TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Chandon Archive

View 0 posts and 123 comments by Chandon on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

I think every kid should learn to program in primary school. We have no idea what the appropriate curriculum for that would be. And the expected outcome of "just doing it" would be getting every future student to hate programming more than today's students hate math.
/r/MensRights27/08/17 09:36 PM
12

You can file a civil lawsuit over anything. False paternity accusations don't work against people who can write a $100k retainer check to their law firm.
/r/MensRights18/06/15 05:09 PM
1

Why target a minority and exclude the majority of people you could help?
/r/MensRights06/05/14 10:39 PM
11

The main risk factor is poverty, and it turns out that excluding the most common skin color excludes most at-risk people. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/12/most_poor_people_in_america_are_white.html
/r/MensRights06/05/14 01:17 PM
5

If they do, and they apply on your own front lawn, then they're not real laws - they're just temporary misunderstandings until they get taken to court the first time.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 02:13 AM
0

Eh, the USA isn't that bad. Remember, we have 300 million people and the trolliest news reporting ever.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 02:10 AM
13

People in this country are eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than they are by a terrorist. In 2013, there were 5 terrorism deaths and 309 cop killings. You're about 4 times more likely to be killed by a cow than a terrorist.
/r/MensRights27/02/14 02:06 AM
8

In order to master any skill, you have to actually be interested in it to to the point where you spend a significant portion of your free time doing it for years. The rule of thumb is 10,000 hours of solid, challenging practice. Note that doing something professionally, full time nets about 1000 hours of practice a year, so it'll take 10 years for learning something just on the job to get you there. School is much worse - homework might be about 4 hours a week, 26 weeks a year = 100 hours/year. …
/r/MensRights06/02/14 07:01 PM
29

If a law adds extra negative consequences to an action, we usually call that punishment.
/r/MensRights28/01/14 08:01 PM
1

Here in New Hampshire, you can request a jury trial for small claims court. I have no idea what's wrong with Ohio.
/r/MensRights16/08/13 06:07 PM
1

Habitat loss alone is a huge problem. In wealthy countries, that's not an overpopulation issue. Maybe a tax code issue...?
/r/MensRights02/08/13 01:59 PM
1

There's pretty much no overpopulation problem in wealthy countries.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 12:24 AM
3

Maybe paying women to have children makes sense. There are arguments for that. But paying women who don't have children just to raise the average is clearly absurd.
/r/MensRights02/08/13 12:23 AM
3

Among people who agree with you, absolutely.
/r/MensRights05/06/13 06:21 PM
2

That's an ethical position you can take, but it certainly isn't the only one. Abortion is a hard ethical question, and trying to make it look easy by making an unbounded assertion that "the rights of the living trump the rights of the unborn" is just polarizing without being productive. It's not hard to argue that the same chain of reasoning would apply to breastfeeding while drinking alcohol, which is pretty widely accepted as potential child abuse. It may be politically convenient to draw a ha…
/r/MensRights05/06/13 05:32 PM
3

The law being on trial is one of the key ideas of the English legal tradition. It's the job of both the judge and the jury to be able to say "this law is stupid, we're not going to convict anyone under it". Judges need to justify the stupidity of the law in writing, juries don't even need to do that.
/r/MensRights28/05/13 12:44 AM
11

If that were true, then we could do away with juries entirely and just let the judges do the judging.
/r/MensRights27/05/13 03:36 AM
9

Why should his ex-wife be entitled to his savings?
/r/MensRights08/12/12 04:58 PM
2

Here's the thing: A certain amount of immaturity is fine.
/r/MensRights03/12/12 09:05 PM
-3

Aren't some horrible violation of Justin Beiber's human dignity that we should be crucifying Jenny McCarthy over, especially not in the context of a music awards show.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 08:06 PM
-7

I reject that framing. Justin Bieber is not a victim here. Making him a victim would make the world a worse place for everyone. I'm going to have to reference girlwriteswhat for the long version on this.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:46 PM
-10

You know what? No. Just no. It doesn't help anyone to try to propagate the same confused and dysfunctional norms for young men that are getting propagated for women. The idea that a young woman can never, ever be touched extends from the historical idea that she was her father's property and that if she was dirtied by a man it would damage her honor and devalue her. Society should move to the norm that women are people, not that men are also such helpless and fragile possessions that they can't …
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:05 PM
-6

