TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

2wsy Archive

View 0 posts and 194 comments by 2wsy 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)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Apparently. Well, you don't do a very good job expressing yourself. The law has fundamentally shifted in the cases like this Ok. The law was slightly different 50 years ago. Why are you pointing that out? to the point where jail time isn't a norm. Citation needed. Jail time is so far outside the norm now that fines are considered an acceptable answer. That's not how the law works in Germany. Fines are considered an acceptable answer because it's written in the law.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 07:05 PM
1

I still have no idea what you are trying to tell me.
/r/MensRights23/08/16 03:31 PM
0

I don't know what you are on about, but the sentence for giving false reason for suspicion in germany goes from a fine up to 5 years in jail (§ 164 StGB).
/r/MensRights23/08/16 11:12 AM
30

Justice has a scale, not a pendulum.
/r/MensRights07/09/15 12:57 PM
5

We have universal healthcare where I live. If you have to wait more than 10 minutes for an ambulance they are very busy. Response times in the UK are measured in minutes as well, not hours.
/r/MensRights12/08/15 01:35 PM
2

She was told to wait for a rapid response vehicle with blue lights on, and when it finally arrived three hours later What the fuck?
/r/MensRights12/08/15 11:08 AM
5

I guess for some people a decent amount of freedom doesn't include mutilating children.
/r/MensRights30/07/15 05:46 PM
1

The connection here is that the plaintiff would have to show that they informed the defendant that the defendant--despite being given a copy of the photo in question--did not actually own the photo, but merely had access to it (which will be difficult to do). The presumption, in the court's eyes, would be that the photo was gift (and hence ownership), unless it could be proven otherwise. This might be or might not be the case in a given jurisdiction. All I am trying to say is that it would be fa…
/r/MensRights28/06/15 09:08 AM
0

I made an assumption based on what type of RP I thought was most prevalent Why would you do that? You made the assumption that you know the intent of my action And I was correct, too! and also implied that I should've "learned" Not at all, you said you understand the concept. Apparently not. your lack of ability to argue the point. How would you know, you are still stumbling through the woods trying to find the damn thing. Arguing it is a little too ambitious for you right now.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 01:02 PM
0

"How can it be illegal to share pictures you have been given ownership over?" You assume people who post "revenge porn" online have been given full legal ownership of these pictures. As you have learned today, that's not necessarily the case just because they have access to or possession of them.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 12:33 PM
-2

If you lack a good argument it is okay to admit so. Why do you tend to opt for incoherent half-sentences instead? There's no need for unpleasantness or passive-aggressiveness. Follow your own advice, then. I have no problem understanding the concept, however I don't see how it's relevant to the example provided Let me help you with that, it's simple. You asked how it could be illegal, and this is how. Now you know! how any of the examples given are comparable to someone giving another person a p…
/r/MensRights26/06/15 12:09 PM
0

Have you considered using complete sentences? How does this difference hinder you in grasping the concept of access or even possession without complete legal ownership?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 11:33 AM
1

An example pertaining to RP obviously. There's an inherent difference. Excuse me?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 10:43 AM
2

Please provide an example. I'll provide multiple that are in various dagrees similar to "pictures of you". I let you live in my house. I still own the house. You stream a movie on netflix. Neither you or netflix "own" the movie. You buy a license to play a game on steam. The publisher still owns the game. Best example: \4. You "buy" an ISO standard. You now have access to it, but ISO still "owns" the standard. From their website: All content on ISO Online is copyright protected. The copyright is…
/r/MensRights26/06/15 10:31 AM
0

The operative word in that sentence is given; which is why I didn't write "taken ownership over" I'm trying to say that it is possible to differentiate between "given ownership over" and "given access to".
/r/MensRights26/06/15 10:06 AM
0

How can it be illegal to share pictures you have been given ownership over? Because access to and ownership of are not necessarily the same.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 09:42 AM
1

She earns 10% less in comparison to what exactly?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 09:40 AM
1

Can I say that I think most of these are legitimate in one way or another without getting downvoted? I think many of them are. For example: “When I look at you, I don’t see color.” Could you have possibly picked a worse example?
/r/MensRights26/06/15 09:32 AM
3

In the context of war it made sense once, less so today. This is used in all kind of reports - about car crashes, natural disaster and crime. Differentiating between children and adults would make more sense.
/r/MensRights26/06/15 08:09 AM
4

So ....more "benevolent sexism" in which one spins benefiting from a situation into a negative? It's more that depending on the situation one or the other might be benefitial.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 08:41 AM
3

