TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BukkRogerrs Archive

View 1 post and 112 comments by BukkRogerrs 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)
20

BukkRogerrs/r/MensRights11/01/12 01:34 AM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

This is the stupidest fucking article I think I've ever seen on reddit. Is that the point? Skimming through a couple other articles written by this guy, it becomes apparent he's a total tool.
/r/MensRights02/07/12 10:41 PM
3

The only part he quoted was: the more dangerous stuff is much more subtle Not sure if he's responding to the entire comment, or just that line.
/r/MensRights08/04/12 05:58 PM
8

It's times like this I support violence against the state.
/r/MensRights06/04/12 07:25 PM
2

Yes, this is a good point. The problem, though, with being found guilty by a jury, rather than proven guilty (though I know it's sometimes necessary) is that the jury can be easily swayed emotionally, manipulated by someone with more charisma, and tricked into believing conclusions that aren't true, based on non-sequiturs, red herrings, appeals to authority, etc... Like you said, it's good and bad. But I'm inclined to believe it more often ends up being bad than good, though I admit I have no ev…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 09:15 PM
2

If people can't be held accountable for their actions, then their actions shouldn't be allowed to have life-altering effects on other people. But once someone's actions can dramatically affect another person's life, they must be held accountable for their actions, regardless of age. It's not acceptable to murder, no matter your age. It's not acceptable to steal, no matter your age. It's not acceptable to rape, no matter your age. It's not acceptable to lie about rape, no matter your age. Refusin…
/r/MensRights03/04/12 05:51 PM
8

This is how the US judicial system has worked for as long as any of us have been alive. The common misconception/lie is "Innocent until proven guilty." Anyone who's actually been through the court system will tell you the truth: Guilty until proven innocent. Especially in cases where evidence "can't" be found.
/r/MensRights03/04/12 05:42 PM
3

Mark Potok, isn't this the guy who called Carol Swain a white supremacist sympathizer? Yeah, this guy's credibility is nonexistent.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 04:37 PM
1

I haven't personally been affected by these things either. But I'm not so self-absorbed that I think things are unimportant unless they're happening to me. And your reality is one thing, but reality, itself, is something else. We're not talking about everyone's individual, personal realities. We're talking about one big, global reality. In your reality, you haven't been accused of a rape you didn't commit, your life hasn't been ruined, you haven't been put into a financial shithole. In reality h…
/r/MensRights16/03/12 07:12 PM
1

The women's rights movement, that fought to get rid of the gender specific laws and policies that prevented women from fully participating in public life if they so chose etc., this was a noble undertaking. Yes, and this is where my respect for it ends. After this, as you said, it became an -ism, advocating for gender specific laws. I have zero respect and tolerance for that. That's not equality.
/r/MensRights16/03/12 05:22 AM
2

You have an idealist outlook rather than an outlook that seems at all influenced by reality and the way things are. It's nice to think so romantically and fantastically about things, but unfortunately that's not the way things are. A false rape accusation doesn't just make it awkward around your family and friends. It can ruin your professional life, it can jeopardize any possibility of being hired for a great number of jobs, it can put you out in thousands, possibly millions of dollars, ruin yo…
/r/MensRights15/03/12 09:46 PM
1

If they were innocent, then their reputations are fine. Oh yeah, you're totally right about that.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 09:42 PM
10

I agree with you, and I think most here probably do, to some extent. But I think the thing is, many have seen a very ugly side of feminism, and that's what makes people feel this way. I can't say that I hate feminism because I'm very uncertain of what feminism actually is. I know what it used to be, I know what they say it is today, but there's a huge disparity between what feminists say feminism is, and then what we see feminism to be. Every feminist I've personally known has either been extrem…
/r/MensRights15/03/12 09:16 PM
10

Hello, it appears you were just born and know nothing of the world. This planet is called Earth, and you're what's known as a human. Welcome to life. You will find that as you grow older, you will learn things. You'll also find that some (all) of the things you believe to be facts right now are actually not.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 01:57 AM
1

