TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DownSoFar Archive

View 0 posts and 285 comments by DownSoFar 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

This sounds precisely like what an archangelle would say...
/r/MensRights13/07/12 04:46 AM
7

Well, have fun trying to get SRS shut down. Everybody needs a hobby, I suppose.
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:58 PM
6

How come it's taken so long??? This is a serious violation after all!!! Didn't you let the admins know??? What did they say???
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:50 PM
8

So, like, it will be banned by next week??? This is serious, after all!!! I will check again on the 15th and we will celebrate the end of the SRS scourge!!!
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:45 PM
6

Do you think that will help??? It's been a long time already!!! And you've been trying so hard!!! Haven't you??? Didn't the admins say that the terms of service were not going to be enforced anyway??? How are you going to overcome their disinterest in your cause??? Do you really think they care at all about your concerns??? You need to redouble your efforts!!! Maybe SRS will be shut down by next week??? Let's find out together!!!
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:35 PM
9

Hey how's that "getting SRS shut down" thing going??? I went to check but it's still there?!? How come??? Have you failed / did you give up???
/r/MensRights08/02/12 04:23 PM
1

Catchy tune. It's a shame that switching "home" for "subreddit" fucks with the meter.
/r/MensRights04/11/11 04:23 PM
3

Oh, Jeremy Irons... <3
/r/MensRights04/11/11 04:10 PM
0

=D
/r/MensRights12/10/11 12:03 AM
4

Ugh. Fine, I'll put in some educating time. The constitutionality of male-only selective service was challenged at the time when it was reinstated. What I'm saying here is that SCOTUS, the highest judiciary body in the United States, heard arguments on the matter (calling this "half-assed" is pretty ignorant by the way). They decided, based on the same arguments that keep women out of combat positions: The Supreme Court based its decision largely on DOD’s policy that excluded women from combat. …
/r/MensRights11/10/11 09:41 PM
5

Yes, I know, and my point is that you're wrong, and I've even to some extent demonstrated it. highly unsucessful. http://www.npr.org/2011/01/13/132882277/Panel-To-Recommend-Allowing-Women-In-Combat Why do you expect progress to be immediate, meet with no resistance and encounter no setbacks?
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:47 PM
5

It's not my job to provide you with lots of recent activism by feminist organizations. That's more effort than you are worth. Your claims (that feminists in the US don't do anything about the draft or the exclusion of women from combat positions) have been shown to be false with counterexamples. Persisting with these claims requires active ignorance. I don't care what your position is on women in combat roles is, by the way. That's not a relevant issue.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 08:19 PM
7

Oh, of course. I mean, if it doesn't meet your absurd standards for active campaigning, then it shouldn't count, right? Actually effective lobbying efforts should be discounted.
/r/MensRights11/10/11 07:48 PM
11

Nor has there ever been any active campaigning, only talk, for women to serve in combat roles I wonder if this is another of those cases of you not doing the research, or being willfully blind. Do you really think lobbying organizations like NOW don't put out action alerts on the issue? No lobbying gets done either, I suppose?
/r/MensRights11/10/11 07:11 PM
16

So did you even bother to look it up? BE IT RESOLVED, that NOW opposes the reinstatement of registration and draft for both men and women. NOW's primary focus on this issue is on opposition to registration and draft. However, if we cannot stop the return to registration and draft, we also cannot choose between sisters and brothers. We oppose any registration or draft that excludes women as an unconstitutional denial of rights to both young men and women. And we continue to oppose all sex discrim…
/r/MensRights11/10/11 06:38 PM
1

MEN cannot use safe haven unless they have sole legal custody. ... Did you even read it? Who May Leave a Baby at a Safe Haven In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven. Is this supposed to be a joke? I'd love to see a father absolved of Child Support and NOT put in jail when he drops the baby off at one of these things. Can you even provide me an instance of a father using safe haven provisions and going to jail? No? Just throwing out a bit …
/r/MensRights28/08/11 11:46 AM
1

No, you are wrong. It's actually quite pathetic that you didn't take the time to look this up. If you have any intellectual integrity at all, you should post an admission that you were wrong and an apology for spreading false information.
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:08 PM
1

If he wants the child, and, after giving birth, she decides she doesn't, then she can ANONYMOUSLY leave it at the hospital and he has no recourse. This is not entirely true. Approximately 20 States have procedures in place for a parent to reclaim the infant, usually within a specified time period and before any petition to terminate parental rights has been granted. Five States also have provisions for a nonrelinquishing father to petition for custody of the child. In addition Before the baby is…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 04:11 AM
1

He shouldn't be forced into parenthood just like she shouldn't...which is why he should be able to opt-out of parenthood. And no, I'm not just talking about abortion, I'm talking about safe-haven laws as well. You seem to be operating under a mistaken assumption about safe haven laws. The vast majority of states allow either parent to relinquish an infant (some don't even require the relinquishing party to be a parent).
/r/MensRights27/08/11 03:49 AM
1

Why don't we care about the welfare of the child before it's born? Fetuses don't have subjective experience. They don't even feel pain until at least six months in. They have none of the qualities of a person other than being alive, something which is neither necessary nor sufficient. Their welfare is quasi-inconsequential. People are fine with that same child being outright killed before birth, but make it grow up in a single-parent home and oh hells no, the world might explode. Yeah. People ca…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 03:05 AM
1

Adoption is a morally responsible choice. I was saying it's morally irresponsible for the man to sign away his financial responsibility to the child and leaving it at that. I really don't see how they're different in this case. You don't see the difference between ensuring someone else fulfills a responsibility, and abandoning the responsibility? Are getting someone to cover for you at work and simply not showing up indistinguishable, too?
/r/MensRights27/08/11 01:07 AM
1

I notice that you've neglected to mention that safe haven laws are available to anybody (even men omg) with legal custody of a child in most places, and in some places even available to people who only have physical custody (e.g. a grandparent or babysitter). You've also neglected to mention that safe haven laws are not meant to be a permanent option with respect to the legal custody of children. They're meant as an emergency stopgap to prevent infanticide. You've also neglected to mention how r…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:59 AM
0

You mean they're duties Duty and responsibility are synonyms. One is used in a more formal setting ("duty of care", "sworn duty"), but they both mean the same thing: an obligation to perform (or refrain from) certain acts. Responsibilities must be accepted willingly. So if I don't want to maintain the ecosystem I'm a part of, I don't have that responsibility? Do employers not have a responsibility to provide a safe work environment for their employees (granted that they don't want that responsib…
/r/MensRights27/08/11 12:04 AM
0

Taxes and jury duty aren't responsibilities. They're compelled by threat of force. Oh, you're one of those. They're civic responsibilities. The fact that there's a punishment for not owning up to them doesn't change that fact. They fit the definition of a responsibility precisely. They're something you are obligated to do. In fact the definition of a responsibility directly implies a negative consequence for shirking it! Or are you operating under some incorrect definition of responsibility that…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 09:42 PM
1

Responsibility and choice go together. What choice do I make that results in my responsibility to pay taxes? What choice am I making that results in my responsibility to show up for jury duty when I am summoned? What choice do I make that results in my responsibility to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem I'm a part of? Some responsibilities you choose. Some you don't. It doesn't follow from the fact that someone didn't choose the responsibility that they don't still have it.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:48 PM
1

Patti is saying that his/her anecdote that the government isn't collecting child support from a man who it thinks is verifiably 'insane' is equivalent to No, that's not what Patti is saying at all, Patti has told you that already. There's nothing in there about equivalence. A man has to be verifiably insane before the government decides not to collect child support; a woman just has to be... a woman. You're full of shit. Look! A presumably legally sane man that got away with not paying child sup…
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:31 PM
4

Or (and I'm just guessing here) Patti could be saying that anecdotes like Ragnrok's are completely useless. But I guess your useless and ridiculous hyperbole might be right. Anything's possible. Edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that your statement is really dumb. Non-custodial mothers are subject to exactly the same laws (laws which are formulated in a gender neutral way) as non-custodial fathers, and anybody who takes even a second to look it up would know that.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 08:07 PM
3

You're reading it wrong. They're excluding human cell masses which extract their nutrients directly the physiology of another human, e.g. from their blood supply.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 05:30 PM
3

Testicular cancer has one of the highest successful treatment rates among all cancers. It also rarely spreads to other organs. It's not really something to be scared of, as opposed to heart disease and colo-rectal cancer.
/r/MensRights26/08/11 02:07 PM
1

BolshevikMuppet is obviously not making an actual accusation here. Should we assume that any accusation is ban-worthy here, no matter how self-evidently absurd? Is rantgrrl's "you might be a rapist" acceptable? Can I ask what else will be a bannable offense going forward? Is joking about murdering someone okay? I think you're acting unreasonably. I urge you to reconsider.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 05:25 AM
9

He's not being serious. You're making yourself look stupid by taking his statements at face value.
/r/MensRights25/08/11 01:26 AM
1

Then I stand corrected. There is indeed a grave injustice here I wasn't aware of. Nevertheless, I suspect we disagree on how the injustice ought to be corrected. In my opinion, these women ought to be paying support for their children.
/r/MensRights16/08/11 06:52 PM
-1

Yeah, rapists shouldn't be considered for custody of the issue of their rape. That's irrelevant, though. The point is that she doesn't think female rape victims must pay to support their child. is laughably false. female rape victims don't have to be financially responsible to a male rapist who gets to raise their child. Find me an instance of a male rapist having custody, and the victim not having to pay support, or the law that states that this is the case. female rape victims do get child sup…
/r/MensRights16/08/11 05:24 PM
-2

Sorry, you know damn well that she doesn't think female rape victims must pay to support their child. Rape victims who become mothers generally have custody of the child produced by the rape. It is literally impossible to not support a child in your custody without it being neglect. What makes you believe that the author thinks female rape victims should be permitted to be neglectful?
/r/MensRights16/08/11 03:53 PM
-2

