TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

AugustusM Archive

View 0 posts and 118 comments by AugustusM on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

For sure, you will find many lawyers, especially those practicing before the Criminal Bar at in the Defence Sol sector, are pretty vocal and active in opposing the SFJP. I would just prefer if people outside the legal profession had a bit more background on what Scots law actually IS before commenting on waht changes people are proposing. Scots law currently does not use jurys for many cases (shoplifting, motor offences etc) and that is not considered a violation of justice under our system. Jur…
/r/MensRights24/09/24 03:48 PM
0

That is from Magna Carter, which has NEVER been part of Scots law jurisprudence. It is an English law concept. It should be noted Scots law ALREADY does not use jury trial in all cases. The "Right to a jury trial" has never been part of Scots law. And it would be useful if people debating this actually looked into our legal system. Im not saying you have to be a lawyer, I don't do criminal work so I would defer to my criminial law colleagues, but at least some basic background of the facts would…
/r/MensRights24/09/24 03:42 PM
3

It should be noted Scot's jurisprudence has never conceptualised Dike (the Goddess of justice) as blind/blindfolded. Thats very much an American thing. Scots law has always considered that Justice must see and account for all relevant matters in order to be fair. Fairness, is the crux of our legal process and "blindness" is only one part of that. I don't agree with the move away from Jury trial (for only Sexual crimes, different answer if its all crimes) or the changes to corroboration in this c…
/r/MensRights24/09/24 01:10 PM
34

The honest answer I think is that black men are still somewhat "included" in the grand intersectional feminist alliance due to their black-ness. White men have no redemption factor under feminism and therefore there is a substantial uphill fight for white men to have any voice on Gender issues in mainstream left wing discourse. They have essentially no "access card" they can use to at least have a initial opening. Black men are at least allowed to be heard even if feminism will then turn shout d…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/24 12:16 AM
7

Royals are the family of the actual Crown. Peerage, as the name implies, are the families that are "peers" of the crown. Ie, powerful nobles like Dukes and Barons, but not actually of the Royal family. They are all, collectively, aristocrats.
/r/MensRights25/04/24 10:09 AM
3

So I have gathered. My point being however, that plenty of feminists in the US do vote for what I, and many of my fellow country men, would consider a right-wing candidate.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/24 02:08 AM
3

I imagine plenty voted for Biden though, who I would consider right wing. But then, I am European...
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/24 01:35 AM
8

I genuinely don't think there is a single candidate up for election with a semi-serious chance of getting elected in the US that would actually change any of the things you said. Even in my fair Europe you have to be out on the leftermost fringes to start actively advocating for the sort of stuff you think someone other than Trump is going to be promoting. It certainly isn't something Biden will do. From my perspective in Europe, Biden is solidly right wing. He's just slightly less right than Tr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/24 01:30 AM
3

Just want to say this was a very well nuanced, well written, and thoughtful contribution. I mimic much of what you have said in this thread. Although not coming from a US background have little to say on the context of Christian Fascism. I am sure you have already heard about it but others reading this thread might also be in interested in the Liberation Theology movement as a historical example of left wing Christianity in theology and practice. That movement certainly had (and has) its flaws, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/24 01:14 AM
3

I appreciate that you can have a strong view on this but like, it clearly is something that can be argued about. The Tolley Problem is, now certainly the most memed, but perhaps also one of the most genuinely discussed, thought experiments in the history of ethics and was created about abortion specifically. The field is absolutely swimming in published articles from jurisprudence to meta-ethics. As much as you don't like this idea, abortion may in fact be one of the single most ethically challe…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/24 12:50 AM
11

Good argument, very solid, thanks for the contribution.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/02/24 12:45 PM
-13

This is an actually reasonable, nuanced take. There is perhaps room for some correctional training/community service or something to really drive the point home for the girl, but if she is actually remorseful knowing that she basically got someone killed by her recklessness will be a lifelong punishment. Arguing she should be in prison (based on the assumptions you set out above) is a massive overreaction driven by emotion not reason.
/r/MensRights19/01/24 01:18 PM
87

The implication that no man has ever altered their behaviour in front of women is, for some reason, hilarious to me. Like, men just going around with exactly one state of being and never altering their behaviour or communication style at all...
/r/MensRights14/01/24 02:58 PM
0

Law can be. VetMed and Nursing I am really not so sure. My ex was a vet. She was often up at the crack of dawn to go a physically manhandle a cow giving birth to a calf. Then back to the practice to put down some beloved family pets while being yelled at by their owners because they couldn't afford the surgery needed to fix the issue. Then some intellectually demanding 5 hour long surgery. Then some light work manhandling dogs that weighed as much as her all in time to get home for 2100. Thats a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/23 07:20 PM
0

