TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Acceptable_Law8044 Archive

View 3 posts and 69 comments by Acceptable_Law8044 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
3

Apparently, having Reddit's automatic translations enabled when editing the post changed the language when I made the edits; it should be back in English by now.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 02:09 PM
3

Thank you. As you rightly say, I'm only raising the question of why the rights of some take precedence over those of others, even in extreme situations, but I don't know if I've explained myself poorly or if many simply haven't wanted to understand the post.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 01:56 PM
1

If it were up to me, it would be that I wasn't either of them.But that's unrealistic, since in cases like Ukraine, very few people would fight for it, and no country can afford to let individual freedoms prevail over the common good, or rather, the country's interest. That's why things like expropriation, taxes, and, in cases of war, forced conscription exist. And that's where the question of this post arises: why do countries, in times of need, sweep away all individual freedoms and rights, exc…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:39 PM
1

I didn't know the war in Ukraine was the fault of the Ukrainians.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:23 PM
1

I'm not proposing anything, nor am I designing any plan.I'm simply asking about the point of having extreme policies in case of war, but not in case of extremely low birth rates, if both pose a threat to the country's survival.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:18 PM
1

Lo repito, aunque creo que está claro si leen el post. Me refiero al tema de tener políticas extremas como el servicio militar obligatorio y no tener otras, como la maternidad obligatoria, si tanto un ataque al país como las tasas de natalidad extremadamente bajas representan un riesgo para la supervivencia de un país. I'm not referring to any specific country, I'm referring to generalities.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:14 PM
1

Let's go point by point.1. I'm not from the United States and I don't talk about the United States, I speak in general. 2. The idea that men have more rights is a complete lie, at least in most first-world countries.3. You're literally saying that since you "have suffered," then it's men's turn, but then you're scandalized by my post, and that's being hypocritical.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:10 PM
1

You are one of the few who understood the topic of the post.I'm certainly not designing any plan, but seeing the money that South Korea, for example, spends on encouraging births with almost no results. Perhaps it would be more profitable for them to have some kind of mandatory mechanism, even if the state then ends up covering the expenses for those children. And to avoid any misunderstanding, I must repeat that we are talking about extreme cases, where there will already be a demographic and e…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 11:17 AM
2

How optimistic you are to assume that the man will return alive, whole, and without any lasting effects from the war
/r/MensRights20/03/26 11:10 AM
1

Blaming men for a role that was probably imposed in prehistory where people acted on instinct is not, in my opinion, the fairest thing to do.Furthermore, over the years there have been countries, such as mine, where women governed and maintained that role, so to say that it is solely the fault of men is false. Forcing women to have babies (an extremely laborus process, not to mention then raising said babies) to "repopulate a country" (the world is already FAR overpopulated, the last thing we ne…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 11:08 AM
1

At what point did I mention the United States?
/r/MensRights20/03/26 10:32 AM
1

I'm not talking about the survival of the world, I'm talking about the survival of countries . The existence of extremely populated countries matters very little to countries that foresee having half their current population in 50 years, and that the population they have will be very aged.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 11:28 PM
-1

I find it horrifying to compare childbirth to the suffering caused by war.Did you know what anti-personnel mines, grenades dropped by drones, or kamikaze drone explosions can do to the human body? If you want to see if I'm exaggerating, just visit the r/war subreddit. I'm not saying that childbirth is risk-free, but in countries with a good healthcare system, those risks are minimal, and the use of anesthesia reduces pain to a minimum. That's a privilege that, for example, Ukrainian soldiers who…
/r/MensRights19/03/26 10:19 PM
1

Bueno, y si un país ataca a otro, como en el caso de Ucrania, a los hombres los secuestran y se los llevan a la fuerza al frente, mientras que las mujeres se van de las zonas de conflicto e incluso del país. Creo que no entendés que no me refiero a una baja tasa de natalidad, sino a una tasa extremadamente baja. Bueno, en el siglo pasado muchos hombres de muchos países fueron obligados a pelear, así que, dependiendo de la situación, obligar a unos u otros no es tan injusto como obligar solo a al…
/r/MensRights19/03/26 09:27 PM
-2