Each of which were different and highly relevant to the purpose of the video, to illustrate that feminists are far more hateful than your typical MRAs. Sorry you didn't follow that. This was one of her shortest videos.
/r/MensRights15/03/12 01:49 AM
7

Not everyone on the internet has ADD.
/r/MensRights14/03/12 06:12 AM
15

Wow. For such a "pro-woman" stance this lawyer claims to take, she's really, very anti-woman. Her opinion of women as being worthless, good-for-nothing bums who can't get jobs to support themselves is poorly veiled by her "I'm doing it for the women!" facade. She gets it wrong in just about every paragraph. This is the least empowering thing I think I've seen a woman say in years.
/r/MensRights11/03/12 06:50 AM
1

SRS welcomes discussion at SRSDiscussion. Not true. SRS and the entire sub-subreddit SRS community of "safe places" for censorship to run rampant is not a place where true discussion can ever happen. The reason those subreddits exist is specifically so their point of view can remain dominant, and any disagreement or dissent can be crushed and censored, or deleted.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 10:31 PM
3

Case in point. You've supported plenty of views with your circlejerking in SRS as well as your continued antagonism in subreddits you disagree with. You've demonstrated time and time again you only ask questions of things you disagree with, not because you want an actual answer or discussion (you're incapable of that), but because you think you're being clever and bringing up a good point. You're hoping you won't get an answer, because you know damn well you're incapable of offering a thought ou…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 10:18 PM
3

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qqazt/radfem_calls_porn_commercial_rape_industry/c3znoo0 Notice the lack of response. http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/qqazt/radfem_calls_porn_commercial_rape_industry/c3znuev Notice the lack of response. You've never had a logical argument. No one responds to you because you have no thoughts of your own and therefore can't formulate a coherent argument. You don't bring anything to the table. You don't respond to anything, you just ask idiot…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 09:48 PM
6

Validation of claims is required for a logical argument. When have you ever engaged in a logical argument?
/r/MensRights10/03/12 08:26 PM
10

Link: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/300/ Second quote. Find other gems by Robin Morgan if you're so inclined. http://www.quotesnsayings.net/quotes/53990 I'll pretend you're playing devil's advocate, because I can't believe anyone could actually not see the immense idiocy in that quote. This type of thinking is irrational because rape is sexual assault, a forced sexual interaction without the consent of another person. That's the definition. A person, man or woman, initiatin…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 08:22 PM
7

Oh, sorry. I was just being lazy and exaggerating. It's not so much an attack as it is a statement. An attack is an insult, this is a statement about the validity of their claims. Since it's hard for me to put together a list of 100% of the things ever said by Radfem, and I'm not going to do it, it might be easier then to point me to the things they've argued that have been valid and true and based on all the facts rather than emotion or engineered, selective fact-sharing. I'm sure they've said …
/r/MensRights10/03/12 08:04 PM
6

Oh, I believe it. I'm not trying to imply they aren't smart, or even some of the smartest. I'm just basing this on my personal experience. I'm in grad school in America, and while I don't go to an Ivy League school, I do work with a good number of other grad students or post-docs from Ivy League schools. They're all very smart, and some of them are clearly the best. But a good number of them aren't any smarter than many of the grad students I know from other schools, they just know how to sell t…
/r/MensRights10/03/12 07:40 PM
7

You're correct. Radfem bloggers have claimed that any act of sex that wasn't initiated by the woman (that is, the woman coming onto the man) is rape. Brilliant logic and rationality.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 07:35 PM
6

Radfem says a lot of things, and 100% of those things are wrong.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 07:35 PM
9

You would think Cambridge students, who are effectively students in the best university on this planet would protest in a better way. Logically you would think this, yes. But when you realize that admissions to a school like this aren't so much dependent upon one's smarts, but instead upon one's extracurricular activities, essays, and ability to sell themselves, it's no surprise that it accepts plenty of self-absorbed, out-of-touch-with-reality students.
/r/MensRights10/03/12 07:24 PM
2

And if you're so inclined, check out one of the metal bands he drummed for.
/r/MensRights05/03/12 09:24 AM
1

