TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Belaires Archive

View 0 posts and 84 comments by Belaires 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)
-12

I didn't realize this was /r/srs
/r/MensRights26/04/15 05:15 PM
0

Right. A contract is made and he took control. A woman took control of her contract. So you'd say the same....
/r/MensRights10/04/15 01:51 AM
19

Oh, I see. Well that's just rude
/r/MensRights02/09/13 12:43 PM
46

Unless they suspected him of personally spamming, the ban was inappropriate. A simple deletion and explanation would have been reasonable and respectful
/r/MensRights02/09/13 12:35 PM
6

I was banned from redpill. I wouldn't call them MRA's I guess, though. They just want to feel justified in being manipulative in their environment and to treat all people, male or female, as consumable objects.
/r/MensRights02/09/13 12:32 PM
0

Ha, no they aren't.
/r/MensRights23/08/13 12:40 AM
1

Your definition: To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple Nope To disfigure by damaging irreparably Piercings. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts Presumes a standard. Again, you sound like an SRSer
/r/MensRights23/08/13 12:21 AM
0

There are a few very rare medical conditions where MGM is a possible treatment If you are talking about circumcision, this sentence literally does not make sense. It is making it's own argument up that has nothing to do with the question as to why people have their child circumcised. You want to select a particular answer in order to use it against an entire population. That is stupid. To the best of my knowledge all of these conditions of alternative methods of treatment that can be carried out…
/r/MensRights22/08/13 11:12 PM
-1

Because that was a point does not mean it is the point for everyone who has a circumcision performed....how do you not understand this basic point?
/r/MensRights22/08/13 08:40 PM
-4

You seem to be feeling your way through an argument here. I am not sure that is the right approach.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:42 AM
0

How does that demonstrate that male circumcision inhibits one from having or enjoying sex?
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:39 AM
5

no it isn't
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:37 AM
-7

Do what you want, but that infographic is stupid
/r/MensRights22/08/13 01:36 AM
12

Imagine explaining the Quran to a fundamentalist Christian SRS is fundamentalist, evangelical, extremist and angry feminism, if such a thing can even be said
/r/MensRights19/08/13 01:33 AM
–

I Thought this was mentioned a few weeks back or so. It is reasonable. Why give traffic to cosmo and whatnot?
/r/MensRights18/08/13 04:30 PM
8

"Gender roles and stereotypes are ok, so long as they serve my interests and in no way are used to show that I need to change how I act" Number 2 alone is absurdly hypocritical. Besides, if money can be equated to the physical cost of having a child (and in order to support the female's argument) why can't money be equated to sex? If a man pays money, then he ought to get sex. An obviously offensive thing to say. Just as offensive as this article.
/r/MensRights18/08/13 03:41 PM
1

He could have at least investigated it first
/r/MensRights09/08/13 06:56 PM
2

I completely take back my post about their leader, then (and anyone who claims a similar point). That is just absurd.
/r/MensRights27/07/13 03:12 PM
8

or.... JESUS!
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:16 AM
4

are you against other gay animals or something? bigot
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:11 AM
5

Hmm. So treating women differently because they are women is fine. It is natural. Part of life or some other reason. If it is because they are gay, then it is wrong. Because I was told so. More than that, if people treat them differently or don't agree then it is wrong and they are evil (my premise which was the condition given). Good to know
/r/MensRights27/07/13 05:10 AM
16

In which case they just don't want them to be gay, not dead. Believe it or not, but being against homosexuality doesn't make you evil. It just makes you against gays. It is an unpopular thing to say, and yet I have seen very good people who do not like homosexual lifestyles but support people regardless of orientation, race or gender. It is almost as though...you can be a good person and not like homosexuality at the same time. Course I support gay rights and equality and have since the 80s (whe…
/r/MensRights27/07/13 04:40 AM
-5

Gandhi bitched quite a bit, but I don't remember him producing all that much salt
/r/MensRights26/07/13 10:46 AM
1

glad she is against egalitarianism then
/r/MensRights19/07/13 07:21 PM
1

Not only that, but say that a woman posts a picture to get attention for her body and SRS calls it slut shaming. Claim that an image is used to get attention for its body (Lara Croft) and SRS calls it feminist critique
/r/MensRights19/07/13 07:19 PM
1

I don't get it
/r/MensRights19/07/13 07:13 PM
-2

Looks like two people who've automatically assumed the other is wrong based on titles that carry extreme biases
/r/MensRights19/07/13 07:11 PM
11

I am pretty sure human suffering has everything to do with reality. Emotions aren't stupid. They are important to consider. They just can't be accepted without rigorous reflection and discernment. But any bit of "pure" rationalizing without consideration for emotional well-being is absurd. Empathy is important. Lacking it is insane.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 10:01 PM
3

