TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

mydragonurdungeon Archive

View 1 post and 8,437 comments by mydragonurdungeon 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)
6

Question For WomenMydragonurdungeon/r/PurplePillDebate30/01/25 04:12 PM
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 8,437 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Most people have dating figured out? That's not the impression I get
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 06:34 PM
1

No it isn't. To have an honest conversation you need to address what's being said, not why you believe they said it. And the whole pro life thing you just stated is simply a way for you to not have to address the points they make by smearing them as having alterior motives. Look up the principle of charity and why its necessary to have an honest conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 04:14 AM
1

If people don't care it's because they don't understand how catastrophic it's going to be. Alot of men who care about this thing care explicitly because they want to run counter to any choice women actively make. which is a very large portion of this sub I think it's pretty weird to try and speculate on people's inner reasoning vs just responding to what they are actually saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 04:04 AM
1

I said i wish they would just want to? I don't see your point here. Should I not want them to want to?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 03:30 AM
1

Then I pointed out that the infrastructure cannot easily be downscaled and you agreed. Id rather women just choose to have more babies than there having to be some impetus outside of free will.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 02:56 AM
1

Regardless of whose fault it is, it's not just going to work the way you're describing.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 01:56 AM
1

It really doesn't matter what you feel, we are currently in a death spiral numerically speaking. We can't simply downsize Powerplants etc
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 12:54 AM
1

Women hate the idea of them but it seems women in cultures that have them want their kids in arranged marriages as well. and i think that has to do with the fact that men overall in all dynamics typically report higher relationship satisfaction than women. You're likely okay with this because you'd be some level of happy eitherway. the other's happiness doesn't matter. If women are unhappy regardless what is all this about?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/09/25 12:53 AM
1

The idea that it being arranged means it lacked love isn't a given. Plenty of arranged marriages end up with the couple loving each other. And plenty of marriages where the couple choose each other are based solely on lust and end up failing with the couple not in love. I've never seen any evidence the arranged marriage system is significantly worse for either person man or woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 10:28 PM
1

The arguments you use outside of the financial are all speculative.. There'sCrimes against women are lower because all crime is lower. There's no evidence that many or most couples didn't love each other. Nor is there any evidence women didn't get good sex by default. There's also zero evidence many or most men cheated nor that women were forced to endure cheating. Yes we had it for from the 30s to the 60s until feminism ruined it.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 10:12 PM
1

It's positively a death spiral in places which are educated and interested in equality. Any birth rate below 2.1 means there will be fewer than the last generation. Then it will be fewer again, then again. How long until there's not enough people left to work the necessary jobs to keep society functioning
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 10:07 PM
1

Feminism was invented by the rich to double the wage slaves and in the process lower pay.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 06:20 PM
1

It's hard to understand because it's completely speculative nonsense
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 06:01 PM
-2

Seemed to work fine before
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 06:01 PM
0

The way you phrase it is absurd. Get to not work a day in your life and be able to spend all your time with your with your family and be able to thrive and buy a house on a single income!!?? Wage slave attitude
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 05:30 PM
3

Basically. This could be the reason for the fermi paradox. Any species which gets intelligent enough to offer equality to women dies out because those women don't want to reproduce anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 04:32 PM
0

Men can't have children? Men with tits meaning women are not doing the one thing which they can do that men can't.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 04:03 PM
0

It has zero to do with capitalism. Blame feminism who forced women into the workplace
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:58 PM
1

Exactly. Thank you
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:21 PM
1

You're suggesting men help more when women have no rights?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:20 PM
-1

By people like you
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:17 PM
0

The more equality women have the less children. They have more children where men help less lol
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:17 PM
0

Nobody believes that's the issue lmfso
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:15 PM
-2

Men aren't default humans women who have children are humans to the fuck are you on about
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:13 PM
-8

This is baffling to me and seems to be a case of apex fallacy. Women can do one thing men can't as a whole but they'd rather just be men with tits? Crazy stuff
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:02 PM
6

Most advanced countries are below replacement rate. So it's not really a simple as looking at things as a whole unless you think it would be great if the world was entirely populated by the uneducated, which will simply keep cycling out as soon as they reach a level of education. Basically this is a limiter on how smart humans can be if the smarter they get the more outbred they are by those who don't care about equality education etc
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 03:00 PM
4

Why do we have to choose between women's rights and humanity existing, and why does it seem like you're blaming men for this?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 02:58 PM
2

It's kind of misleading to lump these all together, also most bi women are the kind who like find some other women hot but wouldn't date them. If you were right and women were such amazing and superior partners why is the lesbian divorce rate so high?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/08/25 12:55 AM
1

Having standards? No. But being animalistic in the sense that they only want the alpha male and causing a dwindling number of humans? Yes
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 10:38 PM
0

I didn't say comparable but women's standards are driving the birth rate down which is terrible for society
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 10:28 PM
2

They receive a pass to behave like animals because their animal behavior gets less of a visceral reaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 09:59 PM
2

Yes that's the point. Women's animalistic behavior is equally toxic to society it's just less visible
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 09:56 PM
0

I didn't say anything about women committing violence
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 08:56 PM
2

I didn't say anything about women being as violent as men, I said that men and women acting like animals is bad for society but women get a pass. Meaning women acting like animals isn't recognized by society as being bad because it isn't as visible.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 08:56 PM
0

A lot of things aren't compatible with society, neither men or women acting like animals is compatible, women just get a pass because the effects are less immediately noticeable
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 08:34 PM
–

Yeah the issue here is that she's recognizing chad doesn't settle for ugly chicks.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/08/25 01:14 PM
1

Him not listening to the nagging doesn't make him responsible.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/25 04:18 AM
1

I am now that I have more information. Yes. So you're victim blaming. Glad we agree
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/25 02:15 AM
1

You're not just asking you're quite literally blaming them
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/25 02:02 AM
2

There's nothing to acknowledge. We have a difference of opinion. I'm my opinion it's childish to think it's okay to command other adults.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/25 01:13 AM
1

Women would pick the more well behaved guy if they had two equally attractive options but they would not sacrifice one iota of attraction for better behavior
/r/PurplePillDebate26/08/25 01:04 AM
2

How am I not acting like an adult by saying commanding someone is rude?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 11:38 PM
1

I'm an adult, I don't need people telling me what I need to do.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 11:27 PM
1

Yes you can nobody said you are literally unable to. You should not. None of the things you've described are anything less than an absolutely shit way to speak to someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 11:21 PM
2

It's a perfectly fine way to treat an adult. It's not perfectly fine to command other adults. If you think it is explain how. It's disrespectful and rude.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 11:14 PM
1

Telling someone to clean in that way is good you treat a child not an adult. There's no one size fits all, but I offered the idea that you can explain to them why its important for example
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 11:01 PM
1

Yes pregnancy is a natural phenomenon where once it begins it will continue until it concludes all on its own. What do you imagine the difference is between "not continuing" and "ending"? I've explained this. The difference is when you're saying she's not obligated to continue it. Obligated implies someone is coercing her into doing it. But nobody is. Nobody is going "you better keep being pregnant or else!" She will just naturally keep being pregnant. It's a natural byproduct of becoming pregna…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:56 PM
1

It isn't? Saying it would be good if someone did something isn't a command because you're not saying they have to, just it would be good if they did. "Clean your room" is a command "it would be good if you cleaned your room" isn't. You didn't actually tell them to do it. Just that you thought it would be good if they did! We've established the questioning doesn't work. So what is next? The other bit i said where you figure out how to communicate more effectively.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:43 PM
1

Saying that she has no obligation to continue the pregnancy is right because nobody is doing anything to her to continue the pregnancy. It just naturally continues. It's like someone saying "I've got no obligation to grow up!" When they are a child. Well yes that's true, but it's just going to happen whether you're obligated or not is outside of the reality that it will happen. She has no obligation (legally or morally) to keep the fetus alive. Everyone has the moral obligation to not kill other…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:39 PM
1

I don't agree I said a command. Let's say the thing is truly important. What is the best way to communicate when asking doesn't work? Not commanding. Maybe explaining why is important before asking again? It's never commanding.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:28 PM
1

No I'm not fine with her ending the pregnancy. She isn't obligated to continue it, nobody is going to force her to. Fortunately, if nobody does anything to her, the pregnancy will continue and the fetus will live. You see the words you're using is the issue. Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more noun an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. "I have an obligation to look after her" She's not morally or legally obligated to…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:27 PM
1

This is a command, and exactly what I'm referring to. A gentle command, but a command nonetheless. No it's a request. If asking your partner isn't getting the thing done that your partner isn't doing, what do you recommend be the next step? I've already said. Figure out how to communicate more effectively and/or reflect on whether the thing is truly important.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:17 PM
1

You already acknowledged women are under no obligation to continue a pregnancy they don't want to. That's my position. What's more to argue? You're leaving out the rest, where i pointed out she's not obligated to continue it just not kill the fetus. You see how you made a complete thought and now we can actually discuss things? Weird. Seems like something you could have done 20 comments ago.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:13 PM
1

You're not making sense. Yes it's a significant difference. But not in the conversation we are having. You're being nonsensical. Me: abortion is wrong it's killing a human and nobody has the moral (or should have the legal) right to do that. You: being pregnant is significantly different then not being pregnant. The fuck are you talking about? Do you even remember what the topic is? Form a complete thought for once.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:08 PM
2

Yes, things need to get taken care of. But its not your partners job to take care of it. You should be going "does it make more sense for you or me to take care of this?" Or "it would be great if you could do that since its on your way home" etc. Not simply going "bill needs to be paid" and expect them to take care of it. You're not their master You do if there is something your partner needs to do that hasn't been done yet, especially if they have been asked before. No you don't, you never do.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 10:06 PM
3

Agreed. Which is why the whole thing of "if it's work or harder than being single you should break up"
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 09:24 PM
1

How do you know if the work is going to enrich your life? You just have to trust it will.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 09:08 PM
3

Moving target
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:59 PM
1

We still don't know what the thing is. It could be important, it could not be. If it is, then repeated commands are necessary. Why does the listener need to be told twice? You don't "tell" your partner anything. You ask. You're demonstrating why nagging is wrong . If the problems aren't being addressed, then repeated commands and fault finding are necessary You don't command your partner
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:54 PM
1

You might have gone in with curiosity, but you ended up at victim blaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:25 PM
3

We already established a possible need to nag if a person is unresponsive or not addressing problems We didn't establish that, you posited it, I disagreed. A person who isn't getting it the first time will require repeated commands until they learn how to properly take care of things. They should be figuring out how to communicate effectively instead of releasing themselves. Or really pondering on whether the thing is actually important. In a situation like that, nagging is necessary and a perso…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:25 PM
1

Can't backtrack what I didn't say. I didn't say i ignore anyone.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:11 PM
1

i am asking you what you are doing to keep experiencing women nagging at you. I didn't say i do this. To add, to put thay you ignore women who nag you... I didn't say i had this issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:11 PM
3

Can you think of an instance where tuning out the other person is a valid form of communication between partners? Yes when they are nagging
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:06 PM
1

That's victim blaming.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:04 PM
1

Didn't say they were. This isn't about me, but nagging and how its an ineffective and borderline abisive form of communication.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 08:03 PM
2

Women are neurotic. They will find something to complain about when everything is perfect.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:58 PM
1

This is victim blaming. Replace nagging with physical abuse. Also, most people don't start off abusing. You get to that point. And the fact that more than man has gotten to this point with the other commenter leads me to think its more than just a man abusing to abuse.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:57 PM
3

By definition, having to cater to someone else's wants and needs as well as your own is more difficult than not having to. It's simply worth it. Are relationships supposed to take work? The work you put into your relationship is work worth doing. The idea that relationships are “work” is not a warning of hardship but a reminder that great relationships are built through effort, care, and mutual respect. Emotional intimacy and closeness make the relationship more than just a surface-level connect…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:56 PM
1

So if a woman gets beat up by more than one of her bfs it becomes her fault?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:54 PM
0

Women nagging is bad
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:53 PM
2

Nagging is never a valid form of communication.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:50 PM
1

And ?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:40 PM
4

Because she's nagging. Why can't she speak to him without nagging
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:40 PM
7

I understand the principle but I'm unwilling to assume that it's the norm that most people's bfs need to be medicated
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:39 PM
1

Yes why is that significant to the discussion
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 07:18 PM
3

You can't take a personal story and assume it happens generally that's quite literally terrible logic
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 06:03 PM
0

This is a very specific story which you can't really apply to anyone but your situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 06:01 PM
1

From observation is just as likely to be valid as experience, especially because peeps are likely to be biased about things which they feel personally effect them.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 05:43 PM
1

Which is?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 05:39 PM
-3

An idea either stands on its own merit or it doesn't. The genitals of the person expressing it is irrelevant and it's sexist to suggest otherwise
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 05:37 PM
1

I did say that there's no significant difference with is why I said it was irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 05:34 PM
2

Again, you're phrasing it dishonestly. It's not about rewards. Women just don't care about behavior if there's a lack of attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 04:34 PM
1

Yes I read that I'm not seeing your point.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 04:27 PM
1

I'm not seeing it. Make it now or piss off.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 04:10 PM
5

The better way to phrase this is, work don't care about good behavior. Let's remove the reward talk. Women simply value attraction over behavior
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 04:08 PM
1

I told you to make your point. Make it or piss off
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:47 PM
1

You're free to make your point
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:32 PM
9

You guys are creating a moving target where women are always the victim
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:29 PM
12

Victim blaming. Ew
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:27 PM
22

The issue with this mindset is every relationship is work. There's going to be days where it's harder or worse to be in a relationship than being single.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:25 PM
1

Other than the fact that the woman is obviously pregnant, no.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:20 PM
1

It's saying there's nothing on that topic advice is salient to the conversation
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 03:16 PM
1

I didn't say you can't mention pregnancy, just that it was not the topic. Reading is important
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 02:51 PM
1

What is going on here? Can we talk about abortion or not?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/08/25 12:52 PM
4

And women do the same to men
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/25 03:26 PM
1

What? I think the topic is abortion.
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/25 08:01 AM
1

No it can't. But we aren't taking about pregnancy, the two subjects, while connected, are not the same topic are they?
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/25 06:21 AM
1

We are talking about abortion not pregnancy remember? LMFAO
/r/PurplePillDebate24/08/25 02:05 AM
1

Do you really need to ask that absurd question?
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/25 01:27 PM
1

We are talking about abortion not pregnancy remember? LMFAO
/r/PurplePillDebate23/08/25 12:35 AM
1

Do you really need to ask that absurd question?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 11:55 PM
1

The discussion is about abortion not pregnancy.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 09:02 PM
1

It's an analogy. There's not a significant difference morally. You're not required to have sex and get pregnant. You're not required to keep being pregnant, which is why miscarriage is okay. You are not morally allowed to kill a harmless human. If the woman does literally nothing, the human will be born. Nobody is requiring her to do anything but not actively kill another human.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 07:21 PM
1

That's not relevant? I'm illustrating that the right to not have to take care of someone isn't the right to kill them
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 07:00 PM
1

That's not how things work. I'm not obligated to make sure you're fed, but i don't have the right to kill you.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 06:48 PM
1

Morally absolutely not. She's not obligated to continue the pregnancy. Unfortunately she can't simply will it to end. She has to take actions to kill an unborn human she created which poses no threat to her. There's nothing morally acceptable about that
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 06:12 PM
1

Morally or are you talking about current legality
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 05:45 PM
1

The woman is pregnant with another human. Neither has the right to kill the other
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 05:17 PM
1

Witholding doesn't have an "if you feel like it" clause to the definition. That's like saying if I have a kid and I'm not feeding him it's not withholding if I don't feel like feeding him
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 02:45 PM
2

Yes and I addressed each of these points and said that it is not a given for x y and z reasons and you went "i don't care i won't"
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 04:16 AM
3

So what do you want people to say here? Because I've tried explaining to you where I think women generally can and do lower their expectations like if their husbands are old or maimed and I've tried rationalizing about how women can do things that are not reactionary, and you've basically just gone "well i don't want to." What kind of conversation are you expecting here? If you've made up your mind that no amount of anything will change your opinion what even is this? Just you telling us you're …
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 04:04 AM
3

Is this post about you specifically or women generally?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 03:42 AM
3

And it's been explained. Because you want a relationship with him and he ticks all of your other boxes. You're literally not making sense. You're going "why would i want to have sex with my boyfriend" who else are you going to fuck? You're not a reaction, you're a human. You should want to want to be better than your urges. There's nothing sacred or saintly about being a non sentient urge servant.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 03:22 AM
4

I want to have sex with people I find sexy So you realize you can have sex with someone who you appreciate in other ways you just refuse to. So you could have sex with the guy who ticks all your other boxes you just refuse to. So this whole post is toast then. Men expect you to be able to lower your standards and still choose to have sex with them. You refuse to choose, you want to be a reaction.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 03:15 AM
3

You have sex with him because looking at or engaging with him makes your genitals react to him. That’s what sex appeal is. If he doesn’t elicit that feeling, why would I want to have sex with him? So you are just a reactionary creature with no free will? What happens if your partner is maimed in some way? When I’m 70, I will likely want someone who is around 70. I am aware I am speaking for myself, but the fact remains that it’s a mistake to assume old people don’t find each other sexy. I didn't…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 03:04 AM
1

You're not making any sense. If you're in a romantic relationship with somebody, romance and companionship is expected. The idea you can just go "oh no we are in a relationship but I don't want to see you or have romance with you" is absurd. You're not making sense. You have sex with him because you like him and appreciate him. You think old people stop having sex when they are both ugly? No. Because your view on this is bafflingly nonsensical. You're acting like you can only do things in reacti…
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 02:45 AM
1

So, why would I have sex with or hang out with him? Because you're in a romantic relationship with him? These things are exactly treating him like shit. In a relationship withholding physical affection and avoiding him like the plague is mistreating him.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 02:35 AM
2

Why would a woman not treat her man well? Like the idea there is that you're making it obvious that you are settling for him on purpose? Why on earth would you do that? You're telling me that you simply cannot imagine yourself not treating this imaginary guy poorly? This is some wild shit.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 02:26 AM
1

I don't need to exert any control. You're misusing words again. Not helping women kill unborn humans isn't controlling them.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 02:09 AM
1