I love that this is actually how feminists see the world. Like it's some massive conspiracy/"matrix" and we're all mindless drones just obeying the commands of the Lord Patriarchs until we're busted out of the mind-prison by enlightened feminist warriors.
/r/MensRights29/02/12 04:31 AM
8

butthurt babies Ironic choice of words coming from someone whose posting history indicates you are the biggest butthurt baby on the internet. 10 entire months of posting almost nothing but bitter, butthurt remarks in /r/mensrights.
/r/MensRights22/02/12 08:09 AM
2

Yeah, we should censor fucking everything just to be safe, right?
/r/MensRights17/02/12 04:01 PM
-1

Fair enough.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 03:02 AM
-5

For a childish flame war this is true. When you're trying to somehow render someone's insight, opinion, or commentary less relevant or significant, or otherwise contribute in any but the most juvenile way possible, it is a fallacy to do this.
/r/MensRights09/02/12 02:19 AM
5

Haha. Nah, not at all. You wanna see some real frothing-at-the-mouth anger? Check this shit out. A whole group of 11,000 very angry people!
/r/MensRights08/02/12 11:57 PM
7

This attitude verifies what many people know about SRS and their ilk already. It makes it very clear to anyone who held any doubt. This is you admitting that being racist isn't wrong, being a bigot isn't wrong, having the mindset that you can generalize and stereotype people isn't wrong. No, this is all fine and dandy to SRS and people of similarly questionable mental ability, which you show time and time again by the racist, bigoted behavior on that subreddit. Instead, you make the distinction …
/r/MensRights08/02/12 11:50 PM
-12

ad hominem is always SRS's only technique. It's cute. ;)
/r/MensRights08/02/12 11:43 PM
2

translation: Boys become men when they cut their dicks off.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 06:36 AM
3

I was unaware of this. You mean they delete people's comments for having false information? I've seen many things that are wrong over there that haven't been removed.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 03:04 AM
5

Do you see what you're doing? You're taking a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with a certain group and assigning responsibility to them anyway. I know, I said that in my last post. I said it was probably an unfair thing to do, but I then laid out an explanation for why I thought, if nothing else, it was at least a justified assumption to make. What if someone were to do the same to mras or to men in general? This happens frequently. Also, why is it okay to generalize feminists, but u…
/r/MensRights01/02/12 12:49 AM
9

In what way? It's definitely not an "anything goes" subreddit, but it's pretty open and free. The only things they get rid of are juvenile things like name calling, obvious trolls, flame wars, etc... Everyone's free to an opinion there, even if they're wrong. They don't censor information, they censor people acting like children.
/r/MensRights01/02/12 12:40 AM
3

Actually in this case the victim was another little boy. I know. I can't speak for all people here but I've never said feminists don't care about men. Some do, some probably don't. That's not what's happening here. Maybe I was wrong to characterize this as a feminist disciplinary action, but it sure seems in line with it (overreaction to something as innocent and harmless as a simple touch -- this is well within the targeting scope of feminist action). As if that's not enough, the stark contrast…
/r/MensRights01/02/12 12:17 AM
4

I know that typically, yes, radical feminists demonize heterosexual sex (from a man, not from a woman). But this makes me think that the boy touched another boy: one boy’s hand allegedly touching the upper thigh, or perhaps the groin, of another. Shouldn't matter either way. It seems to me that schools are trying to teach kids not to distinguish between "bad" touch and "good" touch, but to just be mortified of ALL touch, all the time, everywhere. They're training them to have the victim mentalit…
/r/MensRights31/01/12 09:16 PM
8

If this had been a case of bullying, i.e. one child punching another child in the face, the principal would have hardly taken notice. But an "indecent touch", well let's fucking bring out the cannons. Pretty clear where feminists' priorities lie, and they're not with safety or well being. They're hung up on demonizing sex and anything that is imperceptibly related to it.
/r/MensRights31/01/12 07:27 PM
2

Does feminism attract delusional idiots like this, or are they just the more visible and vocal ones?
/r/MensRights28/01/12 08:09 AM
1

I think so. I'd like breasts to be freely visible.
/r/MensRights24/01/12 04:19 AM
94

