TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

FalconGK81 Archive

View 4 posts and 170 comments by FalconGK81 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
4

You go outside and yell loudly "I declare INCELLLLLLLLL!" You can't just say it though, you have to declare it.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 01:50 AM
10

Men fear rejection too, but it is viewed as an opportunity to show confidence/boldness, a trait women highly desire in men. While I'm sure there are men who would disagree with me, I think I can say fairly accurately that most men don't have boldness/confidence at or near the top of their lists of qualities they're desiring in a woman.
/r/MensRights30/04/24 09:23 PM
17

You can’t just expect people to go against social conventions because you say “lol try differently”. Its almost like the social conventions evolved over hundreds or thousands of years because of innate preferences, and not "muh patriarchy". It turns out women like to be approached, it makes them feel desirable.
/r/MensRights30/04/24 07:05 PM
1

Andrew Yang is a snake who will say whatever he thinks you want to hear. EDIT: LOL, downvote all you want, it won't change the truth.
/r/MensRights18/10/22 01:51 PM
10

Bomber pilots in WW2 used to have a saying: "When you're taking flak, you know you're over the target." (Flak means when the plane was getting hit by anti-aircraft fire). In this case, the fact that you got downvoted so hard is a pretty good indication that you're saying something meaningful. It doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, sometimes it means you're right. To know if you're right or wrong you gotta ask yourself who is firing at you. In the case of reddit, chances are pretty good that i…
/r/MensRights08/09/21 01:48 AM
1

I'm not opposed to a man voicing his political opinion, Then I have no idea what you're objecting to, because that was my whole point. On matters of public policy (one of which is abortion) members of the public can have opinions regardless of their gender.
/r/MensRights08/09/21 12:46 AM
2

Struck a nerve I suppose.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 07:23 PM
2

There are public policy debates about forcing vaccines and mandating that people wear certain things on their face, and no one has a problem with that. Those are impositions on bodily autonomy that are open to public policy debate. I am not advocating which policy should be chosen, I'm merely observing that I get to have a voice in the public discourse on the policy, regardless of my gender.
/r/MensRights07/09/21 07:17 PM
3

So it's ok to kill someone in a coma?
/r/MensRights07/09/21 01:53 AM
22

Which is what WOMEN TELL MEN ALL THE TIME, but no one whines "women shouldn't have a say in this". Society tells men all the time to suck it up and face the consequences of their choices, but a man can't have the same opinion towards a "women's issue"? Fuck that noise. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. If you do have sex, use protection. If you don't use protection, use birth control. If you don't use birth control, take a plan b. If you fail to do ALL OF THOSE POSSIBLE MITIGATIO…
/r/MensRights07/09/21 01:50 AM
12

Through the democratic process women get a say in every fucking thing the government does that impacts my life. Why the fuck should men not get a democratic say on abortion, which is yet another public policy debate?
/r/MensRights07/09/21 01:38 AM
3

This documentary had me at times weeping and at times boiling with anger.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 03:37 AM
13

Zero tolerance for domestic violence. Respect yourself enough to leave that relationship.
/r/MensRights07/07/19 03:33 AM
1

It's Ma'am! Ma'am!
/r/MensRights04/07/19 05:32 PM
2

I did it online 19 years ago. Stunning they didn't tell you.
/r/MensRights24/06/19 02:32 AM
2

There's no such thing as an innocent verdict. Not necessarily. Sometimes a verdict (or ruling by a judge on appeal) can be a finding of "actual innocence". Usually this is with DNA evidence, or somehow proving that the crime in question never even occurred (suppose video evidence was discovered that showed the crime did not take place). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_innocence
/r/MensRights10/02/17 09:28 PM
19

LOL, she only grants him the exception because it's his birthday, and he THANKS her. What a loser.
/r/MensRights11/01/17 10:22 PM
3

That's just positive bias against women. So men are still the privileged ones. It's simple people, open your eyes!!!!! /s
/r/MensRights05/01/17 06:36 PM
1

Wait, I'm confused. I was assured that women would NEVER make up such a heinous accusation, and thus should be believed. This can't be real...
/r/MensRights05/01/17 06:30 PM
1

The blog post says ath the top that the trial is 2017, but later that the trial is January 12-13 2016. Likely a typo, just thought you might want to correct that. I'll toss a couple bucks in the hat. Good luck!
/r/MensRights03/01/17 06:01 PM
3

March is too freaking long. Too many people have no chance to see this where they are, and will have forgotten about it when March rolls around. Mega-disappointed.
/r/MensRights22/12/16 09:35 PM
2

