parties, but not wrong to accept sex from these parties? EG, it's OK to willingly let an 8 year old tie you (a 45 year old) up and have sex with you? I would not think you mean that, but that seems to be what you've said. Otherwise, you're saying it is wrong (for ABC) to let a too-drunk-to-consent person (XYZ) tie you up…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 01:51 AM
7

That, on the other hand, is 100% you adding something to the hypothetical. It's quite dishonest of you. Me: http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1pjfvf/rape_part_3_this_is_the_question_i_was_building/cd7nn4b?context=3 You will pose as a home intruder. You will enter my house and bind me. When my partner comes home, you will force them at gun point to have sex with me. http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1pjfvf/rape_part_3_this_is_the_question_i_was_building/cd847zg?con…
/r/PurplePillDebate08/11/13 01:41 AM
4

It's pretty obvious that if a 45 year old gets an 8 year old to tie him up, it's still rape. It's obvious that if you get a third party to tie you up and use force to make your partner fuck you, that is rape too. So the bondage hasn't changed anything. Rape still works the same way, even when you are in bondage. You have not been able to identify a single element of rape that is missing from these hypotheticals. The rapist does take action by consenting to bondage and continually consenting to t…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 07:35 AM
6

Maybe he can't even speak. That's completely 100% new as of this submission BTW. You said: he wanted this sex, consented to this sex, made no effort to withdraw consent, and does not in fact withdraw consent. He consents, in the strongest possible terms. He is immobilized and consented to the bondage too. ... With a partner who does not consent to have sex--either because they're too drunk to consent, or too young to consent, or forced to consent (perhaps by a third party). Those are the scenari…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 07:29 AM
-3

The difference is that both parties consent to the action in one, while they don't consent in the other. Oh so suddenly, their consent (my emphasis, which you mocked throughout) is the determining factor for criminality. Hm! So: both scenarios, the victim does not consent, and the perpetrator does consent, continues to consent while having continuing to have sex against their partners will, and is not even powerless to stop the scene. Why are you hypoagent-ing them? They're responsible. After ta…
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 01:27 AM
-6

ABC does consent to sex with XYZ. Yes. But you're saying ABC consents and also that he is powerless to stop the sex (and therefore not a rapist). That is what I am saying is terrifying. ABC is not powerless. He is fully able to express non-consent, but he does not do so because he does consent. That's not powerlessness though, unless you think expressing non-consent has no power to stop sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 01:16 AM
-4

hiring a hit man is an action. Hijacking a plane is an action. Then setting up your bondage scene is an action in exactly the same way. Whether you hired a home intruder to tie you up, or agreed to let your spouse tie you up--what's the difference? You set up that scene with full foreknowledge. At no point during are you retracting consent. So... what is the relevant difference? Or, arranging to have a plan crash by ensuring it is out of control. Perhaps you're the pilot, the only one qualified …
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 12:55 AM
-9

This is a hypothetical in which an immobilized person is powerless to stop sex. This is what is so terrifying about your description. The hypothetical is extremely detailed and never once does the hypothetical even suggest that the person cannot express themselves, eg, verbally or otherwise. Only that they're bound. So you're leaping from "immobile" to "powerless to stop sex." That's terrifying. Most of us consider "expressing non-consent" as a power that can stop sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/11/13 12:50 AM
-8

I have to add, I think it is kind of scary that you suppose an immobilized person is powerless to stop sex. Nothing in this hypothetical has ever supposed they're unable to express themselves. They can express that they do not consent, as I've said repeatedly. And that often brings sex to an end. Most people don't want to rape. So if you say you don't consent, they stop. But that doesn't seem to cross your mind at any point. Why? Do you think expressing your lack of consent is incapable of stopp…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 07:06 PM
2

No, I said that. The TRP "domestic discipline," "taken in hand," "train women like dogs," and "dread game" crowds do sometimes advocate physical abuse. Here is one example which suggests that if you was to start physical discipline, you should not discuss it with your partner first. Physical discipline without consent is physical abuse. when I called you on it You did no such thing. You made asserted a blanket, unexplained and unsubstantiated claim that all of it was false. You did not call out …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 06:11 PM
1

That comment does not suggest that physical abuse is teensy. It suggests that the distinction between Dread Game always including physical abuse and sometimes including physical abuse is a "teensy" distinction you overlooked. And even that "teensy" is meant to be tongue-in-cheek: clearly it is not a teensy detail as it makes all the difference. I have to think you're willfully misreading this. You'd have to have virtually no experience with this kind of language to think that sentence suggested …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 06:09 PM
-8

That's the whole point of the story. He is physically incapable of taking any action to cause or to prevent the sex So the person who hired a home intruder to force their partner to have sex with them at gun point is not guilty of rape, in your book. The bondage fetishist who has sex with an underage partner is not guilty of rape, in your book. The bondage fetishist who wants to have sex can only be raped because their inability to move is an inability to consent, in your book. And the hijacker …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 04:38 PM
1

The hospital, too. They deserve their lawsuit. They acted without any legal justification (an expired search warrant only valid in another county).
/r/MensRights06/11/13 02:55 PM
2

makes it seem like women who rape are committing a lesser crime Actually, wouldn't this disparity also apply to men who rape without penile penetration, too? The act is holding penile penetration ("rape") to a different code than non-penile penetration ("assault by penetration"), but non-penile is not exclusively female.
/r/MensRights06/11/13 02:41 PM
6

Wow. None of that is true. Wow. All of it is true. "If you don't marry me, then I will leave, just like we heard in this song." People are entitled to what they want from a relationship. Some want marriage. Some want sex. If they're not getting it, then leaving is fine. If they have no intention of leaving, but use the threat of leaving to control others, then I (and probably all TBP) think they are manipulative bastards, and their actions may rise to the level of abuse. Since TRP disagrees, thi…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 01:44 AM
-16

So because of his thoughts, not because of his actions, he is a rapist. No. His actions (willingly engaging in sex with a non-consenting partner) make him a rapist. So, when he willingly participated in bondage, and continually allowed his consent to be implied (because it was) rather than withdrawing it... What about the other example? Did you think XYZ raped ABC in the example you insisted was not like OP's? After all, ABC was not able to "act" by your definition (to move)--why should they be …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 01:35 AM
6

One possible difference is how avoidable things are. More people die in car accidents than in store robberies. Yet, if I don't drive (or I drive safely) and work in a store with a history of robbery, I might fear robbery more than cars. I think everyone would agree though that "sexual assault" is less common than "assault": it is a subset. That doesn't necessarily make assault the more intimidating crime.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 01:27 AM
8

I remember you saying this about the "women are teenagers" article (as you did in the OP link again). Supposedly TRP does not think that is literal, and if we wanted to understand TRP's interpretation we should lurk. Well, I've done that. And in fact, another user went over shortly after you said that and asked about the article. Plenty of redpillers seem to interpret it literally. I think it takes a willful misinterpretation to look at dozens of different redpillers all giving the same interpre…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 12:58 AM
5

Separately, but related: When XYZ goes to a bar in your example, you're introducing a brand new problem and another potential rape or assault. Even if ABC agreed to let XYZ leave for a drink, ABC is left unable to retract consent and escape bondage for the duration of XYZ's absence. This is dangerous. If it seems unfair that ABC can give "extended consent" then withdraw it, imagine: ABC could have an unexpected health problem like sudden breathing difficulty while XYZ is absent. A house fire cou…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 12:43 AM
-21

Why do you keep turning it around that way? That has nothing to do with OPs post! It's like you don't understand that. Here, this would make it like OP's post: First I gave an example of consensual sex. This establishes that both parties are capable of consenting, and legally culpable for their actions. This wasn't meant to be OP's example, it was meant to examine your position that someone unable to move would abdicate responsibility for willingly engaging in sex because they're unable to move.…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 12:34 AM
5

Since I agree this is surprising (but nevertheless correct I think) I want to add another example, this time with no intoxication or underage participant. Dear Craigslist, My partner has not been in the mood for sex lately. I think it's the perfect time to try a fantasy of mine. My partner does not know about this fantasy. You will pose as a home intruder. You will enter my house and bind me. When my partner comes home, you will force them at gun point to have sex with me. Anyone viewing events …
/r/PurplePillDebate06/11/13 12:05 AM
5

Did you add this bit as part of your edit after I responded? Don't think so; the reddit timestamp says my edit was "4 days ago" and your reply was "1 day ago." I try not to edit comments after they've had replies, usually edits are within a few minutes to clean up typos or clarify a thought. you're saying that a man who is tied down and cannot and does not move is raping a woman. The relevant question is not whether he is able to move but whether he is willing to move. That was my point about wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 11:55 PM
10

Isn't it so-called "dread game" That's an easy "no." "Should have put a ring on it" = "I left because I wanted marriage/commitment, or to feel more wanted/valued than I was." Dread Game = "I will abuse you, sometimes physically, perhaps by cheating on you, but certainly psychologically: instilling dread to make you stay." Leaving someone isn't always nice, but it's not abuse. Beyonce is not extorting, "I'll fuck your brother unless you buy me a ring." The verb tense tells us the singer has alrea…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 11:32 PM
2

I've never seen feminism referred to on TRP a "sexual strategy." I mentioned that because it's part of the sidebar being discussed: Feminism is a sexual strategy. It puts women into the best position they can find, to select mates, to determine when they want to switch mates, to locate the best dna possible, and to garner the most resources they can individually achieve.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 05:16 AM
7

If you want to be textbook, then it's an informal fallacy. That's exactly how OP described it. The same exact words. I don't think there's any actual disagreement here, but you're quick to take the opportunity for insults.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 04:54 AM
0

If you can't understand that French is arguing that the methods of subjugation are many and various I agree that is what she is arguing. That's the point. It is completely wrong to suggest French thinks most men rape or kill--use physical violence subjugation--when her entire point was just the opposite. It is sufficient for French that some men use that method, and she supposes that many others use other, wildly more mild methods like "disrespect."
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:50 AM
-1

full quote didn't completely change the meaning, Yes it did: "most men rape or kill" is completely different from "most men rape or kill or disrespect." One supposes most men are incredibly violent. The other supposes most men are not completely nice. she goes on and on arguing that the methods of that subjugation were different and various. Not "the vast majority of men" do not subjugate women. I'm not sure French calls all of those other methods "physical force" to "subjugate" women. That's ex…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:40 AM
1

but did not make it non-misandric. I did say AVFMS is free to take this new position. I did say French was wrong to include disrespect in her discussion of physical force. So argue the misandry all night, but do not say the partial quote left the meaning unchanged. Perhaps you agree that the vast majority of men abuse women in a manner that can be reasonably characterized as "subjugation." No, but I agree that French only argued most men are guilty of "subjugation... OR DISRESPECT." A pretty too…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:27 AM
-1

That's not an admission it is a mistake, as the article argues that the meaning is completely unchanged by the additional context. It is an "admission" of what we already saw from the ellipses "..." in the quote: that it was partial. So the writer admits it was partial (how generous!) but says the meaning is unchanged. Hence "Not so fast" when Futrelle says it changed the meaning. Just one example: Futrelle dishonestly paints Marilyn French’s full quote as though French accuses men of merely “di…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 04:12 AM
3

I'm confident MRA's mostly agree with this: Men who grew up over thirty years ago are discovering the world has changed. Men who are still growing up- from the 80s, 90s, and even the last decade, they're starting to realize that what their parents taught them, what television and chick flicks taught them, what church and sunday school taught them... it's all wrong. Our culture has become a feminist culture. A president cannot be elected today without succumbing to the feminist narrative and payi…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 04:07 AM
-3

David Futrelle, editor of the blog Manboobz, thinks this is a gamechanger, that it renders the meaning “completely different.” Not so fast. Here’s the full quote: It definitely is a gamechanger. I don't care if French thinks disrespect toward women is violence towards women. Misquoting French as though she thinks that the majority of men have beaten, killed, raped, or molested women IS a vastly different argument from saying the majority have been disrespectful or... done one of those (or other …
/r/MensRights05/11/13 03:59 AM
2

How do we get the [Misleading Title] flair assigned to a post? The headline here suggests Cameron forced Facebook to ban such videos. The article only mentions Cameron long enough to quote a single word ("irresponsible") though, and says Facebook decided to remove the video. Moreover, this Facebook incident was notable preciously because their temporary policy before this had banned all such videos, including the video in question. From CNN: October 23, 2013 Now [Facebook] has relaxed its stance…
/r/MensRights05/11/13 03:42 AM
2

An example of a better sidebar (one that I don't think will raise hackles for redpillers) in my opinion: /r/mensright's. I can quickly tell the sub's purpose, and find introductory material and other resources deemed important. It is not a barrage of unsubstantiated or vague claims (I don't see any). This is an interesting example because MensRights would largely agree with the claims of TRP's "sales pitch." Still, they've constructed a sidebar that is clear, direct, and useful. It is not ambigu…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 03:26 AM
4

Think I've covered the entire question perfectly and you're just dodging, dodging, dodging. If OP's scenario is meant to describe a man willingly having sex with a too-drunk-to-consent partner, then the man is a rapist, even though the sex was kinky. If OP's scenario is meant to describe a man being forced to have sex without his consent, then he is not a rapist. If OP wanted to know if the man is a victim: no in the first case and yes in the second. I can, and DID, say the same thing for women …
/r/PurplePillDebate05/11/13 12:14 AM
6

In this exact context, misogyny, those are pretty much the exact meaning of the word hate. Haven't you ever heard of misogyny? Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women . . . also "entrenched prejudices against women" In law they do too. It's almost as if you've never heard of law. hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crim…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 11:23 AM
3

The feminist movement promised women they could have it all . . . what they preached is what it was. So... you've 180'ed and now feminists do love housewives?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 09:03 AM
6

If I thought this sub held enough value I might give enough shits, but I don't. Great, then don't derail here, and I'll stop giving you the time. Feminists in society look down upon women who seek a traditional housewife role. Do you have any polling on this? People in general look down on housewives. Probably some feminists do too. But I'd expect fewer of them do, since that freedom is a core of their movement. All I see in your statement is confirmation bias. TRP is not monolithic, what they t…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 08:26 AM
6

If I'm right (you didn't argue it and I don't think anyone here besides samsa can say), then the point was to be less patronizing. You don't teach someone their ABCs unless you think they're very young, basically. It is patronizing to give basic info in an advanced course, so I suspect samsa was clumsily saying "forgive me if this is unnecessary or patronizing but I think you're missing the basics." I agree age has nothing to do with it. I'd bet samsa agrees, too.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 08:06 AM
5

I would not say BP's are anti-MRM. Many BPs are sympathetic with the MRM. TBP is surprisingly diverse. Really all you can assume is shared there is a mutual distaste of TRP. TBP does have other people who are critical (to varying degrees) of the MRM though. But that's not the topic in TBP and gets put aside. Yes, both are anti-feminist (if that was a question?). I remember MensRights had a poll where only a single-digit percent of its responders viewed modern feminism positively, and I'd expect …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:59 AM
4

you cant ignore someone when they say "Im not happy with how im being treated" I don't think TBP's goal is for suffering to be ignored. If anything, their goal is closer to saying, "no amount of your personal suffering justifies hateful, violent, or discriminatory treatment you're advocating." It's true that the subreddit itself is not designed to manage or solve that suffering. Neither is /r/aww. Honestly I think TBP has lots of thoughtful people who'd be eager to help suffering people, in the …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:56 AM
4

See how you get downvoted? They can't even follow reddiquette rules in a sub designed for the free exchange of ideas. Are you belittling people into submission with this comment? You don't know who downvoted or why. Frankly this comment is an interesting choice to make your stand. The comment is a bit disorganized and if it is making a point, it is difficult to follow: was it supposed to be a reply to someone? The "no no no"s seem unhinged from context. what are these mysterious pronouns? "It [s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:50 AM
5

Common redpill tactic, ascribing a nonexistent negative motive to everyone else's actions. Can we go around like this for a few more comments? I'm guessing that comment was to indicate that OP was missing a basic understanding of the topic (did not have much experience, exposure, with some of these common ideas--something OP even admits to an extent). Perhaps it could have been phrased better but it is clear that the point was not "age -> wrong."
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:35 AM
5

The "hatred," insofar as there is any, in TBP is hatred of hatred--they share your position in that. TBP posits that TRP is hateful, violent, and oppressive. So, the argument goes, TRP espouses misogyny, encourages violence towards women, and advocates for legal (and social) discrimination against women. And that is worthy of disdain, if that is what you're choosing to call TBP's resounding rejection of those ideas. You're welcome to argue TBP is factually mistaken. Or that it has other failings…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:30 AM
6

They're both anti-feminists. They share quite a lot in common. Ultimately they may be mutually exclusive since TRP embraces gender roles and only wants to understand existing class relationships so that they can exploit that knowledge for personal gain. MRAs want to change class relationships to be more just. I'll add: a know a handful of MRAs post in /r/TheBluePill, and TRP often gets very hostile receptions in the MensRights subreddit and vice versa (though not always). TBP isn't exactly "agai…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:26 AM
5

Furthermore I would not go out of my way to discourage you from singing lessons without pointing you in the direction of an alternative. Your post is criticizing TBP but doesn't explicitly tell TBP what it should do to satisfy its goals, either. Are you stringing me along? Have you promised to give me a BluePill alternative that will help me to document TRP's absurdities, entertain me with humor, and sometimes refute or often undermine those hateful absurdities? Are you telling me to "just give …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 07:05 AM
8

Is it possible to believe that women can lack character, honor, integrity, loyalty and fidelity without seeing them as less than men? Could this be considered hate speech? Why or why not? TRP loves making what I think of as their "disclaimer statement" which sounds like: "Women lack the virtues of men, but it's OK. They're just different, not morally worse, and I don't hate them." This sub helped me reach two conclusions about TRP on this topic. (1) They do in fact see these missing virtues as a…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/11/13 06:58 AM
8

the blue pillers don't have the guts to [answer] . . . hey cannot address your hypothetical, and they cannot suggest that the drunk woman isn't being raped, because to do so is a slippery slope of accountability. If either party was too drunk to consent, and the other party willingly has sex with them, then that other party is guilty of rape, regardless of what the unable-to-consent party said or did. Gee, that was hard! Now tell me where the slippery slope is headed. What bad thing happens next…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/11/13 12:59 AM
5

You need like, the very first lesson in logic that is ever offered. You're giving a textbook example of an invalid argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 02:05 PM
2