She doesn't have a right to kill the unborn. It's not her body
/r/PurplePillDebate22/08/25 02:00 AM
1

She has autonomy over her own body just not another humans.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 11:10 PM
1

We just talked about this. They aren't forcing her. You can say she has no other choice, but that isn't their fault because they didn't make her pregnant. She had the choice when she decided to have sex. She's not owed someone killing her unborn.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 10:02 PM
1

Sigh. Because no force is being applied to women. You seem to continually forget what my point is
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 09:39 PM
1

If he was legally banned from having sex, that would be force (just like abortion). If you break the law, you get fined or imprisoned. Just because you want something to be illegal doesn't mean you get to pretend banning it doesn't force people to stop doing it. Only doctors would be fined or imprisoned.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 09:36 PM
1

My issue is your phrasing it as YOU want to force women to be pregnant!" But that's not accurate according to your logic unless it's accurate to say women forced a man to not have sex. No, he was not forced by women to not have sex. Do you understand where my issue is? When you're saying someone is doing the forcing of women to be pregnant or stay pregnant? You could say "without abortion she's forced to remain pregnant" but you can't blame anyone for her pregnancy but herself, barring rape of c…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 07:26 PM
1

I think all this boils down to a simple question. Is not giving you what you want using force on you? If a woman refuses sex with a man, is she using force on him? The answer is of course not. Pregnancy occurs naturally. Driving doesn't. Insurance claims don't. You're presupposing interventions made by humans which cause issues. A human closes an off ramp. A human denies insurance claim. No human does anything if abortion is illegal. Nobody is closing an off ramp. Nobody is stamping a paper sayi…
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 03:37 PM
1

What i mean it's you're using the word force incorrectly can you please address that?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/08/25 02:13 PM
1

The only other thing you could mean is forcing women to stay pregnant (which you have since admitted was your goal) When did I admit anything was my goal. I shared my opinion, I didn't state a goal.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 10:11 PM
1

The only other thing you could mean is forcing women to stay pregnant (which you have since admitted was your goal) When did I admit anything was my goal. I shared my opinion, I didn't state a goal
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 10:02 PM
1

I asked you for a quote
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 09:50 PM
1

(which you have since admitted was your goal) Please quote me
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 08:08 PM
1

No i didn't the fuck? You said "by outlawing abortion you force women to be pregnant" and i simply pointed out how that was incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 07:03 PM
1

My real point is what I said, that you're using the word force incorrectly. You demanded i address the issue you wanted me to and you want to tell me that's my point? Absurd
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 06:56 PM
0

You're right, killing it is worse
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 06:27 PM
1

Where?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:52 PM
0

And outlawing abortion is how you force women to remain pregnant when they don't want to be. That's what we're talking about, remember? Abortion? Not giving someone an abortion does nothing to them. Me not giving you what you want isn't force
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 04:45 PM
1

We are not talking about rape. (not being forced to remain pregnant). Abortion has nothing to do with how someone gets pregnant. Getting pregnant is what forces you to be pregnant. Somebody not killing your child for you isn't force. They are doing nothing to you. Someone not doing what you want isn't force. Someone doing to you what you don't want is force. Rape is force, not raping you isn't. Killing your unborn against your will would be force, not killing your unborn for you is not force.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:23 PM
0

You can't force a woman to be pregnant. If she has sex and gets pregnant, nobody is forcing her to be pregnant.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 03:17 PM
1

Why do you think it is that you feel the need to insult me?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/08/25 12:14 AM
1

And now you're back to talking about me. I didn't day i don't have a gf.
/r/PurplePillDebate19/08/25 08:02 PM
1

Nobody can be likeable in every situation
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 09:55 PM
1

I didn't say i have it all figured out just that you're not allowing for nuance
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 08:06 PM
1

I’m saying that if you want to get a gf/have a girl like you etc, the bare minimum is being likable and pleasant to be around. Sure, but what is likeable and pleasant is a moving target. It's not as simple as your saying. You might as well be saying "all it takes to be rich is to not be poor" It's an absurd over generalization.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 08:03 PM
1

If you claim to regularly see popular men throwing tantrums when they don’t get your way, a pretty obvious hypothesis is that you are either very young or surrounded by very young people. I didn't claim that? I did express skepticism that all it takes to be popular is not doing that.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:56 PM
1

You're literally saying shit like "maybe you're in high school or something"
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:48 PM
1

Why do you keep talking about me instead of addressing what I'm saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:44 PM
–

I didn't claim otherwise? What?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:31 PM
1

So someone* who is kind respectful and doesn't throw a tantrum is popular with others? That's not what I see.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:23 PM
1

So evens who is kind respectful and doesn't throw a tantrum is popular with others? That's not what I see.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:14 PM
1

I didn't push back on the idea you should be likable and appealing more so against the idea that one can simply manifest these traits through sheer force of will.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:07 PM
1

I've addressed the aspect which I addressed. I'm not responsible to argue any points other than my own
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 07:02 PM
–

I didn't say anything about a system
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 06:57 PM
1

Where are you getting this nonsense?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 04:30 PM
–

So if anyone doesn't like you it's your fault? There's never been somebody who didn't like somebody for no good reason?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 03:56 PM
–

How's that?
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 03:08 PM
1

But the previous generation and some in this generation of men pushed their patriarchal duties on the women to pursue endless pleasure which is now bringing the patriarchy down. Feminism destroyed this, not men. Women are the ones who demanded to work etc. Not men
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 03:08 PM
–

It's a moving target that frees women from having to examine themselves at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 02:48 PM
1

Utter nonsense. Patriarchy was men controlling themselves
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 02:40 PM
–

Ah yes just pull yourself up by the bootstraps.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/08/25 04:28 AM
1

Which it isn't. By law. Yes Nobody said otherwise. What the current law is, is not in question. The conversation is about if the law is correct.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:49 PM
1

I've proved every one of your points wrong with these points. No other law allows someone to kill a harmless healthy human being, so there's no reason for this to be any different. And it is not force to not kill a human because a woman wants them killed.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:44 PM
1

I am aware in the eyes of the law it is not currently considered murder. My point was, is, and has always been the law has it wrong both logically and morally and that it should be considered murder. To illustrate this i asked you to find an example of me stating that the current law is anything other than what it is. You couldn't, because I didn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:40 PM
1

A law is not inherently correct logically or morally simply by existing is it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:37 PM
1

What the fuck? The conversation was not about the fact that currently in the eyes of the law it is not considered murder the discussion is about whether or not the law is correct on this issue. Do you see how those are different things?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:35 PM
1

You're not making sense. Yes this whole discussion is about me saying it should be murder universally. Then you literally made the point that it wasn't considered murder for the mother to do it. Yes...duh... that's what I've been saying is an issue
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:29 PM
1

I never stated the law considered abortion murder, just that there were people that did, and they did so rightfully, and by rightfully i didn't mean in the eyes of the law, but morally speaking.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:23 PM
1

Yes? This doesn't say anything about what the law thinks, just what people do. LMFAO
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:16 PM
1

So you believe this conversation has been me saying that currently abortion is considered murder? Please quote where I've said that.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:06 PM
1

Forcing someone to continue a pregnancy they don't want is forcing them, well done. I just explained how it doesn't fit that definition And as I said, still not murder. By law. Yes this conversation isn't about whether or not it currently is considered murder. Why are you moving goalposts
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 11:03 PM
1

Yes I have. Force is something done to someone that they dont want. Force isn't when you don't do something that somebody does want. You're trying to use force in the incorrect way. There is just did it again.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:58 PM
1

I've illustrated why your points about force are incorrect and don't fit the definition and instead of admitting it, you claim I'm the one unable to understand.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:48 PM
1

I'm fully capable of understanding. You haven't made a logical argument.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:43 PM
1

If it fits the criteria for anyone else, then there's no reason that it shouldn't for her. That's what we've been discussing this whole time.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:34 PM
1

However, being denied access to something that should be freely available, meaning you have to continue the pregnancy fits the definition of force. First off, no it doesn't. Force says nothing of anything "should be freely available". Abortion isn't murder. It doesn't fit the legal definition. It does when anyone but the mother kills the unborn.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:20 PM
1

Yes and we already established it is not you making them be pregnant, nor continue being pregnant. So you are not making them do anything. Not giving someone something they want isn't the equivalent of making them do anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 10:07 PM
1

Not allowing access to that option is forcing the woman to continue the pregnancy for no valid reason It isn't force just because the option exists. The option exists for you to give me your belongings so why are you forcing me to continue living poorer than I could be by not giving me what you have? Force by definition doesn't have a component to the definition that you're suggesting. It's either force or it's not. The option to do something being available or within your power
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:53 PM
1

Same problem. The pregnancy will continue if you do nothing. You can't force it to continue as it will do so if it's own accord
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:31 PM
1

Then how is not killing the unborn human in her forcing her to be pregnant? She's already pregnant. You can't force her to be that which she is.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:22 PM
1

How could you be forcing her to be pregnant when she's already pregnant? There's nothing you can do to force a person who is pregnant to be pregnant.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:12 PM
1

She's already pregnant. How could her pregnancy suddenly be the fault of the person not giving her what she wants? If I don't give you money am I forcing you to be broke?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:09 PM
1

I'm asking you to explain how because you didn't force her to be pregnant. But unless you give her what she wants suddenly you're using force on her despite doing nothing to her?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:05 PM
1

But she wants abortion and if you don't give her what she wants then that's force, right?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 09:02 PM
1

We are comparing the woman not being given what she wants to force right?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:54 PM
1

Where is the force? If i don't give you money and you want it, am I using force on you?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:46 PM
1

Where is the force? They did the act willingly. Nobody is making them do anything by not killing a human for her
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:30 PM
1

That doesn't change that its a human life. You'd have to explain why that's relevant. If anything its worse that its the person who brought it into existence killing it
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:16 PM
1

And now we circle back to, it's recognized that it's murder to kill a fetus for anyone else, so why is it murder for person A and not person B? Either the fetus is a human life or it isn't.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:12 PM
1

Regardless, even if it was murder, I wouldn't care. Id still be fully pro choice This is you literally saying you think it's okay for women to commit murder
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 07:03 PM
1

Regardless, even if it was murder, I wouldn't care. Id still be fully pro choice. Well it is. But why areyou even arguing dishonestly then. You think it's okay for women to murder people. Own your opinion
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:48 PM
1

You keep being incredibly vague then saying I'm not understanding you. Instead of telling me what you're not saying why don't you clarify what you are saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:40 PM
1

No it is not the same. It isn't a medical opinion that the Abortion is needed. They simply allow the mother to make the decision. No doctor forces a woman to be a kidney dialysis unit for someone else. Not killing a human for the woman isn't force
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:33 PM
1

The difference being the doctor thinks euthanising is necessary and its their medical opinion it is what is best. With abortion they just agree to what the women suggests. Here's the difference. If a woman walked in and said "I think we should euthanize this perfectly healthy human" . The doctor would refuse in every situation.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:25 PM
1

A person can't simply decide to euthanize someone else. The doctors have to decide its necessary. And everyone can self defend. It doesn't vary based on the individual.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:12 PM
1

If it's objectively a human life then it would be murder when the mother kills it as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:09 PM
1

I don't see how that's relevant. How does that alter if it's a human life or not?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:05 PM
1

Sigh. It's the same situation. The only difference is the person deciding to kill the fetus. What other situation is murder vs not murder based solely on who decides to do it?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 06:02 PM
1

This has always been my point you just haven't seemed to understand what I've meant
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:56 PM
1

This are two different situations? Person B did it in self defense. Person A could also kill in self defense. That is the point. The fetus is a human life factually, and it's murder to kill it in the eyes of the law, unless the mother is the one who decides to kill it, then suddenly it's not murder even though it would be if anyone else did it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:49 PM
1

Yes it does? If a person (lets call them person A) gave a woman an abortion without her asking, he'd be charged with murder. But when the mother (person B) gets an abortion, she is not charged with murder. The doctor is not charged with murder. There's no other situation like this. Where it's murder when one person does the same action as another person who was not charged with murder.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:44 PM
1

It ends a non consenting human life. One which would be considered murder if anyone else ended it. There's no other situation where one person gets to decide if another lives or dies like that. There's no justification to not call it murder when by every criteria it is. This is what i said. I said there's no other situation where one person lives or dies like that. One which would be considered murder if anyone else ended it. So I'm saying, there's no other situation where if person A kills a hu…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:40 PM
2

I'm sorry I don't understand what you've said here, can you clarify?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:33 PM
1

How?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:30 PM
1

Yes I did. I be explicitly clarified if it was not clear to you originally
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:26 PM
1

See this is what I'm talking about. You're argument hinges on an appeal to emotion. Now it's force simply because you feel these things are good. But the same action when you do not feel like it's good is not force. But the definition of a word can't hinge on how you feel about it. We must be able to agree on an objective definition if we are to discuss anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:21 PM
1

I said, there's no other situation which would be called murder if person A did it but it's okay for person B to do it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:16 PM
2

So its force if a woman denies a man sex?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:10 PM
1

It ends a non consenting human life. One which would be considered murder if anyone else ended it. There's no other situation where one person gets to decide if another lives or dies like that. There's no justification to not call it murder when by every criteria it is. Do you see the part in bold and how it alters the point in context?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:10 PM
1

Please provide the full quote. You'll see that its not what you're portraying
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:09 PM
1

Why is it that you are so emotionally invested on labeling it force? Why can't you simply argue you should have access to it without misusing the word force?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:08 PM
1

No it's not the same? That's the point. You can't simply walk in and tell the doctor to kill another human, in any circumstances, except abortion. You can not claim there are no other circumstances where we can legally end a human life, ther These are not the words i used.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:06 PM
1

It's all who needs? Yes if the doctor decides it's necessary you can agree. That's the point. You don't dictate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 05:02 PM
1

No i don't think that fits the criteria of force. If he found them and you shoved him away or snatched them out of his hand then yes that's force
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:56 PM
1

Yes over decades like I said
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:55 PM
1

You dont tell a doctor to euthanise someone but it is done without their consent. So there's no time which you can simply kill a human by telling the doctor to euthanize them like i said? Word. The same thing being ending a human life? That's a superficial similarity
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:50 PM
1

Preventing someone in the sense that you're actually physically pushing them away? Force. Simply not providing it? Not force.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:49 PM
1

I said no other circumstances in which you can do the same thing. You said without consent. Which we do. Nothing to do with liking someone Describe what you mean here. How do you think it works when you tell a doctor to euthanize someone.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:42 PM
1

Self defense is not the same circumstance. No they do not? You think you can go in and ask the doctors to euthanize someone you don't like?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:39 PM
1

People are not let through a city and not given food. Do you mean they are not allowed to leave? Then the action of preventing them from leaving constitutes force. But if abortion was illegal women can go to doctors and ask for abortion if they want, but the doctors simply won't provide it. Can you maybe use an example that isn't a life or death situation for the adult? Because life saving procedures would still be allowed obviously. It's a pretty dishonest comparison. Not being able to get enou…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:35 PM
1

Euthanasia is not comparable because other people don't get to decide to Euthanize non consenting humans. The human inside of them is part of the natural process of life, from which they themselves were born. There's no logic to calling it self defense.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:32 PM
2

It ends a non consenting human life. One which would be considered murder if anyone else ended it. There's no other situation where one person gets to decide if another lives or dies like that. There's no justification to not call it murder when by every criteria it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:30 PM
1

No, according to the link the first time they did it they realized why their elderly mothers were stooped
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:29 PM
3

Again, the force is the action of building the dam which diverted the water. Making abortion illegal does nothing. It ensures that nothing happens to women. It doesn't divert water. It diverts a revenue stream to the people performing the procedure which is why i said you'd have a good argument saying force is applied to the doctors. Let's say you'd like to go to a clothing store but it's not open. Are they forcing you to be naked? No, because you had the option of coming when they were open, wh…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:28 PM
3

Thats force because they are actively building the dam. But not allowing abortion is doing nothing. There's no action there. Abortion is simply not available. Any force is being applied to the doctors.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:24 PM
3

The action of building the dam is an action
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:21 PM
1

Over decades.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:20 PM
1

Depends on how much you're moving at one time obviously
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:19 PM
-1

Not all manual labor is back breaking
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:13 PM
3

If you stand in front of my house and actively push on my door that's force. If you simply don't open a door for me that I want opened that's not force. Again, force is applied. And your appeal to emotion isn't a valid argument. Likening the purposeful killing of a non consenting human to something like removal of cancer is nonsense. Just calling abortion a medical procedure is meaningless.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:12 PM
0

What is being done to them? You could argue maybe it's force on the doctors since they face the threat of arrest but if abortion were illegal nothing at all is happening to the women. They simply don't have access to the procedure.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 04:05 PM
-3

There's no force involved unless they were raped. Nobody is doing anything to them. Force is applied. Force is doing something to you that you don't want. If someone pushes you when you didn't want to? That's force. If someone doesn't push you when you did want to? That's not force because they are doing nothing to you. So you can see, not giving a woman an abortion, is not force. Because you're not doing something to them. You're doing nothing to them. If she doesn't want kids she can prevent t…
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 03:55 PM
-2

People believe (rightfully so) abortion is murder so your argument amounts to "don't murder if you don't like it but keep out of other peeps business if they want to murder."
/r/PurplePillDebate17/08/25 03:49 PM
1

Please describe where in the process the back breaking occurs
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 11:47 PM
0

Describe where the back breaking is occurring
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 10:49 PM
-3

Yeah, not back breaking labor
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 10:01 PM
1

Doesn't look back breaking in the slightest
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 09:25 PM
-6

Back breaking to do laundry? Lmfao
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 04:26 PM
0

I don't understand what this means
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 03:28 PM
2

That's not what the term means
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 03:27 PM
4

How do they know that
/r/PurplePillDebate16/08/25 09:34 AM
2

Yes but if they were using one of the other dictionary Definitions it would be a different story. They are simply creating a new one which feels right to them
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:53 PM
1

to accept or agree to something, or to decide to have something, although it is not exactly what you want or it is not the best: They were hoping to sell their car for $2,000, but settled for $1,500. He wants a full refund and he won't settle for anything less. She never settles for second best. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/settle-for#google_vignette
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 10:27 PM
1

