TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Adrestea Archive

View 0 posts and 69 comments by Adrestea 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)
3

Men and women do some time, but not the same time: Under this law, the period of service for men was 30 months and for women 18 months (although in accordance with a temporary order from January 10, 1968, six additional months were added to the mandatory service.)
/r/MensRights22/04/14 06:58 AM
2

The Kitchener-Waterloo area is near Toronto.
/r/MensRights18/04/14 06:44 PM
2

Even if you ignore non-institutional discrimination, consider something like jail sentences: men serve longer sentences for the same crime, and offenders receive lighter sentences if their victim was a man. Is there more of an institution than the justice system? Here's something to do if you haven't been frustrated enough today: Bring up that exact data, except for race, and see how many people agree with you that it proves systemic racism exists in the US. Then mention that the bias is actuall…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:22 PM
7

OP thinks the quote applies to feminism as well as it applies to its original topic. What he did NOT say was "Steven Pinker explains why Feminists...". And again, he included lots of context. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this, either.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:56 PM
3

If you read one sentence before or after the highlighted portion, it's obvious he's talking about religion. If OP had cropped those parts out you'd have more of a case.
/r/MensRights06/03/14 08:21 PM
6

Peacetime is the only time you'll be able to make the change, and wartime is when men start being forced to go die. That's my problem with the argument "But the draft isn't happening, so it's not a problem that it's hugely sexist", too. Whatever little support there may be from women to make it fair now would definitely evaporate if the draft once again became a reality. If it's not a priority when it's not wartime, it sure as hell won't be one when it is.
/r/MensRights04/03/14 11:51 AM
10

A significant chunk of that article is about how the actual events don't support the "bystander effect" to the extent that is often claimed. While Genovese's neighbors were vilified by the articles, "thirty-eight onlookers who did nothing" is a misconception. The New York Times article begins: For more than half an hour thirty-eight respectable, law-abiding citizens in Queens watched a killer stalk and stab a woman in three separate attacks in Kew Gardens. The lead is dramatic but factually inac…
/r/MensRights02/03/14 02:45 PM
4

The difference between "Men, don't take advantage by the use of force, intimidation, or another's incapacity" and "MEN don't take advantage by the use of force, intimidation, or another's incapacity" is a single piece of punctuation, and they both have the same intent: Telling men, and only men, not to do those things.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 11:34 AM
6

I actually see now that there's been a difference in interpretation- with the first "MEN" being red and in caps, I read the word "men" as being who they're addressing, and the colon as implicit. The remaining sentences don't work like that though, so your interpretation is correct.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 11:32 AM
3

If it instead said "BLACK PEOPLE: Stop stealing things", would you find that offensive? After all, not stealing things is positive behaviour.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 09:39 AM
14

theocracy Argentina is not a theocracy. As if the enforcement of an abortion ban does not entail violence, and violence against people at their most vulnerable at that. That is EXACTLY what people who oppose abortion say about allowing abortion. "As if abortion does not entail violence, and violence against people at their most vulnerable at that". I totally support the general principle of protesting outside churches in any country that the church has fucked up by preaching its filth. That's fi…
/r/MensRights04/12/13 04:01 AM
1

Acquaintance. Also "there", while I'm here.
/r/MensRights10/11/13 07:32 AM
1

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that as long as you can't prove that was deliberate rather than a mistake, police are immune from prosecution: In fact, police are immune from suit for the performance of their jobs unless willful, unreasonable conduct is demonstrated. Mere negligence, the failure to exercise due care, is not enough to create liability. Immunity therefore means that in the typical police-suspect interaction, the suspect cannot sue the police. Civil rights remedies come into play …
/r/MensRights30/10/13 05:07 PM
11

Seriously. Consider wealth- does it make sense to say it's impossible for the poor to be oppressed relative to the fantastically rich, since there are so many more poor people? Are the poor oppressing billionaires? Are senators oppressed by non-senators? Are monarchs oppressed by their subjects?
/r/MensRights06/10/13 03:50 PM
1

Metaphors are fine. Up until you start treating them like real things, and comparing them to real things. Saying a metaphorical hit is a worse hit than an actual hit is laughable, because one of them is not actually a hit. It's a metaphor.
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:49 AM
1