This data would give a yearly GHB number of about 8. There are two huge errors in this line of thought. First, that is 8 sampled cases per year. The study analyzed 1179 urine samples, not all urine samples or all reported cases for that time period. So 8 is not the estimate for number of cases per year. That would be like saying that there are only 1,000 voters in US Presidential elections because that is all Gallup surveys. If researchers thought their sample was 1/100th of all cases for exampl…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 05:18 AM
1

If blue pillers want to repeat the trope that red pill is about rape, it's coming up every day until we can put it to rest. Except (1) this has virtually nothing to do with TBP's "trope" about TRP and rape, and (2) you're the one repeating it every day (at the end of the sentence), not TBP (at the beginning of the sentence). Don't submit topics you are not interested in, and if this is the topic you like then own that instead of pinning it on others.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 03:55 AM
6

I'm shocked that this is what you were building toward. Yes, drunk people are held responsible for crimes they commit while drunk. No, drunk people are not criminally punished if they don't behave criminally while drunk. If he consented, then her inebriation does not matter. She's no more a rapist than she is a drunk driver (having neither entered a vehicle nor had sex without someone's consent). "Shocked" because: this seemed transparent and unworthy of the amount of effort involved, from the b…
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 03:53 AM
7

If you want to indict his intention, then you have to go through the effort of actually presenting evidence of that argument. Otherwise, yes, it is a baseless personal attack that doesn't belong and will get removed.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 03:48 AM
6

While we're making sweeping claims about the integrity of all arguments from a particular source, question for /u/ubercuber: You closed the /r/RedPillDebate subreddit because the open debate was hurting /r/TheRedPill. What has changed since then? This activity was so dangerous that no one could participate then. Can you explain how you see it has improved, since you apparently feel it is now safe to participate?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 03:43 AM
7

Am I misreading this? It sounds like you think you can make any extraordinary (false) claims you like until you're given a source to prove what you believe are other people's extraordinary claims. This is a neutral subreddit. You cannot make personal attacks to demand satisfaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 03:36 AM
6

compared it to "Violent muggings" and "premeditated murder" shows how non-dismissive I am of the crime of rape. Yes, that shows you treat the incident seriously. But downplaying their prevalence is another way to trivialize them.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 03:29 AM
8

If your intent was to say "rape is common as far as crime goes, comparable to theft or assault, happening every day" then you should not have said exactly the opposite, that it is not rampant and every day. Your intention aside, it is at least arguable that this attitude is trivializing rape (and misrepresenting it, too). The CDC found 2.5 million victims were raped (or "forced to penetrate") in a 12 month period. Obviously some in TBP think it is a more serious problem than you do. You're free …
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 02:35 AM
7

I wish you would at least troll harder. I think you're losing your edge. Don't make baseless accusations about someone's intent. It only derails. As per this meta discussion I am reporting your comment.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/10/13 02:28 AM
1

If you have the hyperlink you can still link to deleted submissions. Deleted text posts will read [removed] in their submission text, but links will be unchanged and the discussion is still visible.
/r/MensRights27/10/13 05:36 PM
2

Can you give some examples of how you think the moderator is changing the sub?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 06:14 PM
8

Unless I misunderstood, your conclusion is exactly wrong, completely the opposite of the example you've illustrated here. This also means that if someone is able to speak and verbally communicate a desire for sex, then legally they are NOT incapacitated. If someone can verbally communicate a desire not to go to the hospital, but they cannot answer AnO to 4, then (despite their verbal communication) they're considered too drunk to make the decision for themselves and you can make the decision for…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/10/13 05:56 PM
1

A similar argument would be to say that women who have abortions do so because they hate babies and want to torture them to death. No. A similar argument would be if I said that aborting only female fetuses because they are the only ones that can grow up with female privilege/the benefit of this social convention you're concerned about, is misogynist. And I would argue that, because it is. I've acknowledged repeatedly they had a rationale. The result and intent is that their reasoning should onl…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:19 PM
1

soulcakeduck's argument is presented as a counter to "gender is not a valid reason to require a person to take on risk for another person's benefit." No, it isn't, which is why I repeatedly and explicitly agreed that gender is not a valid reason. In fact I am the only one arguing it should not be a factor at all. For AVfM/you, it must be a factor, because you want to send a message about a social convention that only affects women.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:17 PM
3

When that information is depicted as roundabout as it was on /r/feminism the other day, it makes it sound like all 18 of those men are rapists. No, it doesn't. You misunderstood. That's not a reasonable way to read that sentence. For example, if someone said "women account for 50% of drunk drivers", that sentence does not mean "all women are drunk drivers." Similarly, saying male student athletes account for 19% of rape cases does not mean all student athletes are rapists. You can dislike the wo…
/r/MensRights26/10/13 05:09 PM
17

The MacKinnon quote also appears to be false. Also, the Greer quote doesn't seem objectionable to me when it is put back into context. She is arguing against unvarying security as an ideal, not arguing that prison is good or locking up men is good. The quote continues (my emphasis): Security is when everything is settled, when nothing can happen to you; security is the denial of life. Human beings are better equipped to cope with disaster and hardship than they are with unvarying security, but a…
/r/MensRights25/10/13 12:35 AM
0

This doesn't demonstrate that "should I help this victim" is contingent on "what gender is this victim" and not "I reject society's imperative that because of my gender and the gender of this victim, I'm required to help her." Nice try, but it doesn't work. Really? So please answer my question: "Are you saying we should interpret their comments that they would not intervene to help a woman to mean that they would intervene to help a woman? Makes no sense." I have said repeatedly, I am not denyin…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:30 AM
1

you're not using the phrase "violent rhetoric" to mean advocacy of violence. That leaves mere discussion of issues involving violence, No, it also leaves violent rhetoric (which my last comment offered a small selection of Elam-esque examples of). Unless as I explained above you think violent rhetoric inherently promotes violence (which you're free to argue and not everyone will agree). You went through some pretty serious mental gymnastics to excuse her choice to host that comic I don't excuse …
/r/MensRights24/10/13 07:20 AM
0

You haven't demonstrated that. Except They're free to have argued (or to clarify, especially in this context: where they are explaining how they think everyone has misunderstood) "We won't intervene to help anyone, ever." Instead, they repeatedly argue "we won't intervene to help women, ever." It's not an accident. Their rationale for why--sending a message against this bad social convention--only applies to women. Are you saying we should interpret their comments that they would not intervene t…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 06:59 AM
1

This link can also be found in the sidebar ("message the moderators"). Or compose a message addressed to /r/PurplePillDebate
/r/PurplePillDebate24/10/13 06:55 AM
1

as if the use of violent rhetoric is something bad. Right. That was exactly my argument. Which I know you did not agree with, but apparently did not understand either. Because I think it is bad for a Human Rights movement to use violent rhetoric to make a point. That's not how you deal with people's rights, is not an acceptable public face which means the movement never gets the mainstream support it needs, and is insensitive to the many you wish to advocate for who actually have suffered violen…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 06:15 AM
0

the fact that the imperative is for the benefit of women does not make refusing to comply with it an action that is about women, Great. No one is denying that--they have their reason. The point is they're making the determination "Should I help this victim?" contingent on the question "What gender is this victim? (If female, then no.)" I say that's unreasonable and you disagree; fine. You're not entitled to impose your personal standards on other people. A bit ironic, since you feel entitled to …
/r/MensRights24/10/13 04:40 AM
3

You wanting to make it about women AVfM chose to make it about women. They're free to have argued (or to clarify, especially in this context: where they are explaining how they think everyone has misunderstood) "We won't intervene to help anyone, ever." Instead, they repeatedly argue "we won't intervene to help women, ever." It's not an accident. Their rationale for why--sending a message against this bad social convention--only applies to women. After claiming that you only expect people to fol…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 03:40 AM
2

[you are] arguing against a man's statement that he does not consider making gender a reason why he's expected to sacrifice himself reasonable No, I'm not. I explicitly said everyone should disregard victim's gender when making this determination. I just don't interpret the statements made on AVfM to mean that. The statements that they would never help women have been (a) specific to women and (b) not based on and argument that it is never reasonable to help. (hint: that's probably not true) For…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 02:11 AM
2

If anyone failed to track context in that exchange, it is you, since it is doubtful you believe the Steubenville bystanders would have to "risk his life" (the part I bolded) to call the police or just to leave. Meaning, your example was not topical. An expectation to avoid egging on a rape in progress is dramatically different from an expectation to risk life every time anyone is in danger.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 01:49 AM
1

since this happens every time "This" being you lose 1 point, over four comments and a day. You care far too much about the karma, and have a delusional persecution complex. "Violent rhetoric" indicates promotion of violence What I meant by "violent rhetoric" was that his rhetoric is itself violent. You're free to argue that the use of violent rhetoric is itself a promotion of violence. Not everyone will agree. intended as direct but dishonest efforts at persuasion. Read the word "may" in your de…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 01:43 AM
3

Note that you give me the option to do what I deem reasonable, but you don't have the same courtesy for men I explicitly extended the exact same standard for men: "I expect both men and women..." I could choose to never intervene Yes, so long as you're not basing it on something arbitrary like gender. you don't have the right to any expectations regarding my behavior Which would be precisely why I suggested you should use your own evaluations, and not what you imagine others expect of you.
/r/MensRights24/10/13 01:23 AM
2

That's part of the point; I'm not expected to intervene for a man. I'm female. I get a pass. That's unreasonable. That's not related at all to what I said. I don't care what you imagine other people expect of you. I care about your evaluation. Intervene however and whenever you deem is reasonable (and regardless of gender). Also, I expect both men and women to intervene against violence however and whenever it is reasonable to do so. So if you need someone else's expectations to inspire your act…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 12:43 AM
3

some other guy should risk his life by involving himself in a violent conflict whenever a woman is threatened. I don't think that is anyone's expectation. No one benefits from a context-blind promise to never intervene to help women. Intervene however and whenever you deem it reasonable, exactly as you would for a man. Otherwise, no one will hear your "protest", or if they do, they'll only be turned off by it. What are you hoping will happen? a study showing MRA-sympathetic bystanders needlessly…
/r/MensRights24/10/13 12:30 AM
7

The comments seem to take the same position (not yours): It's not that all women are the same, it's that you should take precautions against all women in preparation for the women that fuck you over. NAWALT: Not all women are threats, but the generalizations make us safer. I think this is another really clear explanation: You haven't read the sidebar. Because if you did, you'd understand that the theories are not deterministic, but instead probabilistic. Nobody here has claimed an absolute natur…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:33 PM
4

Reading your linked example doesn't seem to match your description. The linked example seems to provide justification for understanding, and taking precautions against, general rules (or even outside risks). There's a pervasive myth that the red pill is about treating every woman as a definite threat. I think they really miss out on the idea here that not every person is a threat, but you take precautions to avoid scenarios that increase your chances. NAWALT, then, is not a reality check against…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:08 PM
4

I agree, tumblrinaction, scum manifestos, TERFs--there's no political direction that cannot be abused by extremists who seek to dehumanize others. And likewise, there is concern about all of these, and it can come from any direction too. However, in the fempire it is a relatively microscopic and marginalized minority. In the manosphere it is the core, organized part of the movement. I don't know any corner of the manosphere that doesn't dehumanize. Certainly all of the most prominent corners do.…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 05:42 PM
2

I agree she'll likely do far less than the maximum. If the sentencing is light, I don't think it is because of the prosecution here, and might not be due to gender either. Wiki suggests "the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years" but also notes the sentences aren't uniform. Tough to predict I think.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 10:58 AM
14

Categorization is not inherently bad. It is a powerful tool. And that means it is often a powerful weapon. For example, genocide is always (as far as I know) preceded/accompanied by dehumanization: Jewish people must be "vermin" before they are eradicated. So categorization with the intent to dehumanize should be suspect, I think. Coincidentally, I see plenty of dehumanization of women (including calling them vermin) in the manosphere.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 06:56 AM
2

not all heterosexual sex is rape, despite what some feminists and blue pillers believe. There is no feminist (not even Dworkin) or blue piller claiming that. As for the rest: Not even your TRP friends believed your mischaracterization of TBP here when you ran to them for validation. Give it a rest. The point is that according to you, if rape is effective, then TRP advocates rape, because TRP advocates anything effective regardless of morality. That's the only point. The end. That does not say "t…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 05:56 AM
1

I reached the same conclusion as you. Most likely, the only parts of the sexual battery chapter that apply are the second degree felony charges--the same as what she is currently facing two charges of.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 05:50 AM
10

At first I thought the Lewd & Lascivious conduct ... She was not charged with lewd and lascivious conduct. She was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious battery, a charge which seemingly covers forcible rape cases of minors. She's facing up to 30 years jail time and $20,000 in fines.
/r/MensRights22/10/13 05:49 AM
5

I think the charges against her are sufficient, and this submission might be begging for charges that are not actually correct for this case. Why was she not charged with sexual battery, assault, attempted murder, and kidnapping? Why the light charges? We should be clear that the 2nd degree felonies she is being charged with are the applicable felony statutory rape law. Also, the charges cover cases where force is used: Encourages, forces, or entices any person less than 16 years of age to engag…
/r/MensRights22/10/13 05:47 AM
3

No one claimed either of those things. The point is that according to you, if rape is effective, then TRP advocates rape, because TRP advocates anything effective regardless of morality. That's the only point. The end.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/10/13 04:50 AM
7

misconstrue ranting about certain types of women "hate" I'm willing to ignore the ranting completely and look only at their reasoned arguments: that women have no virtue, are developmentally inferior, and deserve inferior treatment to men. No one is advocating rape at TRP in the actual definition of the word, and calling people oppressed in America is a slap in the face I think advocating that women should not be allowed to vote is advocating for the oppression of women. I think arguing that the…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 10:37 PM
5

Put it another way: why aren't leftists allowed to hate the haters? Of course they are, just as haters are allowed to hate. This also raises another question. Why are so many in the 'spheres averse to admitting what they're doing is hating? I find it confusing that they'd go to such lengths insisting they're not misogynists for example.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 09:46 PM
7

"I"m sorry the truth about TRP makes you so uncomfortable. But if you ignore the fact that the problems they describe allegedly only afflict women, and that all their rape/hate/legal oppression is directed at women, then you'd be looking at a movement that hates and oppresses people equally regardless of gender. And that's doubly bad."
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 09:45 PM
6

You don't think its a bit unfair to take this guy's worst moment in his life, take what he's saying as his true feelings and than extrapolate to everyone on TRP? I don't think that's what happened here at all. As I said, there are plenty of times where TRP makes the same argument: women have no virtues but it's not a moral failing. This isn't something that only happens during their low moments. We see here that a moderator has carefully and repeatedly made this argument. Here is another Endorse…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 08:35 PM
6

Don't worship with Al Queda if you don't like Bin Laden's extremism. Literally the only thing they offer is that extremism; the rest can be had anywhere else.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 07:48 PM
5

You arent going to like this I really like it a lot. I'm grateful you're contributing, and frankly its inevitable that those contributions would be disagreeable to us in that way, given the topic. So I appreciate quite a bit that you're willing to frankly describe your position. Do you have any thoughts about what supposedly causes men not to respect women? Is this unique to men, or do women also not respect... women/men?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 05:05 AM
4

Hey this comment kind of sucks. Whatever gender/anything people might be here, doesn't really matter. Quilting skill certainly doesn't determine gender. And belittling that skill is also not topical. Can you remove it? Or I'm going to report it.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 05:03 AM
5

That might explain some cases but I can demonstrate clearly that it does not explain all cases, for TRP. TRP gets plenty of posts from people who sincerely feel their eyes have been opened, and many red pill icons offer similar descriptions (hence the Matrix metaphor). Meaning, these were not feminized betas afraid to express their true opinion: they were sincere believers of all that wrong philosophy.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 04:51 AM
3

Arguing by downvote doesn't make your point. Neither does a downvote persecution complex. This is typical of your style, soulcakeduck, playing stupid as an obfuscation tactic. Thanks for letting me know. Is this ad-hom and personal vendetta your typical style? You're aware that you started this line of discussion with an assertion that Sarkeesian's language must mean the same thing as it would mean if stated by a member of SRS. No... that was not my argument at all. And you have not clarified wh…
/r/MensRights20/10/13 04:43 AM
7

dont you think this is really more like the obnoxious bravado humor of the locker room than what he really thinks women are? I don't see why the two would be exclusive, but, no, given his careful contextualization I think it is hard to dismiss this as merely a joke. when men are talking to each other qua men without regard to a female audience, they say a lot of things, things that might be repulsive to women, do they mean them? who knows. I know first hand that this is not true. I don't think o…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 04:21 AM
17

Also wanted to mention that once TRP theorizes there is sexual dimorphism in virtues, it seems to me that they quickly make a half-hearted effort to argue those virtues are no longer moral traits. So we get arguments that sound like this (liberally paraphrasing): Women have no honor, courage, sense of loyalty, truth, justice (etc), because women are biological objects and men are biological agents, but we're resolved to this reality so we don't consider these moral problems. Instead, this is sim…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 03:21 AM
5

There's no need to be "ashamed of self-interest." There is only need to be ashamed if you're elevating self-interest above morality. For example, TBP would say: it is wrong to rape/kidnap someone even if raping/kidnapping someone is in your best interest. If TRP honestly believed game was amoral, then TRP would have to say "If rape/kidnapping someone is an effective strategy, there is nothing wrong with it." All that would be left would be to determine if the strategy is effective. That would be…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 02:35 AM
3

Can you explain how conduct that is completely invisible to you unless you seek it out would fit any of your preferred definition of harassment? If not, then the "label" does not apply and is being misused. So what? Someone being wrong on the internet is not direct harassment of you. And someone being right on the internet is even less so.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 01:30 AM
3

im not changing the subject, youre misinterpreting me. i JUST said the HARASSMENT consisted of going to OTHER subs to bother them, not merely existing. I meant "subject" as in, "subject-predicate." You claimed TBP harasses; it doesn't. Bad actors and rule breakers harass you. do people from RPW harass and downvote people in TBP at the TBP sub? do we PM you bizarre screeds? Well, since many of the same people are in TRP as well, yes they probably do. For example, redpillschool has certainly haras…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 01:14 AM
3

Great, but then you're changing the subject: now you're talking about people who harass (and believe me, they're in both subreddits), not about TBP in general. Don't conflate the two.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 12:20 AM
12

Correct, my experiences of reality do not confirm that lesson at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 12:18 AM
3