Yeah, name me a profession and I can show you people in that profession being assholes. Its an equal opportunity past-time in my experience.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/23 07:14 PM
0

Generally not no. I have worked both in house and in private practice and I would say the women tend to work exactly the same as the men. The longest I have ever seen someone work was till 5am on a completion. The deal was 1 partner (a woman) a junior associate (man) and a paralegal (woman.). The probably survivor bias I would wager. Most people that aren't willing to make that sacrifice don't cut it in the profession. But since the majority of the profession is female that still makes most of t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/09/23 07:13 PM
3

I highly disagree with the idea that women want cushy jobs. At least any more than men do. I can name 3 fields off the top of my head that are female dominated: VetMed, Nursing, and Law (my own profession). None of those jobs are easy or cushy but they are, to varying degrees, dominated by women. My team is 4 men and 8 women. Some of the finest, hardest working lawyers I have had the pleasure of working with. Nursing and VetMed are both gruelling, physically and emotionally demanding fields in t…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/23 08:47 AM
1

Ironically a really great analogy. ST often gets confused as pro-fascist but anyone that actually watches it can can its anti-fascist. Barbie seems to be getting confused as pro-feminist but anyone actually watching it should be able to see it is at most feminist-critical. Barbie literally starts a text-book fascist counter revolution.
/r/MensRights30/07/23 10:11 PM
4

Thank you both. I felt like I was going mad. Like, literally in the opening scene the film equates the destruction of the traditional gender roles with the literal invention of warfare using the 2001 Space Odyssey reference. Barbie literally uses a text-book fascist counter revolution to overthrow the Kens. This film is nowhere near as uncritical of feminism as people seem to think.
/r/MensRights30/07/23 10:05 PM
6

I think this is more indicative of the tendency for higher education to make one less and less likely to ever agree to absolute statements. If someone asked me is anything "always" morally wrong I would probably answer no outside some small number of cases. But I don't think my answer would ever differ based on gender.
/r/MensRights28/07/23 11:47 PM
-3

I do want to clarify that a verdict of not-guilty does not mean that the accusations were false. From a legal standpoint and from a common sense standpoint that is, imo, as it should be. The burden of proof for a guilty verdict is naturally very high. it should be high. But that might and I would say often does result in cases where people that have committed crimes are not convicted. Better this than innocent people being convicted imo so I think that is as it should be. However, that does mean…
/r/MensRights14/07/23 11:37 PM
18

Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that that is a typo of New Age Religion in the last line there. But might want to edit that.
/r/MensRights01/07/23 08:58 AM
2

A lot do to be fair, although a majority of the feminists I have met simply aren't aware that the law is defined that way and always tend to agree with me that it is unjust. The history of it in English law has actually be gendered for long time and the older Sexual Offences Acts are considered even more anachronistic.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 03:16 PM
5

Sexual Assault by Penetration in that case. Same sentencing guidelines but different name.
/r/MensRights11/03/23 11:55 AM
2

I don't practice criminal law, but I still have friends from school that do. While a lot of "progress" has been made by feminist activism to undermine legal protections for men in rape and sexual assault cases specifically it is still the case that rape convictions are really quite hard to obtain. Often times it really does come down to he said she said arguments and most juries aren't willing to convict on that. A lot of problems that still creep in. Juries are more willing to convict when the …
/r/MensRights03/03/23 09:28 PM
-6

Don't listen to these guys. There is a lot of hyperbole being thrown around. There is certainly a discussion to be had about regretful sex and I think it is an issue that is likely underreported and certainly underdiscussed. And I am also certain often times there are abuses of the system. And an accusation can often be just as damaging as a conviction to someone's life. But, all that being said, UK law is still very clear that sex is only rape if you didn't have a reasonable belief that your pa…
/r/MensRights03/03/23 01:10 AM
6

Ironically it was a step back. As I said, the old common law (ie before the new legislation was passed) definition was sufficient to capture made to penetrate. Its a pretty solid example of feminist lobbying against male sexual rights.
/r/MensRights18/02/23 09:39 PM
14

As others have said, I was referring to the UK which is covered by the Sexual Offences and Sexual Offences (Scotland) Acts. Don't worry about the others, I didn't explicitly state this was UK specific it was only implied by my reference to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and the Procurator Fiscal (Prosecution service for Scotland).
/r/MensRights18/02/23 07:49 PM
24