There's nothing logical about going "i just think the stats that don't agree with my opinion are made up". Of all the couples I know in real life there are two couples with over 4 year gaps. One 5 and one 8 year gap. Which isn't the big gap that's implied. So why aren't the numbers lining up unless they weren't right to begin with. You complain about sample size then use your own experiences which are a tiny sample size to justify dismissing the stats?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 08:11 PM
1

So it's feels over reals?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 08:05 PM
1

But we have the stats which support it?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 08:03 PM
1

What do you mean it's "made up"?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:58 PM
1

What is effective is using the objective definitions of terms. You seem to be using the word effective as if it's not established what is effective.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:58 PM
1

If I was trying to fix a car and the fix described in the manual wasn’t working, I would continue tweaking until I found a solution that was effective. The issue with this analogy of course is that there's two sentient beings. Unless you view women as not having sentience, communication is a two way road. The car cannot have an opinion, so it's a useless analogy m
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:29 PM
1

So what is your explanation?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:27 PM
2

Well there's several possibilities. Women are dating older men. Women are dating the same man. Women think they are in a relationship with a man who does not agree with that label. The truth is likely some combination of all these things.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:20 PM
2

Why is it up to me to comply with their emotional definitions when that's a moving target?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:18 PM
6

"My" definition is simply the dictionary Definition. Women seem to define it with some extra criteria of if they feel like it's settling then it is but if they don't feel like it is then it's not
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 07:11 PM
5

They would simply filter the new term through how they feel and we'd end up at the same spot. And allowing women's feelings to dictate language doesn't seem like the best idea for communication
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 06:53 PM
6

The word isn't the problem. The emotional connection to the term is the problem. The fact that we can't talk men to women without women using their emotion based definitions rather than the factual definition is the problem. It wouldn't matter what word we used as long as women think it's okay to feel vs attempt to be objective
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 06:31 PM
3

I mean, the stats are way skewed, far more women in any given age group in a relationship than are men
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 06:15 PM
6

Yes but the issue is that this is not what the term settling means. So women have an emotional idea of what settling means which does not match the objective definition so they are arguing they don't settle based on what they feel about the term vs what it actually means. It's extremely unhelpful to have that level of emotion.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 06:15 PM
1

If a man doesn't mean to neg he's not. Negging is intentional.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 04:57 AM
-1

Women have been conditioned to see everything less than worship as negging.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 04:44 AM
–

It's not that men are wrong, because for that to be the case you'd have to believe that women dictate what is objectively good looking etc. Men and women seem to just see things differently. The same way that men can be happy with a sparsely furnished apartment, and a few buddies to have some laughs with. Men rate other men and women higher than women rate men and other women. So it seems men just see everything in the world as more beautiful than women do. It's kinda sad for women honestly.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/08/25 04:13 AM
1

They check your name against a citizen registry lmfao
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 08:55 PM
1

Yes but the id you'd be using is you're license not your birth certificate. I dunno honestly the first one that popped up.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 08:19 PM
1

Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. The appeal is just to make it so people who are religiously opposed can't be jailed for violating their religion. It doesn't seem to threaten the legality of same sex marriage at all. For women: one part of the push against voter fraud is that you…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 07:08 PM
1

I'm confused about your last two points. How is it bad right now and why would you not recommend that they get married if they want to take their husbands name. Points 1 and 3 are exactly what I'm saying the government needs to work harder to incentive marriage more.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:57 PM
1

Sorry, I meant the royal you. The general you.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:38 PM
1

You think an exclamation point indicates anger? I don't want kids, so your reason for marriage isn't compelling. I'm trying to talk about America generally, not you. Are you interested in talking about something other than yourself?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:34 PM
1

I'm not mad at all, I just hoped to have a general discussion not hear about your life.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:30 PM
1

I didn't ask!
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:23 PM
1

It's incredibly important to children and family as a whole
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:14 PM
-1

Why wouldn't you want to marry someone?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 06:03 PM
-2

You're attitude of if you are going to get married you need to be paid indicates society isn't doing enough to encourage marriage
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 05:55 PM
-3

Society should be oriented towards encouraging marriage and relationships, i don't think he's suggesting that we literally pay people
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 05:44 PM
2

Where are you're sources for this?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 04:31 PM
1

There's no evidence of that. This is utter speculation. You're just saying something as if it's a fact but it's an opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 04:26 PM
0

Yes women can. Women can literally produce babies. Men cannot produce babies. I'm not lying. It's between 70% and 80% varying by source.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 03:26 PM
3

Because the fathers who are single fathers are generally far richer than the average single mother, That insinuates that all it takes to raise a smart non criminal child is money, but we both know that's not the case. There's plenty of criminal children who didn't grow up in poverty The idea that them having a gf is helpful doesn't really track either, since step parents are generally not considered beneficial for children from what I've read. These sources seem to just want to find some factor …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 03:19 PM
1

In the United States, single-father families account for approximately 16% of all single-parent households. It's 16% from what I can find, but that doesn't really change the facts (not taken into consiideration the ones where the wife died) Why would we not consider men whose wives died as single parents?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 03:15 PM
2

The first paragraph is pure speculation. Men want kids they just care for kids in a different way. Statistically speaking since the kids of single fathers are generally less criminal and more educated and less impoverished, men are actually better at caring for children. I don't know what you're talkinh about dictating when.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 01:13 PM
7

I think women overestimate and over react to a lot of child related stuff. Women will do things like worry about the kids getting play dates and taking literal babies to children's museums etc. And while those things are absolutely great, they are very very far from necessary. You're never going to see an adult and think to yourself "i bet he didn't go to children's museums before he was two years old." They obviously care a lot but their standards of what they think should be done with a child …
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 12:56 PM
-3

The gap in the case of children is due to women being more interested and having a different standard of care. Men can't make mothers. Women initiate 80% of divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/08/25 12:42 PM
-2

Women are the ones who say you can't negotiate attraction
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/25 02:03 PM
0

It's not wisdom whatsoever. It's like playing a basketball game and going "unless you stop defending me I'll take my ball and go home!" It's juvenile nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/08/25 04:06 AM
2

If you read all the comments in context it is still on the topic of OP.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 04:09 PM
-1

Contextually it did
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 04:03 PM
4

The post.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 02:54 PM
1

Men don't really care about women's politics the way women do about men's
/r/PurplePillDebate12/08/25 02:46 PM
4

Being settled for is a yes or no situation but that doesn't mean there are not degrees of settling. 99% of people settle because they can't get the most attractive scarlet Johansson prime Megan fox hybrid Natalie Portman that is their ideal. And less than ideal is settling.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 09:17 PM
4

I don't feel like arguing emotional logic. Yes it is. By definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 09:12 PM
6

Not in those terms but you have seen women say things like "i wouldn't want a man with no other options because I don't want to be settled for" which amounts to the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:29 PM
10

That's literally how they complain. "If i can't get what I want I'll quit the game!" Is complaining.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 08:28 PM
33

When women talk about not being treated like Stacy they say they would rather stay single.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/08/25 03:52 PM
1

Yes 100% it is. By definition.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/25 10:49 PM
0

Well it is shallow. It's just understandable
/r/PurplePillDebate08/08/25 01:23 PM
25

They are the ones who claim they can read men.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/08/25 11:51 PM
1

I mean, if a woman doesn't want to have sex because she's mad at you for x vs doesn't desire sex at all is really irrelevant. End effect is the same.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/25 04:28 AM
1

It doesn't change whether or not it's witholding by definition though.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/25 04:08 AM
1

Yes exactly so the shared language should be one that is equally impersonal. As objective as possible. That's been my point this whole time!
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/25 12:53 AM
1

An in actionable example of my point is just being willing to say "I get it," when someone's explaining why they treat a given gender like they're an existential threat. That's broadly going to be a more productive strategy than telling them they're not being objective enough to have the conversation in the first place More productive in what way? The only thing that does is reinforce their beliefs, if that's your goal then yes that's more productive. If your goal is to suggest to them they migh…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/25 12:45 AM
1

You forgot your own point? I've been asking you for an in action example of your point. But you've only thus far been unable to. Why don't you reflect on that for a while. For someone so adamant that you're a superior communicator, it's pretty ironic.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/25 12:35 AM
1

Don't need it. Now please provide an unrelated example of what you're talking about, asking for the 5th time.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/08/25 12:16 AM
1

Me saying "I refuse to do this" isn't a "pressure point" any more than you refusing to, say, copulate with a syphilitic whore is a pressure point. Can we please move passed this nonsense?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 11:13 PM
1

The refusal to cater to others is not inability, nor is it fear. Why can't you explain yourself and your views without these jabs at me? Forget about me. Pretend you have the ability to be objective. What does it look like in a completely unrelated scenario
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 11:09 PM
1

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more or1 /ôr/ conjunction used to link alternatives. "a cup of tea or coffee" In this case due is an ALTERNATIVE to desire
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 11:03 PM
1

Cute. But ultimately useless. I'm asking for you to create a hypothetical scenario not to be passive aggressive.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 10:42 PM
1

Can you please give an example of what it would it look like in practice.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 10:21 PM
1

withhold verb with·​hold with-ˈhōld wit͟h- withheld with-ˈheld wit͟h- ; withholding Synonyms of withhold transitive verb 1 : to hold back from action : check 2 archaic : to keep in custody 3 : to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing withhold permission Here's another example. It has nothing to do with the desire of the person to give it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 10:18 PM
1

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more withholding /wiTHˈhōldiNG,wiT͟HˈhōldiNG/ noun refusal to give something that is due or desired. So if it is due OR DESIRED it is withholding. Since the man desires it, it is being witheld.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 10:15 PM
1

This is word salad nonsense. What does it look like in practice?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 09:17 PM
1

Describe what you mean by "giving people grace".
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 08:38 PM
1

Due or desired. Do you know what OR means?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 08:31 PM
1

Yes? Not wanting sex is withholding sex. Are you seriously arguing that if you don't want to give someone something it's not withholding? Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more withholding /wiTHˈhōldiNG,wiT͟HˈhōldiNG/ noun refusal to give something that is due or desired. The definition of withholding doesn't care about whether you do or don't want to give something. It's withholding regardless
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 06:55 PM
1

Im not really understanding what you're saying here. I speak to everyone the same. With respect, in a straightforward manner. I do not cater to anyone, rich or poor great or small. Equality. You're advocating that I alter the way i communicate with people in order to validate their experiences. If they can't handle me not catering to them they are a narcissist and not worth my time
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 05:39 PM
1

Demanding that I, instead of speak plainly, humor you and try to cater my language to you. Your experiences being valuable doesn't necessitate special treatment from me. If someone believes it does, that someone is a narcissist
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 04:41 PM
1

Being obsessed with your self in the way that you're describing is narcissism
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 04:32 PM
1

I didn't say they can't just not want sex
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 04:31 PM
1

I don't care to motivate anyone. Only to converse with those who desire to understand each other without the sort of narcissism you're espousing. I don't claim to have the objective perspective. I claimed that we should try to be as objective as possible.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 04:28 PM
1

Objectivity isn't "my" rationality. This is again narcissist shit. If they are being a petulant child they are going to be treated as such. If they don't like it they are welcome to behave like an adult.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:31 PM
1

If you're willing to regard someone's inner world with the same empathy and nuance that you afford yourself, it's easier to make sense of how another person moves, but that doesn't really lend itself to some transcendent truth of humanity, y'know? People will use this in order to not be held accountable and to force you to accommodate them. This is some narcissist shitm
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:24 PM
1

This is some nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:19 PM
1

Are you simply suggesting there's no such thing as objective?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:13 PM
1

If we can't agree on language we are going to keep talking passed each other
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:11 PM
1

Who said anything about owed or on command?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:08 PM
2

Be we must agree on definitions in the most objective way possible. "Im not withholding sex I'm just purposely not having sex because I don't want to!" Distinction without a difference
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:07 PM
0

No you're suggesting that men having homosexual men interested in them is the same as a straight woman having straight men interested in her. It would only be the same if men could choose to be gay
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:06 PM
2

This is literally completely different. You're using homophobia. Women are straight not chadsexual
/r/PurplePillDebate05/08/25 03:03 PM
11

You can't choose to be gay. This is very homophobic.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/25 10:18 PM
2

Not wanting sex with your partner when there's a controversy is withholding sex im not understanding. Seems like one of those things women insist is different because it feels different to them.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/08/25 07:27 PM
1

Feelings CAN arise out of a vacuum or things which you perceive which are not intended.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/25 12:56 AM
1

Yes you examine your feelings, and change them. You feel like cheating on your spouse. You examine that, you decide that you will not act on that feeling, and you choose to not feel that way anymore because you realize that it would just be a meaningless thing which might feel good in the moment but be ultimately unfulfilling. You have chosen not to act on your feelings. You have changed your emotions.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/25 12:35 AM
1

It's emotionally mature to not act on your feelings? Weird. That's what I've been saying this entire time.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/25 12:29 AM
1

If you can't change your feelings then you can't be blamed for acting on them.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/25 12:26 AM
0

The idea that this cause feelings in a vacuum is wildly unhealthy because then if you happen to feel like cheating on your spouse you can excuse that because they made you feel that way right?
/r/PurplePillDebate03/08/25 12:17 AM
0

To be clear, you have just told all of us that women should just go ahead and not feel the feelings that they feel & simply, oh, say… pick(?) … a new set of feelings of some metaphorical shelf or pluck them from the aether as if that’s how emotions have ever operated anywhere for anyone other than complete & total sociopaths. No not women, everyone. If you want, you can dictate and change the emotions you feel. For example, if someone calls you a name, do you feel mad? Okay, well does it change …
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 07:34 PM
1

He may love her, but he does not act in a loving way when she is clearly telling him she doesn’t want sex and he keeps going. Why is wanting sex not loving? Are you saying that it is in any way unreasonable to have negative feeling when someone who loves you insists on doing what he wants instead of what you want? To your body? IN your body? Do you see how you're talking yourself into this? Instead of "oh he loves me and I love him and he desires me sexually" it's "he wants to do what he wants T…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 07:00 PM
0

No I'm not suggesting they go numb. I'm suggesting that women reframe their point of view from "oh woe is me!! There's a man who loves me who wants to have sex with me!! Oh no!" To being appreciative of that fact and feel the love instead of choosing to feel the resentment. Let me use an example. Someone you don't know calls you a name. Might feel a bit of anger but overall you don't know them they don't know you, you don't care about them calling you that name *because you considered it, and fo…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 06:15 PM
-1

Are you really asserting that men should be able to treat their partners and relationships badly and still expect that partner to want to have sex with them whenever they feel the urge? No i don't think they should treat their partner poorly. I also don't think most of the time when a woman is mad it is because her partner treated her poorly intentionally. And women are required to just disregard their own feelings about that and decide that they don’t exist? Both partners should choose how they…
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 05:28 PM
-2

I can't imagine choosing to have this feeling. Why can't you imagine choosing not to have this feeling?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 05:18 PM
0

Of course you are, if he's an asshole in some way, but not just for having to do your job
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 05:18 PM
-3

You may love the person deep down but you’re angry and feeling taken for granted or disrespected Stop feeling that way. You're whole point focuses on the concept of the woman's feelings. Well why doesn't she change the way she feels?
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 05:17 PM
1

Not at all. There's plenty of people who live off of food stamps etc. Treating a marriage like it’s a job you have to work to live, to avoid starvation, is not healthy Yet again, and for the final time THIS WAS NOT MY ANALOGY.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 04:26 PM
0

But you're not required to work just like you're not required to be married.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 04:21 PM
-2

The concept that having sex with the person you love when you're not feeling it is you being used as a flashlight is absurd
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 04:19 PM
1

Argue with her about why her analogy is bad
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 04:08 PM
-1

I only addressed it as a job because of the analogy used by the other user
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 03:56 PM
1

You're the one who made the analogy. And the men who do that are also wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 03:54 PM
-11

Yes imagine doing your job and going "if you insist on me doing my job it's going to many me resent you!" To your boss
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 03:20 PM
-18

The "creates resentment" narrative is absurd. It implies women are slaves to their emotions. Nothing to agree to creates resentment. If you agree to something and you allow it, then you choose to resent someone for it, you're a child. Not you specifically obviously.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/08/25 02:04 PM
4

Women don't restrain their sexuality when they are attracted. They just find everyone and everything in the world uglier than men do
/r/PurplePillDebate01/08/25 01:51 PM
1

The behavior of caring about what others think.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:58 AM
–

It's an example of the exact thing I'm replying to
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:36 AM
1

It really doesn't. In fact it holds men to a higher standard because women are seen as being guidance
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:17 AM
0

Of course they were America was very religious at the time.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 03:02 AM
2

Sorry. Women seem to like to believe that all men had affairs back in the day, but we don't have any stats which prove that to be the case. Most men worked ungodly hours in factories and mines etc they didn't have the time to have multiple affairs.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 02:57 AM
-1

There's zero evidence that this was the case. Women seem to like to briefed it is, but we have no stats on that at all.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 02:53 AM
–

You should read more about human brain and how much of an animal we all are. What our group thinks about us is important for our well-being because it used to be one of key conditions of successful survival. This is what I'm referring to.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 02:16 AM
–

I didn't say anything of the sort. Please point out where i did and actually respond to what i did say instead of what you imagine.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 02:01 AM
–

It isn't a basic need to not use higher thought in favor of acting on instinct. We should not say it is, we should not glorify it or sanctify it. When we can't overcome our instincts we should feel shame.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 02:00 AM
–

It very well could. People value that which is scarce. Men who have an abundance of options know they can just get a new girl to his house the next day.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:43 AM
–

Cool really don't care don't understand why you think this conversation is about you. We are discussing men and women generally.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:42 AM
–

We have largely grown as a species to the point where that's not really the case, especially to the extent that women engage in it. Humans in modern times need to adjust to life in modern times and not just behave like animals.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:40 AM
–

No we don't, I want someone who has the option to be promiscuous but chooses not to That's what you want ideally but that person doesn't exist. A woman being a virgin is attractive to men because no other men have had her not because she had some willpower.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:37 AM
–

A man having options does not make him more loyal nor does it mean he's going to end up with his ideal woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:34 AM
–

So you like a guy he's perfect you get along and you're attracted to him etc. But you find out he has no other options and you're suddenly not attracted to him?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:33 AM
0

Men limited themselves to one woman a piece when they were in power despite that not being their natural inclination. Are you saying women are not able to overcome their instincts as men were? Or that they could but they don't see the point to not behaving like monkeys rutting in the mud?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/07/25 01:31 AM
3