This random quote sure is coming out of nowhere. Actually it is exactly on topic, a direct refutation of what you said. OP is worried that people are rudely accusing others of rape and downvotes. You (not OP) assumed this meant that TBP downvotes and TRP rapes; but actually, the mean comments about rape have been made by both sides. You tried to claim a moral high ground by saying "we're all mean but they are meaner, per your examples." As if that mattered. But it turns out you don't even own th…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 12:16 AM
3

tbp comes to RPW sub specifically to downvote, harass, and insult us. When/if that happens it is brigading, in violation of TBP and reddit rules. Report it and move on. TBP does not exist for that purpose, any more than TRP exists to send its ambassadors (who show up quite regularly) to comment/insult/vote in TBP. i dont go to feminist or communist sites And I don't go to RPW to harass you either, yet TRP does have no shortage of people doing this in TBP too. So let's make sure we're aiming our …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 12:13 AM
7

How does that fit the definition of harassment, at all? It is possible to be a rapist or a misogynist. Labeling something what it is is not harassing it. The sky is blue and is unharassed by my comment. verb 1. subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation. TBP exerts no pressure or intimidation against TRP. It exists to leave TRP completely alone, all by itself, without any interaction at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 12:11 AM
1

I don't think a completely separated parody rises to the level of harassment. TRP has to seek out TBP to be "harassed" by it, and that's not harassment. Or, if you think it is harassment, I think you'd have to be forced to admit that TRP exists to harass all women, especially feminists, and to harass a large number of men too.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/10/13 12:09 AM
7

Also since this topic isn't something I have carded I'll post examples that might meet your challenge as I find them. http://www.returnofkings.com/2804/how-to-get-divorced-like-a-champ How to divorce your 40-something wife around your 20th anniversary and start banging your 20-ish neighbor.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 06:55 AM
13

I challenge anyone to find any popular red pill comment or story that deals with men purposefully divorcing their wives to date younger women. That's largely because (1) TRP argues not to get married in the first place (2) TRP (see "dread game") argues to just cheat on your wife, no need to get a divorce (and as the term "divorce rape" makes clear, men are not going to benefit from divorcing) But we are told, all the time, that you should spin your plates right into a dumpster when you're tired …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 06:41 AM
15

OP, you are the one who taught me that male sexuality is pedo/ephebo/hebe-philic: i believe homosexuality (like male HETEROSEXUALITY) is always hebephiliac or ephebophiliac, an the only thing that makes any male have sex with non-adolescents is lack of opportunity/law/social shaming And RedPillWomen talks about "wife goggles" with some regularity, as well as the idea that men are the gatekeepers of commitment. EG, keep in mind that right now your husband has Wife Goggles and sees you as you appe…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/10/13 06:41 AM
2

SRS is never to be taken seriously - you're comparing internet trolls to an individual who has arguably made a profession about her petty whining. I am not sure I understand. Your complaint is that I am not giving Sarkeesian enough respect? You cannot tell the difference between satire, hyperbole and rhetoric. That's pretty sad, but not unexpected. What makes you reach that conclusion? I only described Elam's position, as I think he himself would.
/r/MensRights19/10/13 06:25 AM
3

That's kinda cherry picking as you can see from the link above. Not really. Anti-suffragettes are proposing a lifelong ban on voting. That's the analogous case that we should analyze. I am not claiming anything about, or interested in, the extent to which other restrictions are placed on felons. Since no woman is required to sign up. And many men are not required to sign up either. You say this and then right underneath of it state how it is connected to voting rights. In one state. We can't cat…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 08:57 PM
2

I don't feel like looking for statistics, but would you agree that 99% of men in the US are required to register? 98%? No; I don't know or care. Whatever, it doesn't matter, as obviously those same exemptions would apply to women as well if the selective service was made fair. Perhaps, then, TRP should be more judicious in its anti-suffrage statements to mention that many women already qualify for the vote and it is only worried about the others. Its statements to date are that the entire class …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 07:36 PM
2

Above: So "blue pill" literally means "so successful with personal relationships you cannot fathom how people could be unsuccessful"? Have I misunderstood or is this an admission that blue pillers are more successful? Moderators have not explained to me why two questions, which lead to further detailed discussion of the topic, would violate the rules so I assume the comment was removed in error. If not, let me know and I will remove it.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 07:23 PM
2

Interesting to see you associating her with SRS, considering the nature of that sub. Yes... that's intentional. Both consider themselves critics of social-moral problems in cultures they watch. If SRS can express that something is "shitty" by glibly saying it is [a] good [example of shit/problems], so can other similar critics. Also, you keep talking about violent rhetoric on A Voice for Men, yet you have not shown examples of it. Elam freely admits that he uses intentionally inflammatory and vi…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:12 PM
3

All men are required to register. That is factually incorrect. Almost all male U.S. citizens, and male immigrants living in the U.S., who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service. ... Young men in hospitals, mental institutions, or prisons do not have to register while they are committed. However, they must register within 30 days after being released if they have not yet reached their 26th birthday. ... Disabled men who live at home must register with Selective Service…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 08:07 AM
2

Yes, that certainly could express disgust. If you think none of the SRS subs ever point to a "shitty" comment and say "I kinda like it" then you're mistaken. OP and others here freely argue they don't understand it. "Hyperviolent style" is not a clearcut compliment, particularly in this context. The entire submission doesn't portray Sarkeesian in a flattering light, in my opinion. And Sarkeesian has a documented history of calling out violence and other problems. To be clear (again), I don't thi…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 07:08 AM
0

Nobody does. That's the point. She posted a story where she murders a real person, which in and of itself is a tacit endorsement. That seems like a contradiction to me. Surely if I posted the same story (as many in this subreddit have) to suggest it is disgusting and inappropriate, I am not tacitly endorsing it. If we do not know why she posted it, then it remains possible that this is exactly why she posted it, that this was yet another of her crusades against internet violence and that her gli…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:31 AM
3

Suppose a household chose to divide labor "unequally." Perhaps a woman in this family has more household responsibilities than other members. Surely you would not say that because the other house members have less (household) responsibilities, they should not be allowed to vote. Even if those other members have no other responsibilities that "make up" for their deficit of household responsibilities, house chores are not a pre-requisite for voting rights. Similarly, you're admitting that for men …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 01:27 AM
2

Please see this submission. If you want to provide additional information to help us understand when or why you don't think women should vote, that's a wonderful contribution to this discussion. However, it is not a refutation of the fact that you do not think women should vote (in certain circumstances, which seem to include in the current legal regime of the United States since women are not in selective service).
/r/PurplePillDebate18/10/13 01:23 AM
4

I never said that she wrote it; No. But you did describe it as "Sarkeesian's overt violent threats" which I think is bound to mislead people into thinking she wrote those threats. To be honest, I have no idea what Sarkeesian's point was in posting that content. I'm not sure whether "I think I kinda like it" is even sincere, or tongue-in-cheek. It's poor judgement, no doubt, perhaps even moreso since she did not bother to make her point clear. But I'm not going to fill in the blanks for her and p…
/r/MensRights18/10/13 01:16 AM
2

I don't have to starve to know that people are starving, and aren't doing it just because they're choosing not to eat. Right, but that doesn't answer the question--it deals with the other case. If I cannot imagine starving, that suggests pretty strongly that I've never experienced starving.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 11:38 PM
3

This is why I asked, though: the discussion was someone who, while "not a casanova" imagines anyone can be successful. So people who have no (serious) trouble and imagine no one else would (with the requisite effort) don't understand failure, for exactly that reason. If you're saying that failing to understand repeated failure because your own experiences are moderately successful is what separates blue/red, that seems to directly imply blue is moderately successful and red has a history of not …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 08:02 PM
2

Another personal attack. I'm certainly not surprised--except that moderators have not banned you yet.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 07:46 PM
7

Yes. But it is still accurate to say that TRP often encourages lying or infidelity.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 07:41 PM
7

Seems like a worthless concept. According to that article: Big men are alpha and small men are beta. Except for the big men that are beta and small men that are alpha. Context matters so alpha can be beta or beta can be alpha just by changing settings. Language "predicts" who is alpha which CH seems to think means alpha is fluid, you can become alpha by tightening your game. The result: There's no meaningful way to measure or predict who is alpha, or what the result of being alpha is. It's a mea…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 07:30 PM
8

The headlining argument would mean that once anyone tries anything and likes it they would never, ever change their mind. That's absurd on its face. People do try things, even when they already have working alternatives. But it also supposes the only "value" of this sub is for blue to convert red. What about the opposite? Or what about each of us becoming more secure in our understanding of the world by defending it? Or enjoying mutual discussions on topics of interests? Or any number of other p…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 04:51 AM
3

I see the break as a symptom of something else entirely. To varying, debatable extent, both sides are industries monetizing egos. Paul Elam and Roosh in a head-to-head might just be good business, and both of them slinging relatively personal insults about which side is too "blue" is just part of the brand: there can be only one Alpha dog.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 04:48 AM
6

Of course there are also redpill icons advocating having an affair, meaning, from within an exclusive relationship breaking your promises. I'd call that dishonest even if you're up front about the promise-breaking with your partner.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/10/13 01:03 AM
6

the Prosecution must prove that she did not provide consent prior to becoming incapacitated/intoxicated. Yes. If I understand you though, you're suggesting that her rule-breaking is evidence (to some extent, maybe not conclusively) that she did consent though. It's not. It's evidence of nothing. It should not weigh in on the determination of consent at all.
/r/MensRights14/10/13 08:38 PM
7

A bodybuilder would be a strong woman. Alternatively, I suppose it could be someone who has independently overcome great hardships and has accomplished much in spite of it. Though I don't think I've ever once heard it used this way sincerely.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/10/13 12:17 AM
3

Sure, here is a male example: a man flashes a crowd, is assaulted, and TRP hypothetically/presumably says he is "completely wrong to feel victimized."
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/13 07:56 PM
1

Did you bother to reply at all to the evidence he posted that TRP is not homophobic Yes. 1, 2, 3, 4 Did you bother to deal with my responses at all or did you just ignore them because they did not fit your preconceived notion that I was wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/10/13 07:50 PM
5

Yes. I'm aware that's a mistrial. That is quite often all it takes. Mistrials are often not retried. It is not the victim's decision to determine if a mistrial is retried (which means, the vicitm has no legal recourse). And when they are? It still only takes one person to cause another mistrial.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 11:51 PM
4

What TRP believes has nothing to do with her ability for recourse. In the US most criminal cases are heard before a jury. If the jury (only takes one person) believes that because of the alleged victim's risky behavior they "have no right to feel victimized" (ie are not victims at all?) then there will be no legal recourse. Additionally, legislators and often laws are also democratically selected. The electorate may vote in favor of laws that make the same distinction. This example is a woman ba…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 07:57 PM
5

Could a mental illness or emotional abuse ever affect a woman's sexual behavior, eg, if she chooses to flash her breasts in public? ... and subsequently gets assaulted, and TRP thinks that is "fucking hilarious" and she is not a victim?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 12:06 AM
4

Money and resources are zero-sum. When you take all the funding for women's shelters, that necessarily excludes men. The feminists in charge know this. So you're also arguing that men's advocacy is misogynist? Resources that help men hurt women by definition, because, zero sum. Right? Please stop straw-manning. You rejected people who would inflate or invent statistics to further their cause. You claimed a trend was widespread and then specifically argued it applied to 100 million American women…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/10/13 12:04 AM
3

Unlike feminists, these groups want to have the same rights as everyone else. The feminists are pushing for (and acquiring) special treatment. Do you think that is open for debate? Do you think these feminists would characterize their actions that way? Why do you think these anti-male policies exist, if not for an anti-male feminist agenda? I don't think that shelters that help female victims of rape and violence are anti-male. I think they're pro-women, and perhaps we could do with more pro-mal…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 11:16 PM
7

Out of curiosity, if you read a story about a gay teen who was bullied until they commit suicide, is your first thought, "Fuck, that kid should have manned up and taken responsibility of his own life"? No. On the other hand, women getting assaulted seems to elicit a comparable reaction from TRP. Unlike a suicidal teenager, they're being directly and criminally victimized by other people (which is not to undermine the emotional abuse many suicidal teens experience, or to deny she could have taken…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 11:13 PM
4

This is not how proof works. We know these things exist. Huh? If you claim they exist, prove it. That's exactly how burden of proof works. Prove that 100 million American women are "preventing male rape and DV/DA victims from being able to find help." There's a touch of irony here. You rightly reject people who would inflate statistics to further their cause. Yet you're offering statistics in this discussion, and arguing you don't need to prove they're remotely true in any sense. If you want a s…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 10:56 PM
4

If you think the context is wrong, feel free to use the context to prove it. It's not. The statements are pretty clear. It is clear when Devlin explains why criminalization of rape is an absurdity. It is clear when Devlin proposes his preferred solutions to rape, which are not criminal punishments. It is clear the article is in the sidebar despite those arguments. It is clear when moderators explain why those arguments are tolerated. By the way, resubmitting nearly an identical comment that was …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 10:39 PM
4

It's great you argue it is not there, but you're parsing it how you want, seeing what you want. That's why no one is able to offer a convincing rebuttal to my careful analysis that shows the blatantly obvious: Devlin is opposed to the criminalization of rape.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 10:33 PM
1

Correct, or at least that they might. Many of the responses here amounted to "even if it is homophobic, there are reasons not to worry about it." Those comments might also not think it was homophobic (at least one comment argued that, instead of arguing it was not worrying). I don't think the comments at least in this discussion were directly endorsing homophobia though, unless "endorse" here only means tolerating it (which is more the meaning in the headline: ie, put it in your sidebar and igno…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:59 PM
3

Clearly I argued it did. Can you point me to where someone made a convincing rebuttal in that submission? Where did someone, to your thinking, prove that Devlin supports criminalization of rape and reconcile that with his arguments that apparently contradict it?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:58 PM
3

So TRP says men are the actual romantics, not women. This study found women express their psychological, emotional and social states more, and use more first person singular pronouns. If women are far likelier to say something like "I love you", what does this mean for TRP's theory? Are women lying? Are men just less likely to express their deeply held romanticism?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:48 PM
3

Looking at the comments in TRP, many of them are drawing conclusions from the study/article about what men and women are really like. I don’t think you can do that at all. Doing that is just as bad as editorializing like the author of the Time article. Yes, the study suggests some differences in how men and women use a technology (social media). Extrapolating beyond that is not really supported by the data. Women are also likelier than men to use a car for food shopping. It doesn't mean they're …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:46 PM
3

Ctrl+f+"crim". To anyone who believes that a society of free and responsible persons is preferable to one based on centralized control, the reasoning of the date-rape movement is ominous. The demand that law rather than moral principle and common prudence should protect women in situations such as I have described could only be met by literally “putting a policeman in every bedroom.” Feminists understand rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fi delity, but of her mere…
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 05:02 PM
3

Finish the sentence. Did I say "homophobia, and the idea that rape should not be a crime, are completely absent in TRP and it is a stand up place"? Did I say "homophobia is tolerated"? Did I say "homophobia is widespread, encouraged"? That very sentence recognized that redpillers think homophobia is wrong. Here, we have a textbook-worthy example of taking something out of context. You did not even include a verb; just a subject and no predicate. You have a sentence fragment that means literally …
/r/PurplePillDebate04/10/13 04:56 PM
11

Here is a story from just 3 weeks ago. A (male) pastor is arrested for 60 counts of sexual exploitation, convicted after confessing, and will not serve a single day in prison. Instead, he gets parole/counseling. This isn't a simple gender disparity.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 04:52 PM
4

Why would I source a claim I never made? If you want to see arguments that TRP is homophobic, you're welcome to construct them for yourself. Please see this submission for more information about Devlin arguing against the criminalization of rape. You're also free to read Sexual Utopia, for when you conclude the huge amounts I excerpted and analyzed of it (this comment for example) are selective. You'll find the PDF in the TRP sidebar.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 08:53 PM
6

The red pill emphatically accepting a gay person is exactly the opposite of being homophobic. I did not claim it was homophobic. It seems you've misunderstood. Devlin argues rape should not be criminal. He is sidebarred. There are reasons the argument is tolerated, but clearly, the argument is tolerated. Again, you're breaking the rules by baselessly ascribing a motivation to my position.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 08:39 PM
5

With regards to homophobia, this is literally the first link when you search the red pill for 'gay'. Can you please explain how this contradicts my statement? oddly you never provide those quotes. That's a laughable assertion, given that your usual complaint about my submissions is that I found too many quotes and you refuse to read them (source), or that I provide quotes you feel are "selective" (source 2, source 3). The quote isn't there. Here is the relevant quote, with some [context]: His "s…
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 07:47 PM
5

Homophobia tolerated, as per the explanation in the linked discussion of why it might be, and rape-not-a-crime tolerated, as per both its tolerated existence in Sexual Utopia, sidebarred, and prior defenses of it (for example). You further your anti-red pill agenda... Please don't ascribe motives to why you think I am wrong. It violates the rules of this subreddit, as per this discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 06:16 PM
3

Neither question seems topical to the example you gave, which seemed to recognize both of those statements as noncontroversial. fhq even described some traits that are "attractive" (but which otherwise might impede fitness/evolution). That, and your reluctance to provide examples that fit the caricatures you're creating in the comments, suggest you're unable (or unwilling) to understand your opposition here.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 05:34 PM
5

I'm not going to do the leg work here for you. Don't submit a topic if you're not willing to tell us what we're talking about. I conclude the topic/mythical strawman does not exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 05:30 PM
5

I've never seen a BluePiller argue that evolution had no effect on our preferences. Can you point me to an example, for context?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 05:18 PM
11

And, when someone admits their mistake and is looking for advice to move on, it is pointless (and worse) to get off on victim blaming instead of offering advice (or ignoring). Feel smugly superior on your own time. No one wants to see it in an advice context, and it reflects poorly on your own character.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/10/13 03:34 PM
2

That's literally the exact opposite of what was said. It is not morally OK. But it is possible to ignore (except) the problems with its morality (which TRP alleges it does do), to ask if it is effective (which TRP alleges is all that matters)... That was the point being made. If that conversation, itself, is offensive to you, your problem is with TRP. Or reading comprehension. There's no BluePill "exception" permitting kidnapping. There is a redpill allowance for it (if it is effective).
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/13 10:58 PM
2

I'm interested in knowing the cause of this, but I don't think it can be found with just the raw data given. Except for suggesting the study may be flawed, you seemed to agree the cause was gender bias (and discussed only reasons for gender bias). Hypothetically, what would data capable of convincing you a gender bias exists look like?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/13 10:27 PM
2

Oh, did I mention that one particular member of TBP felt that teaching men how to kidnap rather than teaching them game was something they felt was okay? Nope, did not happen. They explicitly excepted the moral problems with kidnapping someone to point out that if it has better cost-benefit than TRP's "game" then TRP would have to advocate it, it cost-benefit and not morals are what determines its advocacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/09/13 10:21 PM
1