It's always suspicious when a study claims to control for "everything". It means everything they deemed relevant, but they don't know for sure they thought of everything.
/r/MensRights29/05/15 07:45 AM
-1

Doesn't sound like praise to me anyway.
/r/MensRights28/05/15 09:50 AM
21

The fewer facts the better? I don't like that attitude. If she doesn't want to post them on Facebook, there are other ways to communicate. If he put her through hell for months now, why the fuck did she marry him a week ago? How are prayers going to help any of this?
/r/MensRights15/04/15 09:02 AM
12

So that would explain the push for women to legally be able to sign documents for financial products and services back in the 1950s, and for the right to obtain a safe and legal abortion? And for women to be free of the threat of genital mutilation in a civilized country? Women (and minorities) have been the target of discrimination for DECADES. Anyone who claims otherwise is an ignorant DOLT. It seems like you answered to the wrong topic.
/r/MensRights14/04/15 08:40 AM
8

The idea is to not let what happened turn you into a victim for the rest of your life. So people call themselves 'survivor' instead of 'victim' to basically say: "This happened to me, but I got through it and it doesn't define who I am." It's not to garner more sympathy, if at all it does the opposite.
/r/MensRights26/03/15 10:06 AM
9

I enjoyed the standup, but tacking a MGTOW message onto it doesn't really fit.
/r/MensRights03/02/15 12:34 PM
16

I'd like to add buzzfeed to the list.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 05:44 AM
8

You want your children to be who they really are, don't you? I actually do. How about you?
/r/MensRights19/12/14 11:26 AM
5

It would be interesting to see this challenged at the Federal Constitutional Court.
/r/MensRights26/11/14 10:58 PM
1

If you do this, you might as well do it right!
/r/MensRights18/12/13 01:16 PM
2

"[...]The advertisement is sexist as it only condemns domestic violence against one gender – women.” I wonder why that might be? Could it be because White Ribbon is a men-led campaign that encourages Australian males to help stop violence against women? Might that be it? Did these campaigning wits for men’s rights bother to read White Ribbon’s ‘About’ page before they began papering the ASB with complaints? Did the tagline “Australia’s campaign to stop violence against women” not clue them in? S…
/r/MensRights27/09/13 01:32 PM
25

I am actually really glad I was circumcised. I do not want all that extra stuff on my dick. Calling the foreskin "extra stuff on your dick" is like calling your ears "extra stuff on your head" or your fingernails "extra stuff on your fingers".
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:36 AM
1

Manhood Academy.
/r/MensRights19/08/13 10:02 PM
1

You think continuing to defraud a man because he has previously been defrauded is not how the law works. If a woman can defraud a man until he establishes a parental obligation under the law, he will be required to continue to pay mommy support even if he is not a parent. Not only is wrong what you try to say, the way you phrase it is nonsensical.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 08:06 PM
1

Comprehensive = Of large content or scope; wide-ranging. I meant it's other meaning: "of or relating to understanding"
/r/MensRights30/07/13 12:37 PM
1

Could you please decide what you are trying to say and then come back and talk in a comprehensive manner?
/r/MensRights30/07/13 11:26 AM
1

Oh, I'm all for informing everyone. Legally that doesn't change anything though.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:33 AM
1

But persons who became parents long ago should have the option of paternity tests without interference from the mother or the law. I agree, and where I live that is the case. And the fact that a man has been defrauded for 12 years is not a reason to continue defrauding him. Why do you want men situated this way to be forced to be parents if they are not among the vast majority who would want to be parents? Instead, how about criminal charges for fraud for mothers who collected child support frau…
/r/MensRights30/07/13 10:30 AM
1

Why? A mendatory test at birth would suffice.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:19 AM
1

Read again. Testing when child support is requested is too late.
/r/MensRights30/07/13 09:17 AM
1

Yes indeed! In fact, that's what I was getting at.
/r/MensRights29/07/13 05:38 PM
1

That is exactly my point.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 08:41 PM
-6

So you agree testing in case of support payments is not as helpful as it sounds?
/r/MensRights28/07/13 08:40 PM
46

Problem is by that point the man might be a legal parent if not a biological one.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 07:06 PM
5

I know a man who is hemiplegic since he shot himself in the head in an attempt to kill himself, and I know of another case where the guy blinded himself by shooting his temple.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 10:47 AM
2

I've read that its a more risky procedure to have it done later in life. The opposite is true.
/r/MensRights15/07/13 02:10 PM
1