Not modern day feminism. Just a dumb feminist.
/r/MensRights16/07/13 09:57 PM
-3

He didn't win. He just screamed skinhead loud enough in a crowd of people who want to agree with him in the first place. Your point was completely legit. The groupthink here is just uncritical.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:59 AM
1

Just read an interesting book Girls Gone Mild I wonder what people here might think of it. It takes issue with the kinds of feminists complained about by MensRights, but the author also is a feminist.
/r/MensRights21/06/13 02:38 AM
0

I can't tell if you really can't understand or simply refuse to understand. Either way, I don't think you'll be making progress today.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 10:24 PM
1

That's the point you don't get. I am not the one making a claim that my definition is correct. You have given absolutely no evidence and are making a claim about a group. I literally only need myself to make my claim for there to be evidence. Don't blame me if you can't follow an argument.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 06:45 PM
1

I know you really feel that what you are saying is right, but it is not. Your argument is both unsound and invalid. Worse yet, you stand in a position of total ignorance and have never actually been trained at the graduate research level in the subjects of which you claim knowledge. But oh well. You are at least persistent about it.
/r/MensRights16/06/13 02:56 PM
1

And obviously there are many core beliefs that define Christians, namely the belief in Christ as the son of god. Similarly there are beliefs that define feminists, namely beliefs about patriarchy theory and how women have it worse than men and have been oppressed throughout history. "feminists" who do not hold those beliefs are seen as anti-feminist by the majority of feminists, and by the feminist establishment, and so, like "christians" that don't believe in christ they are not really members …
/r/MensRights15/06/13 10:50 PM
1

I am sorry. I cannot assume your premises are maxims as you do, especially since they rest on more generalizations than definitions. The argument that I somehow think feminism is unique is especially bizarre, since I maintain that like other groups, there is a wide variety, but what makes feminism feminism is not its many expressions, but an elemental core. Since your KKK example is colored, I will use Christianity instead (again). It has many expressions, but what is constitutive is what is def…
/r/MensRights15/06/13 02:24 AM
1

You appeared to be making the claim that it is absurd to say that all members of a group have some characteristic, a claim that I debunked with a counterexample. It may appear to you that way because you are making assumptions about a group that you can't define expect by giving a (non)definition that fits your argument, and yet logically cannot possibly describe all of those who use the label "feminist." Your argument is deeply flawed, that is the point. It is circular, presumes premises and de…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:27 PM
1

Your example was not sufficient, no. You can respond more fully if you wish, but to what extent or purpose? The argument is impossible to make rationally. You can give examples of feminists with unscientific positions, undoubtedly, since there have been many. But to then conclude that this is constitutive of feminism would be an absurdity, since there is no logical series of steps to that conclusion. But have at it.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 08:38 PM
1

Again, this assumes that 1) there is an operating definition of feminism that we are both using. In reality, you are using one particular one to serve your argument. We call this a straw man. So your argument is not reasonable, despite wanting it to be. 2) You then conclude (somehow) that one characteristic that is constitutive of feminism is that it can't be scientific. The only comparison you can think of is an ancient example of the world being flat, because there are no legitimate examples t…
/r/MensRights14/06/13 07:52 PM
1

Like Christianity? I think you have a good point that demonstrates positions within feminism, much like Mormonism within Christianity. But as many know, (though many also do not agree, which is the point) Mormonism is not only not constitutive of Christianity but it is also a great distortion of it.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:26 AM
1

My point just before what you quoted: For your argument to make sense, you have to say that there isn't a feminist who also argues scientifically. This accounts for millions of human beings. This is the point. It is the logic of the argument. His argument is an absurdity if he claims without evidence that millions of people must be unscientific if they are feminists.
/r/MensRights14/06/13 11:23 AM
0

Your link doesn't agree with you about the program being "extremely successful": "It is too early to tell, however, whether MnCoSA is effective in reducing sexual recidivism." "Although MnCoSA is a cost-effective program that produces public safety benefits, it is effective only for a relatively small number of offenders." 1) Your response does not actually demonstrate the opposite either. This is several years old and restorative justice itself is decades old (as a specific approach, although i…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 08:27 PM
4

Yes, especially if your response is a "good riddance." You have a responsibility to broken people. That is what it means to be a part of a community. I have worked with rapists (men only, though in reality the women I have worked with have likely assaulted children as well). The reality is that rapists do not burst out of the head of Zeus fully formed and entirely capable of making the right decision. Being devoid of sympathy should be reserved for the victim (EDIT:to clarify, it is reasonable f…
/r/MensRights13/06/13 02:32 PM
5