So what does that tell us...
/r/MensRights21/12/16 06:06 PM
1

I'm sure at the height of his career he had plenty more than that.
/r/MensRights21/12/16 06:06 PM
3

having a disparaging term for men who chose to marry women with children is just as dumb and just as against the values of this community. It's not marrying a woman with children, it's watching your wife get plowed by a stranger.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 06:13 PM
2

How long was he ordered to pay the alimony? 900k a year, holy shit.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:02 PM
7

Must be hard to constantly keep up a facade of virtue when you think you are the virtous gender. It can't be that hard, they seem to do it pretty effortlessly.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 05:00 PM
22

The moral of the story, you should only develop feelings for a girl if she already has feelings for you. Too perfect. We all exist for some female's enjoyment.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:59 PM
2

They haven't played JUST music videos since the 90s.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:58 PM
3

When cuck is used disparagingly, it's not an unwilling man being cheated on. He's a willing participant in the situation.
/r/MensRights20/12/16 04:20 PM
13

They thought they could withdraw consent to be filmed just like they think that you can withdraw consent of a sexual experience and call it rape. Isn't that astounding!? It's simply illogical. "Yes, I know I said I would sell you this car for $2000, and you gave me the $2000, and I gave you the keys, but later I removed my consent. So I called the police and reported the car stolen."
/r/MensRights31/08/16 06:29 PM
3

But lets not talk about male rape victims. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
/r/MensRights28/06/16 02:22 PM
1

My wife seems to think that my thinking this is me saying that the victim is to blame. Is it? Am I crazy? She's wrong. You're not crazy. The problem is that the "victim blaming" stuff has gotten out of control. It's true that victims are not at fault when someone does something to them against their will. It's ALSO true that victims could have taken actions that could have prevented them becoming victims. Both of those things can be true at the same time. But feminists have somehow convinced soc…
/r/MensRights28/06/16 02:17 PM
4

The survey seemed designed to convince you that MRAs are unnecessary.
/r/MensRights13/06/16 03:52 PM
2

I never said it was the only definition. Show me where I said that. And no, what I said wasn't a lie. And with that, I'm done with this conversation. You may have the last word.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 03:55 PM
1

But she is being treated fairly. She isn't discriminated against for her gender, but she tries to shame Netflix by accusing them of doing so. I'm not arguing that her position is sound, simply that it is her position and that it isn't blackmail.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 03:50 PM
2

You accused me of lying for saying that Blackmail requires the threat to expose an illegal action. I showed you how that isn't a lie using a law that is relevant to the jurisdiction where this specific event occurred.
/r/MensRights20/05/16 03:49 PM
2

A) I cited US law since this case is occurring in the US. I hardly think that's akin to "ridiculously quoting hte US constitution when people try to defend free speech against censorship". The question here is did she commit blackmail. The legal answer is no. B) I don't care about your own personal ethical opinion, since everyone has their own subjective opinion. I only care about the legal case here. If you want to call it blackmail by that dictionary definition of the word, be my guest. But I …
/r/MensRights19/05/16 10:32 PM
2

The offense of blackmail is created by 18 U.S.C. § 873 which provides: "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."[32] My emphasis. EDIT: The notion that saying "If you don't treat me well, I'll tell people you aren't treating me well" is blackmail is laughably absurd. It's…
/r/MensRights19/05/16 05:32 PM
1

I'm not arguing that it doesn't have an overall net positive effect for the show. I'm just saying that if you say to someone "Do X or I'll do Y" and they do X, it's shitty to then do Y anyways. Assuming they haven't said "it's ok if you do Y anyways". The fact that it likely will do no damage to them is mitigating, but it was still a shitty thing to do.
/r/MensRights19/05/16 05:29 PM
1

How can you not interpret that is blackmail? Specifically in regards to Hollywood, where contract negotiations and salaries are so public, and public perception is at the core of what they do, it does not strike me as unethical to take a bargaining position that amounts to "if you don't treat me fairly, I'm going to tell people that you aren't treating me fairly".
/r/MensRights19/05/16 05:27 PM
0

Threatening to embarrass someone in order to get what one wants is blackmail. There may be a fine line between bargaining and blackmail, but this is clearly on the "not blackmail" side. "If you don't meet my salary demand, I'll tell people that you aren't treating me fairly" is not blackmail. Well, to put it more accurately, it's not criminal. Getting what you demanded and following through on the threat anyway is a damn good way of ensuring that no-one ever trust you again. On this I 100% agree…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 09:58 PM
3