You don't see a connection between feminists frequent reaction of vitriol towards dissenting viewpoints, regardless of validity, and feminism? What are you talking about? This thread is about following quote I think of myself as a humanist because I think it's less alienating to people who think of feminism as being a load of strident bitches and because you want everyone to have equal pay, equal rights, education and healthcare. and about someone who said (in the top comment!) it would imply It…
/r/MensRights03/07/13 08:42 AM
2

This doesn't help me at all, sorry. I see her quote and I see the interpretation, but I don't see a connection betweeen the two. Can anyone please explain?
/r/MensRights03/07/13 12:04 AM
12

It implies any criticism of modern feminists means an opposition to equal rights for women. Where do you get that from?
/r/MensRights02/07/13 01:45 PM
12

Maybe it's a language issue, as I'm not a native speaker, but to me ways to prevent birth are not rights. I would either exclude those (and add things like the right to test fatherhood where that exists) or rename the list.
/r/MensRights14/03/13 12:38 PM
0

You make an important point, maybe we can agree on Because "best interests of the child" above all, but the government doesn't want to put it's money where it's mouth is. or something similar?
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:59 PM
0

I know, and regarding this question 'Because "best interests of the woman" above all.' would be at least the short answer. When it comes to a father paying for an unwanted child however, it is to protect the child, not to shove money in the mothers face. I might add there would be better ways to esure the child's wellbeing, because now it's very unfair for the father.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 03:54 PM
0

Because "best interests of the child" above all.
/r/MensRights07/03/13 10:31 AM
2

[...] in rare instances, lead to life-threatening injuries. [...]
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:11 PM
6

I confirm this is illegal in Europe.
/r/MensRights27/02/13 02:55 PM
21

In fact, according to the german wikipedia, every child, every mother and every father in germany has the right to get a paternity test done, guaranteed by law.
/r/MensRights14/02/13 02:17 AM
1

You bolded the changed parts yourself. I bolded some parts, but I didn't change them you dimwit!
/r/MensRights28/11/12 08:16 PM
1

Those are two different questions. How?
/r/MensRights28/11/12 07:16 PM
1

You're the one who decided to change the grammar of my question I didn't change a thing! rather than answering my original question directly. I did answer your question directly!
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:46 PM
1

Why do you change the subject? This would have been a good opportunity to admit your mistake.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:37 PM
2

I did catch it, but it's annoying when 80% of a discussion are sarcasm. It can also look bitter or get misunderstood by visitors, who will then get the wrong impression of this sub.
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:34 PM
1

Ok, so now you would you agree that belonging to the group that suffered less discrimination could be described as privilege? Here you start getting your tenses confused. No, belonging today to a group that at some point in the past suffered less discrimination can not be described as privilege!
/r/MensRights28/11/12 12:05 PM
1

I don't know about the "throughout" part, history is not only long but also wide. We could agree on "women have historically suffered greater discrimination than men".
/r/MensRights27/11/12 12:27 PM
1

Oh I want to discuss. Then go on: Explain how "Implying that things are now basically equal == denying the history of discrimination against women."
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:54 AM
1

Tell me if you want to discuss, but be warned: You will need to use reason and logic. Otherwise you don't contribute to the discussion and are downvoted.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 11:34 AM
1

Implying that things are now basically equal == denying the history of discrimination against women. At first I wondered how anybody could fail so epic at basic reasoning. Then I saw you frequent SRS.
/r/MensRights27/11/12 12:31 AM
5

You know, there is a difference between past and present. History belongs to the past. If someone is talking about the present, he is not talking about history.
/r/MensRights26/11/12 08:02 PM
4

Hi SRS-Troll! It seems your reading comprehension fails you even if there are no actual words to read because the whole story is told with pictures. What a pity. Have a nice day regardlessly!
/r/MensRights09/11/12 11:27 AM
1

Well, you didn't need to. I never doubted that. It's just really, really bad and does more bad than good, and that is why I criticize it.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:39 PM
1

I don't know why you try to defend this piece of crap. I know it means well. But as you said yourself that is no excuse!
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:24 PM
1

In the worst, most damaging to the conversation way possible. I can think of several better ways to do it from the top of my head. You don'T seem to see the way this alianates well-meaning men while simultaniously ignoring the whole argument that is to make against those "arm chair expert rape prevention tipsters".
/r/MensRights08/11/12 05:15 PM
1

It attempts do so, but what it actually does is ridicule rape. It does so, because it gets so many things wrong in comparison to real satire.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 04:35 PM
-1

the fact that some people don't get it doesn't make it a failure. I agree. The fact that it's stupid makes it a failure. The fact, that it ridicules rape makes it a failure. The fact that it hinders discussion about the real problems makes it a failure.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 03:01 PM
0