It's "the most sexist thing he's ever seen on reddit".
/r/MensRights02/08/11 09:17 AM
1

Portugal, maybe? Full franchise was granted to women there only in the 1970s. She's not that far off for France, Canada, Italy or Belgium, either (1940s). Greece was in 1952. San Marino extended suffrage to women in '59, Monaco in '62, Andorra in '70 and Switzerland at the federal level in '71 (full equality in 1990). Liechtenstein didn't bother with universal suffrage until 1984. You'll notice I'm sticking to Western countries. I'll leave it to you to guess for non-Western countries: between th…
/r/MensRights02/08/11 09:01 AM
1

Then why not "earning scorn from misandrists?"
/r/MensRights01/08/11 04:40 PM
1

So what you're saying is that you're hoping a transparent rhetorical trick will make people who aren't your allies believe you have the moral high ground. Do you honestly believe that will work?
/r/MensRights31/07/11 10:31 PM
3

She admitted she raped him. How does that square with this? Jessica denies that she forced him to have sex Or are you just taking the word of the accuser again, that she admitted to his parents? Innocent until proven guilty only applies to courts of law. Maybe you should share that insight with the other /r/mensrighters who got all outraged when Brownmiller said she believed Diallo's rape claim, or get all upset based on their perception that the community at large will believe the accused is gu…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 10:30 PM
12

The guy was a victim of statutory rape Review the statutory rape law for Florida. I don't think that what you are saying is true. Anyone in Florida under 24 can have lawful sexual intercourse with a minor over 16 years old. this guy was raped by his girlfriend You mean "claims he was raped", right? Isn't she innocent until proven guilty? I can't wait to see PierceHarlan chew you a new one for believing a rape accuser with no evidence, especially when the accuser stands to gain financially.
/r/MensRights31/07/11 09:48 PM
0

So why walk into an ambiguity of English? "Earning scorn from feminists" is exactly what the mod/creator wanted to say, and more or less a stated part of the subreddit's mission. It's terse and clear. Why change it?
/r/MensRights31/07/11 07:46 PM
1

Everytime liverotto posts he gets downvoted into oblivion unless his post has some sort of sense attached to it. I'm not making the argument that /r/mensrights welcomes his white supremacism. I don't think that's true at all. Nevertheless, /r/mensrights does not earn his scorn. Same for male chauvinists like thingsarebad. I'm not making the claim that male chauvinism is welcome here. All I'm saying is that /r/mensrights does not earn the scorn of bigots, universally. It does pretty much universa…
/r/MensRights31/07/11 07:37 PM
-1

"earning the scorn of bigots?" What about the white nationalists (e.g. mayonesa) and supremacists (e.g. liverotto) who don't scorn /r/mensrights? Are they not bigots?
/r/MensRights31/07/11 06:20 PM
3

What matters is who owns the money, and that in this case is the man. That's a point of contention. The basis for the judgment is that the compensation was a marital asset, not a personal asset, since it was the sole source of wealth for the household. I mean, it's the same with houses, isn't it? If you buy a house entirely on your own, then get married, and that house becomes the marital home, with members of the household wholly dependent on the house for lodging, it doesn't matter that only y…
/r/MensRights29/07/11 11:21 PM
-17

Such an entertaining video. As an added bonus, everytime you guys go on your "I'm never getting married!!!" rants, I can now imagine you as a little boy screeching and crying over something he doesn't actually understand.
/r/MensRights24/07/11 06:00 PM
0

Jews used to circumcise boys at their coming of age. Why don't they anymore? Is it, perhaps, because if boys were given the choice, many of them would not submit to it? The very fact that for Jews, circumcision used to be done at the coming of age but is now done on 8-day-old infants means that the religious doctrine behind circumcision is flexible in how and when it is practiced. lolwrong. Genesis 17 9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants af…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 10:54 PM
3

LOL, /r/HolyJesus has more readers than /r/MaleStudies. I wonder how that makes tomek77 feel...
/r/MensRights14/07/11 09:18 PM
3

A system of "might makes right" is by definition not anarchist: the mighty rule, and anarchy is a system without rulers. In an anarchist society, everybody regardless of inherent or acquired characteristics (e.g. race, sex/gender, sexual orientation) would have equal economic, political, and social standing. Thus an anarchist society would be anti-racist, sex/gender egalitarian, anti-homophobic, and classless. /r/anarchism understands women as being historically and currently an oppressed class,…
/r/MensRights14/07/11 04:06 AM
1

Ah, reddit. Where random idiots claim to know better than the community of experts in a field. Well, your intellectual dishonesty was entertaining, at least. Thanks for the laugh at your expense.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 08:21 PM
1

It is methodologically flawed because all random telephone surveys are. You will never get a completely representative sample. Ah, I see the problem here. You have no idea what you're talking about. A survey does not need to get a "completely representative sample" (whatever that means) to be methodologically sound. Nor does it need a "completely representative sample" for the results to be valid and useful. That's because a sample's statistics almost always (and I mean that in the professional …
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:25 PM
1

Okay, let's look at the 21% that refused the survey. What would be their motives ? Perhaps once they heard the name of the survey, or indeed the organization, they had no reason to respond. i.e. they had not been the victims of sexual abuse. Those more likely to respond are those that did have something to say, and had found an anonymous way in which to do so. ... HELLO, I am calling for the (health department) . My name is (name) . We are gathering information about the health of (state) reside…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:59 PM
1

You really are that intellectually dishonest. I'm in awe. I did counter your ridiculous argument with a link to their extensive methodological, reliability and validity testing. You can claim that the survey is methodologically flawed all you want, but that position is contradicted by all that testing. Nevertheless, arguing that a legitimate authority in a field is competent is perfectly valid in informal argument. You are the one with the hubris to claim that a 26 year running survey designed b…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 06:21 PM
1

Anyway, I went to get the data for you. 1802 completed surveys. 472 refused surveys. 4357 non-working phone numbers. 313 unanswering phones. 2477 not private residences. 56 no eligible respondents at number. 359 not available at the time of the call. 36 couldn't answer due to language barrier. 0 (zero) interviews ended within questionnaire. 18 phone lines were busy. 64 couldn't respond due to physical or mental impairment. So 79% of eligible respondents completed the survey. Now go ahead and exp…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 05:01 PM
2

Survey involves self-selection on the part of the participants and thus it is not a scientific survey. The methodology is flawed. You better get right on it and contact the CDC then. They seem to be under the impression that the survey they designed generates data strong enough to inform state legislatures on health policy. They'll be happy to find out that they no longer have to carry out their extensive methodology, reliability, and validity testing, because some random person who probably cou…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:54 PM
2

Anyway, I went to get the data for you. 1802 completed surveys. 472 refused surveys. 4357 non-working phone numbers. 313 unanswering phones. 2477 not private residences. 56 no eligible respondents at number. 359 not available at the time of the call. 36 couldn't answer due to language barrier. 0 (zero) interviews ended within questionnaire. 18 phone lines were busy. 64 couldn't respond due to physical or mental impairment. So 79% of eligible respondents completed the survey. Now go ahead and exp…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:08 AM
2

HELLO, I am calling for the (health department) . My name is (name) . We are gathering information about the health of (state) residents. This project is conducted by the health department with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Your telephone number has been chosen randomly, and I would like to ask some questions about health and health practices. Are you really claiming that this draws out a disproportionate number of rape victims? More importantly, is it your opin…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 07:06 AM
1

HELLO, I am calling for the (health department) . My name is (name) . We are gathering information about the health of (state) residents. This project is conducted by the health department with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Your telephone number has been chosen randomly, and I would like to ask some questions about health and health practices. Yeah, that's sure to draw out the rape victims.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:58 AM
1

I bet that definition is included in the full definition as well. I will most certainly agree that my definition was only 1 part of the definition. Definitions can consist of many points. What? The point I was trying to make however, is that if people are answering those questions on the premise that they were unable to give consent, then they were, as the survey would conclude, sexually assaulted. Yes, that's as it should be. Sex with someone who is unable to consent is rape. A great deal of it…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:56 AM
1

As you said, 96% of those who answered any questions at all answered the sexual assault module. But how many people simply hung up the phone? It doesn't say. It doesn't say because it doesn't matter. The survey was about general health, and had a module on sexual victimization. This is a report on the results for that module. If you're going to claim that those who refuse to participate create selection bias, you're going to have to demonstrate a connection between accepting/refusing to particip…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 04:52 AM
1

Where you are wrong is that it was NOT that 96% of the people they telephoned answered the sexual assault question. No, you are wrong. Of the 1802 people who participated in the survey (i.e. answered any of the questions, by the very definition of a participant), 96% answered the sexual assault module. So in a very real sense, we have a good idea how many people went through the entire survey up to and including the sexual victimization module. At least 96%. And regarding your edit: the definiti…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 01:20 AM
1

Reading comprehension fail. 96% of the people who were already taking the survey didn't answer those particular questions. Let me quote this for you. I'll even add emphasis for the retarded. 1802 Coloradans participated in the BRFSS survey. Of these, 96% (1732 total; 948 women, 784 men), answered the sexual assault questions. You're still wrong.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 01:00 AM
2

Firstly, the sample is already not randomized because it over-represents individuals who would take a survey over the phone. What's the link between victimization and likelihood to answer a telephone survey? Secondly, rape victims are more likely to stay on the line when it's an anonymous Public Health survey. Not sure how they presented the survey over the phone but if it was more accurately described as something to do with sexual assaults, it further skews the results. Someone who has no sexu…
/r/MensRights10/07/11 12:36 AM
2