I have no problem with people taking salary negotiations public, especially in Hollywood (as its an industry built on public relations). I would (mildly) object to someone doing so after getting their salary demand met, when part of their negotiation was "if you don't, I'll take this public". Again, it's a very mild objection, but like I said before "If anything..."
/r/MensRights18/05/16 09:54 PM
6

If you threaten to go public about being underpaid, and that threat contributes to them making the decision to not underpay you, and then you go out and tell everyone about it anyway, I would say that makes you a bit of a dick. Not a villain or anything, but its a bit dickish. The reason is that you know that talking about it has the chance to make them look bad (because you threatened to talk about it if they didn't meet your demand), so it follows that if they acquiesced, you should maybe keep…
/r/MensRights18/05/16 07:51 PM
2

I had one small quibble with her thoughts, but I won't even bother sharing because I don't want to take away from the ocean of awesome that was in that. Thanks for sharing OP.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 04:32 PM
13

She asked for more and got more, how is netflix the bad guy here? They aren't. If anything, she's the "bad guy". Not because she asked for or got more, but because she's running her mouth about it anyway when she specifically used the threat of going public about it as negotiating leverage.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 04:15 PM
5

EP credits are often no more than vanity credits. Not always of course.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 04:13 PM
7

That's not blackmail, it's leverage. Blackmail would require her threatening to expose something illegal. People in salary negotiations threaten going to the press (ie. "the court of public opinion") all the time. The douche part is talking about it anyways.
/r/MensRights18/05/16 04:12 PM
6

look, right now this is sort of a test for you. Spacey is guaranteed to being viewers. You may not. If the firat season goes well and we have a second, you will be brought back with higher pay, since we obviously wouldn't want to lose you They're on like season 5. I'm pretty sure she wasn't paid as much as Spacey in the early seasons. The article suggests that she negotiated for more later. All that said, the fact that she's talking about it publicly now when she had said she would go public if …
/r/MensRights18/05/16 04:11 PM
2

And has anyone bothered to publicly name these women If they were men we'd already know their names, ages, places of employment, and probably their addresses too.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 06:26 PM
4

Wow... delusion city!
/r/MensRights12/04/16 06:22 PM
2

Before you appeal, we suggest removing any violating content from your Page. Gotta love the implication that there must be violating content if you're going to appeal. You're already guilty before you've even had a chance to be told which specific material was violating content, and what specific rule it violated. What a joke.
/r/MensRights12/04/16 06:20 PM
8

This is by far my biggest gripe with people who scream "victim blaming". They act like people don't have a responsibility to protect themselves. Giving someone ideas/suggestions on how to protect themselves is not victim blaming. Domestic violence hotlines tell callers how to safely get themselves out of dangerous situations. No one is claiming those DV hotlines are "victim blaming".
/r/MensRights11/04/16 10:01 PM
3

Fucking insane. Just deciding to marry a man who's been convicted of assaulting step daughters should make her parental rights null and void. This woman has no regard for her kids, and only cares about herself. Amen. Holy fucking shit. If you can do that, you're a special kind of disgusting.
/r/MensRights06/04/16 09:37 PM
4

Agreed. If you haven't thought about this with a sexual partner, you should not be having sex with them. If you want to be an adult, then act like one.
/r/MensRights04/04/16 09:12 PM
5

This would be paranoid even if you had found out that she was pregnant. You think that she got out of your car, went inside, then got a ride back to her house, retrieved a used condom from the trash, and inseminated herself with it? It doesn't sound like you had any kind of connection, she probably just doesn't want to talk to you. Not only would all of that have to have occurred, but she'd also have to have been ovulating and the semen would have to inseminate the egg. OP is way over thinking t…
/r/MensRights04/04/16 09:11 PM
1

Fair enough. The physical assault is by far the biggest issue here.
/r/MensRights01/04/16 01:45 PM
1

Cultural appropriation is a real thing. Obviously what I meant by "is a real thing" is that it's a negative thing that society should fight against. I find that notion laughably absurd. In fact, cultural appropriation (absent a single global culture in some distant future) is a necessary and positive force for human societal development. As for the "taking your invention" aspect, that's what we have intellectual property rights for. I grant that people may have had no power to enforce their IP i…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 01:42 PM
1

/u/TheDude41 does a thorough explanation that I mostly agree with, but to put it simply, I don't buy the argument that just because she holds to traditional notions of male/female gender roles she's somehow supporting "chivalry" and really just wants to take advantage of men. Further, the notion that she's somehow a wolf in sheep's clothes, because she is trying to advance taking advantage of men while pretending to be for men is simply a silly notion if you are at all familiar with her writings…
/r/MensRights01/04/16 01:39 PM
0