Sexual contact, without consent, is sexual assault. That is the law. And how far do we as a society really want that to extend? When and what physical contact is acceptable varies with different social norms, and I'd rather not have the society that I live in be 100% touch-phobic. I'm certainly not convinced that a playful kiss on the neck in public in front of a million people should be an issue for cops and courts.
/r/MensRights19/11/12 06:56 PM
11

Wait... you're going to settle for getting payouts from only one man? That's just poor play.
/r/MensRights06/11/12 03:25 AM
2

Why? That would just make the scheme less efficient. The relevent bit is search results, and they ignore noise pretty effectively.
/r/MensRights05/10/12 04:23 AM
33

Eh, you get a better argument if you just go reducto-ad-absurdium on the existing argument. If cutting off some of the penis in infancy reduces HIV infections, I bet cutting off all of it will eliminate them.
/r/MensRights27/08/12 05:39 PM
0

That would be more reasonable if Lawyer wasn't a profession limited by a legally imposed guild cartel.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 03:15 AM
1

Every small claims court works that way today. Private arbitration, which is a reasonably common way to resolve disputes, generally works that way. It's possible, it just may not be simple to implement in a system that's built buy and for the lawyer's guild.
/r/MensRights13/07/12 03:14 AM
1

That doesn't sound even slightly like what I said either. If two parents who have been raising a child together chose to break up, the assumption should be equal physical custody. If that's not possible, the parents should reach some agreement themselves. If they can't, the court should fine them both until they do.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:37 PM
1

I mean physical custody, where if they need food or clothes or a place to sleep it's the custodial parent's problem.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 07:25 PM
2

Huh? I think you misunderstood what I said. There's no need for any monetary child support payments. If a parent can only support their kid 30% of the time, they should only get their kid 30% of the time and the other parent should get the kid 70% of the time.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 06:39 PM
1

There's no reason for CS at all. If a parent can't support the kid, they should get less custody.
/r/MensRights21/03/12 05:56 PM
3

That's a better model, but still not very good. You're still pideonholing complex political ideas into a position in simple space and thus promoting fuzzy generalizations instead of meaningful thought.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 07:07 PM
22

This is the sort of nonsense you end up with when you try to cram all political ideas into a single left-right spectrum.
/r/MensRights17/03/12 03:47 PM
6

That makes sense on a tribal level (as long as enough adults also survive to propagate the tribal culture). A sinking cruise ship is not a tribe.
/r/MensRights15/01/12 05:33 PM
1

The basic problem with executions is that when you figure out that the court fucked up the person is already dead. It doesn't really matter how horrible the crime someone is accused of is, it could be a false accusation and any guilty judgement could always be a mistake.
/r/MensRights14/01/12 05:04 AM
2

They're civic responsibilities. You mean they're duties, like the feudal serf's duty to grow crops on his lord's land. I'm sorry, but such medieval notions of ethics have no place in the modern world regardless of conservatives trying to dredge them back up and guilt people with their cultural remnants. We've been beyond that nonsense for centuries. Responsibilities must be accepted willingly. Anything else devolves quickly into involuntary servitude. I noticed that you didn't address the respon…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 10:27 PM
1

Taxes and jury duty aren't responsibilities. They're compelled by threat of force. At very least, such compulsions should be minimized and should be structured in such a way as to not generate perverse incentives.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:08 PM
11

And this is being done because a woman's "right" to have pre-marital sex and be mostly absolved of the bad consequences of her choices That's a terrible way to frame it. Consenting adults have a right to have as much per-marital sex as they want. Women have the choice to not get pregnant, not stay pregnant, or not keep the baby when it's born. Because it's their choice, they must be - by default - solely responsible for any resulting liability.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:36 PM
0

Responsibility and choice go together. A woman has full control over whether she has a child, therefore she must be fully responsible for that child. Anything else sets you up for systemic failures.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 06:34 PM
0

This occurs absolutely any time someone discriminates in favor of black people over white people. University admissions are the classic example.
/r/MensRights05/08/11 01:11 PM
0

Wait, you're seriously asserting that very poor white people don't exist? Here's the first Google result: http://www.racialicious.com/2009/02/24/do-poor-whites-even-exist/
/r/MensRights05/08/11 11:46 AM
2

it doesn't even compare The US just hides taxes better. Did you consider state sales tax? The various luxury taxes? The inflation tax?
/r/MensRights04/08/11 04:14 AM
1