Well then you are completely mistaken. We can judge something to be wrong, condemn it completely, and then not seek self-satisfaction by showing no sympathy for someone who has a pedophilic orientation. We should feel sad for her and all other predators. They have done something horrible, because they are attracted to something horrible. Maybe if we actually felt sympathy instead of self-righteousness, we would actually have a reform system in the U.S.
/r/MensRights13/06/13 11:44 AM
4

It just needs definitions and subcategories (which already exist to an extent, but we conveniently ignore them). That way someone can call themselves a "so and so feminist" and we will know they are morons. Others can call themselves a "such and such feminist" and we will know they hold a more reasonable position. Just like any other ideology.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 05:25 PM
1

She is a child. She is not fully culpable. Community service and counseling are sufficient, especially for a first offense. However, restitution from the parents/town to the victim is reasonable.
/r/MensRights10/06/13 03:10 PM
0

You aren't talking about academic scholarship. You are talking about pop "scholarship" at best. I am rightly showing that you completely lack a definition that covers "feminists" in total (which I rightly argue is an impossibility anyhow). Thus you are saying something about a particular group within an undefinable (and at times even contradictory) group, without actually having to address a core argument. Basically, your argument is unsound. So much so that even an 1st year undergraduate could …
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:44 PM
1

I didn't say that I was a feminist. Nonetheless, I no more call myself a feminist than I say my favorite color is in the 380-450 nanometer range
/r/MensRights07/06/13 06:27 PM
1

It is a good question. When there isn't a specific referent, what is the point of a term? This is why definitions and labels are important and why those with poor arguments hate them.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 05:49 PM
1

We can't call anyone a feminist and have it mean anything, yes. Or at least, that is my contention.
/r/MensRights07/06/13 11:00 AM
2

What? What is your point again? That there hasn't been a feminist author who has used evidence to demonstrate an unequal distribution of power in a society?
/r/MensRights06/06/13 11:45 PM
1

I think you are right. Unless the unprotected encounters could be, again, proven to be reckless, which has happened, but only when the offender knew they were infected. At least, that is the only example I have heard of. I wonder if the number of affairs or different partners would make a difference. This sounds like this would get messy quickly.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:53 PM
-2

an assertion that feminist theory is built on unchangeable assumptions and thus it's illegit. But "feminist theory" is not built on unchangeable assumptions. I correctly pointed out that the term "feminist" is too general to make a statement like that it "is built on unchangeable assumptions". I also correctly argued that like ethnic studies, the starting point will be based on an observation. If that observation changes, then it ceases to be the central thesis. At what point have I ignored anyt…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 09:47 PM
-2

Yes. Ethnic studies with unchangeable assumptions are illegit. What is your point? Ethnic studies can begin from a verifiable observation, just as is the case in other fields. Simply because all individuals within the field fail to follow this system does not mean that all individuals within the field are unscientific. The same can be said of feminism/gender studies. This isn't a difficult point to accept, either.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 08:10 PM
-2

"Feminism" or a subcategory of "it" can begin from recognizing that there exists in many societies an unequal treatment of different peoples, more specifically, women. What you've suggested in your first paragraph leads to the inevitability that even ethnic studies are illegit simply because they sometimes have as a starting point the position that a certain group is oppressed in certain cultures. So, no. Your point is unreasonable. To your second point, "feminism" as an amorphous thing shouldn'…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 07:19 PM
-2

Feminism is not easily definable. It ranges from believing in equal rights for men and women to wanting women to dominate and oppress men. There is as much a complicated spectrum of positions with extremes on both ends as any other subject. Why this wouldn't be the case for feminism is strange. Why would everything else be nuanced but somehow not feminism.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 06:08 PM
-3

So if there are feminists who disagree with the definition wikipedia gives and are yet still feminists, would you cease to post things like this or ignore the evidence?
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:57 PM
-4

You have a problem with a title being used to refer to the opinions of a very large and diverse group which is composed of individuals whose positions fall on a continuum rather than a set point? Then I am glad you downvoted OP. Feminism, like anti-feminism, is undefinable. These labels should be nuanced and more specifically relabeled or rejected entirely.
/r/MensRights06/06/13 05:53 PM
5

It shouldn't be labeled rape, but it should be prosecutable if he or she endangers the health of a partner through demonstrably reckless sexual encounters (which would reasonably include unprotected sex) without the original partner's knowledge or consent. In fact, I think it is already something that has come up. But as someone mentions below, this is about revenge too. This woman seems to be seeking it, especially through use of his name. As a public forum we can recognize this and respond the…
/r/MensRights06/06/13 04:21 PM
-2

I would definitely agree.
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:41 PM
-3

Fair enough, though a law with no teeth becomes difficult to enforce.
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:16 PM
4

