TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Crimsonak- Archive

View 0 posts and 99 comments by Crimsonak- 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

I'm in the UK. Just for the record. While rape does include the boundaries you mentioned, you neglected to mention the part that the age of consent must also be met. So, legally a woman can rape in the UK provided she has violated the age of consent (Section 8, 2003 sexual offences act). Which, applies in this case.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/03/25 10:41 AM
2

It's not semantics. I'm not discussing the meaning of words. I'm discussing why language inspires actions, and what chosen language represents in regards to them. For example, the act of addressing Jews as untermensch is not a matter of semantics, because we both agree on the definition of Jew and the definition of subhuman. We are not trying to make an argument that there is a subjective difference here. The same applies for sex, and rape. We are not (I hope) arguing that the definition of thes…
/r/PussyPassDenied07/03/25 07:08 PM
30

There's a lot of overlap between this happening and why you chose to use the language of "have sex with" instead of "raping" The short answer being that culture hasn't fully caught up with treating these crimes with the disgust and mire they deserve. Heck, sometimes they're outright celebrated. So, it becomes much easier for people to justify doing it.
/r/PussyPassDenied07/03/25 03:58 AM
66

She has been in jail since early 2020 and her court date is scheduled for April 11 of this year. Man she's going to prison anyway but the court system needs some major reforms. When I read something like this which just says someone is sitting behind bars for 3 years without having been to trial and I'm honestly not even shocked. The sixth amendment might be the most flagrantly ignored one of all.
/r/PussyPassDenied25/03/23 10:34 AM
-10

because you are literally too stupid to infer correct meaning from context in a discussion. There is no "correct meaning" because it's fucking arbitrary. Thats the bloody point you aren't grasping. If you think it is, draw ANY objective line for what is and isn't traditional. Due to it being arbitrary, and make no mistake that's exactly what it is, and because only one party is defining it, and they're hard cherry picking, and extrapolating at that, the result is a gigantic black and white falla…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/23 10:48 PM
-8

right but you still want that traditional expectation and in return you offer nothing. Did you just not read what I said? You don't get to highlight two points which constitute what you arbitrarily decide is traditional and then extrapolate that to mean they automatically accept every traditional position (which you also arbitrarily define). At MOST you can say they expect SOME typically traditional viewpoints. You absolutely can't say that all of their expectations are traditional. You can't ev…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/23 10:24 PM
-15

But that is the point, if your expectations is that you expect conformity to traditional gender roles it goes both ways. No, that's not the point at all because only ONE person in the discussion is defining "traditional" and they're using one or two ideals as a catch-all. If I say I want a potential partner to pay for the first date, that doesn't necessarily mean I therefore want every single other thing you would attribute as traditional. Heck, if you wanna split hairs over this, traditional ro…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/23 10:05 PM
8

I think there's idiocy on both ends of this conversation, and it's why shows like this struggle when you get people like Destiny on them. The women on these panels are forced to have insane takes because most of them are on onlyfans, so they can't define themselves as "traditional" and the result is this weird cognitive dissonance where they have some weird inkling of what they want culturally but no internal consistency. The hosts of these shows mention shit like body count and cooking and clea…
/r/PussyPassDenied21/03/23 07:49 PM
19

Here's the kicker, even though they matched, if he hadn't said hi, the chances she would have even attempted to start a convo is near zero. If not actually zero. So it's worse than just shitting on his conversation, it's shitting on something she would (I assume) be completely unwilling to do herself.
/r/PussyPassDenied03/06/22 11:29 AM
-1

"Not always moral" The morality is literally determined entirely by the ability to be able to consent. The only case you have here for immorality is if the person has a deficiency (despite their age) which impacts or removes said ability. The only way this is immoral is if the 17/yo couldn't or didn't consent. Depending on the type of care, its possible he couldn't. It's also possible he could. The fact remains though that if he could, your moral argument evapourates.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/03/22 11:02 AM
1

Well the problem there is we don't know the definition of "care" in this case. It could be he was mentally disabled and required authoritative care. It could also be he broke his leg and just needed a hand for an hour a day. One of these is very, very different to the other. So different in fact that the "authority" goes the other way around. He would be able to tell her what he needed help with, and also terminate the contract or request someone else whenever he wanted.
/r/PussyPassDenied06/03/22 10:55 AM
16