Poor people are screwed, but poor black people have more social support to try to deal with it. I'm not saying that poor black people shouldn't get the help. What I am saying is that the populations of very poor white people (that do exist in the US) should have access to the same support that poor black people do. We shouldn't be discriminating based on skin color at all here; poverty is terrible for everyone.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 07:54 PM
0

Whites deserve equal treatment to anyone else. Just because mentioning that is even less PC than mentioning that men deserve equal treatment doesn't make it any less true.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 08:08 AM
-4

"His" is the gender neutral pronoun here, so "Getting a person drunk is not the same as getting his permission".
/r/MensRights31/07/11 07:52 AM
1

And yet he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page.
/r/MensRights26/06/11 03:12 AM
29

Women aren't a minority. They're the slight majority.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 06:37 PM
11

You're missing the point. Video games is what boys are spending their time on anyway. She's trying to hijack that, which is a legitimately good idea. That's not to say that more outdoor activities would be bad. Actually, what you really want is more apparently practical activities. The problem - for both of those things - is one of budget. Desks and quiet listening time are easy to fund, but going outside and building a catapult to teach physics is a practical nightmare (in spite of the fact tha…
/r/MensRights15/01/11 11:46 AM
10

This is a good system working as intended. Not everyone who has a kid is a fit parent. Allowing parents who realize that they fall in that category to voluntarily give up their children like this is strictly a good thing - we can afford the small expenditure of tax dollars for the benefit of keeping these children safe. The relevance of these safe harbor laws to mens rights is only that they are one more chance for women to opt-out of parental responsibility for unwanted children. It's good that…
/r/MensRights26/12/10 05:43 PM
6

Bans don't help anything. There are two basic possibilities: It's a troll. They can make throwaway accounts and don't care about bans. It's not a troll. A ban in this case just excludes someone from the discussion, which doesn't help anything. A ban can't possibly do any good, only harm.
/r/MensRights02/12/10 04:28 AM
7

I'm confused by the privilege statements. Do MRAs believe that women have a more privileged life than men? Do they believe we live in a matriarchy rather than a patriarchy or that for nearly all of human history men were the weaker/oppressed sex? Privilege isn't exclusive. Just because one person or group has privilege in one way doesn't mean that nobody else can be privileged in other ways. Similarly, arguing about who's more oppressed isn't terribly productive. Poor people will always win that…
/r/MensRights29/11/10 05:11 PM
1

The woman is the one who actually makes a choice to have a child. She can do this without the consent or knowledge of the guy who provided the sperm. Because the choice is solely hers, the default responsibility should be solely hers. There's nothing sexist or unjust here, having a child is her choice. Making the decision to raise a child as a couple is a serious step in a relationship. Realistically, its more serious than marriage is. There's no reason it shouldn't be a moderately big deal and …
/r/MensRights04/10/10 07:17 PM
0

I'm not really interested in arguing law in this context. Regardless of today's most likely legal interpretation, which I'm not qualified to have an opinion on, the question here is one of what the law ought to be in relation to a viable fetus - something that Roe vs. Wade doesn't restrict. It wouldn't contradict the spirit of Roe vs. Wade at all to give a father legal standing to prevent the abortion of a viable fetus. Further, the selection of the third trimester in Roe vs. Wade is clearly an …
/r/MensRights04/10/10 05:35 AM
0

That's certainly one side to the argument.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 04:26 AM
-1

Simply asserting that there's no overlap between the two possibilities doesn't make it true. Claiming that the current law might legally eliminate any overlap is not relevant to the ethical question. At around 28 weeks, there is a potential overlap. Abortion that late happens in practice, and babies born that prematurely tend to be fine. a dilation and extraction abortion is an entirely different procedure than a c-section and it would still be a woman's choice. Here you're begging the question.…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 04:15 AM
1

Maybe if the woman had explicitly told the dude "I'm not on birth control, you're helping to pay for the abortion of the condom breaks".
/r/MensRights04/10/10 04:02 AM
0

Huh? From Wikipedia, "Roe v. Wade": The Court held that the constitutional right to privacy extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests for regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Noting that these state interests become stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the mother's current trimester …
/r/MensRights04/10/10 04:00 AM
1

I don't see any special reason why people who chose to raise a child together shouldn't document that choice explicitly. That used to be what marriage was for, but now we probably need a new mechanism since marriage is really some other thing now.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 03:58 AM
-5

