~ archived since 2018 ~

Can you sum up your side's most basic argument and sum up the other side's basic argument in a sentence or two?

2013-09-20T14:01:59+00:00

When I read TRP, I don't get the same picture of it people in TBP give it. While TRP seems less concerned with TBP in their subreddit, they also seem to...

[deleted]

September 20, 2013

1 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Can you sum up your side's most basic argument and sum up the other side's basic argument in a sentence or two?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	1
Comments	67
Date	September 20, 2013 2:01 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1ms03m/can_you_sum_up_your_sides_most_basic_argument_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/can-you-sum-up-your-sides-most-basic-argument-and.286766 https://theredarchive.com/post/286766

Comments

[–]fhqwhgads_ 13 points13 points13 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you read some of the other posts here, it becomes clear that TRP can't actually be summed up. The underlying themes seem to be:

there is a conspiracy with feminism at the centre with the purpose of fucking men over
women want to be dominated by men, and prefer for men to make decisions for them
women don't know what they want/what they're attracted to
women are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities, and men are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities
a guy who sleeps around is more attractive to women, a woman who sleeps around is less attractive to men
once a woman ages past mid-20s, she is no longer attractive. Men become more attractive as they age
marriage is a trap that women use to steal your money
women say no when they mean yes
women don't contribute meaningfully to society
women are hypergamous. They can't love like men can, and we always leave you for a mate of higher value (richer or hotter or more dominant)

The Blue Pill perspective is that we don't see any reason to believe these things, as there is no evidence for them. If we saw sufficient evidence, many of us would change our minds.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]flippancy5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-5 points-5 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 7 points7 points7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cockmuncheryolo-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 10 points10 points10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cockmuncheryolo1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cockmuncheryolo-4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cockmuncheryolo-5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulcakeduck3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bonig1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

At least as far as I can tell, TRP generally supports what is known as the Cuckoldry Hypothesis for concealed ovulation in human women (a somewhat unique trait. Though not completely; there's at least one other species where it's present. And a number of primates have partially hidden estrus).

This hypothesis attempts to explain the phenomenon of concealed ovulation thusly: Hidden estrus evolved after the species began to trend toward monogamy (This, also, a hypothesis, and not a generally accepted fact). It's purpose was to allow a woman to pair bond with a provider. After this was achieved, the woman would have been able to, secretly, mate with a higher quality male less willing to commit. This would give her better genes for her offspring, while still allowing her to retain a pair-bonded provider for the purposes of paternal investment.

The provider would be none the wiser, and would have no reason to suspect the child isn't his, because he would have no knowledge of whether or not their sex life corresponded with her ovulation.

It's a real hypothesis, constructed from scientific information.

It's important to note, however, that there are other, just as viable (if not moreso) hypotheses that have been presented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_ovulation

I wouldn't normally link to wikipedia. But it gives an ok breakdown, as well as links to a lot of the peer-reviewed journals.

TRP is over-simplifying again though: We really haven't completely untangled exactly what caused the development of concealed ovulation.

[–]MorphologicalMayhem5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bonig1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bonig0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZackcidCrimson Pill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]TDCRedPill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

there is a conspiracy with feminism at the centre with the purpose of fucking men over

Incorrect. Conspiracy implies it is directed and focused, rather than a collection of self serving interests. It'd be more accurate to replace it with 'The results of actions under the umbrella of feminism are taken without regard to, and commonly directly against the well being of men, and indirectly against the well being of families and society'.

women want to be dominated by men, and prefer for men to make decisions for them

It's a common, but not universal trait. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

women don't know what they want/what they're attracted to

Yeah, Im okay with that. Change 'women' to 'people' and it's an even better statement.

women are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities, and men are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities

? I don't even see what's concerning about this one. The only way for that not to be true would be for the desiring of the traits to be completely heterogenous; each person having a specific desired set of traits that fit only one other person in the world with no one else desiring that target person. That statement is the same as 'There are traits commonly considered attractive by large portions of society'. If more people think Chatum Tanning or Natalie Portman are attractive than not, then the statement is true.

a guy who sleeps around is more attractive to women, a woman who sleeps around is less attractive to men

Aside from a few 'mosts' thrown in there to avoid it being a universal statement, mostly correct. The women being less attractive isn't entire accurate for my liking. They can still be sexual attractive, but it makes pair bonding harder and makes long term relationships riskier than not.

once a woman ages past mid-20s, she is no longer attractive. Men become more attractive as they age