So what is the massage that you think lots of people now get because of this failed attempt at satire?
/r/MensRights08/11/12 02:21 PM
1

Its meant to draw attention to the issue As far as I can tell, it does the exact opposite.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 12:46 PM
1

it makes all the "tell women not to do x y and z to not get raped" crowd look stupid when they don't get it, [...] that must be very amusing for feminists. You mean to tell me that was the goal of the piece? That is not satire.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 11:54 AM
4

True. It's a really stupid attempt to do satire, though.
/r/MensRights08/11/12 10:26 AM
3

As they will be happy to tell you, "checking your privilege" is not that easy.
/r/MensRights01/11/12 10:38 AM
2

You completely misunderstand her statement, please read it again. You know what, I'll try to help with some punctuation: "Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist explaitation, and oppression." This was a definition of feminism I offered in 'Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center' more than 10 years ago. It was my hope at the time that it would become a commmon definition everyone would use. I liked this definition because it did not imply that men were the enemy.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 11:53 PM
3

Please explain! In what regard is she lying?
/r/MensRights27/10/12 12:07 PM
2

Well there it is again, silly reddit!
/r/MensRights27/10/12 12:01 PM
2

Where did my comment go? To be fair, that was over 20 years ago. It may well be the same people would not make that mistake today.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 02:54 AM
6

To be fair, that was over 20 years ago. It may well be the same people would not make that mistake today.
/r/MensRights27/10/12 02:30 AM
3

3 is purely subjective. Disclaimer: I am not familiar with U.S. law. How is that? Looking at the definition posted by Bartab it's seems objectively really obvious that the reported incident was not an assault in the third dagree.
/r/MensRights26/10/12 01:37 PM
1

It's not universal either, especially if you look across borders.
/r/MensRights30/09/12 04:29 PM
4

Please explain.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 12:02 PM
11

Depends on the society you are living in. Are you talking about the US, especially the bible belt?
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:59 AM
7

Because they both have equal power, yet she is still the one that has to face the medical risk of gestation, birth, recovery and, potentially, the risk her future fertility. So why not let the mother decide if she wants to go through with the pregnancy, but let both parents individually decide if they want to a) bring up the child b) just financially support it c) none of the above? That way the mother still has more rights than the father, but not as much more as she has today.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:56 AM
1

Paying child support and being a parent are two completely different things. One is financial, the other is much more.... I completely agree with that statement, though I can't figure out what that has to do with the picture.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:47 AM
16

I am curious why you are downvoted, but not debated.
/r/MensRights29/09/12 11:44 AM
8

Stuff like this is why feminists call /r/mentsrights a hate group. While I agree that his comment is bullshit, yours is as well. He displays distrust (admittedly borderline paranoid) against feminists and you read that to be hate against women. That's a bit inaccurate, don't you think?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 07:49 PM
2

this is just trying a different angle to get (hopefully) a better result in the short term. AKA "The end justifies the means." nothing sexist. Of course it is.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 07:34 PM
1

I hope some day you will learn the difference between a claim and an explanation. I also never expected you to satisfy me - how could you, being wrong?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 07:12 PM
2

It seems like you are saying this charity promotes discrimination. Clearly this charity is about equality, making the educational opportunities of women equal to men in third world countries There is no conflict between the two statements. This charity might be about equality I repeat again that I don't even question that. They promote discrimination all the same. They might do the right thing. They might even do it for the right reasons. But they promote their charity with the aid of the wrong …
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:22 PM
2

That does not answer my question. You say it makes "a big difference", so now get back to my question: How?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 05:16 PM
4

The reason isn't 'because I'm a girl' It's the reason they give. Not just in this ad, but also everywhere on their website. If that is not the real reason, they should present themselves accordingly. The charity is for impoverished girls who have no chance of getting an education because of gender roles in 3rd world nations. What's wrong with that? Where did you get the idea I thought there was something wrong with that? I repeatedly said there isn't.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:42 PM
2

How?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:33 PM
5

These are very good points for a focus on female education in those countries, and I suspected as much. It does not, however, answer how OP misrepresented the ad, nor does it convince me that the wording of the ad is not problematic.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:32 PM
1

Oh I already did. Did you? It suffers from similar problems.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 02:27 PM
0

I agree that might be the point, but they are not getting it across very good.
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:29 AM
2