Haha yes, women DECIDE to be fertile. Seriously. That's how it works. There are so many solid options for birth control available to women that if a woman choses to have sex while fertile, we can safely consider that to be an intentional choice.
/r/MensRights04/10/10 03:55 AM
-1

Imagine that the pregnancy is at 32 weeks and aborting it is legal, but the father wants the baby. Under those circumstances, it would seem entirely reasonable for me if the father tried to sue to compel the woman to get the fetus out alive rather than dead. (I also think that the father should get first dibs on custody if a mother wants to put a baby up for adoption. This is a much less controversial issue, but nevertheless doesn't work right in most places.)
/r/MensRights04/10/10 01:54 AM
0

Step back from the thread discussion topic for a moment and actually consider the situation I described and questions I asked for a moment. It's certainly fuzzy. If you seriously claim that no reasonable person could possibly argue that the mother doesn't have an absolute right to abort the fetus under those circumstances, then it's you who is being unreasonable. It may be the case that the woman should be able to abort without regard for the other considerations in that situation, but a reasona…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 01:19 AM
-7

I also have no problem with the father sharing costs of the pregnancy or abortion. Why should a man be liable for any extra expense just because he chose to have sex and the woman decided - without his knowledge or consent - to be fertile?
/r/MensRights04/10/10 12:49 AM
1

To really see where the ethical lines are, you have to look at the fuzzy edge case. Consider a situation where: The mother wants an abortion. The father wants the child. The pregnancy is in its 24th week. A C-section at 24 weeks has a 50/50 chance of survival with a high chance (~70%) of serious brain damage if the baby does survive. After 28 weeks, a C-section is likely to produce a reasonably healthy baby. Should the father be able to compel a C-section instead of an abortion? Should the fathe…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 12:41 AM
4

Today, a woman has perfect control over whether she will bear and then keep a child. She can chose not to be fertile, she can chose to abort, and she can chose to give the child up for adoption. Given that reality, there's no reason for men to have any financial responsibility at all by default. If a couple wants to raise and support a child together, it should be by mutual agreement. If a woman wants to have a child without the consent and support of the father, that's her choice - but it shoul…
/r/MensRights04/10/10 12:23 AM
8

The relationship and the marriage are separate issues. The first is worth saving, the second is just a liability.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 05:06 AM
1

It sounds like you were deceived and have grounds for fraud. Leave this stuff to the lawyer. Find a good lawyer who knows about this sort of problem and present your goal: "I think the marriage was a mistake, I want it safely disposed of". Figuring out how to do that is his job.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 03:46 AM
7

This is the reasonable sounding thing to do, but it's not tactically correct. First, lawyer up and get the marriage annulled. Try to save the relationship only after you're on solid legal footing. And then, even if you do feel like you've saved the relationship, carefully don't sign any more marriage licenses.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 03:43 AM
6

This soon after the marriage this is just a waste of precious time. Lawyer today, annulment as soon as the lawyer will talk to you. If and only if that doesn't go smoothly then consider working with the lawyer on more complicated options.
/r/MensRights22/09/10 03:39 AM
2

America presents itself as the world's police, so let's at least do a good job of it. The US has never seriously tried to act as the "world police". That claim has just been a flimsy excuse for some of our arbitrary invasions of other countries. Pretending that the US as the world police is a serious thing is a huge disservice to the whole world. To be clear, the US is - at best - a horribly corrupt and incompetent world cop. See East Timor or, hell, Palestine for clear examples of that. US aggr…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:09 AM
2

the people doing the raping are on our side. we do not want to alienate them. Actually, this is a great excuse to stop trying to "help" them, which is a pretty good idea anyway.
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:02 AM
3

They were sent there to depose the Taliban that sheltered Al Qaeda which attacked the United States. Except that there were never a significant number of people in Afghanistan that were significantly organizationally related to any group that attacked the United States, but that's another issue...
/r/MensRights08/09/10 02:00 AM
2

Who's is it? The people of Afghanistan. If they want to change their culture, great. If they don't, that's their problem. If you want to change their culture, use the old missionary tactic and send in a bunch of volunteers to show them how great your culture is. Honestly, a well funded group trying to spread western culture probably wouldn't do that badly. But... if you get shot I'm not going to cry too hard. We're not all isolationists anymore, there is a sense that we have to help fellow human…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 01:35 AM
1