By every metric women are less diverse
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 12:31 AM
2

Its based on statistics.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 12:16 AM
1

This study is more about the Genetic Overlap Between Personality and Well-Being.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 12:16 AM
1

Other traits have less of a genetic component. This is a claim. And according to your own standards your source isn't applicable because you'd have to extrapolate it to things which aren't specifically mentioned.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 12:10 AM
2

This isn't based on observation though.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 12:08 AM
1

Ah so the claims you make don't need a source but mine do?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/07/25 12:03 AM
1

Other traits have less of a genetic component. Source?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:48 PM
1

It is not at all. There's nothing to suggest that variability differences DO extend to unstudied metrics. Except that it extends to every metric? This is like saying there's nothing to suggest fire would burn things you haven't seen it burn. It's fire. It's burned most things you've seen it come into contact with. It's only intelligent to extrapolate based on the evidence available.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:40 PM
1

"There is nothing to suggest variability differences don't extend to unstudied metrics" is not a valid argument. Of course it is lmfao.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:33 PM
1

Every metric measured showing greater variability. There's nothing that suggests that is limited to x y or z. It in fact suggests quite the opposite.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:21 PM
1

It agrees with me in every possible way. Males display greater variability by every metric measured.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:03 PM
1

I fact-check published research. Cool so do it. The sources being used on Wikipedia are at the bottom. You're being absurd. You're literally just complaining about every source i give you and providing zero evidence passed "nuh uh!"
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 11:01 PM
1

Wikipedia compiles sources. It has the links to the information on the bottom. This isn't a college paper.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:52 PM
1

The Wikipedia link i provided
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:49 PM
1

Sex-differences in variability have been observed in many abilities and traits – including physical, psychological and genetic ones – across a wide range of sexually dimorphic species. On the genetic level, the greater phenotype variability in males is likely to be associated with human males being a heterogametic sex, while females are homogametic and thus are more likely to display averaged traits in their phenotype.[1] It isn't just height and intelligence.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:34 PM
1

So you're arguing I'm wrong but also not arguing that I'm wrong? Because if you're saying I'm wrong, then you're arguing that men are not more variable than women.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:34 PM
1

You are making the claim that women and men are equally variable within their groups are you not? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis#:~:text=The%20variability%20hypothesis%2C%20also%20known,highest%20ends%20of%20the%20range.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:28 PM
1

AI Overview +9 The Greater Male Variability Hypothesis (GMV) posits that males show greater variability than females in many physical and psychological traits, including intellectual abilities. This means that, while the average male and female scores may be similar, there will be more males than females at both the high and low extremes of a distribution. In essence, it suggests a greater spread of male traits, leading to more "exceptional" individuals (both high and low performers) among males…
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 10:22 PM
1

I think the more extraordinary claim is the idea that there is no variance in variability.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 08:07 PM
1

I didn't say there wasn't variety. I said that they vary LESS
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 07:15 PM
1

The only stats I would call into question are surveys. Both men and women lie on surveys. But the stats relating to IQ etc are not self reported i don't think but if they are then they at just as flawed.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:28 PM
1

Interesting isn't relevant. It just means there’s a wider spread in certain traits, not that women are all carbon copies. I didn't say women were carbon copies just less variable. More similar to men. The whole post is suggesting this is not the case but we know it is. We can't use anecdotes or speculation to ignore the stats.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:27 PM
1

What stat did I say was fake?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:25 PM
1

Yeah I didn't mean to imply there's no ways in when men are similar just that even when men are similar it is less similar than are women.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:17 PM
1

You can speculate about why the stats are the stats but thems the stats. And yet, so many men fall into a set of stereotypes themselves. What are you basing this on? Because it seems like you're arguing that we can ignore the stats in favor of your anecdotal point of view which I'm sure you can see why that is problematic
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:16 PM
-1

Sure in that specific category men are similar, but why are we only considering that point category?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:04 PM
5

I'm talking about statistical facts. By every metric men vary more. IQ, height, hobbies, income, education etc. What are you basing your opinion on?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 06:02 PM
11

The idea that we cannot generalize anything is just absurd. Course there are trends, and by every metric, women are more similar to each other, and less variable than men are.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 05:58 PM
1

I don't understand what you've said here.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 05:01 PM
1

It's not about me or responsibility and if it were about anyone avoiding responsibility it would be the women who literally choose the bad guy over the good one, not the guy who just goes with the only option he has. He would be honest and go "i know it's not great but it's the option i have" whereas the women just blame men when they choose poorly
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 04:08 PM
1

Nobody said "but I don't have options" did they? What was said, is that women choosing from infinite options and purposely choosing the bad one is different from a man going with the only option he has. This isn't about me. It's not about responsibility. It's simply about recognizing the difference between those two situations.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 04:05 PM
2

I didn't say responsibility was different
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 04:01 PM
4

Nobody said otherwise. Why are you not addressing what I'm saying here? A person with infinite options making the choice to shun a good option is very different from a person with one option going "good enough".
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 03:57 PM
1

Nobody is making an excuse. You're focusing on blame. This isn't about blame. It's about two situations being significantly different
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 03:53 PM
2

You're not addressing what I'm saying though. It's much less their fault because their choice could very well be forever alone vs less then ideal whereas women can literally choose a great partner but actively choose the shit one.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 02:23 PM
5

So vetting is much more feasible for women. If you have infinite options, and you choose the shit one, that's much more your felt then if you have 1 option that's not great.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 02:17 PM
8

Women have functionally infinite choices compared to men.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/07/25 01:55 PM
1

Why would I answer your question you asked after me when you refuse to answer my question i posed before you? That's not how conversations work
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 08:18 PM
1

If you disagree quotas exist that's fine. I'm just asking you a question. Just answer it.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 07:36 PM
1

I'll answer this question when you answer mine
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 07:30 PM
1

Answer the question please
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 07:22 PM
1

If they need to fill gender quotas and the woman is not the top candidate what happens then?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 06:55 PM
1

So the theory is, that since women might have a kid at some point, we need to throw merit all the way out the window and force gender quotas?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 06:46 PM
1

And ?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 06:37 PM
2

What other factors are they considering? They're genitals? Why would they consider that?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 06:07 PM
2

I can't even verify he said such a thing your anecdote is useless. Now, you're telling me there is a perfect candidate who fulfills your every need better than any other candidate but they don't hire her because she's a woman. That would only be shooting themselves in the foot. More likely, the woman was not the most qualified.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 05:59 PM
–

Completely speculative nonsense
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 05:16 PM
–

This only works if you assume employers look at a highly qualified woman who is the best candidate for the job and goes "but yucky vagina!" If a woman is the best candidate for the job, why would she not get the job? All dei and quotas do is mature it so that employers cannot choose who they employ solely based on merit.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 04:55 PM
–

Gender and dei quotas are preferential treatment.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 02:58 PM
20

They can do so on their own merit. Why do they need preferential treatment?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/07/25 02:10 PM
1

Effort doesn't necessarily translate to success.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 05:39 PM
0

Well you don't really know the follow through you can't predict that kind of thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 05:27 PM
2

I don't really understand the question because if it's medical she's still got a mouth and a butt why can we not try alternatives?
/r/PurplePillDebate21/07/25 02:16 PM
2

Or, women be crazy
/r/PurplePillDebate19/07/25 04:38 PM
1

Yes but we aren't talking about their availability etc just men's desire for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 05:23 PM
1

I'm be sure how that's an issue? Men prefer virginity to the alternative is still intact if all other variables are equalized.
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 04:18 PM
2

So they are sought after for their looks. You're proving my point. Men aren't going "oh she's in porn sign me up!" Looks are a confounding variable in this situation
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 03:13 PM
3

In spite of not because of. If that same porn star looked the same and was a virgin she would be more sought after
/r/PurplePillDebate18/07/25 02:20 PM
1

Yes that's the issue. I said women want perfection you talked right passed me and started saying women just don't want toxic. You don't see the issue?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 10:58 PM
2

But this binary doesn't represent real life. Perfection vs the wrong one is not how it is. There's obviously degrees, almost perfect, better than average etc. The idea that women can only not be wasting their time unless they get perfection is detrimental to women and their happiness just as much as it is to men's.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 07:38 PM
1

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 07:18 PM
–

Why are you making things personal? Did something in my comment make you feel attacked so you felt the need to attack me?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 07:16 PM
1

It is a large issue and with social media and dating apps only becoming bigger. Men do this thing, you should try it, where they don't just care about themselves. They care about others too. They see men struggling and women being unrealistic and they don't just go "fuck it i got mine!" It's crazy how women can't comprehend this.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 06:11 PM
-2

Examining how much you value something isn't pretending people work in a way they don't? Yet again, whether you feel it is useful or natural, examining what you value and to what extent is useful what is your emotional issue with that?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 06:10 PM
-1

This is just a false binary. You're oversimplifying the paradigm to the point where it sounds reasonable. Men are saying women want perfection to an extent which is unrealistic. You simply really passed that point to make it that women are just some innocent angels who simply want men they are attracted to. The issue being pointed out is that the standards of what women are able to be attracted to are increasingly unrealistic.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 06:04 PM
1

Some women only want perfection
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 05:17 PM
1

Oversimplification. Yes some women hold out for perfection and if they can only like perfection that's not a positive trait
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 05:14 PM
1

The world is not fair and beautiful regardless, understanding that isn't going to cause harm. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try and control the things which you can, it just means you should understand that when shit happens despite your best efforts it's not your fault. Also in your world view, everyone who gets screwed over cheated on etc deserves it because they simply didn't try hard enough. But that isn't reality.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:54 PM
-6

How is trying to understand yourself arbitrary?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:51 PM
1

"Correlation does not imply causation" means that observing a connection between two variables doesn't necessarily mean one causes the other. just-world fallacy is a comforting but ultimately flawed idea. While it may be tempting to believe that the world is fair, it's important to acknowledge that suffering can occur without personal fault You're committing these fallacies
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:42 PM
1

You think that's why you got what you want, but you can't know that it had anything to do with it. You don't seem to understand how logic works. You're using the correlation causation fallacy. And this isn't about me or you personally why are you trying to make it into a personal conversation vs a general one?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:26 PM
-5

He's asking you to do that though. You don't think it could be useful to understand and actually reflect on how much you value these things? Women seem content to just feel their way through life and get mad when men suggest they actually consider things.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:14 PM
1

I don't think these things have any evidence either way. There's no evidence they abstaining and working on yourself produces any better results. Attractiveness etc seems to be the only real factor.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:11 PM
–

That wasn't the question.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:08 PM
1

It's not a fallacy plenty of people find their life long loves without doing what you are saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 04:05 PM
1

Can? Sure. They also can attract great partners while being desperate and not working on themselves. Correlation doesn't equal causation. That's a fallacy. You're going "Well i wasn't desperate and worked on myself and I got a good man therefore it was because I wasn't desperate and worked on myself and that is what everyone should do!"
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 03:42 PM
1

I didn't suggest being single wasn't an option but choosing to criticize women for holding out for their prince charming instead of being realistic is an option too!
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 03:39 PM
4

I'm not comparing being in a relationship to food I'm illustrating the concept of choice.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 03:36 PM
1

Women are heterosexual (for the most part) not chadsexual. Homosexuality isn't simply, part of the group I'm attracted to but not fitting my criteria for attraction.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 03:34 PM
10

An option you don't like is still an option. If there's 5 colors of shirt there's five options even if you don't like seafoam green
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:56 PM
2

It's still a fallacy, yes. You believe you got the best because of your methods when it could have been in spite of. And I'm not interested in discussing your personal life. This sub and conversation isn't about you and that's likely why you can't discuss things generally you seem to misunderstand that you can't base everything you think on your own experiences.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:54 PM
0

Just world fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:50 PM
2

Just world fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:49 PM
8

Nope. You can't choose to be homosexual and it's pretty homoph9bix to imply you can.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:46 PM
2

That logic doesn't follow. It's them wanting the best of the best which is causing them to be single. The cause of their desire for the best has the effect of them being single. That does not in turn cause them to be deserving of the best of the best.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:40 PM
7

This isn't about what one considers an option they are factually objectively options regardless of if you consider them options.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:39 PM
5

Men want them in spite of them being bad options.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:13 PM
5

37% consider themselves single is what he said, this does not mean they are not actively dating or trying to find dates.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:10 PM
1

Most women are in a relationship or actively dating.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:09 PM
8

Women on this sub say they are overwhelmed by dating apps.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:07 PM
15

Options you don't like don't cease to exist. If you have the choice of spaghetti or pizza for dinner you have two options. If you don't like spaghetti it doesn't cease to be an option, it is just not an opinion you're likely to choose.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:06 PM
0

It's counter intuitive because that's ridiculous what makes them think they deserve the best of the best?
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:05 PM
12

You seem to not even be addressing what's being said
/r/PurplePillDebate15/07/25 01:04 PM
4

Women are "lonely" due to their own absurd standards. Men are lonely because they actually have no one interested in them. Very very different situations.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/07/25 01:51 PM
1

I think stereotyping jews the way you did is lazy
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 07:19 PM
1

You think the jews are sinister and manipulative!? Reported
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 07:16 PM
1

You're not making sense and you bringing up the jews is very weird
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 06:25 PM
3

Men do that. Then women bitch about being left out and invade the space. Next. This is what he said. Then she said to get a different woman. He didn't say his woman was doing anything. Just women generally. So how is telling him to get a different girlfriend helpful?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 06:15 PM
1

He didn't ask for advice.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 06:03 PM
8

He's talking about men generally while you are giving him individual advice. Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/07/25 01:38 PM
0

Take your own advice.
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/25 10:25 PM
0

What's the insult
/r/PurplePillDebate03/07/25 01:50 PM
-2

She just wants to be mad and purposely misrepresent you.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 11:50 PM
3

It works as much as you make it work.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/07/25 04:57 PM
3

* I don't think women understand at all how this works. If he's not watching his eating he would not look like this. His arms look reasonably large, there's no pooch in his belly, he's not fat. The lack of cut definition is not an indicator that he's fat, you don't get that cut definition until you're below 15% body fat *
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 05:18 PM
1

I don't think that's common
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 05:03 PM
2

<image> He looks to be at around 15% according to this.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 04:43 PM
3

Yeah but why would we compare him against those who actively attempt to look good and leave out those who don't when we are considering what percentile of man he is in terms of body fat?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 04:40 PM
3

Where are you seeing chub specifically in that picture?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 04:40 PM
-1

Absolutely not 25% you aren't seeing those cum gutters and you're getting flab
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 03:15 PM
1

Contextually he's comfortably in the top 10 to 15 percent of men in terms of fitness.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 03:15 PM
2

Relatively speaking he's in the top 10 or maybe even 5% of people.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 02:55 PM
-4

You can see the definition of his cum gutters for Christ's sake that dude is around 15% body fat. Describe to me what is fat? He doesn't have a gut at all. Just the lack of defined abs?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 02:44 PM
-4

That is not a dad bod that is a very fit man
/r/PurplePillDebate30/06/25 02:40 PM
1

Why are you giving me advice. We aren't talking about me
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 01:28 AM
1

I'm claiming that there is often a time where a man might only have one option, and that one option isn't good. Why not listen to what I'm saying instead of telling me what I'm saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 01:27 AM
2

I'm claiming that there is often a time where a man might only have one option, and that one option isn't good. Why not listen to what I'm saying instead of telling me what I'm saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 01:25 AM
1

I didn't say crazy women were the norm and I'm not interested in arguing. I simply said if a man only has one woman interested in them and she is crazy then it's either be with that crazy woman or be alone. You don't seem to want to address what I'm saying.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/06/25 12:34 AM
1

Why do you doubt crazy women exist?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 10:23 PM
2

I think we are defining options differently. I'm defining it as partners interested in dating them. Not simply members of the opposite sex existing
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 10:08 PM
2

I didn't claim that women are crazy nor that their craziness was what limited men's options. I claimed that men have limited options, and that their only option is a crazy woman often because despite many non crazy women existing, because they don't have many options to begin with. If one woman likes a guy, and she happens to be crazy, the options are either be with the crazy woman or be single.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 09:50 PM
2

I didn't say anything about myself why are you making things personal?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:39 PM
2

I'm not adding criteria. You're being speculative about why men are more happy with less. I'm questioning that speculation
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:38 PM
2

You're reducing them being happy to just being happy with holes. I don't agree on that aspect. You're going "they have sex and they are happy without demanding too much from their partner all they care about is holes!!" That's just a way to portray those who can't be happy as more complex
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:31 PM
2

How is it primitive? Being unhappy isn't more evolved or sophisticated
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:17 PM
2

Why is being low maintenance default bad in your opinion? I don't understand the thought process that goes "oh they are easily happy!? Simpletons!"
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:10 PM
1

You're mistaking can't with won't. A lot of time when people claim they can't do something it is more truthful to say they won't.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:06 PM
1

Being more easily pleased with a partner is not a bad trait. Being high maintenance is not a good trait.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:03 PM
1

Yes it is true? The education system does not directly generate revenue in the same way as a sports team does. You can speculate the amount of money that they generate but it's very hard to put a number on it. There are a lot of college professors and private school teachers that do make a lot of money. And why do you not do your job for free? Same reason professional athletes don't
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 08:02 PM
2

Men have extremely limited options. It's often either crazy bitch or forever alone.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:59 PM
1

Simplicity is not primitive by default.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:57 PM
0

It's about the letft's infantile sensibilities. Vance is pretty bulletproof in terms of criticism so they photoshop him looking ugly and then make fun of the photoshop they made. Utter childish nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:55 PM
1

Why would they be paid that much? Professional sports players generate revenue which is comparable to what they get paid. You don't just go "i think I should be paid millions!" You can negotiate higher pay or decide not to work that job. But you're not a victim for choosing a low paying career and accepting a salary that is below what you desire.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:45 PM
1

No. Just deciding to stop hating each other would work a vast majority of the time barring serious betrayal. They simply do not wish to stop. They look for reasons to be mad and stay mad. Again, you're coming entirely from an anecdotal perspective.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:43 PM
6

but I dont feel an "instinctive urge" to reject men. Well obviously it's not like your instincts announce themselves as instincts and you would obviously try and rationalize it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:26 PM
3

So women are beings of pure instincts whose higher thoughts are meaningless?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:24 PM
1

