TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Agilofing Archive

View 0 posts and 156 comments by Agilofing 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)
2

The U.S. is crazy, particular with healthcare. It costs a couple thousand dollars to call an ambulance, for example. I know lots of people who've been hurt, who were less afraid of what the doctor would say than how much the doctor would cost. It's a crazy system over here. The UK has a lot of problems, but the U.S. is way, way, way worse. And I say that as someone who loves the U.S. and kinda didn't like London when I visited (every time I saw a car on the left side of the road, I thought somet…
/r/MensRights28/08/20 09:28 AM
1

I mean in the sense that protestors think they are doing something good but sometimes it's not really benefiting someone potentially. Yeah, I get where you are coming from. But sometimes, to fix a problem, you have to go to its source. Volunteering can really help people -- but sometimes it's good to wonder why so many people need help in the first place. I used to volunteer at a food bank. Stores would donate food. They'd take it off the shelf, pack it up, and ship it to us. We'd unpack it and …
/r/MensRights28/08/20 09:13 AM
2

If I asked people hey do you want to do some volunteering in a care home with me no one will do it. They would rather protest I think that protesting instead of volunteering can be smart. There are a lot of problems that could be solved by people working together. But there are a lot of people who profit off those problems. Take firefighting. In California, wildfires are burning out of control. Normally, the state uses prisoners to fight wildfires. The state pays them a few dollars a day, far le…
/r/MensRights28/08/20 08:12 AM
2

I'm just saying we should have equal standards for everyone. No preference given for where the students are from. If a foreigner has all As and wants to go to a school, she should get in over a local who has all Bs. Sadly, there are lots of people who think that citizens deserve special treatment, simply because they have the right parents.
/r/MensRights28/08/20 08:05 AM
2

Shouldn't everyone be judged equally with equal standards and judgements should not be based off filling race quotas But when I say this about nationality, everyone loses their minds.
/r/MensRights28/08/20 12:35 AM
1

The issue is nobody cares, and getting people who will actually listen is nearly impossible. TBH, it doesn't seem like there's anyone here who cares at all. I don't see people brainstorming how to help men in need. I don't see people complaining that they wish these problems against men would end. I don't see people sharing stories about men they've lost from workplace fatalities, or violent crime. I see people excited to win arguments with feminists. That's basically the #1 concern here. The wo…
/r/MensRights14/06/20 01:11 PM
0

Cool, I'm glad they have a nice image to use as a counter claim. What about the men suffering from domestic violence? Or the men being raped with no legal recourse? Why is no one here focused on helping them, and instead focused on finding ways to "counter claim" the feminists? It just doesn't seem like even a single person here is interested in helping men suffering with the problems listed in the image and a ton of people here are interested in winning arguments with feminists.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 12:54 PM
-4

Men's rights pushes primarily for equality Weird, because in this thread, I don't see any of that. I see people saying things like "Can I have the source, because I want to use this against feminists." Not too many people saying "where can I fund domestic abuse shelters for men?" If you look at this thread as an example of what Men's Rights do "primarily", where is anyone talking about equality?
/r/MensRights14/06/20 12:44 PM
25

Why not use it to help men? I thought that was the point of this whole sub.
/r/MensRights14/06/20 11:58 AM
-3

You can say it's about equality, but that's egalitarianism. Uhhh, so then why is this sub called Men's Rights and not Egalitarianism? Isn't Men's Rights just as bad as Feminism?
/r/MensRights14/06/20 11:57 AM
1

Okay, so more personal attacks. Care to provide a high IQ answer? How does increasing the number of pies do anything to further equality?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:08 PM
1

No, but arguing is larger than just disagreement. There's a great Monty Python sketch to that effect. If the other person just wants to say they disagree with me, that's fine. I'm asking why they disagree. So far, I've gotten no substantive response.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:07 PM
0

And that's your theory of equality?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 01:13 PM
1

Because I insist on focusing on arguments? Rather than calling other people "racist scumbags," "delusional," and "cunts"? I've made a simple argument. It's two sentences long. I can copy it again if it would help. Your response to my argument is what? More insults?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:15 AM
1

It seems like it'd be an easy question to answer. Is the idea that a rising tide will lift all boats? And that, as the number of pies increases, the gap between those with the most pies and those with the least will decrease? I don't want to put words in your mouth (the other commenter rightly told me off for that), but I'm having a hard time understanding what you are arguing, other than you disagree with me.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:04 AM
1

Again, this is the problem with not developing an argument. You can attack my position that white nationalism is responsible for coal subsidies. But you can't actually say why you think I'm a racist. You just say "usually the only types of people who bring that up are genuine bigots." What does that have to do with me? What does that have to do with what I wrote? You said I was a "racist scumbag," because I'm defending a white woman against white coal miners. Where exactly is the racism? What is…
/r/MensRights09/05/19 04:02 AM
1

Do you actually know that her parents weren't wealthy? Yes? She and her mom moved into a studio apartment in Burbank when she was a kid. The apartment is ~400 sq ft and today costs $1,700 a month. That's the median price for a 1 bedroom in California. She's not lower class, but she definitely wasn't wealthy. As for the coal miners' skin colors, again, I don't see how that's relevant to your argument that I'm racist. If I'm racist against whites, then why am I defending Brie Larson, who is also w…
/r/MensRights09/05/19 03:48 AM
-1

Uhh, why not just answer the question? How does increasing the number of pies do anything to further equality?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 02:54 AM
1

So you admit writing it? And that the above post doesn't reflect the views that you've expressed elsewhere? You are trying to troll me rather than making an argument. If you really think that I'm wrong, why not just say where I'm wrong? Why lie about your own views? If you have an argument, make it. If not, admit it. There's no reason to post in bad faith.
/r/MensRights09/05/19 01:09 AM
-1

Larson's parents were chiropractors. Average salary for chiropractors? $70,000. Average salary for coal miners? $76,000. Womp womp. If you want to say that she grew up in "extremely rich and wealthy societies," I'll take a source for that. What I'm seeing is that she grew up in Sacremento, which has a lower average salary than does the rest of California. Her family started with less than the coal miners make. She started in a below-average city. And she made herself a millionaire. She didn't ne…
/r/MensRights09/05/19 12:26 AM
0