I mean very wrong in what sense? My understanding from the article is that she alledges he made sexual advances and attempts at coercion. If we assume those are both true, that makes him sleazy at best. Not something that's nice to be, but definitely not something you should show up to someone's work and attack them with a weapon for. Two wrongs don't make a right, and one of these wrongs was several orders of magnitude above the other. It would be akin to me justifying spitting in someone's fac…
/r/PussyPassDenied27/08/21 12:20 PM
1

The most unusual part of that video is he says "Do you have ID on you?" to which she says "No." 11 seconds later he asks "Do you have ID on you?" Now she suddenly does. ???.jpeg
/r/PussyPassDenied27/05/20 06:30 PM
6

The point when it enters the dictionary is a fairly good objective standard.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/04/20 11:23 AM
49

I'm honestly at a point where I think most people people just have no clue about sex or about variance in their desired stratum. Some women love giving blowjobs, some don't. Some women want their tits abused, some women want them gently caressed, some women are hypersensitive and don't want you touching that shit. Etc etc. Without going into an unstoppable list, it's damn well silly for anyone to ever say X sex wants Y sexual trait. There's a reason theres a thousand different porn catagories, w…
/r/PussyPassDenied19/02/20 04:40 AM
5

Do you not know how often totally single, and something even virgin women buy themselves sexy underwear?
/r/PussyPassDenied06/02/20 07:01 PM
204

She also said she landed in Bosnia "under sniper fire" despite the fact the war was almost over when she visited, and also there is video footage of her landing very much not under fire. Then she didnt apologise for landing and instead just said oh I was jet lagged.
/r/PussyPassDenied22/10/19 08:30 AM
1

This is some horribly bad faith shit Ah yes, asking you to specifically mention any part you like for me to address. Telling you clearly which parts I don't know, and calling you out on your lie is "horribly bad faith."
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 07:18 PM
1

How so? It was a stand alone statement, you don't get to conclude that's in response to something. Thus, a lie. Also what a load of bullshit that you don't know what QAnon is, you're a KiA poster, the place is filled with fucking Q conspiracists. I don't. Even if your statement about there being full of it, that doesn't mean I'm also full of it. I suspect that's more baseless conjecture from you though, since you seem to like doing it.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 07:15 PM
1

What specifically would you like me to address? Everything in the whole bin is fine, (besides perhaps one thing) I don't know what QAnon is, or what it was in reference to besides "Don't trust the media" which isn't a controversial thing to say. Are you going to address that you **lied** about him saying "It's ok to be white" was in response to something?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 07:12 PM
1

There is no ill intention. It is ok to be white. If you infer nonsense from it, then thats on you. Edit: Oh and look at this, wasn't in response to literally fucking anything. What a fucking meteoric surprise that you would lie about that.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 07:05 PM
1

Ah yes. Everything is a dogwhistle. Cant actually attack the statement so instead it must be a nazi pretense. Abject fucking nonsense just like the ok symbol and drinking milk. The "transphobic" tweets in the link you provided, were of him outright saying he believes in it, but does not agree that the method we use to treat it is correct. Its so clear that these "controversies" are not that at all.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 07:02 PM
1

Being white is ok is literally the number one thing listed, this is controversial to you?
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 06:59 PM
7

Specifically what? Edit: No surprise that there was no response to this. It's almost as if its easier to just randomly claim someone is super controversial than having to actually oh I don't know, provide an example.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/10/19 10:12 AM
0

Since there's electrical equipment, a full destroyed bathroom and a social media account there's quite a lot of context suggesting that. It's not full context for sure but it's not prudent to say there's none.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/07/19 11:32 PM
-1

I hope she gets a criminal record I kinda don't. I would point out I also don't like almost anything about what she did, but at the very least when confronted she seemed to be reflecting a little. I think the part where she said "I won't touch the sign anymore" is the part that makes me hope she doesn't get a record for it. She's young, she's definitely engulfed in tribalism. I think giving her a record would make that worse and ultimately I'd rather see her learn and rehabilitate.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/05/19 05:38 PM
17