Random telephone survey????
/r/MensRights10/07/11 12:29 AM
1

It seems to me, most people when confronted with a stranger asking them about sexual assault on the phone would simply hang up. 1802 Coloradans participated, and 96% (1732 people) completed the sexual victimization part of the survey. So you're wrong. On all counts.
/r/MensRights10/07/11 12:28 AM
1

Well thanks so much for clarifying that you are in fact a hypocrite. I appreciate it. I have in fact both had my legs swept, and been kicked in the nuts. They are actually pretty much on the same level, especially when considering the environment they were in at the time. No, a leg sweep doesn't usually damage reproductive organs, but it doesn't have to for the assaults to be comparable. However that still doesn't excuse kicking someone in the balls for spitting on you. What the fuck are you goi…
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:54 PM
2

Both parties are douches in that video. I suppose the lesson here is you shouldn't randomly assault people. I don't mean to call you a hypocrite, but this sounds suspiciously like you justifying that (unreasonable) level of retaliation in this case where the woman clearly doesn't deserve it, but claiming it's completely unjustifiable in the other.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 06:04 PM
1

Link. Attempted murder is just barely hyperbole. I don't care. I'm hungover. The back of her head strikes concrete next to a pool.
/r/MensRights06/07/11 05:46 PM
2

he's saying that a kick to the nuts is not a proportional response to being spat on. Do I have to summon up the discussion of that gif of the girl getting her legs swept after throwing a drink came up on reddit (for the umpteenth time), where you guys were all jerking eachother off over "equal rights, equal lefts" and silencing anybody who thought that almost killing someone over humiliating you was inappropriate?
/r/MensRights06/07/11 04:54 PM
1

the intent is misguided, as most rapes are not perpetrated on scantily clad women. Isn't that precisely the point of the SlutWalk? It sounds like you've been misinformed.
/r/MensRights30/06/11 02:43 AM
1

It doesn't qualify as rape because it was his use of force that made me want to have sex with him. Oh, so now you weren't having sex when you didn't want to. Like I said: stop insulting my intelligence, or fuck off.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:37 AM
1

Feel free to stop placating me. Ok then. Your position that "unwanted sex" when the other person uses force or the threat of force to achieve penetration should not qualify as rape, because some women have "rape fantasies" is the stupidest bullshit I've ever heard. Kindly stop insulting my intelligence, or fuck off.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:34 AM
1

If someone robs me at gunpoint, I'm probably going to do my best to stay the fuck away from them. I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to hand him more money a week later. And yet it happens. I chose the "robbed at gunpoint" scenario specifically because it happened to a friend of mine, who was robbed by a family member, and then gave that person money to get into rehab. It does not change at all the fact that he was robbed. This is an anecdote, to be sure, but still: people get (eg) beaten by …
/r/MensRights23/06/11 05:21 AM
1

One of the major problems I have with this study is that it does not allow that a person can consent to something they don't want to do. I am losing patience here, and having a hard time composing a respectful response. I feel like you deserve all the condescension I can muster for repeating this fact which so obviously misses the point. Go back and look at that part I put in bold the first time you made that inane objection. Did you notice how it says "threatened you", and "used some degree of …
/r/MensRights23/06/11 04:46 AM
1

If you had bothered to educate yourself at all on the subject, you would be aware of the fact that the Koss study authors did in fact publish a reliability and validity test of the SES, which concluded, among other things, that the respondents understood exactly what the question regarding drugs and alcohol was asking. You would also know that subsequent studies using the SES methodology with clearer, reworded questions regarding drugs and alcohol arrived at data not dissimilar from that of the …
/r/MensRights23/06/11 03:15 AM
1

In the 1 in 4 study, surveyors may have asked the respondents to contextualize what had happened to them, but they ignored any personal contextualization on the part of respondents and made a finding of rape in every single case. This is not so. First, your interpretation of an event and its context are two different things. Then, reread: good prevalence research must use behavioral descriptions to which definitions like "alcoholic" or "sexual abuse" may be applied. Researchers should not rely o…
/r/MensRights23/06/11 01:28 AM
1

You apparently can't read a complete quote: When an answer is yes, further information should be elicited, including: the age of the subject and the other person involved; the nature of the relationship (parent, sibling, friend, priest, etc.); the level of coercion or violence; the number of times and period of time over which the experience happened; and the person's emotional appraisal of the event when it occurred and at the time of the research.
/r/MensRights23/06/11 12:25 AM
2

Imagine yourself questioning an alcoholic: Do you have more than six alcoholic drinks in one sitting several times a week? Yes. Do you often wake up with such a hangover that you can't go to work? Yes. Have friends and family members repeatedly tried to help you stop drinking? Yes. Do you suffer from withdrawal symptoms when you stop drinking? Yes. Are you an alcoholic? No. The point here is that good prevalence research must use behavioral descriptions to which definitions like "alcoholic" or "…
/r/MensRights22/06/11 06:18 PM
0

Doesn't quite jive with the whole lawlessness thing. Nothing in anarchism implies lawlessness.
/r/MensRights21/06/11 04:44 PM
2

Except that asking a person to properly secure goods (real or virtual) to prevent a property crime is completely different from asking a person to follow a set of arbitrary, subjective and often incoherent social mores in order to prevent an assault, especially when it is not an established fact that following those norms will act as a sufficient deterrent to the crime.
/r/MensRights15/06/11 06:48 PM
6

More probably it will result in the same phenomenon as occurs in Québec and La Hispanidad: children are given the first surname of each parent (in Qc it may be any combination of surnames). So Miguel, the son of Oscar García Gómez and Maria Ortega Ruiz (not intended to represent real people) would be named Miguel García Ruiz. It's actually quite simple and elegant.
/r/MensRights14/06/11 07:52 PM
2

Can you link to an article that makes it clearer that those four men were used as human shields? Because the way I am parsing this article, it says four men were killed, and also one woman who was used as a human shield.
/r/MensRights03/05/11 12:03 AM
3

Here's the comment, reproduced from mrmccann13's userpage: You're painting with a broad brush, the majority of MRA love our wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, and friends -- we just want equitable treatment in arenas where, by either tradition or politics -- equitable treatment isn't available for men. Are there woman-haters that affiliate themselves with MRA? Yes, of course there are. Are there man-haters that affiliate themselves with feminism? Yes, of course there are. In both cases though, …
/r/MensRights13/04/11 04:07 AM
1

You should try it. Feels good.
/r/MensRights09/04/11 10:14 PM
2

Condescending fox
/r/MensRights08/04/11 04:15 PM
3

“All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman.” Catherine MacKinnon Misattributed
/r/MensRights05/04/11 04:38 PM
0

yes, blacks did face different discrimination that women, and english, being the rich lexicon that it is, has a word for it....WORSE. And another word for it: irrelevant. Didn't you bother to read? The analogy doesn't rest on the discrimination that women faced being equal to the discrimination that African slaves faced. to say 'some' men were disenfranchised diminishes the MILLIONS of men that had no rights whatsoever 150 years ago. "Some" is a perfectly cromulent word to use here: relatively m…
/r/MensRights02/04/11 05:53 AM
1

bunch of irrelevant nonsense Yes, women faced a different kind of disenfranchisement than blacks did. That does not change anything. I don't state anywhere that women were disenfranchised the same way blacks were. The fact that some men were disenfranchised too does not mean that women as a class were not disenfranchised.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 11:57 PM
0

yes, because ALL men, 150 years ago, had access to law school, and had no trouble, whatsoever, being hired by law offices. How is this relevant? That's like saying "since not all whites in the South had access to law school, etc., there was no racism in the fact that no blacks had access". It's ridiculous. Just as the fact that there were disenfranchised whites does not mean that African slaves as a class were not disenfranchised, the fact that there were disenfranchised men does not mean that w…
/r/MensRights01/04/11 11:13 PM
1

The evidence is the deleted comments, sorry if that wasn't clear. He was attacking someone personally over something or other (the other person's sexual history IIRC), and started really laying the hate on thick. You can contact the mods in /r/oney if you want, but I'm pretty sure that's what the ban is about.
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:54 PM
1

nom-nom-nom may say that they were banned for "making comments negative to feminism", but it seems more likely that nom-nom-nom was banned for trolling (example).
/r/MensRights01/04/11 09:34 PM
5

You're ###kgs? Really? Over the hill isn't so bad, it's your gravity assisted roll down you should be worried about! Happy April Fools!
/r/MensRights31/03/11 10:03 PM
1

If a mother can put a child up for adoption at any time Adoption requires the consent of both legal parents.
/r/MensRights31/03/11 05:20 PM
1

Bravo! You've just taken your first brave step into anti-racism, by accepting that we live in a white supremacist society.
/r/MensRights29/03/11 09:03 AM
0

Smooth moves, cliffor. Real smooth.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 11:03 PM
3

I'm amused. Nowhere do I address your dislike of feminism. I don't really care about your political positions in the slightest. I only address your obvious ignorance about the range of feminist positions. You are stating untruths, and I won't let them stand unchallenged. You didn't ask me to come here, certainly, but I don't need your permission to be here. You don't have to respond, that's obvious, but I can certainly point out how your response fails if you do. Fuck you. Go fuck yourself. I do…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:32 AM
3

I don't indulge trolls like you. You just couldn't resist throwing insults out and that shows you aren't really worth engaging in conversation with. Choosing to stay near the bottom of the argument hierarchy, I see. It's a fact that you were ignorant in the comment I responded to initially. You literally did not know (i.e were ignorant of) feminist positions on prostitution. You might find me calling you out on your ignorance insulting, but it's not, really. There's nothing wrong with being igno…
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:14 AM
1