There is no way around that, as they will dismiss what you say at least as easily as you dismiss what they say. I'm not sure I agree that attacking the premise is the same as dismissing what they say.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 10:21 PM
10

I thought his "expose" was pretty ridiculous. To each their own I suppose.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 10:14 PM
2

You want to research "Intersectionalism". In particular "Intersectional Feminism". Look here for a great video that's a bit of a primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYpELqKZ02Q
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:50 PM
7

Ah the soft bigotry of low expectations. One of the few great quotable lines from George W Bush.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:41 PM
1

You're being downvoted for posting truth. Pretty shocking.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:40 PM
2

But all you asked for was the statute being used for a crime against a white person, you didn't ask for convictions.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:40 PM
4

Bro, she can't be racist or sexist. /s She's non-white and non-male. Confirmed non-racist, non-sexist. /s
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:24 PM
6

I too disagree with the whole concept of cultural appropriation in general, but if you want to convince someone of your point you best do it on their own terrain, so they can follow you back out of it. I understand this position, but the problem with it is that it grants their premise. By arguing the historicity of dreadlocks being tied to other cultures, you are granting legitimacy to idea of cultural appropriation. I'd much rather argue against the premise in the first place. It's the differen…
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:22 PM
1

Is it even worth it to debate if dreadlocks are cultural appropriation? Isn't arguing about appropriation giving it some legitimacy as justification in other cases? So much this! If we argue the historical point we lose a much higher and more important moral ground: cultural appropriation is not a thing, and even if it were, it is not immoral.
/r/MensRights30/03/16 09:20 PM
15

One woman, identified as Brigitte MacDougall, said she felt sorry for the woman. “Imagine yourself in her shoes right now, reading all of these hateful and mean, nasty comments,” MacDougall said. “I bet she feels pretty bad about her actions, but the worst part is how this is going to affect her as a person, reading all these awful things. We all make mistakes.” LOL. She assaults him, and we're supposed to feel sorry for how she'll be viewed by people. Here's a novel idea, if you don't want to b…
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:44 PM
2

What a novel idea! /s
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:39 PM
3

I live near Decatur, and just heard about this story. I'm 100% in support, and frankly, I don't think 1 hour of training goes far enough. But I'll take what we can get.
/r/MensRights23/03/16 05:38 PM
8

Were comic book heroes ever sacred?
/r/MensRights22/03/16 08:50 PM
1

I would rather pay for the bodies of young whores. Bleh.
/r/MensRights22/03/16 02:18 PM
1

A gay serial killer...
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:23 PM
1

Sure because a man has no value unless he can provide for a woman's every fucking need. I'm sorry but I'm not reading anymore of this garbage. You may not like this, but it's the way that society has been structured for thousands of years.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:16 PM
3

The numbers of children being raised in single parent (mostly single mother) homes is destroying our society. According to the Brooking's Institute (in this article http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/13-join-middle-class-haskins ) there are only 3 things you have to do to get into the middle class in the USA. Graduate High School Get and keep a full time job Don't have kids until married and at least 21 years old.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:14 PM
5

Not to mention that high-30s/low-40s women have lost a lot of sexual market value. If you have high standards and low value, you're in for some serious disappointment.
/r/MensRights21/03/16 11:02 PM
4

Really? That's odd...
/r/MensRights09/03/16 10:47 PM
3

If you can find that link debunking the wage gap in the 30's and 40's, it would be interesting. It would show that the wage gap was a very short lived phenomenon existing for only about a decade in the 1950's. It wouldn't be that surprising if it turned out that it emerged in the 1950s, since the post-WW2 era saw women expanding into many jobs that they had previously not held.
/r/MensRights08/03/16 09:20 PM
2

That's the million dollar question right? We have to stand on principal and use reason and logic to shine a light on irrationality. The good news is that our argument is stronger, because we're arguing with facts, and they're arguing with feelings. You just have to continue speaking up. We're starting to turn the tide against the regressive left. As Ghandi famously said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." We're at the "fight you" stage. We just go…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 06:27 PM
2

Sorry but I think women are far more prone to making false allegations than men are. I'd imagine this is because women know they're more likely to be believed.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:49 PM
2

