TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

thecanalrunner Archive

View 0 posts and 16 comments by thecanalrunner on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
6

The little boy is acting more mature than she is, in fact... i'm wondering if he is actually the one in charge.
/r/MGTOW31/05/19 07:50 AM
4

I see this a lot on the buses and trains when I commute. Even though I smile politely and ask "Is it OK to sit there" they ALWAYS, I reiterate ALWAYS give me a dirty look and huff as they move their bag onto their lap/floor. It's almost as if i'm inconveniencing them by asking if I can sit on the seat I paid for, rather than the bag sitting on the seat I paid for.
/r/MGTOW31/05/19 07:40 AM
1

At least, you are finally formulating your argument in the form of premises :-) I have backpacked through the UK several times (seen as I live there) mostly around the Lake District and Peak District. I've also back packed through France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany and Poland. Everything I needed was in a rucksack, and I slummed it wherever possible sleeping in all sorts of places. I have addressed all of your other arguments, whilst you have failed to refute my argument on the majority of fe…
/r/MGTOW31/05/19 07:26 AM
1

i) Calling me a misogynist does not refute my argument, it's merely infantile name calling that does not refute the antecedent or consequent. ii) Even if I am a misogynist, that does not make my argument invalid. As I have pointed out, an argument is Modus Ponens based on the premise and conclusion being sound, and the conclusion being sound as a result of the premise: [(P -> Q) ^ P] -> Q You believe it should be: [(P -> Q) ^ P] -> Q unless person X is Y This is a misuse of logic, as I have alre…
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 06:30 PM
1

You're actually attacking my ideas? OK then, let's look at your postings to me so far: >>"You are a pathetic misogynist". Your first interaction was name calling, and does not address a single premise I have made. You provided no antecedent or consequent, it is an unsound conclusion and qualifies as Ad Hominem. >>"My logic is that you are a women hating loser who shames them for having sex, since they probably don't want to have it with you" Your second interaction also involves name calling, an…
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 07:06 AM
2

Oh you're right. I should have taken the few pennies I had and given 23% to a female and gone a little bit more hungry in order to help balance the injustice.
/r/MGTOW30/05/19 06:59 AM
12

3 million a month? I live on just over 2k a month.
/r/MGTOW29/05/19 03:07 PM
12

I was also homeless in the past, yet to the feminists I still benefit from male privilege. I think my privilege must have been temporarily revoked back then, and only returned when I worked hard on my hands and knees scrubbing floors to save some pennies up and get back on my feet.
/r/MGTOW29/05/19 03:03 PM
3

I love jogging along the canals (I live in England, lots of canals). The freedom is beautiful, the sun on my face, surrounded by nature, nobody staring at me. As soon as I start jogging along the canals I mentally go into this magical place, it's great if you are prone to depression.
/r/MGTOW29/05/19 10:04 AM
1

My logic is that you are committing the Ad Hominem logical fallacy; attacking the person, instead of the persons idea. People tend to resort to ad hom when they have nothing else to argue with. I can recommend some good books on Logic if you wish? Volker Halbach's "The Logic Manual" is probably the best introduction to the subject.
/r/MGTOW29/05/19 08:24 AM
2

How does this refute my argument. You have provided no premise to refute the antecedent and consequent, and explain why my argument is not Modus Ponens: P -> Q P Therefore Q Name calling, the tactic you have used, is Ad Hominem... especially with the name calling, which does not refute the argument as your logic would be: P -> Q only IF person X is not Y Don't you logic bro?
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 08:18 PM
3

Same here. On the course I did, we was instructed to unbutton her top and if her bra opens at the front then open it, otherwise use scissors to cut it open. Not a chance in hell, i'd rather stand and watch her die.
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 02:07 PM
3

It's all about perception, they obsesses over how they are perceived.
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 02:06 PM
9

The 1st Aid training I had taught that you require explicit consent if they are conscious. If they are unconscious then there is an implied consent for you to proceed. However, I'd simply refuse to give CPR or apply an AED to a female, as i've heard horror stories of men later being falsely accused.
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 09:09 AM
2

I did a 1st Aid course recently, which included CPR and using a AED. Every single male in the room stated that they would simply refuse to apply CPR or an AED to a female due to false allegations. The trainer even talked about a case where a man cut through a woman's bra exposing her breasts to apply the AED (the metal wires in a bra can negate the electrical charge) and she later reported him for sexual assault, and some weird exposure thing. The only females i'd ever consider giving CPR or AED…
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 08:43 AM
7

Back packing to a woman involves going on vacation, whilst carrying your clothing and condoms in a rucksack, in order to have sex with as many different men as possible. ​ Back packing to a man involves going off trail, sleeping in the wilderness, and visiting historical sites.
/r/MGTOW28/05/19 08:21 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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