OMG A HYPERLINK! THAT'S LIKE TRUTH X1000 Plato at Stanford is pretty damn authoritative. I mean it's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, after all. Why not try not being a baby about being proven wrong? You might just like it. Edit: Just pointing out that the comment I'm responding to came up within about 5 minutes. Chances are aetheralloy didn't even bother checking what the link was. Remaining willfully ignorant is pretty shameful.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 06:02 AM
1

I'll give you one guess to figure out who is opposed to that... Social conservatives? My guess is that you were going for "feminists", but the issue of the legality of prostitution is not settled in all feminisms. Not only that, but there is also a broad spectrum of views within feminism on the subject. How about educating yourself instead of sounding off when you are ignorant?
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:53 AM
1

I wish I could form a coherent reply to you, but I hate women and you're making me rage pretty hard right now. What really surprises me is how casually that fit in there. It's not masked at all.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:34 AM
0

You missed a bit: I'm pretty sure that disqualifies her as being sexist.
/r/MensRights27/03/11 05:27 AM
3

I've had the opportunity to have it both ways. It's really not worse circumcised, at least for me.
/r/MensRights23/03/11 08:54 AM
9

Why no anesthetic!?!? These days local anesthetic, either a topical cream or a dorsal nerve block, is commonly used to mitigate pain but both these operations have potential complications which some doctors might decide outweigh the benefits. In the past, babies were not given anesthetics because doctors thought babies couldn't feel pain the way we do (as dumb as that sounds).
/r/MensRights23/03/11 08:52 AM
1

Someone else said something similar. So what? I got my information from actually reading the Koss surveys, and from researching the issue on my own. As is plainly evident, I've been familiar with the Koss study, its methodology and results since far before we had this conversation. By all means, use any intellectually dishonest tactic you can to avoid tackling the substance of my arguments, though. It's not like I'm expecting you to actually argue intelligently or anything.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 08:40 PM
1

I'd like to see one study that doesn't. That's already done, in my previous comment. The methodology for the Colorado DPH&E does not involve anything like what you suggest. You made shit up, now either admit it or put up some evidence. No, but the fact that it was always women's groups or govermental institutions conducting them, was. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology is neither a women's group nor a governmental institution. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, …
/r/MensRights20/03/11 07:26 PM
6

No, it makes light of not taking child molestation seriously. Do you understand what satire is at all?
/r/MensRights20/03/11 05:38 PM
0

It says 1 in 4 on the link you provided. A number that has been continiously refuted because the study it was based on was...well crap The statistic is derived from this study. Questions used to identify a rape victim in the study: Note: Prior to asking these questions, interviewers specified that for this survey sex was defined as any type of penetration or intercourse. A definition of lack of consent was given in the questions. If respondents asked for further clarifications, interviewers prov…
/r/MensRights20/03/11 05:29 PM
0

Stop being so humorless. It's a South Park reference.
/r/MensRights20/03/11 04:14 PM
1

*Ahem* Doctor Freeman.
/r/MensRights18/03/11 08:43 AM
3

Women having sexual experience with both circumcised and anatomically complete partners were recruited through classified advertisements in magazines and an announcement in an anti-circumcision newletter. Prescreening bias? Self-selection bias? Of the 284 surveys, 139 were completed and returned How statistically significant are the results with such a small sample size? Not all questions were answered by all respondents. Contradictory answers showed that not all respondents understood the quest…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 07:08 AM
1

You're absolutely right.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 04:05 AM
1

Most privilege comes not from your birthing circumstances (race, sex, hair color, ethnicity, etc), but from parental care. Under privileged parents who are interested in educating their child to the best of their ability and means will have a superior child than an over privileged parent that doesn't try to educate their child. TL;DR: if someone calls you privileged, tell them you'll thank your parents next time you see them. Yeah, generational poverty is just a long line of parents who don't ca…
/r/MensRights17/03/11 01:02 AM
3

I wish I could form a coherent reply to you, but I hate women What the fuck? I'll have to walk home looking at the happy women and their non-socially retarded boyfriends on the way to celebrate a stupid holiday. And the thought of having to see women and hear their annoying high-pitched voices and seeing their bodies I can never have nor experience Ok, you weren't kidding. What the fuck? Seek help.
/r/MensRights17/03/11 12:56 AM
-1

Don't be childish. Individuals are asked to check their privilege because it is individuals who have privilege. The source of privilege is nevertheless institutional bias, something which someone's history or life choices cannot avoid or change.
/r/MensRights16/03/11 09:41 PM
-4

it's also a metric that doesn't really take into account the history of the individual, nor their life choices. It's also used as a means to attack the person's character without addressing them. You weren't paying attention in your class. Privilege doesn't take into account an individual's history or choices because it's not about individuals, it is about the institutions which envelop us all. It's also impossible to use privilege to attack a person's character, because a person has little to n…
/r/MensRights16/03/11 07:16 PM
-6

Someone needs to take a sociology class...
/r/MensRights16/03/11 06:36 PM
4

Yeah, that's exactly what's happening with developmental and humanitarian aid. You cracked the case! Those Haitian women are wasting all that aid on Louis Vuitton. Well done.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 02:01 AM
3

No. You are either illiterate or misrepresenting the sentence on purpose.
/r/MensRights07/03/11 01:57 AM
1

Is he? That's not the sense I get from his comics.
/r/MensRights06/03/11 12:36 AM
1

Yet when a man kills a pregnant woman, he's convicted of a first degree murder of the woman while second degree for the prenatal child. Not in Canada.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 09:29 PM
1

Stories like this sure make me feel cocky about my relationships.
/r/MensRights04/03/11 09:14 PM
5

It depends. There is a case in the US where a man was forced to pay child support after a sperm donation, but in that case he maintained a close and parent-like relationship with the kid (in particular, bringing them gifts). It is my understanding that counseling services strongly advise against known sperm donations, because of the shaky legal rights for the donor and possible relationship-breaking issues. For anonymous donations, I might be mistaken, but I believe in the US the donor always re…
/r/MensRights04/03/11 08:36 PM
1

If you think the myriad of men trapped with child support they can't, or don't want to pay wouldn't like to be able to default on them, then you are hopelessly naive. Incentives do work, it's Economics 101. Where did I say incentives don't work? Where did I say that no men would want to get out of paying child support? Nowhere. You're avoiding my argument. Removing a hardship does not create an incentive. That's a conservative myth, and it's easily shown to be false. Even if removing a hardship …
/r/MensRights03/03/11 08:42 PM
4

Using this confidence interval calculator, the margin of error is 1.1%, which implies the interval ]\mu - 1.1, \mu + 1.1[ (\mu being the proportion statistic) will contain the true proportion of the population 19 times out of 20. Which means, if you're a Bayesian statistician, that the probability that the true proportion of the population (college aged men etc) is between 5.28% and 7.48% is 19 in 20. In other words, yes, the sample size is pretty representative of a population. Barring some sam…
/r/MensRights03/03/11 12:31 AM
0

For either, costs can be broken down by population. That by no means implies that they should. Breaking down health insurance costs by gender is discrimination, and ought not be done. This is not the case with car insurance. Breaking down car insurance costs by gender is not discrimination. Get past the "revelation" that insurance is different from healthcare. Do you know how to read? That's not at all what I say. Health care is not insurance. And this "revelation", that health insurance and lia…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 05:39 AM
1

So it covered me from suing myself when it paid for my repairs back when I live din a no fault state? It covered you from the costs of the other party suing you for their repairs. No fault insurance limits the other party's capability to sue you, but does not eliminate it. This whole debate started with your instance that "single payer" would improve health care. No, I said single payer health care makes sense as social policy, not that it is better. Single payer liability insurance doesn't make…
/r/MensRights02/03/11 12:54 AM
-1

There really is no double standard here. Health insurance and liability insurance are different, and therefore it should come as no surprise that they operate differently. It is actually your point which is irrelevant, because it ignores the key fact I pointed out. Car insurance is a form of liability insurance. It protects you from financial ruin due to the payment of damages to a third party that you are responsible for. It makes sense and is not discrimination to ask for higher premiums from …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 10:58 PM
1

You still don't understand what liability insurance is. Liability insurance protects you from the costs due to being sued. Health insurance defrays medical costs with no regard to liability. I've already illustrated this in my example. Are you choosing to remain ignorant for ideological reasons? Lifestyle choices do affect premiums, but that's not relevant, because being a woman is not a lifestyle choice. Having a chronic illness affects premiums, but that's not relevant either, because being a …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 09:53 PM
0

"No fault" insurance is still liability insurance, and would be more aptly named "everybody's fault insurance". Essentially, in no fault insurance, liability is assumed to lie with all parties (everybody pays, and fault is used only to determine premiums), and, in order to avoid costly litigation, instead of having the other party's insurance defray your costs, your own does. It's obvious by looking at the definition of no fault insurance that a no fault liability health insurance model doesn't …
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:30 PM
1

But it is a fact that child support is an economic incentive for single motherhood No. Removing a hardship does not create an incentive. Using your logic, I could argue that removing child support creates an incentive to be a "dead-beat dad". So not only is your premise (that child support is an incentive for single motherhood) false, but your argument is self-defeating. This is ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that not all single mothers raise children with absent fathers, not all single mot…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 08:14 PM
0

did end up using the insurance when I had a kidney stone. Ok, so what's happening here is that you don't know what liability insurance is. Here's an example of what health liability insurance would look like: I break my leg, and think you are liable for the medical costs. You give me your health insurance information. If you and your insurance company agree that you are responsible, your insurance pays out my claim (some hand-waving here about how this happens), and your premiums go up. If you o…
/r/MensRights01/03/11 07:19 PM
1