"Yes, that comparison is indeed exactly wrong." How is it wrong? Read my post again, I explain it several times. I could just copy and paste it, but that seems like a waste of my time. You didn't even address any of the reasons I gave to why your statements were fallacious. What you said: This is an illogical statement because it draws on the conclusion that in the entirety of existence, no one will ever and has never made a comparison of being beaten to defamation, bullying, or otherwise; words…
/r/MensRights30/09/13 01:59 AM
1

Ok, Fallacy #1: "Because anyone who has actually been beaten by a baseball bat would never make such a stupid comparison." This is an illogical statement because it draws on the conclusion that in the entirety of existence, no one will ever and has never made a comparison of being beaten to defamation, bullying, or otherwise; words of damage if they have be beaten. Fucking illogical. Do you understand the concept of context? Your comparison: "Sometimes they can hit harder than a baseball bat." Y…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 11:04 PM
1

I do not know if there is an English word There is, you just don't know it. And you're right, I have much less sympathy for someone who has mean things said to them than someone whose bones have been broken. Do you know why? Because I am not a self-centred moron who thinks my trivial first-world life problems are worse than people who have been physically beaten. And stop using fallacies. Stop accusing me of things with zero evidence.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:46 PM
1

No, that would be what's wrong with you, saying metaphorical hits are worse than actual hits. Number of times in all history someone being beaten by a baseball bat thought "Boy, I'm glad my bones are being broken instead of someone saying something mean"? Zero. Consider re-entering reality before commenting in the future.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 06:35 AM
1

Words have weight. Sometimes they can hit harder than a baseball bat. Right there. Words don't "hit". Baseball bats hit.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 01:31 AM
1

No, "words can hurt as badly as actually being beaten" is crap logic.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 12:00 AM
1

Because anyone who has actually been beaten by a baseball bat would never make such a stupid comparison.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 02:24 AM
2

It's a bot that triggers off posts starting with "I think", among other things.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 07:57 AM
1

...Said someone who has never been beaten with a baseball bat.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 07:53 AM
3

Wasn't that written by an SRSer? I know, "you can't do anything with an IP", etc., but it is still potentially a piece of the puzzle.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 02:53 PM
6

Or a suggestion to give rapists who kill their victims less jail time.
/r/MensRights24/09/13 02:39 PM
6

realising [sic] Better to avoid invalid criticism- that is an acceptable English spelling.
/r/MensRights27/08/13 02:56 PM
1

Well, since we've started using legal terms, the internet informs me that "preponderance of evidence" only means "above 50%" in the legal world. So I guess I have significantly more confidence in a lot of the things science claims, if that's what you're saying. If half of what is currently being presented as true in first or second year college science classrooms turns out to be wrong (beyond intentional simplifications), I would be amazed. I think thermal dynamics is a good example: building up…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 07:54 AM
2

I doubt (think) therefore I am. Not really the most widely applicable statement, considering that I have no proof that thoughts exist outside my personal head. But yes, I have experienced thought, therefore I am willing to be convinced that something somewhere is happening in some capacity. That's not much, though. Common usage includes that 80% that can't answer those 3 questions from my previous post. Please address that paragraph instead reiterating what you have already said. Here it is agai…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:34 AM
1

Saying your argument does not flow from a premise is not attacking sentence structure, it is exactly what refuting an argument is about. You are using ad hominem incorrectly. It really sounds like you're a pseudo pedant. Now THAT, on the other hand, is an ad hominem. you should have mentioned that you did not understand me instead of trying to prove a dull point. That is what I said, twice. It really sounds like you're a pseudo pedant. I'm curious as to what the word you're intending to use is t…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 06:01 AM
2

Some philosophers and mathematicians would disagree with that. Look up Descartes. And some would agree with it. Look up Plato. But if you want to be more concrete, then give me an example of a fact that isn't true by definition, and I'll see what I can do about imagining a world where it's not true. Outside of pure mathematics, I don't think there's much. I'll always be able to resort to something like "Your senses, and therefore your measurements, cannot be trusted; and your memories, even the …
/r/MensRights13/08/13 05:47 AM
1