Based on the interview with her I think it's really clear it's not because "I'm a woman", she's just genuinely batshit crazy, I actually hope she gets the treatment she needs.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/19 02:20 AM
15

7:50 "Everyone is a Jew essentially"
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/19 02:13 AM
0

The video is objective so I'm not sure what you mean when you say that makes it hard to be objective. The concept of presumed innocence makes it easier to be objective, not harder. That's literally the point of it.
/r/PussyPassDenied24/03/19 02:31 PM
37

Devil's advocate here, because I think she's guilty too but the claim isn't that she is innocent. It's that she's supposed to be presumed innocent until the moment a gavel hits and judges her guilty, which I think is fair enough. Edit: Just for extra clarity, presumption of innocence is actually a legal right in most of America as well as being a Human Right in the UN charter. The purpose isn't to make sure someone is judged as innocent, but to make sure that the prosecution only present relativ…
/r/PussyPassDenied24/03/19 10:39 AM
0

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said but OK?
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 03:22 PM
2

No I'm not implying that at all. I'm implying that if you pay money to have sex with an object you literally cannot receive love and attention from said object. To say "this is what friends are for" implies you get the same type of love and attention from friends from that which you have intimate relations with. Which is simply not true.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 12:55 AM
-1

I don't think that and that's part of the fucking point I'm making you dolt.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 12:40 AM
-3

Yeah how right you are. If I don't fuck my friends in exchange for money then somehow I don't have friends at all.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 12:39 AM
-7

Don't be ridiculous the context is for a thing you fuck. You're not gonna feel love care and attention from that thing, and if you're going to tell me that's what friends are for, you and I have very different friends.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 12:35 AM
-6

Your roomba, your bomb disposal robot etc is literally incapable of reciprocating. This isn't a case of "I don't know" it's a case of delusion if you think otherwise.
/r/PussyPassDenied15/02/19 12:16 AM
-13

Both ends are a bad comparison. You're never gonna feel love, care, attention from a sex robot. You're never gonna feel wanted from a sex robot. It's sort of the same between paying for sex and getting it because someone wants to. Like the difference between porn and a cam girl too, in a weird way. The bottom line though is neither side is making the proper comparison here. For a man who just wants to cum in something that as closely represents a woman as he can, this is amazing. For someone who…
/r/PussyPassDenied14/02/19 09:59 PM
23

There's actually an old 4chan post that I think explains the origins/reasons of tits or gtfo quite well.
/r/PussyPassDenied20/01/19 01:34 AM
1

Yeah I would get "rekt" in court, said by the person who doesn't know the difrerence between "your" and "you're."
/r/PussyPassDenied19/11/18 11:54 AM
1

I didn't say it must be true, as a matter of fact I was clear in stating that I agree we don't know. What I actually said is that I didn't fabricate it. You saw violence, you don't know who initiated it because you don't know the context. To think you're telling me that I'm the one fabricating shit.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/18 02:01 AM
0

No. I'm not fabricating them. The title states them, and as I said even if I agree (which I do) and say that we don't know. That means that the context hasn't been established and you don't get to assume what the context was as much as I can't. Which you are.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/18 01:44 AM
-3

Of course it's not only positive evidence that matters. If you can't determine the circumstances preceding the events you have no way of even establishing that it's assault. Or are you trying to suggest context doesn't matter and I can just cherry pick anything and present that as the facts?
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/18 12:54 AM
-1

You're right, and you have no evidence that she wasn't. Which means at best you can't conclude *either* hypothesis, and at worst means you accept the title of the video as true.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/18 12:46 AM
2

The person who initiates destruction/theft of property from a person who is wearing it is engaging not only in theft, but also potentially in assault and battery. Simple battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_(crime) is defined in the US as "Any form of non-consensual harmful or insulting contact" and assault is defined as an attempt to commit battery. What follows this is what you said. So no, it's not equal but not for the reasons you said.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/18 12:33 AM
0