Where did I specify that it should be normal or per generation?I only talk about extreme cases like post-war situations, or birth rates that put the country's survival at risk.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 09:00 PM
0

I don't know which third-world country that data is from, but In my country it's not even in the top 20 main causes of death. And the claim that it has a higher injury rate than modern warfare, besides being a complete lie, seems to me an exaggerated lack of respect towards the soldiers fighting in Ukraine.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 08:57 PM
1

No, the post has the mentality that group A is obligated to sacrifice itself and rescue the state, while group B not only has no obligation to maintain the state, but they indulge in the luxury of savoring it, making all the sacrifice of Group A pointless.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 08:48 PM
3

In post-war situations, if there are sufficient resources, it is beneficial, and in countries with extremely low birth rates, even without wars, it is also beneficial.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 03:41 AM
3

No, my question is based precisely on how the excuse of the common good only applies when it is necessary to take away men's rights. If I only wanted to equate suffering, childbirth doesn't even come close to the barbarities that some soldiers experience, especially if they are taken prisoner.
/r/MensRights19/03/26 03:29 AM
2

I suppose that kind of question was also raised regarding forced conscription, and the answer is by planning it, not by impregnating everyone at once, by giving soldiers leave to procreate, or simply by leaving the restoration to the post-war period. But designing a plan for forced motherhood is not the topic of this publication; the topic is why men are obligated to maintain their gender role in the defense of a country, while women can refuse to fulfill their gender role with the country, and …
/r/MensRights19/03/26 02:18 AM
3

I think South Korea doesn't care much that other countries have very high birth rates. My post is about extreme cases of countries that, in order to maintain sovereignty, have laws forcing men to go to war, but don't have similar laws for women to preserve and rebuild the country in situations of extreme demographic crisis, making those obligations for men seem absurd. It's not about rights in normal times.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 11:32 PM
7

In my opinion, not even a million dollars' salary will compensate for the disorders/death/disabilities caused by going to war. Looking only at the financial aspect and ignoring all the consequences that going to war brings to a soldier seems even more unfair to me.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 10:28 PM
1

Well, the idea that it's recovering is debatable; its birth rates remain extremely low, and the consequences of that, although they may take time to materialize, can no longer be avoided without any measure other than replacing the population with immigration.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 08:30 PM
2

Sure, but that reasoning only applies to nuclear-armed powers; the rest of the countries, in the event of war, would most likely end up like Ukraine, kidnapping civilians to send them to the front lines.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 08:06 PM
1

Yes, of course, incentive measures should always be the first option.But for example in South Korea, those measures haven't worked for years, and there are also groups like 4b that encourage suicide in the country.I'm talking about extreme cases where pro-natalist policies have already been tried and failed.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 06:01 PM
11

And?As long as there is a law that can force that, we must fight against it.I don't need to go to war to worry about my rights.Especially when the justification for that law is lost when you see cases like South Korea, where they have a very serious demographic crisis, which will undoubtedly bring them serious consequences.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:56 PM
3

I believe the reason is more related to the fear of nuclear winter and mutually assured destruction if someone attacks the United States.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:47 PM
3

But do you think that societies that force civilians to go and die on the front lines are more deserving of being saved? I wouldn't underestimate the importance of birth rates; it's true that their effects aren't immediate, but they can be just as devastating.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:44 PM
11

Do I have to have fought in a war to care about my rights?I'm just pointing out how absurd it is to force some to save a country while others are allowed to let it die or even actively kill it, like South Korea's 4B.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:39 PM
8

The sacrifice was not the same. For example, in World War I, men could die in the most horrific ways due to the use of chemical weapons. Moreover, the sacrifices of war only matter if the population recovers afterward. After the world wars, high birth rates helped countries survive and rebuild. If birth rates had remained very low, or if anti-natalist movements had prevailed, some countries might not have survived at all. It is not irrational to consider such measures in cases like South Korea, …
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:37 PM
2

Of course, I’m not in favor of any kind of obligation imposed by the state, but I find it absurd that in times of war, men can be forced to go to the front lines to save the country, while women, collectively—as in the case of South Korea—can contribute to the country’s decline from within by choosing not to have children
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:11 PM
6