It specifically defines "Rape" as penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina by the Penis. Therefore, only those with Penis can rape. There is a distinct (though less politically charged crime) of "Sexual Assault by Penetration" which is basically penetration of the mouth, anus or vagina by means other than the penis. So fingers, strap-ons, cucumbers whatever. Both require that A did not have a reasonable belief that B consented. There is no statutory definition, as far as I recall, for made to pe…
/r/MensRights18/02/23 06:28 PM
2

The problem is choice. Or the lack of it. The big issue is at the moment the system makes a lot of assumption on how will make what choices. Ideally, men and women could decide among themselves if they want the man to do all the childcaring, the women to do it, or split it in some ratio. And the world of work would be structured to allow and enable those choices. But for most people it isn't. In the nordics it is better. But not perfect. But again, childcare is zero sum game. if couple want chil…
/r/MensRights30/11/22 02:20 PM
3

Well, the child care time has to be done at some point. Like we cannot reduce the amount of hours it takes to raise a child. I think the point of the post is that if male workers had more time off they would use some of that time to also care for and be with their children and loved ones. I don't think caring for children is inherently suffering and I think being alienated from that labour is one of the big ways that men suffer in the modern world. But I can agree that being forced to care for c…
/r/MensRights30/11/22 01:37 PM
1

In this one particular case this doesn't seem to actually be what is said. In fact, the part at the end where the writer says this is a "class issue, a workers issue AND a feminist issue" suggests and explicitly reinforces the theme which underlines the post that the issue she highlights run IN TANDEM, not against, this being a workers rights issue that will affect men. She also specifically highlights husbands in the list of caregivers the will need to do extra work. I am 100 convinced that man…
/r/MensRights30/11/22 12:42 PM
29

yup, this 100 per cent a take the support while you can get it. The enemy of my enemy is my friend etc. Trying to sow gender division on this issue does bear some hallmarks of capitalist anti-solidarity action.
/r/MensRights30/11/22 12:37 PM
13

I really don't get how people don't understand the concept of "someone getting beneficiaries" and instead perceive it as "I am getting discriminated". Because its extremely well trodden ground legally speaking. It's called a "most favoured nation" clause and its well understood to be discriminatory. Whether that discrimination amounts to a ethical or legal violation is a matter of personal politics and national policy. But the idea of "not extending a benefit" being a discriminatory practice to …
/r/MensRights25/10/22 02:27 PM
2

Predictions are that we will top out at around 14B and then reach a steady balance at around 12B from when I last remember looking. The trick is that almost any population level is sustainable given current tech the only real determination is what level of quality of life we want people to have and how evenly we want to distribute those resources. A population of 12B with the wealth disparity that exists in the wealth. Likely impossible. 12B were everyone lives within the range of western lower …
/r/MensRights25/06/22 09:05 PM
4

Obviously your interlocutor here is trying to disparage you as a racist adherent to the Great Replacement Theory. However, I will point out the likely hood of Africa and Asia out-breeding the west is quite unlikely. Basically all demographic modeling suggests these regions are undergoing a similar growth level to the west when we industrialised. And in nations that have completed that industrialisation we are already beginning to see growth rates level out and in some instances, like china for e…
/r/MensRights25/06/22 06:21 PM
3

Yeah, fuck people born with crippling disabilities through no fault of their own.
/r/MensRights25/06/22 01:46 AM
3

Fair enough if it was in the platform I think is what they use in the states? Still, not everything can happen all at once politically, some things take time to get rolling. Additionally, I guess having overlapping pres and congress elections makes things more tricky. If this was Birdens policy then he is doing it only half way into terms, which is reasonable. Just so happens hald way into term is also when a congressional election happens. In fact, given the frequency of elections at local and …
/r/MensRights03/06/22 10:51 PM
1

Sure but like, so long as elections are for terms then the political support purchase is going to be done around the elections. If you're political system allowed for easy recall of representatives then they would make more consistent political concessions to the electorate. My issue was just that the way you phrased it sounded like you disagreed with it on the principle that they were doing it for electoral support. But doing stuff for electoral support is the point.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 10:29 PM
2

Giving people what they want in exchange for political support is literally how democracy is supposed to work though.
/r/MensRights03/06/22 10:22 PM
1

Taking things in reverse order, since thats easiest. I agree that appearing racist shouldn't block any attempt to prevent crime. I tend to treat these reports the same as people saying men shouldn't be allowed to play with their kids in parks, because some men are pedophiles. Or that women shouldn't feel safe around men because some men might be rapists. By all means though, police action should be taken and shouldn't be blocked by fears of perceived racism. Net Impact of Migration. Those are co…
/r/MensRights20/05/22 03:13 PM
1