I see her around periodically and just avoid her like the plague. If I ever get the chance I may confront her about it, but that day may never come. I highly recommend you avoid confronting her. You have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such a confrontation. You're not going to provoke some sort of moral awakening, or confession, or anything like it. Just stay away and thank whatever God you believe in (or don't) that you never stuck your dick in that crazy. You got lucky. EDIT: Also,…
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:46 PM
1

Hey, the mobster is just offering "guidance" for how to not lose their business.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:39 PM
2

Because PATRIARCHY! Seriously, that's the reason in a nut-shell. From their perspective, if you are a member of the class with the most power, then you can't be the victim of bigotry of any kind. From their perspective a rich straight white man cannot be a victim. In fact, they'll actively gloat when something negative happens to such a person.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:32 PM
3

Some people don't realize that until they've been there. And that leads them here. Which is good.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:29 PM
2

There was an article linked to this subreddit recently where the author was talking about how she only started to be afraid of men after she got into the Feminist movement.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 05:28 PM
1

It would come out post charges. Not necessarily. They are dealing with a minor, the police tend to keep information to the media to a minimum in such cases. So submit then don't? I don't know what this means.
/r/MensRights25/02/16 04:39 PM
5

Sure, coercion requires serious consequences, I'm just taking exception to your argumentation that "coercion usually means force".
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:38 PM
10

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an o…
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:31 PM
21

Coercion usually mean force. That's not true. Blackmail can be coercion as well. "You'll sleep with me, or I'll expose that you've been dealing me weed" for instance.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 07:08 PM
1

Objective reality is what you subjectively believe to be absolutely true. I couldn't disagree more, and I think this is gonna have to be the point where we part ways, because we'll just be arguing past each other with no conclusion. I appreciate the lively conversation, even if we ended up disagreeing.
/r/MensRights24/02/16 06:40 PM
1

There is no such thing as objective reality. Are you serious? Are you suggesting that if a caveman couldn't prove the Earth was round, that means the Earth wasn't round?
/r/MensRights23/02/16 10:22 PM
1

Wow. I said repeatedly that I wasn't arguing with the legal outcome, I was simply making an argument about objective reality. I mentioned repeatedly that if I couldn't prove a crime, then obviously no one should be charged with it, or convicted for it. We're not talking about the legal point here, we're talking about objective reality. Just because X cannot be proved, that does not mean X did not occur. It's a simple statement of fact.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 10:21 PM
1

That's fine. I was simply supporting the proposition that just because a thing cannot be proven in a court of law, it does not follow that the thing is false.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 10:13 PM
1

I don't give a crap what you believe. I'm talking about objective reality. I'm saying that the logical claim: If there is no proof for X, then X is false Is a false claim.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 10:10 PM
1

OMG, it's like you're not listening. What you chose to believe is up to you. I'm talking about objective reality here. You can choose to believe whatever the fuck you want. If you want to believe that the universe was created by a flying spaghetti monster, then be my guest. I'm arguing a simple logical statement that goes like this: It is false to claim that if X cannot be proved, X is false. And I've given multiple real world examples that clearly demonstrate my premise. That's all I'm saying. …
/r/MensRights23/02/16 10:06 PM
2

That's not absurd, that's life. You're saying that "it's life" that if I can't prove something was stolen, it wasn't stolen? That's INSANE. It's true that no one should be prosecuted for it, because the evidence doesn't exist to substantiate the claim, but we're talking about a logical statement that is undeniable. If something is stolen, even if I can't prove it was stolen, that doesn't change the fact that it was stolen. There is a better analogy. Say I'm walking home late at night. I see my f…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 09:53 PM
0

You're saying the physical universe warps around what can be proven? If I can't prove it was stolen, they therefore weren't stolen? That's so astoundingly absurd, I don't even know what to say.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 07:05 PM
1

I'm not saying we should disagree with the legal ruling, I'm saying that just because there isn't enough proof for a court of law, that does not mean the event didn't happen. I'll try another analogy. I'm walking down the street late at night. I see my friend Steve. He walks up and assaults me. I go to the police. They are unable to find any evidence that he assaulted me. There were no other witnesses, there were no surveillance cameras, and Steve won't answer any questions about his whereabouts…
/r/MensRights23/02/16 06:54 PM
-1

Precisely what I'm saying. There isn't proof it was stolen, but it doesn't change the fact that it was.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 06:35 PM
-5

If my Magic card collection is stolen from my house, there will likely not be enough evidence to prove who stole it. That doesn't mean that my accusation that it was stolen is false. /u/doyoulikemenow has a fair point. Yes, it would mean that we shouldn't demonize the accused thief, but it doesn't mean that I'm not a victim.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:36 PM
6