Wow, another bad faith argument. What a surprise. You pretend to think that the coal miners are getting "left over[s]," while you wrote in this same thread that "Reddit will have you think that there is a finite pie that the rich progressively steal from the poor and we are almost depleted of all the worlds resources and it’s all a zero sum game." You have no argument, so you are trolling. I have an argument. I'm not trolling. The coal miners get federal help because they can't compete in a mark…
/r/MensRights09/05/19 12:18 AM
-1

Trolling me isn't an argument. The coal miners are privileged. Brie Larson isn't. She doesn't take money from the federal government because she can't compete in a global economy. The coal miners do. Coal miners are insanely privileged. Brie Larson isn't. That's my argument -- what's yours?
/r/MensRights09/05/19 12:02 AM
-2

To highlight the absurdity of protectionism. Care to answer my questions? Do you think that the U.S. government cares as much about my job or your job as it does about coal miners' jobs? And if that's not privilege, what is?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:56 PM
-2

Both? If the corporations went under, the miners would lose their jobs. And, unlike the rest of American society, the U.S. government actually cares if the miners work in their preferred industry. Do you think the government cares whether Arby's goes under? Do you think they'd subsidize Arby's so that its workers wouldn't have to find new jobs?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 11:05 PM
0

Okay, sorry. I just don't see why there's any reason to think that the new pies will go to people who have fewer pies. Can you explain that?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:58 PM
-9

So then what reason is there to think that the new pies will go to those who have the least pies? I don't think your argument has anything to do with equality. It's a laudable goal (to make sure "that everybody's bellies are full"), but it has nothing to do with equality. People could be all starving in an equal society; people could all be full in a massively unequal society. Equality doesn't care about the absolute number of pies, only the relative number. If you don't care about equality, it'…
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:54 PM
0

It's the combination of posts like this and then posts like this. So feminism is bad because it ignores "actual issues," but MRAs can talk about Brie Larson in the Men's Rights sub and no one pushes back. I don't see anyone in this thread urging the other posters to talk about the "real issues." That's apparently only something feminists are supposed to do. EDIT: Fixed link.
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:40 PM
-6

And the new pies to go women and minorities right? So that "we can make things equal"? Or is the goal to make everyone full and ignore the absolute number of pies they have?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:37 PM
-9

White male coal miners in West Virginia are insanely privileged. The U.S. federal government, the strongest institution in the world, spends billions trying to prop up their dying industry. Arby's employs more people than the entire coal industry. Do you think the federal government would intervene to stop a local Arby's from closing? Brie Larson has to compete in a global marketplace, without Uncle Sam putting his finger on the scale in her favor. Why should coal miners get special help?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:35 PM
1

So then you support making more pies and giving them to women and minorities?
/r/MensRights08/05/19 10:24 PM
-8

Because the Republicans are in charge. No one here is interested in holding Republicans responsible for improving men's rights. They want to use it as a cudgel against feminists.
/r/MensRights13/11/18 04:50 AM
2

if the Office of Conduct starts to question the honesty of the alleged victim, I start to question. That's not what you said. You said that she was a liar. Is that what the 'Office of Conduct' said? Is that what the judge said?
/r/MensRights22/02/18 12:37 AM
-2

allow future suitors to know that she files false rape claims so that they have fair warning. Who said that the claim was false? Neither the panel nor the judge said that she's lying.
/r/MensRights22/02/18 12:12 AM
-10

So if the panel isn't unanimously convinced you were telling the truth, that means you are a liar? How does that make sense?
/r/MensRights22/02/18 12:11 AM
-25

Well, since he is now suing for damages, he won his case. No, the case against him wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. That doesn't mean that she lied or that he "won." Beyond a reasonable doubt usually means greater than 90%. So if we are only 89% sure that someone was raped, a jury would not convict the accused rapist. Does that mean we should release the alleged victim's personal information? What would that achieve?
/r/MensRights21/02/18 09:15 PM
1

But a lot of these feminist terms are harmful to men. If we use the logic from the post: how does bitching about feminists on reddit "actually fucking do something to benefit" men? If you want to help men, you should go out there and do it, rather than posting about 'bitching' feminists online.
/r/MensRights28/01/18 05:57 PM
1

whereas feminists just bitch and whine about imaginary problems And then you have the MRAs who like a reddit post about women "bitching." How does this post "actually fucking do something to benefit" men? Does this entire post not fail on its own terms?
/r/MensRights28/01/18 05:55 PM
0

It's derogatory and if you say it to a man it's derogatory to him, but that doesn't mean that it can't be applied to women. For example, words like statuesque - (of a woman) attractively tall, graceful, and dignified or vivacious -(especially of a woman) attractively lively and animated, are typically, but not always, associated with one gender. There's no reason you can't call a man vivacious or statuesque. There's no reason a woman can't mansplain. Perhaps the reason that mansplaining is assoc…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 11:01 PM
1

My girlfriend just told me a completely different definition of what the term means to her. And some people think that 'inflammable' means 'fire-proof.' Just because that definition works for you, doesn't stop misandarists from using it to attack men. And if misogynists use 'mankind' to exclude women, that term becomes sexist too right? The rest of us can't use it?
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:53 PM
1

You are meant to believe that if condescending was used for something sexist more often, then it would become sexist because that's how language works. Alright I can live with that. No more mansplaining and in exchange no more: bossy shrill nag catty diva feisty gossipy abrasive And so on. Those are all sexist now.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:48 PM
0

I'm not changing anything. The Oxford definition is - (of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing. That boils down to what I said -- being condescending while explaining. Just because it's usually used to describe men talking to women doesn't mean it has to be, there's nothing in the definition itself that requires the mansplainer to be a man (in the sense that a bachelor must be an unmarried man, or a husband must be a marri…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 10:43 PM
0

That's eight words. I used six. We could replace any word in English if we don't mind upping our word count. Take the word 'patronize' -- we could do away with it and just use 'condescend.' "He was condescending in his explanation of the Iliad." Same word count! about how toxic, cruel and derogatory the use of the word mansplain has been used against me. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm not saying the word isn't derogatory (as would be the words 'patronize' and 'condescend'). I'm saying it isn't sexi…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:46 PM
-2