If one sex is allowed to do something the other sex is not allowed to do, that is sexual discrimination. So, yes.
/r/MensRights23/01/12 07:38 PM
1

Your article was (probably) blocked because it provided information that might lead to women leaving the mindset of victimization and being empowered. Without the wage gap (a myth, by the way) and other things that make them feel the victim, feminists really have very little to complain about. They need fuel for the fire, and if you're providing information that destroys that fuel, then, well, you're one of us. An enemy.
/r/MensRights19/01/12 07:01 PM
16

You're correct. They use this as a defense for when they're called out on their bigotry, idiocy, etc... But they are very much serious, because some of the very prominent members of SRS, including mods, can be seen all over reddit engaging in the same kind of nonsense they do at SRS. Some showed up in the Louis CK AMA on Monday, even.
/r/MensRights15/12/11 01:46 AM
2

I haven't seen any statistics, so I'm wondering if the good done by the sex offender registry really outweighs the bad. How many people/communities has it actually helped or protected, and how many lives has it ruined? My guess is it's ruined more than it's saved.
/r/MensRights29/11/11 09:14 PM
0

I can comprehend that there may be a few legally insane people on SRS who believe what they're saying. That's believable. But the likelihood of a group of that many legally insane people finding each other and circle jerking in a very serious way, all day every day, with nothing better to do than scout reddit for "offensive" content that makes them want to cry into their straight jackets because they can literally do nothing else about it is very slim. Many people on SRS are known trolls, like b…
/r/MensRights06/11/11 05:12 PM
6

SRS is just a club of shitty trolls who don't really believe the idiotic cack they say. Humanity has some awfully stupid people, some real low thinking, subsurface mental dead ends, but no one's stupid enough to really think the way they pretend to think over there.
/r/MensRights06/11/11 04:32 PM
1

The logical and intelligent responses in the comments (which I assume are from people here in MR) are fantastic. Keep up the good work. Her "arguments" have been exposed as the lies they are, and have been utterly crushed.
/r/MensRights20/10/11 02:20 PM
46

Let's switch the sexes for a minute. Two men go behind the counter and begin assaulting a woman who is just doing her job. The woman then defends herself with a metal rod, and continues to beat the men while they're on the ground. What's the response going to be from the general public? "YOU GO GIRL" "She did what she knew she had to do! She was courageously defending herself against those woman-beating thugs!" "HEADLINE: WOMAN BRAVELY FIGHTS OFF TWO AGGRESSORS ON CAMERA!" "What I wanna know is …
/r/MensRights17/10/11 07:08 PM
0

Ironiclly enough, you completely failed to grasp my point. I think your point was that if you tell gays that "non-gay bars" are for straight people, then you're considered homophobic and it's considered a hate crime, and so you think there's a double standard somewhere? If that's your point, it's not a good one or a valid one. First of all, no one's going to consider that a hate crime. But they wouldn't be too far off to call you homophobic for saying that. It isn't correct to say that these 'no…
/r/MensRights10/10/11 12:20 AM
1

Hmm. It sure looks like that's your argument. I seem to be misunderstanding you. Your argument was this: There arent places where straights can be themselves b/c the heteronarritive always involves homosexual inclusion where the homonarritive allows public shuning of the evil "breeders". How is this different than what I said?
/r/MensRights09/10/11 11:59 PM
5

So Im a paranoid homophobe b/c I have 1st hand witnessed being ridiculed for being an outsider and not being gay at a gay club? No, you're just convoluting your arguments. You argued that straight people can't go and act straight in normal bars because the "homonarrative" is everywhere in these cities, and straights just can't be straight out in public. And to support this argument of yours, you're citing an experience at a gay bar? How absurd. I'm not calling anyone a bigot. I didn't call you a…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:52 PM
6

I think by non-gay bars you mean non gay-bars. They aren't bars for non-gays, rather they're bars that are not specifically geared toward homosexuals. If you're talking about straight bars, bars designed specifically for straight people, then I agree. But I don't know of any bars like this. Bars are just bars, and by default, they are 99% full of straight people. This is why gay bars exist - it's hard for gays to meet other gays in normal bars. What about this is so hard to understand?
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:48 PM
7