See you're being too anecdotal and surface level. We have the stats which say married parents kids do better. It's obviously impossible to see how the kid would turn out of their parents were divorced then rewind time and see how they would do if they stayed married, but that doesn't mean we should not encourage the statistically significant. but would the kids prefer living with parents who hate each other Why would they hate each other? Seems like they need to stop hating each other.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:23 PM
1

Yes it's settling and yes I'd happily settle
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:17 PM
1

What? How does this follow? Women agree to do x job for y pay, its only their job to negotiate better pay if that's what they want.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:16 PM
1

Oh shoot you're right sorry.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:10 PM
2

But are kids from wealthy divorce doing better than kids from wealth whose parents are not divorced?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:10 PM
1

Being married is just an easy stat in which to associate with less poverty in children. Obviously we cannot screen each individual for being a good parent, so we have to use generalities. This is not propaganda.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:09 PM
1

Trying to be in a committed traditional relationship is hedonism but the hook up culture of current times isn't!?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/06/25 07:04 PM
1

and insisted that you had never said that emotions aren't real. I clarified what I meant when I said that. I've already addressed that there are lots of things that also fall into "not objectively real". And they weren't relevant to the argument. "You can't objectively prove that you have thoughts and feelings, therefore you should never let them influence any decision you ever make at all" is about as ridiculous an argument I've ever heard. Why are you quoting things I've never said?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 11:54 PM
1

See, that's the problem with your analogy. It equates all thoughts/feelings/emotions to delusions. Because they are both literally exactly the same. In essence, your feelings are a delusion brought on by your own preconcieved notions. They are not objectively real like the need for nutrition. That is objectively real. The feeling you have of being mad is no more real than the idea that an elephant is in the room with you when there is not. It has the same amount of evidence. It exists only in yo…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 07:40 PM
1

Please refer to the elephant analogy You can have a thought or feeling which does not accurately or objectively reflect reality. The only way in which an emotion exists is the same way as which a person who is hallucinating sees an elephant where no elephant exists
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 06:44 PM
1

I never said a person could not have emotions lmfao. Nice try. I did say that emotions weren't real in any objective sense. "I refuse to admit I'm wrong." XD I'm glad to can admit that
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 06:09 PM
1

I have bad news for you; All of your senses are perceptions. Sight, touch, sound, taste, smell? Those are all your brain perceiving information, just like emotions. This is about as ridiculous as me saying that shit doesn't stink because I can't smell it. LMAO But you smell something, then you verify it exists by locating it!? GASP! Your points make no sense. It isn't you seeing something which makes it real, it's the fact that, what you see is verifiably there. This is proven very easily. Say y…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 05:05 PM
1

Death is the consequence for living. And for not eating. Youre catching on now! That said, you don't have to make decisions that align with the emotions you're feeling Yes exactly and there's no physically verifiable consequences unlike if you starve to death. Likewise, suppressing your emotions can have negative impacts on your health and quality of life. It can, or it cannot, but you can't trace A to B in the sense you're suggesting. If someone starves to death, you can literally do an autopsy…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 02:36 PM
1

Death is the consequence for living. And for not eating. Youre catching on now! That said, you don't have to make decisions that align with the emotions you're feeling Yes exactly and there's no physically verifiable consequences unlike if you starve to death. Likewise, suppressing your emotions can have negative impacts on your health and quality of life. It can, or it cannot, but you can't trace A to B in the sense you're suggesting. If someone starves to death, you can literally do an autopsy…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 02:36 PM
1

even though I asserted intangible things aren't real. Hunger is tangible because there are tangible consequences if you don't eat. This parallels ignoring your anger when somebody says mean things to you. There's actual tangible consequences to not eating. There's no consequences to someone saying you're a meanie. You can ignore this need and choose to self isolate. You can't ignore hunger or you will die. Death is not an indicator of meaningfulness. It is an indicator of an actual tangible cons…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 12:33 PM
1

Refer to my previous statement. No address my current one lol. It's your job to make that argument since you're the one asserting that they're different, not mine. And I have. One stems from an actual concrete need. You feel hunger when you require nutrients to live. Someone calling you a jerk and you getting mad is only similar to that in the sense that it is a sensation you feel. Anything further (the concrete fact that when you require nutrients you feel hunger which you will eventually die i…
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 04:16 AM
1

Hunger is an intangible sensation that exist independently from the body's actual need to eat. It can exist independently and you're only listing the things in common it has with emotions, not the things which differentiate it. You're factually incorrect in every assertion you've made. Lmfao k.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/06/25 03:54 AM
1

I don't think women belong at home or in the work place. I think if one had to choose between being dependent on an employer who simply uses them to make money and would replace them with a cheaper option at the earliest convenience vs someone who truly loves them and cares for them, the latter is the superior option.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 07:07 PM
1

Whether the husband is self sufficient isn't relevant to the argument. The importance of being self sufficient was the crux of your argument and it was only addressed because you brought it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 06:01 PM
1

We aren't discussing 1 vs 2 income streams. You seem to be saying it's acceptable for a husband to be "dependant" on their boss, but not acceptable for a wife to be "dependant" on a boss. Why is it ok for the husband but not the wife? No that's not what I said. What i said is it is better to be dependant on income from someone who loves you and cares about you than it is from someone who doesn't give a fuck about you.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 05:22 PM
1

Hunger is not an emotion. It's not healthy for human beings to disassociate Of course it is. The alternative is to place emotions on a pedestal.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 01:30 PM
1

Of course there are, women have equal rights in the west the right to vote etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 01:29 PM
1

And if the husband is an employee he is dependant on his boss too, right? So then the husband, wife and any children are all dependent on the husband's boss? Seems risky. No more than the wife being employed by her boss.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 01:28 PM
1

You should not let emotions guide your life
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 01:27 PM
1

Emotions are feelings that cause sensations. Hunger is not an emotion. Also, thoughts aren't real by your logic because they're also intangible. Yes thoughts aren't real, but they can be correct objectively speaking. Try it. Try thinking that you can fly. It will not grant you that ability. Just like feelings. Feelings can feel very important, but they aren't. Once you learn to control your feelings you will be better off than you were when you placed feeling sad on the same level as needing nut…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 04:35 AM
0

Feelings as in sensations and emotions are two different things
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 04:07 AM
1

Yet again, she isn't self sufficient unless she owns a business. Her being hired is at the discretion of others. Her not being fired is at the discretion of others. She is not self sufficient any more than a woman who depends on her husband for money. She's still depending on others for money. But with a husband, the person she depends on is someone who cares about her and has a stake in her wellbeing.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 03:56 AM
1

Was the answer yes or no?
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 03:40 AM
1

I don't though because you didn't answer
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 03:38 AM
1

In contrast, an employee is entitled to the agreed upon wages upon performing the agreed tasks. She can be fired at will. At any time for any reason. Even if she does her job perfectly.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 03:21 AM
1

It's obvious to women, they just don't like it because in modern times they can sleep with men out of their league so it confuses them. We remove that option and things will sort themselves out. And women marrying young typically ends up in them becoming financial dependent on their husbands, which is not a good thing. Let's say we accept this idea (which i don't necessarily) how is that not better than their boss or the state who doesn't give a fuck about them or have any stake for their well b…
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 02:26 AM
1

What is going on now is immoral. There was no force back then. Women chose who they married.
/r/PurplePillDebate26/06/25 12:41 AM
1

You're creating new criteria speculatively.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:57 PM
1

I wouldn't doubt they tax global income, but I've never heard of the rest, do you have a source?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:51 PM
1

If there is a culture of everyone being married young it sorts itself out. It's obvious to everyone, even you although I know you want to deny it.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:50 PM
1

Nah. America used to have a culture of being married young and forever. The government stepping in to try and recreate that is not immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:45 PM
1

I've never heard that
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:43 PM
1

No my argument is women should like and desire the men who are their equal or else they will be outbred by societies which do not have rights for women. Thus their daughters or granddaughters will have no rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:42 PM
2

No but I've seen it. Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:40 PM
1

I don't know how to explain to you that one without the other is immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:40 PM
1

I don't see how or why you would come to that conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 11:39 PM
1

The values of western culture vs those of third world countries etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:49 PM
1

Because you were not clear?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:49 PM
0

I don't know what you mean.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:33 PM
1

I didn't say you threatened me. I was asking you to clarify your meaning.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:33 PM
1

Correct in this context means the way to ensure the future will still have western values.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:32 PM
11

She tells the people that you "made her feel uncomfortable" and they don't at all attempt to suss out whether or not the woman's feelings are based realistically on anything you did. They don't go "well maybe he didn't mean to?" Or ask "so all he did was ask you out?" That's sexist because you are supposed to just shut up and believe women without question.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 10:01 PM
1

I've explained how they benefit. You can tell me how you disagree if you'd like. Society needs more people to continue functioning.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:58 PM
1

And then every following generation will increasingly have the value of the immigrants until western values don't exist anymore.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:44 PM
-3

Your car is an actual object or thing. You feeling sad is not an actual thing outside of your perception. The emotions don't exist in any objective way.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:43 PM
1

Are you threatening me?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:34 PM
1

I don't care. Why is that relevant
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:32 PM
1

Yes and having kids ensures more taxpayers for said services.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:28 PM
-4

Yes and none of those things are actual things either. Just feelings
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:27 PM
1

What you mean when you said no
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:09 PM
1

Can you please elaborate?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:07 PM
1

I agree
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:06 PM
1

There's no threat.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:05 PM
1

I'm not sure what you mean. Same as any tax
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:02 PM
1

There what is?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 08:02 PM
1

For society? Continued work force and tax money.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:57 PM
1

How? The birth rates in areas with less rights for women are higher and even if they plateau will remain higher for decades. How will this not result in them inheriting the planet?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:56 PM
1

And if such a society were to exist which used force to redistribute relationships you could leave society and go live in a cave why keep bringing up that you can leave?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:53 PM
1

Ideally women would just get with their looksmatch and love them happily. Why can't that be something which happens?
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:49 PM
-5

Beginning to decline in 2050? So what? Still will outcast western nations. Then we will have Pakistan here in America instead of the western values because women refuse to use the freedom given to them in a way which ensures the next generation of humanity will enjoy the same freedom.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:48 PM
-2

If they do not use their freedom in the correct way, those other options are inevitabilities.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:46 PM
-6

Love isn't an actual thing. It's piffle poff. It's just a way to describe a feeling you have.
/r/PurplePillDebate25/06/25 07:44 PM
1

Those who support Trump think the civil liability is meaningless due to lack of evidence other than "trust me bro"
/r/PurplePillDebate19/06/25 05:52 AM
1

Male entitlement is an inherently sexist concept. You don't have to say specifically that.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 02:39 PM
1

Your starting off with the idea that men are the ones who find what women are or aren't attracted to problematic. They are the ones with the problem. And working your way backwards. That because men are having the opinion, the opinion is meaningless and sexist. That's just sexism. You also seem to presuppose that, There are no "right" or "wrong" preferences, so nothing about them is a matter of "should" anything. Why? How does that follow logically?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 07:30 AM
1

If you spent "way too many words" and you can't answer a simple question i think you should examine why your point is not clear even after spending "way too many words".
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 05:51 AM
1

I'm trying to understand you here. So because a man said it, it is male entitlement? If a woman told you to examine your attractions it would not be male entitlement? You should, men should, everyone should think about things and not be freaking instinct driven monkeys. Humans greatest asset is and always have been their minds. Going "i shouldn't examine my monkey instincts and telling me i should is male entitlement" is absolutely fucking wild. My nose isn't plugged just because I am not attrac…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 05:48 AM
1

It's male entitlement to prescribe what women should or shouldn't do wrt what we find attractive, yes Nobody said this. If we had a problem with our preferences, then we would be the ones changing it of our own accord. But you wouldn't because you said that why examination would be male entitlement. So you refuse to examine yourself and your feelings and then you go "well we aren't the ones with the issue with it!" This is the equivalent of saying you don't have an issue with the smell of your f…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 05:37 AM
2

Wait it's male entitlement for women to even examine themselves? Jfc The phrase "a life unexamined is not worth living" is a famous quote attributed to Socrates, emphasizing the importance of self-reflection and critical thinking for a meaningful life. Socrates believed that without introspection and questioning one's own beliefs and values, a life is devoid of purpose and value. Examining and thinking critically about yourself has nothing to do with male or female entitlement. It's female entit…
/r/PurplePillDebate14/06/25 05:20 AM
1

When did I say that?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 09:18 PM
1

Someone being able to do what they want is not necessarily fair.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 06:14 PM
1

I didn't necessarily say I had a solution to this issue, nor that I thought one should be enacted. The gigantic leap from "women used to be attracted to their match" to "you want to use force on them to make them have sex with men they don't like!!"
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 03:16 PM
1

I didn't suggest force be used on anyone. Why are you claiming i said something i didn't? This is the most feminine form of argument. Leap straight to being dishonest about my point and claim I'm suggesting force.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 02:51 PM
1

If not, its due to social media and yaas kuween culture. People used to pair up to marry (when being married young was a thing) just fine.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 02:44 PM
1

Sure. I don't see what the point of that question is.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 01:57 PM
2

Why would that be the distribution? I'm not 70 and maimed
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 01:32 PM
2

Individuals might have issues with x y or z. But society as a whole has no such issue. Whereas a man who is unsuccessful for whatever reason is facing the opposite, society frowns upon him, but Individuals might sympathize.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 03:43 AM
0

It seems to me only men are expected to be better than their desires. Women can F a guy every day of the week, get as fat as she wants, etc and society will just applaud her and call her brave. Just like you did when you framed this as men being mad women have sexuality.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 03:24 AM
4

Women are not taught self control from a young age, or at the very least don't need to practice it in the same way. There's nothing women want to do that society frowns on generally speaking. And they are more agreeable by default. So you're kind of not really addressing the actuality of the situation. A tiger who is told he can't eat carrots is not exercising self control by not eating the carrots. This is like women. They are told not to fight etc but generally speaking they don't want to anyw…
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 03:22 AM
-1

It would not be fair if sex is equally distributed, as this neglects if people WANT to have sex with the people they got distributed to Why wouldn't they?
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 03:18 AM
8

Men don't respect and admire dominant men holistically speaking. They do admire someone more adept at them at a skill they desire, or someone brave enough to do something they aren't sure they would attempt. It is not the personality but the accomplishment.
/r/PurplePillDebate12/06/25 12:29 AM
-1

Yeah that's the weird part. It's just nonsensical from a man's perspective because it's not based on any logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 03:27 AM
-3

What you're missing about these scenarios is that women will move from "issue" to "issue" it's not one thing. It's a never ending shit test spree. Then once a man finally goes "you like to vacuum every day I do it every third day if you want it done that frequently you do it" suddenly she's a victim and she tried to salvage the relationship and he just wouldn't listen.
/r/PurplePillDebate09/06/25 02:55 AM
–

But they don't help. I've had some success with women I'm married but I don't respond to every post with a weird anecdote about how great I am. I recognize I'm lucky being 6'2 etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate08/06/25 08:24 AM
1

They really aren't. Let's say you have a peanut allergy. Who is responsible for you saying no to food with peanuts in it?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/06/25 03:16 PM
1

While I agree the system is flawed I think we need to continue it until we come up with something better rather than scrapping it and letting people suffer.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 05:58 PM
1

I guess only red pill men get to speculate, and then they get to pretend to be above such conversations when speculation doesn't suit them anymore. You're free to speculate but I can't really engage with it passed "I don't agree". "if you file for divorce you're the one choosing to end the marriage", and I'm challenging that idea by calling out some of the implications of it. You're speculating on a situation. All we know is the one who files ends the marriage. Oh aren't you cute, you've been as…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 03:42 AM
2

If you don't care then why are you arguing with me lmfao
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:24 AM
1

It's everyone's responsibility. Anyhow, I haven't worked in over a decade... and I'm part of "everyone," so clearly not "everyone" has to work to live. You never worked a day in your life?! Well that explains a lot. But that means you got lucky and are living off of someone else's work, maybe a parent grandparent etc you don't prove the point wrong. I didn't say everyone has to work every moment of their lives.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:23 AM
2

Your end goal for society.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:19 AM
1

A mom is considered a single parent even if the father takes them on weekends.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:19 AM
1

Men aren't to blame for unwanted pregnancies.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:18 AM
1

Turn them into "slaves"? Everyone has to work to live. We don't live in a post scarcity science fiction utopia.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:16 AM
1

It's no more coercion than any other tax. What is your end goal? No responsibility for women whatsoever.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 02:06 AM
1

You couldn't think of a response to the idea that red pill men choose easy women, complain about them, and then project the traits of those women into the general population? No response to the idea that a "better" caliber of women could be found if they looked in appropriate places? This is complete speculation. I said i wasn't interested in your speculation. You could also attempt to argue with my point that it's incredibly convenient to be able to mistreat and/or physically leave your partner…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:37 AM
1

It’s racist to say the people coming are hostile. It isn't racist to say there are hostile cultures. Also immigration is needed because they often end up in service, agriculture or caring roles which most “homegrown” people do not want due to low wages, under appreciation and the physical labour. We don't need cheap foreign labor. That's racist. Also the world is already over populated just because some people had the misfortune of being born in a country with extreme poverty or conflict doesn’t…
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:30 AM
1

You're simply wrong but even if it's possible why risk it? Why not just encourage our culture to have more kids if we want our culture to survive insured of importing people from hostile cultures and hoping for the best?
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:21 AM
2

So we can just endlessly import Muslims but they will never be the majority
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 01:16 AM
1

There's nothing to engage with in your post.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 12:38 AM
2

I'm asking you what happens when the majority of people are muslim.
/r/PurplePillDebate06/06/25 12:01 AM
2

I said nothing racist. Asian people birth rate is lower than ours. Mexico very religious. And yes they usually assimilate to the culture of the majority but what happens when the majority is muslim?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 11:22 PM
1

I'm not interestedin your speculation or sarcasm
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 11:06 PM
1

I'm not limiting their options. They can pay higher taxes if they want
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:58 PM
1

What offset?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:25 PM
1

There might be a book but it's merely a book on the subject. The paradox of choice is a concept introduced by psychologist Barry Schwartz which suggests that the more options we have, the less satisfied we feel with our decision. https://thedecisionlab.com The Paradox of Choice - The Decision Lab And I know that people think they want infinite choices. I've addressed this so many fucking times now. The thing is, having more choices, leads to less happiness with your choice reliably. You're alway…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:24 PM
1