The word has an extremely clear intent and origin. Intent and origin are irrelevant. Just because a sexist makes up a word doesn't mean that the word itself is sexist. The only argument that anyone has for the word itself being sexist is that it includes the prefix 'man-'. But so do 'mankind' and 'man-made.' Those refer to humans generally, not just to the male gender. (And those words come from 11th century Anglo-Saxons who were brutal sexists, so if you want to say that any word developed by s…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:40 PM
0

But then we're debating usage and not the word itself. The initial claim was that: "Mansplaining is a word you use when you're trying to say "condescension", but you spell it with "m a n" at the beginning because you're a sexist piece of shit." The idea is that mansplaining is a sexist way to refer to condescension. I'm arguing it's not. You could use mansplaining to only refer to actions done by men, but you could do the same thing with the word condescension itself. Am I to believe that if men…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:31 PM
-1

Ive been explicitly told by feminist academics that a woman cannot mansplain. And I've been told by feminist academics that a woman can mansplain. So much for anecdotes. to explain in a patronizing matter is just patronizing. If you believe that mansplain has a true synonym, then you should be able to rewrite the following sentence with the same number of words. "He mansplained the Iliad to me." Would you say "He patronized the Iliad to me?" How can you rewrite that sentence with 'patronize?'
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:12 PM
1

it says that it is characterized by a man explaining something to a woman in a condescending way. It is characterized by that. That doesn't mean that it's only limited to men speaking to women. For example, look at the definition of 'vivacious: (especially of a woman) attractively lively and animated. Or 'statuesque': (of a woman) attractively tall, graceful, and dignified. Those are both typically used to refer to one gender, but there's no reason you couldn't describe a man as vivacious or sta…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 07:08 PM
-3

Except it's not gender neutral considering it's only used against men and never against women. It's been used in the New York Times to refer to women. And men are described as mansplaining more because men mansplain things more. You can't expect journalists to make up stories about non-existent female mansplaining just to satisfy your desire for gender equality. If men don't want to be described disproportionately as 'mansplaining,' they should stop 'mansplaining.' It was created by feminists wh…
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:52 PM
-1

to establish the difference between mansplaining and just being condescending while explaining something One is one word (mansplaining) and the other is four (being condescending while explaining). That's the difference. I'm sure I could show you plenty of examples of women explaining things in a condescending way. I'm sure you could. You could describe them as 'mansplaining' if you wanted to cut down on your word count.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:30 PM
0

And the same people who are arguing that 'policeman' is gender neutral are those who are saying that 'mansplain' is gender discrimination.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:06 PM
-7

Because we've yet to see widespread use of the term used in a gender neutral way. Maybe that's because men do more mansplaining? Are people supposed to write articles about non-existent female mansplaining to satisfy your desire for gender equality?
/r/MensRights19/01/18 06:00 PM
0

which only males are supposedly responsible of Says who? There's no reason that a woman can't 'mansplain' something, just like there's no reason that a woman can't be a 'policeman' or make something 'man-made.' I'll take a source for your claim that 'only males are supposedly responsible' for mansplaining.
/r/MensRights19/01/18 05:52 PM
-6

The word already existed but they created a new and using it as a pejorative. What word already existed? Patronizing doesn't refer to explanations -- it would be patronizing of me to say 'Get rid of that shirt; I'll buy you a nice one.' But that wouldn't be mansplaining. So the two words aren't synonyms. Mansplain is a gender neutral word that means to 'explain in a patronizing manner.'
/r/MensRights19/01/18 05:50 PM
-4

And any huMAN can mansplain. The NYT has used 'mansplain' to refer to actions by a woman. The Wikipedia definition notes that it typically refers to men, but doesn't have to. Why am I to believe that 'man-made' is gender neutral, while mansplain is not?
/r/MensRights19/01/18 05:47 PM
-23

but you spell it with "m a n" at the beginning because you're a sexist piece of shit. I was told 'man' is gender neutral. Look at policeman, mankind, man-made, etc. Why is 'mansplaining' any different? Is 'man' only gender neutral when it refers to something positive?
/r/MensRights19/01/18 04:36 PM
1

You really think that everyone here who is commenting is just trying to change your mind? You are free to believe whatever you want. But I'll respond to your arguments with arguments of my own. If you don't want to argue any more, then simply don't argue -- I'm not trying to convince you to stay or convince you to change your mind. I'm just responding to what you wrote.
/r/MensRights20/12/17 05:23 AM
1

I am not asking for "secret courts." All that I want is the same protection in sexual cases granted to the alleged victims. Just keep their names out of the press until the case is concluded. That's not what's being advocated for. The people in this thread want the parties to remain anonymous unless and until a guilty verdict is rendered. So if you were to bribe the judge, openly, and the judge were to find you guilty, no one would be able to report on your bribery, because of the rule of anonym…
/r/MensRights20/12/17 03:40 AM
1

No, it doesn't go into detail, but based upon similar cases, we can guess that at the very least, he has lost employment, been kicked out of school, and is probably the victim of social harassment from people that just assumed that he was guilty simply based on the accusation alone. Do you have anything more than a guess? We were talking about him being brigaded, about him facing mobs with pitchforks, about him facing the Salem witch trial. And the evidence for that is.... a guess? There are cas…
/r/MensRights19/12/17 06:06 PM
1

What's preventing that from happening in the world where the identity of the accused is kept anonymous? People could just falsely accuse me of non-criminal activity -- like being a neo-Nazi or liking The Phantom Menace. If we don't trust that the truth will eventually win out, then the alternative is government censorship of all negative speech (or at least, all negative speech that isn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:57 PM
0

The thing is that they can all be innocent -- their guilt isn't why we shift our behavior. It doesn't matter whether Senator Menendez is guilty or not -- someone facing a trial like that can't adequately represent his/her constituents. It doesn't matter whether the doctor is guilty -- his defense of mental incapacity is more troubling than any crime s/he's alleged to have committed. It doesn't matter whether the company is guilty of fraud -- the contract should be amended to remove the possibili…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:39 PM
1