You're right we don't know for sure. Which at best means you can't definitively say it either is or isn't pussy pass denied, and at worst means you take the title of the video at face value in which case its not pussy pass denied. In either scenario, its not what this sub is about.
/r/PussyPassDenied09/11/18 12:04 AM
-3

Is it equal? Did she throw his property out of a window? The fighting part, which is deplorable from both is equal. The cause, certainly isn't.
/r/PussyPassDenied08/11/18 06:12 PM
18

In America over 100 baby boys die every year as the result of circumcision. There's rare cases where it's needed medically like phimosis but for the most part it's not needed, at all. In Africa with Boko Haram, that massive media campaign about the missing school girls, prior to it, hundreds of boys were burned alive in their schools. It's exactly like you say though, there's no empathy whereas the reverse would be.
/r/PussyPassDenied27/10/18 06:48 PM
2

Again, total numbers mean nothing when the original claim was about "routine" If for example 9/10 Jews are circumcised compared to 7/10 Muslims which is more routine? It might well be that Muslims are more routine in this than Jews/Americans, but you can't determine that with the stats you are using. You have to use the stats I outlined to be able to determine that. Furthermore given that all I did was address the fact that your stats do not match the claim, how on earth you concluded what I was…
/r/MensRights03/01/17 02:40 AM
3

Unless you had the ratios I specified you have utterly no way of determining how routine it is comparatively. To be extra clear, I at no point ignored anything. I at no point even so much as suggested it isn't routine elsewhere. I imagine it is. (I also imagine America is the only first world country where it's routine) All I did was make it clear which ratios you'd actually need to verify the claim as opposed to the useless one that was originally provided.
/r/MensRights01/01/17 12:13 PM
8

A ratio that means literally nothing because you're supposed to be comparing the "routine" part not the "total." If you're gonna talk ratios for this claim you have to look at the ratio of western European males that do have it to those that don't. American males that have it to those that don't. Muslim males that have it to those that don't and finally Jewish males that have it to those that don't. Then factor in the 1 in 16k legitimate procedures into your calculation of all. Then and only the…
/r/MensRights01/01/17 07:15 AM
2

Perhaps some more important perspective, is: Shocking new figures reveal that at least 463 sex attacks were reported by female university students during the past two years – equating to one suspected victim a day during term time. The bottom line here is, anyone can make a claim and the only thing that should be done about any claim(s) is proper and objective criminal investigation. Until such an investigation makes a conclusion, any data you can measure before hand is utterly useless. To say t…
/r/MensRights21/11/16 03:00 AM
1

I don't need to back anything up, I haven't made any claim. Science operates under onus pobandi. It's the same reason courts don't operate under guilty until proven innocent. Lastly your comment isn't required to be scientific any more than it's required to even be coherent. You can say whatever you like, but what you say doesn't mean anything substantive unless you can prove it.
/r/MensRights26/08/16 06:21 PM
1

I see you have set your goalposts in a position that is impossible to attain. What are you talking about? Positive conviction numbers are incredibly easy to attain. Those stats will exist. More importantly too, it's not shifting any posts. It's still exactly what I originally asked for. The stats you gave me however do not answer the claim, because they're on reports of rape, which are irrelevant, because claiming to have been raped does not mean you were raped. Edit: Since you were too lazy to …
/r/MensRights26/08/16 05:09 PM
1

You obviously didn't watch the video or look in the description for the references. There were statistics for reports and there were statistics from very large surveys. I did, he specified the CDC report someone else linked in the same thread. The CDC report doesn't look at convicted rapes, it looks at reports which means it doesn't matter how large the survey is. So I'll ask again, cite it properly. Then cite your pedophile claim.
/r/MensRights26/08/16 04:17 PM
1

Those are not the statistics for rape. Those are the statistics for reports of rape (and not even police reports, just self reported for the study). We both know that merely claiming you were raped does not mean you were raped. It is logic like that which is where the 1 in 5 women on college campuses comes from. I'm not surprised you can't find the pedophile one, I would posit it's because it doesn't exit. I would also mention that Stefan Molyeneux is known to engage in cult tactics. Encourages …
/r/MensRights26/08/16 09:49 AM
1