It's pretty standard for wherever opposition to paint whatever they oppose as the catalyst of doom. Yeah, I'm not doing that. That breixt has short term negative effects is basically accepted by both sides now. (Only the die hard brexiteers still deny this). In the long term the UK will be okay. But we wont be any better off than we would be under the EU and I suspect will probably have suffered some opportunities to be ahead. Its not like the UK will collapse (at least economically) but its on …
/r/MensRights18/05/22 09:48 PM
0

Most of this shit show started well before BoJo. Its a long term systemic drain caused by neo-liberal policies. Brexit is a long-term economically neutral proposition and to be fair, the EU was extremely clear about its demands well before brexit. The four freedoms are at the core of the EU and you don't get to pick and chose. From a purely geo-political position it was a big mistake, the EU is the only powerblock that can hope to rival Chinese and US interests in the short to medium term. Polit…
/r/MensRights18/05/22 01:32 AM
-4

Imagine thinking Biden was left wing... And I live under Boris Johnson and experience the same thing. Plus, we withdrew from the EU depriving free travel and right to work in any UK country from millions of my fellow workers. Local services have been gutted. A massive housing crises. All under a 11 year right wing government. Poverty in the UK has increased year on year under right wing governments. University fees introduced and then increased. Council Housing sold off. The chancellor just anno…
/r/MensRights17/05/22 05:36 PM
-2

They aren't wrong, but its not like members of the radical left aren't also advocating the Kill all Cops. (No True Scotsman defences not withstanding please.) Basically, its a slightly cherry picked example. And for clarity I do think the right are a much bigger threat to working class men than the left, and I identify as a socialist.
/r/MensRights17/05/22 04:27 PM
27

Not really, from a purely objective perspective the sex positive v sex negative and general sex work inclusivity debate has been going on in and around feminism for decades. And I would say the progressive side has been winning for the last few decades, albeit slowly. Did the mass-appeal and popularity of those platforms bring the issue more into greater public awareness, yes most likely? Is this some sort of gender-wide conspiracy? No. Woman (or at least a small sub-set thereof) have been makin…
/r/MensRights21/04/22 12:20 AM
1

Retroactive permission is how most professionals and amateurs that have standards work. You take the shot and then approach the subject, show them the pic and ask if they are fine with it being kept. If they aren't you delete it.
/r/MensRights15/04/22 06:53 PM
8

I would wager that, in a society, some percentage of people are unfit to hold office for some reason. And I don't mean mental deficiency. Or even strictly moral deficiency although certainly their are plenty of self-centered, greedy abusive people that I think shouldn't be represented. But even ordinary, decent people that just don't have the qualities for leadership. They are easily manipulated for example. Lets say that the percentage of people in that category was 10%. Should 10% of elected r…
/r/MensRights07/04/22 10:27 PM
1

https://grassmarket.org/ Having personally met with the founder and director of this fantastic charity in Edinburgh I can confirm he self-identifies as a feminist. I have also been responsible for running conventions that have donated thousands of pounds to it. I think the issue in America might be worse off than in the rest of the world, generally speaking America struggles atm with a dictatorial leaning (from the left and the right) which doesn't help. Though to be fair my comrades south of th…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/21 07:35 PM
0

I think its important to distinguish between the extreme wings of both sides and recognise that most actually people (on the ground, in everyday life) are not going to be in those wings. I personnally hate it when feminsits wrap up what we do here with the alt-right "male" advocacy groups. Even though we do share some goals and they tend to steal and abuse a lot of our rhetoric and ideas. I, therefore, try to stop myself from assuming that the worst excesses of feminism being abused by either mi…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/21 07:10 PM
1

The vast majority of feminism is also anti-capitalist, which I would assume most left wing male advocates would be. Generally, we share (or at least I hope share) similar anti-racist, anti-homopobe, pro-trans stsnces etc. Deconstructing gender roles regarding male positions in society, whether that be as regarding breadwinning, emotionallity, care giver roles etc are all good things, even if feminism has a different underlying theory, and even goals, for supporting this deconstruction.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/07/21 06:53 PM
9

They absolutely can, and we should consider them existing at all to be progress. The fact that feminism if being forced to acknowledge, even within its own ideology, that males suffer under the current system, is a huge step forward and a good benefit. Frankly, we as left-wing advocates should find ourselves being very able and willing to become allies of convenience with feminist men's movements as we do share a lot of goals in terms of outcome, even if we have different underlying ideologies. …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/07/21 09:27 AM
2