Incorrect. All else being equal, younger > older as long as they are sexually mature/of age. That's actually one of the few I do consider universal, because the exact same thing exists in all mammals and most creatures. The two universally attractive qualities are youth and health.

marriage is a trap that women use to steal your money

Too much intention placed on women. A more accurate replacement would be 'For almost any man willing to judge it objectively, modern marriage laws and divorce statistics make marriage a horrifically bad idea in almost every case where a woman would want to marry you.'

women say no when they mean yes

Strawman. I love how it's crafted so any disagreement must be pro-rape. Women are people, people are complicated, people are flawed, and believing this ideal that all women absolutely mean what they say, say what they mean, and never change their minds is a gross disconnect from reality. This is the exact same pedastalization of women we've trying to show people is a bad idea that leads to disappointment. As it's written, I do not seriously believe you can think it's accurate.

women don't contribute meaningfully to society

False.

women are hypergamous. They can't love like men can, and we always leave you for a mate of higher value (richer or hotter or more dominant)

Get rid of 'always' and Im good with that one.

[–]fhqwhgads_ 4 points4 points4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TDCRedPill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TDCRedPill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TDCRedPill-2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 3 points3 points3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I believe that

feminism is an ideology whose aim is to establish equal political, economic and social rights for women (because that's the definition of it)
there is no evidence that women prefer dominant men, and you shouldn't assume that a woman you don't know wants to be dominated
people usually have a good idea of what they're attracted to/looking for in a partner, but there are some factors that they may not be aware of
the set of traits that someone is looking for in a partner varies wildly from person to person
some people find a high partner count unattractive, some people find a low partner count unattractive, some people don't care
there are lots of attractive people at lots of different ages
marriage is what people use to show lifetime commitment to one another and get government benefits
some people don't say what they mean but when it comes to getting sexual consent you should never assume that no means yes.
women contribute lots to society
hypergamy is an ill-defined concept and depending on the definition has no evidence supporting it.

[–]TDCRedPill-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

feminism is an ideology whose aim is to establish equal political, economic and social rights for women (because that's the definition of it)

Ok, we'll start with that definition.

In order for it to even be possible, the inequalities that exist have to 100% be anti-female, which is a position I disagree with. If all inequalities for women are immediately wiped away, equality would not be reached, since the only inequalities would be left are anti-male. Secondly, while that may be the definition, it's incomplete, because it also is acting to stifle the exact same thing done by males. Man in the nude at a Slut Walk? Attacked. Men's rights discussion in Toronto? Protested and disrupted. /r/Mensrights?

You don't bring about racial equality in the world by fighting only for the Aleutians. By that very definition, they are anti-male, because they aren't concerned with equality, they are concerned about women and women only, and intentionally sabotage others working for equality for anyone else. It's disingenuous to say you're 'for lower taxes' if you only try to lower the taxes for the richest of the rich.

there is no evidence that women prefer dominant men, and you shouldn't assume that a woman you don't know wants to be dominated

Let me get back to you on that one after some research.

people usually have a good idea of what they're attracted to/looking for in a partner, but there are some factors that they may not be aware of

My corrected version for a TRP view was "people don't know what they want/what they're attracted to"; the only conflict between these two is different levels of how much they know about what they want. Most people know the sex of the individual they're usually attracted to, but may not know how much they'd be attracted to a foodie versus a dancer. I'd be happy to stand beside your statement as accurate, and don't consider it in opposition to the one I made.

the set of traits that someone is looking for in a partner varies wildly from person to person

That's a little vague. I do believe there are traits that are attractive to more people than some other traits; for example a 400 pound man is attractive to less people than the otherwise identical 190 pound man. If it varies so wildly with none being more likely or common than the others so that discussion of any traits attractiveness is meaningless, such that "women are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities, and men are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities" is a false statement, then there should be just as many people attracted to the 400 pound man.

some people find a high partner count unattractive, some people find a low partner count unattractive, some people don't care

Is it an even mix? Or one more common than another? Hypothetically, how much larger must the 'find a high partner count unattractive' group be over the others before you'd agree it is common?

there are lots of attractive people at lots of different ages

Sure. But that isn't contrary to "All else being equal, younger > older as long as they are sexually mature/of age". There are going to exist some rare counter-examples, but George Clooney is about the only one that comes to mind. (Nevil Longbottom could be another, but that breaks the 'sexually mature/of age' clause since he didn't get hot until puberty) Sean Connery may be dashing in his old age, way more than I, but younger Sean Connery is more dashing still.

marriage is what people use to show lifetime commitment to one another and get government benefits

I disagree, and so do 2/3rds of all people who have been married. If that were accurate, 'no fault' divorces wouldn't exist. People show lifetime commitment by remaining committed for a lifetime, and more often than not, that isn't the case with marriage. But, I don't see how that is contrary to "For almost any man willing to judge it objectively, modern marriage laws and divorce statistics make marriage a horrifically bad idea in almost every case where a woman would want to marry you."

some people don't say what they mean but when it comes to getting sexual consent you should never assume that no means yes.