What I said was not an ad hominem, I was strictly addressing your statements, not you as a person. And if your goal was to refute me, you've not done it very clearly, which was what I said last post. That was your opportunity to restate it more clearly. Pedantic means exactly what I think it means, and I am using it correctly. "Overly concerned with minute details or formalisms" describes your position perfectly. Rather than acknowledge that the definition of "proof" used by almost everybody in …
/r/MensRights13/08/13 05:07 AM
2

If you're willing to be sufficiently pedantic and entertain sufficiently ridiculous explanations, nothing is proven, and nothing ever will be. Nothing is unquestionable. Which is why in normal conversation, we do not hold anything to those standards. If you have a problem with that specific paper, or you think one paper is insufficient, then that's fine, but saying that science has never proven anything is only true if you use a definition for "prove" that doesn't match what people actually mean…
/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:53 AM
2

Teaching someone to be sceptical is entirely different from proudly using language incorrectly. I don't see how anything of what you're saying flows from intentionally using words in pointlessly pedantic ways.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:33 AM
2

You understand that that's being incredibly pedantic for any common usage, right? If a die came up 3 a million times in a row, any reasonable person in usual conversation would say that proves it's not a fair die. By all means be perfectly exact in a mathematical setting, but holding normal conversations to that standard is just being intentionally obtuse.
/r/MensRights13/08/13 04:16 AM
3

I agree. What happened to "no means no"? This isn't some impossible bar we're setting here. Use your words. Anyway, I find it very hard to believe that more than a tiny percent of couples who have had sex with each other more than two or three times, or even live together, still get explicit verbal consent from each other every time. That's not how people function. Non-verbal cues are a thing. Are you getting naked with each other? If pants are coming off, it's probably not to check the leg size…
/r/MensRights11/08/13 04:31 AM
22

Well, more like anecdotal evidence countered by different anecdotal evidence.
/r/MensRights26/07/13 07:50 PM
74

The word is "homicide", not "homocide".
/r/MensRights20/07/13 09:24 PM
3

Since you bring up Lara Croft, it's also worth noting the extreme outcry when that Lara Croft trailer came out and people thought there might be rape (but there actually wasn't), versus Far Cry 3, which came out at about the same time, and actually DID have a male character repeatedly brutally raped, which was apparently considered by most to be not worth commenting on. A female character not getting raped was more controversial than a male character actually being raped. Though let me make this…
/r/MensRights19/07/13 02:37 AM
19

I believe step 4 is "write something so stupid and infuriating it gets linked by people the people you infuriate, and make money off the page hits". It's certainly been done before.
/r/MensRights18/06/13 03:11 PM
3

If that's what he was talking about, then he wouldn't have used But look at a 32 year old woman and it's hard. as his contrast to Manson, he would have said "but look at someone with no criminal record" or "but look at someone who shows remorse". And considering Manson was 35 when he did his thing, I think it's safe to say it's not three years that he considers that deciding factor. That leaves one thing.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 04:10 AM
1

I'm looking at it from the point of view of two people trying to decide if they should have sex, not two people who have already had sex and are on trial. If the people having sex don't do a cognitive assessment first, how are they supposed to know they'll pass it, thereby making that sex legal? Taking a "Try it and let the courts sort it out" approach isn't really acceptable if the penalty for guessing wrong is being charged with rape. Any reasonably cautious person would continue to behave lik…
/r/MensRights20/03/13 01:20 AM
3

How would this work? Let's say you're 18 or younger and dating people of similar ages, would you have to have a professional do a cognitive assessment of everyone you might have sex with, to find out if it would be statutory rape? Or what about angry parents who would inevitably shop around for someone to do a falsely low assessment, or regretful/vindictive liars who deliberately throw their assessment to screw their ex? Drawing a hard line at X years is imperfect, but it's hard to see what else…
/r/MensRights19/03/13 11:08 PM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Tyler_Clementi A thoroughly terrible Rutgers student bullies his gay roommate leading pretty directly to his suicide, and served 20 days in jail. And like you suggest, that was for crimes committed during the bullying itself, not the suicide. So, no, it would appear laws do not work like that.
/r/MensRights19/03/13 09:58 PM
0

again, whatever you're saying I do, is really what you're doing You're like a six year old repeating "I know that's what you are, but what am I?" And just about as convincing. This really is a source of lulz for me You're so very, very desperate to pretend you aren't enraged. You know what rage is a source of "lulz" for me? This: anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT Get over the smell…
/r/MensRights23/02/11 09:03 AM
0