Reductio ad absurdum is an extremely poor argumentative tool. And your counter is.... not arguing at all? If we value the accused's "ability to go on with his/her life unblemished until proven guilty' then why not simply disallow all negative comments unsupported by a guilty verdict? What is the social benefit to being able to call your neighbor a jerk? And why is it different than being able to call your neighbor a rapist or a sexual predator?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:36 PM
2

Yeah, you are right. For some reason, I was trying to fit the proposal into the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments, and the 6th amendment didn't even enter my analysis. I'll edit what I wrote.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:33 PM
0

Ehh, that information is important for public discourse. For example, Senator Menendez is on trial for bribery -- that seems like something voters might want to know. Perhaps it would be prudent to vote for a primary challenger who isn't facing the possibility of serving his/her Senate tenure from behind prison bars. Or maybe you don't want to go see a doctor who is currently on trial and is raising a defense of mental insanity. Or maybe you are going to enter into a contract with someone who is…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:31 PM
0

Not sure what you mean by this. This exists. It is called crowdfunding and the benefits clearly outweigh the addition of individual costs. Seems like a really really bad example. So if I send you my bank account information, you'll send me a dollar, because the benefit to me will outweigh the damage to everyone else? What you seem to be trying to argue here is that your right to gossip about the accused is more important than his right to go on with his life unblemished until proven guilty. What…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:20 PM
1

Yes but why is that new information relevant to my decision whether to hire them or not? We could just as easily say that my doctor was born when Betelguese was in retrograde -- is that supposed to prompt a reevaluation of my relationship with him/her? Why is the information that my babysitter/doctor/spouse was a witness in a criminal trial (or multiple criminal trials) relevant to my relationship with him/her?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 11:16 PM
1

Yes but why is it relevant to my decision to hire them to watch my kids, hire them to operate on me, or let them stand next to me? Am I afraid they are going to witness another crime, or something? How does being a witness to a crime affect or change your character?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:57 PM
2

What is the relevance? Why would you care if a would-be girlfriend or boyfriend had been a witness in a criminal trial? In several criminal trials? Is that supposed to tell me something about this person's character, that they've witnessed a number of criminal activities?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:50 PM
2

You are right. But considering we are talking within a thread about a false accusation, I assumed we were talking about this scenario. We still are in that scenario. The 60% certainty that the accusation is true implies a 40% certainty that the accusation is not true. So 4 out of every 10 cases like this will involve false accusations. But they aren't punishable because the prosecution will not be able to show that they are false beyond a preponderance of the evidence. What rapist?? There is no …
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:49 PM
2

But we aren't protecting them just from "ruined reputations and lives" and "wild media speculation." Granting them anonymity would prevent any discussion of what they did. Eye witnesses who saw a rapist attack someone would be prevented by law from discussing what they saw. If they had video, the public would not be allowed to see until the end of a trial. If there was no trial (let's say that the accused commits suicide or flees the country), then we can never discuss the events. We don't provi…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:21 PM
0

Sigh. If you think that a dictionary is all you need to discuss the law, you are the troll. Here's a brain teaser: O.J. Simpson was found innocent* for two murders. But he had to pay restitution after a civil trial. I thought that innocent meant blameless - how could he be forced to pay for something that he can't be blamed for? (*Leaving aside the obvious not guilty =/= innocent. If we are going to play that game then we could just say that I am willing to punish the "not guilty.")
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:14 PM
2

No. I wouldn't. Her conduct isn't at issue, or on trial. She isn't even party to the case. It is the state against the accused. And the state is the one doing the accusing, not the purported "accuser." She's a witness. Nothing more. Would you want to know if your doctor had been a witness in a number of trials? If your babysitter had been a witness in a number of trials?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:11 PM
2

You are playing fast and loose with burdens and standards of proof. Let's say that we are 60% sure A raped B. Can A be convicted? No. We don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it slander to say that A raped B? No. We can't prove that the statement is a lie beyond a preponderance of the evidence. You've taken the presumption from the first case and rolled it into the second. That's not correct. The defendant in the second case is entitled to his/her own presumption of innocence, and the p…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 10:02 PM
0

Do you claim that innocent people deserve to be punished? Yes. "Innocent" doesn't mean blameless or free from consequence, it just means you won't have criminal penalties applied to you. You are still free to be punished by society. Someone whom we are 85% sure raped a child is "innocent" before the law, but not innocent on my eyes. To convict someone of falsely reporting a crime, you need to prove they lied, which means proving the person they accused innocent. That's not true at all. You can s…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:48 PM
2

I had that idea because the alternative seems like a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. We'd be criminalizing public accusations of sexual assault. So if you wanted to, say, email your coworkers that you had been raped by A on the way to work, you'd have committed a crime by breaking A' s anonymity. Investigative journalism would be illegal. Talking during group therapy would be illegal. The subreddit 'CrewsCrew' would be illegal. And so on. I had just assumed we were discussing post-indict…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:22 PM
3

So then why does that right only attach upon the beginning of a criminal trial? If I want to say that person A has assaulted person B, I'm free to do so, up until the point when the government begins prosecuting person A. Then I'm no longer free to say anything about the ongoing trial (under this proposed rule.) How does that protect the accused from public opinion outrage? What about those who are accused but never tried, what protection do they receive?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 09:04 PM
0

I'm asking for evidence that Liam Allen was subjected to a "brigade (social media or otherwise.)" If you have that, I'd love to see it. If not, I'm not sure what you are trying to do here.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:24 PM
-1

So you believe that everyone charged with anything is guilty, even after being proven innocent. Let's break this down. I don't believe that "everyone charged with anything is guilty." I never said that. Second, no one is 'proven innocent,' in the American criminal justice system. That's just a fundamental misunderstanding. You are either found guilty or you are acquitted. No one is ever pronounced innocent, because your innocence doesn't need to be proven. It is presumed. Third, people can false…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:23 PM
10

I know you didn't argue in favor of a mistrial, but it's unavoidable from your argument. If we are protecting the identity of the accused in part to ensure a fair trial, then whenever their identity is divulged, they'll say that they've lost the right to a fair trial. And since there is no way to make their trial secret again, I don't understand how they'll ever be prosecuted. If we instead aren't protecting the identity of the accused to protect their right to a fair trial, then why are we prot…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 08:00 PM
1