Of course, we should all strive for that ideal society. What I find absurd is that countries enforce laws like mandatory military service to defend the nation, while in places like South Korea, women are allowed to let the country decline through non-reproduction—and that’s the purpose of this post: to see if anyone can explain the reasoning behind this apparent contradiction.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:06 PM
8

Exactly, that's exactly what I think. But I'm surprised at how it's accepted that women can let a country like South Korea die.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:52 PM
14

No, in my ideal society, no one should be forced to do anything, and every person should be able to decide whether they want to help save their country or not. But that is only in an ideal world. In reality, people who are unhappy with their government are often forced to fight for the country. What I don’t understand is that in extreme situations, such as a demographic crisis or a war, the responsibility to save the country seems to fall solely on men, while women are allowed, as in the case of…
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:48 PM
26

It was not attacked at all on the scale of Ukraine; that was more of a terrorist attack than an attack by a country.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:34 PM
23

The United States has not suffered an attack on the scale of Ukraine, and I am sure that if it did, it would resort to forced conscription rather than risk losing sovereignty over its territory, leaving aside its nuclear capabilities.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:29 PM
31

But unfortunately, one happens and no one is scandalized, while the other causes outrage just by being mentioned.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:23 PM
15

Forced conscription in the event of war will never be abolished. So why do we focus more on the rights of women in extreme situations while men are left without rights? I am not talking about putting women in camps and forcing them to have sex; it could be done in a more “civilized” way—for example, those who refuse to have children could face forced conscription, or, in the case of a demographic crisis, fines.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:20 PM
6

I understand your point, but to me it's like you're saying that if they're going to do female genital mutilation, they should at least do it in a hospital. The thing is that neither of them should be done if there is no medical condition that requires it.
/r/MensRights30/09/25 07:42 AM
6

And it's also stupid to subject a baby to an operation it doesn't need.
/r/MensRights30/09/25 07:18 AM
7

Your passive aggressive strategy of calling deluded, and other ad hominen fallacies that you have released in this thread, works a lot for you. I suppose your entertainment, like that of most feminists who think like you, is to get into subs you don't agree with and start attacking everyone. But well, something I have learned is that people like you tend to be like that because of the terrible life they have.
/r/MensRights20/09/25 09:25 PM
4

que pena que ni aquí podamos señalar con nombre a todas esas misandricas. Debería ser más común el doxear y publicar la información de esa gente que abiertamente manda mensajes de odio.
/r/MensRights20/09/25 03:31 PM
1

What complex? I have only exposed you to the reality that you do not want to see.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 01:40 PM
1

And when were those decades of unbalanced research? Because as far as I know since 2000 there has always been more funding, awareness and free breast screening programs focused on women. And that a century ago there was more research (which I don't know) that the prostate does not equate anything since currently in, for example, 5 years there is more progress than in 20 a century ago since now there is much better technology.
/r/MensRights19/09/25 12:39 PM
6

In other words they are fascists
/r/MensRights29/08/25 02:18 PM
2

If that were true we would have gone extinct years ago.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 06:23 PM
2

No, the reason why they originally had priority is to preserve the species, now they make no sense as you have deduced from my comment. And the reason why this priority is currently maintained is because of the gynocentrism of society that, with feminism, rethought all the things where men won, intentionally ignoring where women win.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 08:40 PM
3

So all those women who were rescued should first be forced to have children.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 08:26 PM
26

I suppose it was due to biological reasons with the aim of preserving the species. But currently it doesn't make any sense since many women refuse to have children so they no longer have "biological value."
/r/MensRights27/08/25 08:23 PM
1

What sexism do women deal with? And please justify it with data and sources. And I remind you that personal experiences of yours or those you know are not compelling arguments.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 09:20 AM
1

😂😂 Now they make male characters so that men like them, because everyone knows that a muscular man taking off his shirt as happens in many movies attracts men. What to read
/r/MensRights27/08/25 09:12 AM
1

Of course, because Call of Duty is full of female characters, that's why it's not destroyed.
/r/MensRights27/08/25 09:08 AM
5