I read the ad, I don't get what you are hinting at. Can you help me out?
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:28 AM
1

if your aid agency is focused on education in 3rd world countries and in those countries its primarily the girls who are denied education... I agree. "Over half" doesn't mean "primarily", though (at least not in the sense I hope you intended here).
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:26 AM
8

"67 million children worldwide don't go to school, over half are girls like me." And there is a picture of a girl. Are you upset at the idea of raising the standard of education for girls to match boys in the developing world is wrong? "Over half" really doesn't say anything. Maybe the actual numbers give reason to focus on girls here, but "over half" does not. But what annoys me here is the reason "because I am a girl". Without a reason why that should matter here (as is not given by the vague …
/r/MensRights30/08/12 08:21 AM
1

It's great that you recognize it as rape, but most people would not call it forcible rape, because my example isn't forcible. I believe you, but I can't really follow, maybe because here it is considered different. I don't know if it's a translation issue or a question of law, but it seems on the bottom line we agree.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:57 AM
2

As I said in another comment, there might be no violence, but it is not any less forced, so I don't see why we should need different categories for that - but that was kind of your point, wasn't it?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:28 AM
2

I see, coercion doesn't need physical force, but even in your explanation you used "forced into by leverage", I don't see why one should seperate that from from rape through physical force. Statutory rape should be seperated however, but isn't that a seperate offense anyway?
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:25 AM
2

There are a lot of cases of rape where no physical force is used against the victim because the force is implied. But Froztwolf wrote: "I assume it means a situation where no physical force is used or threatened to force the victim, and they are not incapacitated." So your examples really don't fit here, they would fall under the - in my eyes - usual definition of rape.
/r/MensRights21/08/12 04:18 AM
7

I assume it means a situation where no physical force is used or threatened to force the victim, and they are not incapacitated. How is it rape then?
/r/MensRights20/08/12 08:39 PM
9

Would you please explain what "non-forcible rape" is? I always thought that is a contradiction in itself (my mother language even has force/violence in the word that means rape).
/r/MensRights20/08/12 07:33 PM
2

No one refers to people with ear piercings as being mutilated. No one refers to having your leg amputated as mutilation. No one refers to removing skin off your body for grafting as mutilation. Of course, everybody does, if the procedure was forced! Often it is even refered to as mutilation if done by the mutilated persen themself (self-mutilation)!
/r/MensRights13/07/12 02:30 PM
1

Thx. I did not link the comment to prevent that many people from here get over there and write angry comments, but since it has been doubted multiple times that some feminists think that way, I linked it here somewhere anyways...
/r/MensRights13/07/12 01:59 PM
2

So you understand that it fits the definition. Why then should we not use the term?
/r/MensRights13/07/12 01:54 PM
2

The reason I have a problem referring to it as mutilation is because sometimes it is a necessary medical procedure. Well, so is amputation of legs. Doing it without medical indication is mutilation nonetheless.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 10:26 AM
1

Since the reply was deleted before I could read it, would you tell me what it said?
/r/MensRights13/07/12 10:17 AM
1

...where/when do they say this? http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/w7hzw/circumcision_and_labiaplasty/c5c2zfr
/r/MensRights13/07/12 10:10 AM
18

Someone in /r/AskFeminists said a few days ago: Trying to compare circumcision to 'genital mutilation' is quite needless. And that is unacceptable. Circumcision is genital mutilation. Both terms are correct, but suggesting that circumcision is somehow not genital mutilation is disgusting.
/r/MensRights12/07/12 12:47 PM
1

Yes, that "or" really is crucial, since disbelief means pretty much the same thing as lack of belief. There are some differences in whether there is a conviction or not. Even if they mean something different, that "or" means that if I fit either clause, the word applies. Exactly.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 06:39 PM
1

I can't tell you exactly what atheism means to those, but apparently the definition provided above is wrong because "atheism is a philosophical worldview that cannot be grasped by dictionary definitions". Besides, you should be aware that the dictionary definition speaks of dibelief or lack of belief.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:51 PM
-3

You assume way too much here. You are an idiot.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:22 PM
0

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"
/r/MensRights09/07/12 05:08 PM
2

Sounds right.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 02:30 PM
-2

Oh I would. Some atheists give you the same "it(atheism/patriarchy) doesn't mean what the dictionary says, it's much deeper than that because I want it to mean what I think it should mean" as some feminists.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 02:28 PM
2

This happened to me when arguing with two different kind of people: Atheists and feminists. Whatever that means.
/r/MensRights09/07/12 10:31 AM
6