Wouldn't it be faster then to just end this argument entirely and provide the evidence that proves I'm wrong and an idiot?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:55 PM
0

because of what happened to him That's just sort of burying the question within the answer, isn't it? I'm asking "what happened to him?" The article doesn't talk about it at all and no one has been able to point me to a different article talking about it. I personally think that you are not arguing in good faith here, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt in this case. Thanks for that. I'm out on a limb here because it could very well be that he was brigaded on social media and I…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:53 PM
3

There's no law that says that the alleged victim can't be named (in the U.S.). Those laws are routinely struck down as unconstitutional, as violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments. At any rate, even if there were laws shielding victims from media exposure, they aren't a party to the case. They can't present witnesses or evidence. They are represented by the State only insofar as the State represents everyone. The danger of bribery from an alleged victim is as remote as the danger of briber…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:49 PM
1

Let's say that I told you there was a 75% chance your babysitter was a child rapist. Would you continue to employ him/her? 75% isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt' so we couldn't convict him/her on that probability. But do you think that information would change your stance toward that person? Do you require 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt' that someone is a criminal before you change how you interact with them? Let's say I told you that there was an 85% chance that the person walking down the str…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:42 PM
1

If you think my argument is stupid, then it shouldn't be hard to beat. Go ahead. Just point me towards evidence or an allegation of a brigade (social media or otherwise.) This should be trivial.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:37 PM
4

It's not a Constitutional provision* -- it's a Constitutional prophylaxis, like Miranda. Without public disclosure of criminal proceedings, the public has no way to know whether the Constitution is being followed. Consider a defendant in a sexual assault case. She bribes the judge to let her go. How will we ever be able to report on this? Reporters would have to reveal the dismissed sexual assault case to reveal the illegal bribe. All manner of unconstitutional and illegal behavior would flouris…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:36 PM
-11

For the same reason that it wouldn't be a good idea to hide the trials of Casey Anthony or O.J. Simpson. Getting an acquittal is the end of any criminal consequences. It shouldn't be the end of all consequences. There are lots of people who might want to accept a drink from Bill Cosby, have Casey Anthony watch their kids, or have O.J. Simpson over for a weekend that will now think twice having seen the evidence produced at trial. Even if they aren't guilty of a crime, their conduct still could (…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:27 PM
1

Can you just maybe point me in the direction of the brigade that we are supposed to be talking about? There's no mention of a social media anything in this article. Is there some other article that talks about this guys' experience on social media? So far, the logic I'm seeing is this: Those accused of sexual assault get brigaded This man was accused of sexual assault Therefore, he must have been brigaded Except that not everyone accused of sexual assault gets brigaded, so maybe, just maybe, som…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:24 PM
0

The court of public opinion may decide you're guilty even if the jury finds you innocent but the actual court procedings could take years to complete meanwhile your life is stuck and perhaps ruined. We don't seem to mind that when it happens to O.J. Simpson or Casey Anthony. Would you let them babysit your kids? The 'court of public opinion' helps us to avoid those who commit actions that are unethical, but not illegal. It's how we deal with professors who plagiarize, diners who don't tip, or mo…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:17 PM
2

There is nothing in the article about how he was treated outside the court system. Do you have some other source showing that there was a social media brigade against this guy?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:09 PM
-9

I'm not implying that's the case to this particular one guy, i'm implying it's generally seen So you are saying that "brigade first and ask questions later" has no relevance to this link? And that there was no actual brigade (social media or otherwise) in this case?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:07 PM
-12

We aren't talking about presumption of innocence. We are talking about the right to be tried anonymously. So for example, Bill Cosby was accused and tried for sexual assault. He was presumed to be innocent. No one wants to change that. What the advocates in this thread want is for Cosby's indictment, arrest and trial to all be private unless he was found guilty. Since he had a mistrial, you and I wouldn't even know that Cosby had ever been charged with those crimes.
/r/MensRights18/12/17 07:03 PM
-10

Where is the brigade? This man was indicted, charged and exonerated in a criminal process where he had all of the rights I just listed above. The one right he didn't have was the right to remain completely anonymous at all times during the proceedings. That's supposed to be the hallmark of the "pitchfork mob"?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 06:57 PM
15

And if the information is released anonymously? What then? The defendant has a permanent mistrial?
/r/MensRights18/12/17 06:53 PM
-13

Can you really not distinguish this from a pitchfork mob? Once charges were brought against this man, he had the right to counsel. If he could not afford counsel, one would be appointed for him. Everything he says to his lawyer is private -- it cannot be used as evidence or even divulged to the prosecution. He can call his own witnesses, introduce his own evidence, and take the stand, if he desires. If he doesn't want to take the stand, he has the right against self-incrimination. How many pitch…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 06:50 PM
-8

What was the brigade here? The criminal investigation into this man's conduct? Where he had the right to be represented by counsel, to have that counsel vigorously contest the admissibility of evidence, the right to a jury trial, the right to appeal any verdict, the right against self-incrimination and the right to speak privately with his attorney? That's a brigade, because he wasn't given(in addition to all those rights) the right to remain totally anonymous through all stages of the proceedin…
/r/MensRights18/12/17 06:47 PM
0

Pointing out factual statistics doesn’t equal minimizing breast cancer. So then what does it mean to minimize something?
/r/MensRights06/12/17 06:19 PM
0

They don’t have nearly the funding or support that breast cancer awareness has. There’s only so much they can do. They have two options for increasing their funding. Either they increase the total amount spent on cancer research, or they cannibalize some of the money going to a research a different cancer. They picked option #2. That's a bad choice. There are a million ways they could drive home how many men are affected by prostate cancer. The advertisers chose to do it by minimizing another ve…
/r/MensRights06/12/17 05:11 PM
1

Except that it isn't a competition. That's the entire point. Breast cancer research didn't get public awareness by minimizing some other form of cancer. Prostate cancer research should do the same.
/r/MensRights06/12/17 03:57 PM
7

