~ archived since 2018 ~

A note on the difference between TRP for men and TRP for women.

highassnegro

March 10, 2014

0 upvotes

/r/TheRedPill

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	A note on the difference between TRP for men and TRP for women.
Author	highassnegro
Upvotes	0
Comments	41
Date	March 10, 2014 4:43 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2023vj/a_note_on_the_difference_between_trp_for_men_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/a-note-on-the-difference-between-trp-for-men-and.12423 https://theredarchive.com/post/12423

Comments

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

define the difference if you will. I think/believe that this statement:"The Red Pill: Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men." has relatively good intentions. However, this website presents several partial truths that are used to create invalid argument that support an otherwise false conclusion.

The truth of the premise must guarantee the truth of the conclusion and all the premise must be true. This means that an argument can consist of entirely true premises and still be invalid. Do you know of this fact?

Aka you all use the same argument to invalidly justify whatever your beliefs are and express them on the world guilt free because it's "right."

Just like any religion or cult, except full of unusually high levels of hatred and such.

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

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

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The majority of your points are incredibly esoteric and while you may like to believe that the world is entirely free of morality that is just one subjective moral opinion. You might be able to reject the reality of how a well moralized individual should act, but that does not at all make it "the truth". I just can't stand that you all get in your little circle jerk and talk about how inferior one half of our population is. You treat them like cattle and it's incredibly fucked up. Admittedly, we have some issues with over feminism in our society in very certain situations, but to say it dominates all aspects of life and then in turn use that as an excuse to be an asshole is FUCKED UP.

"We build on what we see as truth" I will let this sit here for a second so you may reread it to yourself

Now....who else built upon what they viewed as truth and ended up being fucked up?

The Nazis

Good job with that one

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

"I agree. Young lady, the tragic wrongness of what those well-meaning people did, contrasted with what they thought they were doing, goes very deep. They had no scientific theory of morals. They did have a theory of morals and they tried to live by it (I should not have sneered at their motives) but their theory was wrong -- half of it fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, half of it rationalized charlatanry. The more earnest they were, the farther it led them astray. You see, they assumed that Man has a moral instinct."

"Sir? But I thought -- But he does! I have."

"No, my dear, you have a cultivated conscience, a most carefully trained one. Man has no moral instinct. He is not born with moral sense. You were not born with it, I was not -- and a puppy has none. We acquire moral sense, when we do, through training, experience, and hard sweat of the mind. These unfortunate juvenile criminals were born with none, even as you and I, and they had no chance to acquire any; their experiences did not permit it. What is 'moral sense'? It is an elaboration of the instinct to survive. The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. This truth is mathematically demonstrable, everywhere verifiable; it is the single eternal imperative controlling everything we do."

"But the instinct to survive," he had gone on, "can be cultivated into motivations more subtle and much more complex than the blind, brute urge of the individual to stay alive. Young lady, what you miscalled your 'moral instinct' was the instilling in you by your elders of the truth that survival can have stronger imperatives than that of your own personal survival. Survival of your family, for example. Of your children, when you have them. Of your nation, if you struggle that high up the scale. And so on up. A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual's instinct to survive -- and nowhere else! -- and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts."

"We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race -- we are even developing an exact ethic for extra-human relations. But all moral problems can be illustrated by one misquotation: 'Greater love hath no man than a mother cat dying to defend her kittens.' Once you understand the problem facing that cat and how she solved it, you will then be ready to examine yourself and learn how high up the moral ladder you are capable of climbing.

"These juvenile criminals hit a low level. Born with only the instinct for survival, the highest morality they achieved was a shaky loyalty to a peer group, a street gang. But the do-gooders attempted to 'appeal to their better natures,' to 'reach them,' to 'spark their moral sense.' Tosh! They had no 'better natures'; experience taught them that what they were doing was the way to survive. The puppy never got his spanking; therefore what he did with pleasure and success must be 'moral.'

"The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual. Nobody preached duty to these kids in a way they could understand -- that is, with a spanking. But the society they were in told them endlessly about their 'rights.' "

"The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature."