I live in the outskirts of a city. In fact, I spend a few months of each year in Chicago for work and what you've said isn't true. I've never been to a place in Chicago or LA where I've been made to feel guilty for being straight. I've never, once in my life, in any city in which I've been for any extended period of time, had my heterosexual behavior restricted or oppressed by the homonarrative. In all honesty I think this is a form of paranoia that homophobes suffer from. There's no oppressive …
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:42 PM
5

No one's saying they should be allowed to exclude straights. Instead, I think the sentiment being suggested is: "straight or gay, it's fine if you are here. But be aware this is a bar designed for homosexuals seeking other homosexuals. 90% of the bars on the planet are mostly full of straight people who have the mostly correct assumption that their fellow patrons are heterosexual, so it is at these bars that heterosexuals can go to meet other heterosexuals. This is not true for homosexuals, beca…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:36 PM
7

On what planet does this happen?
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:17 PM
5

I know. I'm not saying it should be only for gay people, but by calling it a gay bar, it's saying "this bar is an easy place for gay people to meet - Come in if you're gay!". A bunch of straight people flooding it is just kind of pointless and probably a little frustrating for the gay people. Not that they shouldn't be allowed in, but... why would they go? By default, at most bars it is assumed your fellow patrons are heterosexual. A man hits on attractive women because he assumes they are strai…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 04:11 PM
1

You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, the way many of these beliefs are presented to the public makes it hard for a not-so-inquisitive person to determine if the "facts" are true, or simply made up to support a conclusion that was drawn first.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 02:11 PM
2

Uh, nope. The point is to highlight how awful Reddit's hivemind is. If that were true, you guys would be pointing out a lot more comments that have to do with general stupidity, ignorance, and lack of class - not just a narrowly selective view of racism and sexism (i.e. misogyny, let's be honest - you don't give a fuck about misandry). If your own subreddit hivemind was really concerned with issues of this nature, you'd be pointing out misandry when it occurred, as well as racism when it's again…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 02:00 PM
13

If I were gay I'd be pretty annoyed by straight dudes and girls coming to the bar like it's some kind of hang out for them. A gay bar, to me, seems that it should be designed for gay people to meet other gay people - not for a bunch of straight people to come to feel like they can sneak through the cracks to get potential dates and to hang out like it's just any other bar. And I don't think discriminating against straight people is the answer, but any dude who goes to a gay bar had better be 100…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 01:45 PM
1

Who was it that handed white men the white male privilege? I mean, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but to say that every single white male has it and is automatically better off than everyone else is dishonest and wrong. But I'm just curious... who gave white men the privilege? And can I use this white male privilege when I go to China, India, Japan, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or anywhere in Africa? I really want to know how powerful my privilege is and how far it reaches. You guys make it sou…
/r/MensRights08/10/11 01:30 PM
1

No she's probably being downvoted for this being the 10,000th time she's posted it. Her trolling abilities are limited and predictable.
/r/MensRights08/10/11 01:26 PM
10

If it weren't so sickening to see what their pathetic agenda is, and how widely it's accepted as truth, it'd almost be funny to see how blatantly out of touch these feminist authors are with facts. A group of people getting A averages in business or women's studies degrees are not even on the same playing field as a group of people getting B averages in computer science or mathematics. But this is a classic feminist strategy, much like the "wage gap" myth - look only at the numbers and invent a …
/r/MensRights06/10/11 09:32 PM
2

SRS is not a call to mass downvoting. Yeah it is. That's the reason it exists. That's why at the end of every single submission you guys write the total karma of each post you're linking to, so the downvote knights know where to go and what to do, as if to say, "you GUYS!!!!! LOOK AT THIS SHIT! PEOPLE ARE UPVOTING IT!!! FIX THAT!! FIX IT WITH YOUR DOWNVOTES! THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY BAD BECAUSE LOOK AT HOW MANY UPVOTES IT HAS! HURRY!!!" You're not kidding anyone by saying this isn't what you guy…
/r/MensRights06/10/11 07:38 AM
3