You could apply this argument pattern equally well to oppressed people in your culture. You'd think "who cares if we oppress group X, they're horrible for reason Y and deserve it", and that's pretty nearly symmetrical to the situation in Saudi Arabia or wherever. You could say that our culture is better because you oppress fewer people overall, but even that is debatable depending on how you define "oppression".
/r/MensRights08/09/10 01:27 AM
2

A nine year old isn't capable of consenting to be part of that culture, only the adult is. Nobody is capable of consenting to be a part of a culture. Everyone is raised in a culture, and by the time anyone is old enough to make reasonable judgments about anything, they'll be hopelessly biased by their own cultural background. Anyone saying "I like my culture, your culture is worse" is pretty boring. That's what we'd expect them to say. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with that position…
/r/MensRights08/09/10 01:03 AM
2

Needs more link.
/r/MensRights23/08/10 08:49 AM
3

If a child is going to be raised by a single parent, is there really some advantage to matching genders? I, male, was largely raised by my mother. One of my cousins, female, was largely raised by her single father. I'm not seeing any harm to either of us from the gender of our single parents... On the other hand, if this as a completely arbitrary heuristic in Barbados the net result probably wouldn't be any worse than it is now.
/r/MensRights16/08/10 06:50 AM
6

The woman has several options to avoid financially supporting a child (without sterilizing themselves, which would be absurd to put in the same context): Use preventative birth control. Don't have sex. Use a condom. Take a morning after pill. Have an abortion. Give up the child when it's born. The man currently has two: Don't have sex. Use a condom and hope it doesn't break, because it's the only line of defense. Having a child is clearly a woman's choice. Allowing the man to opt out just makes …
/r/MensRights26/07/10 02:17 AM
3

At that point the women chose to be fertile by not using any of the numerous preventative birth control methods available to her. She then chose not to use a morning after pill. And she still has another option left, even if it is inconvenient. It's entirely her choice whether she wants to have a kid. The only question is whether it should be her choice whether the man is responsible for supporting a child.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 02:13 AM
4

The simple fact is that there are - legitimately - five or six different nearly-100% effective methods of birth control for women. Estrogen / progestin pill Progestin shot NuvaRing Copper intrauterine device Properly used diaphram The failure rate of most of these methods is under 1%. The number of women who can't handle hormones at any dose and also can't manage to get an IUD fitted or figure out a diaphram is similarly low - and those women can still insist on condoms.
/r/MensRights26/07/10 02:08 AM
0

The woman has to have an abortion or carry the child to term and have it adopted. Or pay attention beforehand and use any of five or six highly effective birth control methods. If a woman doesn't want to be fertile, she's not. There's even the morning after pill if she didn't plan ahead. The men have financial pains, while the women have financial and physical pains. A woman potentially has more burden, but she also has drastically more options. The simple fact is that if a woman is pregnant, sh…
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:46 PM
4

If a woman and a man want to have a child, they should agree on that before they have sex. If they haven't agreed to have a kid, the assumption should be that the sex was happening just for the fun of it and neither of them want the responsibility of raising a kid for a quarter of their lives.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:26 PM
7

Having a kid is a huge burden for quite a long time. If you're supporting a kid, you'll be doing it for about half of your peak adult years, or about a quarter of your total life expectancy. Forcing anyone to take on that burden against their will is at least as bad as forcing a mother to carry a healthy pregnancy to term.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:23 PM
11

Women who don't wish to be mothers right now should get their tubes tied? Oh wait, no, that's obviously dumb and wrong.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:19 PM
4

Newborn abandonment is easy and readily available everywhere.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:19 PM
9

That's just stupid. Making abortion that hard is also stupid, but two stupids don't make a good plan.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:19 PM
27

Being an idiot does not make you an internet hero.
/r/MensRights25/07/10 10:14 PM
1

The simple response to the wage gap is reference to the occupational injury gap. "Yea, women get less money because they won't go deep sea crab fishing."
/r/MensRights21/06/10 05:12 AM
1

Maybe if the parents end up far apart geographically This is just as easy to arrange and abuse as the "unsupported claim of violence".
/r/MensRights17/06/10 05:35 PM
1