No, it's exactly why single-payer schemes make sense as social policy. A liability form of health insurance doesn't even make sense. Who's liable when an 80 year old gets the flu? How do you propose to cover health maintenance activities with a liability model?
/r/MensRights01/03/11 05:35 PM
2

why is health insurance different? Health insurance is not a form of liability insurance. Car insurance is.
/r/MensRights01/03/11 09:09 AM
1

If this is really about the best interests of the child, then the best interests of the child is not only financial support but social support from both parents. I don't see what made you think I would disagree with this. In fact it is my emphatic belief that parents need to physically, emotionally, etc be there for their children which underlies my opposition to "male abortion".
/r/MensRights25/02/11 09:46 PM
1

But there are no 'punitive damages' until the woman decides they exist. I'm not talking about child support when I say "punitive damages". I mean actual punitive damages. For example, suppose I committed a fraud, was sued, and the court decided I had to pay some amount as punitive damages. Is that slavery? I don't have any choice in paying it, I didn't have any say in the imposition of the penalty, and I don't want to pay it. Is your complaint is that women get to decide whether a fetus comes to…
/r/MensRights25/02/11 09:23 PM
1

Holding them equally accountable is ridiculous and unfair. I just don't see how this is true. Their rights are unequal because their situations and reproductive roles are unequal. That doesn't make it unfair. Do you disagree that society has a vested interest in making sure parents don't neglect their children? Do you think it shouldn't? Can you explain why?
/r/MensRights25/02/11 09:00 PM
1

So would the word 'indentured servant' be more appropriate then? No. Address the punitive damages case. Is a person charged with paying punitive damages an indentured servant? Punitive damages can't even be dealt with through bankruptcy. It's ridiculous that you people throw around the term "slavery" so often. The term is barely appropriate even as hyperbole. Don't you have any conception of what slavery entails? Nor are men likely to have any sort of social, service or material gain from child …
/r/MensRights25/02/11 08:46 PM
1

I thought having to fulfill financial obligations decided for you by another person was slavery. Well, you're wrong, and it's absurd that you should even think that. The entire point of a financial obligation is that you have to make the payments whether you like to or not, whether you chose the responsibility or had it thrust upon you. For example: a court decides on an amount in punitive damages that one must pay. Having punitive damages awarded against you doesn't make you a slave. By the way…
/r/MensRights25/02/11 05:24 PM
-1

Having to fulfill financial obligations is not a lack of control for one's own body.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 08:39 AM
1

But you are your body. Therefore, you control yourself! Materialism saves the day once again.
/r/MensRights25/02/11 08:33 AM
0

I'm a man, I grasp that, and I don't see how it's a fairness issue at all. That's biology: men and women have different reproductive organs, and pregnancy occurs inside a woman's womb. Due to this fact, and because women have the right to use their uteri as they please, women decide whether a fetus comes to term or not. Once the baby is born, the mother and father are by definition parents, and society has a vested interest in making sure parents don't neglect their children, hence the child sup…
/r/MensRights25/02/11 08:27 AM
1

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.
/r/MensRights24/02/11 06:11 PM
1

This was disgusting and offensive. Well, we are talking about a guy who wrote that, even if he was shown evidence beyond any reasonable doubt of a woman's rape, he would not vote to convict the rapist. Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true. Disgusting and offensive is pretty much par for the course, it seems.
/r/MensRights23/02/11 02:48 AM
3

The Bar Mitzvah signifies the change from boy to man in the Jewish community. The thirteen year old usually reads from the Torah, and sometimes leads a discussion of the passage read. A celebration usually follows.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 06:06 PM
5

You're confused. Jewish boys get circumcised at 8 days old.
/r/MensRights22/02/11 05:47 PM
3

This is the top link I get from lmgtfy, and it says the exact opposite of what you claim. Findings regarding officers' use of deadly force, however, have been somewhat mixed. Studies have shown that male officers are involved in deadly force incidents more often than female officers, but female officers who are partnered with a male officer reacted similarly to their male partners when responding to violent confrontations (Walker). In addition, a study of police officers in Indianapolis Police D…
/r/MensRights21/02/11 07:26 AM
6

Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood is still broadcast today. Find out when it plays where you live here. I think the fact that Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood still runs is proof enough that new episodes would still be made, if it were in any way possible. Obviously, the market for the show still exists. In more recent preschool programming there are plenty of shows with good male characters who are not dependent on women. Blues' Clues, Handy Manny, LazyTown, Sesame Street, and Curious George, to name a few.
/r/MensRights21/02/11 07:00 AM
5

Ignoring for a moment that that was a Sideshow Bob quote... What about conspiracy to commit a felony? That's a crime, and even when there's an "overt step" there's no real victim unless the conspiracy comes to fruition.
/r/MensRights20/02/11 05:34 AM
1

Apparently she's terrified of bugs, because he spends a lot of time scaring her with them. Here, you might enjoy this. Bug example.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 04:01 PM
1

He also clotheslined her with Saran wrap, and another time duct taped her to a bed and threw a stick bug at her to make her panic.
/r/MensRights12/02/11 03:56 PM
1

I love how Pierce can take an article suggesting one thing, cherry-pick out some information and slander the source of contradicting information, and in so doing end up suggesting a completely different conclusion. As the article suggests, the 31% statistic is most likely due to the Ottawa police labeling legitimate crime reports as unfounded.
/r/MensRights04/02/11 08:47 PM
5

Wikipedia is not a "male space", and does not require "male spaces".
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:45 AM
0

I wanted to provide an alternate view on the devastation that is caused by a false rape claim. What the bloody fuck for? You're in a women's studies class! Do your fucking work and no more. Are you willing to risk a grade to make a point?
/r/MensRights01/02/11 08:43 AM
1

Very well. With your permission, ill delete the comment. You don't have my permission, but you don't need it. You'll do whatever the fuck you want.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:56 PM
3

Are you retarded or something? What are you trying to say?
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:48 PM
2

Did you read the exchange? Antisocialmedic is not the one advocating circumcision. In fact she seems to be pretty anti-circumcision. That's the joke, right? Ihateyoursubreddit complains about feminists loving circumcision, and then links to a conversation involving an anti-circumcision feminist.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:45 PM
3

Now here's the joke: antisocialmedic is a feminist.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:00 PM
4

Wait, so nobody's going to mention the man who was also convicted of manslaughter, and got only six years in jail?
/r/MensRights27/01/11 06:06 AM
3

Because their bodily integrity is not jeopardized by pregnancy.
/r/MensRights27/01/11 01:05 AM
1

Thanks!
/r/MensRights23/01/11 02:49 AM
1

Condoms aren't 100% effective, and they aren't 100% effective at preventing the spread of STDs, either. By insisting all her partners use condoms, a woman reduces her own chances of contracting a STD. As a side effect, the risk for each of her partners is reduced even further. So by choosing to have sex only with women who insist on using condoms, you are reducing your risks, even if you are always using a condom yourself.
/r/MensRights23/01/11 02:43 AM
1

If it's not too much trouble, could you link to those threads, please? This is relevant to my interests.
/r/MensRights23/01/11 02:32 AM
17

Famous last words.
/r/MensRights23/01/11 02:29 AM
2

No, I totally understand. We're all like that about some source of information or other.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 08:32 PM
1

I'm sorry. Amp has an axe to grind. No matter how much evidence is presented that something he believes in may not be true he won't even acknowledge that there's a possibility he might be wrong. Yeah, and? That has nothing to do with whether the "73% didn't think it was rape" statement is misinformation or not. Fine, you don't like the guy. I don't care, that doesn't make his statements on this issue false. Like I said, you can read the study yourself. I quote Amp because Amp quotes directly fro…
/r/MensRights22/01/11 08:03 PM
1

Attack the message, not the messenger. Edit: Extracting the relevant facts: From the first link 73% answered no to the question, “it was definitely rape”; it’s not safe to conclude from that they’re sure it was not rape! We have to consider context: we’re talking about young women, most of whom were raped by someone they knew (usually someone they were dating and had already been sexually fooling around with), who were in high school over 20 years ago, when discussions of date rape were extremel…
/r/MensRights22/01/11 07:49 PM
1

That is not relevant (it's also misinformation*, but that's not relevant either). In the Koss study, like in the studies 1in6.org uses, the prevalence of sexual abuse is determined via behavior-type cues (see an example here), not labeling by the surveyed. * As to why this statement is false and/or misleading, read the study itself, or see (for example) here, or here.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 07:39 PM
1

Bring it on, I guess.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 04:13 PM
1

Makes sense.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 12:07 AM
1

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I get the article and it downloads a .mov file.
/r/MensRights22/01/11 12:02 AM
1

Weird. When I clicked the link, Chrome downloaded a .mov file.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 10:37 PM
1

I could have used a warning that it was a download link. Anyway, maybe there was enough evidence for a charge of simple assault? I'm not familiar with the case, so I can't say for sure, but that's what I would assume.
/r/MensRights21/01/11 09:36 PM
2

So am I to assume that theirs a problematic shortage of faith in the justice system Always. You even demonstrate this yourself! This guy, assuming he is actually guilty, deserved to spend a few of his best years in prison. Now he has no more good years to give, but he still has years. If and when he's convicted, the state can take those. It's like collecting on a debt that's been delinquent for 50 years. You get what you can.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 08:51 AM
5

Serving justice (publicly) increases public faith in the justice system, obviously.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 08:28 AM
3

Retribution is a non-trivial aspect of justice. The positive effect it would have is serving justice.
/r/MensRights20/01/11 08:19 AM
1

Are you high?
/r/MensRights15/01/11 02:18 AM
1

and i'm guessing a lot of those protesters were not even customers What protesters? This is a restaurant pretty much in the epicenter of Downtown Hamilton, in the Jackson Square building. I've never seen a picketer or protester. The protest was entirely a "letters to the owner" issue. I'd dare you to even find a letter to the editor in the Hamilton Spectator (to be fair, I've only been receiving the Spec sporadically over 18 months). This is a tempest in a teacup.
/r/MensRights12/01/11 07:15 AM
1