Agreed completely.

women contribute lots to society

Agreed completely.

As for hypergamy, please allow me to bow out of that one. I am not in a position to competantly argue for or against.

[–]fhqwhgads_ 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In order for it to even be possible, the inequalities that exist have to 100% be anti-female

This doesn't follow from what I said. There can be a group that is trying to gain equality for women in areas where men have it easier, while men still have a harder time in other areas.

there should be just as many people attracted to the 400 pound man

That's doesn't follow from what I said. I said that the set of traits that someone is looking for in a partner varies wildly from person to person. I didn't say that there is an equal distribution of interest for every trait. Obviously looks-wise, there are some traits that a majority of people prefer (clean, fit, nice teeth, good skin, etc.). However, I was not referring specifically to physical traits but to all traits that people look for or try to avoid in a potential partner. For example, I highly value a sharp sarcastic sense of humour in a partner (and in my friends). Some people don't like that. I would highly prefer to date someone who is academically-minded with a hard science background. Most people don't value that.

As for the age thing, you aren't agreeing with TRP on this issue so we should probably move on.

If that were accurate, 'no fault' divorces wouldn't exist

Of course divorce would still exist. Most people marry because they intend to spend the rest of their lives with that person. Unfortunately, it doesn't always work that way, and people have the ability to leave the marriage if they are unhappy. If you are worried about your wife taking your money in case of divorce, sign a prenup. Are there any reasons that marriage would be a bad idea besides the fact that you might get divorced/might have to pay money?

[–]TDCRedPill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This doesn't follow from what I said. There can be a group that is trying to gain equality for women in areas where men have it easier, while men still have a harder time in other areas.

I gave examples of active feminist activity specifically against men fighting for equality, and that's not in your definition either. You got any examples of that? Fighting against the glass ceiling to get more women onto the board of directors is common. Fighting against the glass basement to get more women into janitorial work is unheard of.

I didn't say that there is an equal distribution of interest for every trait.

Then you haven't said anything contrary to "women are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities, and men are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities"

I didn't say that there is an equal distribution of interest for every trait.

If it's not an equal distribution, then you're arguing for "women are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities, and men are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities". I'm not seeing the distinction.

As for the age thing, you aren't agreeing with TRP on this issue so we should probably move on.

Forgive me if I don't take you on your word on that. Could you elaborate with examples?

Most people marry because they intend to spend the rest of their lives with that person.

Let's assume for argument that that is correct. The divorce statistics show that they are usually don't. If most marry for that reason, and divorce anyways, then the idea of "marriage is what people use to show lifetime commitment to one another" is false, or at best should be modified to '..try to use to show lifetime commitment that usually falls far short of their intetion'.

If you are worried about your wife taking your money in case of divorce, sign a prenup.

Abstinence vs rythmn method. Prenups are not infallible and left to a judge's descretion; not getting married in the first place is 100% effective (assuming they also make sure to not fall into their own state's special rules for commonlaw marriage).

Are there any reasons that marriage would be a bad idea besides the fact that you might get divorced/might have to pay money?

Sure. Responsibility (financial and legal) for any children conceived during the marriage not fathered by the husband. Likelihood of losing custody of children. Along with the child support/alimony scares which are NOT trivial, that respresents the bulk of it.

So we have considerable and likely risk of divorce, with agreed on detriments for the man in that event. In order for it to NOT be poor risk for the man to agree to it, then the benefits of marriage over other arrangements like cohabitation would have to significantly offset that likely failure. I've done the math, and the tax benefits of married couples are frankly trivial; like two thousand dollars for a 120k household. Not anywhere near child support payments or alimony. Hospital visitations / medical decisions? I've only checked the hospitals in my state, but there are no restrictions on who may or may not visit in the emergency, ICUs or general wings. Medical decisions can be made by anyone with a simple living will, and I don't believe it even requires a notary or any filing expense. You could add spousal insurance benefits, but that's getting rarer and rarer, since almost all workplace insurance programs allow another person to be added outside of marriage as their way of getting around some state's refusal to acknowledge homosexual marriages. So what are the benefits are that equal out or outweigh the considerable risk for men?