A gynocentric society focuses primarily and even exclusively on women and their problems, ignoring those of men. This means that the population and PUBLIC institutions are focused on women, but it does not mean that it is a matriarchy (society governed exclusively by women). Therefore, the fact that there are more men who have large companies does not indicate anything about whether that society is gynocentric or not.
/r/MensRights17/02/25 06:10 AM
1

The preferential treatment they have is not a subjective thing, so no matter how much they think and say that they are discriminated against, reality shows the truth. And to give you an example of this preferential treatment, there are scholarships to enter this field only for women, free courses only for women, the imposition of parity measures in which men are fired whether or not they are more capable than their female replacements, the preferential hiring of women only for being women even i…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 06:00 AM
4

We don't have conscription now, so it doesn't matter. It will be in your country, because in mine and in many others in case of war if there is one. Many women joined the war effort in both world wars. They were not allowed to go to the front. I have no doubt that they were not jealous of the soldiers. Yes, I'm not saying that they stayed in a 5-star hotel on vacation, but that doesn't mean that they were privileged to not have to go to the front. But again, this topic is somewhat irrelevant, be…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 05:54 AM
12

Look where it says "that's feminism for you", there's the problem. Same with the guy who answers. Do you really think this subforum is an echo chamber? Just because the commenter thinks that way about feminism doesn't give you the right to say that any problem for men is less than one for women, which is already solved in most of the world. If this subforum were an echo chamber like the many feminist subforums, you would not have been able to minimize the problems of the men in this sub like thi…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 01:53 AM
14

And what about male genital mutilation? Don't you tell that? Isn't it just as serious? If you want to talk about women's problems you literally have hundreds of subreddits where not only can you do so but any man who comments and disagrees in the slightest with those subs is banned, thus creating your perfect echo chamber where women are the only and biggest victims. So don't come to one of the few subreddits where you can talk about men's problems and put the focus back on women with things tha…
/r/MensRights17/02/25 12:48 AM
2

I am a software engineer and I can say that women receive preferential treatment in this field.
/r/MensRights16/02/25 08:38 PM
6

That they had mandatory military service before women achieved equality means nothing, but that it is currently maintained and there are no plans to change it does indicate favoritism towards women. Furthermore, I don't think that any sane woman who lived in the Second or First World War would complain about being "treated as weak, stupid or cowardly" and would actively seek to go to the front, in fact I think that many would be glad to be women and not be forced to go to almost certain death.
/r/MensRights16/02/25 08:35 PM
2

By saying that you show that you don't know what gynocentrism is.
/r/MensRights16/02/25 08:28 PM
46

The worst thing is that hateful subreddits like that don't get banned or censored but subreddits like this get flagged as misogynistic. The double standards of the reddit administrators and most of the subreddits on this network are incredible.
/r/MensRights16/02/25 08:24 PM
1

I haven't said otherwise, and if we continue with your logic, why don't we also look at the breed to see which is more dangerous? Or is it okay to differentiate by sex but not by race?
/r/MensRights16/02/25 08:17 PM
10

The mother's lack of empathy towards her son is incredible, in the video you can see the poor guy crying and saying not to do it and the mother doesn't care. In my opinion, the correct resolution of this would be to condemn the girls for rape and public humiliation, since they are recording it, those who have spread the video should also face some sentence. To the parents who take custody away since they treat this issue as a laugh. And the police officer who said there was no crime should be fi…
/r/MensRights10/02/25 03:28 AM
5

The best thing is that statistics say that a man is unlikely to be a danger to women.
/r/MensRights04/02/25 09:04 PM
10

I wouldn't say it's the only thing, and the fact that they make the mistake of getting drunk doesn't justify them being raped. Besides, some people get drunk in seemingly 'safe' environments, like a friend's house.
/r/MensRights17/10/24 03:45 AM
2

For example, in Spain, if the girl regrets it, even days later the government classifies it as rape.
/r/MensRights22/09/24 04:14 PM
6

Is the same situation in Spain
/r/MensRights04/06/24 04:27 AM
4

No, she simply became a radfem and thought it was wrong that I asked my mother
/r/MensRights10/04/24 03:40 AM
8

My aunt called me a misogynist for asking my mother where the cutlery was.
/r/MensRights09/04/24 07:59 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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