TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Blackbeard6689 Archive

View 0 posts and 33 comments by Blackbeard6689 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

It's only similar to a privilege because they're the only gender a fetus lives inside of and off of. A dad can't be forced to give up blood or organs to keep their kid alive under any circumstance. So if there's a situation where the kid needs the dad's blood or marrow or whatever to survive the dad can refuse and decide not to be a dad anymore. Also saying its a female privilege gets murky when right now there are women paying child support to men.
/r/MensRights14/06/23 05:50 PM
1

I just said it would be better than the alternative where both things are banned. The abortion ban didn't help anyone. It made things worse for women, and it made things worse for men.
/r/MensRights13/06/23 06:30 PM
1

There are circumstances where women are forced to pay child support to the dad And if it should be both or neither, then ideally both. Also, everyone's better off in a world where abortion is legalized and financial abortion isn't than they would be if neither of them were legal.
/r/MensRights13/06/23 06:17 PM
2

There are zero circumstances where you can be legally forced to let someone else use your body to keep themselves alive. Except abortion bans. So it's discrimination against women. And from a practical sense, these bans hurt men. If you could convince your baby mama to get an abortion you didn't have to be father. You can argue its unfair but now they don't even have that option anymore. It was taken away and replaced with nothing leading to only more unwanted fathers.
/r/MensRights12/06/23 07:40 PM
1

The issue is that they view abortion as murder, and guess what? If you take them at their word. But if you don't you realize how wildly inconsistent they are. If they really thought abortion was as bad as murder they'd be all on board with better sex ed and either access to birth control. They aren't. They just want to punish women for having sex. I'm pro-choice myself, but I hate this fucking nonsense argument that pro-life is a misogynistic view, that it's anti-woman https://youtu.be/K98TQJ5ld…
/r/MensRights12/06/23 06:47 PM
1

On paper, it's not a misogynist stance. In practice, most of them just want to punish women for having sex (which granted they may also want to punish men for doing so it's not necessarily misogyny). If they weren't just trying to punish people for sex, they would be on board with better sex ed and better access to birth control, which are things that lower unwanted pregnancies and lower abortions. But by and large, they aren't.
/r/MensRights12/06/23 06:43 PM
1

Abortion should be legal because you should have the right to decide what happens to your own body.
/r/MensRights12/06/23 06:40 PM
1

Then Id argue if you're involuntarily hurting someone else, you have a responsibility to stop and that someone else is still within their rights to force you to stop. In an (early) fetus hurting the mother situation the only way to get it to stop is to remove the fetus which would kill it.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 08:57 PM
0

The violinist required solely external influence, As does a rapist. You can't compare property rights to body rights and act like theyre a 1:1 analogy. We don't treat rape the same as trespassing and permanent damage to one's body is way more serious than permanent damage to property. My analogy compares a fetus to a full grown violinist yours compares it to an inanimate object and paying for it with money rather than losing any kind of bodily autonomy.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 05:49 PM
1

The violinist analogy is an unlikely scenario but it's the perfect analogy. If you believe that rape victims should be allowed to get abortions then you should be forced to keep yourself hooked up to the violinist if you wake up like that, otherwise you're a hypocrite. Also imagine thinking the rights of a brainless clump of cells outweigh those of the woman. After 6 weeks a fetus is the size of a sesame seed and doesn't have any kind of brain.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 05:24 PM
1

Murder bans predate Christianity.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 04:09 PM
1

For that vase analogy we never demand people pay in body parts/usage. Even if you're the cause of a car accident you can't be forced to give blood or organs to save the people in it.
/r/MensRights29/09/22 01:43 AM
0

So if someone hooked you up to the violinist you wouldn't have any right to unhook yourself or say no? Well thanks for volunteering yourself for anyone that needs blood or organs to keep themselves alive
/r/MensRights29/09/22 01:38 AM
1

Them staying alive is 100% dependent on them infringing on someone else's rights. So you either give them the right to live inside of and hurt others against their will to keep themselves alive, like an actual literal parasite or you recognize that they don't have the right to force someone else to play incubator. You should give the violinist argument a read. https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm (You don't need to read the whole thing just enough to get the scenario)
/r/MensRights28/09/22 10:57 PM
1

If you own your body you have the right to disconnect yourself. If it can't survive on its own then that's tough but oh well, they are not entitled to use your body to keep themselves alive. You're giving the fetus a right literally nobody else has in any other circumstances. There's no circumstance where you'd be forced to give up blood or organs to keep someone else alive, even if there's a zero percent chance you'd die in the process, which you can't say about birth. You're taking away rights…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 10:52 PM
1