That will continue to happen if OP continues to edit the submission. Every time he does the filter vets it again. I notice that (as of now) the last edit was 5 hours ago, which probably brought it to the spam filter and your attention, and your comment is also about 5 hours old.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 05:23 PM
3

do you believe the concept of game to be immoral? No. "Nobody said cheat." is in response to a woman on RPW, No. The link included "context=5" to show the context: /u/MissCherryPi is talking explicitly about this article (and one other), asking explicitly about "Dread Game." Either way the point stands since "RPS contradicts the article." That seemingly leaves us agreeing that infidelity is wrong, and debating over whether TRP promotes infidelity. This is only the question if you go out of your …
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 07:37 PM
3

I think deceit is a good example and maybe the only one where both sides generally agree on the facts but not the morals. The rest, I am reasonably sure it is the facts and not the morals themselves that lead to our moral disagreements. And even with some deceit topics, it is often the facts that come into question while our morals align. For example, in defense of an article that says "Have an affair and make sure she finds out about it" redpill moderators told us "Nobody said cheat." So: seemi…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 07:15 PM
2

The answers to these questions are the very same conjectures that the blue pill objects to when the red pill addresses them. TBP does not object to asking or answering "what is attractive and why."
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 07:09 PM
4

The subreddit seems very sex positive. I doubt they'd find anything inherently wrong with wanting all the no-commitment sex in the world. The only negative judgement I see on that topic comes from TRP and is exclusively for women.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 07:02 PM
6

if what I want is to sleep with everyone women in the world, spurn commitment and tell others to do the same, I've somehow done something morally reprehensible. I don't think this is morally reprehensible. Are you sure that is what TBP is objecting to?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 06:57 PM
5

Don't need to elevate one moral code over another when there is so much we already agree on. We can start there. Both agree that rape is morally wrong. What is left is a factual question, not a moral one (does one side promote rape?). Same for legal oppression, most interpersonal violence, hatred, and so on. Can you give an example where Blue says "TRP is X. X is morally wrong." And Red says, "TRP is X. But X is morally good/neutral."?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 06:55 PM
1

"Hypergamy" is the supposed strategy women use of climbing the social-economic ladder by having serial monogamous relationships, discarding one after the other for the next, better one. Bureaugamy is the RedPill word play that merges this idea with the idea that women are replacing their "husbands" with statism. Instead of settling down with a husband who will buy them healthcare, they lobby for national healthcare. So it is coded to tell us that women "marry" the government and are somewhat unf…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/09/13 02:44 AM
0

she in fact IS attempting to indict the project of scientific inquiry as a whole by presenting various scientists' explanatory metaphors as "rape metaphors". Rape metaphors that don't even actually exist, of course. How is this reaction any different from mine? I, too, think Harding tried to indict science for its rape metaphors which do not exist, which is exactly why I too said Harding is wrong. your other anti-MRA hangouts of "bluepill", etc.? This is probably the dumbest part of this subredd…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:37 AM
0

Unless I've misread, all this excerpt is meant to say is "Rape metaphors do not belong in science." I'd agree. The better place to disagree would be over whether there are rape metaphors in science. This, apparently is the full excerpt Harding provided to suggest Francis Bacon used one: For you have but to hound nature in her wanderings, and you will be able when you like to lead and drive her afterwards to the same place again. Neither ought a man to make scruple of entering and penetrating int…
/r/MensRights25/09/13 06:22 PM
21

To handle a strawman early, I am sure BluePillers admit anecdotes have value. They merely also recognize it (like any evidence) has limitations. It is subject to biases, and is not representative and may not be typical. Personal stories are still important. Every story deserves to be heard and dealt with dignity. But we should be wary of generalizing based on them, particularly when other evidence suggests the anecdotes do not generalize well.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/09/13 03:36 PM
6

It's common conjecture that voting from reddit profiles will not actually affect the vote tally, but reddit's "fuzzy voting" will make it appear as thought it did (to you only). No idea if this is true though.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 09:03 PM
6

I love you for what it's worth, but it's probably just the papist in me that can't resist your username <3
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 08:06 PM
7

It's also not all red pill comments being indiscriminately downvoted, either. It won't be easy to "fix" since downvoters probably sincerely believe they have good reason to downvote.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 06:58 PM
4

The exact same people who would tell theredpill that rape, violence, legal discrimination are immoral would tell the same to women. In fact, did you know, some TRP is female!? They have their own subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 06:52 PM
3

Yes, it is. I do not care if our shared moral concepts are exclusively western or not. I only care that TRP is not so detached from them as to make talking about them impossible, which was your claim.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 06:20 PM
3

This has not been demonstrated. I've shown that we agree about many moral concepts and thus can talk about them.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 06:02 PM
2

But if neither group agree on the definitions, what purpose does this nonsense speak serve? Same as all speech. We do agree, and we strive to agree more.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:47 PM
2

It attaches them to our mutual definition of morality. So your submission is directly wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:46 PM
3

Is the concept that rape is immoral a strictly Western phenomenon? Don't know but seems doubtful. I think rape is by definition immoral, so other cultures would be likelier to disagree about is rape than to argue explicitly that immoral sex is moral.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:34 PM
3

Do you think that making moral judgments is the same as debating what should be moral? Probably not, or at least it is useful to keep the ideas separate. Seems to me that "judgement" is more useful on a personal level. "Rape is bad" is a moral argument, "Person X is a rapist/Person X is bad" is a judgement. If I post a string of nonsense made up words, can I use this defense? Yes, if you've defined each of the words, that's fine. In fact, that is what a lot of content on TRP looks like: a salad …
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:26 PM
7

Redpillers evidently care quite a lot if they are rapists or perceived as rapists. They're not as detached as you suggest. People, even if they claim their subject is completely amoral, are very concerned with acting morally.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:23 PM
4

Until both groups could reconcile morality, there is no purpose to moral critique that doesn't amount to shaming and stifling discussion. Except, to attempt to "reconcile morality." How exactly do you expect that to happen if moral debate is prohibited? neither group will even agree on just what counts as misogyny If I use the word, I define it. You're welcome to argue against my definition. That's part of the debate. I also think that the term misogyny is misplaced in a group dedicated to findi…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:17 PM
4

One of these theoreticals has no detrimental effect to either person. Huh? Which one is that? The one that merely lies to a woman to get laid? There can be a pregnancy either way and it can be just as life-ruining either way.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 07:02 AM
10

Below, the conversation veers off into "women are biological objects, not agents, and must be treated that way because it's not going to change in our lifetime." So my reaction, in a word: misogyny. Another great example of how empirical claims facing no empirical scrutiny in TheRedPill opens the door for a lot of negative discrimination against a group.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 06:37 AM
9

I'd say it's easier for a 6f to get laid with a 6+ male vs a 6m with a 6+ female. Why aren't these curves normalized, then? Clearly you're overestimating men's attractiveness. 6s should suffice for 6s, by definition. If it's just percentiles, there's no reason to use a 10pt scale instead of percentiles. Mainly: I suspect the overwhelming majority of people (in technological societies) could get laid. Dive bar at closing? Craigslist? Grindr? I don't get how more men than women want one night stan…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 05:52 AM
6

Are men who sleep with liars morally reprehensible? What if men or women found it easier to have sex with liars? What if their sexual strategy was to find liars so that they could sleep with them? Are you saying that sexual strategy would be immoral? How does this coexist with your claims that sexual strategy is amoral?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 03:53 AM
3

So, for RedPill purposes, the meaning was clear from the article's context. But for PurplePill purposes, the exact same context did not make the meaning clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 03:51 AM
3

I just want to point out this would apply to working out as much as it applies to make up. I remember a great video floated around the internet for a while about how those "before and after" workout commercials are usually made, and the key is doing the after shots first: work out and you'll look better for a bit. Then you eat/drink until you appear bloated. Some camera/lighting tricks and viola. Maybe the same people who think this is deceptive are the ones telling us game is amoral though (eve…
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 02:46 AM
7

And in what sense is the language not aimed at women? The context here is that people supposedly don't understand--your description, not mine. So you don't care that your language is not understand. You're not communicating then, and certainly not debating.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 02:14 AM
7

What if a woman knows a man is looking for "no strings" hookups, and lies about what birth control she is using? What if she gets pregnant and uses this to guilt her partner into a long-term relationship? Obviously this strategy would have debatable success, but my question is whether this strategy is morally acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/09/13 12:26 AM
8

This open admission that you do not care if people understand your position should be taken as evidence of your bad-faith motives in all contributions to this subreddit.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 10:34 PM
7

I don't think there's any misunderstanding here. No one understood it to mean that women are literally, genetically sheep. We understood it to mean that women are metaphorically sheep, and that's what the entire discussion has been around.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 10:30 PM
6

Perhaps. To be clear that would be consistent with this. They're saying do listen to women when they talk about things that happened to them, but that women rarely or never have expertise to talk on any other subject. Though even with women's personal experiences, the article expresses strong reservations: Even a girl’s opinions on friendship, a basic element of humanity, are completely useless. Just about all female friendships are poisoned with jealousy, envy, drama, frequent abandonment, and …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 07:57 PM
7

More women than men are pursuing higher education today, and those numbers were rising even when Vilar wrote. Seems wrong to suggest that women are choosing to let their intelligence atrophy. Perhaps correspondingly, by some measures women are beginning to outperform men in mental ability. I suppose that would not be surprising, but Vilar did not mention any of this even when republishing The Manipulated Man in 2006. If women's intelligence is trending upward, must this imply that they are also …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 07:24 PM
3

I'm actually really eager to update this topic for your benefit, because it seemed like your position may have evolved. But I can't be sure unless you tell me that explicitly, because you're very good at holding paradoxical positions and leaving unsaid how they're reconciled, so I don't want to leap to conclusions. I've claimed of you that you think there is nothing immoral about having sex against the immediate will of your partner if you have a legally recognized perpetual consent contract. Ho…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 06:17 PM
3

I can see how you'd build that case, particularly with ZionController. But even when they do explicitly say "I raped her" they (usually) simultaneously argue "... and it was not rape." It's easier to sidestep that definition debate. As this sub shows, they don't welcome the title of rapists, so they're going to define all the sex-against-someone's-will they talk about as "not rape," and of course then we get users saying it is unfair for us to think it IS rape since they defined it as not-rape (…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 06:12 PM
3

How can you expect a conversation in good faith if your response to someone denouncing rape is 'We're not saying you're pro-rape, we're just wondering if you're rapists?' You think people's claims always match their actions? Couldn't I say, "/u/TDCRedPill rapes people all the time" but then when confronted, deny ever calling you a rapist: "I never said you were a rapist, you rapist." Just because RedPill claims that nothing it does condones rape doesn't mean they're right. They may sincerely bel…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 06:04 PM
2

We've tried everything to get across that we are category opposed to rape, but they continue anyways. No one has ever claimed "Red Pill explicitly condones rape." The question is whether your actions match your words. When your sidebar says rape should not be a crime, its victims should be forced to marry their rapist, and when many authoritative redpill sources argue that sex against someone's immediate will would not be immoral if you had a legally recognized perpetual consent contract, those …
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 05:57 AM
3

Rape is a sexual strategy. If rape is immoral, then sexual strategies are not amoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 05:52 AM
3

acting on these impulses can be, but is not necessarily, immoral. Right. So some sexual strategies (the ones that act on those bad impulses, to immoral effect) are immoral. If some sexual strategies are immoral, then sexual strategy is not amoral. Lost me on that. You were saying that moral judgements ("X is morally bad") are bad, "shows severe lack of understanding" of their subject. If you're willing to say (some) murder is bad, then that's apparently not the case. Moral judgements work someti…
/r/PurplePillDebate23/09/13 05:51 AM
2

Calling something misogyny is not constructive discussion. Why not? Is it possible for something to be misogynistic? Is it possible to identify things when they are?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 09:53 PM
3

Make-up, exercise, and fashion are immoral? Then we'll have to agree to disagree. Can you explain how we're disagreeing, when we both said that acting on these impulses can be immoral? I would not categorically define all murder as immoral. That's not what I asked. If you ever categorize a murder as immoral, then clearly morality is not something that must misunderstand its subject. Again, all that's being said is that morality is not simple. Great, no one ever, ever, ever claimed it was, but th…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 09:49 PM
3

If you want to understand people, you have to accept that they aren't people living with the idea of selfless morality 24/7. That people mistread you is not evidence their actions are amoral. It is immoral, even if it is a realistic expectation.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 08:12 PM
3

Is it moral for a male lion who just took down the pack alpha to kill all of the pack's baby lions sired by the previous alpha? Is animal cuckoldry from cuckoo birds moral? Is is moral for hornets to capture and enslave a bee queen for jelly production after decimating the bee hive? Yet they are natural instincts for those creatures. Those are amoral strategies. So anything that happens in nature or instinctively is amoral? What is left, then? Acting on any of these is arguably immoral So sexual…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 08:04 PM
8

I think this claim is a big deal in TRP. It is coupled with a fast ban hammer, a priori rejection of claims of misogyny or circle jerking (which we're told are not falsifiable), and embracing 'edgy' anti-mainstream strategies. It chills dissent, paving the road for immoral strategies to make themselves at home. For example, you get dread game which promotes literally terrorizing sexual partners for your advantage, and advocates cheating on them situationally. I think many previous PurplePill top…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 05:14 AM
8

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. First, it's apparent on its face that there are plenty of strategies that are immoral and that TRP even putatively condemns: rape, violence, abuse, pedophilia. More generally, sex involves other people, and sexual strategy will have to involve how you interact with/treat others, which clearly has a moral component. Second, it seems that TRP finds plenty of moral condemnation for "strategies" it does not approve of. In fact, many redpillers feel very wr…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/13 05:14 AM
2

We allocate extra resources to children and the elderly. It's not because they're the strongest and force us to do so. Infants would die along with our species if that were how resources were allocated.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 10:12 PM
11

If it's possible to be morally wrong, then moral critiques are fair and necessary, even if some people are not good at receiving them.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 10:04 PM
13

Many blue pillers believe that men and women are identical, I think this places us firmly back in the "can you describe your opposition correctly?" conversations of the past few days. I really doubt (m)any bluepillers would say this. In this sub I have repeatedly seen them say otherwise.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 10:03 PM
7

Do you not realize that Fisher actually supports my statement? You want to show that gay men are generally having more sex, not just at the top of the curve, thus the idea that If both people were guys they'd have no problem just asking "do you want to fuck?" and the problem would be solved. Yes, Fisher finds that a small number at the top of the curve do indeed have more partners (directly refuting the data you pointed to). An average of 5 versus 6 lifetime partners, with nearly all gay men bei…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 06:34 PM
4

big part of what angers women on TPB is that they hate that more and more guys are understanding women's sexuality and mind. Can you give an example of this actually happening? I suspect TBP women would love if TRP understood them better.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 06:06 PM
5

Sure, but I doubt that hundreds of partners are anywhere near the norm for most heterosexuals. Nor for homosexual men. And yes, that citation is propaganda. http://humbumbershoot.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/are-gay-men-more-promiscuous-than-straight-men-analyzing-research-results/ The average number of sexual partners for gay men was 6 (compared to an average of 5 for straight men). a) there is a segment of gay men (roughly 13% of the total of gay men) who are promiscuous to a degree that straight …
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 05:30 PM
9

This is actually borne out in the experience of homosexual men, some of whom report having litterally hundred, sometimes thousands of partners. There are straight people with that many partners too. I'm worried you're basing this statement on a well-known and widely discredited piece of homophobic propaganda.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 04:49 PM
9

I feel like that if rape is to ever be really examined the roles females play in enabling behavior needs to be examined. It'd also be incredibly easy to prevent this sort of shit if women could just be a little more logical too. If both people were guys they'd have no problem just asking "do you want to fuck?" and the problem would be solved. Studies show that men engage in so-called "Token Resistance" just as much or more than women do. And if you want a small amount of logic to prevent rape in…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 04:45 PM
1

That's a pretty fair/detailed criticism of feminism I think. Thanks. I imagine (hard to say since the article doesn't really present it) that the feminists protesting, and the student body debating, would sound really similar in their criticism of the MRM: the idea that their actions don't match their words, the idea that the movement is sometimes ignoring the other gender, or not treating them like people, and maybe sometimes is clearly anti-women the idea that their record speaks poorly of the…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 01:45 AM
3

Men receiving a larger share of food is not an example of sexual dimorphism.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 01:20 AM
2

though I do find the characterization of MRA groups problematic. It's still not really clear to me what you mean. You quoted the obviously-biased article saying that these students argue that MRAs are sexist/dangerous, which seems to me to be your argument exactly flipped: you're arguing feminists are sexist/dangerous, essentially. The Farrell protest is a bit more interesting but it's background info, not the 'news' in this article, and the article makes no attempt to honestly represent the pro…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/09/13 12:43 AM
3

http://therationalmale.com/2011/09/29/duplicity/ Most women are literally oblivious to the underlying motivations of their sexual selections / attractions. Evolution has largely selected-for human females with a capacity to form psychological schemas that preserve an ego-investment that would otherwise afflict them with debilitating anxiety, guilt, and the stresses that result from being continuously, consciously aware of their own behavioral incongruities. Evolution selects-for solipsistic wome…
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 11:58 PM
0

But they have not confined their actions to speaking, denouncing, protesting. But that's what this event, this article was about. Did you? read it? Full extent of the news was that students were planning to talk about MRAs in the future.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 11:52 PM
0

The article does not tell us which site they wanted to prohibit or why. So take it with a grain of salt. For all you know it was a site depicting, inciting, facilitating violence. If you don't think there's a single site on the entire internet worth censoring on any private server, I disagree. Be honest: it's a poorly written article. I like how it tried to suggest that the most objectionable content people could have been concerned about was how video games can impact boys’ development and the …
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 04:24 PM
1

The linked article is about people talking in public. You included it in your list of bad behavior. I assume you don't approve. If you don't approve of them talking in public, it seems hypocritical to complain that they supposedly don't approve of you talking in public.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 04:18 PM
2

I beg to differ. My comment argues that when men try to talk in the public sphere about the issues that affect us, on our terms, we face an increddible ammount of backlash from feminists. How is your reaction here any different...? A student government discussed an amendment, questioning whether MRA's are a negative influence, and you're backlashing against their "talk in the public sphere."
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 11:53 AM
6

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/31/robyn-urback-student-union-brands-mens-rights-groups-as-hateful-clubs-that-justify-sexual-assault/ So if your comment argues that the behavior of feminists is wrong, why can't feminists ask if the behavior of MRAs is wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 10:29 AM
9