When I decided romantic relationships weren't worth the trouble I was going through, I met my pretty much trouble-free current girlfriend shortly after. 10/10 ; would decide this way again.
/r/MensRights23/06/12 11:31 AM
0

Might be sarcasm, the kind I often see around here in the comments.
/r/MensRights17/06/12 02:26 PM
3

The third edition of the 'New Oxford Dictionary' was published 2010, the copyright on the website says 2012.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 12:51 PM
5

This needs to get to the top. There is no sense in outrage over something they already corrected.
/r/MensRights30/05/12 12:10 PM
1

Readiness to make sacrifices is not a bad thing per se, as long it is not because he is some man and she is some woman.
/r/MensRights29/05/12 05:09 PM
1

I have 2 issues with this debate: People label getting compliments as harassment. It just devalues the whole "this shit happens all the time" if you count a bus driver telling you that you look nice. The double standart. I quote: The problem here is that you [as a man] think that you're being "shamed" and are a "monster" and unfortunately, that's yours to deal with. So if a women's feelings are hurt by men, these men need to stop. If a man's feelings are hurt by women, he needs to suck it up.
/r/MensRights24/05/12 12:55 PM
26

I'm sure many egalitarian feminists would appreciate if more of us would call out bullshit in a similar manner whenever it appears here. I know many do that already, but sometimes it seems it's not visible enough.
/r/MensRights19/05/12 01:57 PM
1

I can't load the video, but you are trying to be sarcastic about mancanstoprape, right? Please don't. Sarcasm doesn't make for a good basis of discussion in topics so charged with emotion. If this is what I think it is on a level with http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tg9f0/xpost_from_rwtf_rape_prevention_tips_finds_its/ , there have to be better ways to bring a point across!
/r/MensRights11/05/12 11:36 AM
0

How ironic.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 11:42 PM
0

I read the article, nlakes comment and your bold statements. Now add some substance or stfu.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:13 PM
0

I think it is time for you to tell us why you think the article says nothing else than "everyone who disagrees with us is bad" and how nlakes is wrong. Otherwise your statements are useless.
/r/MensRights02/05/12 09:34 AM
0

I agree; Asking them about their fathers/brothers/boyfriends makes them feel bad for what they imputed to them, not for what they are, how they feel or anything like that.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 12:42 PM
5

That is not true, may I refer you to nlakes' comment? It points out the problems with this article, while acknowledging where it says the truth.
/r/MensRights01/05/12 11:37 AM
2

Well said!
/r/MensRights01/05/12 11:33 AM
1

You have to consider, that in Germany even sperm donators have to pay child support after they are identified. So yes, it is a victory at this point.
/r/MensRights21/04/12 11:29 AM
3

How is this relevant to /r/MensRights?
/r/MensRights18/04/12 12:51 PM
1

based on methodology that was not presented to us The quoted line is essential. This methodology might be well reasoned, it might not. Without any further insights on how the categorys of the raw data are to be understood (it's no hard science data after all), any own analysis of this data is basen on guesses. These guesses might be good, even better that the assumptions made by the researchers, but we can't be sure. Therefore we should either work with the numbers given by the study, and/or cri…
/r/MensRights06/04/12 11:37 AM
1

In the report of your first link they speak of 7,4%, I did not check further. Overstateing the problem of false accusations does not help at all, it even hurts victims of false accusation, so please stop it.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 05:10 PM
11

Where do these 8-12% come from? I quote the linked file: There are false allegations, and possibly slightly more than some researchers and support agencies have suggested. However, at maximum they constitute nine per cent and probably closer to three per cent of all reported cases. An overestimation of the scale by police officers and prosecutors feeds into a culture of scepticism, which in turn leads to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police.
/r/MensRights04/04/12 04:04 PM
3

if you're born in India you are much better off being born a male than a female. How is that relevant?
/r/MensRights31/03/12 03:49 PM
0

That is one terrible comic, how is this not downvoted to the ground?!
/r/MensRights30/03/12 09:41 PM
1

By most relevant I mean it is most important to a discussion of the subject. I was just disagreeing with your "Well, what I personally believe isn't really relevant" But thanks for answering my question.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:49 PM
1

I see what you mean, but one thing still bothers me. You did not say the general public would react negatively to someone getting 2 years in prison for killing someone was factual. You did say the general public would react negatively to someone getting 40 years in prison for killing 20 times was factual. That is a HUGE differnece. The first may be fact, the second hopefully not.
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:58 AM
1