Yes, because although every single thread on SRS is a call to mass downvoting, this one single thread on MR makes MR a downvote brigade? Top tier intellect, dear redditor.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 06:46 AM
3

Not sure. Perhaps he's afraid of the SRS/AgainstMensRights chest-slapping downvote brigades coming through and ruining his karma for posting something honest. You know how they feel about honesty...
/r/MensRights06/10/11 06:05 AM
10

I'd like to remark on the second to last paragraph. There are some of us even in academia who are laughing at feminists. Any honest academician or scholar or scientist or what have you will respond to feminism in much the same way that this comic does.
/r/MensRights06/10/11 03:58 AM
1

}:[
/r/MensRights24/09/11 01:56 AM
1

Jesus christ. Are you really this stupid?
/r/MensRights23/09/11 11:07 PM
5

It really is a bad place. The only place I can think of that's any worse is /r/againstmensrights. It's a lot of the same people, and I'm starting to think they're all trolls. If you waste any time reading anything on either forum (sadly, I have) you'll see they can't really argue a point coherently, they just operate as a massive downvote circlejerk that obsesses over this subreddit and a few others.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 10:15 PM
5

I think what is dangerous and detrimental to society is an assumption/illusion of equality where it doesn't exist. In this example, even though white men are the majority of actors and directors in Hollywood, feminist whiners complain when women and minorities aren't treated as if the contribution of their gender or race is equal - it's not equal, so why should anything different be represented? From what I can tell, the numbers of winners seem to represent the relative contributions and quality…
/r/MensRights19/09/11 10:11 PM
7

shitredditsays Hahahahahaa.
/r/MensRights19/09/11 09:34 PM
2

at a point when real-life husbands are at an all-time down-low So her "source" for this unsupported statement is that congressmen and international bankers, who make up less than 1% of 1% of real-life husbands, are misbehaving? Am I understanding this? I didn't see any other sources in there for her ludicrous generalizations.
/r/MensRights14/09/11 10:40 PM
1

:D
/r/MensRights13/09/11 09:21 PM
2

I'm having trouble following your reasoning about us being "misogynistic dickweeds". It is actually correct that AMRA and SRS are on the job. I fail to see how me pointing that out makes me a dickweed or a misogynist. I never implied an agreement with the post in question. Your namecalling suggests who the real dickweed is.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 09:06 PM
0

It's actually a bunch of AgainstMensRights subscribers. Their butthurt has a distinct scent. But I think the two subreddits are essentially the same. edit: probably both. Our downvotes suggest both tables of gallant mesh-shirted knights are on the job.
/r/MensRights13/09/11 04:52 PM
5

His statement probably isn't a joke, but he is a joke.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 02:26 AM
3

Excellent. The first person who told me about SMBC was a feminist... not one of those kinds of feminists, though.
/r/MensRights01/09/11 02:24 AM
0

Also Relevant
/r/MensRights22/08/11 06:00 PM
0

Relevant
/r/MensRights22/08/11 05:44 PM
1

You're wasting your time arguing with a troll. I think (s)he's just another misguided, angry 15 year old.
/r/MensRights22/08/11 05:32 PM
2

It is just a troll subreddit. This post is what brought my attention to that subreddit yesterday, so I took a look over there and noticed one of the submissions on their front page was addressing a quote I made in the "take a seat" thread (pretty much everything posted to that subreddit is the moderators finding shit over here, taking it out of context, and then trying to gather as many trolls as they can to downvote it to hell). I responded to the post and said I'd be happy to clarify the point…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 10:25 PM
3

This is why we recognize you as nothing but a troll.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 03:33 AM
1

That's because your loosely formed "point" has no basis in reality, and therefore absolutely falls apart under even minimal scrutiny. You're clearly a troll.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 03:32 AM
3

hardwarequestions's position is correct. The law doesn't accurately or intelligently define consent. You're wrongly using a loose definition of consent that is invalid, and you've just solidified your refusal to quit approaching the issue from an understandably invalid side. This is why we recognize you as nothing but a troll.
/r/MensRights21/08/11 03:28 AM
1