I also think a trigger warning is highly beneficial in this instance. We know that suicide can act like a social contagion, and we also know that thinking about suicide and the reasons why one might be suicidal could increase the chance of an attempt if not handled with care. Frankly, I would consider NOT having a trigger warning or content advisory warning on this type of survey to be highly ethically negligent.
/r/MensRights07/07/21 09:41 AM
1

More like apple trees to apples. Given men are a part of society.
/r/MensRights01/03/21 12:07 AM
7

Well shit dude, what are you planning to do that doesn't involve the government?
/r/MensRights01/03/21 12:04 AM
1

There was Amber's testimony at least. That is evidence in the legal sense. The trial judge seemed to find it convincing enough to pass the balance of probabilities test. As to if any other evidence was lead, I can't say tbh. But most domestic abuse cases tend to be reciprocal. Worth noting as well that the pursuer (Depp) has indicated they are looking to appeal, so we should bear that in mind.
/r/MensRights09/11/20 09:31 AM
3

Yeah. The issue really, imo, is the way the media is spinning the whole debacle.
/r/MensRights08/11/20 09:14 PM
14

In defence of the UK judiciary the judge was not there to decide on whether Amber abused him. It was a libel case. It doesn't matter what Amber did to him in this particular case. The vast majority of domestic abuse is reciprocal. While I have no doubt that Amber was by far the worst abuser in that relationship all the judge had to decide in that case was "On the balance of probabilities, was the Sun justified in reasonably thinking the Jonny, at any point, may have been abusive." Obviously Ambe…
/r/MensRights08/11/20 01:10 PM
0

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is the best atm. But I don't mind menslib tbh.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 05:39 PM
9

Yeah, I have to agree. While I tend to agree that Depp got the worst of it, in so far as one can be worse of than the other, this case was strictly about whether the Sun had libeled him in stating he committed abuse. The case really has nothing to do with any abuse Amber committed, although the fact that the media are not reporting on that is a whole other issue. Nor who got the worst of it. What matters for this case is strictly whether, on the balance of probabilities, Depp did commit abuse.
/r/MensRights02/11/20 02:04 PM
1

Just for the sake of clarity. Scots and English law work differently (Also Northern Ireland, no idea what goes on there...). In Scots law there is no manslaughter, instead, we have culpable homicide, which is broadly similar to a layperson, but quite different if you are a lawyer. Sorry, I just can't help myself whenever I see "UK law"...
/r/MensRights23/10/20 05:36 PM
13

My favourite law joke: A man finds a genie in the desert. It grants him three wishes. Man: I wish for no more lawyers. Genie: Your wish is my command. You have no more wishes left. Man: What, you said I had three wishes. Genie: Yeah, well, sue me.
/r/MensRights18/10/20 07:43 PM
2

But its not like the money disappears. It goes to non-faith organsations whcih can use that money to expand. So the net result is the same.
/r/MensRights19/08/20 02:50 PM
4

No money from the state yes. What is that line about the government doing things with my tax money. I can't quite recall it off the top of the head. If people want faith based adoption agencies, then fund them via private donation.
/r/MensRights19/08/20 02:49 PM
1

Left Wing Male Advocacy. (I just get tired of typing it out all the time.) I agree, but I have to admit I don't think that's born out in most of the modern feminist literature. I do think the framework continues to bias men as the "perpetrator" and women as "victim", though in academia (generally) I find the approach to be more balanced. Something I view as a success of our movement for advocacy. Of course, in practice, I think most feminists "on the street" if you will are still largely as you …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/20 06:20 PM
2

I would say its a social expectation that harms men. In some ways "masculine" coded behaviour enforce this expectation. And in some ways "feminine" coded behaviour enforces this expectation. Those behaviours are Toxic masculinity and femininity, even though they are enforcing the same harm. Nothing wrong with admitting that men, as part of society, can cause harm for other men too. In fact, recognising that gender is a uniquely bi-directional axis of oppression, enforced by and harmful to both g…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/05/20 06:03 PM
2

I thought he did a really good job in Stargate Atlantis (which is what I first knew him from) though again, he was playing the same type, but he did bring a bit of nuance to it later on.
/r/MensRights03/04/20 05:11 PM
14

Jason's a great dude. Loved him on Stargate Atlantis. Not saying he's the most fantastic actor that ever acted. but nothing that says he can't be super attractive and also a good actor.
/r/MensRights03/04/20 06:29 AM
5

Yeah, same. I guess we should be the change we want to see eh? :/
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 11:59 PM
3