No. The groups are clearly distinct, but gays are potentially valuable allies. Both groups want a modern definition of marriage. Both groups want family law to be blind to the sex of the people involved. Both groups would benefit from a clear and reasonable set of rules on biological parentage vs. implicit adoption vs. explicit adoption.
/r/MensRights18/03/10 11:05 PM
6

Women have never worked on roads? Really? To a first approximation, this is probably true. If you sampled 200 road workers with a 99% accurate gender detector, the two women would be measurement error.
/r/MensRights18/02/10 06:42 AM
13

Meh. Consensual sex with a 13 year old doesn't merit taking away a quarter of a person's life, regardless of the genders involved.
/r/MensRights01/01/10 07:51 PM
1

Child support payments have nothing to do with supporting children. If the court wanted to do that, they'd just assign equal custody and maybe deal with disagreements about large expenses.
/r/MensRights27/07/09 03:32 AM
7

Depriving others of their rights just because you are deprived of yours is generally a bad idea. Political change is expensive and hard; your plan just leaves us twice as far away from where we want to be.
/r/MensRights22/07/09 06:06 AM
7

If a woman being a slave to her womb for 9 months is bad, then obviously a man being required to work to pay child support for 18 years is far worse, right?
/r/MensRights21/07/09 08:46 PM
1

If you think that putting a trigger lock on my nuts and give the key to a bureaucrat is somehow a good idea, then I have an excellent reason to be against gun control too.
/r/MensRights28/05/09 01:57 AM
1

Before modern birth control, recreational sex was a very high risk activity for women. They'd probably get pregnant and being a single mother then was drastically worse than it is now. Child support laws (as well as cultural rules like "you knock her up, you marry her") were intended to spread the risk of recreational sex to men. This made a lot of sense - men are just as capable of deciding not to have sex as women are. Modern birth control changed the risk profile, reducing the risk of an unpl…
/r/MensRights27/05/09 09:54 PM
1

The kids don't exist yet, so their rights can't possibly trump those of the potential parents (who do exist). In fact, the hypothetical kids may never exist.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 04:00 PM
3

Assuming the man and woman have chosen to have sex, which is a reasonable thing for a pair of adults to chose, the woman has the choice of having a child or not while the man doesn't.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 05:50 AM
1

Humans are fertile by default. Changing that for the entire population against their will isn't just a violation of rights, it's seriously evil.
/r/MensRights27/05/09 03:38 AM
5

It's important to make sure that the costs incurred by a decision are borne primarily by the people who are capable of influencing that decision. Consider a situation where a man and a woman agree to have recreational sex using a condom and the condom breaks. If the woman is solely responsible for the consequences of pregnancy, this is no problem. She could have planned ahead with birth control. She can take a morning after pill. Or she can chose get an abortion. If the man shares responsibility…
/r/MensRights27/05/09 12:59 AM
2

Taxpayers need to learn to cope with the consequences of freedom too.
/r/MensRights26/05/09 10:51 PM
1

Again, it's not worth trading away freedom for everyone in order to save a few people from the consequences of their bad choices (or even bad luck).
/r/MensRights26/05/09 10:17 PM
0

If a woman gets an IUD, she's there now. As for trying to make that the default, that seems like a bad idea simply on the moral basis that people be allowed to make choices for themselves.
/r/MensRights26/05/09 09:43 PM
11

At a certain point, people don't need to be insulated from the effects of their choices. If a woman choses to have a child, knowing that she's not legally entitled to demand money from anyone else to support her, there's nothing wrong with her having to deal with the consequences.
/r/MensRights26/05/09 09:29 PM
15

First, who says they chose to get pregnant? There are so many birth control options for women that it is certainly a woman's choice to get pregnant.
/r/MensRights26/05/09 09:28 PM
3

It sounds like the attacker should be in jail and should have lost a post-divorce civil suit for injury-related damages. What you describe isn't a special case of divorce, it's the normal case of assault and battery.
/r/MensRights17/04/09 07:05 PM
1

To say: half the time, you live with Mommy in a nice place with your own room near all your friends, and the other half the time you live with daddy in a studio apartment three towns away from your school, your friends, and your activities. It's certainly different, but it's not horrible. It's certainly not bad enough for the court to be mandating child support payments to avoid it. I spent some of my childhood basically like that - although my father could usually afford the studio apartment in…
/r/MensRights17/04/09 07:02 PM
1