You intentionally got in the car and drove. This is a crime. You can intend to commit any crime while drunk. Consent is irrelevant here. If you can intentionally and knowingly get into a car, drive, and commit a crime, how then can you not intentionally and knowingly engage in sexual intercourse? What you seem to be saying is that drunk driving is your choice, but drunk sex is not your choice. How do you justify this? Can you not intend to engage in sex while drunk? The idea of consent is releva…
/r/MensRights21/08/11 02:02 AM
7

This is false reasoning. You're, of course, talking about legal definitions, not real definitions, when you address rape and consent. I'd like to address that, but much of the text and defining done in the legal world is arbitrary, constantly open to modification, and therefore reduces itself to a tier of insignificance when really worrying about the real-world issue and implications, not the arbitrary courtroom take on it. This is partially why /r/MensRights exists, because we know there is a g…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:46 PM
2

That's true... I just hope OP's story is truthful and he's not leaving out anything important. It clearly sounds like a case of, "I regret having sex with him, I don't want my reputation tarnished, time to file charges!"
/r/MensRights20/08/11 08:07 PM
2

Remind me to explicitly state when something is a joke or not, so next time you won't take it seriously. What's this about a date rapist evading justice? Are we in the same thread? I'm responding to the post about a guy who had consensual sex with another person. I think you're mixing up what is rape and what is consensual sex. If "rape" occurred (because of the silly qualifier of intoxication), it's just as correct to say she raped him. She's accountable for her actions, as well. If his story i…
/r/MensRights20/08/11 07:43 PM
5

Consider filing rape charges against her for taking advantage of you while you were drunk.
/r/MensRights20/08/11 04:38 PM
-1

It was good and reasonable up until: "Park said that the first thing to do is to start talking about these issues, and to make clear that talking about them is not a matter of blaming women for their choices." Classic and common example of requiring no accountability for people's decisions, and trying to blame someone or something else. "If someone doesn't want to be a scientist, it's not their fault! Let's blame society!"
/r/MensRights19/08/11 08:36 PM
2

Can you read? Not one thing she said had anything to do with feminism.
/r/MensRights11/08/11 06:59 PM
0

Too.... many.... fallacies.... in one post.... can't... possibly... tackle ... all of them... at once.... Go on, young 19 year old television intern and take pride in your "job". It's been fun, but I guess I'll stick to my real job where I'll be around people who can think succinctly, and discuss opinions and observations like adults, not like children high on their own naivety who crumble and strike out angrily when they're challenged. It won't be a circle-jerk of political-hard-on teenagers pa…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 11:03 PM
-1

LOL haha I work on the Daily Show Hahaha, I knew I detected the strong scent of Daily Show-esque blinders. This would explain your quickness to liken anything not totally in line with your way of thinking to a far-right "tea party shill" and your silly, eager "defense" of socialism. Glad that you've made your unrelenting bias clear. And no, I'm not 24. I have nothing against 23 year olds. I don't have anything against 19 year olds, either.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 05:22 PM
-1

Now you resemble an ignorant tea party shill even more. You're a lot closer to that than this is to "communism." 'fraid not. For you to think that would require a brutal lack of basic familiarity with what those tea partiers even believe, as well as remarkably low standards for what warrants a comparison to a "tea party shill". But the interesting thing is that this ignorant remark makes you sound like a whiny, reactionary college freshman (being generous, assuming you're post - high school) wor…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 04:45 AM
-1

I didn't trash my "argument" because my argument wasn't that feminism is socialist. It's unlikely the judge was a feminist, and this act wasn't an act of feminism, but instead chivalry as you recognized. It's easy to separate the acts of this judge from the feminist movement. Simply treating a woman preferentially and a man less so is not always feminism, just as treating a man preferentially over a woman is not always an act of anti-feminism or misogyny. I didn't address the term chivalry becau…
/r/MensRights30/07/11 10:27 PM
0