How? Slightly higher taxes?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:14 PM
1

I'm confused as to why this late in the discussion you're asking for this
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:12 PM
2

There are no rights being removed and no force being applied. And the idea that society should collapse so women can never have to contribute a single thing is so heinously absurd I can't believe that people can voice it without getting a nosebleed. Yes all the possible advances and happiness etc should never occur because it might mean women can't squat recklessly on chad cock? Jesus fucking christ.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:06 PM
1

Yes but not enough to offset how much women take in welfare. That's the issue.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:03 PM
3

Ah yes, let's import people from places where women have less or no rights so they can outpopulate the people who want women to be equal until they are the majority population and turn america into a women's rights nightmare. Very rational.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 10:02 PM
1

It isn't a book? It's a will studied phenomenon. I have a lot of friends and a girlfriend and we all mutually chose the people we wanted to be with from the many choices we had lol. I really don't see how that's relevant at all or why you think I care what you did.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:59 PM
1

Single women are the ones who are incurring the tax. The reason that couples are not getting married young and forever anymore is women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:41 PM
1

And I'm saying yes I know you think that. That's what the paradox part of the paradox of choice is. What is it you're not understanding about that?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:35 PM
1

I never advocated for anyone to choose for them. Why are you lying and claiming i did?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:26 PM
1

Taxes aren't considered a punishment.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:24 PM
1

Nobody is choosing for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:23 PM
1

If they are married to another woman and they have kids they will not be taxed at a higher rate than any other married couple with kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:23 PM
1

They still very to decide who and yes people think they want infinite choice which is why the paradox of choice is called a paradox.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:21 PM
1

I'm not forcing anyone. Just incentivizing it. Force would be making them do it. Not just trying to make it more appealing
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:19 PM
1

Functionally infinite is indistinguishable to a human from infinite. The functionally infinite choice is who to be with. So if you have unlimited time, you functionally have unlimited choice. And that produces less happiness as proven by the paradox of choice. You are less happy about the choice you have and you always have fomo you're missing out and anxiety. Whereas if you got taxed at say 25 you'd have what amounts to a deadline limiting the time to make their choice which seems like it would…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:18 PM
1

Please answer my question
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:12 PM
1

You think everyone who is single is single by choice? For example lesbians don't want to be with any man. Taxing them more would be trying to force them to be with men they don't want. Or does your plan exclude them? No they could have babies. So they will get the tax.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:11 PM
1

The paradox of choice is a proven paradigm why would mate selection defy it?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:10 PM
1

Having infinite choices, paradoxically, leads to less happiness with any choice. This isn't about limiting the number necessarily, but the time. I think it's proven by the paradox of choice that women would be happier with their choice if it was not functionally infinite.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:06 PM
2

Forcing someone to pay more because they don't want to suck the dicks of men they don't want is very much a punishment. They would still be taxed if they did that. Sucking dicks if men they don't like isn't going to get them out of the single tax.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 09:01 PM
1

I'm not trying to force them to be with men who they don't find attractive they would still choose their husbands what aspect of the latter statement are you having trouble with? I say "they would choose who they want to be with" and you seem to hear "force them to be with men they don't want to be with". Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:59 PM
3

I didn't express entitlement to women at all. And I don't want to punish them. Imposing taxes to help society isn't a punishment
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:54 PM
1

Have you ever heard of the paradox of choice?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:52 PM
–

And people will suffer during the overhaul.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:51 PM
1

Yeah they should have chosen to like each other. Love is a choice. If you get married you promised to choose love every time.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:49 PM
2

I'm focused on creating the most statistically sounds environment for the kids not outliers and excuses.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:48 PM
1

People should have kids so the elderly and disabled do not suffer. Maybe you don't care about those people and you are fine with human suffering but I'm not.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:48 PM
1

I don't support that. Women should choose who they want to be with. But for the sake of society we should encourage that to happen ASAP
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:43 PM
1

It's about increasing the birth rate because if we don't have enough people paying into social security and Medicare the disabled and elderly will die in poverty on the streets. But sure it's about men. Jesus christ.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:41 PM
1

This isn't about men but what is necessary to avoid suffering in society.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:37 PM
2

What is the issue here? Can you put it into words?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:35 PM
1

Because I don't want the government to take my and other men's money to support women i have nothing to do with?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:35 PM
2

The 1950s to the 1970s women self reported happiness was the highest and it has been dropping ever since. The sexual revolution and the freeing of women from any expectations has not made them happier. Have you ever heard of the paradox of choice?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:34 PM
1

I say we do both.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:32 PM
2

Single mothers produce worse outcomes in children. I don't just want kids born i also want them happy and healthy. Best way to do that it's intact family structure with mom and dad in the home statistically speaking.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:31 PM
2

Yes I would assume so. But you're under the opinion that the answer to depression is always pills? We don't need to address the root cause of why so many people are depressed, just pump them full of pills?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:27 PM
1

She can. It will just cost more.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:26 PM
–

I don't think you're stat fits your conclusion. Birth rates are an issue because social security relies on taxpayers. If not enough people pay taxes, people who need Medicare will die in poverty.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:25 PM
1

That's not the stat I've seen but fine let's stick with that. 1 in 5 is pretty terrible
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:18 PM
1

The birth rate is below replacement. That's not "fine" Women take more in taxes than they put in as a whole. Men subsidize them.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:17 PM
1

Women as a whole do not pay enough in to taxes as they take in welfare. So when a woman uses government assistance, the government takes money from men in order for her to get that assistance. Why? That is criminal. Especially because women show zero appreciation and claim they don't need no man.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:17 PM
1

Can you please respond to what I'm saying?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:15 PM
1

Her but wanting to get married is the issue. There's nothing stopping her except the fact that she would be choosing to be miserable instead of happy
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:10 PM
1

The birth rate needs to rise in order to avoid suffering. And why are men footing the bill for women's welfare? Why should women not, if they need money, get it from men who love them vs from daddy government taking it from men at gunpoint?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:09 PM
1

Women are the ones who are revising to pair up. but make no exceptions for women who wouldn't willingly breed under any circumstances. Why would i? Then any woman who wants to not be taxed will just claim they won't under any circumstances.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:07 PM
2

I didn't say i was being anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:04 PM
1

I'm not sure exactly what to respond. What is the significant difference between more money if married and less money if not?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:04 PM
1

The transference of wealth from men to women for one.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:03 PM
1

Why wouldn't she find a man she can love to marry? You're behaving as though she's just going to go "fine I'll find some guy but I'll hate him!!" Why wouldn't she simply find a man who she loves to marry?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:02 PM
1

I don't see how that's significantly different from tax incentives to be married
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 08:00 PM
1

I went them to, if they need monetary assistance, get it from men who love them and willingly give it to them rather than having the government take it from the men at gunpoint while women pretend they are independent and don't need no man. Why is that wrong?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:58 PM
1

There's already tax incentives to marriage.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:45 PM
1

Not any more dangerous than any other tax
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:42 PM
1

No force at all. I'm just trying to make it less appealing to not be in a relationship. They can still just not get into a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:30 PM
1

No i didn't. I said the facts I provided were facts and they support my conclusion. Very different.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:14 PM
1

What right did I suggest be removed? And please quote me where i said they should date men they aren't attracted to.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:13 PM
1

There's no coercion. Society needs a higher birth rate. We tax people for what society needs. I'm perfectly ok with humanity winding down to zero over time. Then your opinion is irrelevant to the topic.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:12 PM
1

I didn't suggest women date men they aren't attracted to. After all like you said "how would you know?" Yes and I'd still like an answer. You can have that kind of relationship now without taking women's rights away you know I didn't suggest the removal of any rights.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:08 PM
1

I've already made my suggestions. They will be taxed at a higher rate. If they are okay with that, then they just live with it.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:06 PM
1

I don't believe i said fact but if I did it is because I believe based on the evidence it's the logical conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:05 PM
1

I don't see how this tracks.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:05 PM
1

Women could see it as women do not have sex until they secure commitment but what if instead they have sex TO secure commitment by baby trapping men who they want. Which is why I don't support forced marriage. Please limit your questions to one at a time. What if they saw their kids as a meal ticket? They had kids, that was the goal. And this already occurs the only difference is that the government takes the money for this meal ticket from men who get nothing in return. The money women need, if…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:04 PM
1

I've already asked you to think about what you're requesting and how it's impossible to prove. If you're logical you'd admit that and you would counter my hypothesis. I've provided evidentiary statements to support my position.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 07:01 PM
1

Not wanting kids is the problem. There is nothing short of forcing me that you could do to get me to be a mother. This isn't about you. I've asked you already to stop trying to make it about you. Are you able to have a conversation without making it about you?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 06:04 PM
1

I explained to you how I've come to this conclusion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:51 PM
1

Round and round we go. We use taxes to make society work all the time. How is this different? We need higher birth rates.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:49 PM
1

Because it's obvious from the data we have in my opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:48 PM
1

Suggesting higher taxes is dangerous?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:45 PM
1

I said it's impossible to prove definitively in the way you're demanding. You have to use other data points to suss it out.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:44 PM
1

I'm suggesting both.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:41 PM
1

I'm saying we increase those
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:39 PM
1

I disagree because taxes to help society has always been acceptable.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:36 PM
1

Why is this about you? Stop thinking about yourself. This is about society, not you.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:36 PM
1

Making being in a relationship more appealing isn't coercion and no fault divorce is not dangerous if you plan on divorcing over nothing just don't get married.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:35 PM
1

How would that benefit society? We are talking about needing to increase the birth rate, so no, no exemption.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:34 PM
1

I'm using what is called an example. Taxes aren't punishment they are necessary to keep society flowing and flourishing. We need to increase the birth rate to keep society flowing and flourishing. Hence the tax on single women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:32 PM
1

What danger have I presented to women?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:31 PM
1

I wouldn't call it punishment. Those who make more money pay more in taxes, its not a punishment it's just how we keep society functioning.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:29 PM
1

I really don't care about you and what you would do and I don't see why you think I would. We are talking about two separate things. How i want men to stop having to pay for women at gunpoint and how to encourage relationships. They just so happen to overlap.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:29 PM
1

Punishing men for women getting pregnant is saying that men are responsible for women's bodies. Women should not have sex until they secure commitment it's not on men to prevent women's bodily functions.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:27 PM
1

These women will choose who they enter relationships with, there will just be more incentive to enter relationships.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:23 PM
1

Because the point is encouraging relationships remember?
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:22 PM
1

I want women to fend for themselves but if they do require assistance it should be from men who love them willingly providing it not taken from other men at gunpoint.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:20 PM
2

I explained how I formed that opinion by looking at various data points whereas your entire rebuttal is just "nuh uh!"
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:15 PM
1

Not really relevant to the point. We are talking about encouraging relationships. If we stop the wealth transfer from men to women, that will encourage women to pair up with men if they need help monetarily instead of asking daddy government to give them money.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:10 PM
2

I've literally just explained how.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:04 PM
1

I'm not sure of your point here. Collectively men pay in to taxes enough to cover those men who collect welfare. The same can't be said of women. So we are taking money from men to give to women. That's just wrong.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:03 PM
1

Why would we punish men for not being in a relationship if women are the ones preventing women from being in a relationship.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:02 PM
-4

They want a sex partner, not a wife. This is a philosophical issue. I'm not interested in arguing philosophy because it's inherently subjective. objectively men say they want a family and a wife. It's women who say they are happier alone. Remember the red pill mantra! Men are the gatekeepers of relationships! Men will spin plates, men will fuck woman after woman! This is a reaction to women's current behavior. They say to spin plates because modern women are all sluts who can't be trusted. If wo…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 05:01 PM
1

Yet again, women end relationships 70+ percent of the time. And men are forced to pay child support. So no, this has nothing to do with men.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:55 PM
1

I'm saying that if you combine the usage of both you get to roughly 30%
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:53 PM
1

Men aren't the ones constantly proclaiming they are happier alone
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:52 PM
1

I'm positing that there is a correlation that I believe is causative as all studies show married women have better mental health than single women. How would they even prove the study which you're demanding? Please think about whether the study you're asking for is even possible before you waste our time.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:19 PM
1

How would I know she was cheating without evidence? So single women now have to start being harassed by the society because they don't want to sk your cck What? And you cry about women not wanting kids anymore, maybe women don't want kids with men like you around? Why are you trying to make things personal? What welfare do single women even get? The standard welfare? And sorry but the married couple thing already happens, I'm suggesting they increase it not by the state but by actual humans thin…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:17 PM
-6

Okay, remove it for single men as well. Single men aren't the problem. Single men want to pair up. Prison time for dad's that walk away, seems fair to me. Women initiate the separation 70+% of the time. Men again aren't the problem. Why? So women can't decide that they dont like there husband? Well, yes. Then they'd be more selective. And not treat marriage so flippantly. No fault divorce also benefits men, its very hard to prove fault even when there is, so your wife can cheat on you for as lon…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:14 PM
-11

Okay, remove it for single men as well. Single men aren't the problem. Single men want to pair up. Prison time for dad's that walk away, seems fair to me. Women initiate the separation 70+% of the time. Men again aren't the problem. Why? So women can't decide that they dont like there husband? Well, yes. Then they'd be more selective. And not treat marriage so flippantly. No fault divorce also benefits men, its very hard to prove fault even when there is, so your wife can cheat on you for as lon…
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:14 PM
–

This is about antidepressants exclusively i said anti depressants and/or anti psychotics.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 04:05 PM
-15

Remove welfare for single women. No child support. Remove no fault divorce. Higher tax breaks for married couples and higher tax breaks for married parents with children. Higher taxes on single women. Telling all hiring quotas for women. No more preferential hiring for women. Over all, make it undesirable to be a single woman. They are a net drain on society and they should be taxed as such.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:59 PM
–

These are facts. Up to you if you would like to believe them or not.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:48 PM
–

You're looking at things from an individual level vs societal. It doesn't matter that a woman dies alone. But once they becomes frequent enough it becomes a societal level issue. Depression (more women than ever are depressed and one in three are on some kind of anti psychotic or anti depressive) for women and for men is on the rise due to this. Birth rates are plummeting. Single motherhood is on the rise which is terrible for children. You can't look at things in a vacuum.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 03:25 PM
1

It is women that rate their looksmatch poorly. It's women who think they should never settle. It's women who argue that you can't negotiate attraction. So in literally every possible way.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 12:26 PM
2

Men not dating equally unattractive women is the fault of women.
/r/PurplePillDebate05/06/25 12:23 PM
1

Men want young thin busty women with specific hip-waist ratios. This is the same as desiring tall broad-shouldered dudes The difference is men want this preferably whereas women want this exclusively
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:59 PM
1

It's not sexist it's just reality
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:57 PM
3

Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:56 PM
-1

No you don't get it you're speaking factually they are speaking emotionally. The fact that everyone settles factually doesn't matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 11:56 PM
1

I don't see how what I said amounts to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 04:05 PM
1

We have to make the delineation somewhere so that we can decide who can vote etc 18 is simply what we landed on. But it doesn't make sense to allow kids to vote as they factually don't have the mental capacity to do so.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:54 PM
1

I'm not sure of your point here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:47 PM
1

What do you mean what is the fact? Every person has the right to life via the constitution. That is a fact. So you must be able to defend that right if someone attempts to violate it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:45 PM
1

The fact is you must be able to defend your life so that is not murder.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:41 PM
1

I'm not going to watch a YouTube video. You can explain how I'm wrong about what murder is in your own words if you would like. If you can't be arsed to do it then I'm not going to watch a video for you.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:34 PM
1

Murder is taking someone's life. There's no emotion about it.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:28 PM
1

I'm not sure of your point here.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:21 PM
2

Things like murder, there's laws against it because the constitution protects the right to life as well as if we did not have murder laws society would not be able to function cohesively.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:17 PM
4

Then provide an example. A law that has no factual reason to exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 03:09 PM
2

Nah we don't. Please provide example.
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 02:56 PM
3

We don't base policy on feelings
/r/PurplePillDebate04/06/25 02:52 PM
1

He's saying women generally. He didn't say there couldn't be any exceptions. You running m thinking you're likely more correct is exactly the issue 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆 🤣 😂 😹 😆
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 03:58 PM
1

You thinking it's a safe bet is you making an absurd assumption about someone you don't know vs a statement about people in general. Please tell me you see the difference
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 03:20 PM
1

No he didn't lmfao. Do you not understand the difference between saying " in my experience x" vs "you (person I don't know) are y"?
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 03:10 PM
1

Nah you made an absurd assumption
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 03:04 PM
0

Yes but your strawman was it was specifically about him and himself being rejected by a woman.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 02:17 PM
0

No it's not. Your experience also includes observation. You know, friends family strangers reading women's posts here. All of those are in the purview of his experience.
/r/PurplePillDebate31/05/25 01:26 PM
1

Yes or no
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:32 PM
1

I asked you a simple question. Is it not good to not harm someone?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:19 PM
1

How is not harming someone not a good thing?
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 08:08 PM
1

What? I didn't say men should do anything because nature. I said it is good that men do not follow their nature. Which is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 03:13 PM
1

Yes that's the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy would be saying men's nature is evil and therefore it's good to act on that nature
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:58 PM
1

The naturalistic fallacy is a logical fallacy that assumes something is good or right simply because it is natural. It's the idea that what exists in nature is inherently good, or that what is natural should be the way things are. Please explain how that is in line with this
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:32 PM
1

I've just given you the definition and it says the opposite
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:30 PM
1

The naturalistic fallacy is a logical fallacy that assumes something is good or right simply because it is natural. It's the idea that what exists in nature is inherently good, or that what is natural should be the way things are. You're wrong about what the fallacy is. Thinking human nature is bad and to be overcome with higher thought is the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:27 PM
1

Yeah I didn't argue they deserve any sort of reward. I agree with you here. It is not evil to not put your life on the line for others.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:24 PM
1

They are saying human nature is bad and men defying that is good. That's the opposite of the naturalistic fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:21 PM
1

The naturalistic fallacy is that which is natural is good. So no that fallacy is not being applied here.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:25 PM
5

But most fathers do that. They are not outstanding at all. That's what the average father does.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:47 AM
8