It's the right to decide who gets to use your body, you don't suddenly lose that right when you're pregnant. You can put a small child up for adoption if there was a way to remove an early fetus without killing it I'd consider an abortion ban. And like I said an early fetus is incapable of having any kind of preference or opinion so complaining about their lack if choice is like complaining that a brick didn't have a choice.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 09:15 PM
1

The fetus didn’t ask to be inside a person, Doesn't matter. The person still doesn't have to become an incubator to them, they are a person with rights. An early fetus is also incapable of having an opinion or coherent thought. . person, it was placed there by the act of two people(excluding rape but that rabbit hole warrants a whole new discussion) But your whole logic of "they're a person and that's all that matters" would mean no rape exceptions. And the consent of the mother for having sex d…
/r/MensRights28/09/22 09:12 PM
1

A contrarian is someone who ALWAYS takes the contrary position, they're hipsters trying time seem underground edgy and smart by contradicting people. People who disagree with the majority opinion because it's the majority opinion are contrarians, people who do so for other reasons are not.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 09:06 PM
0

Abortions are not random acts of murder. It's disconnecting yourself from someone that's using your body without permission. They need your body to stay alive but you don't have to give it to them. If you think disconnecting yourself should be illegal then if someone ever needs a blood or organ donation, they should be able to take them from you without asking. If you disagree you're a hypocrite.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 08:05 PM
1

The argument is about whether or not a fetus should be considered a person Nope. Even if it's a person that doesn't change anything. Nobody has the right to live inside someone else's body against their will like a parasite. This is why it's not animal cruelty to kill tapeworms, it's also why you can't be forced to donate blood or organs in ANY circumstance. We don't even force parents to donate blood or organs to their own children, why should we make an exception for the uterus?
/r/MensRights28/09/22 08:01 PM
1

Contrarianism is objecting for the sake of objecting. It's always playing devil's advocate or going against what's popular purely because it's popular. It's not healthy.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 07:58 PM
1

If you don't believe God was ever real you aren't a Christian. Giving people presents on Christmas doesn't make you a Christian. Also if you were really culturally Christian you'd go to church.
/r/MensRights28/09/22 07:57 PM
1

You really going to act like religion isn't 90% of the driving force behind the movement to ban abortions?
/r/MensRights28/09/22 07:54 PM
1

I don't know how to find social events.
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/22 04:45 PM
0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_book_banning_in_the_United_States The vaccines were not untested, what speech were they censoring arresting their political opponents on fake charges, [Citation needed] coordinating propoganda with the press and social media, [Citation needed] destroying the value of our currency with out of control spending, Inflation is hitting the entire world, its not just a US thing. Not like the GOP gives a flying fuck about fiscal responsibility. They only c…
/r/MensRights22/09/22 04:44 PM
2

Where do you go to find single women in the real world?
/r/PurplePillDebate22/09/22 08:00 AM
-1

Respecting free speech like claiming anyone that doesn't agree with them are extremists and terrorists? That is not what they said, but they haven't done anything to criminalize any speech. They haven't tried to ban any books from schools or libraries (at least not nearly to the extent Republicans are) or make any anti protest laws to my knowledge. And Wikipedia cites a lot of sources outside of the LA times and ACLU, go take a look. I haven't heard any of those wild claims about the LA times, n…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:48 PM
2

The people who hate democracy and want to maintain authoritarian grip on power while censoring books that go ahinst their ideology are fascists or close emough.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 05:29 PM
5

"Wait, so your only sources are all completely discredited, anti-Trump, pro-socialist propaganda outlets? " "Anything that goes against my narrative is FAKE NEWS." Also these stories have nothing to do with Trump. And are you going to say every source cited in the Wikipedia article is biased? I mean, i wouldn't source Steven Crowder (despite his history of accuracy and well vetted sourcing) He cherry picks to find facts that "support" his pre determined conclusion. Tim Pool, Project Veritas, and…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 09:10 AM
-4

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_book_banning_in_the_United_States https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-06-27/book-bans-critical-race-theory-wisconsin https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/bans-books-on-trial-for-obscenity They aren't just banning porn and it isn't just from public schools. They're also trying to get books banned from public libraries and in Virginia they're trying to ban the books from being sold at all. Also Trump p…
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:57 AM
1

I know it's not NoFap but wasn't there some alt right movement that instructed its members never to masturbate? Maybe they're getting them mixed up.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:20 AM
11

These new rules aren't for criminal trials they are trials made by the college where they worst they can do is expel people they find guilty.
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:18 AM
-16

I would the Republicans have gone full fascist. They want the power to overturn elections and ban books, plus with their love of gender roles I don't think they'd be good for men's rights either (certainly not gay men).
/r/MensRights21/09/22 08:17 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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