It's actually beneficial for women to cuckold their partners to increase genetic diversity in their offspring. Extra-monogamous coupling is a successful strategy for both men and women, actually. That last paragraph doesn't really make any sense to me, though. What exactly are you trying to say?
/r/MensRights07/01/11 06:40 PM
1

No they don't. At all. Read Sex at Dawn. Sex at Dawn is a pop-anthropology book. It is a fact that most extant hunter gatherer societies utilize monogamy. I invite you to take your time and go through the SCCS, and survey how many hunter gatherer societies are monogamous or non-monogamous, if you're skeptical. Also, gibbons are socially monogamous, not sexually. Gibbons and other monogamous animals do exhibit extra-monogamous coupling (also known as cheating). They're still classified as sexuall…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 06:29 PM
1

Few fathers immeadiatly care in the sense of love their kids Uh... are you sure? You might want to ask around. In fact, most fathers start caring (again, in both senses) for their children before they're even born. How many fathers do you know want to knowingly take care of a kid that came out of his wife's vagina that isn't his? The facts are confused here by social mores and context. Your genes don't understand nor care about your paternity. A man in a monogamous relationship naturally feels p…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 08:31 AM
1

Yes, and so did I. "Care" is clearly being used in both senses, since we are talking about child-rearing, which requires care in both senses. What I'm saying is that without that phenotype there would be no monogamy. Is this where I bring up the monogamous parasitic worms? Monogamy doesn't require love. You can't state in any definitive way that no other phenotype could have supported the monogamous strategy. Edit: Wait a second... You used the term "care deeply". How do you take care of someone…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 07:58 AM
1

Regarding the first part: Ignoring the part of 'care' doesn't make it go away. Do you mind trying that again with more sentences, explaining what exactly you mean to say? As for the tangential discussion about the evolutionary relationship between love and monogamy: The chemicals involved in love working the way they do is a phenotype, while monogamy is not one. It is a strategy. As the strategy (monogamy) became more successful, phenotypes which support the strategy (for example feeling love fo…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 07:46 AM
0

I never said it was impossible to care as much as about adopted children as such, it's just that it's evolutionary stupid to put as much resources in them. What you said is that men care less about children to whom they are not genetically related. This is demonstrably false. You used a vague evolutionary argument for it, which I have demonstrated is bogus. You can claim all you like that investing in kin which is not genetically related to you is "evolutionary stupid", but that doesn't make it …
/r/MensRights07/01/11 06:35 AM
0

Societal construct. This is not an explanation for anything. What do you even mean by it? How does this relate to the fact that adoptive fathers care deeply about their adopted children? Why do adoptive fathers care just as much about their adopted children? Evolutionary speaking we also try to spread our genes around as much as possible, yet we use condoms and get into monogamous relationships... It's not clear to me at all that we inherently "try to spread our genes around as much as possible"…
/r/MensRights07/01/11 05:32 AM
2

Evolutionary speaking, men care deeply about their own children and less about others. Explain adoption and foster parenting within this paradigm.
/r/MensRights07/01/11 04:18 AM
6

For the trollking in r/Mensrights, I give a list of fallacies: Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam): an argument that concludes a premise (usually a belief) as either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. Example: some religious people believe that knowledge of evolution leads to immorality, therefore evolution proves false. Even if teaching evolution did lead to immorality, it would not imply a falsehood of evolution argumentu…
/r/MensRights28/12/10 06:03 PM
1

That was where the original statistic failed - they simply used the absolutely maximal stretched (and then some) definition possible, far past the point where people would agree on the word. The Koss study used the legal definition of rape in the state of Ohio at the time, though.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:10 AM
4

To add to your post, the question the survey asked of the girls was this: Did you ever have sex that you felt pressured to have?. I hate to challenge you on this again, but that's just plain false. Find me that question in the study.
/r/MensRights17/12/10 08:07 AM
1

Page 6: Measures of Partner Violence The CTS2. Physical assault was measured by the revised Conflict Tactics Scales or CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996). In the past 25 years, the CTS have been used in hundreds of studies, mostly in North America, but also in many other countries. It has demonstrated crosscultural reliability and validity (Archer, 1999; Straus, 1990a, 2004). This research used the CTS2 scale for physical assault, both overall, and the subscale for severe assault. Most of the assaults a…
/r/MensRights16/12/10 06:29 AM
0

Let the witch hunts begin!
/r/MensRights15/12/10 11:28 PM
2

As to that famous 1 in 4 number; it comes from a survey that asks college women "did you ever regret sex you felt pressured to have?" Yeah? Can you find me that question in the survey? I'm guessing you're referring to Koss?
/r/MensRights15/12/10 07:56 AM
-1

Fuck reddiquette. Clicking the arrows feels good. Let's use them however we like. It's not like anyone will be able to tell.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 07:54 AM
3

You can pick your statistics based on your ideology if you want. Don't expect me to respect you for it.
/r/MensRights15/12/10 07:23 AM
1

The 8% rate from the FBI is for "unfounded". There is also no federal standard as to what "unfounded" means, so the statistic is completely useless. The 40% rate is usually cited coming from Kanin, and is completely irreproducible. Kanin does not mention which town he chose, which police detail he studied, or how the police decided a case to be false. That statistic is a favorite here, as are statistics which show even higher rates, but that doesn't mean that it is the truth, or even close to it…
/r/MensRights15/12/10 05:35 AM
1

There's a difference between "most people" and "this particular person". It's perfectly fair to say most people 70 years ago espoused religious values, but it would be ridiculous then to claim that Betrand Russell did so as well.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 03:53 AM
1

That's ridiculous. By your standard, Ann Coulter is a feminist, and so is Michele Bachmann. Feminism is a political ideology, and for the designation "feminist" to make sense, a person has to be an adherent. Like Coulter and Bachmann, Kay is demonstrably not an adherent of feminism.
/r/MensRights14/12/10 02:12 AM
3

Wait. Barbara Kay is a feminist now? When did this happen? She used to write anti-feminist articles all the time. I guess she had a change of heart on the seventh of December? Or maybe the author decided to just call Kay a feminist and hope nobody fact-checks.
/r/MensRights13/12/10 08:16 PM
2

Yes, that is exactly how a moderated forum works. Kloo2yoo and IgnatiusLoyola can moderate the forum however they damn well please, because they're the moderators. If you don't like it, find another subreddit or make your own.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 11:08 PM
1

She was charged with murder, but found not guilty by reason of diminished responsibility due to mental illness. Instead she was found guilty of manslaughter.
/r/MensRights12/12/10 10:47 PM
1

It's not normal to have an irrational fear of children. Seek therapy.
/r/MensRights10/12/10 07:12 AM
1

There are two types of submissions: links, and text-only. You filled out the form for submitting a link, then switched to the "text tab", and submitted a text-only post.
/r/MensRights07/12/10 11:11 PM
5

I think I've just experienced redditlove at first sight.
/r/MensRights06/12/10 04:26 PM
2

Sounds like mean0dean0 having a brother sort of implicitly answers that question.
/r/MensRights04/12/10 02:29 PM
1

If groping is an assault, and it is justification for sexual segregation, then men now have a call to action to demand their own train cars No, this does not follow. The context and content of the actions matter. Do you really not see a difference in context, at least, between these situations? You are the one who claimed that arresting gropers would be preferable to keeping the pool of victims away from crime. I only pointed out how ludicrous such a claim is. Your proposal does nothing, in term…
/r/MensRights03/12/10 10:11 PM
0

Arresting gropers is a fundamentally ineffective and intractable solution. Have you seen what a crowded train looks like in Japan or India? Are you going to line up all the passengers in a wagon so that victims can attempt to identify an essentially anonymous and unidentifiable offender? Is the cost in man-hours worth it? In rupees? Would the average police officer in a rural area even take an arrest order for a train groping seriously? Giving women a wagon where they can be almost assured safet…
/r/MensRights03/12/10 08:34 PM
1

I would suggest an editor.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:23 AM
1

Except that he didn't get the life sentence for the sexual assault, he got a life sentence because the sexual assault was his third felony conviction. Any felony conviction would have gotten him that life sentence.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 06:10 AM
1

The presumption of innocence is a right which has to do with courts, not the press. A free press, being free, can write whatever they like, as long as they don't commit libel. Complaining about the press having the right to refer to accusers as "victims", and the accused as "alleged rapists", or of the press having the right to assume an assault took place, is to complain about having a free press. Since free presses are an integral part of free societies, you are essentially complaining about l…
/r/MensRights03/12/10 05:54 AM
0

Probably because there is a huge groping problem in crowded trains, just like in Japan.
/r/MensRights03/12/10 04:50 AM
0

Gilbert's criticism of the Koss study is incredibly weak. Imagine you were sampling for the prevalence of alcoholism. You come up with some questions to ask, such as "on average, do you drink more than 14 standard drinks (1 standard drink being 12 oz of beer, 5 oz of wine, or 1.5 oz of hard liquor) in a week?", "do you feel like you have to drink to feel normal?", "have other people expressed concern about your drinking?", "do you ever find yourself having trouble making ends meet because of the…
/r/MensRights03/12/10 02:21 AM
2

No, I was pretty heavy into body modification and piercing at that age, and was considering a PA.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 07:45 AM
3

I was circumcised at 20, and let me tell you: sex is just as fantastic now as it was before. Plus, it looks nicer.
/r/MensRights29/11/10 06:58 AM
1

That is fairly convincing, actually. I'd like the rest of your sources, if you don't mind. I am weary to generalize the study to the population at large, though, because neither the population of offenders nor the population of victims are representative. There may be something particular about the female staff in juvenile correctional facilities, or about the relationships between the staff and inmates, or about the proportion of female to male staff, which make generalization untenable. Also, …
/r/MensRights26/11/10 06:27 AM
2