Which is all part of the same one andecdote. You're one person. Even if you weren't by the way, the plural of anecdote is not data. Which is why statements like "Sugar makes children hyper" is actually false, because even despite the plethora of anecdotal claims that it does. The reality is it absolutely does not. Thats why science requires objective, empirical evidence in order to substantiate its claims.
/r/MensRights26/08/16 09:45 AM
1

No. It's not an implication to me that she is not motivated for sex. Nor is it an implication that she is more motivated for sex than the male and/or motivated more often, or even equally motivated/equally as often. So it's a moot point. Especially considering it's not necessarily motivation related at all.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 09:24 PM
2

It's actually already used to treat low sex drive in women. and it's also been known for a long time that testosterone is directly related to libido. [2]. [3]
/r/MensRights25/08/16 09:21 PM
-4

Then I rerefer you to what I said, if I respond that way to someone who ignored what I specified. He was an asshole first.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 07:06 PM
0

The manner in which I asked was assholey? I asked by saying "I doubt it but would concede with proper citation" The response was to ignore that. Considering that, your standard for what qualifies someone as an asshole is ridiculous at best.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 06:35 PM
1

Forgive me if your humour which was completely irrelevant to everything I said was lost on me. Also, would you like to point out exactly how my karma qualifies me as a troll?
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:49 PM
2

I agree that the punishment should not depend on the percieved level of motivation. This however is irrelevant to the claim which is that motivation to engage in sexual activity(sexuality) is more common in women. Which is a claim biology would suggest to be the opposite way around. As such, I've asked for the claim to be cited/justified.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:48 PM
1

Did you just read what I said and then decide not to respond to literally any part of it?
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:36 PM
-2

A simple, "anecdotal evidence doesn't really prove anything" would have made the same point without making an ass of yourself. Ok, a simple citation or provision of evidence (which was directly requested) would have made an actual point without making an ass of himself. See what I did there?
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:32 PM
2

That article covers reports of rape. Do you have any which actually show proven numbers? We both know when you merely look at what's reported rather than whats known, that's it's where numbers like the 1 in 5 college rubbish comes from.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:26 PM
3

The circumstances under which arousal occurs on average is irrelevant to the claim. Which is that women are more sexual. Meaning the only relevant measurements would be of total time aroused/amount aroused and/or intensity of arousal. Edit: To be clear here, the fact women on average have a wider range of things they are aroused by speaks absolutely nothing towards how often that happens. If I'm only aroused by people I find attractive, that could happen 1000 times a week. If someone else finds …
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:07 PM
1

I state skepticism and specify directly that a citation would be needed to change my mind. Response intending to refute my statement contains no citation, and no evidence, but I'm the rude one. Right.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 04:05 PM
-4

Well since you've got one anecdote that MUST mean it's true that women are more sexual than men.
/r/MensRights25/08/16 03:05 PM
-8

Are women really as/more sexual as men though? Biologically speaking with testosterone, I doubt it. Would be willing to concede with a citation. Is there really an equal number of male and female rapists/pedophiles? Almost certainly not. Is he really a rape victim? We don't know. We can all agree men and women should be punished under the same criteria and held equally accountable. The entire idea of justice is that it's supposed to be blind. That said, we don't know this person was a victim and…
/r/MensRights25/08/16 02:22 PM
2

if you want me to cite something that is taught in High school biology, or basic animal husbandry, then sure... but i suggest that you go take a gander through a highschoolers biology book if you dont know how dominant and recessive genes work.... The rates of mutation caused by inbreeding is not covered in high school biology. I do know how dominant and recessive genes work, that speaks nothing of rates at which it is likely to occur in and of itself. Now I ask again because you still haven't d…
/r/MensRights10/08/16 05:53 PM
0

I'm going to have to ask that you cite that claim and in it include the rate for first generation as well as the difference to that of the control (non incest)
/r/MensRights10/08/16 04:15 PM
-2

If they are truly in love with each other and are consenting to sexual activity between each other, then there is absolutely zero reason why there should be legal action taken against them. If she were to get pregnant the likelihood of producing a horribly malformed child is significant. That's the reason. If contraception were 100% effective, then sure. It's not though.
/r/MensRights10/08/16 06:17 AM
8