The taking of money from a man who owns said money, and it instead being distributed among people the government or a judge deems "more in need" of the money, which doesn't belong to them, doesn't sound at all like socialism to you? This doesn't at all sound like the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to you? Sure sounds similar to me. However, I do not believe that feminism, in general, is a socialist movement. This particular action by the judge, t…
/r/MensRights30/07/11 07:07 PM
9

a bunch of fucking ignorant tea party shills but you have fun and keep fighting for tax breaks for the CEO's that you'll never see a dime of when you say shit like this you trivialize people's ability to speak openly and comparatively about feminism by assaulting them with a fucking ignorant take on politics. So because he puts socialism in a negative light he must be a tea partier? He must be fighting for tax breaks for CEOs? It's either socialism or tea party sucking the dicks of the CEOs, no …
/r/MensRights29/07/11 06:45 PM
1

I see you don't get sarcasm.
/r/MensRights28/07/11 06:28 AM
3

Yes, this is true. My rates are better than some women's rates because of their driving records, but gender still strikes me as an unjust way to decide what to charge drivers. I may be a hypocrite in saying this, but I do believe an age discrimination is a legitimate way to do it, since younger drivers are typically more dangerous and more likely to get into accidents, and it's in essence a rite of passage, something you have to deal with until you've had a number of years with experience drivin…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:49 PM
7

Ah. No. You're not reading what I'm saying, you're imagining words that I didn't write, or phrasing I didn't use. I never said any generalizations about how all women drive, nor do I possess citations for statistics on women I personally know. However, their driving records will suffice as a source, I suppose. I know just about an equal number of men and women, and of the people I know in my extended family and close friends and acquaintances, these things are widely true of females. I did not a…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:32 PM
25

It's not purely math in the most scientific sense. It is discrimination. Discrimination is often based on statistics. And the way this math is used is simply as an interpretation of specially worded statistical studies, with arbitrary groupings made to maximize profit. Statistically, I'm less of a driving risk than many people I know, including almost every woman I know, so my rates should be low. But statistically, my gender is at a higher risk. Since I am a male, regardless of my driving recor…
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:14 PM
16

I'm a man but holy shit, how can you call this discrimination? Because it is discrimination. Statistics are used for discrimination all the time. By the same token as your faulty logic, it wouldn't be discrimination to place more legal restrictions or a closer watch on black people in the United States since, statistically, they commit more crimes percentage wise than white people. If some black people are committing crimes, that means that race arbitrarily needs to be a deciding factor when it …
/r/MensRights27/07/11 04:09 PM
3

This is how prostitution should be, and can be. I'm glad you're someone who's done this/doing this, because I use situations like yours as an example to argue to feminists why prostitution isn't fundamentally wrong. What they're attacking are by-products of prostitution and only choice aspects of it. But since I don't know of many places from which I can cite examples like yours, my words don't usually carry much authority.
/r/MensRights08/07/11 12:32 AM
14

I agree with your assessment. I've been in "arguments" with feminists before, some even very recently, about this and without fail it is always the same: they initially claim that prostitution is wrong (i.e. the exchange of sex for money is wrong). When you ask them to follow this with logic or rationale, they quickly devolve into finger pointing anger and male-hating buzzwords. They're never able to adequately argue that it is morally wrong to exchange money for sex, rather they can only argue …
/r/MensRights07/07/11 06:49 PM
4

This is why men kill their wives instead of going through the hell of a divorce. For all women who cry about inequality, simply point them to divorce. They'll shut up fast.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 10:49 PM
9

I am a pacifist. I do not advocate violence. But I tell you this. The day I see one of these absolutely incredulous excuses for a judge dragged out of his courtroom into the street, beaten mercilessly, doused with gasoline and set afire by a father who just won’t take another moment of injustice, I will be the first to put on the pages of this website that what happened was a minor tragedy that pales by far in comparison to the systematic brutality and thuggery inflicted daily on American father…
/r/MensRights17/06/11 05:59 AM
9

Welcome to the hell of men.
/r/MensRights06/06/11 06:32 PM
1

It's the land of the free, baby. Just be sure that you don't expect sexual freedom to be part of the deal.
/r/MensRights25/06/10 11:07 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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