I'm very open to evidence. I've (probably) never seen your sources, and every source I've found says the complete opposite of what your saying, and this statistic is consistent with the gender split in perpetrators of other sex crimes, so I'm very skeptical of your claim, but that doesn't mean my mind is closed. I'm genuinely interested in seeing you prove your statement.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 04:17 AM
1

So... no source, then? Edit: Neither of the sources I pointed to use reports to police or other authority figures as data. They use surveys of victimization behaviors, which ask you to recall whether you experienced a type of situation, just like the DoJ report you linked to.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 03:55 AM
1

Can you get me a source for that? Most sources I can find (for example(pdf) or another example) say that men commit between 85 and 90% of child sexual abuse.
/r/MensRights26/11/10 01:24 AM
3

Do you have any evidence that IQ is a sex-linked trait, as opposed to a Mendelian, polygenic, or epigenetic trait? Because unless IQ performance is sex-linked, your explanation is bunk.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 10:48 PM
1

Aerik is a man. EVH uses "she" because he believes no true man would hold the political positions that Aerik does.
/r/MensRights19/11/10 05:16 AM
2

Do you deny that unsourced or unreproducible data is worse than useless? You should consult your dean about this. Ask him or her whether the use of unsourced or unreproducible data would be acceptable in an academic paper with the university's backing. I would hate to overstate this, because as an academic I'm sure you do know what the policy for academic dishonesty is in most, if not all, universities, but it's absolutely true that you don't need absolute certainty to call into question whether…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 06:25 AM
2

You obviously don't understand that socially constructed phenomena are no less real than absolute phenomena. Here's an example: media of barter are social constructs. Does that make paper money "a lie"? Of course not. Does that make credit "fake"? Don't be ridiculous. In fact, the existence of trans folk is a strong proof that gender is a social construct. When people who are born one sex identify themselves as a different gender, act as a different gender, and are recognized as a different gend…
/r/MensRights18/11/10 01:31 AM
1

What does any of that have to do with the use of force or threat of its use to get sex? Do you think (e.g.) twisting an arm, or threatening to hit a person is an acceptable or legal way to get sex when you're confused about the other person's consent?
/r/MensRights18/11/10 01:21 AM
1

As an academic (why the capital A, by the way?), you should know that unsourced and unreproducible data is worse than useless. The identification and correction of "folk statistics" is a ripe subject for Master's theses, for example. Such corrections can call into question entire paradigms. Using unsourced and unreproducible data is exactly the same as making it up to anybody with a critical mind. After all, how is one to tell the difference between the two? As an academic, you should also know …
/r/MensRights17/11/10 11:53 PM
2

I've got access to the Gibbons article (it's a transcript of a presentation, actually). Can you suggest to me a site where I can put up the pdf? Unfortunately, Gibbons uses abbreviations which sometimes obscure the names of journals. McDowell is cited in "The Pol Surg", which could be "The Police Surgeon", or "The Police Surgery", journals which I'm not finding any evidence of existing. It could refer to some other title ("The Polish Surgeon"?), maybe, but it again seems like a false citation. T…
/r/MensRights17/11/10 09:57 PM
2

I dare anybody to find "The False Rape Allegation in the Military Community" (1983). It exists only on MRA blogs. Google scholar doesn't find it. PubMed brings up nothing. Academic OneFile doesn't find it. The meta-database search at my local university library doesn't find it. Not to mention that it's also sometimes cited as "False Allegations" in other MRA blogs (e.g. RADAR), attributed to the non-existent journal Forensic Science Digest in 1985. This is a strong indicator that this statistic …
/r/MensRights17/11/10 08:23 AM
2

You mean like /r/malestudies? Or /r/mensrightslinks? How do you propose to exclude women, anyway?
/r/MensRights12/11/10 05:43 AM
3

Yeah, never mind the ridiculous assertion "of course, the man would get convicted". I didn't know rape had a 100% conviction rate.
/r/MensRights08/11/10 08:57 PM
1

The safe haven laws are not accessible to men. The last reading of them that I read was that any mother could drop off a child, not any parent. This is false. In most States with safe haven laws, either parent may surrender his or her baby to a safe haven. In four States, only the mother may relinquish her infant.5 Idaho specifies that only a custodial parent may surrender an infant. In approximately 11 States, an agent of the parent (someone who has the parent's approval) may take a baby to a s…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:26 PM
1

Thanks to you, too. I'm not expecting to change any minds here. I'm more throwing my thoughts out to be challenged, and hopefully effectively challenging other peoples thoughts as well.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:16 PM
1

If my arguments are poorly constructed, instead of accusing me of trolling, show me the errors in the argument. No matter how much you would like it to be so, disagreeing with you is not trolling, and having bad arguments is not trolling.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:11 PM
1

The question is: Either parental responsibility is a moral absolute or it isn't. So which is it? I have made no claims about morality. Parental responsibility cannot be a moral absolute, because it is easy to imagine societies in which the concept of parenthood doesn't exist (for example if children are raised communally). Parental responsibility is a legal and social construct, and only makes sense in the context of our laws and society. So I guess my answer is: no, parental responsibility is n…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 05:01 PM
1

This should follow the same "should have worn a condom" argument. I don't make this argument. Condoms fail. BC pills fail. "You should have worn a condom" is pointless moralizing.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:24 PM
1

Under what circumstances do women have the right to abandon their children? Just a reminder, safe haven laws are accessible to any parent or legal guardian in most states.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:22 PM
1

I see what you're saying here. It makes sense, if the point is not to make the contexts analogous. I saw the hypothetical as "you are in this situation" when you meant the hypothetical to be "you are in this situation and you've made this choice", I guess? In my defense it was 2 am.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:05 PM
2

To make your argument work, it should be "I tell you that you must kill one yourself, or you will kill all 10". Wolfsktaag is arguing that either way women are solely responsible, while in your scenario, one choice removes his responsibility. You could always not kill those 10 people, after all.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 06:46 AM
1

I think reproductive fraud is when a woman fraudulently collects support. As in "you're the father", when really the travelling salesman is the father. It's a thorny issue, and I can definitely see how it could create exceptions, and exceptions to exceptions etc.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:20 AM
3

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I don't want kids right now, and there was a time when I didn't want kids at all. But if I ended up a father, I would do whatever it takes to be a good one.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:10 AM
1

Thanks for pointing out the argument I missed, by the way. I'm sort of being pounced on by a bunch of folks, so I tend to skim over replies. I can respect that you disagree with me. I certainly like to think I understand where this is all coming from. I mean, it isn't fair, and that really sucks.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 04:07 AM
1

What, exactly, is an "argument of convience and addendum"? Also, there are no caveats to my previous comment. I'm not sure what you're talking about. I don't pretend abortion doesn't avoid becoming a parent. That would be absurd. I claim (rightly) that the legal foundation for abortion is not the right to avoid becoming a parent. If it were the case that the legal foundation for abortion is the right to not become a parent, then yes, it would be unfairly applied as the law stands. However, it is…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 03:42 AM
1

and decide with a doctor, again without government intervention, what medical procedures to undertake. Quoting myself. Yes, the state has legitimate interests which can override the right to make decisions about your health (another example would be mandatory vaccination). But as stated in Whalen v Roe (1977), the right to personal privacy includes the independence in "making certain kinds of important decisions".
/r/MensRights05/11/10 03:34 AM
1

Sometimes justice isn't fairness. I've yet to have presented to me a case for legalizing abandonment and neglect that couldn't be summarized with "it isn't fair". No, it isn't fair, but it's the only way the government can keep from having to pay for the upkeep of children.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 03:15 AM
0

That's because I'm not discussing this with an overwrought fanatic. Next time, don't ascribe motives to me for no other reason than to paint me as an evil oppressor.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:43 AM
-6

Like I said previously: at no time. That doesn't make a fetus the property of the woman. It would be absurd and obscene to treat fetuses legally as chattel. Maybe we're arguing over the meaning of "property" here?
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:39 AM
2

Arguing semantics is arguing about the meaning of words. I'm arguing about the foundations of legal abortion, and how they are different from the foundations for legal abandonment and neglect of children. The law does not recognize a right in either parent to not become a parent, and if, in some hypothetical science fiction scenario, it became possible to transplant a fetus into an artificial gestation chamber in a minimally invasive procedure, there would be no legal basis for women to avoid mo…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:29 AM
1

The evolution of mammalian reproduction has developed in such a way that there is no space for a man to make legal decisions about a fetus he helped create (for now, in the USA, with some exceedingly peculiar exceptions). Also, it does not go from 100% female property to an equal, shared obligation. The only thing which is female property (in a sense) is the uterus.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:22 AM
-1

I'm not talking about women's reasons or justifications or what have you. I'm talking about the reason why the court found that women can legally abort pregnancies (in the USA). That reason has nothing to do with not wanting to be a parent. There is no right not to become a parent.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:16 AM
-3

I mean hysterical demagogues who ascribe evil intentions to their interlocutors in order to dismiss their arguments. People who say things like "when you say 'both', we both know you mean 'men'. You're not fooling anyone." You know, ass-hats like you. I won't bother continuing this discussion with you. You've already shown yourself to be a useless piece of shit, first lying about adoption being a woman-only thing, and next lying about safe haven laws, which are accessible to both men and women, …
/r/MensRights05/11/10 02:03 AM
1

Women have no such right. They have the right to cease pregnancy. They have the right to decide, without government intervention, how their organs operate, and decide with a doctor, again without government intervention, what medical procedures to undertake. Without these rights, there is no right to abortion. These rights do not have anything to do with born children, which is why abortion arguments cannot justify the neglect or abandonment of born children.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:57 AM
0