Its, kind of a tricky issue imo. From my persepective, I want this place to be able to intercept the alt right pipeline by providing men a place to liberate themselves without having to swallow feminism's pill. That naturally means we get a lot of centrists and right-lite types coming here. I sort of think that's good, thats what we should be here for. But, I do think it drowns out the actual left wing critique of feminsim and male advocacy. We do need to be more positive in our left wingedness,…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/03/20 11:22 PM
4

Im not a US lawyer, so naturally if you really want to pursue this, consult someone in your jurisdiction. But, I don't see that there is a statable case here. That is to say, I think it is legal. It depends on the exact nature of the class but I generally would think that if the class be at all framed as "learning about feminism as an idea" rather than explicitly anti-male, then it probably stands. Take religious studies for example, it's legal to make kids learn the Torah and answer questions a…
/r/MensRights18/01/20 12:52 AM
1

I appreciate the insight into US politics. Still, I think that is pretty dependant on the specific context of Sanders supporters. And I know I have been using the term Bromance since well before Sanders emerged into US national and international prominence. Pretty sure it was around before the Obama presidency even.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 06:46 PM
4

I have never once used the term Bromance as anything but a positive. Where are you guys getting the negative connotations from?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/01/20 05:47 AM
9

I struggle to think of a historian that would argue a period in which literal slavery existed was better for than now in terms of freedoms. Regardless, my point was to specifically exclude rights, liberties and freedoms. If you ignore who has what rights or how "free" speech is etc etc, then by other measures, like ability to access food, literacy, chance to die of random infection etc. Now is the best time we have so far.
/r/MensRights08/01/20 01:25 AM
81

Not really though. I won't make any arguments as to the correlation or causation of "rights" on these trends but... By pretty much any measure (literacy, violence, disease, general wealth) right now is the best time to be alive so far. There are problem sure, massive big ones in fact, but if I had to choose between a random UK citizen now, or the King of the UK 300 years ago you can be damn sure I'd choose now.
/r/MensRights07/01/20 06:16 PM
9

I thought it was very interesting when Vaush commented on exactly this. But he did so by way of saying it was a commendation of the Men's Rights Movement. "They couldn't get anyone better." I imagine if the Feminist side had included a TERF and a political lesbian for example then he would be commenting on how the organiser had a clear agenda and was falsely representing their side.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/12/19 04:37 PM
1

I would argue there are a lot of small, but interesting, physiological differences. Though I'm sure plenty of feminists would disagree with me. (Transgenderism is quite a weird paradox for mainstream feminist theory). Whats interesting is the reported experience of transgendered people, which is usually called Gender Dysphoria (a recognised psych term) in which the person reports identifying with the other gender than their biology indicated. Most fascinating, to me, is that they report that the…
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:36 AM
3

I can't find the data now, though I recall certainly seeing papers and the data that actuaries use. Basically, women get into "smaller" accidents, that do less damage, usually very minor injuries. Men cause slightly less, but much more catastrophic accidents. -Insurance Lawyer.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:32 AM
6

As a small correction, as some one that works in Insurance Defender litigation, while insurance companies do have plenty of lawyers, the actual litigation is almost all handled by external firms. The market is so large you get "insurance firms" that basically specialise in defending Personal Injury, Negligence, Road Traffic etc.
/r/MensRights27/07/18 03:24 AM
2

Pretty much all laws (at the criminal level) are common sense. Its when you get into how they interact with the Laws of Criminal Evidence in your jurisdiction that they can get strange.
/r/MensRights08/07/18 06:25 PM
1

So I know a little about the experiment and, to state the obvious, am not the guy you first responded to. I also have had several relationships and would not endorse the MGTOW view. That said, I think his conclusion from the experiment is reasonable. If the race is doomed, why not be one of the Beautiful Ones, instead of the desperate, clawing masses at the center of the universe? I would be interested to see your conclusions. The thought I had was that you were suggesting the MGTOW philosophy w…
/r/MensRights27/06/18 08:14 PM
0

I have never seen someone not criticise the BBC for political bias. People on the left, the right, the centre. All think the BBC is pushing an agenda opposed to them. I can only conclude that they, in fact, do a pretty good job of being relatively balanced.
/r/MensRights01/02/18 12:48 AM
1

I do live in the UK. Scotland to be exact though I don't think the law will differ in this instance. I don;t watch much BBC myself, at least not live, ill watch QI and Buzzcocks etc on youtube. I think the license is worthwhile though, even if I don't watch much entertainment. It goes to support not just BBC News services and World Service but also funds lots of documentary making which I think is worthwhile even if I don't necessarily watch lots of them. For what its worth, the two years after …
/r/MensRights27/01/18 03:52 AM
1