They are the ones who don't want true equality, and since they know that, when they hear us speaking about equality, they accuse us of trying to take from them. It's a well known psychological phenomenon called "Projection". They know deep down that they're the ones that don't want real equality.
/r/MensRights23/02/16 05:29 PM
2

Well addicts sometimes resort to theft and other crime to fuel their habit. And theft is the crime, so punish them for that, not using the drug itself. Also, when the drug isn't a street drug with high prices because the criminals can charge basically whatever the market will tolerate, the price will go down. Which means theft to acquire the drug will not be as much of an issue.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 07:25 PM
3

How can drugs be illegal? It grew from the temperance movement. When prohibition was legalized, the government had to create a bunch of bureaucracies to police alcohol. When prohibition was repealed, rather than shutting those bureaucracies down, they went looking for a new big bad boogey man, and they settled on marijuana. You can read more about it in this article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html
/r/MensRights22/02/16 07:23 PM
12

One time when I was on vacation in Hawaii, I was walking down the street, and I heard someone walking up behind me, very close to me. Now, I was a 6'5", 250lb, 24 year old, so I wasn't worried... but for a moment my mind started racing, thinking about a possible confrontation. Suddenly, I hear a voice from right behind me. "Want some weed?" "No thanks" I replied. And then he was gone. Worst encounter with marijuana I've ever had.
/r/MensRights22/02/16 07:18 PM
2

If someone's beliefs are bullshit, then exposing them is informing them, not shaming them. If they feel shame for that, then that's irrational. I used to believe in the death penalty. I've confronted that opinion, and changed it. I don't feel shame for having that belief from before.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 09:35 PM
1

Why doesn't the article tell us what the misdirection was and what the actual direction should have been? Journalism people, journalism!
/r/MensRights19/02/16 04:09 PM
2

This comment doesn't have enough upvotes.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 04:05 PM
2

How is sending a story like this shaming? It's informing. You send the article and say something like "I don't think she was treated like a second class citizen, I think she was treated like she has special privilege".
/r/MensRights19/02/16 04:04 PM
3

Not just reputation, but lost earnings. The University got off way light. I'm stunned he didn't get a 7 figure payout.
/r/MensRights19/02/16 03:29 PM
1

Ted Cruz is a loathsome human being.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 06:02 PM
1

And if the court will hold them accountable for such acts, no lawyer will coach them this strategy. This. If a woman's lawyer doesn't advise her that she can get immediate custody by accusing the husband of DV, it could be argued that the lawyer is guilty of malpractice! How sick is that!?
/r/MensRights18/02/16 06:01 PM
1

Wow. That's so right on... its very sobering to think about the reality of that statement.
/r/MensRights18/02/16 05:59 PM
2

I tried to go to that twitter account and it says its suspended. Here is the exact text I see: This account has been suspended. Learn more about why Twitter suspends accounts, or return to your timeline.
/r/MensRights17/02/16 08:40 PM
2

That account is banned now. Any idea what's up with that?
/r/MensRights17/02/16 04:32 PM
2

lower court judges have A LOT of leeway in sentencing these things, which is part of the problem. Agreed. When that leeway lets a male teacher who had sex with 3 female students off with 18 months probation, I'll change my tune. But I'm not holding my breath.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 07:56 PM
1

I understand that, I just wanted to highlight that. I understand that you think both should be treated by your proposed standard. But since your standard isn't the law right now, she should be held accountable the same way a man would under the current laws. EDIT: I know you're not disagreeing with that, I was just sharing my perspective.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 06:44 PM
1

I find this an entirely reasonable and appropriate punishment for the ages involved if the sexual encounters were not coerced or otherwise forcible. Even if I agreed with your position (I'm not sure I do), since that's not the law as it currently stands, this woman should be held to the same legal standard that a man in her position would be. But she's not. There is no way that if the genders were reversed, that the male teacher would walk away with 18 months probation under our current laws.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 05:56 PM
1

It's curious to me that such a petition is showing up now that there is real debate about requiring women to also register for selective service.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 05:50 PM
3

If people being able to "get to you" in your home bothers you... then don't have twitter. Or don't use it at home.
/r/MensRights16/02/16 04:48 PM
1

My son was arrested in December and held in prison for a several weeks because I refused to provide him bail money. That's monstrous. You can turn him into the authorities, but you can't bail him out?
/r/MensRights12/02/16 07:36 PM
0