You can see the ideological struggle going on in Jenny Chapman's head as she repeatedly attempts to hammer home that first time women offenders have it worse off for the same offense. Only to be stonewalled by the cruel mistress that is hard evidence.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 03:01 PM
1

If he fucks her, hes raping her because hes using the threat of violence to get it. Fingers in a vagina isn't rape. its sexual assault. You don't have to use the threat of violence to rape someone. You only have to penetrate them against their will. Whether or not someone should be prosecuted if they didn't threaten and didn't know the victim objected is a completely different state of affairs, but the point remains you can rape someone, even accidentally, even without knowing or intending to. F…
/r/MensRights02/04/16 12:33 PM
1

I see so if you were to get shot because of telling someone is fat then that person shouldn't be arrested, but according your logic everyone should just laugh along the fat person says they are just joking. No, because as I said earlier the only limit to free speech is at the incitement or act of violence. Which isn't just an opinion, it's the law in every developed society on the planet and it's the law for a very good reason.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:32 PM
1

I see so enslaving people might be funny. Anything can be funny, humour is subjective.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:24 PM
1

eone usually among people you know or stand up comedian. So why don't you answer the question do you think it okay for you to tell a stranger what he/she should look because they don't look like you? Because I might find it funny, and so might other people. Just like the Charlie Hebdo cartoons btw. You don't get to decide what is and isn't funny for other subjects.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 01:27 PM
1

Yet this wasn't a joke. Once again, you don't get to decide what does and does not qualify as a joke. Humour is subjective. Once again, you're a sovereign being a joke cannot control you.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 11:21 PM
1

As a joke yes. It's okay for ANYONE too, not just for me.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 11:06 PM
2

"Body shaming" isn't a joke. Oh I'm sorry your majesty I didn't realise it was you, the arbiter who decides what does and doesn't qualify as a fucking joke. What's worse is you're actually telling other people who/what is wrong and right too. Everything that the author means as a joke is fine to say, that's why every joke you can make is legal. The only limit to free speech is when you incite or commit violence in a credible and serious manner. A joke doesn't control anyone, a joke can't control…
/r/MensRights29/03/16 10:47 PM
2

"Body shaming" So, a fat joke? I mean I understand the purpose of his post and I am glad he's raising awareness for a good cause, but at the end of the day it's a joke.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 08:16 PM
6

She says "bye" to him, he replies with exactly the same thing and she loses her fucking shit. "Is that all you have to say?" What, you mean the thing you just said to him? The cognitive dissonance is off the fucking scale. He's insane for trying to laugh off her attacking him like that too, and demanding his phone. I suppose some people can't tell when they're being abused though.
/r/MensRights29/03/16 08:07 PM
3

It's allegedly piss. Very important to note there's literally no reason for anyone who wasn't there to physically smell her to conclude it was. Let's not engage in the same line of "listen and believe" as SJW's.
/r/MensRights06/03/16 02:04 AM
1

So then your point is moot. If I gave a female a platform to speak on a subject, but denied the same platform to a man specifically because he is a man. That (according to what you said) is positive treatment of one group and neutral of another. It is unjust however, and thus sexist.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 12:39 PM
1

By that logic, every non-bisexual is sexist. Is someone being bisexual unequal opportunity? Nope. Everyone has the same opportunity to be bisexual. So then it's not my logic. Is dismissing someone's opinion on the basis of their sex unequal opportunity, and unjust? Yes. Then it's sexist and it is my logic.
/r/MensRights13/02/16 02:42 AM
1

I asked you to explain how it's just, not to explain how often it happens. "Sexual orientation." Is not an explanation of how something is justified. The reason you can't explain it is because it's not. If you favour someone in any opportunity because of their gender (including the opportunity to be listened to and not dismissed), that is inherently unjust and by extension discrimination. Ergo, sexist.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:26 PM
1

Explain how it is just to treat one person better than another on the grounds of gender. Explain how it is just to do away with the idea of equal opportunity.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 10:28 AM
-3