I haven't heard of it happening. I'll admit the actual wording of the act and subsequent statutory implements is a bit vague. However, I would argue that a computer or smart phone is not a device "intended to receive live television". However, it does go on to say a device is such a device regardless of if it has other functions. That part of the requirement is distinct, on my interpretaion, from "watching TV broadcasts" which is the one that most obviously applies to iplayer, though not amazon …
/r/MensRights27/01/18 01:47 AM
0

I don't have netflix so maybe I'm out of date but it doesn't allow you to watch or record live TV. Tv, for the purposes of the legislation, doesn't just mean "media", it has to be programmers regulated as TV providers. So Iplayer counts as a way to watch live TV, but Amazon Prime doesn't. Further, the legislation regards only watching those services, not merely owning a device capable of watching them. You can make a declaration that you don't require a TV license and still own a smart phone as …
/r/MensRights26/01/18 09:52 PM
1

Well yeah but that's fair. If you watch it, then contribute to it. If it really annoyed you then you could only watch youtube and streaming services like netflix, amazon prime and not pay the license.
/r/MensRights26/01/18 12:25 AM
13

This is and has been standard practice in law firms for decades, probably since phones became a thing. You speak with a client, you take a note of what was said (and how long it lasted for billing purposes). Got to think there is probably a reason why all lawyers collectively decided that would be good thing to do.
/r/MensRights23/01/18 10:21 PM
3

Hmm, its illegal to change names for the purpose of fraud, which that action might come under. But... ECJ rulings on rights to be forgotten work against it. Plus, practically it would be hard to catch her out on it.
/r/MensRights29/09/17 11:48 AM
1

I haven't really looked into the case, but just cause she wasn't jailed doesn't mean she doesn't have a criminal record. The Scottish courts have a specific punishment for that called "absolute discharge" which is intended to serve as a warning. (I can't think it would ever be used in serious cases though, mostly for minor driving offences.) If she got anything worse, even an admonishment that creates a record. Certain jobs (like lawyers, doctors) require disclosure of criminal records, and I kn…
/r/MensRights29/09/17 11:39 AM
2

Based on my clicking the article and then reading it, it appears to be from Prof Geoffery Miller (currently at the University of New Mexico).
/r/MensRights10/08/17 02:19 PM
4

It's an interesting point. In Scots law, we actually have a principle called Corroboration which requires that the Fiscal/Lord Advocate can give two independent pieces of evidence that the crime was committed and that the accused committed it. If the Fiscal/HMA can't do this then the defence can make a Plea in Bar of Trial, meaning in Solemn cases it never even goes before the jury.
/r/MensRights05/01/17 05:05 AM
1

i have a degree in Scots Law. The SO(S)A repealed the common law, as per traditional common law jurisprudence under the doctrine of parliamentary sovriegnty. unless you are really committed to Common Law Constitutionalism.
/r/MensRights03/01/17 01:40 AM
1

I doubt that. Signing it makes it probative but if you can lead evidence against a balance of probabilities that you two had agreed to different things then there would be no consensus in idem. The leading case in Scots law would be Matheson Gee v Quigby.
/r/MensRights10/12/16 04:16 AM
4

Not OP. But this is an interesting idea I have been toying with for a while. Essentially you have two classes of civil damages. One is recompense: pure economic loss, solatium, negotorium in gestio etc etc. This is designed to undo the damage done by the wrong. The second is punitive. I theorise it would be justified for this type of damage to go to the state as a form of fine for committing a wrong. With the first class already covering the wrong done to the pursuer this second class can then b…
/r/MensRights19/03/16 12:28 AM
1

As a lawyer, let me say you are preaching to the choir. My point wasn't that this is bad, my point was that the issue is not as simple as being able to say "only yes means yes". And indeed it is quite possible that in some circumstances saying yes might not be enough. Consent is inter-subjective and it will deny simplification.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 04:16 AM
2

Not patronizing at all. Most people living here don't even know that, legally, "rape" requires a penis. It's only because of my law degree tat I found out. Thank you for your support.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 01:11 AM
1

My personal criteria is that if she is capable of walking to a car, start it and drive away, she can consent to sex. That's nice but unless you've recently been appointed to the High Court of Justiciary then your personal criteria are as useless to me as they are to you.
/r/MensRights05/01/16 12:57 AM
3

As long as she doesn't stick her fingers or tongue up your anus the worst she can get is sexual assault. Read the actual wording of Sexual Assault by penetration, it doesn't cover made to penetrate. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/9/section/2
/r/MensRights05/01/16 12:50 AM
2