Socialized health care works, imagine how much worse the cover ups are when millions are on the line. Millions are on the line in socialized health care too. It's just millions from tax payers instead of millions from customers. I'd much rather a doctor appreciate the fact that I'm paying him, than have the government paying him. When he knows I'm paying him, he's more likely to treat me with respect.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 07:23 PM
1

He should come here to 'Merica. We like world-renowned doctors.
/r/MensRights12/02/16 07:22 PM
2

Believe it or not people LIE. And for all kinds of reasons! How about that! People lie about other people because they are angry at them or jealous of them or vindictive or feel the accused has 'wronged' them somehow. Welcome to PLANET EARTH and to THE HUMAN RACE. It's what people do: LIE. And they lie A LOT. But these aren't people, they're victims! Surely victims don't lie! /s
/r/MensRights12/02/16 06:34 PM
1

"Police should be neutral in sex abuse inquiries. In other news, water is wet. More on that story at 11".
/r/MensRights11/02/16 05:37 PM
1

I wouldn't be opposed to having such an opportunity for people "to be safe", but I wouldn't want to require it. Not requiring it is where I think your law is flawed. If a person hasn't been determined to be mentally competent to sign contracts, then no one is going to want to sign a contract with them. Right now we use age as the standard to reasonably determine if they are mentally competent or not. If we want to remove the objective standard of a clear age and replace it with an individualized…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 04:38 PM
1

If we had some form of "adult competency" test that people could take, and then they get an "Adult License", and they could then prove that they're competent to sign contracts, engage in sex acts, drive cars, ect, then I would find your suggested legal standard acceptable. But absent a persons ability to determine whether another person is/isn't competent, I'm uncomfortable with a legal framework that amounts to "you just have to do it, and hope everyone else agrees with you if there is an issue…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 04:14 PM
1

So you're saying they would just engage in the activity and hope a jury of their peers sees it the same way they do if things go sour? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. EDIT: The exact same way individuals make decisions about the legality of their actions with regard to all laws on a daily basis. Not true. There are clearly delineated lines for most laws, so that you can gauge whether or not you're on the right side of them before a jury of your peers is necessary. Take a speed limit. I d…
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:58 PM
1

the law should be that it is illegal to engage in sexual activity with an individual who isn't mentally competent to make the decision to have sex If we take your proposed law and try to apply it to real life, an 18 year old is about to have sex with a 16 year old. How is either person supposed to know if they're on the right side of the law? Is there a competency test they can perform?
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:51 PM
1

I agree that it's not consistent from one individual to the next, but that such an age exists. I propose that society has to draw a line somewhere, so that people know clearly what is/isn't legal. If we do not draw a line, it becomes impossible for a person to know if their action is within the bounds of the law. Do you agree?
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:24 PM
1

I disagree. Perhaps I can have the rational conversation with you that I tried to have with RatsSewer. Do you agree that there is an age at which a child does not have the mental ability to consent to sex? Set aside what that age is, just that there is an age at all?
/r/MensRights11/02/16 03:00 PM
1

Ok, you clearly have no interest in an earnest and productive conversation. Have a good day.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 09:25 PM
2

No, you're either misunderstanding the question or intentionally twisting it. It's true that the age that is picked is subjective, but what I'm asking is you is whether such an age exists. Are you going to continue dodging the question, or do you want to have an earnest conversation about this idea? It's a pretty straightforward question. Is there an age at which a child does not have the mental ability to consent to sex?
/r/MensRights10/02/16 09:19 PM
4

Because we're not talking about mentally challenged people, we can discuss that next if you'd like, but the article being discussed and the comment about the article is dealing with children. There is no fake outrage here. It's a simple yes or no question. I'm not even asking for the age, just whether such an age exists, or not. Is there an age that a child does not have the mental ability to consent to sex?
/r/MensRights10/02/16 09:08 PM
2

I asked a simple question which you dodged. I agree it's subjective, lets put that aside. Is there an age that a child does not have the mental ability to consent to sex?
/r/MensRights10/02/16 08:51 PM
3

Do you agree that there is an age at which a child does not have the mental ability to consent to sex? Set aside what that age is, just that there is an age at all?
/r/MensRights10/02/16 08:15 PM
5

No.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 07:00 PM
5

Oh yeaaaaaaaah!
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:52 PM
4

“Freedom of speech is a responsibility,” Waggeh said. “You should use your privilege to be responsible for one another. Be conscious of what you speak, because a lot of people could take your message wrong.” Someone could take your message wrong. So don't say it. WTF has happened to common sense? “If a speaker makes someone feel unsafe or uncomfortable, then they should not come to campus.” Wow...
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:34 PM
4

