TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen

      • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo

      • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

PSA: A rule of thumb for debate that NO ONE SEEMS TO BE AWARE OF

ScathedWeevil
April 10, 2015
6 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title PSA: A rule of thumb for debate that NO ONE SEEMS TO BE AWARE OF
Author

ScathedWeevil
Upvotes 6
Comments 34
Date April 10, 2015 10:13 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3264s9/psa_a_rule_of_thumb_for_debate_that_no_one_seems/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/psa-a-rule-of-thumb-for-debate-that-no-one-seems.282732
https://theredarchive.com/post/282732
Top posts by ScathedWeevil

If there were a female equivalent to TRP, what would it have to say about men?

37 upvotes
June 9, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Why do men care about partner count so much more than women?

9 upvotes
April 19, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Aren't men hypergamous by nature as well?

3 upvotes
April 7, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Is TRP sexist?

2 upvotes
June 5, 2015
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]nomdplumeFormer Alpha4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Here's the thing for me.

The default response to claims seems to be "What you say is invalid, because you don't know. I don't know, either. No one knows."

Which A) gives nothing to debate (because the debate is now not even about the claim, but whether or not anything on the subject can even be said with any measure of validity), and B) is essentially saying that anyone who doesn't have a fully-vetted scientific study to back them up has no useful information. Everything without scientific proof is opinion, and all opinions are equally likely to be true, so nothing can be known.

Which is of no use to someone who is trying to navigate complex situations and solve complex problems.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Most claims that are made on this sub have been studied at least in some regard.

If you cannot prove your claim is true, at least admit it instead of getting pissy. That's all I'm trying to say. There's way too much, "It's not my job to prove what I say is correct!"

You should know, before you make your claim, whether or not you have proof. If you do not have proof, do not prompt the person you are debating with to go looking for it; simply inform them that you have no proof to give.

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Most claims that are made on this sub have been studied at least in some regard

Ehhhh. I mean most of the evolutionary discussions are based off basic logic and intuition and observation of modern primitive cultures, with only partial support from biologists and archaeologists. There just isn't enough data to know for certain, and that may always be the case.

[–]duchudney4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In contrast, in females, the wiring goes between the left and right hemispheres, suggesting that they facilitate communication between the analytical and intuition.

The female connections likely facilitate integration of the analytic and sequential processing modes of the left hemisphere with the spatial, intuitive information processing modes of the right side.

Ironically, the article you linked doesn't support your "interesting fact" at all. It suggests that women's brains relate analytical processes to intuitive processes. It does not suggest that women's brains are particularly adept at analytical processing.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I run into so many feminists both offline and online that default to "men and women are equal"... until they run into some study or even pop article that suggests that women are superior in some manner or another. Then they throw all of their support into it. It's mass insecurity of the movement.

In this case, the part you highlighted seems to suggest that on average women have a harder time keeping feels out of analytical processes.

[–]leftajarRational Behaviorist1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hardly. There are plenty of things women are better at. I'm a factualist and a rationalist; I admit those.

On the other hand, the world gets its collective panties in a bunch if you suggest men are better at something. See: Larry Summers being forced to leave Harvard.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure how that goes against what I wrote. What is the "hardly" referring to?

[–]leftajarRational Behaviorist2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My bad, it doesn't. Sorry, man: I've been arguing with fools all day and it scrambled me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I personally interpret it as meaning that women are better equipped to analyze intuitive emotions, which is why they are better than men at social cognition.

A man may intuitively feel that something is "off" about another person, but a woman might be able to tell you exactly what it is about that person that was "off".

That's just speculation and personal experience on my part, though. Men seem to have a harder time in general expressing and assessing their emotions, whether it be intuition or sadness.

It's very difficult to get a man to tell you how he's feeling, even more difficult to get him to pinpoint why he is feeling a particular way; though whether or not that tendency is nature or nurture is anyone's guess.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would have agreed with the assertion that women are superior social navigators and manipulators. Autism is called "extreme male brain" for reasons.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Fixed!