I deeply apologize for not centering my life around replying to you. But that's all you've got? That I didn't get back to you fast enough? Guess I'm not desperate to "prove myself right" like you are. Because, after all, It is a little sad that you need to be "right" so badly, on the internet. keep on spinning, buddy!
/r/MensRights22/02/11 04:19 PM
1

Sure, you always win arguments when you A) refuse to read what the other guy writes I didn't even read it B) rationalize being proven wrong when you do make the mistake of reading it, by saying it was a "gotcha" question, or that I'm "technically" correct, or you're still waiting for me to play your arbitrary game? Thanks for the confirmation that you're living in a world of your own making, totally unconnected to reality. LOL! thanks for the confirmation that I was right! ... It is a little sad…
/r/MensRights22/02/11 01:52 AM
0

When I do it it's proof I'm mad, but when you do it, it's proof that you aren't! My name is jimjoebob, and I'm too stupid to recognize sarcasm even when it's explicitly pointed out to me! you don't have an argument ... sorry I failed your arbitrary tests. I didn't even read it ... you don't have an argument... I didn't even read it LOL. after jumping right to insults rather than logic. you just lose your train of thought in insults. ... anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTB…
/r/MensRights20/02/11 05:09 AM
0

you're still waiting for me to play your arbitrary game? Hilarious! Replying with anything but "LOL" is now an 'arbitrary game'. I guess you're taking your ball and going home, then? Continuing the regression in age until you're just a fetus? Your tears are so delicious!
/r/MensRights19/02/11 07:07 PM
1

I almost feel bad about reducing you to a 6 year old who can only speak one word. Then feel free to point out where I'm so angry and immature I write like a 8 year old with tourettes. anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT Get over the smell of your own farts. Sir Douche an anonymous butthurt douche on the internet hath deemed me WRONG!!!! 2nd, eat me. you're so giving, like a girl Stil…
/r/MensRights19/02/11 08:21 AM
1

My name is jimjoebob, and I'm too stupid to recognize when I'm being sarcastically mocked. Keep on replying, buddy! When I do it it's proof I'm mad, but when you do it, it's proof that you aren't! LOL. See it there? LOL. ... LOL. LOL. Seriously, LOL.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 08:08 AM
0

Then feel free to point out where I'm so angry and immature I write like a 8 year old with tourettes. anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT Get over the smell of your own farts. Sir Douche an anonymous butthurt douche on the internet hath deemed me WRONG!!!! 2nd, eat me. you're so giving, like a girl LOL.
/r/MensRights19/02/11 07:16 AM
0

anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT Get over the smell of your own farts. Sir Douche an anonymous butthurt douche on the internet hath deemed me WRONG!!!! 2nd, eat me. And the new you're so giving, like a girl No, THAT is maturity. Cry for me more!
/r/MensRights18/02/11 11:43 PM
1

I am just completely incapable of responding to your argument FTFY. I'm not mad Yeah, it sounds like it... anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT Get over the smell of your own farts. Sir Douche an anonymous butthurt douche on the internet hath deemed me WRONG!!!! 2nd, eat me. Mmm, delicious tears. You must have been pounding on your keyboard so hard when you wrote all that out, your li…
/r/MensRights18/02/11 12:01 AM
1

b/c you keep responding with novels. Well, obviously if reading is hard for you, writing must be even harder, so I'm sure you have a hard time imagining that writing a few lines doesn't take me all day. Why don't you call me a butthurt anonymous douche who smells his own farts more, if you're so calm? Calm people do that a lot. It is a little sad that you need to be "right" so badly, on the internet. It's a little sad YOU need to be right so badly, you need to keep on inventing reasons why you b…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 11:09 PM
1