People know what they like. Except sexually, where a core TRP theory is that women in particular don't know what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 08:00 AM
3

People who have no children also have an interest in seeing those children educated, however For me that defense extends over the whole deal though: I feel I have an interest in making sure my peers can all vote. Representation is a great way to prevent civil unrest, imbalanced lobbying, etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/09/13 12:14 AM
4

I'd guess moral outweighs factual problems for most. Getting dating strategy wrong is probably not enough on its own to support dedicated fans. I also think the two are not-unrelated. If redpill spaces are not critical about the bad factual claims, it makes it easier for people to reach bad moral conclusions. So BluePillers probably care relatively little about women's brain development past age 18 in itself, and more about how the bad science will likely be used to justify some kind of discrimi…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 10:56 PM
3

I did report a couple comments in the linked thread. Leaving this up isn't about aggression toward anyone. If it weren't in a meta submission discussing this exact thing, I'd agree with you. But, leaving up an example to illustrate a rule, in a meta-convo seems helpful to everyone, especially where I'm not a moderator and am trying to spur convo about what the rules ought to be.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 10:47 PM
6

I admit, I find some tension between explicitly male issue advocacy and feminism. Mainly, I have a had time swallowing that identity politics could be successfully 'lead' by another identity. A men's "revolution" insofar as one is needed should be lead by men. I wouldn't want straight people dictating what queer politics should be either, even when they're right (but allies are welcome). The flip side is that it feels sucky to barge into places that are mainly for women's rights activism and try…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 10:39 PM
4

I'm far less interested in the factual claims TRP makes ("this is the strategy that works"). My concerns arise from the moral problems with their positions. So I'm not looking for data to support their strategy. I'm not ignoring potential data, just not particularly interested. I'd be satisfied with an emerging effort to question their moral problems. If I thought the community was more critical of the abuse, violence, hate, legal oppression (obviously my views), I'd leave them alone.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:37 PM
5

Sexual strategy is not a position they represent. It is the very second you ask them what their sexual strategy is. If people rationalize any beliefs (which is a core theory of TRP, that women do), then it is worth asking if people know their beliefs. Clearly not always.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:32 PM
2

This is entirely inappropriate as well. It is a series of personal attacks, that does not add to the debate. What effectively happened is that I made a compelling argument above that my argument fits perfectly his description of the topic, and when he did not feel like rebutting for whatever reason (and that's totally fine), he added these rude, snarky final words.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:17 PM
3

Let's try another approach: Would you care to give me your answer, or perhaps care to guess what a hypothetical TRP-answer might look like to my question? Do women understand their own sexual strategy? I am arguing that this is an example where TRP believes that despite women's sincere arguments, and their sincere belief that they do, women do not know the position they represent. Also, notice from your excerpt: understand themselves in some sense I purposely made this loose-fitting. Clearly, th…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:10 PM
2

Great. On that, we agree. I did not suggest the sidebar influenced spermjackalope's feelings on any topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:04 PM
4

Ah, much better. See, now you've established a basis for your criticism, something like: "I am less trustworthy because I've engaged with RPS before and may have an agenda." That's an incredibly flimsy basis, particularly in the context of a subreddit established to debate red pill ideas. Perhaps that particular basis should be prohibited for that reason, too, but that's a separate discussion. For now, I sincerely appreciate your effort to actually find evidence, however flimsy, of my motives. S…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:02 PM
3

The description you just gave? That is EXACTLY the topic of my comment. The argument was (my own, liberal paraphrasing, please permit some liberty): "No one would argue that a person could fail to know their own, personal position. X knows what X thinks." My response was to question whether (my own, liberal paraphrasing, please permit some liberty): "RedPill might actually suggest something very similar, that some people might fail to know their own, personal position. Y thinks they know what Y …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:56 PM
3

Reread the discussion. I did not discuss women who think other people (don't) know their own position. I discussed how "each woman thinks they know their own position." Compare that quote to your desired topic: each member thinks they know their own position.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:51 PM
4

Are you ignoring all of the context of what my comment actually discussed? That would be changing the meaning of what was said. But unless you both started to read the discussion in the middle of that shortened quote, and then stopped reading the discussion at the end of it, the context is clear. Both my comment, and its parent comment, discuss whether people know their own arguments.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:44 PM
1

To which I think redpillschool was responding that neither he nor sperm thought they didn't understand their own arguments. Yes. I agree. My response was with that assumption, and on that topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:39 PM
3

Did you notice that jeffsfather also left off the end of the sentence? "... and I think you should strike that." I stayed on topic. The quote was not shortened to change the meaning, but to provide context to show where my lengthy reply about people knowing their own arguments was anchored into the discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:38 PM
3

I hope moderators will leave this up as it provides a perfect example of what my submission is about. I will refrain from reporting this one. Notice that /u/jeffsfather has decided not just that I made a mistake by omitting a word, but that it must have been an intentional mistake. There is no evidence of this intent beyond the fact that it is allegedly wrong. Because he has no evidence that speaks to my motive, it is an inappropriate personal attack, and this type of response should be prohibit…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:33 PM
5

Yes, it does. Women sincerely argue, "My mating strategy IS xyz." In TRP terms this might look like, "I choose men who are confident enough to just be themselves and are nice guys who treat women with respect and equality." And they sincerely believe that is their position. TRP replies by arguing, "Women are mistaken about this and a lot of other things. Not only do they not know their own positions, but evolution has selected for women who do not know it."
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:31 PM
2

Lol. To comfort anyone concerned, I fully stand by my discussion with the full understanding that we were talking about "know[ing] ourselves what we're representing." "Women don't know what sexual strategy they're representing, despite believing they do." Thus sayeth the sidebar. So my question is if it is possible that people might not know what position they are representing, as seems to be the case with women and their sexual strategy. Nothing in my post could possibly have been construed to …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:22 PM
7

Your post is titled "Is TheRedPill's anti-democratic streak defensible?" If a small majority are anti-democratic in the manner you describe it is by definition not a representative view of the sub. You should have titled your post "Is the anti-democratic view held by 1% of TheRedPill's members defensible?" I think you've misunderstood the title. That's what a "streak" is meant to describe here. As in, "streaked hair"--not the "majority" color, but a visible strand that is present. (Though I thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:13 PM
5

I think not. That bitterness makes someone easier to "recruit," more susceptible to new ideas. TRP benefits from that. It might clutter up the content some less-bitter members want on the front page. However, voting is a good check for the community's pulse, and I simply do not believe those people will stop "being red pill" just because of bitter rants. The other danger, that it could make the group appear more misogynist... well, speaking for myself, I'm not much interested in the 1-day accoun…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:08 PM
4

Our present financial mess, the act of ruthlessly borrowing from the future, and leaving future generations to try to subsist on little more than scraps I'd argue this current reality was the result of and to the benefit of a small number of politically powerful elite. Shrinking the voter base makes it much easier for small groups to benefit at the ruinous expense of society. Individual voters may vote selfishly (I think that's a bit reductive), but the total result is that their interest balanc…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 07:01 PM
5

Do you deny that the position of the red pill is in general against women's suffrage? Really that's even stronger than what I meant, or what I think needs to be said. There's a noticeable core that is, and many are not. It's hard to generalize; they seem pretty diverse on this topic. But, You obviously don't know what a representative sample is if all of the "samples" don't actually support her thesis. Sudo... do you think that a representative sample is one that is selected among only the examp…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:57 PM
5

I think there are two results of the lack of philosophical orthodoxy: 1) discussions should be framed with specific references to examples where they are true, must acknowledge they're not universally true, and ideally should suggest how they relate to the admittedly amorphous philosophy at large. 2) there is even less reason to expect arguments here to be personal. I am not responding to prove /u/nwob right or wrong, because the topic here might not be an idea nwob subscribes to... but I am sti…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:51 PM
5

But I don't think either of us would agree that don't know ourselves SOME (though perhaps not all!) Red Pill sources would be quick to argue that women are quite frequently very bad at knowing themselves. This is argued a few times in your sidebar, for example, the mating strategies articles frequently suggest that women do not know what really motivates their mating (and this even gives rise to a commonly-cited aphorism about not asking the fish about which bait works). Another example is that …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:48 PM
6

You need to realize the context of this voting issue. The context is a discussion on how some groups have benefits without matching responsibilities. Many red pill people feel that certain voting blocks make sure to vote themselves benefits and put the costs on working men. Actually, I am intimately familiar with all of this context, but you've given a good description that others may benefit from. Thank you. Hopefully anyone who was confused about these contextual motivations would ask, seek ou…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:37 PM
7

there isn't a red pill or men's rights movement to take away women's suffrage, yet you shoehorn quotes trying to prove your made up thesis ... The commenter did not say "remove women's suffrage" in any way. I've already explained above that I have not argued there is a movement to take away women's right to vote. There's no contradiction here... Do you believe that anyone who thinks women should not vote must also argue to proceed forward by "remov[ing] women's suffrage"? I do not. But again, yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 06:35 PM
5

Since I've already responded to that link, I'll just ask: Where is the proof that I "ignored" it? You're choosing here not to argue that I was wrong, but that I was intentionally deceptive. There's no need for that, and unless you have a fuck ton of actual evidence to support it, it's not appropriate here. It's a debate subreddit. People will be wrong. Your suspicion that someone is wrong is not evidence of their bad intent.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:53 PM
7

Another quote: "Obviously the way forward isn't taking away the vote." - redpillschool. Soulcakeduck's post is a selective quote mined farce. That would surely be true if any part of my post had argued that redpillschool thinks the way forward is to take away the right to vote. It doesn't. I do argue that many redpill sources are anti-democratic. Of course, there is a difference between thinking women should not vote, and thinking the solution is to remove their right to vote. And there are also…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:49 PM
3

Done editing, hope it helps, but here are a few more thoughts: No one is supposed to go through and "refute" the multitudinous redpillers who are anti-democracy. They're included only to establish that many redpillers are anti-democracy, so that we can have a conversation that hopefully takes that fact for granted. That leaves us to discuss how harmful it is, or if it is correct, or how it can be solved, etc. The only other reason it is included is to protect myself against the inevitable, ridic…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:45 PM
4

This response is super selective. 1) "Brigades." I randomly clicked one of the links to theredpill and it is to a downvoted post, made by a person now banned from the sub, and the overwhelming top comment says: "Fuck this, everyone deserves the right to vote. Everyone deserves equal rights and privileges." The quote alone disproves the OP's entire post. There is no way soulcakeduck could find this post and not see this comment that proves her wrong. 7 months ago (and even today), hundreds of dow…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:31 PM
6

Conscription is not the only criteria that determined suffrage; it's but one factor. It also used to be, at various times, and at various places, that a person had to own a certain ammount of real property before they were allowed the vote. You pointed at the varrying criteria yourself. No, conscription was never a factor. That's the point. Other factors were, and by coincidence, sometimes conscription and voting coincided. Frequently, not. And it's not exactly paternalistic to want to protect t…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 05:25 PM
4

Some would argue, with some degree of weight that universal male suffrage was only earned through blood. The notion that if a man could be compelled to fight, at the risk of literally everything he has, his life its self, possibly on pain of death or imprisonment for his country, that he probably ought to have some say in the direction the coutnry takes next. That seems like the argument that lacks historical context. You said yourself, despite being conscripted, men did not enjoy universal suff…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 03:35 PM
11

I think nearly any self help book, or dating advice of any kind, is going to give you the "be confident, self-improvement, self-esteem, fitness" and other few positive messages TRP provides. There are endless voices out there on this topic, I doubt we can provide one authoritative source for you, and the best advice is to try them and find one that works... without the hatred. Sounds like you're making some great progress really. Yes, it often seems slow and pained, and life is like that for a l…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 01:15 PM
11

My take is that this is a dark, not-well-concealed underbelly of hatred within the RedPill movement. A great many of these advocate for the most grossly discriminatory legal double standards that would leave specific people powerless in society, and base their advocacy on the supposedly inherent inferiority of broad swathes of society. I also feel it is unfortunately difficult to remove this hatred from the movement, because TRP is a space where the alleged inferiority of those groups is often u…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 10:56 AM
2

There has been a lot of discussion about whether soulduckcake's post should have been deleted or not. Yeah I'd really like to know if that's still even open for discussion. I've gone out of my way to participate in the rules discussions, and the meta discussions about that post, and moderators keep returning to, either, "it's not fair to state your position" or "some people would not have liked it." That's not a good enough reason to delete it. It is a totally valid topic for conversation, and I…
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:53 AM
4

But the ones that are debating here don't resort to name calling and personal attacks. Great. And they often get upvoted when that's the case. /u/LifterofThings Meanwhile, others do engage in shit tons of attacks and snark. By the way, was it a personal attack when you told me I was being dishonest or stupid, but then you were unable or unwilling to defend that position, deleted your comment, and fled? See the top of this comment chain. Was it snark when you told me my post had to be a question …
/r/PurplePillDebate18/09/13 08:42 AM
2

Except that when a woman accuses a man of rape, either he's guilty (and she's a victim") or not. Victims don't always know perpetrators. It is possible for the wrong person to stand accused of a crime that really happened. "Victim" might be inappropriately presumptuous for other reasons, but you've set up a false dichotomy here and "victim" (if it is used) should not be understood to imply guilt for the accused.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 12:20 AM
3

Wouldn't "falsely accused" be the equal/opposite of "correctly accused," while "accused" would be neutral because it does not imply guilt/innocence? In any event, "victim" certainly does not imply guilt/innocence for another unnamed party. We can argue that it inappropriately presumes they're a victim, but it doesn't presume anything about the accused.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 12:18 AM
5

To this sentence, I'd venture: It's not actually appropriate to call them the victim before charges are dropped either, as it implies the alleged accused is guilty. Someone being a victim does not prove and should not imply that the person that stands accused is guilty. It's a false dichotomy, because there are cases where the accuser is a victim, and the accused is not guilty.
/r/MensRights18/09/13 12:15 AM
3

There was a popular submission in TRP where everyone seemed to agree there is no Red Pill orthodoxy, at least not beyond "that shit's not working for us." The fairest way to represent "TRP views" is to cite specifically people who make arguments in a TRP context using TRP's general ideas about what does(n't) work. So if the sidebar and general consensus is that women are less mature, intelligent, rational, responsible, and then there are frequent arguments about whether women should be prohibite…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 08:42 PM
8

So you're saying now that linking to your explanation that supposedly corrects the matter is not an accurate way to present your position? PS you forgot you were blocking me.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 07:12 PM
4

You actually make it very clear in a lot of your comments exactly why they're the same thing anyway. When people knowingly enter into a (marriage) contract, in full knowledge that the law views it as a perpetual consent contract, then they are willingly entering into a perpetual consent contract, and that is exactly the requirement you choose for when sex-against-immediate-will is morally fine. But more importantly, my description does not preclude an explicit perpetual consent clause in the con…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 06:36 PM
8

And you were wrong. Obviously updating threads to address your "corrections" is not the action of people unable or unwilling to represent your ideas accurately. So yes, it was certainly simple.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 06:32 PM
8

Take your pick- choose one topic and give the red pill perspective. So far a lot of anger here, but not a lot of people standing up and explaining what the red pill view is. I'm disappointed. I think redpillschool believes this about spousal rape: I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. Prove me wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 07:06 AM
1

If that were true, then I could call you a rapist, and later claim I had never called you a rapist. According to you, my claim about my position is infallible, so it must then be true that I am not calling you a rapist, even if while explaining as much I continue to call you a rapist. Just because you say something is so does not make it so. You cannot say you see no moral problem with sex against someone's immediate will (in your specific hypothetical of perpetual consent contracts), and then t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 06:07 AM
12

I have corrected soulcakeduck countless times explaining that her portrayal of my views did not accurately describe my views. Except, I am then able to use those supposed "corrections" to represent your views, because those "corrections" are exactly identical to what I've said all along. When I ask direct questions just to make sure there's no difference, you don't answer, or just repeat the entire thing again usually along with this same victim-deflection nonsense. For example, I UPDATED my sub…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 05:51 AM
12

They meet that burden in every individual topic they participate in. Take your responses about their alleged misunderstandings to those specific topics if you're not willing to discuss them here, only to allude to them accusingly without any evidence. I've also yet to see you treat the claims of BluePillers "honestly enough to disagree." Like, how you pretend my description of your position amounts to anything beyond I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of …
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 05:48 AM
10

This submission is you, claiming you've seen things that were wrong. You're saying it is our burden to prove you've never seen anything that was wrong? And that you have no burden to prove you've seen things that were wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 12:50 AM
17

I described your position on rape repeatedly and carefully. In response, you always like to take a line or two of what I said out of context, pretend I was talking about something else, and call it wrong. Then, if you bother to describe your position at all, it matches what I've said perfectly, 100%. When I ask a direct question to confirm there is no difference, 100% of the time you do not give a direct answer; it is ignored or the whole thing is repeated again. Since I'm undoubtedly a big moti…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/09/13 12:37 AM
2

What part of this do you think contradicts anything I said or understood? None of it does.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 09:13 PM
2

Nothing "new" here. Same as throughout. I welcome you to state your position clearly, and welcome everyone to read it, because you're saying exactly what I describe while pretending not to.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 09:13 PM
2

If the law enabled perpetual consent, there would be no lack of consent Your own words elsewhere were 'against the immediate will' of your partner. This is at best a semantics argument. Clearly, we're both talking about "perpetual consent" provided by a marriage contract, and a partner that at the immediate moment does not want to have sex. Right? The fact that you want to define "immediate will" to have sex as unrelated to "consent" in a world of perpetual consent marriage contracts doesn't dis…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 08:20 PM
2

No, I grasp your point just fine. You do not grasp mine, which is: I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. I see nothing morally wrong if both parties knowingly enter into a contract of perpetual consent. I see nothing morally wrong if both parti…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 07:54 PM
2

It was certainly never my intent to suggest you care a lot about the marriage contract. Really all I've ever meant to suggest is that you find nothing morally wrong with sex against the immediate consent of your spouse in a world where the law permits it. I asked above if that was a misrepresentation, and it is clearly not. The rest of this, frankly, seems like bluster and victimhood. You have not been misrepresented, because you do believe that, as this comment once again proves. If you would s…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 07:44 PM
8

Why would it be a good idea to date a slut? No one feels special buying a beat up used car. Sure. And the NFL only drafts experienced players. If you're willing to pull a metaphor with no relevant similarities, you can justify any conclusion at all. (And actually I only ever buy used cars and omfg who would buy a new car, what a total ripoff they are)
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 06:29 AM
3