You think that homicides are underreported?
/r/MensRights26/10/17 01:25 AM
0

Seems like an easy enough question to answer. What, specifically, in your title would lead a non-dumbass to conclude that the smiley is a reference to the deceased's will? Answers could be something like 'It was put in quotation marks' or 'It was included with other phrases from the deceased's will.' You can't point to a single thing in your title that would lead someone to believe that the smiley was from the deceased's will?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/10/17 04:23 PM
1

Sure, I'm a dumbass. Now explain to me, a dumbass, how someone would know that the smiley was a reference to the deceased's will, rather than your own personal opinion. Pretend I'm smart. What, specifically, in your title would lead a non-dumbass to conclude that the smiley is a reference to the deceased's will?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/10/17 04:10 PM
0

And how was I supposed to know whether that thought is yours or another person's? (Which is what we're arguing about.)
/r/PussyPassDenied13/10/17 03:47 PM
0

So you couldn't understand the sentence fragment that was referencing something you had just written, but we're supposed to understand a smiley face from a will we've never read? You knew no one would understand that smiley face as being from the guy's will. I knew you'd never understand that when I wrote 'his will' I was referring to your previous comment. But I can be honest about it.
/r/PussyPassDenied13/10/17 03:30 PM
0

I ended my post the same way you ended your previous comment, to make reference to it. Remember this? I ended my title the same way he ended his will I ended my comment the same way you ended your previous comment. With the words 'his will.' How am I supposed to understand the smiley as being a reference to his will, but you can't understand 'his will' as being a reference to your previous comment?
/r/PussyPassDenied13/10/17 03:07 PM
1

The smiley is not in the headline of the story. It's mentioned in the headline as part of the deceased's will. I made reference to this in my previous comment, when I said "his will." How could you not understand that that was what I was saying? :)
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/17 03:33 PM
3

But by taking it out of context and including no explanatory remarks, it makes it seem as though the smiley is your own personal opinion. his will
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/17 02:54 PM
5

How does your smiley at the end of this post's title make reference to his smiley, at all?
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/17 03:53 AM
-1

I don't know that people with clinical depression get 'tired of living all together' or that they 'get tired of fighting.' That's a symptom of their illness. It'd be sort of like saying someone with a terminal gunshot wound got 'tired of fighting' just prior to death. It has less to do with their willpower than with simple biology.
/r/PussyPassDenied12/10/17 03:49 AM
0

The social problems that can increase men’s risk of suicide include unemployment, relationship issues, being separated from your kids, financial trouble, being a victim of violence or abuse, being excluded from school, alcohol and substance abuse, long-term illness, homelessness, social isolation and mental health disorders. Wow, so all we have to do to fix men's suicide is end unemployment, fix all relationships, keep families intact, ensure financial stability for all, end violence and abuse, …
/r/MensRights09/09/17 07:34 AM
1

You were criticizing the "double standard." I'm suggesting that maybe there isn't one. Maybe it's acceptable for both adult men and women to sexualize teens and preteens. Maybe, even, admirable. If I sexualized a teen, do you think Pat Robertson would visualize me at the right hand of God?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:39 PM
0

A personal insult instead of an argument. Also presidential. I will respond in kind. You are crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb -- but other than that I like you very much. Seriously, the idea that Trump lives in my head rent free is retarded. He's the freaking President. Unlike shitty internet trolls, Trump's actions have huge implications for both my own life and the lives of my friends and family. How would ignoring him help my life in any way? Back to my original point. It's disgusting from bot…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 05:20 PM
-9

It's not disgusting. It's modern-day presidential. If Mel B wants to grab those guys dicks (in two years), why not? She's rich, they let her do it.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 04:11 PM
-3

What's so bad about saying that, exactly? Here's the President of the United States, leader of the free world, saying the same thing about a little girl. "I'm going to be dating her in 10 years. Can you believe it?" If he can do it, why can't Mel B?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:57 PM
3

Wow. Not sexist at all. Imagine swapping his name with any female name. You don't have to imagine. You can just click on the link at the top of every SportsGrid page that says "Girls," and it will take you to pictures of women in popular culture with articles discussing how sexy they are. Here's a good example: LAUREL VAN NESS MAY BE DEPRESSED BUT SHE STILL LOOKS AWESOME It's a blatantly sexist website toward both men and women. And the amazing part is: it's owned by the guy who owns The Mary Su…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:49 PM
85

They seriously are. their stance so many people don't realize they're doing it Who the fuck is 'they'? Is it possible that you are combining a bunch of people into one group, that maybe aren't a group?
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/17 03:39 PM
4

I've never understood this argument. Would it make your life better if men and women were blown to smithereens in exact proportion to their representation in the general population? If that happened, would you support, say, the Equal Rights Amendment, or feminism generally? Most people who bring up unequal treatment of men aren't interested in changing that treatment at all. Would you like to see a mandate that women make up 51% of all those who serve in combat?
/r/PussyPassDenied04/07/17 10:03 PM
-1

What does "one of its mandates" mean? Are you saying that people should behave by the same rules that the government does? How would that even be possible? And you don't have to assume it's true to alter your behavior. An accusation raises the probability of its truth, and depending on the severity of the offense, that probability can be too high for your comfort. Would you hold it against parents who remove their kids from the care of an accused child molester? Have they violated one of society…
/r/MensRights24/06/17 12:17 AM
2

What gender neutral language is used in the first part? Teammate? School sports team? How do you gender these words? Teamman? School sports men?
/r/MensRights23/06/17 09:47 PM
2

Uhh, that's pretty much true of most crimes that involve consent. Larceny cases often turn on interactions which have no witnesses (besides the accuser and the accused). Assault cases are similar. If the accusation couldn't be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, you could do almost anything in private with another person and get away with it (presuming you left no physical evidence behind.)
/r/MensRights23/06/17 09:46 PM
-7

It's about the wrong-headed way that this campaign is actually promoting people to assume guilt based solely on accusation, which most of the western world would disagree with. Everyone assumes guilt based on accusations. Would you let your son or daughter be taught by someone only accused of child molestation? Would you see a doctor only accused of fatal malpractice? Would you eat at a restaurant only accused of negligently spreading E. Coli? We rely on mere accusations all the time, because it…
/r/MensRights23/06/17 09:37 PM
1