Let's look at your numbers for a second. First, you've provided one set of numbers for the entire state. Clearly that isn't useful for responding to my claim that living wage in Massachussetts varies by municipality. Next, let's see how far off I am using your numbers. A living wage for one adult is said to be $24,089. For an adult and a child it's $43,689. So for an adult and half a child, it would be about $33,889. That's a difference of $300/month, which is about what the municipal variance i…
/r/MensRights17/04/09 06:34 PM
0

It is NOT a living wage for an adult and a child where I live. The only two places in the US where this may legitimately be true are Silicon Valley and Manhattan. I live near Boston, and for every expensive city/town, there's one right next door where $30,000 would be painful but doable. I am not going to relocate, nor rip my child away from the school/social roots he has here. This is a perfectly reasonable decision on your part, but it's not something that the courts should be able to mandate.…
/r/MensRights17/04/09 05:57 PM
1

Their wellbeing should be put first. This sounds nice, but you need to be really careful with this sort of thing. Both of the parents remain human beings, and arguable minor benefits to the children are no excuse to infringe on their basic rights. Alimony should equal the divide between one parent making vastly more than the other, at least in effect as to create a healthy environment for the child at both parent's houses. Why should one parent's refusal to get a job that can support the childre…
/r/MensRights17/04/09 05:42 PM
0

It is not a living wage here. It certainly is, as long as you don't make any incorrect assumptions about maintaining the exact same lifestyle in the exact same home.
/r/MensRights17/04/09 05:08 PM
1

But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000? These people had agreed, as a married couple, to divide their labor in a certain way. The father agreed to provide some support for his wife while they raised children. A divorce ends this agreement, and the participants need to learn to deal with a new situation. If the wife was earning $30,000 a year before the divorce, she should have no problem shouldering the bur…
/r/MensRights17/04/09 03:03 AM
2

The westernized lifestyle is not sustainable, yet other countries are trying to mirror our success in order to gain the same indulgences. The western lifestyle largely is sustainable. The entire population of Europe could live like the average western European, at approximately their current level of population growth, indefinitely - which is exactly what "sustainable" means. I absolutely agree with you that there is a problem if everyone in the world tries to get to the same standard of living.…
/r/MensRights23/03/09 09:38 PM
1

are living lifestyles higher than the American standard of living. Woah... where did I say anything about everyone having higher than an American standard of living? That's a bit much. I'm pretty sure that you can support what I did say by assuming the implementation of the best available food and energy production methods in the places that need them the most.
/r/MensRights23/03/09 05:24 PM
2

Some issues are global. Most are not. Birth rates fall solidly in the latter category. In some areas, including much of Western Europe, birth rates are very low. It would be better if Italians, for example, had more children than they are having now. The population problem that you seem to be worried about, where the entire world is overrun with so many humans that some sort of horrible catastrophe occurs, simply isn't a realistic concern. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Popul…
/r/MensRights23/03/09 04:44 AM
2

Did you look at the chart of projections on the page that I linked to? World population growth is slowing down, with the best projection looking like it'll stop at around 10 billion people within the next 50 years. Allowing our population to exceed 10 billion will have huge consequences for much of the world. That's not really a useful way to look at it. For Europe, the Americas, Australasia, and northern Asia, population growth is a question of immigration policy. For the parts of Africa and so…
/r/MensRights23/03/09 03:47 AM
1

Why does my opinion of the maximum population density the earth can maintain matter, especially given the information in the post I did make?
/r/MensRights23/03/09 03:04 AM
2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth The earth can easily sustain any of the projected populations on that page for 2050 (8-11 billion people) at a higher average standard of living than present day using existing technology. The world population isn't a serious problem. There are serious population problems in Africa and southern Asia, but some polygamous family in Utah having 3 kids/woman isn't even vaguely related to that real problem.
/r/MensRights23/03/09 02:23 AM
4

When our planet is at the population breaking point The 1970's called. They want their silly population hysteria back.
/r/MensRights23/03/09 01:04 AM
5

If you were paying a nanny / housekeeper you could - and it would be a hell of a lot cheaper than $100k/yr.
/r/MensRights02/01/09 02:39 AM
2

This is very simple. If federal grants in science are gender balanced, then federal student loans and grants in non-science areas must be too. By field.
/r/MensRights07/12/08 03:15 AM
11

Just because you see something that you didn't expect 100% does not mean you have reason to suspect a crime.
/r/MensRights25/11/08 07:14 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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