I think his answer is pretty clear: it is not, specifically because our modern, legal definition of marriage says it is not. And he has also been explicit that if the legal definition did allow "marriage=consent, no spousal rape" then there would be no moral problem. So I don't really get why he insists I've misrepresented him... if that description is not accurate, I'd love for him to correct it, but he only ever seems to say it is wrong but then restate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/09/13 12:29 AM
3

So it's hard to ignore that a moderator account was deleted, particularly since this stickied thread is by [deleted] now. Any news on that? Is it rule related?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/13 07:39 PM
3

Now we're full circle back to my original concern. Is it fair to view my submission as fitting that description? Loaded questions for a circlejerk, accusatory? My concern is that a large number of completely fair topics will be modded out with exactly this mindset, basically because those submissions advance a position... particularly when they advance a moral position that many people won't like.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/13 12:24 AM
3

Yes, honesty was never an issue. Fairness, however... I get that it is a tough call and I don't have to like it. But this reasoning amounts to "we deleted your submission, though it broke no rules, because we suspected some people might not want to discuss it." I'm not worried about that past decision and I know there will be tough calls, but going forward, I'd hope that is not viewed as a good rationale for removing submissions. We can't remove content just because some people don't like the to…
/r/PurplePillDebate15/09/13 12:05 AM
3

it doesn't say you have to use questions as submissions. That's an incredibly valuable clarification. Thanks. it was "here is proof of RPers being rape apologists; what do they have to say for themselves?". I'd argue that every submission that isn't a question (and honestly, most that are) do the same thing. Also, this is desirable. Here is another top submission, "Game does not exist." It could be summarized, "TRP is factually wrong about Game. What does it have to say for itself?" Here is anot…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/13 02:17 AM
3

That's what I'd want/expect, but counting question marks is a terrible measure for which submissions contribute. The enforcement of that rule shows as much; things without questions are left up because they're perfectly good contributions. I'm not saying this is bad faith moderation but it's still a problem.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/13 01:56 AM
3

I'll be honest, I don't think I understood that rule originally, but now that I do (I think) I don't think it makes much sense--and it's certainly being selectively enforced, probably because it's being selectively reported. It seemed like #4 meant "be neutral, don't straw man, don't be hostile." But now it seems like "all submissions must only be questions." So, using my recent submission as an example, that leaves me with submissions that might look like this: Does the sidebar really say the t…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/09/13 01:33 AM
6

I hope mods will make an effort to be much more explicit than the sidebar alone is about these rules, and to enforce them consistently. Just one example: Rude comments will be deleted. No personal attacks and no hate speech. Any of the aforementioned will result in a ban. What is the moderator policy for determining what is "rude" or a "personal attack" Specifically, defining a position (perhaps even quoting someone to do so) should never alone be viewed as a personal attack, but moderators here…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 10:54 PM
5

Yes, I don't pretend to speak for you, so your words have a lot of weight in this discussion. Sex without immediate consent in marriage is wrong, and I agree with this position. I wrote that. Months ago. You also wrote that this is because of the legal definition of consent, which seems to be what this comment indicates as well. And you discussed a hypothetical where the legal definition did not permit spousal rape, and said having sex without immediate consent would then be morally acceptable, …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 08:44 PM
4

If she resists, then she is not performing on the contract and you can sue. There is no legal backing for forcing somebody to perform on a contract. You and I agree that is how such a contract should be enforced, but none of the showcased opinions in this submission agree with that. EG, It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the natur…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 08:19 PM
6

Should people be able to be contracted into slavery? If they did, should we hold them responsible for that choice, by force? Are contract killers operating within the law? When someone breaks a contract, is any action (no matter how otherwise-illegal; perhaps only if specified by the contract) justified in "enforcing" the already-broken contract?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:55 PM
3

Not that people should downvote, but can moderators adjust the wait period, or is that site wide?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:45 PM
7

How anyone can read that and come up with the conclusion that you come to here is ridiculous. Lol. No. It's not. The very same comment explicitly says that without the law, there is nothing morally wrong. The entire point of the comment is to draw this distinction. If this were not the law, and two people entered into a mutually consenting marriage, then it is not morally wrong to have sex with previous stated consent. Explain what those words mean. It would be bad people skills to make your wif…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 05:53 PM
5

I did not miss any of that. Nothing you've said here is inconsistent with what I've said. None of those examples are comparable anyway, since those contracts are not then enforced over someone's objections. Even with military conscription, the government does not force you to pull triggers or push pens; they imprison you. And RPS never considers that those obligations are wrong, instead extending them thoughtlessly. He also never considers that there are relevant differences, like a government b…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 05:36 PM
5

they said that the current legal definition of marriage says that raping your spouse is wrong and that the legal definition is in line with their values. This makes it sound like it's a coincidence that the law happens to be in line with what they independently believe is right. That is not the espoused position though. The positions here say explicitly 1) the law is the reason they think it is wrong, and 2) in a hypothetical scenario without the law against it, it is not-wrong to force a spouse…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 05:17 PM
6

Is it morally wrong for football players to consent to getting assaulted with physical force while they're playing the game? If a football player suddenly withdraws consent to getting hit during a game, should the linebacker be convicted of assault? It's illegal to assault even sports stars. If they are not willing to play ball, and get pursued and assaulted despite that, that's a crime, even if the intent is "only" to force them to play ball. Their contract will have terms that govern what happ…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 04:39 PM
4

There's no spin when you're saying exactly the thing I described. The idea that women would have the right to decide to enter the contract is simple. Nobody's forcing you to have sex if you made a contract saying "I agree to have sex no matter what for the duration of the contract." You've consented to it. For you, in a world where it is legal, a contract overwrites your immediate consent and you can be forced to have sex against your immediate consent. Full stop, that's the entirety view I am s…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 04:30 PM
5

Both legally and morally, the expressed intent that you not take someone's TV makes your action theft. A mistaken belief that you can disregard that may be a mitigating factor, as in "accidental theft" instead of "malicious and premeditated theft" or something. But you've still stolen. There may be people who do not understand private property rights at all. That innocence on the topic does not mean that if they take your property you are not entitled to restitution. The alternative is near-tota…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:49 AM
4

My alternative is to view rape as criminally wrong because it violates bodily autonomy. The "bright line" is the immediate consent of involved parties, as a reasonable person would understand it. It's possible to rape someone while they say "yes," but if all indications they give are "yes"ing too then it is not rape. By the way, this problem is not unique to rape. If you give every indication that I can make use of your property, then I am not stealing it. Still, we leave the owner's permission …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:26 AM
11

That probably reflects his own, very stupid bias. Seemingly he thinks it is not rape so long as the perpetrator thinks resistance is token. Wrong and dangerous so glad it got challenged here... but he wanted a straightforward hypothetical about false allegations, so I am totally fine skipping "token resistance" for now. Even giving him that benefit still shows he explicitly rejects consent-based prohibitions.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:19 AM
6

I did not miss that point. What makes you think I did? Yes, RPS allows people to enter marriages willingly in this hypothetical. And, in this hypothetical, when they do, being "forced" to have sex (sex against their immediate consent) is not morally wrong for him, because there is no law against it. It seems to me that you're taking the same position, rather than finding an error in my description: that since they signed the marriage contract understanding there was no law against spousal rape, …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:13 AM
6

You're renowned for dodging debate as much as possible instead of engaging, and this is a great example: you have an open opportunity to explain what your words meant, or how your views have since changed, but you of course do not take it. You've openly admitted that many of your detailed posts are merely trolling[1][2] . In contrast, I've stated my position plainly and given tons of supporting evidence, while being willing to discuss any part of it. Your moderator team apparently pressured to s…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 06:08 AM
7

Inflammatory: (esp. of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. synonyms: provocative, incendiary, inflaming, inciting, agitating, stirring, rousing, provoking, fomenting, rabble-rousing, seditious, subversive, mutinous. Great, that confirms that nothing I've said is inflammatory, since it is not intended to arouse angry or violent feelings. It is intended to describe the truth. It's only "provocative" insofar as I open-mindedly posted it in a debate sub to "p…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 05:43 AM
8

It was inflammatory, not to mention misleading. Again, I've explained this. You did not make your first post to discuss. You made it to accuse. All evidence points to the contrary. Misleading: except, I provided all context for every single thing discussed and proceeded slowly, carefully through each claim, qualified a number of those claims carefully, acknowledged (though I shouldn't have to) that my interpretation is not just "up for debate" but actually is the debate, and I have shown that I …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 02:37 AM
6

The document outlines a particular "type" of date rape I agree, but that's not all he talks about. He also says quite a lot about marital relations and about the general feminist, consent-based prohibitions of sex (in opposition to theft-based). Otherwise, I think I agree with you about slut shaming and enthusiastic consent, but it's clear that Devlin does not. Shame is barely discussed, and Devlin rejects any consent-based prohibitions and any criminalization of rape. RPS, on the other hand, I …
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 12:56 AM
7

Yours got reported. Simple as that. You've seen those two and they're still not deleted. they're also not phrased with inflammatory language Please direct me to the inflammatory language in my post and I will gladly edit it out. This seems to be your mistake though. You personally feel strongly about the claims I've sincerely, honestly, and carefully made. That's not surprising: a debate about morals ("TRP is bad") is often going to raise stronger emotions than a debate about facts ("TRP is wron…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 12:29 AM
9

The legal definition of consent, then, defines the morality of the action You've provided here a perfect example of how I described the problematic position. According to this argument, wherever the law does not define 'consent' there is no moral problem with (spousal, in this case) rape. If the law simply failed to have any definition at all (as it did, for centuries, in this case) then there is no moral problem. That's exactly what I've said of this position. You're not rebutting that descript…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 12:25 AM
12

The term "date rape victims" is in quotations because it's relying on the context he provides in the paragraphs before your out-of-context excerpt. It is true that Devlin talks about regret-based false allegations of rape, but this is not the only topic he covers. His article is about 14,00 words including about 1,300 words (and a section heading) between your excerpt and the first of mine, and 8500 words (and 7 sections) between it and my second excerpt. Here are the reasons to understand my ex…
/r/PurplePillDebate13/09/13 12:25 AM
6

http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m7f8a/game_does_not_exist/ http://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1m52lr/how_a_poly_guy_with_lots_of_sexual_experience/ 2 and #3 posts in this sub have no questions submitted. They've been left up, for a lot lot longer than my post was. This "rule" is not being applied equally.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 08:45 PM
8

took quotes out of context. 1) I provided full context for every single quote discussed. 2) If someone believes that, then that opens the door for an easy rebuttal. Show how the context changes the meaning. That's the point of a debate, not an appropriate role of a priori moderation. 3) You, personally, told me not to link to outside threads because they're sometimes offensive. So about context... Nothing in the whole thing was worded neutrally. ... Not to mention there wasn't a SINGLE question …
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 08:38 PM
7

This is the second time I have had carefully constructed posts on the topic removed. The moderators here do not believe I should be allowed to define my position in an adversarial debate, because doing so requires defining it relatively, thus describing (to some extent) opposition position as well. I have also been told that linking to threads where I am drawing context/content from is not allowed because those threads in TRP or TBP do not follow the rules of politeness of PPD. I had a lengthy d…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 08:34 PM
0

I haven't read Devlin, and I'm not sure I buy it. Based on the quote, I'm not sure I'm interested. If it is terrible, then perhaps raising awareness of that and potentially having it removed from the sidebar would improve the sub. ZionController got downvoted to -400. If you're a TRP regular you know that vote total is not typical; he was heavily brigaded from a large number of subreddits. Most of those critical replies are not from TRP regulars, either. Moreover, he looks like he might be a tro…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/09/13 12:13 AM
2

the admins are sooooo concerned about doxxing that 24 hours later the post is still there! The post is not still there. Deleted submissions work in a similar way to shadowbanned users. The link is removed from the pages where it would normally appear (like the queues for the sub where it was submitted), but if you know the URL you can still surf to it. Admins also had moderators delete links to the submission in other subs. This is an intentional design. Just like it may not be apparent to a sha…
/r/MensRights07/09/13 03:56 AM
1

An important error here: 2010 Statscan report said that in 2010 22,000 sexual assaults were reported. The video is not claiming that 1 in 2 women are sexually assaulted, but that they are physically or sexually abused. Adding in numbers for physical, non-sexual abuse would bring the required reporting rate down.
/r/MensRights04/09/13 08:33 PM
-1

Don't have to be redpill to be MRA, that much is obvious from any time that sub is discussed here. Save it for /r/SRSMythos. Would be simpler to just engage my actual comment instead of worrying about who I am, anyway.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 01:36 PM
2

"I'm a Christian because I believe in living a good life!" Interesting example. Did you know Ten percent of Protestants, 21 percent of Roman Catholics, and 52 percent of Jews do NOT believe in God. ? Similar, many Christians that do believe in God define Christianity in such a way that other Christians who believe in God are not Christians, according to the first group. Do Catholics cease to be Christian if enough Protestants say so? I agree with your general point that the word cannot mean just…
/r/MensRights31/08/13 09:04 PM
3

From MR sidebar: Suggested Reading List: The Myth of Male Power - Warren Farrell The War Against Boys - Christina Hoff Sommers Who Stole Feminism - Christina Hoff Sommers The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - Steven Pinker 3 of these are written by feminists. I suppose some might call Farrell a feminist too. He used to be but I don't think he calls himself one anymore. If it is so impossible for feminists to be MRAs, should the sidebar purge all those feminist pro-MRA sources?
/r/MensRights31/08/13 08:56 PM
6

Whether you're advancing your own position or a hypothetical one, the debate advances the same way. So, "your hypothetical position ceded..." Does this hypothetical position hold that an article with violent hatred is relatable? Because/despite the violent hatred? Or that there is no violent hatred present? Or other. If this distinction (between your position and a hypothetical one you're defending) is important, "I wouldn't say" may be misleading language.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 01:46 AM
8

This doesn't even require birth control. Particularly because women cannot be impregnated by two different men simultaneously. All men could be having the same amount of sex, be equally potent, and history could still have large numbers of men causing fewer than the average number of pregnancies. You know the saying, roughly half of people are below average.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/13 01:24 AM
9

Mocking and shaming are generally an in group behavior exercised on interlopers or to reinforce an established hierarchy. Satire is usually directed outward. TBP does not expect to shame TRP by its activity.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 11:52 PM
4

Precautions can be a good idea (though many suggested to rape victims are voodoo nonsense). But they're not a responsibility (obligation) here. Why is it the responsibility of men not to rape (though I agree with this principle) but not the responsibility of the state to allow women access the tools they need for self-defense when a very few men choose to shirk that responsibility? Why is it the responsibility of terrorists not to terrorize, but the state won't let me own a private army or nucle…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 11:32 PM
9

Really think you're taking it too personally. This is part of the debate. You implicitly ceded that the article has some violent hatred of women in it, when choosing to argue it doesn't cast that as normal because it is just one article. And you said it is relatable. Someone trying to understand your position absolutely should ask if that means the violent hatred is relatable. Instead of suggesting it is unfair to use a syllogism, use a direct argument. You can argue the article does not have vi…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 11:23 PM
7

Quit saying misogyny, your definition of that word is not congruent with TRP standards MMM, delicious definitions. It's a debate sub. Some believe TRP is misogynistic. The debate exists so they can argue that point. Can't prohibit that or the sub is pointless. You're free to argue the definition or the facts though...
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 11:20 PM
1

You guys weren't here to debate with open minds. You're here to declare why our thinking process is "problematic." That's what the debate is. We think you're dangerously wrong, and present the arguments why. ... And you guys (at least in this post) miss the point, call it an ad hom, and run away.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 01:29 PM
5

How is this description different from any other affirmative defense? I'm not very familiar with the case. A lot of killing is legal. Killing in self defense, killing in war. Insanity pleas, statute of limitations. Defendants can admit to the facts that constitute the crime and still be acquitted, for lots of reasons. This case may have used a bad reason ("duress"... like, self defense? don't know what the judge thought). Or it may have incorrect reached an affirmative defense (so "duress" is ac…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 04:12 AM
14

Others had good insight, and I'll add: morality. TRP alleges that 'game' is amoral. It is obvious to me that there are sexual strategies that are immoral, that you cannot treat people however you want and excuse it away because you thought it would get you laid. Rape, for example, is immoral. So I can argue with TRP about whether game is amoral. And, I can argue about how TRP's strategies--even if I believed they were effective (... "basis is personal experience" so no)--are immoral. There's lot…
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 03:44 AM
3

Not really. As with most blue-pillers, you misrepresent the things you see on TRP Perhaps it is a matter of perspective. What is very pro-choice to one person seems moderate to another. The thread can also change a lot in 8 hours. In any event, there's no need to take a swipe at one person individually or at the group. If the claim is wrong, it is wrong, without any need to guess the motives behind it.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 01:12 AM
7

For the most part, he's being very good today! Let's reinforce that behavior! ... I'm going to give credit to moderators, instead, for being very good today. They've removed multiple of his comments. What remains is indeed examples of him being good, and I don't downvote him either, but there's some selection bias feeding his nice image.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/08/13 12:07 AM
4

On how PurplePill engages the Red and the Blue I believe that the well-intentioned rules of this subreddit are being enforced in a way that can undermine most debate, paving a path for little more than concern trolls and JAQing off. I intend to constructively look at the rule and ask how it can be better formed. Debaters do not always agree on what their respective positions are. I personally think of this as "definitions." EG, "Is abortion murder?" may need to be resolved to determine if pro-ch…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/13 08:06 PM
6

Absolutely, I would never claim RPS advocates an anti-suffrage movement because he's been clear on that point repeatedly. But there's no contradiction here. It is possible to think both that women should not vote (which he says explicitly is a red pill belief) and that we should not have a movement to take away women's suffrage (perhaps for pragmatic reasons?). He never seems willing to explain what his words do mean, except as above by saying what they do not mean: "we're just joking, we don't …
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/13 05:45 PM
12

Is that your personal position then, just not part of red pill theory? You have personally argued that women should not vote, do not contribute to society, (unlike men) are overgrown teenagers. Here, you said these are each examples of red pill beliefs. Also seen there: women are naturally immature. Because of evolutionary pressures (or the lack thereof), women, unlike/moreso than men, are prone to "lack of long-term consequential thinking, temper tantrums, lack of diversity in character (person…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/13 04:57 PM
-1

So long as we're responding to ourselves to ninja-in the final word, I should defend how I "misrepresented" his arguments. It is lengthy. Sorry. That contradicts the hilarious assertion that I am "low effort" here. I still don't include "all" context. But it's all linked to. (1) Rape is theft of fidelity He says, Rape became a crime historically due to the nature of fidelity and marriage, which was likely due to concealed ovulation, putting into question paternity.. And she skews it into somethi…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 08:25 PM
1

