The Red Pill

Let M = monogamous. Let P = human.
You have asserted that the "fundamental redpill" theory is:
If P, then ~M.

Assume "fundamental redpill" is true - that is, assume that P implies ~M.
I am monogamous, so M. I am also a human, so P. But according to our assumption, P implies ~M. Thus, we now have ~M and M. This is a contradiction. Therefore, Redpill theory is false.

 

It’s not an assumption and it’s not a black and white issue. Some animals pair bond for life, humans are not one of them. 50% of marriages end in divorce. Animals that pair bond for life only have one sexual partner throughout a lifetime. Humans have 4-7 on average throughout a lifetime. Humans pair bond for a few years and then move on. It’s not that big of a deal and it’s not that hard to understand. The evidence is literally all around you. You can try to make some math equation out of it or make some philosophical truth but sexuality doesn’t work like that. Redpill is simply being aware of intersexual dynamics and evolutionary psychology. Redpill saves lives and takes nooses off of necks by not setting men up with false expectations for what a relationship will be and giving men a place to go when they are left during a bad divorce. Read any book on human evolution or evolutionary psychology and it will enlighten you to redpill concepts. I challenge you to find one piece of scientific literature saying that humans are monogamous.

 

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Either make a point and tell me where the bs is or don’t reply at all.

 

I've already debunked the Redpill. See my above post.

 

Laughable. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your ego investments are showing, nobody who isn’t trying to cling to their Disney fantasy of monogamy would attempt to dismiss studies on evolutionary psychology just so they could sleep better at night.

 

I used your own assertion and basic facts to prove you wrong. I made no assertion, but simply used what you gave me to make a conclusion which is logically consistent. If you don't like logic, that's your choice. But you're making Redpillers look bad.

 

I made no assertions I just referred you to actual literature that I’m assuming you still haven’t read. Again your ego investments are showing. I used to believe just like you, that humans are monogamous. That was the comforting lie. About 10 months ago after struggling to come to terms with it I had to start being honest with myself and go where the evidence was taking me. It’s not easy and I don’t think anybody wants to be told they were lied to but since I’ve discovered redpill content I’ve multiplied my success with women and have improved financially and in the gym and quit porn for over a year, all things I was struggling with in my blue pill days. When you are honest with yourself results will come. Seek and you shall find. Humans are not monogamous. Monogamy was adopted during the agricultural revolution.

 

Ok boomer! (Seriously, I have the freedom to reply to whatever thread interests me, and say only what I wanna say!)

 

‘One side will make you grow taller, and the other side will make you grow shorter.’

‘One side of what? The other side of what?’ thought Alice to herself.

‘Of the mushroom,’ said the Caterpillar, just as if she had asked it aloud; and in another moment it was out of sight.

 

Hilarious, I’m 26. I’m dismissing you calling bullshit unless you make a point. As I said there have been published and reviewed studies on this and I showed where you can find them. Look up Dr. Martie Haselton, “She is the worlds leading researcher on how ovulatory cycles influence women’s sexuality. She is a professor of psychology at UCLA and the institute for society and genetics, edited the leading journal in the field, Evolution and Human Behavior, and directs the Evolutionary Psychology lab at UCLA.”

 

TRPers are kind of like the male equivalent of man-hating cat ladies. Only instead of cats, they have "muh studies."

 

It is crap.

 

Ezactly. We only have science on our side. You have feminists and mainstream media

 

The reason I call such studies bullshit is because they leave out a lot of factors... Like individual women will have differing views on monogamy versus polygamy. Some people are open to having multiple partners, others like myself only want one partner in their life. Not everyone let's their balls or ovaries guide their motivations in life.

These studies also ignore cultural factors, for example a guy living in Europe will very probably view dog/cat meat as Taboo whereas someone who lives in different part of the world can't see for the life of him how it's any different than raising and eating goats and bisons and buffalos. (Similarly a person with religious or cultural background that praises monogamy can never really accept to be polygamous easily and video versa.)

I can go on and on, but you are too married to sticking to your own biased view of watching everything as either redpill or blue or pink or yellow pill, that I don't care.

P.S. I am not saying these studies have zero value, but they aren't gospel either.

 

Who said I am on the side of feminism or the MSM?

 

Dude, hypothesis and assumptions are only a bit of a fraction of what science is.

But RP is 90% hypothesis and assumptions.

We are not cavemen anymore, we are changing constantly. You can't take the context of human race 100.000 years ago and quote it in nowadays circumstances.

Yes we inherited physical and behavioral characteristics from our ancestors. But now we have abilities and possibilities that they could only dream of.

You try to put «science» on the table but you just sound as dogmatic as a priest would. Sad.

 

I didn’t make any assumptions. I’ve been referring to experiments and studies that have data that have been performed by leading evolutionary psychologists and people who are experts in the biology of human sexuality that draw analogs with the great apes, ancient hunter gatherers, modern hunter gatherer tribes that still remain, and cultural practices that have extended from the agricultural revolution to 21st century society. There is nothing dogmatic about what I’m saying and it is not a religion. This is like when religious people say atheists are dogmatic for talking about human evolution then offer nothing but dogma and appeals to emotion to counter their arguments. Sad.

 

Makes numerous assumptions:

 

If your happiness is predicated on your ability to have casual sex, and not on your ability to have long-term relationships, then your happiness will only long as last as your sex life. Hopefully we can agree on that at the very least.

 

Name one “assumption” that I made and I’ll tell you how I drew that conclusion and didn’t just assume it.