We can't legislate a perfect world into existence.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:33 AM
0

A double standard occurs when the situations are the same, and the standard is applied differently. In this case, they are not the same. One situation involves ending a life, the other involves abandoning and neglecting a child. There is no double standard here. Women have no legal right to abandon or neglect their born children, either.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:29 AM
-3

But when I bring up adoption (something exclusively done by women) That's plain false. Consult a family lawyer. There's also no relativism or equivocation in the definition of adoption: "a legal proceeding that creates a parent-child relation between persons not related by blood; the adopted child is entitled to all privileges belonging to a natural child of the adoptive parents (including the right to inherit)" Parents have a legal obligation to provide for their children. Adoption transfers th…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 01:17 AM
-6

Like I said, these are completely different issues. These are acts of a fundamentally different nature. Your stance on one issue need not affect your stance on the other.
/r/MensRights05/11/10 12:44 AM
-11

Adoption transfers legal parenthood to different people. It does not eliminate the legal duty for legal parents to provide for their children. In certain states, sperm donors are considered legal parents, under certain circumstances. For this reason, it is not usually advised for lesbian couples or single women to use a donor whose identity is known before consulting a knowledgeable attorney and getting a full understanding of local law (to avoid custody disputes). Egg donation is a whole differ…
/r/MensRights05/11/10 12:13 AM
-7

/r/mensrights in general, I believe, thinks men should have the right to abandon their children. I do not. I'd like to point out first that these are completely different issues, morally and legally. Abortion is about ending a life (actual or potential), and abandonment is about withdrawing resources. Legally, men do not have the right to abandon their children, because courts recognize that children require, and have a right to, resources they are unable to acquire on their own. Courts understa…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 10:31 PM
27

There's a difference between men being "considered" in the decision, meaning that the pregnant woman is informed of the man's opinion, and makes her own decision with that information, and the man being "considered" in the decision, meaning the man has legal power to veto or make difficult the pregnant woman's decision. The first is absolutely fine, and the last is unacceptable. A man does not gain any legal control of a woman's uterus by dint of insemination. A woman's uterus is wholly hers, an…
/r/MensRights04/11/10 09:45 PM
1

Having read their disclaimer, I have only one thing to say: "hurray!" I'm subscribing now. I have high hopes for the subreddit. They link to you, why not link to them? They've already got more readers than /r/malestudies.
/r/MensRights27/10/10 07:03 AM
2

You let tomek77 plug his censored subreddit for quite a while. You even put a link to it in the sidebar. Why not afford the same courtesy to /r/OneY?
/r/MensRights27/10/10 01:54 AM
1

When boys don't make it to university, it's because the system is failing them. When girls don't make it into specific departments, it's because they are naturally disinterested in or worse at the subject. Don't you see the difference?
/r/MensRights16/10/10 07:05 AM
9

according to feminists googling or even friending a ex on facebook is a violation and oppressive Where are you getting that idea?
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:26 AM
10

What? Googling someone is cyber stalking now? I guess I've been cyberstalked by my employer, and my best friend. Should I press charges?
/r/MensRights16/10/10 06:11 AM
2

You are an anecdote. You are not data. I don't care about your story right now. Show me data that supports supercraptacular's statement.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 11:44 PM
2

You are focusing on the wrong part of that first sentence. It is a given that there are male rape victims, and that some of them are raped by women. Statistics about how many men are raped are irrelevant, because I've already accepted the premise that a good number of men are raped. What I want data about is the second part of the sentence. You know: "not reporting their rapes when women are the rapist". Again, rape victims are irrelevant to this discussion. Rape offenders are what are relevant.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 11:34 PM
2

how do you "take into account unreported rapes?" The NCVS does not use police reports to compile data. It follows that it includes also crimes which have not been reported to the police, which is how they can approximate the reporting rates for crimes, too. Don't bother debating the value of the NCVS until you understand how it works.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 11:23 PM
0

So are you against all types of targeted campaigns, too? Are you against targeting AIDS awareness campaigns toward gay men, since they don't make up 100% of new AIDS cases? Again, what proportion would count as "close enough to always" to warrant a targeted campaign?
/r/MensRights13/10/10 11:09 PM
2

The Dishonesty of Honest People: A Theory of Self-Concept Maintenance See also Dan Ariely's TED talk
/r/MensRights13/10/10 10:54 PM
-1

"No", as in, "no, it isn't close enough to always"? Why not? What proportion would count as close enough to always to warrant a targeted campaign, in your mind?
/r/MensRights13/10/10 10:17 PM
-5

You are talking about rape victims, and we are talking about rape offenders. Rape victims are irrelevant to this discussion. Either show me some relevant data, or GTFO yourself. Asking me to waste an hour of my time to support your position is unreasonable.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 09:16 PM
4

Except that this is not entirely true. Studies have shown that when people are reminded to think about the ethics of their actions they tend to act more morally (the study I'm thinking of involved a reading about civic duties, or a reading about religion, compared to a reading about something unrelated). You don't know for a fact that being reminded that you shouldn't rape will not stop anybody from raping.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 08:24 PM
2

the huge number of men who dont report rapes Gimme some stats on the number of men who are raped by women and then don't report it. Otherwise, why should I believe that there is a "huge number" of them?
/r/MensRights13/10/10 08:09 PM
-2

I'll gladly accept any statistics that show that a huge number of men are not reporting their rapes when women are the rapist. Because the stats which show 99% of rapists are men seems to take into account unreported rapes. Any speculation without backing with studies is just that. Idle speculation.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 07:58 PM
-8

Well, it's close enough to always, isn't it? What are the stats in the US? Something like 99% of rapists are men, right? Sounds like maybe there's a high enough proportion of rapists who are men that a campaign targeting male rapists is reasonable.
/r/MensRights13/10/10 06:58 PM
-1

I made no claims about any "wage gap", though, did I? You just decided to attack that since it's much easier to attack that then to attack my argument. Your coma patient and POW examples are irrelevant, again. You're talking about the right to abandon a child at birth, right? Because, and this might surprise you, I can easily say that collecting support from a comatose person who has no ability to pay is unfair. It doesn't translate into support for the right of a healthy person with income to a…
/r/MensRights08/10/10 07:09 PM
0

Except that I already said that the same financial abortion should be available to women Yeah, as a footnote. An afterthought. It's clear that the "problem" you're trying to fix is fathers having to pay for their children. As for custody of newborns, since it is impossible to form a custody agreement for an non-existent child, both parents have legal custody at birth, and indeed probably for quite a bit longer after that as custody disputes can be drawn out affairs when taken to court. The mothe…
/r/MensRights07/10/10 03:22 AM
1

I'm not saying anything about whether one act is "better for the child" or not. I'm saying that each act has a different moral foundation; one being about determining your own level of health, and the other about not having to help raise a child you've had a hand bringing into the world. If you can't recognize that these are different things, you're either terribly stupid or willfully blind, and I know you can't argue with people who are either of those things.
/r/MensRights07/10/10 03:08 AM
1

Well, I certainly walked my way into that one. Well played.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 09:03 PM
1

So can fathers. Look it up. Safe surrender laws allow any custodial parent (sometimes even a third party, at the custodial parent's behest) to leave a newborn with appropriate care providers without fear of being prosecuted for abandonment or neglect. This is neglecting, of course, whether safe surrender laws are effective or even just. Even without considering those facts, your argument fails.
/r/MensRights06/10/10 07:56 PM
0

Your concern is special rights for men. Men do already, in this regard, hold similar rights to women. Abortion is in no way child abandonment, nor is it in any way legally or morally justified by a right to not be a parent. Notwithstanding the justice of the laws themselves, safe haven laws are a remedy available to any custodial parent or guardian, man or woman. So, men already hold similar rights in this case. Also, the "right" to decide how your wealth is spent is fundamentally different from…
/r/MensRights06/10/10 02:40 PM
0

When did women win the right to abandon their children? Because abortion rights (which are actual reproductive rights, which is to say rights regarding when, why, how etc people reproduce) are not about abandoning children. They are about not being pregnant anymore. Do you really not see a difference?
/r/MensRights06/10/10 05:32 AM
1

Oh, I read the rest of your post before commenting. I just ignored it because it is not only logically disconnected, but in logical contradiction with that sentence. I imagine you only put that last bit in because you don't want to defend what your opening statement logically entails. If, as you say, a father's providing for an unwanted child is slavery, why does it matter whether the child is born or not before he abandons it? What logical argument can you provide to defend the position that a …
/r/MensRights06/10/10 05:18 AM
1

However, it is his body, not her's and not the baby's. He has a right to choose what happens to that body. That includes the right to not have that body slave away to support either the mother or the child. So the father of a five year old has the right to abandon his kid, too?
/r/MensRights05/10/10 08:46 PM
1

And when your pill fails, are you still going to want to abandon the resulting child?
/r/MensRights05/10/10 08:27 PM
-1

How is the right to abandon your children a "reproductive" right? Once the child is born, you have reproduced, whether you want to pay for him or not.
/r/MensRights05/10/10 08:16 PM
-2

That is an excellent comparison. It embodies pretty much exactly how I felt after I had the procedure done. My partners and I have been much more satisfied with both its functioning and appearance.
/r/MensRights01/09/10 10:06 PM
-6

2 years probation = no time in prison.
/r/MensRights14/08/10 05:42 PM
2

What's CMU?
/r/MensRights14/08/10 12:19 AM
1

I kinda like it. Especially with the lack of capitalization. I think it's ingenious. So many vectors of rage!
/r/MensRights13/08/10 08:15 AM
-9

What the fuck are you bitching about? It's just TV.
/r/MensRights11/08/10 01:40 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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