[–]fhqwhgads_ 2 points2 points2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

active feminist activity specifically against men fighting for equality

Well those feminists suck. That doesn't change what the definition of feminism is however.

If it's not an equal distribution, then you're arguing for "women are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities, and men are largely all attracted to the same set of qualities". I'm not seeing the distinction.

There are a group of 10 people looking at shapes of different colours and textures and sizes. 9 people prefer squares, 1 person prefers circles. 3 people prefer green, 3 people prefer blue, and 4 people prefer red. 5 people prefer smooth, 5 people prefer rough. 2 people prefer very small, 2 people prefer small, 2 people prefer medium, 4 people prefer large. What if you looked at these stats and said, okay, I want to be a rough large red square. But it's possible that 0/10 people prefer a rough large red square.

Age stuff: As I said, TRP believes that mens SMV (i.e. attractiveness) increases with age, whereas for women it declines after about 25. There is even a graph somewhere on TRP showing this.

Responsibility (financial and legal) for any children conceived during the marriage not fathered by the husband. Likelihood of losing custody of children. Along with the child support/alimony scares which are NOT trivial, that respresents the bulk of it.

This sounds like worries about having children, not marriage.

[–]TDCRedPill0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't change what the definition of feminism is however.

Sure. Make the definition 'people fighting for free access to cotton candy', and I'd oppose them for their actions just as well, even if it doesn't change the definition. As long as they continue their anti-male and anti-family actions, hiding under the defense of a feminism label without the loud and outspoken criticism from other feminists, then it's a tacit agreement condoning the actions. It is easier to find outspoken disagreement among Muslims regarding the actions of Muslim extremists than it is to find feminist disagreement for anti-male feminist action. As long as it remains unPC to disagree with feminist actions because it is feminist action, as long as the retort is always 'but that's not what feminism is' rather than 'that isn't what a feminist should do', it will continue, and we'll have every reason to believe 'The results of actions under the umbrella of feminism are taken without regard to, and commonly directly against the well being of men, and indirectly against the well being of families and society'.

You'll understand if I put more weight into 'Feminism is as feminists do' rather than be concerned with a definition that doesn't fit the reality. I'm also waiting for those examples of feminists fighting for equality that isn't in female's best interests.

There are a group of 10 people looking at shapes of different colours and textures and sizes. 9 people prefer squares, 1 person prefers circles. 3 people prefer green, 3 people prefer blue, and 4 people prefer red. 5 people prefer smooth, 5 people prefer rough. 2 people prefer very small, 2 people prefer small, 2 people prefer medium, 4 people prefer large. What if you looked at these stats and said, okay, I want to be a rough large red square. But it's possible that 0/10 people prefer a rough large red square.

Brilliantly put, I applaud you, but that assumes that each of the traits are evenly weighted (including the implication that meeting each of those desired traits was completely required). Now, if the folks put a higher value on shape versus color, and are willing to overlook a different color in favor of their preferred shape, then suggesting the thing should work on being more square would be a better choice for them than working on their color. We do believe that traits are weighted differently. A doctor may be preferred over an engineer, all else being equal, but it's still better to be 190 lbs than 400 for both of them. I, and we, believe the 400 pounds to be more detrimental than being an engineer; a 190 lb doctor might beat out a 190 lb engineer more often than not, while the 190 lb engineer would beat out a 400 lb doctor more often than not, while the 400 lb doctor would beat out the 400 lb engineer more often than not.

This sounds like worries about having children, not marriage.

There is some overlap, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. Go ahead and take child support out of it, since it would be understandable that the risks for custody and child support would be the same for marriage vs cohabitation. That still leave alimony, theft under the guise of 'community property', and responsibility (financial and legal) for any children conceived during the marriage not fathered by the husband. Do you not agree that these are risks inherent to marriage that are detrimental more often than not to the man than the woman? If so, what are the pro's of marriage versus cohabitation that even them out or outweigh them?

[–][deleted] 5 points5 points5 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]natalie2k88 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TRP_0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points0 points0 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points-1 points-1 points 12 years ago | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CFRProflcopter( ͠° ͟ʖ ͡°)2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link