Outstanding is not a synonym of good. You've listed celebrities and YouTubers. But the dad working 40 hours a week to support his family is a good person.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:40 AM
8

You're mistaking things here. Average is good. Most men are good people generally speaking. Just because he's not standing out doesn't mean he's not good. We don't seem to be using the same terms.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 02:29 AM
3

Then women aren't impressed or cares about the quality of men being good. And no. That is false it is not about only the good things you do. Not evicting someone who is late on rent for example could be considered good, but you're not doing anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:41 AM
3

The qualities of not doing harm to others first off. The exact qualities that make each and every man good in ways that aren't general are going to be different from one to another. If we are speaking generally we have to focus on what they don't do.
/r/PurplePillDebate30/05/25 12:34 AM
1

What? No. The reason it was brought up in this conversation is to illustrate what men think good is. Not to excuse anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 11:50 PM
1

That's not obvious because that's something nobody argued
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 11:22 PM
1

A valid reason for what?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 11:07 PM
1

The law exists because of people who let their lizard brain guide them. If people didn't have those instincts, we wouldn't need the law
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:41 PM
1

What is the excuse here? It's reality
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:35 PM
1

You think you're making a point but the quote itself does not say they are not good for not doing anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:25 PM
2

Yes but the last part doesn't alter that these men are good.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:22 PM
1

You don't really seem to be understanding what I'm saying. It is not their default behavior because they actively deny that aspect of their instincts. But it is their default programming.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:22 PM
2

Apparently all good men need to do is nothing. This implies they are not evil or bad for not doing anything.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:20 PM
1

Quote me
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 10:00 PM
1

Shitty is everyone's default. Hence the lizard brain point.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:59 PM
2

The way I see it, if someone chooses not to yell at me when they’re upset, they’re not promoting good towards me, they’re simply not promoting evil. But by having no impact on you vs actively doing harm to you, they leave you able to be happy. I’d see not evicting a tenant who is struggling as a good action That contradicts your previous point of not doing something is not good, but you must actively promote goodness and happiness.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:59 PM
1

It isn't incompetent to not want to admit something because it damages your position, in fact it's very competent
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:53 PM
1

Nobody said anything about "special cookies" besides yourself. And yet again, what is this nonsense? Unless you want to freely admit that you are terrible people Why would men doing that make you think they are good?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:51 PM
2

Reread your comment and come back and apologize
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:50 PM
1

It's not being defensive to point out you're using ad hominem, in fact saying I'm being defensive is just another ad hominem. Your so called point being that love is just a "Disney" fairytale, and that women should agree with you on that and settle for a relationship devoid of love and care. Didn't say any of those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:47 PM
3

Nope. Neutral is a dnd alignment not a human.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:45 PM
0

What? Yes selfishness is under our control, and it's good to control it! Why would it have to be that men are more animalisticin order for it to be good that they are not giving into their lizard brain instincts? Men and women both have the urges. Society glorifies women acting selfishly more than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:44 PM
0

If it is bad to do x, it must be not bad to not do it. When something is not bad, it is good. Yes there are neutral actions but those don't involve anyone else. Things like not evicting a tenant who is struggling with work, is doing nothing. But it's still good. It's neutral in that you did nothing, but it's still good.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:39 PM
3

So you can be good and do nothing? Huh thanks.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:33 PM
8

Nah women know it's the case they simply refuse to acknowledge it because then they would have to acknowledge most men are good and that shatters the feminist narrative
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:33 PM
0

You're not really addressing the lizard brain aspect. It's an instinct all people have.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:31 PM
1

I've never mentioned my relationship status because it's not relevant. If you want to hide from addressing my points by trying to ad hom go ahead.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 09:30 PM
9

By definition it isn't. It is a positive to not be evil. It is a neutral alignment, but every time a person chooses to not do evil things that is good.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 08:48 PM
1

Men having the urge to be selfish doesn't mean women don't have that urge.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 08:45 PM
-1

Everyone has the urge to be selfish etc. It's called your lizard brain. Look it up.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 08:44 PM
21

Is it not good to not be evil?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 08:43 PM
4

Who says men don't have friends?! Nothing you're saying is grounded in anything but bad faith interpretations.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:51 PM
7

Can men not see what happens with their friends?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 04:36 PM
1

I don't agree. He certainly could have had some wife. Him being stuck on one women is stupid, but not incel. If he was an incel he would have tried a bunch and failed
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 03:00 PM
2

I think if you've been in relationships you know that everyone seems interesting in that first stage.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 02:54 PM
2

I'd say you're splitting hairs here. Finding a spouse is not just about locating someone you think might fit but them wanting you as well. When people say they found someone they don't mean a crush.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 02:41 PM
0

I'm not alone and even if I were it would be irrelevant.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 01:22 PM
1

Then you feel bad for 99% of men.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 03:02 AM
1

Yes you can choose to call shit food if you wanted but no matter how much you feel that is right shit isn't food. This is not an emotional matter.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 01:59 AM
1

This isn't a viewpoint that's an emotional assessment. This is a factual point. Definition based. Your best x means your singular x that is superior to all other xs or it means nothing.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 01:40 AM
1

You can't have more than one best friend. End of story. By virtue of being your best that by definition delineates that they are singularly a better friend to you they are your other friends. You've backed off even further now. Now it's nebulously exceptionally close. What does that even mean? Who are you judging this relationship against? Strangers? Your position makes no sense outside of being some weird attempt at bragging.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 01:36 AM
2

What are you talking about? I never suggested that you should despise someone you're dating. Just that you don't have to be best friends with them.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 01:00 AM
1

You're literally backing off of all your positions. It's not perfect nor are they your best friend now? So it's literally no different from what I originally described. And no you can't have more than one best friend. That's kid shit. It just means a very close friend connection like a person you could waste hours with and laugh and share your greatest secrets with like a very deep emotionally secure connection. This is some next level high school shit. Men and women get along like this during t…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:50 AM
3

I've pointed out that you can enjoy someone's company just fine without them being your bestest best friend in whole world! Childish nonsense
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:46 AM
1

My best friend I met in grade school and went through thick and thin with. I'm supposed to meet a girl who is going to supplant my over 10 years friendship and be my best friend because she's cool to talk to? That's not real life.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:43 AM
1

You can find a powerful meaningful best friend love connection in reality to if you are a half decent person and look for it. I simply don't agree. It won’t be perfect but Then it's not what you describe it will be far more worth the time, the stress, the memories, the potential years of your life, than someone you don’t feel that way about. In theory it would. But it doesn't exist. Both relationships will cause most likely the same amount of stress, or at least hold the potential too, but one o…
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:39 AM
1

Yes I thought it was obvious i meant comparatively sorry I wasn't clear.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:35 AM
-1

What you're talking about is storybook nonsense. I'm a realist. This isn't about what I'd rather do but being realistic. If I believed for a second what a child believes, then I'd be all for trying to find this mystical connection. The fact of the matter is it's nonsense and not only that but it cheapens relationships to think that way.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/05/25 12:31 AM
1

You can enjoy the company of someone just fine without it being some soulmate bestest friend in the whole wide world.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 11:50 PM
1

Marriage is not some poetic best friendship. It's two people willing to put in the effort for each other. Whether or not you like other men or women is completely irrelevant to that.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 11:18 PM
3

But it seems he never found a woman he was interested in having that long conversation with. Leading one to wonder if marriage would exist at all if men had that criteria.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 11:16 PM
1

I'm asking about it in comparison.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 10:51 PM
1

This is like saying "this glass we made yesterday hasn't broken yet so looks like it's just as stable as the steel we made today!"
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 10:37 PM
1

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more sta·ble1 /ˈstāb(ə)l/ adjective (of an object or structure) not likely to give way or overturn; firmly fixed. "specially designed dinghies that are very stable" You could just Google it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 10:27 PM
1

It doesn't mean older.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:40 PM
1

I've already explained my position. If you believe you are not using fallacious logic you rebut.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:40 PM
2

Yes but it doesn't indicate it is more stable then newer countries
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:29 PM
1

K your argument is shit. Better? Can you address that your argument is shit now?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:23 PM
2

I didn't ask how long it was around? The US being newer is not equal to being less stable.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:13 PM
1

What?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:12 PM
0

Let's say this is true. Doesn't this imply women can relate to men but not the opposite? Meaning, is it not possible that women are not as relatable as men are?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:14 PM
1

I do not have to disprove an appeal to nature fallacy. You have to find an argument which isn't inherently fallacious.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:09 PM
2

Yes, and would you say Islam is as stable as the US?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:05 PM
1

It's self evident it was the single largest factor. Doubling the work force overnight relatively speaking is unprecedented before or since.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 05:49 PM
2

No they really don't.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 05:48 PM
1

Yes which is why you put them in a hierarchy based on the definitions provided. I'm not sure what your point is bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 05:39 PM
2

Polygamy is not stable.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 05:00 PM
1

It is not inherent that you would use your freedom in that way. It is better to not use your freedom in that way. No conflict.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:58 PM
1

Increase in demand caused it. The demand increased because the population of those in need of housing increased. Yes, that doubles when men and women live independently. But that happened once. And I'm saying this is the single largest factor. I do think the factors mentioned are sufficient to explain the issues.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:57 PM
1

It doesn't contradict because those things don't inherently conflict.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:54 PM
1

That abuse was the reason we abandoned strict monogamy. Housing isn't priced in a vacuum. It is what the market will bare. Minimum wage and doubling the work force etc allows them to charge these prices. They charge these prices because the houses still get bought. If women didn't join the work force, someone charging these prices would drop the price because nobody would buy the house.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:50 PM
1

Murder does limit freedom. But it does so at the expense of a person’s life. So now someone can say they define better to mean “that which priorities human life first, human freedom second, and human health third”. And you would not be able to argue against them. Yes as i pointed out this is a hierarchy based on the given definitions of the word better. The issue with your continual mentioning of the fact that there is more than one definition is that the definitions given do not conflict with e…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:47 PM
1

You simply said x with no evidence I'm not required to provide evidence to dismiss something submitted without evidence. Minimum wage laws cause inflation. Wages have not grown as they should have to keep up with inflation. If there were 50% less workers each worker would be 50% more valuable. The doubling of the work force was the single largest cause of lower wages in modern history.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:43 PM
1

Yes it is. I'm saying that what you're saying is not true. Yes when women joined the work force relatively quickly it doubled the work force and therefore halved the bargaining power of any given person.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:35 PM
1

Yes we've covered this. It doesn't matter if the definition is subjective because it is the definition regardless. You not agreeing with the definition doesn't change the definition so I don't see why you think that's a relevant point. We have decided that it's better that murder is illegal for example. Even though it limits freedom.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:32 PM
1

Are being stuck in abusive relationships better? Because that is the main reason we even abandoned strict monogamy in the first place. Feminist nonsense. Is being financially codependent on a husband better? When that was the norm a family could buy a house off a single parents salary and the parent working at a gas station. Now we have both parents working 40 hours a week unable to buy a house together. We weakened our collective bargaining power by doubling the work force. How does it fit that…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:16 PM
1

If those things come in conflict you can stack the hierarchy based on the definitions given. If you think freedom is better than health, does what you do with your freedom result in worsening health? And to what degree etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:12 PM
1

I think you fit the most criteria presented by the definition of the word better in strict monogamy. which also isn’t exactly the topic. At the end of his post he qualifies his thinking by saying "if you think there is a better system let me know". Therefore we understand his meaning of logical being the better system than the alternatives.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 04:10 PM
1

Fun and easy is not the goal. That which is the greatest good is more often not fun and easy to obtain. None of the things which humans can be proud of were fun and easy. It's greater to suffer through hardships and honor your commitments than it is to flake at the first opportunity.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:58 PM
1

It doesn't matter what you think it assumes as it is the definition. That is the meaning of the word. That is how it's defined. Your whining about not liking the definition is irrelevant. And objectively speaking, that now raises the question of why should people act according to this definition of “better”, and not act according to their own goals. That's not relevant to the topic. The topic is what is the better system of coupling not why should people strive for the dictionary definition of b…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:56 PM
1

You can prove them to be better via the definition. We aren't talking about what an individual thinks is better. But what objectively fits the definition better. These “games” are just me asking you to demonstrate something is logical when you claimed it was. I simply am showing you it’s not entirely logical, as that is not what logic does. You're not. You're ignoring the definition I provided in order to argue there's no such thing we objective "better" but there is, because it's the definition…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:44 PM
1

Oh no they attempt to get them to write with their right hand!!?? The HORROR!?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:36 PM
1

Please. Name the last person who was harmed or socially ostracized for being left handed
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:35 PM
1

Religion got us here. This is like taking an elevator to the top floor and then going "we are at the top floor now, elevators have nothing to do with it!" https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/02/14/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares-with-prior-generations-2/%23:~:text%3DToday%27s%2520young%2520adults%2520are%2520much,the%2520Silent%2520Generation%2520and%2520Boomers.&ved=2ahUKEwjkho_uvcaNAxWpJzQIHVDbNJAQg…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:32 PM
1

We aren't talking about a type of logic though. That is meaningless. Everything operates on some type of logic. We are talking about what would be logically superior. It's probably the consistent highest "return on investment" for social effort... otherwise it wouldn't BE the default. That's the appeal to nature fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:30 PM
1

Yet again, no sect of Christianity believes that in modern times. You're punching at ghosts
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:28 PM
1

Yes of course there is. Just because religion led to increasing education doesn't mean the trend can't reverse which is what we are seeing now. Extrapolate that for every point he made.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:24 PM
1

I'm not going to deconstruct the English language and get into a philosophical debate. I've provided you the definition which you've asked for. If you don't like it then tough. I'm not going to play games here. I've given you the definition of better as we humans define it.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:23 PM
1

No you literally didn't lmfao.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:16 PM
1

It's not self awareness because you can't even accurately characterize religion.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:13 PM
1

You haven't accurately described Christianity at all. You've been indoctrinated to hate religion
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:09 PM
1

Overview Similar and opposite words Usage examples Pronunciation Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more bet·ter1 /ˈbedər/ adjective of a more excellent or effective type or quality. "hoping for better weather" Similar: superior finer of higher quality greater in a different class one step ahead more acceptable preferable recommended a cut above streets ahead head and shoulders above ahead of the pack/field Opposite: worse inferior partly or fully recovered from illness, injury…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:08 PM
-1

Yes those things are due to religion and monogamy. The degredation of those things are due to people thinking like you do.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:04 PM
1

Right or wrong is not determined by evolution that is an appeal to nature fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:03 PM
1

I've just done it? Being healthy leads to better outcomes, doing what leads to more positive outcomes is logical. Unless you're arguing being fat and ill is logical I've got no idea what you're talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 03:02 PM
1

That is due to the degradation of strict monogamy though? When people married young they had plenty of kids.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:57 PM
1

No it didn't. Slavery was universal. The banning of slavery resulted from religion.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:56 PM
2

No it didn't? The failing of humans to live up to their higher thoughts is not proof that appeal to nature fallacy is not a fallacy. And these instincts have not had enough time to have been removed or altered. Evolution doesn't care about logic, therefore, you can't simply state that there is any logic to following instincts outside of using circular logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:55 PM
1

Yet again, your hatred of religion is unfounded. America's Christian values are what resulted in the society you live in today.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:53 PM
2

Logical for humans. Logically producing the best outcomes for humans. You're doing the appeal to nature fallacy and assuming what would be logical would be to follow our instinctual urges and desires just because those desires exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:52 PM
1

Christianity is not one thing and I think you will find that most sects of Christianity do not simply think women should be "forced" to do anything. They often do believe a woman would be happier at home with her kids than forwarding emails.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:50 PM
0

Yes it does? You think about what is better, being fit and healthy vs being fat and unhealthy. Logically you would rather be healthy than unhealthy. So you choose the path that will most likely lead to that outcome. That's logic.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:48 PM
2

Social chaos for supposed evolutionary benefit is not a good trade off
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:47 PM
2

Is life better in those Muslim societies? More prosperous? The system of monogamy has brought about the most educated and prosperous societies to ever exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:46 PM
2

What is logical about that situation other than satisfying your animal desires?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:43 PM
1

I'm not religion incarnate why are you making things personal?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:43 PM
1

No they are not lmfao. Increasing technology making many resources easier to access doesn't automatically equal more prosperous. For example, you used to be able to afford a house on one parents salary. Can we do that now? No. Children are not more educated now something like 30% of kids aren't reading at grade level now. Children of single mothers (basically nonexistent in yesteryear) are more likely To be less educated impoverished and criminal than kids with two parents which used to be the n…
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:42 PM
1

Didn't say anything about guaranteed. But yes you can analyze your desire for fitness vs your desire for lazyness and choose to go to the gym after weighing each idea logically.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:39 PM
2

In theory if it worked that way in practice it's just men and women constantly switching groups not monogamy plus one or x number of people. There's much less cohesion.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:38 PM
1

Yes but is being socially monogamous logical just because it seems to be the default?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:37 PM
-2

Don't you get it? Any expectation of women is bad and immoral.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:36 PM
1

There's no one religion nor one way to practice any given religion. You're knee jerk hatred and smearing of religion is completely unfounded. Give it some thought.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:34 PM
1

Nope, neither directly or otherwise XD
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:32 PM
2

Never said that bro you're reaching.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:31 PM
2

There is no benefit to species survival for what you described over monogamy in modern times.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:31 PM
-1

You made the argument religion limits diversity of action. I'm simply pointing out that's often a good thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:29 PM
1

It's definitely possible for nearly everyone but it's not always fun or easy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:28 PM
2

He's talking about what makes sense logically not what is the instincts from when we were monkeys rutting in the mud.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:27 PM
2

It also produces better social cohesion and better outcomes in children. The single largest factor in poverty of a child is being the child of a single mother.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:25 PM
3

You're straddling a weird line. What is true of us in an evolutionary sense is not inherently logical for us as beings with higher thought who are supposedly better than our instincts.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:24 PM
2

That's the appeal to nature fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:22 PM
1

And are we more prosperous currently than when marriage for life was the norm? The answer is no. Are children growing into better, less criminal and more educated adults? Nope. By every metric, the new system is worse. Now, your argument appears to be an appeal to nature fallacy. That it is better to do as we would in the wild because reasons. Mate guarding is a remnant of primitive behavior, just like cheating etc.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:22 PM
2