Luckily the advise here is for your brother to use a condom. But neither of you are unplugged.
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 02:41 AM
-7

It's designed with full intention to discourage men from becoming powerful, muscular, and yes manly. No
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 01:49 AM
1

Sounds fair enough
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:57 AM
-7

A distortion of the male form/manliness is not the same as the male form/manly. If you think steroids make you manlier in any way then you are less of a man for thinking it. Targeting people who may be using an illegal drug based on physical characteristics is problematic because of personal rights, but not because of an absurd conspiracy.
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:56 AM
-2

Note to self: being against steroids means I support weak men.... I actually am not against steroids, since there has been a great deal of fear-mongering regarding the side-effects and damage done by them. But what you've stated is hopefully a complete joke. Being against steroids does not constitute a feminist conspiracy to weaken men. That sort of statement would just be insane.
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:15 AM
2

Replace "niggers" with "bitches" and you get the same effect, no?
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:10 AM
-1

There is only a specific form of bashing allowed here, god dammit
/r/TheRedPill28/05/13 12:09 AM
-4

half of red pill is complaining Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men.
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 11:42 PM
-2

I don't have a problem with pointing out "lol" and "bro/a" anymore than people here have no problem pointing out issues with pseudo-feminism. If you want to start throwing around terms like elitism every time you come off like a kid, then go ahead. But it is as stupid as being labeled misogynist for pointing out pseudo-feminist hypocrisy. Then again, I have no problem being an elitist. Using "lol" makes you sound like a tween. Using "bro" makes you sound like someone who wears shorts to work. Bu…
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 08:19 PM
-2

It's crap like this that reminds me that its summer
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 08:02 PM
-3

The rule still applies.... And like most people, he doesn't know what he wants. If he did, he wouldn't lay down with dogs and then complain when he gets up with fleas
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 07:54 PM
-6

You lay down with dogs you get up with fleas
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 06:47 PM
-4

What I suggest is that what is being offered is not a red pill, but a false promise of an artificial world with a false dichotomy suggested. Red/Blue - two things. False dichotomy. What is offered here is a false dichotomy. That there is either the red pill as defined by those who believe they have abstracted from their own shitty lives and the other option (blue). The reality is that they are providing a false dichotomy because they make a distinction where there is only a difference by degree.…
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 06:46 PM
-5

A very blue pill response
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 03:54 PM
-7

Oh I got it. What I suggest is that what is being offered is not a red pill, but a false promise of an artificial world with a false dichotomy suggested. The real dichotomous choice is to either change your life or don't. You just can't complain. EDIT:Many here want do not change their world, just become it even more and then complain (taking the blue pill thinking they are taking the red pill). Well...oh well
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 02:17 PM
-7

I think you are missing a few important parts. This guy dated a girl who would obviously do this. He lays down with a dog and gets up with fleas and asks why it happened. It's cause he is a moron. If you (OP) are attracted to dogs then you can't complain about anything. Change what you are attracted to or just accept it. Don't preach like you have anything but a fake gospel. Essentially, red pill applies to a bubble world that legitimately exists, but it is a world people choose to participate i…
/r/TheRedPill27/05/13 01:46 PM
1

"there's a lot of stats that come up on this list and I'm not going to try to fact check this....feminists are always going to cherry pick studies...to ignore method" Then proceeds to cherry pick a self-declared feminist to make a statement about feminism
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 08:12 PM
1

All jokes aside (from a comedian who hasn't been funny in 15 years) we can agree this is not a good response, right? If we were to argue that the factors which make my point valid are changing due to gender roles, then fine. That is entirely true and I would like to see new studies about how this is changing life expectancy in men. But this video is from a moron who can't relate to a teapot, let alone another human being. Mahar isn't the ideal. He is the example we can look to in order to know w…
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 03:43 PM
2

Sure. Everyone is at an emotional distance. Why settle down when you can have a winner-take-all mentality? It's either my way or nothin. I'll just move on to the next person like I do my shoes. Sure we used to see value in shoes and get them resoled and connect with them, recognizing them as something that has journeyed through life with us, but now walmart sells shoes for 20 dollars so. Surely you can go through life treating people this way too while having a family that doesn't think you are …
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 03:31 PM
1

You can raise kids and be a mother without marriage. I don't think I would recommend it either. I mean kids in general
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 03:27 PM
1

Don't married men live longer and die quicker if they do not remarry?
/r/TheRedPill25/05/13 03:26 PM
5

I think SRS has the same anecdotal approach
/r/TheRedPill24/05/13 02:50 PM
7

If one dates women who are horrible, it is because one is attracted to horrible women
/r/TheRedPill06/05/13 11:15 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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