Mr. Dubois had paused. Somebody took the bait. "Sir? How about `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'?"

"Ah, yes, the 'unalienable rights.' Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What 'right' to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What 'right' to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of 'right'? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man's right is `unalienable'? And is it 'right'? As to liberty, the heroes who signed that great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called 'natural human rights' that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

"The third 'right'? -- the 'pursuit of happiness'? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can 'pursue happiness' as long as my brain lives -- but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it."

Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you that 'juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue -- indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with. There never was, there cannot be a 'juvenile delinquent.' But for every juvenile criminal there are always one or more adult delinquents -- people of mature years who either do not know their duty, or who, knowing it, fail."

"And that was the soft spot which destroyed what was in many ways an admirable culture. The junior hoodlums who roamed their streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified their mythology of 'rights' . . . and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure."

Excerpt from Starship Troopers by Robert Heinlein

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (20 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Piroko2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

I read the passage. I just didn't find it that mind boggling. In the same way an atheist can read the creation story from Genesis and not be at all amazed.

Whether or not man has an "instinct" to do what is correct is irrelevant, unless you are implying that we should all act as closely to our instincts as possible.

Moral literally means doing what is good or right. A piece of shit is someone who does not even attempt to do.

Apart from that we can see moral instinct in our constant desire to improve society and ourselves. Even this subreddit is an example of moral instinct, however fucked up it may be, as you try to escape the "false" morality of society and each accept your own internal morality in spite of how it may harm others.

Society's morals aren't perfect by any means but they are certainly better than every derranged loon thinking his thoughts are ok even if they fuck up and hurt lots of people.

[–]Piroko 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Piroko1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Piroko1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You can't discuss morality without selecting an underlying philosophy.

Morality deals with good and bad, but these are relative concepts, defined by perspective. Good for the predator is bad for the prey.

To have absolute definitions of good and bad you must base it on an underlying system of ethics, whether its aristotellian, or kantian, or abrahamic (or any other divine law).

You follow Kantian Ethics. You may not know you do, but you do. You're taking them for granted, assuming that they are a proven, concrete thing that gives you that absolute definition of good and bad.

TRP rejects Kant. He was utterly refuted by Schopenhauer.

I looked at what shopenhauer had to say and it does not at all line up with TRP. He believes in love and compassion as guiding forces in life.

No you didn't.

You didn't because if you'd read Schopenhauer you'd have read his essay on women, his support for Plato's concept of eugenics, and his preference for monarchy over democracy. And then you wouldn't be saying his stuff doesn't line up with TRP.

[–]highassnegro0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your statement is:You cannot claim my arguments are wrong unless you yourself are asserting a different moral theory. Why in the world do you think this is sound?

I am arguing that the beliefs of TRP lead someone to be an undesirable member of society. If you don't care about other people then you are a psychopath. Especially if you can just flip a switch and decide that women are lower beings than you. Have you looked at when this was written? he lived in the mid 1800's so of course his opinion on women is going to be biased. Just because this guy made these observations about women doesn't provide any logical reason to treat them like this.

Also please direct me to where on this subreddit it saws TRP follow Shopenhauer. This is an example of how this medium allows people to think anything they believe is accepted in the spectrum of "what TRP believes."

[–]Piroko1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So now you're saying you believe that whatever you do is neither good or bad because its all about how YOU see it. Yet still YOURE the one who doesn't understand.

Does this at all mean that you can't be an asshole? Does this at all mean you won't hurt many people and be a blight on society? No

All I'm trying to say is that if you follow the morality of TRP it will make you into a dick. You can justify it by saying that you "don't blindly accept things as right or wrong" but then whatever you want (literally) is the "right" thing to do. If the right thing for you to do is based on what you want to do that means

You're just giving assholes a reason to believe whatever fucked shit they do is ok

You still haven't even presented me any reason as to why shopenhauer is accepted by TRP you've only further proves my point that you use this site to justify whatever beliefs are in your fucked up head.

[–]Endorsed ContributorSarcasticus 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]highassnegro[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link