Convincing rebuttal. The specifics of those claims you refuse to admit are described in greater detail here, but you're so terrified of acknowledging those raving-mad realities of your own sidebar that you had the thread deleted.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:35 PM
1

This does not contradict a moral argument It's not intended to. It does change the basis of the moral argument from being a violation of bodily autonomy to being a violation of personal property. Is it your position that this framework is better suited to describing our moral understanding of rape? The term "date rape" has opposition because of the belief that all rape is just rape. I'd agree that this is problematic, especially when date rape is the overwhelming majority of rape (and this term …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/08/13 05:32 PM
5

:) I know exactly where the skewing is happening here. The context, which you have clearly left out, ... I added that it would be bad people skills ... So you added something that I already quoted above. The entire context, which I provided direct links to, is also provided, but it makes no sense to reproduce the entire thing here, only the immediately relevant parts. This is not taking your position "out of context", because that would mean changing the meaning which I have not done. Instead, y…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 05:16 PM
2

You believe that other than our recent, legal concept of spousal rape, there is nothing morally wrong with having sex with your spouse without their immediate consent. It would be bad people skills to make your wife have sex with you when she wasn't in the mood ... having sex against the immediate will of the other party would still be considered consensual because of the nature of consent having been signed away earlier So this is only a legal barrier, not something that is morally wrong. For m…
/r/MensRights28/08/13 04:42 PM
3

If you followed the link you see immediately that /u/zioncontroller and /u/redpillschool are both hugely guilty of that spousal rape stuff. zioncontroller was removed but redpillschool is still there. Moreover, since they were in total agreement on that question, it seems unlikely that this is the reason he was removed. For all we know he only left for personal reasons. So let's not suggest otherwise.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 04:04 PM
2

They're pro-rape and anti-women's suffrage. Their sidebar argues women are developmentally inferior to men. Among other things.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 04:23 PM
0

Where does the sidebar say ""there can be no common ground?" The first link of the sidebar has that sentence, in bold header text.
/r/MensRights20/08/13 06:16 AM
3

I think Sommers would agree with you. she says that some very small fraction of boys might be prone sociopathic behaviour. Don't think she actually made that argument. The only time sociopathy is mentioned in the article, she says "while violence may be built into the core of a small coterie of sociopathic boys, most boys are not sociopathic." That's not saying boys are prone to sociopathy, it is saying sociopaths may be prone to violence (and is very rare).
/r/MensRights19/08/13 08:50 PM
3

This has always been such an interesting paradox within this subreddit. The sidebar simultaneously argues that feminism cannot approach men's problems and "there can be no common ground" between MRM and feminism, but (at least) 3/4ths of the sidebar suggested reading list is also from feminists. The sidebar argues that feminists fight against men's issues, but upvotes these articles about the feminists that fight for men and agrees with them. Personally I think in the rush to critique feminism w…
/r/MensRights19/08/13 08:43 PM
4

Yeah, I had never heard of feminism until you told me. Thanks for the update. Did you know water is important for life?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:53 AM
0

The top-scoring comment in this thread is also pointing out that the joke is at the expense of women. You're the minority this time, so perhaps you're the feminist? Is that how it works here?
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:40 AM
2

Is this the "(Some) Men's Rights Movement"? You don't belong here if you ridicule the inferiority of men (even the ones that happen to look like Justin/Ellen).
/r/MensRights19/08/13 03:37 AM
6

This shirt is hugely insulting to women, and not at all insulting to men. The shirt says nothing at all about how men do behave, only that if they behave this way their relationships will be successful. The shirt says plenty about how women behave though. They're fickle and hysterical, and need constant supplication from their husbands who are undoubtedly suffering through their bad behavior. Plus the entire idea of "Yes Dear"ing your spouse is incredibly condescending. It means you're not since…
/r/MensRights18/08/13 10:10 PM
-4

What are we looking at? A women's restroom...? That would not be so uncommon.
/r/MensRights11/08/13 05:37 PM
3

I did not say they were subsets of different populations. I said they were different populations. All respondents. All respondents who were abused any time in their lifetime. All respondents who were abused in the past 12 months. Those are 3 different populations. Each is a subset of the population above it. But if you have statistics about population #2, pretending that population #3 has the exact same characteristics is bullshit, not science. In other words, "the group of people who were abuse…
/r/MensRights09/08/13 04:06 AM
6

I don't think there was ever an official explanation of why MR is blocked. Some subs request to be blocked from bestof, and they block defaults, but I dunno if there are any (other?) subs they specifically target to block.
/r/MensRights07/08/13 08:37 PM
2

in the creation of the content, which is what you said. Read again. I said creation and hosting. I know that plural subjects can be confusing sometimes, but at this point you have plenty of context to comprehend the sentence. keep using ad hominem attacks You're an idiot, but that's not why you're wrong. See, what I am saying of you is EXACTLY THE SAME as what you first claimed about me. You said I had a vested interest in covering up the number of female perpetrators. You never managed to expla…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:57 AM
2

I would be surprised if most studies, even those conducted by those with the highest of credentials, didn't have more serious possible flaws Why is your perception interesting here? You think it's OK to willfully lie about reality so long as you suspect others also lie or make mistakes? I am also not sure what you mean by "completely different populations" and "exactly the same population". I thought tb's post above was analagous to the situation with lifetime vs 12 month prior stats. So you thi…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:49 AM
4

I'm having trouble following the logic of much of this submission. Take this for example: Man: A woman didn’t take no for a no and nagged her partner into sex. The man felt violated. Who can address that? The original article is by a feminist, hosted all over feminist sites. It gives this short description of what happened: Apparently he had said things along the lines of "I’m too tired right now, let’s just go to sleep" and she had continued to proposition him thinking "welll, this will help yo…
/r/MensRights07/08/13 01:45 AM
1

Actually, I have not been involved in the creation of that content at all. Nice try, but far off the mark. Read what I said again. Carefully. Then read the last line of this submission, "This thread has been added to Oneiorosgrip's list." By hosting this drama you generate clicks. That's an interest. You've dismissed the flaws There are no flaws in what I said. Where is the flaw in "statisticians do not assume populations are identical without proof"? Where is the flaw in "the CDC separated thes…
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:56 PM
0

Find "www.reddit.com", replace "np.reddit.com". Www.reddit.comould you really draw out w's like that?
/r/MensRights06/08/13 05:49 PM
10

Just to clarify, we can still direct-link to elsewhere within this subreddit, correct?
/r/MensRights06/08/13 12:02 AM
2

You've shown a vested interest in minimizing the perception of female perpetration here, Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing when I repeatedly, carefully emphasize that the number of female perpetrators may be huge, perhaps even higher than typhonblue's fictional number. The vested interests here are the three of you explicitly defending bad "probably inaccurate" stats. You just so happen to be the content creators and web hosts for that content. So far, you haven't presented anything that says …
/r/MensRights06/08/13 12:00 AM
2

I won't weigh in on "shocking" but I believe being forced to penetrate is rape, and the CDC ought to include it as a subcategory of rape. My argument is basically that different populations have different statistics. The bad science here is in pretending that completely different populations must have the same statistics, so we can mix and match statistics from different populations to reach a legitimate conclusion; it is not so.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:29 PM
6

If you're feeling masochistic you can unravel the original comments. I only start calling it "intentional" after both of them explicitly defend mislabeling their results, admit they know their stat is "probably inaccurate" but, preferable to have bad stats than no stats. Maybe an honest call was bad politically. But light is supposed to be a great disinfectant. Certainly enlightening to see the community reactions to it.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 07:40 AM
4

There are an astounding number of problems with this. 1. People travel. 2. The survey was used to project estimates for totals. If the survey does not find repeat offenders or repeat victims, the estimate for the total does. 3. The survey is guaranteed to catch one type of repeat: any respondent that was assaulted more than once is a respondent. 4. Repeat offenders and repeat victims are only one possible explanation for potential differences between these categories. We don't even need to know,…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:10 AM
1

you have to give an actual argument that the criteria that makes it "non random" is introducing some sort of distortion to the relative prevalence of male vs. female sexual predators. 1. I explained repeatedly that this is the opposite of how science works. Until research tells us different populations are identical, we do not assume they are. 2. I offered multiple--at least 3--reasons in the same response that we expect this criteria to affect results. As for intentionally misleading: no one de…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 04:02 AM
4

Most importantly, your example is not analagous. The hypothetical has a second statistic about the exact same population the first attempted to estimate. The case we're dealing with here uses a statistic about a completely different population. That's exactly the problem, and I've made that clear, so it is beyond bizarre that your hypothetical example did not make any nod to that. But to answer directly: it would not be scientific to combine results from different studies directly and call the r…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:57 AM
1

The twelve month statistics are, by definition, draws from the larger set of lifetime statistics. The 12 month stats are a SINGLE, NON-RANDOM subset of the lifetime stats. You are not qualified to discuss this. Black people can be statistically different from all people, as they are in the category of "skin pigmentation" just to name one. You're suggesting this is impossible. You're not even responding. You're ignoring the reasons you're wrong. You. Are. Not. Qualified. you don't mean that they …
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:14 AM
6

This is a difference in opinion on the veracity of a statistic, I said two things there. The first part described our differeing opinion on statistical veracity. The second part relates to the intentional mislabeling of your results. You defend it--therefore intentional--and it is not the correct label, which is not even being denied anywhere. One is a subset of the other. Logically the lifetime statistic is comprised of snapshots of the 12-month statistic. I'm so glad you said this so I can poi…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 03:10 AM
0

Also, the people who report victimization in the last 12 months is a subset of the people who report victimization throughout their lifetime. And? Black people are a subset of all people. Does this mean there is never significant statistical differences in characteristics between those two populations? In statistics, we do not assume that subsets are statistically/proportionally similar to their supersets. The fact that someone has pilfered a bunch of discs from the vat is irrelevant. Sadface. 1…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:56 AM
8

My summary, for the latecomers. I believe: "People who were victims in the past 12 months" and "people who were victims any time in their lifetime" are two different populations. It is unscientific to mash together statistics from these two populations. However, I am not denying that female perp rates may be as high or even higher than what was found here. I believe: Perpetrators of that first population, and perpetrators of that second population are another two distinct populations. If data te…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:38 AM
1

1. With all these estimates, you did not need to fabricate your own number, let alone mislabel what that fabricated number represents. 2. You're not describing a lower bound. The lowest estimate among related research is just that--the lowest estimate. Eg, in the 70s, researchers may have found that the lowest estimate among all research for the gender-wage gap was 23 cents. That doesn't mean 23 cents was a lower bound for the gender-wage gap; better understanding the variables that need control…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 02:02 AM
1

Yes, you've established we disagree. Is that what you think it means to rely on feminists? Or is it only your popularity argument again?
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:39 AM
1

But they're not two different populations! Wow, yes they are. The first population are: people whose answers indicated they have been victims within the past 12 months. The second population are: people whose answers indicated they have been victims at any time in their lifetime. Yes, both populations are subsets of the same respondents. And the first population is also a subset of the second population. But they're different populations that researchers expected and found different characterist…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:35 AM
1

I wasn't downvoted in the entire thread. Right. Perhaps from vote fuzzing, your comments had 1-3 downvotes when I saw them. Mine had about 10, leaving our top comments with scores of about 30 and 3. Which begs us to ask: where is your evidence of vote brigading? The 12 month numbers should be a snapshot of the lifetime numbers. This is not science. This is pure fiction. Pretending two different populations will have the same characteristics is bullshit--you need research that proves they do. You…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:22 AM
2

For your edit, you seem to be missing my point by miles. As other people have pointed out, the number of self-professed female rapists in a population (7%) is very similar to that of self-professed male rapists(6%, as reported by Lisak.[1] and the much publicized feminist number 1 in 12 men or 8%. Great! Nowhere have I argued that there is a large difference in these populations. I argued that you reached your conclusion with totally meaningless number voodoo. And that you then misrepresented ev…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:12 AM
1

Is this a joke? I don't get it. I nowhere rely on anyone else, nor does it make sense to use popularity with anyone (even "people of reddit"). Truth is not elected.
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:08 AM
1

In the absence of more reliable data, you have to go with what is available. ... Most likely they represent a significant undercount of female predation. But that's acceptable when you're presenting a lower bound to a problem you're trying to draw attention too. Here. This is why you were downvoted, and you know it. You did not label it a lower bound. You did not prove it is a lower bound. You just took data from two, unrelated categories and mashed them together and presented them as a global f…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 01:03 AM
3

If these were statistics regarding rape perpetration by black or white people, would you say the same? This seems like a shaming tactic on your part. Absolutely, serious researchers would never start with the conclusion that radically different populations have the same characteristics. ... despite statistics that suggest people are raped equally often by black or white people If there is research that suggests per-victim perpetrators for lifetime victim demographics, and per-victim perpetrators…
/r/MensRights05/08/13 12:49 AM
4

No, and I am not sure that assumption was being made anywhere either. The assumption they're making is that perpetrators per lifetime abuse victims are the same as perpetrators per 12 month abuse victims.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 11:51 PM
2

That sounds right! Thank you so much, I've clearly burned myself out on this.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:57 PM
1

Thank you. The same lifetime data shows that about 1.58M men have been raped by penetration, compared to 5.45M that have been raped by forced envelopment; Actually depending on what "envelopment" means and if I understood one of the notes of the study, they may have found no cases of envelopment rape at all. CDC says, in part, Among men, being made to penetrate someone else could have occurred in multiple ways: being made to vaginally penetrate a female using one’s own penis; orally penetrating …
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:27 PM
2

The problem with assuming a discrepency in the average number of victims for male and female rapists is that given the methods and scope of the study, it's a stretch to assume that a significant portion of the respondants were all victimized by the same perpetrator(s.) This attitude is hugely confusing to me, and appears repeatedly in the pushback I encountered here. Why assume one way or the other? Just present exactly what the data tells us; it is still just as salient even with all the necess…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:19 PM
0

For the record, I was not involved in any brigading if in fact any took place. I hope I proved my sincerity by writing a short novel's worth, in an attempt to moderate and clarify my criticism--which I stand by. Now that possible brigading is in question I especially do not want to belabor the point but I'll offer a response to this post, defending my criticism, so that it doesn't seem I abandoned it or ignored your contribution. If you suspect brigading, you should always report it to admins. T…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 10:14 PM
-1

I have to reiterate that the numbers are all fictional anyway, and the following are all subsidiary concerns. it only says "40% of rapes are committed by females" now. That's what I claimed of it. The third block of text also says "women made up 40% of rape perpetrators". Both of these distinct claims are wrong, because the CDC reported per-victim perpetrators, not per-case perpetrators and not total perpetrators. Here are two illustrations. 1. There are two rapists in the world, a woman and a m…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 05:13 PM
-8

Glad you seem committed to improving it. Big picture: this is still pure fiction. I don't have reliable data about the UFO that landed in my backyard last night, but the data I mix/match prove it did, so I am writing an article about it as fact. That article is fiction, not science. You're multiplying unrelated categories of data, mixing and matching the numbers you like, and that's unacceptable and meaningless. Then more specific problems: Purple section claims that 40% of rapists are women, an…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 04:19 PM
1

They don't always know and you're right there are many different bans--I can't speak to them all. However, In the US, the current guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to indefinitely defer any male donor who has had sex with another man ... Female sexual partners of MSM are deferred for one year since the last exposure. This is the same policy used for any sexual partner of someone in a high risk group.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 03:13 PM
-1

I owe you an apology if I was hostile. That is not my intent, but I admit I may have easily done it anyway. It upsets me for a lot of reasons to see statistics injured. Similarly, it may not be your intent to mislead. And I greatly appreciate the update as it takes care of a huge "bad faith" issue here. But, you also responded above that you would "rather use the questionable data now and raise awareness." That is almost a direct admission of being intentionally misleading, but I take you word t…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 04:01 AM
0

The data is both wrong, and intentionally lying (even if the number were right). Think of it this way: there are four general categories of information the CDC could collect/provide: 1. 12 month, victim prevalence rates. 2. Perpetrator rates for victims identified in 12 month prevalence data. 3. Lifetime victim prevalence rates. 4. Perpetrator rates for victims identified in lifetime prevalence data. This report did not explicitly list perpetrator gender demographics separately. But we could mul…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 03:39 AM
0

Yes, it is totally clear, and I take the blame for missing that detail. I'm not at all accusing you of concealing this approach. But the approach itself is worthless. It's fiction. Researchers collect data on both categories precisely because they expect significant differences between them, and their results here bear that out. "Assuming" there is no difference between the two categories in order to reverse-engineer their raw data (perhaps ask the CDC for it instead--it may be available) for th…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 03:04 AM
2

Oh, surprised I overlooked that... Frankly I appreciate the effort but with this revelation, these conclusions are pure voodoo. We cannot assume that perpetrators for all lifetime cases will have a breakdown similar to perpetrators for 12 month cases. That may turn out to be true or close, but just assuming it means this is not science anymore. On top of that, I've already explained how they are seriously mislabeled. It's fine to examine 12 month prevalence rates, but we need to qualify the conc…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:53 AM
3

This is the report in question. I'm not done working through it but I do not see any data about repeat offenders. The study has some notes about repeat victims--abuse during childhood is a high risk category for future abuse. And separately it measures stalking rates, but that's the only info I see so far about "repeats."
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:43 AM
-1

If any real inaccuracy exists, it's in using the rate of female-perpetrated abuse in the lifetime number and applying it to the 12 month number. Unfortunately the researchers didn't provide the rate for the last 12 months. You've lost me. The research does seem to include rates for the last 12 months. That's the data you and I already agree the infographic handles well. The infographic decided (with justification) not to handle the lifetime rates the researchers offered, and that's fine. My obje…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:32 AM
3

Right. But that leaves us as above: they're not reporting on documented cases. They're sincerely trying to estimate total cases, not just reported cases. They present their data as an estimate of total cases, not as an estimated of self-described, or a total of reported cases. Maybe it's a bad estimate, though. So 1. They know false negatives exist and have methods they think account for that. For example, from the report: • The survey includes detailed behavior-specific questions on components …
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:28 AM
2

Interesting. Can you provide insight as to why, if this paper only uses reported data, these tables read "estimated number of victims" instead of "number of reported victims"? I have not read the CDC paper yet--just going by this infographic so far. Seems this inevitably leaves us in the same place. If their methodology is wrong, we either do the same research with the correct methodology, or we conclude nothing at all from their results.
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:13 AM
-4