WHat you personally believe is the most relevant. Justice systems differ, and they are not set in stone (figurally speaking).
/r/MensRights30/03/12 11:53 AM
1

Please explain. Who is they? How do you do multiple life sentences? Is that just what they do, or is it what you consider just (or both)?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:55 AM
1

Are you serious that "it should be exponential"? Are you serious that you think her first rape led to an hour in jail?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:52 AM
1

I don't think that your statement is a fact, I hope people have a more sensitive sense of justice. 10 years per killing, so 200 years? You do realise that for that person it is no difference if he or she is sentenced 100 or 200 years? Following your logic that would be a bit unfair for somebody who did kill "only" 10 people, because he would be effectively sentenced the same. And if you do this by the rule of proportion like you suggest, a murderer of one would be sentenced to only 10 years! Don…
/r/MensRights30/03/12 10:49 AM
2

You have a very pessimistic idea of man. What would you consider a just sentence for 20 killings?
/r/MensRights30/03/12 02:06 AM
7

No, it has not. That's like saying a mass murderer gets imprisoned "only 1,7512 Years per murder", that is nonesense.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 10:25 PM
1

I'm not sure if you are serious, I hope not.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 07:31 PM
8

You know that is not a linear function, nor should it be.
/r/MensRights29/03/12 04:18 PM
7

The examples went in the stereotypical direction, but I don't see a problem with that. It is not implied that all men follow this examples. The core passage for me is: One thing's for certain -- if you look to your man to meet all of your emotional and social needs you will be disappointed, and he will feel defeated and angry. Take responsibility for what your man can't give you by meeting those needs in more constructive ways, such as friendships or career. The needs met by him don't have to be…
/r/MensRights28/03/12 03:41 PM
2

Furthermore, as I understand it, it does not suffice that the mother is living together with another man, but this man has to be the legal father of the child.
/r/MensRights23/03/12 11:10 AM
2

I see, thank you for the link! The english link pretty mush contradicts the german source, I'm confused.
/r/MensRights22/03/12 09:12 PM
5

EU Court of Human Rights rules that German fathers can not demand access to their biological Children if there's already another man present in the Mothers Life Did I misunderstand the article completely, or did you? As far as I can see, the article says the opposite of what you claim in the title!
/r/MensRights22/03/12 01:44 PM
0

This would make for a great Boston Legal episode.
/r/MensRights20/03/12 11:22 AM
0

There are scenarios beside an outright lie (she forgot her pill and didn't bother to tell him when she noticed), and there are also scenarios where the man is more responsible (talking her into coitus interruptus e.g.). I hope Bobsutan was aware of that and answered a generalised question with a generalised answer. At least that is how I took it.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 03:05 PM
6

Women are usually more responsible because they have more tools at hand then man. That does NOT mean that all individual women are more responsible in their perticular case.
/r/MensRights19/03/12 12:34 PM
9

You don't get the difference between "more responsible" and "all your fault".
/r/MensRights19/03/12 12:17 PM
12

What if the gender is not the reason for the difference in payment?
/r/MensRights18/03/12 09:12 PM
9

No.
/r/MensRights20/02/12 02:07 PM
1

No, an agnostic arainist is of the opinion that it will not rain.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 12:02 PM
1

Without his presence, who knows what impulses the females or the youngsters might heed, or what liberties they might be inclined to take? I don't like the implied assumption that the females would misbehave if there was no male around.
/r/MensRights15/02/12 03:08 AM
1

No, it would mean that they are both agnostic about rainism, but the rainist believes it will rain while the arainist does not. Knowledge is not the same as belief. Exactly! Now, the one who is just an agnostic regarding the question. He has no belief regarding it, he just ackowledges that he doesn't know.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 11:56 AM
1

The point is, an "agnostic rainist" is obviously agnostic about rainism. Ah, I see. That is not what it means. If that were what it means, "agnostic rainist" would be synonymous with "agnistic arainist", because they refer to the same topic. However, the "rainist" or "arainist" part expresses an opinion about wheter it is going to rain, it is not just a reference to the topic.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 10:16 AM
1

Are you serious? If you answer "I don't know" to the question "Will it rain?", your statement is, that you don't know whether it will rain or not. Same goes for the simple "yes" and "no" answers.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 02:16 PM
1

They are all answers to the question "Will it rain tomorrow?"
/r/MensRights08/02/12 10:02 AM
1