Reputation permanently tarnished. Career permanently damaged I think this is an incredibly extreme stance to take. The man was suspended from school runs for a grand total of six days pending an investigation. (As you would expect, for any investigation of this nature.) There's no reason to conclude he made less money, there's no reason to conclude people don't understand that he's innocent. "Permanent" is a gross misuse given the information at hand.
/r/MensRights31/01/16 10:57 PM
1

Am I missing something here? Encouragements and targets are not the same thing as a quota. "Quota" isn't even mentioned on the page. Not only this but the UK government backs the targets, it didn't set them. Incredibly misleading title.
/r/MensRights20/01/16 07:04 PM
1

Hes not a professional in a professional environment hes at a debate at a university, this isnt his profession. Hes a journalist. He's being paid. That makes him a professional by definition. Says who? You? if thats his personality and people invite him to do a debate knowing thats his personality then whats the issue? Debate standards say it. Same way journalistic code of ethics does for journalism. Thats exactly what your doing lol. No it's not. I said it's a personality trait he shouldn't be …
/r/MensRights11/12/15 10:03 PM
1

You listed a personality trait that you think he should stop having then fly off the handle when i suggest he shouldn't have to change his personality and you say you dont care about his personality. Start reading properly please. No I didn't list it as a personality trait he shouldn't have, which is exactly why I'm disagreeing with you, especially now as you're putting words directly into my mouth as opposed to your earlier indirect approach. There's a bitter irony that you'll tell me that I sh…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 06:09 PM
1

It's bizarre that I have to explain this twice since apparently it didn't hit home the first time I explained but let me be clear. I don't care what his personality is. This has nothing to do with personality. Personality is not a variable here. This is about behaving professionally in a professional environment. That is about self control and decorum. Literally nothing to do with what personality you have because anyone can conduct themselves regardless of what their personality may be. Moreove…
/r/MensRights11/12/15 02:05 PM
1

How on earth is that ridiculous? It's what every professional does in a professional environment. I wouldn't expect a news reporter to tell me there's been a tsunami in east Asia by flailing their arms in the air and screaming it at me because they have a professional obligation to be calm and clear. I wouldn't expect a cashier to laugh and bury their head into their hands if I made a complaint, because they have a professional obligation of customer service. This is no different.
/r/MensRights10/12/15 07:25 PM
2

Being gay isn't a choice, being a flamboyant drama queen certainly is. I'd fight to the death for his right to be a flamboyant drama queen however, but I wish he wouldn't be during debates or interviews. I don't really want to lend validity to the suggestion he can't help it though.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 07:21 PM
1

I know it's part of his personality but I really wish that Milo would be a little bit less of a drama queen whenever someone says something he disagrees with. Flailing your arms in the air and burying your head into the back of your hand in the middle of a debate is just weird behaviour. It detracts from the gravitas of his arguments because it makes the whole appearance of the set up seem less mature.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 04:41 PM
2

There's an old post here which I think explains at least the Forrest Gump example really well. It's not played as a joke. It's a really important scene that actually has great character development in it.
/r/MensRights03/12/15 10:28 AM
2

It's old news, but the best example of this type of discrimination I know of, is the news story in which a man was asked to change his airline seat with a woman so that a child wouldn't have to sit next to him.
/r/MensRights16/11/15 04:29 AM
1

It's a bit of a malformed question. Things don't need to be "made easier" for us. The majority of people don't want special treatment. Special treatment is exactly what the problem is. The question should be "What are the things I can do to ensure I treat everyone equally?" The answer is; be aware of double standards, be open to criticism, respect the fact people can hold subjective views which differ from your own and that they have a right to voice them, treat people how you want to be treat, …
/r/MensRights15/11/15 02:56 PM
3

The words "needs" is in reference to the method and environment by which children of a certain sex learn most efficiently, not the contents of the field in and of itself. There's quite a lot of academic discussion surrounding the learning gap between boys and girls, which is widening. Many postulate the reason for this stems (pun not intended) from the systemic elimination of competitive processes within the classroom. This said though, the way to achieve this isn't by segregation. It's perfectl…
/r/MensRights13/11/15 01:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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