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

People need to understand that even as a rational being, I only require reasonable suspicion or reason to believe in order to act. It's up to other people who want to change my mind that need to present to me substantial evidence or better.

[–]anacrassismurex bath0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Legal burden of proof is completely irrelevant.

reasonable suspicion or reason

First, reasonable suspicion is a criminal procedure concept. Second, are you saying that you need a "reasonable reason" to act? Do you realize how redundant and stupid that sounds?

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Legal burden of proof is completely irrelevant.

It presents a common set of standards by which we can measure our own personal standards for burden of proof.

[–]anacrassismurex bath0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It presents a common set of standards by which we can measure our own personal standards for burden of proof.

1: this is word salad.

2: a legal burden of proof only has meaning in the context of litigation, because it is imposed on the litigants by State or Federal rules of evidence. It is totally unrelated to the concept of philosophical burden of proof.

3: reasonable suspicion is not a burden of proof. It is a (weak) prophylactic standard imposed by the courts on law enforcement to protect Fourth Amendment rights.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's an analogy. In addition to being "a (weak) prophylactic standard imposed by the courts on law enforcement to protect Fourth Amendment rights", it is a minimal cause for action.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I mean, if you're in a debate sub shouldn't you be able to back up your claims? The other side should as well, I'm not denying that. But without proof of anything all debates just wind up as two people shouting rhetoric at each other.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I mean, if you're in a debate sub shouldn't you be able to back up your claims?

I've been saying for many months now that I don't think "debate" works well to change people's minds. Cooperative discussion works better.

A quote from one of Carnegie's books comes to mind: "Most people, however, lack this subtle ability to enter the citadel of a person's beliefs arm in arm with the owner."

I've debated a bit before, but honestly I found it more effective when cooperative folk search for studies and experiences themselves after having an interesting idea presented to them.

Higher standards for burden of proof online are especially difficult for numerous reasons I've detailed in the past.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't think "debate" works well to change people's minds

That's all well and good but you're on a debate sub man.

I found it more effective when cooperative folk search for studies and experiences themselves after having an interesting idea presented to them.

Does it really though? I know for a fact that I don't look up most statements that I read online. Due to confirmation bias, we're just going to agree with statements we like and disagree with assertions we already think are false. Saying "educate yourself!" isn't a really compelling argument, and if you think that that person is wrong to begin with then there's virtually no chance of you doing that. But if the other person sources their arguments then it's a lot harder to just dismiss them.

And in the end, if both sides don't present any evidence then all the discussion boils down to "well I looked it up and I'm right and you're wrong".

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Does it really though? I know for a fact that I don't look up most statements that I read online.

Look, you're a happy man, aren't you? You claimed to be. I take your word for it and assume you don't need something changed about yourself. (And if you're lying even about that, then there's really nothing any of us can do for you.)

I am not saying there is no burden of evidence required at all. My implied point is that different people will require different standards. For me, I really require nothing but preference for my choice of actions, and nothing but suspicion to change them.

For someone who is ideologically opposed to me in some way, I'd require a much higher standard to force them to change their minds (or we can just be stubborn). And vice versa, they for me. Personally, I don't think this is worth my time as ideological opposition is based more on faith than logic.

For someone who is cooperative and wants to change himself/herself or even needs his/her mind to be changed, the standards will be somewhere in between. This is a group most of us are far more willing to cooperate with, but the standards used when "discussing" things with them are, practically speaking, much lower than what we'd use for opponents.

And in the end, if both sides don't present any evidence then all the discussion boils down to "well I looked it up and I'm right and you're wrong".

I know you say that you don't care for and don't frequent tbp, but the core of their argument comes down to, "If you believe this or do this, you are an asshole." That is almost purely categorical, not a logical/hypothetical imperative.