Bold claim.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 09:04 AM
1

Just because you don't get it does not mean it doesn't make sense. Take a non-religious example here: "Will it rain tomorrow?" gnostic rainism: "It sure will!" agnostic rainism: "I think so, but what do I know?" gnostic arainism: "No, it won't!" agnostic arainism: "I don't think so, but what do I know?" agnosticism: "How would I know?!" rainism: "Yes" arainism: "No"
/r/MensRights08/02/12 12:20 AM
0

agnostic/gnostic and and atheism/theism are about different aspects of the phylosophical view. You may combine them to be more specific, but they work fine on their own. If you say "I'm a Theist", you did not say if you are sure your beliefs are true. If you say "I'm an agnostic", you did not make a statement whether you believe there are gods or not.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 12:07 AM
0

How would we know what the "default" is?
/r/MensRights07/02/12 10:59 PM
-1

What has raising someone, mentioning god(s) and hearing of god(s) to do with any of that?
/r/MensRights07/02/12 10:45 PM
1

A belief is not necessarily a claim of absolute knowledge. Well then most atheists are agnostic atheists. Good for them. That does not affect my point. The agnostic atheists acknowledges that he can't be shure, but he thinks/believes there is no god. The agnostic theists acknowledges that he can't be shure, but he thinks/believes there is a god. If you just acknowledge that you can't know whether there is a god or not, and you don't have any belief in that regard, you are not an atheist. You are…
/r/MensRights07/02/12 10:24 PM
-1

That assumes your question is natural and necessary. I am not assuming that. Why would you think that?
/r/MensRights07/02/12 10:14 PM
0

Agnostic is an adjective you can stick on your atheism or theism. You denied the existance of agnostic as a noun. That is just plain wrong. And that is why a dictionary is required.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 03:38 PM
-6

I was not defining a philosophical position, I was defining the word atheism. Therefore, a dictionary is the right place to go.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:58 PM
-5

Atheists are not "not playing soccer". They choose to answer a question for themselves: Is there a god? Not playing soccer would mean not answering the question. Like agnostics.
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:45 PM
-9

Atheism means lacking belief in gods Atheism is the belief that there is no God. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:38 PM
-1

You are not wrong. More precise would be: "Believing in the nonexistance of god but also not being completely sure defines agnostic atheism."
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:31 PM
-2

Your mistake is sadly common. relevant
/r/MensRights07/02/12 02:26 PM
1

If he decided he was in love AFTER the event of abuse, as he apparently did, As he apparently did? Where does that come from? All the article says is this: "The boy said that the court made him out to be a victim when that was not the case. He claims that he made all the moves on his teacher." You can't just imply Stockholm Syndrome for no reason!
/r/MensRights26/01/12 08:45 PM
3

I think both genders are effected by rape very gravely. My point was that one should distinguish between rape and abuse of minors, and I don't quite understand why people have an issue with that.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:33 PM
2

Why wouldn't I?
/r/MensRights26/01/12 12:10 PM
-2

I'm sure you could convince an eight year old to willingly have sex with you, too. I seriously doubt that, when they did not hit puberty yet. Apart from that: It's abuse and it should be punished. But if the boy wanted it for whatever reason, e.g. his mental immaturity, it was not rape. Therefore the Stockholm argument is invalid. I agree that the judgement in this case is wrong. I just disagree, that the boy was not a credible attestor. EDIT: How about a counter-argument so the downvotes don't …
/r/MensRights26/01/12 11:08 AM
1

Just because it's illegal doesn't necessarily mean it's rape.
/r/MensRights26/01/12 10:33 AM
2

How could that be compared to Stockholm Syndrome?
/r/MensRights26/01/12 09:18 AM
4

According to wikipedia they usually can't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Austria
/r/MensRights26/01/12 09:16 AM
1

I see your point, thank you for elaborating. My conclusion of your argument would be, to handle debates about privileges even more carefully, but not to avoid them. In my view, your example of inequal sentencing could be discussed either as a discrimination or a privilege issue, without to necessarily alter in any single argument or outcome.
/r/MensRights21/01/12 06:50 PM
6

So how is a debate about privilege any less expedient than a debate about discrimination? (If that was your point at all)
/r/MensRights21/01/12 04:19 PM
3

I am sorry, but I don't really get what you are trying to say. Isn't a privilege due to race, sex, religion,... equivalent to discrimination due to OTHER race, sex, religion,...?
/r/MensRights21/01/12 03:47 PM
2

These arguments also apply to women, who even can take birth control pills. If men for whatever reason fail to avoid conception, they get no say in the future of the child. If women for whatever reason fail to avoid conception, they can decide about the child's future all by themselves.
/r/MensRights17/01/12 04:08 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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