What I was trying to say in my discussion of insurance is that getting paid by the insurance (say, if your house burns down) isn't 'free money.' You paid for that money with your premiums. Now, how much you get is determined by your policy, but saying that birth control becomes 'free' because there's no copay or deductible isn't quite accurate. You're still paying for it, just as part of your premium. Everyone else pays for it too. That's part of insurance. (I.e. all the people whose houses didn…
/r/MensRights21/06/17 06:29 PM
1

So is it generally believed then that religious beliefs are the only real reason birth control is being controversial as being mandated to be free from insurance companies? The cost of the birth control is part of your premium. That's how insurance works. If I paid my home insurance premium, and my my house burns down, I don't get a 'free' house. I get the house I paid my premiums for. If you wanted to subject birth control to a reasonable copay, that's different than allowing insurers to leave …
/r/MensRights21/06/17 05:11 AM
1

Not disagreeing at all if it's medically necessary then insurance should cover it no differently than any other pharmaceutical. That was Fluke's point. Rush Limbaugh called her a 'slut' for saying that. Just wondering where the line falls between medically necessary and some other use. Will there one day be a law that requires insurance companies to cover joints because the patient simply wants it compared to needing it to deal with chemotherapy. Not unless they have some underlying illness. Ins…
/r/MensRights21/06/17 02:26 AM
1

If people need the pill as a treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome 'the big deal' is that they'll lose their ovaries or become infertile. While it's true that it won't come off the shelves, if you can't afford the off the shelf price, and your insurance won't cover it, then you'll go without. That makes no sense. We don't let Jehovah's Witnesses determine what type of treatment other people's insurance can cover, we shouldn't listen to the faux religious concerns of anyone else. If you don't w…
/r/MensRights20/06/17 11:38 PM
4

Yeah, but the original claim was that 'Nothing scares a man more than a woman owning & in control of her own sexuality.' So if Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) want to say 'I'm scared of female sexuality, and we should spend my tax dollars to suppress female sexuality' that is 100% their right, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. But you're right that they'll always get a say in how their tax dollars are spent, and they should always get a say, no matter the quality of their opinio…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 11:52 AM
7

I mean, do you really think insurance is 'having someone else pay for [your medicine]'? Seriously? I'm sure you don't have home insurance or vehicle insurance. Or do you want someone else to pay for your house and car, you commie?
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:41 AM
23

Ehhh, how about this from the 2016 Republican Party Platform: We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. That approach — the only one always effective against premarital pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease — empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referral or counseling for abortion …
/r/MensRights16/06/17 05:39 AM
35

Nahh, look at Sandra Fluke. She wanted the government to mandate that insurance cover birth control. No one views that as baby murder. Moreover, Sandra Fluke was arguing that the government should require insurers to cover birth control because her friend took the pill to treat her polycystic ovary syndrome. Which definitely isn't baby murder. Rush Limbaugh then called Sandra Fluke a 'slut.' I can see how one would come away with the impression that Republicans care less about women having acces…
/r/MensRights16/06/17 04:45 AM
1

I'm not following. Let's say person A (a man) kidnaps person B (also a man). We then jail person A. We are fighting 'attacks with attacks.' According to you, we should 'let the water of women automatically calm the fire of men.' So instead of being sent to jail, we'll send the convict to a brothel. Great plan. If men are going to commit the overwhelming majority of terror attacks, we ought to impose more restrictions on men. Whatever that ends up being in your alchemical scheme, it's better than…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 09:30 PM
1

What? The gasoline won't hurt the fire. In my example, men would be clearly hurt disproportionately. In your example, men would be invigorated by the harsh treatment. So if the problem was fire, my solution would be: the bigger the fire, the more water needed to douse the fire. Men are the bigger fire (i.e. they are more dangerous) thus they will need more water (i.e. restrictions on immigration, civil liberties, basic human rights, etc.) to be rendered harmless.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 11:33 AM
1

Yeah, I do. I fear-monger. I'm regressive. I'm downright fascistic. That behavior isn't punished. It's celebrated. Welcome to 2017. I'm sure you oppose authoritarianism, which is great, until you end up drinking polonium. So I support authoritarianism, because at least there's a fifty-fifty shot that I'll be the one serving polonium, rather than the one drinking it.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 09:39 AM
1

Another apologist for terrorists. 'It's a minute fraction!' 'That they're all men is just a coincidence!' or when you have no argument, you just go to 'you're a bigot!' Hilarious. You have no argument. The MSM will not tell the truth about how dangerous men are. Wonder why that is, could it be because the MSM is overwhelming male? Would you trust RT to fairly cover Russia or Al Jazeera to fairly report on Qatar? Yet we don't mind male journalists reporting on men. I support a BAN (call it what i…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 06:08 AM
2

The fault is mine, I should have been more clear. I can totally see how 'what we're all about' seems like I wanted to refer to MRAs, I should have made it explicit that 'we' was referring to Americans generally. Apologies.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 03:34 AM
-1

Never said anything about MRAs. If a plurality of Americans are going to support banning Muslims because Muslims are more dangerous, they ought to ban men too because men are more dangerous. Whether you're an MRA or not, if you support the first, you support the second.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 03:23 AM
1

Yeah, I do believe that making the same mistakes with another community is a good way to fix mistakes. Unconstitutional attacks on Christianity, men and whites will make people skittish about unconstitutional attacks on Muslims, women and PoC. But so long as one group is immune to these violations (no matter which group), they'll oppose changing the rules to make violations less common. So I say ban men from immigrating into the US until we can figure out what the hell is going on. It should onl…
/r/MensRights07/06/17 02:25 AM
-3

Blacks are punished for the actions of others. That's the logic behind stop-and-frisk. Or consider the Arizona law that allowed officers to consider race/ethnicity in determining whether to ask about immigration status. Is that not singling out Hispanics for the actions of others? If we're going to have these policies, there's no reason we ought to limit it to blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. More restrictions on men would solve a lot of our problems with crime.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 12:09 AM
1