Believe it or not I might not even disagree with them, but I have been one of the few people in this sub who has enthusiastically approached the topic of normative ethics. Unfortunately, it's just a boring topic for most people or they are just content on being crypto-christians.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

For me, I really require nothing but preference for my choice of actions, and nothing but suspicion to change them.

I don't get how TRPers can say stuff like "men make decisions based on logic, women make decisions based on emotion" and then also make statements like this. Do you not see how the way you evaluate new information will feed into a confirmation bias? Are you trying to find the truth or are you trying to find what makes you feel good?

the core of their argument comes down to, "If you believe this or do this, you are an asshole."

Well yeah, if you say assholish things then people will call you an asshole. That doesn't have anything to do with burden of proof or anything though, it's not up to you to whether you said something out of line. Louis CK had a good bit about this.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you not see how the way you evaluate new information will feed into a confirmation bias? Are you trying to find the truth or are you trying to find what makes you feel good?

That I self-reflect is precisely why I can be honest on this matter. Most of my decisions are based on personal preferences, faiths, and intuitions. I've never said otherwise.

Besides, I believe the statement you quoted reflects more on averages and less on absolutes.

Well yeah, if you say assholish things then people will call you an asshole. That doesn't have anything to do with burden of proof or anything though, it's not up to you to whether you said something out of line.

No, if someone says something out of line then it violates the sub rules and will be removed. Let's not kid ourselves. Lots of people are called "asshole" not for what they said out of line in this sub, but rather for ideological differences.

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, if you're in a debate sub shouldn't you be able to back up your claims?

Within this context it is tough. We're talking about a subject that revolves around how people think and how they fuck, neither of which we have a really good way to study. I think there is some debate to be had without necessarily having evidence to back up each claim.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

We do have a legitimate way to study the way people think, it's called psychology. Unfortunately, half the TRPers I've talked to in this sub deny that psychology is a real science.

[–]relationshipdownvotethe blue pill is a suppository1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We do have a legitimate way to study the way people think, it's called psychology. Unfortunately, half the TRPers I've talked to in this sub deny that psychology is a real science.

It's not a science, it lacks reproducibility and quantifiability. It's not just TRP that says this, a lot of others do too.

[–]anacrassismurex bath0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

female connections likely facilitate integration of the analytic and sequential processing modes of the left hemisphere with the spatial, intuitive information processing modes of the right side.

First, your claim is misleading. Second, claiming that women are "better at thinking/logic" than men is just as bad as most of the shit that TRP claims.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, you're right, I misread the article. Thanks! I'll edit OP.

[–]logsin0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Extra PSA, and I know this might sound silly. But can we also follow rule #6 for this sub: do not downvote.

I hate seeing serious responses downvoted without any responses, from either side. Especially the single downvote far down a thread. It just stinks of pettiness.

[–]anacrassismurex bath0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Why does the burden of proof lie with the one making the claim? I don't disagree, just curious.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's based on the assumption that the one making the claim is trying to change someone else's mind.

If he's not, then it's fine and dandy. No burden of proof from the one making claims and no obligation for anyone to change their minds.

[–]AjaxelerBrownish colour1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's pretty common sense in a debate to have evidence to back up claims

[–]trpobservereats ass0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because that is how truth is established. It would be bizarre to simply ask somebody to prove that there isn't a microscopic unicorn wandering around on Pluto. Your claim has to be backed by something if you want to establish it as truth.

The Red Pill does this sometimes, but a lot of red pill claims are based on anecdotes and are "take it or leave it" kind of things, wherein if you think its false you can walk away and not observe its effect in your own life. There simply isn't a study for every red pill claim, though there are studies that support some claims.

[–]fizolof0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's no such thing as "burden of proof", except when the rules of the debate are set that way, like in court.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One caveat.

If I claim a thing doesn't exist, and you claim it does, the burden of proof is on you.

Aliens, bigfoot, true love, women falling for the "nice guy", etc..

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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