That is not UK law. The following is from the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act, which mirrors the provisions for England and Wales. If a person (“A”), with A's penis— (a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and (b)without any reasonable belief that B consents, penetrates to any extent... That's the definition for Rape. Note the part about reasonable belief. Now what constitutes a reasonable belief is a grey area. A point lost by most people on both sides of the debate, but most frequently by t…
/r/MensRights05/01/16 12:43 AM
2

Haha... what? Seriously, if you think a history degree, or really any education beyond primary school is about figuring out "who won" then you might want to rethink a large part of your life. Historians are not interested in who "won" they are interested in explaining why the population of Europe rose sharply in the 1800s. Why Latin Americans have a greater sense of class unity than national unity while the inverse is true in Europe. Whether economic factors where the reason the Union won the US…
/r/MensRights24/09/15 08:28 AM
3

Good catch.
/r/MensRights07/08/15 12:26 AM
1

I suppose I'd say I'm not trying to be realistic; I'm being idealistic.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 11:45 PM
-2

I imagine I'll take some flak for this but if you check my post history you'll see I am certainly not pro-patriarchy. However, I think we might be getting a bit hung up on the issue. Certainly, in the academic field, and in higher end theory and in certain situations were the use of the word itself is harmful then yes, we should attack the notion of patriarchy. But, in the practical end of things what patriarchy really means is the feminist interpretation of power-relations and structures. Now w…
/r/MensRights06/08/15 10:44 PM
1

I think there is a large part of that mentality here. Though for me MRA and egalitarianism offer the ability to fight for equality together regardless of political leaning. I for example think it is crucial that humanity comes together and works in a spirit of cooperation; supporting each other in our weakness with our own strengths. But I recognise that I can hold this view and you can have yours and we can agree that gender discrimination is not something either of us condone.
/r/MensRights06/08/15 10:34 PM
3

Just for a bit of cultural reference the NHS (the UKs National Health Service) only permits male genital cutting for religious or medical reasons, not aesthetics. And for medical reasons it is considered to be a highly unfavourable treatment that carries more risks than rewards, it is also opposed to routine MGC on the same grounds. Sauce
/r/MensRights03/08/15 02:46 PM
16

How about, out of respect for my privacy, you don't ask why I need it and, as long as its not a bomb, give me the same respect as a woman?
/r/MensRights02/07/15 10:50 PM
3

Depends if you are a utilitarianist/consequentialist or not.
/r/MensRights28/06/15 06:54 PM
1

In Scotland it is slightly stronger word than "dick", but can also have positive connotations (eg the Jake is a right mad-cunt.)
/r/MensRights25/06/15 10:53 PM
0

And she should be punished proportionately for what she did, (bearing in mind the state has special protections around its legitimate use of violence and general public interest in having the reporting of crimes be encouraged.) What you proposed above is that she might commit further crimes and so she should be severely incarcerated to stop the possibility. Which to my mind is basically future-crime.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 10:12 AM
6

What? It is just the language that has developed, like it does in any expert system (which Law is). Assault in the Uk also doesn't have the lay persons definition and in Scots law the word caution (pronounced Kay-shun) means "an agreement whereby one person agrees to guarantee the debts of a debtor against his creditor."
/r/MensRights06/06/15 12:23 AM
5

"Good Character" is legalese for "does not have any previous convictions".
/r/MensRights06/06/15 12:19 AM
7

Nope, you don't I'm afraid. In UK Legalese, which the judge is speaking, it means that she has not been convicted of any previous crimes.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 12:18 AM
1

Citizen, you have been accused of the future crime of murder. You will now be incarcerated for the protection of society. Yeah, I'll pass.
/r/MensRights06/06/15 12:16 AM
2

I think this would legitimately harm the interests of justice. Setting aside any ethical debate about proportionate punishment for now if such a high sentence was allowed it would harm the reporting of crimes. Now I get that the whole "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" argument but sometimes the courts have an inquisitorial purpose to serve and the possible threat of a not proven/guilty verdict being used as evidence in a charge of false accusation with such a high penalty would…
/r/MensRights06/06/15 12:10 AM
2

If there is going to be crime, it might as well be organised crime.
/r/MensRights25/10/14 03:19 PM
10

Most art has a political agenda; to be fair it's hard for humans not to we are political creatures after all. Still, if it's publicly funded then it should be open to all.
/r/MensRights06/07/14 04:23 PM
3

Fun Fact: in Scotland only men can rape according to the Law!
/r/MensRights04/07/14 03:24 AM
1

Not applicable in Britain. Failure to needlessly apologise will have only negative social consequences.
/r/TheRedPill17/04/14 07:49 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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