Uhh, why are we only looking at suicide bombings? If your only security goal is to stop suicide bombings, then the logical bigot would choose to ban Muslims. But why exclude ramming attacks, or mass shootings, or bombings of the non-suicidal variety? Get the real numbers and you'll see that banning men gives you the largest percentage reduction in terrorists for a single distinction.
/r/MensRights07/06/17 12:05 AM
-8

Isn't that what we're all about these days? If the President is going to say 'no Syrians allowed' because they are all dangerous, why shouldn't we do the same with men? When it comes to culpability, sure, only individuals are responsible for their actions. But when it comes to threat assessment, men are the ones who have a problem. We ought to exclude male immigrants from the country until we can figure out what the hell is going on.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 09:51 PM
-6

Yes, of course we acknowledge that the vast majority of suicide bombers are men. We know. You know that to be true, but you don't think: why is that true? And more importantly, if men are overwhelmingly the problem, shouldn't any effective solution treat men more harshly than women?
/r/MensRights06/06/17 09:43 PM
-5

Saying they lack culpability is different from saying they lack agency. I lack culpability for ethnic genocide in Myanmar, say, because I have nothing to do with that. Do I lack agency? No, there are lots of things I could do to try to remedy the situation. Similarly, women lack culpability for terrorist attacks which are overwhelmingly committed by men. Do they lack all agency? No, they have a meaningful role to play in reducing terror. But they have no culpability; men do.
/r/MensRights06/06/17 09:39 PM
2

Mmmm, I'm gonna need to see some credentials here.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 05:07 AM
2

What'd the other guy win?
/r/MensRights13/05/17 02:03 AM
-3

"Feminism doing something good"?? Why? As "never claiming to agree" with TRP's opinion, I don't care whether you agree with it or not. I'm arguing against the opinion, your personal beliefs are irrelevant. You said that things like "give credence" to TRP's opinion. I'm debating the opinion. If you don't want to debate the other side, then... don't debate the other side.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 12:47 AM
0

Evolutionary psychologists would agree, but thin =/= fit in all cases. That's the problem.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 12:44 AM
1

To your first point, that's just not true. Moreover, it disregards the relativity of weight (so while 600 lb women might not exist, being 180 lbs in a tribe with 120 lb women would). On your second point, evolution doesn't only work on genetic traits, behavior (such as language, mating rituals, etc.) can also be selected for or against. So there is no reason that the behavior of overeating couldn't be selected for or against. And your final argument really shows the problem with your generalized…
/r/MensRights13/05/17 12:42 AM
1

Evolutionary psychologists favor my side, but I don't like to pull rank. Source: guy who studied with Leda Cosmides and John Tooby
/r/MensRights13/05/17 12:15 AM
-8

Those two women were feminists who did nothing to advance feminists' "biggest agenda" of removing restrictions on women's sexual strategies. How do you explain their actions? It seems that you are leaving out huge swaths of the feminist movement to say that their biggest agenda is to remove restrictions on women's sexual strategies.
/r/MensRights13/05/17 12:12 AM
2

You aren't "repelling" an attempt at falsification, you are dismissing it. How can you know what is and isn't an evolutionary guideline, though, if any counterexample is merely an exception that doesn't disprove the rule? I could, for example, say that there is an evolutionary 'guideline' that men prefer overweight women, and that everything contrary to it is an exception to the rule. No?
/r/MensRights13/05/17 12:08 AM
4

They aren't pregnant. Their hips are much wider than the hips on a pregnant thin woman. Compare that to this. The hips stick out further than the shoulders; pregnancy isn't going to do that to you.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:55 PM
2

So then if counter examples can't disprove your "evolutionary guidelines," how can they ever be falsified?
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:50 PM
1

And then the societies that find obese women preferable to thin women? Do those not contradict a finding that weight preferences are evolutionary?
/r/MensRights12/05/17 11:34 PM
-2

So your method of distinguishing evolutionary forces from societal ones is... that the forces you've been talking about are evolutionary. That's less a method than a conclusion (i.e. why is youth an evolutionary desire and not a societal one? American society outlaws sex with anyone younger than 15; ancient Greek society allowed sex with young boys. Those seem like differences in societal attraction, rather than evolutionary differences, but "youth" is included in evolutionary desires.) My metri…
/r/MensRights12/05/17 10:30 PM
19

Ehh, arguments like that are too pat. How do feminists control male sexuality by running the Boston marathon? Or by promoting female aviation? The feminist movement has encompassed millions of people on multiple continents for the better part of two centuries. Reducing its goals to "control[ing] and dictat[ing] male sexuality" is a huge leap.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 09:47 PM
2

And how do you distinguish between evolutionary forces and societal forces?
/r/MensRights12/05/17 09:39 PM
-3

No normal, healthy animal would have six-pack abs either. No normal, healthy animal has a chin! To your second point, taking studies of people today and using them to represent the views of people millions of years ago isn't good science. If you want to say that people have viewed thinness as attractive for millions of years, you need some contemporary evidence. Otherwise, I could, for example, 'prove' that dark skin has been undesirable for 'millions of years' by doing studies today showing a d…
/r/MensRights12/05/17 09:21 PM
16

You are personifying evolutionary forces. Obesity is a leading killer today because we live longer than our ancient counterparts. An ancient Roman who survived childhood could expect to live to be around 50-60. Obesity would not prevent you from having kids during your fertile years, nor would it kill you before you died of something unrelated. Moreover, you can't take present behavior, link it to "base evolutionary forces" and then project it backwards in time. If you want to claim that these '…
/r/MensRights12/05/17 09:00 PM
5

Attraction is all about signaling. Consider the tail of the male peacock. The bigger it is, the healthier the male. Are females attracted to the tail or to the health of the male? The answer is both. There is no difference between being attracted to the signifier or the signified. In your example, there is nothing signified by the man's old, fat body. There are plenty of old, fat men who aren't rich in today's society. But in the pre-modern world, everyone who was fat was 'rich,' at least rich e…
/r/MensRights12/05/17 08:49 PM
23

That's a pretty sweeping statement. It disregards the oldest depictions of humans we have, which are of fat women. Moreover, there are cultures today that find obesity attractive: the Tuareg people in Mauritania practice leblouh - ritual fattening.
/r/MensRights12/05/17 08:37 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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