I didn't even read it Big surprise! I get the feeling you say that about a lot of things! Reading is hard! Being incredibly wrong and a failed 4chan troll, though, is easy. sorry I failed your arbitrary tests I thought you didn't read it? Also, rationalize being wrong more. We now have: It was a "gotcha" when you're wrong by well over three orders of magnitude I was only "technically" correct The test was arbitrary It's hilarious! The biggest failures always have excuses ready. It sounds like yo…
/r/MensRights16/02/11 09:26 AM
1

technically, the first time I said "butthurt" was my own initiative LOL, I love how every time what you say is factually wrong, there's always some rationalization why it doesn't matter. I'm "technically" right. I'm right, but it was a "gotcha". No, I'm just right, and you're just wrong. How about this: For the next three posts, try not to say something that would get a ten year old kicked out of class. That can't be too hard, can it? 2nd, eat me. Ahh, I knew you couldn't do it. I knew it, and y…
/r/MensRights15/02/11 11:30 PM
0

I was just saying "Butthurt" b/c you asked me to! Wrong again, you used butthurt on your own, because you genuinely can't act like an adult for more than a few posts in a row. Then you tried to act like it was all a joke when I called you on it, just like you still are. Then you started in with "anonymous butthurt douche" and "Get over the smell of your own farts" because, again, you don't know how to act like an adult and you're mad at anyone who calls you on your insane conception of the medic…
/r/MensRights14/02/11 10:19 PM
0

It's hilarious how you're trying to play it off like you're so calm and above it all. Why don't you call me BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT more? Calm, mature people tend to do that a lot. snarky, condescending tone with which you replied to me ... anonymous butthurt douche BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT Get over …
/r/MensRights14/02/11 01:54 AM
0

says the guy who is arguing on the internet LOL. So sorry you're so wrong. BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHHUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT You're right, you're so much more mature than anyone.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 08:35 PM
0

company's negligence What happened to These assholes have committed MURDER on a grand scale Look up the definition of "murder". You're backpeddling so hard someone should attach a generator to you. so, what was Merck's net profit from 2000 - 2007? It's almost like you desperately need to avoid directly answering any questions. LOL, says the man who hasn't provided a SINGLE CITATION. The depth to which you so quickly sink in rhetoric LOL: BUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTBUTTHURTTBUUUUUUUU…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 06:19 AM
0

the fact that the companies who released them, knowing there were significant risks, are NEVER held accountable Oh, sorry, you don't mean NEVER, you mean has to pay a couple million Oh, sorry, you don't mean a couple million, you mean over 5 billion. Only off by a factor of 2500. And that's not counting the stock price hit, and the public confidence hit resulting in lower sales, and the legal claims from non-US citizens, and the fact that maybe they'd rather not kill people. It's almost like you…
/r/MensRights12/02/11 01:52 AM
0

has to pay a couple million Merck has reserved $970 million to pay for its Vioxx-related legal expenses through 2007, and have set aside $4.85bn for legal claims from US citizens LOL.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 12:22 AM
1

You could just be a troll ... BUTTHURTBUTTHURT LOL. the fact that the companies who released them, knowing there were significant risks, are NEVER held accountable ... There was a huge lawsuit and large fines paid by the drugmaker. LOL
/r/MensRights11/02/11 08:46 PM
1

hyperbole Yeah, uh: These assholes have committed MURDER on a grand scale Does that set off any of your hyperbole alarms? Or how about: (just kidding, it will fucking kill you) Or knowing there were significant risks, are NEVER held accountable! Really? No drug company has ever been held accountable for doing something dangerou? Uh-huh. Or Corporate America Or They don't test this stuff nearly enough to really be safe, the companies are just slobbering for another billion bucks and don't give a …
/r/MensRights10/02/11 08:49 PM
0

Wow, you are REALLY nuts. That's the exact same sort of reasoning the people who think vaccines cause autism use. How many deaths do they have on THEIR hands because of their stupidity and paranoia about the medical establishment? release a new drug without extensive testing, b/c their corporate bosses are anxious to dig another billion dollars out of the general public. Ever heard of the FDA? There is no medicine on the market that hasn't undergone testing. They're not perfect, but they're the …
/r/MensRights09/02/11 08:32 PM
1

Yes, that is why I never shave (anywhere) and refuse to shower. I hate messing with my body's most basic functions for my and my partner's convenience.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 10:56 AM
1

Evolution doesn't have a brain, it doesn't have a master plan for design born out of the 10,000 years you mention, it's just random chance and selection. There's no reason people who DO have brains can't improve on it.
/r/MensRights09/02/11 10:54 AM
1

I wish people would focus less on individual word choice and more on meaning in general.
/r/MensRights31/10/10 12:14 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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