To be blunt, you cannot use the same instrument to uncover lifetime and 12 month rates of abuse. That's exactly my point, and is exactly what this infographic does wrong. It uses 12 month prevalence rates, and reaches conclusions about total prevalence rates. It needs to be reworded to accurately reflect it is limited to a 12 month "instrument." We're very critical of people manipulating statistics (especially on this topic) to support their conclusions. We need to be beyond reproach; our reputa…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:10 AM
5

The CDC is not documenting reported cases in this study. It is estimating total number of cases--reported or not, childhood or not. Their methodology presumably already attempts to account for unreported cases and false negatives. If their methodology is not reliable because of false negatives, we should not use their results. But without re-examining all the cases again, we can't use their results and explain away a (huge) discrepancy by alleging the CDC made a methodological error. It does not…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 02:03 AM
-4

I think that's an extremely fair course of action, but that's not what the infographic here did. Ignoring the lifetime reporting would leave the infographic to conclude that "in the past 12 months, 40% of all rape victims had female perpetrators." I'd unequivocally agree that is what the CDC data says here. (Retracted; see below, this data is being manipulated) But noting that the lifetime data is less reliable doesn't let us extend that 12-month trend out as though it were lifetime data. Widorn…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:56 AM
-24

edit: The discussion here has led me to believe this data is both very bad science, and is being intentionally misrepresented to us. It's not a short argument but I present it here if you wish to skip to it. This is the kind of abuse of statistics we should be criticizing, not using. I don't understand Widorn, Morris (1997)'s relevance, or think there may be an error here. Their observation seems to tell us that of the 5.4 million, lifetime male victims of rape, those with childhood sexual abuse…
/r/MensRights04/08/13 01:16 AM
1

The question 100% depends on accepting the premise, which you don't here. A woman breaking herself out of unjust imprisonment is not the victimization of that woman, but the end of her victimization. Ignoring that she's imprisoned is not saving her from victimization, it is whitewashing her victimization. And a woman who is not imprisoned chaining herself down would be creating victimization. Saying that free woman is not imprisoned would be empowering. So if/when they're right that there is pat…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 04:35 PM
8

Not sure I'd agree. Feminists are sometimes the first to start discussions about men's body image issues, perhaps because they're already on the forefront of the issue for women. I especially see them talking about body image among gay men, where I think the problem may be more pronounced and where feminism already has a bridge over via queer theories. I don't generally see them supporting or promoting those ridiculous ideals either. So far, studies have found men have had fewer body image "prob…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 04:21 PM
2

there's always highly-rated comments along the lines of 'Seriously, why do people even care?' I commented in yesterday's submission when the top two threads basically said that. Later, they both got nuked into super-negative score because they and everyone that upvoted are feminist trolls (apparently). So it's not just 'me' disagreeing with how prominent an issue she is for the movement/sub. The one[2] that brought up Sarkeesian's work directly today generated less than half the interest that TH…
/r/MensRights03/08/13 02:42 AM
7

To be fair, comment count may not be the best measure here. It largely measures the size of the subreddit. In the order they appear in your list: /r/gaming 3.5 million /r/truegaming 90k /r/games 343k /r/truereddit 236k /r/subredditdrama 74k /r/changemyview 60k SRS 41k MensRights 76k Also, since people subscribe and contribute in multiple communities, coutning (eg) /gaming/ comments only towards a measure of /gaming/ interest is not productive. Finally, another frontpage post here today makes a g…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 11:29 PM
1

Well I'm happy this was apparently an honest mistake and not an intentional effort to ignore what the statistics said. distinction between ... "video gamers" and "all gamers". I'm not sure what that means exactly; If you don't know, don't make up interpretations either--you absolutely are to blame for that. And you do it again in this post, trying to attribute the difference between your misunderstanding and the reported reality to an entirely made-up-by-you "casual/PC vs hardcore/console gamer"…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 11:08 PM
2

Don't be dishonest. It makes the subreddit look bad. Women are 45 percent of the entire game playing population and 46 percent of the time are the most frequent game purchasers. Sure, adult women are about a third. But it's clear that their "nearly half" claim is described by that following sentence: 45-46% is safe territory for "nearly half."
/r/MensRights02/08/13 08:15 PM
6

Nothing wrong with a simple 'report abuse' button. reddit has it. Regardless of whom petitioners think will benefit most from it, all criminal threats, including those against men, would be reportable and investigated. The alternative is keeping it unnecessarily difficult to report abuse, which we know will deter reports. Perhaps convenient for twitter admins but no other reason for it.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 06:16 PM
14

Funny, I never see the pitchforks raised against the MRAs who actually ran away with the money from their Tropes vs. Men in Video Games Indiegogo that they claimed was going to charity. Whatever became of reddit's own Feminist Victim Fund anyway? Despite the promise of transparency there seems to be no update with any info at all: how much was collected, how it was spent, anything. I guess we're only worried about financial accountability when investors get exactly what they wanted but non-inves…
/r/MensRights02/08/13 02:56 AM
1

Then link to the bad intentions, and criticize those instead of linking to the admittedly good poster with no objectionable content...?
/r/MensRights01/08/13 06:29 PM
0

"Straight" and bisexual men also have sex with gay men. Right. Which is why the blood transfusion ban does not target gay people, or gay/bi people, or all LGBT. It targets specifically men who have sex with men (MSM), even if they're straight, or kangaroos. Did you know that women who have any sex (not just anal sex) with someone in this group is also prohibited from donating blood?
/r/MensRights01/08/13 06:26 PM
0

If your goal is to start a space for pro-feminist men's rights, then I'd support it. As you see, not many here would because this subreddit and this movement are opposed to feminism. If your goal is to try to bring together feminists and anti-feminists to have karma wars about the MRM, then that sounds pretty stupid.
/r/MensRights01/08/13 06:21 PM
7

So, a campaign that is directed only at one gender must be intentionally and hatefully excluding the other gender? Not sure where that leaves the Men's Rights Movement then. We have no reason to suspect that the people behind this campaign do not want young girls to learn about equal relationships as well. We do know that the people behind the campaign directly contradict your other assumption though--the campaign assumes men do know what a fair relationship is which is why it is targeting those…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 11:21 PM
1

Thanks; I fixed the link. And using the CDCs numbers on the topic (as here), MSM are about 50 times likelier to be infected. The discrepancy from that number and the 100x above is that I added in MSM-IDU infections and used a rough approx. for total MSM numbers because, too lazy for all that data. In any event it is clear that their concern is limiting risky population exposure. A full discussion would include false negative rates for HIV testing but clearly it's not simple hatred at work here.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 08:27 AM
3

That's probably too high. CDC says MSM and MSM-IDU account for 652,300 cases of people living with HIV in the USA (in 2009; see table 5b). They also say MSM are about 2% of the population, roughly 6.4 million, so under 11% are infected. You may be thinking of this study which received media coverage, but notice it only surveyed the cities with highest HIV rates, so we would not expect it to generalize very well. The included cities had rates ranging from 6% (Atlanta) to 38% (Baltimore).
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:59 AM
5

I agree that language changes, but it is slower than you are. First, reappropriating a word always requires changing its meaning, usually from negative to positive. So long as they're still slurs, they're still relying on historical context as hate slurs to draw their meaning. For example, reddit frequently tells me "OP is a faggot" has nothing to do with sexuality, but look at some examples and see sexuality is central to our use of it. Second, time time time. You're rushing ahead. If people ca…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:34 AM
2

MSM, including "once per life (since 1977) MSM" are 50 times likelier to have HIV. Reality: Actuaries decided that a 50-fold increase in risk for those recipients is not warranted by a 2 percent increase in blood donation supply. Fantasy: Misandrists decided to kill men and women equally by decreasing blood donation supply by 2% because, fuck men who gain probably nothing by charitable giving.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:09 AM
4

Then you're being deliberately obtuse. For starters, injected drug users cannot donate either, and neither can anyone who had sex in the past year with anyone from these high risk groups. This is a data driven policy and it is not a policy aimed at men. It's open to critique but not to bullshit.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:53 AM
5

From the Center for Disease Control Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States,4 in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections.2 MSM accounted for 52% of all people living with HIV infection in 2009, the most recent year these data are available.1 So 4% 2% of the population has 52% of the cases currently. The remaining 96% 98% of the population covers 48% of cases. Quick napkin math suggests we should expect MSM to…
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:19 AM
2

Why don't we ban them too? That's a fair question to ask (and we would note that black, non-MSMs still have lower infection rates than MSMs). Surely, though, you don't think the answer is simply misandry? We also ban injected drug users (another HIV risk population) regardless of gender.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:13 AM
-8

And you can call white people niggers, and straight people faggots. But the very idea that "bad behavior should be associated with these terms historically reserved for blacks and LGBT" means that this is still hatred. As I noted elsewhere, targeted slurs are always used against everyone. Nigger doesn't stop meaning black when used for whites; instead the word (though not always the user, by intent) implies "you're bad because you are black-like in some sense."
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:10 AM
6

This differs significantly by country, but as an example, gay people account for roughly half of new HIV cases in the US (while accounting for roughly 5% of the population). Also prohibited from blood donations are needle-drug users, another population at high risk of transfering HIV. So this policy (while up for some debate on the grounds of effectiveness and ethics) is not a simple issue of targeting men, but is instead targeting HIV risk populations.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 06:05 AM
0

Targeted slurs work great against anyone. They're used to shame their targets by suggesting their identity is bad, and to shame non-targets by suggesting they're like those targets. Equality in hatred! sort of.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:58 AM
-16

So by your definition what defines feminine is complaining all the time? That's the "definition" (usually we just call this a stereotype) that the slur uses, yes. So except for misattributing this, you seem to understand.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:53 AM
-10

Not exactly. It's open season for anyone reappropriating it for positive use, but as a negative slur, it is still a gendered negative slur.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:51 AM
-1

If unsure of the intent, why not read the article yourself for context? That is marginally harder and also a lot less fun than being manipulated by a ragepost, but here are the very first words of the article: Who are the most important people in the world of Xbox today?
/r/MensRights26/07/13 05:43 AM
10

Too bad the blog post did not go into much detail about this statistic. Some of the things that are missing: 1. Stats for those with unlisted income. What percentage of message activity does this infographic describe? Does listing a high income increase messages, and by how much? 2. Stats for women. Article says this trend is more defined for men, but it would be nice to see that plainly. 3. Controlling for variables other than age. The most important, I think, would be the income of the message…
/r/MensRights11/07/13 05:31 PM
3

I don't see any. Can you be more specific? The article bemoans that SRS apparently did not find/fight female voyeurs. But of course, that's not an endorsement.
/r/MensRights27/06/13 05:29 PM
4

They don't want to talk about guilty women. They only want to talk about innocent women getting victimized by society, and the bad men who victimize them. Activism groups always have narrowly tailored interests. That's why we also don't see MRAs posting every example of men behaving badly and victimizing women into /r/MensRights. It's not topical.
/r/MensRights19/06/13 09:30 AM
6

So it doesn't look like your boyfriend, Sure, that follows, if beards are the only recognizable feature of men.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 08:16 PM
5

The real issue, which is not addressed by this snark parody, is that fathers are being blockaded from their natural roles by mothers, feminists, and the full weight of governments. Isn't that a perfect parallel for this image then? Rosie the Riveter was all about giving women the chance to prove they could do work. Whether you believe they wanted to or not, they were similarly blockaded from such work, before. They did not have societal backing. they disguise their real motives by portraying fat…
/r/MensRights16/06/13 08:15 PM
0

Make that distinction if you like but that's what I meant. It is still reckless and immature. Sorry I used two words to summarize the meaning of his sentence. Driving "too fast" and racing other cars at lights, highways--reckless, immature.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:36 PM
2

I don't think I spoke about presumptive shared physical custody at all. I only suggested a father can oppose an adoption that a mother might want. He should then receive custody and child support. Presumptive physical custody is its own, separate issue when both parents want custody (and usually want to separate themselves). That's not topical to any of these cases. If both parents are voluntarily custodial, then we're obviously nowhere near the realm of one parent unilaterally deciding financia…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:08 PM
3

And? How is that in any sense a response. My point stands too. Similar groups have an even bigger burden to differentiate themselves if they don't want to be equated. That's why everyone asks what Muslims do to condemn extremism for example. And it's why MRM and TRP which do not want to be equated need to clearly differentiate themselves, too.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 10:04 PM
-3

I hope you made a mistake there. Street racing is reckless and immature.
/r/MensRights12/06/13 05:04 AM
6

There is no reason for animosity between the two groups. Just the opposite really. The fact that both are men's groups with some crossover makes it more important for the groups to distinguish each other unless they want to be conflated. And they don't. RedPill has its objections with general MRM, and many in the MRM despise RedPill. If MRM says "we're all guys so we need to get along" then it would be right to associate all your pro-rape bullshit ([1], [2]], your anti-science anecdotal evolutio…
/r/MensRights12/06/13 01:00 AM
3

Such a procedure will almost certainly still be the mother's choice. You're describing an invasive and likely complicated medical practice on a woman's body. If she chooses to undergo it, or if we (unlikely) advance to a point where it is completely risk free and believe we're justified in forcing the procedure on women, then... She has exactly the same rights to "financial abandonment" as the father does. If they agree to leave the baby for adoption, it is settled. If they don't, then they pay.
/r/MensRights11/06/13 02:48 AM
4

Abortion, abandonment, adoption. ... abandonment or adoption, which are, at this point in time, unilaterally decided by the mother None of these are legally permissible against children. Murdering children is illegal, abandoning them is illegal, and forcing an unwilling parent to give up their child is illegal. Do you operate in an alternate reality or something...? It's a prescriptive conversation, besides. How do you labor without a body? Women have bodies, so this Really Interesting<sup>TM</s…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:47 PM
6

A mother has the right to withdraw consent to her resources but a father does not? Neither can withdraw their financial resources for their child unilaterally. Deadbeat mothers should face court ordered payments too. But that's not the resource you meant, right? You wanted to gloss over that women offer a unique resource to a fetus. But the parallel is still there: neither parent is obligated to offer the use of their body, organs, and at great physical, emotional, psychological stress and risk …
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:41 PM
5

Oh, exactly like a cotton field then. A fetus is a life form. Its rights (which like anyone else's are somewhat limited, and will lose some rights conflicts) must be considered. A fetus is a part of a woman's body. Her rights (again, limited and not a trump) must be considered. Forcing an abortion is deleterious for both the fetus and the woman. Weighed against the risk of a possible financial obligation that, let's be honest now, the father did help create and which society will pay for one way…
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:11 PM
5

Except, by your own words, our condemnation did not change over time. This sub suffers from your presence. You're the definition of a troll. When pressed, you don't think either example is justifiable, but you compare them both to suggest they are both justifiable for the same reasons (though here again, when pressed you admit the same reasoning does not apply to the relevant part of these cases) in order to elicit a strong reaction. You're very dishonest in other words, yet afforded a position …
/r/MensRights10/06/13 10:04 PM
6

You can relate to this: cotton fields are not self aware. They also have no rights or freedoms. Destroying them is a property crime against those that do, not a crime against the fields themselves.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:57 PM
5

You are the one who jumped from administering an abortificant to murdering an adult human being. ... a man tricked a woman into eating abortificants... I imagine similar "horrifying" opinions were held about slaves who murdered abusive masters. And Grapeban's entire point is that the connection to murdering adult human beings is incredibly tenuous: "I think it's an entirely uncomparable situation."
/r/MensRights10/06/13 09:55 PM
1

Two big problems with your argument here. First, you cited a study that only looks at vasectomies reversing themselves. "In each man sterility was confirmed" after the vasectomy. We don't know if the man in this news story had his sterility confirmed, so that is not the only possibility. There may also have been technical failure with the procedure. Or, the couple may have gotten pregnant before he became sterile. Second, 0.4% failure rate is not nearly as good as you think it is. And depending …
/r/MensRights08/06/13 07:40 AM
2

For someone who seems to have an understanding of some statistical terms, you're missing the most basic statistical problems with your argument. We don't have any statistical data for the population at hand: news stories about pregnant women whose partners had vasectomies. Anyone with common sense or statistical intuition knows this population will be very different from the general population of women whose spouses have vasectomies. We probably don't even have statistics about pregnant women (o…
/r/MensRights08/06/13 07:26 AM
2

Wow, it's so discouraging to see you represent this data in this way. Comparing median income is exactly the opposite of what you say we should do (control our variables). The median income male and female workers will not have identical human capital variables. The article even tells us what the biggest factor is: education. This is still an important data point for other reasons, but to use it to suggest that (all else being equal) women are earning more or the same is dishonest.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 07:17 AM
2

First of all, I don't see where he cites that figure. He links to proof that women work fewer hours, but no study that finds women earn 3% less when controlling for human capital. More, that figure would still then represent an unexplained gap. There are competing statistics galore. The most reputable, most widespread, and most detailed studies continue to find an unexplained wage gap. If vampvincent wants to give more info about his claim, it would then be possible to discuss it more.
/r/MensRights08/06/13 07:14 AM
1

I predict when there is a more appropriate place for it, it will be moved. I hope so. That should be a priority. Any other position on the site would be fine, and couldn't possibly be any more "misplaced" than it is currently. Terrorism is not activism. they redacted everything that could be considered an unequivocal call for violence. No. They redacted some info on how to make explosives. But there are clear, unequivocal calls to violence within the manifesto. So boys, we need to start burning …
/r/MensRights06/06/13 06:03 PM
0

Our analysis shows that while a pay gap does exist, it’s much smaller than the numbers you usually hear about. Wish people would stop pretending the entirety of the pay gap is explained by these human capital variables. Even though there is a huge body of research into this topic, and even though every single one of those studies makes sincere attempts to control for those variables, virtually none conclude there is no unexplained, gender-pay gap. Besides, that doesn't totally resolve the questi…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:48 PM
1

Then don't you think it would be appropriate for there to be ANY INDICATION of that? The rest of the content under Activism is all appropriate activism, right? It looks like it. But this terrorist manifesto is posted with no context, no discussion, no note from an editor. Imagine a feminist site that listed: ACTIVISM Support equality in blah blah blah, SCUM Manifesto By your own words, this manifesto is in the wrong place on the website. And it is problematic to leave it there. It is currently g…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:31 PM
5

Occams razor does not deal with probabilities at all. Assuming a vasectomy failed is exactly as simple as assuming a wife cheated. Either introduces exactly one new assumption/fact to explain the result. This has nothing to do with fear of infidelity. It has to do with good reasoning. When two possibilities are both well within the realm of probability, it's stupid to unnecessarily assume the likelier one is correct. Particularly in this context: the news deals with less-likely outcomes.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:27 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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