There's nothing religious about what he said
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:18 PM
1

You can certainly act out of logic in harmony with those other things and act illogicaly within emotional confines as well.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:17 PM
2

Some things simply work better than others though. The idea that unlimited freedom brings greater happiness than structure of any kind is completely false by every metric. It feels true, but it isn't
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 02:15 PM
1

That’s the fact. But the idea that “women file more so it must be their fault” skips over why they file That's irrelevant to the point. The concept of the person filing not being responsible for filing is an emotional thought process.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:50 PM
3

That's not at all what any of these studies claim. They claim that the marriages end. Not that men are leaving. You're inserting your own interpretation of what's happening. Women initiate over 70% of divorces. There's a very distinct possibility they are the ones initiating these divorces too!
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 09:06 PM
-1

Having cancer or some disease is not necessarily actively dying. But yes I'm sure some do.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 08:36 PM
0

I'm skeptical of these types of studies. First, how is the data being gathered? Are they simply asking? Because if so, that's not very accurate. Second, they simply say the divorce rates increase not who is initiating the divorce. It could very well be women initiating the divorce.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/05/25 08:15 PM
2

Yes your friend is by definition someone lmfao
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:56 AM
2

Are you honestly suggesting right now that it's impossible to not know if someone is interested in you?
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 02:46 AM
2

You're not deciding you know what's best for her by thinking you'd be a good match And how can you be a good partner if she isn’t romantically or sexually attracted? How do you know if she is or isn't until you shoot your shot.
/r/PurplePillDebate14/05/25 12:15 AM
0

They don't hate everything about her because she complains to him about her current bf because he wants to treat her better. What things does he supposedly hate?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 03:23 PM
7

How does he know this? Has she said so? It seems like he doesn't know this until he asks. If you're arguing he should just know that which is nonsense.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 02:48 PM
4

I asked a pretty straightforward question. What is it about this supposed man that is so anathema to her happiness?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 02:21 PM
3

Men don't date women so they can be used for rides labor money and to listen to women cry over the men using them. If she was with him though? It would be them going to that place together, it would be their money, the work he did would be to build a life together and she wouldn't be crying about other men because he would treat her right. So the idea that this indicates he doesn't really care about her doesn't seem to ring true.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 02:18 PM
3

That's a pretty big if. What do you mean exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 02:16 PM
12

I don't understand this at all. You are friends with a woman. You develop feelings for her because you feel you have a strong bond, share common interests etc. To dare to shoot your shot and express that proves you don't care about her desires at all? Can you not think you'd make a good partner to her?
/r/PurplePillDebate13/05/25 02:11 PM
1

When people take it upon themselves to do harm to others who have broken no laws that's exactly vigilante justice and is illegal and will be punished. Fuck around and find out.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 09:51 PM
1

There's laws against pedos and pervs. If those laws don't cover what you're referring to, your vigilante justice will come with the appropriate punishment. Fuck around and find out indeed.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 09:42 PM
1

Which indicates they don't share your opinion on what constitutes predation
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 09:39 PM
1

You can have the opinion that should be a law. Thankfully nobody seems to share that opinion and it's not a law. Too bad.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 09:09 PM
3

What? I believe that laws are fair because we have to have standards which are objective. We cannot live by each individuals subjective whims.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 07:08 PM
4

But morality is subjective.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 07:01 PM
5

You're conflating a lot of things here. So what do you suggest exactly?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 06:29 PM
5

If a man or a woman who is 18 or 19 realizes they’ve made a bad, impulsive decision? Are they allowed to withdraw? Unless there's a legally binding contract of some kind, yes of course. What law would prevent a woman leaving?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 06:09 PM
6

What are you talking about?! Who said to rape anyone? What is going on with you?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 05:32 PM
5

I have no idea what you're talking about? I'm saying at 18 they can decide if they want to join the military or not. And if they aren't mature enough, they need to be held to the standard regardless because the only way you can gain maturity is to be treated like an adult. If you're always treated like a child you will never gain maturity. If you're always coddled you will always need to be coddled
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 05:29 PM
5

18
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 05:25 PM
6

You're not making sense here. At what age can someone not be considered a victim? You refuse to answer because you want to reserve the right to call men predators based on your arbitrary emotions.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 05:20 PM
2

Yes!! Exactly!! That's what the guy is saying. That women are as shallow as men if not more and they need to drop the lie that it has anything to do with being nice or a good person etc
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:46 PM
5

Why don't men feel like predators? Obviously varies based on their upbringing, experience, exposure to differing sociopolitical views, and their mental/emotional health status, wouldn't it? But you're avoiding the question. We as a society literally have to decide on an age which is adulthood. This whole emotional processing and shaming is completely useless.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:45 PM
6

At what age are they mature enough then?
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:39 PM
6

Legally? Yes? Morally? Also yes
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 03:35 PM
2

What the fuck are you talking about? Didn't say anything of the sort
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 02:46 PM
5

Men are attracted to women unfortunately all of them being shallow doesn't make him suddenly a sexual or homosexual.
/r/PurplePillDebate07/05/25 01:53 PM
1

I've already explained this. Men have the instinct to take what they want when they want. It doesn't matter what it is. Men also are better than their instincts in general. I can't really get more specific than that. It is innate that they have that instinct, it is not innate that they act on it.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 01:39 PM
0

You don't just get to go "the answer is over there, I won't be more specific and if you don't see my points proven over there it's a you problem" Specifically which of the recent p posts are you taking issue with and what does it have to do with our discussion.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 09:42 AM
2

I think that's partially true.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 01:33 AM
-3

You have no idea what the video says you're knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of women is to call them an entitled man that thinks that somehow women are supposed to live their lives in a way that benefits men and is upset that they don't. As a way to shut down any discussion. This isn't the place for that
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 01:12 AM
0

I'm not seeing the issue
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 01:11 AM
-1

That's not a valid answer on this sub. It's literally the point of this sub for us to discuss these things.
/r/PurplePillDebate02/05/25 12:38 AM
1

That's fair
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 11:55 PM
1

I'm sorry what? What is in your nature is not immutable. People can have instincts they ignore it does not make it not an instinct and not in your nature what you're saying doesn't make sense.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 11:39 PM
2

Similarly, I was raised Christian and taught that it is my responsibility to not tempt men, since you can't really expect them to behave better than they do. That's not what Christianity teaches. It teaches not to tempt men because there will always be bad people both men and women and it's best to protect yourself. Similarly arguments regarding male nature are not "it's okay men do this because male nature" but the same lesson I just espoused, that good (people) men can control their inner anim…
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 11:34 PM
1

And that's a perfectly reasonable opinion to have as well, but you're strawmanning. Myself and others don't have issues with dating but we can recognize the way society is headed and not like it regardless.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 09:54 PM
5

No though it isn't. Men hitting on women seems to get more of a negative reaction than women hitting on men. If the exact same situation occurred and one time it was a man saying x to a woman and the exact same situation where it was a woman saying x to a man the man hitting on the woman would get a more negative reaction than the inverse. Why?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 09:17 PM
0

Why? Who made that argument and what does it have to to do with the question?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 09:15 PM
1

That was a specific experience which led to him formulating this question but the question is not about that event specifically
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:50 PM
0

K we are not talking about hitting on people in the wrong context or with offensive language
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:48 PM
2

Consent has nothing to do with hitting on someone, up until they say no or leave. It's that area he's trying to discuss. You don't walk up to a woman and say "excuse me may I have consent to hit on you?". You try and get shot down and walk away. The question is why are women so rude and vitriolic about being hit on?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:40 PM
1

He literally says in his experience and you ask him for a source? How is he supposed to source his own experiences?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:37 PM
1

To ask
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:36 PM
5

This is a meaningless statement.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:35 PM
-3

You can't justify the shaming of men who are hitting on women by suggesting that they might not take no well because some men out there don't. Absurd.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 08:34 PM
0

Yeah when I said that I meant relatively I thought that was obvious. You really think I thought that zero women had jobs and then the next day 99%of them did?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 04:06 AM
0

I didn't say they didn't, but women did join the work force as a whole pretty suddenly relatively speaking.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 04:02 AM
-1

I didn't say I had struggles nor that women are the cause of struggles I didn't say I had I think it's pretty rude to put words in other people's mouths but I guess it was probably just the patriarchy that did that, not you. Men are hornier than women biologically we know exactly what causes it, testosterone.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 03:13 AM
1

Yes even when they are selfish they are the victims of the patriarchy! Is there any time where women can just be x more than men if x is not a generally good thing? Men can be more horny than women and that is generally seen as bad but women being less horny? Oh well of course that's just society or whatever. Does that not get tiresome? Why is it men can have generally negative traits but women can't?
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 03:01 AM
0

If their behavior and thought processes are deeply and inherently self centered, as what you described is, then we must not shy away from calling it what it is.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:52 AM
1

Men make more because they take on more dangerous and physically challenging jobs. Not because they are just given money
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:39 AM
1

That's not how that works... she's still dating someone who makes just as much as her
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 02:31 AM
1

I disagree with the concept entirely. If women didn't join the workforce and double the workers over night men would still be able to afford to support a family working at a gas station. Men are working just as hard for less than they used to get.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 01:36 AM
3

Yeah I'm not into the whole "let's explain things in a way which always excuses for women" any time anyone dare suggests women might have a negative trait it's always "but they are weaker" "but patriarchy" "but society!" I agree with the latter part completely though.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 01:34 AM
5

I think it's very possible they are just inherently more self centered. For better or for worse. I'm sure this will get deleted because any mention of women not being spectacular beings of pure light seem to be frowned upon here, but it's certainly possible that they are not photon based perfection.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 01:13 AM
1

Not at all in the same way that women do.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 01:09 AM
0

Men didn't shed it though women still want men who make more than them.
/r/PurplePillDebate01/05/25 01:09 AM
2

I'm glad for you and it's fine to want that, but most people ain't all that special.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 04:51 PM
1

I think you're misinterpreting me. I said men only care about being with women they desire. I didn't say women don't care about being with men they desire, but also that woman like to use the partner they get as a way to boost their ego in a way men do not. This is to say a woman might be with a man she doesn't find super desirable if he is rich or famous or in some way boosts her reputation in some way. Men do not seem to do that nearly as much.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 02:53 AM
2

This doesn't address what I've said at all. I didn't say men want to feel settled for but it's a completely different topic and for completely different reasons than women. Men say women don't give them enthusiastic sex etc if women settle for them. That's not what women say about why they don't want to be settled for. It seems to be just a blow to their ego.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 02:23 AM
1

I said perfect in his opinion aka his ideal.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 01:03 AM
2

What terms did I change?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:56 AM
1

That's fair
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:56 AM
-1

How would you know?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:54 AM
1

Guess I thought it was relevant to state I have more experience with women. Guess it wasn't. Guess I'm sorry.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:54 AM
2

By definition if they are not you're ideal, you're settling.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:54 AM
1

I got kids and a wife
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:39 AM
1

You are similarly those things, so why are you in any better position than me?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:37 AM
2

How can that not be? Either you are the pinnacle of perfection in that man's opinion, or they are settling for you. Aka taking what they can get.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:29 AM
1

Why are you, a woman, telling me, a man, how men think?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:27 AM
1

getting an ego boost by being chosen by someone with the most positive bonafides. That's everyone This is what I'm responding to.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:26 AM
0

I didn't suggest they don't?
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:26 AM
0

val·i·da·tion /ˌvaləˈdāSHən/ noun the action of checking or proving the validity or accuracy of something. "the technique requires validation in controlled trials"
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:25 AM
2

This has not been my experience whatsoever.
/r/PurplePillDebate29/04/25 12:24 AM
-5

Men want to get with women they find attractive because they gone them attractive not for an ego boost.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 11:50 PM
-3

Men do not look to get with women in order to get an ego boost.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 11:49 PM
-2

So women really believe that some guy out there will think that they are the pinnacle of human evolution? Like every woman thinks that they are that woman and they just need a guy to recognize it? Because that's narcissistic to a ridiculous degree. Most peeps aren't that special.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 10:58 PM
-7

No it's really not
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 10:57 PM
1

Your questions make no sense to me. What do you mean nobody wants these women? Who said that nobody wants these women? Why would they need to assume anything? They can listen to other men talk. They can observe women who make a male dating app profile and become absolutely shocked by how terrible it is. They can talk to their friends. How would they know what the women's standards are? They can observe women around them and the guys they go after? You're questions are extremely strange.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 02:14 AM
0

I'm not sure what you're talking about and how that relates to our conversation. Are you asking how men can know women's standards are too high unless they themselves are experiencing not being good enough? The answer is, men can observe other relationships, and the lack thereof.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/04/25 01:05 AM
0

Her standards can be too high generally. It doesn't have to be relevant in your opinion.
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 01:43 PM
-10

How is there a discrepancy there?
/r/PurplePillDebate27/04/25 06:18 AM
9

This doesn't even really specify what it supposedly found. They have a group bias for women? Everyone does. It's been proven before that this is the default case.
/r/PurplePillDebate23/04/25 03:41 AM
-1

That's not the kind of loneliness that's being discussed.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/04/25 07:02 PM
2

It's one of the most researched psychological phenomenon in existence.
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 02:40 AM
3

Halo effect begs to differ
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 02:27 AM
1

So it's a just world fallacy no matter what? If you think people get what they deserve and if you think they don't?
/r/PurplePillDebate17/04/25 02:14 AM
–

Until you get to things like "contentless rhetoric" which has no specific guidelines and is completely subjective. That of obviously just their way of controlling the conversation.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 06:36 PM
–

I think there's a significant difference between dead bedroom and just not as often as you'd like
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 06:34 PM
0

.... I'm saying when women commit violence against men it's less frequently reported.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 03:45 AM
4

I think you need to understand that when you're talking about these stats these are the numbers which are reported. Women report partner violence more often than men.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 03:42 AM
1

It exactly is. A rubber band which is more elastic, will not be as tight around any given object. You don't seem to understand basic science.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 03:15 AM
1

So vaginas are completely interchangeable and they are the only part of the body which are completely universally the same is your stance?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 03:12 AM
1

It wasn't an edit it was there from the start.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:45 AM
1

Elasticity is just tightness by another name what are you talking about.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:45 AM
1

Did you not the part about this being a rhetorical question or did you just not understand what rhetorical meant? Men report some vaginas are tighter than others. How on earth!!?? Oh wait, because there's factors which you're not considering, seemingly purposely so. Some women rip all the way to their asshole during birth, others giving birth to the same size baby barely rip at all! How on earth!!?? Because it seems some vaginas simply aren't as tight as others. You know, how literally every par…
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:39 AM
1

Did you not read the "this question is rhetorical" part or are you just unfamiliar with the word rhetorical.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:35 AM
1

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂 Why do men report some vaginas are tighter than others?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:35 AM
1

We are talking about sex, default size in terms of sex is not default when sex is not in the picture.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:31 AM
1

Then how do bigger dicks fit? (This question is rhetorical in order to illustrate how the tampon point isn't relevant)
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:28 AM
1

No I don't want to know that? The question is about vaginas, not penis
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:19 AM
1

Has nothing to do with me or my person experience. Nice strawman though.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:15 AM
1

Why do you think this is relevant to the conversation? "Hey is there variable vagina size?" You, instead of any reasonable response "DEATH GRIP!!!???"
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:04 AM
1

Jesus christ. That's not the point.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 02:01 AM
1

Nobody is talking about masturbation.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 01:57 AM
1

We are talking about sex though. Not tampons
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 01:49 AM
1

You seem to not want to have the same conversation as me. Yes some women do, some use more! Some prefer very girthy dicks, some say that hurts. So there is obviously a significant amount of variability.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 01:38 AM
1

The conversation is about sex. When I said default I assumed it was obvious I was talking in regards to sex
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 01:10 AM
-1

Ah I see the confusion. I'm talking about sex. What is their size during sex.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 12:56 AM
-1

What is it with the women here? So you think every vagina is exactly the same size?
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 12:53 AM
1

Why do you keep bringing up tampons
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 12:31 AM
1

Vaginas have natural variability just like a penis.
/r/PurplePillDebate16/04/25 12:01 AM
0

Look, there's a million things you can measure in a woman's body, just don't choose something that can stretch x5 times a big dick We aren't talking about how much it can stretch, but what it's default state is.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 11:03 PM
9

How would the latter paragraph be "just"? The reason what you're saying is the just world fallacy is that you're assuming that bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people. You assume everyone gets what they deserve. That's fundamentally the just world fallacy, and also fundamentally incorrect.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 10:46 PM
2

The rates at which men leave their wives thing was debunked by the peeps who performed the study
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 02:39 PM
6

This is just world fallacy.
/r/PurplePillDebate15/04/25 02:20 PM
–

There's no reason to think that a virgin would be bad in bed. It's not rocket science.
/r/PurplePillDebate13/04/25 05:11 AM
4

I didn't say that others could. I said women decide what they themselves will tolerate and will leave if you cross that threshold. I'm not saying men should or should not conform to these expectations, just that the expectations exist.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 04:29 PM
4

What are you talking about? How does acknowledging a woman gets to decide if she feels a man is too emotional indicate a lack of self respect and why are you so mad here?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 04:25 PM
6

Why are do many of your comments some passive aggressive nonsense?
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 04:22 PM
3

Oh well case closed if you're experience isn't what others experienced they are wrong and you are right! Wtf. Who decides what a normal healthy emotional display is. Let's not be nebulous and dishonest and say "society" or something. Within a relationship, it is the woman deciding what is an acceptable display of emotion. When we look at it this way, your post is pointless because you're going "if you display emotions in a way acceptable to the woman you're with, she will accept that!" Which is …
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 04:20 PM
-1

The "required" work? Required by whom and for what? I've always done fine with women, while not doing most of those things.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 01:13 PM
1

Every person, man or woman, has their own quirks in bed, turn on and offs etc. A woman with relatively little experience would actually be more likely to try and figure out what yours are vs a woman who has been with a ton of men and will simply try that thing some other guy liked.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 01:10 PM
2

There's no evidence or any reason to believe women get better at sex or are more eager to have sex if they have more partners.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 04:16 AM
-1

But nearly all men are attracted to nearly all women. So it's not a problem they have. It's very easy and convenient to say you'd give the same advice if the shoe was on the other foot when the other foot is a wing.
/r/PurplePillDebate11/04/25 02:33 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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