I disagree. As a society we've agreed that people have to reach a certain age before they can sign contracts, why shouldn't we set an age where they can consent to sexual acts?
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:31 PM
2

Suppose a man gets an explicit yes from a woman. They undress and go in the bedroom and lay down on the bed, and then she starts to get worried and immobilized (the way the author describes), and she's thinking "I don't want to do this", but she never says it. This author makes it sound like that woman would have a legitimate claim to being raped, because the author makes the immobilization from fear preventing a no to mean that consent wasn't given. It's ludicrious. In other words, even if "yes…
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:17 PM
2

And fuck that commentor who said "Rape is the only crime I can think of where you have to prove you didn't consent." What? Rape is sexual contact without consent: nothing more, nothing less. Therefore, "proving" you didn't consent is a necessary part of proving you were raped—and it is still the accuser's responsibility to prove her accusation (for now, at least!). Can you imagine if this gets flipped around. You get accused of rape, and then YOU have to prove that they actually said yes!
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:07 PM
2

The vice president is undeniably right (and the notion applies to people of all genders and identities). No it doesn't. He said "woman". Try that shit from the other way around (say "man", but then later claim it applies to all genders and identities) and watch the hysteria commence.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 06:04 PM
1

Ok, but that's not what is meant by equality.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 04:23 PM
1

I'd agree with that, and just add that not only does donating to breast cancer research not take away from lung cancer research, but any breakthrough in cancer could lead to a breakthrough in other cancers as well. Likewise, with this situation, any improvement in equality in one area of life is an improvement in equality globally.
/r/MensRights10/02/16 04:18 PM
2

You know, I thought it was Bill Burr, but it might have been Louis CK. We might be talking about the same bit.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 07:04 PM
1

I don't see the big deal. I mean, should she have said that? No. But it was a twitter comment (whether in poor taste or not), not a journalistic piece. And he snapped her back twice as hard (good for him). So I don't see a problem here. Even if he didn't have a comeback, he's a professional football player, I'm sure he'd cry all the way to the bank.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 06:32 PM
2

Equality is a zero sum game. That's not true though, right? Assuming the dictionary definition of equality, a dollar spent towards women's equality is a dollar spent towards men's equality, right? If the dollar spent towards women's equality doesn't make men and women more equal, then it wasn't really spent on equality.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 06:26 PM
3

I don't see what is so objectionable about your post. Especially the end: So, for the time being, we're going to disagree on which house is on fire. But that's ok, because me working for equality for men doesn't detract from you working for equality for women. Both end in equality. Which is the goal of both. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 06:23 PM
1

Instructions unclear. Caught in a time loop.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 06:15 PM
2

It's 1% if used correctly. But the fact is that condoms are very rarely "used correctly".
/r/MensRights09/02/16 06:12 PM
7

The worst part is that young women still expect men to be sexually aggressive. So true. Bill Burr's bit about a woman he was dating wanting him to choke her is a perfect example of this.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 06:09 PM
6

Many of us hoped Mr. Ghomeshi’s accusers would prevail What an interesting hope. I would think the hope would be that truth and justice would prevail.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 05:58 PM
6

That's why the word "maliciously" is important. You would have to prove that they were making the false allegations with malice.
/r/MensRights09/02/16 05:53 PM
2

No, it was not an apology.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:51 PM
2

You know the why. Because PATRIARCHY!
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:51 PM
2

Of course it wasn't. Because she's not sorry. She's only sorry that the statement has been (rightly) denigrated. If people had supported it, she wouldn't be fake apologizing.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:50 PM
1

She said the women were driven by their desire for the D, because why else would they not automatically be biased in favor of a woman? I love the second, subtle, layer of the bigotry of her statement. "You must have some crazy D lust to support a man, because otherwise you would naturally support a woman just because she's a woman". No... they're supporting Bernie Sanders because of... wait for it... his positions. Gasp Shocking, I know. Supporting a candidate because of their ideas and not the …
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:49 PM
3

Breast-feeding mothers and women with special-needs children have opposed the 50-50 custody provision, saying it doesn't take account of the need for a parent skilled and accustomed to dealing with a disabled child. However, Lee said the bill would allow a judge to take such circumstances into consideration. But that's why the proposed law just say's it encourages 50-50 split, not requires it, right? So that judges can make changes in circumstances like these.
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:41 PM
31

Well spotted. How funny that the conclusion isn't "so lets teach women to be less violent, because men shouldn't be abused". No, it's so that the women aren't abused. sigh
/r/MensRights08/02/16 05:13 PM
3

Yup, and then when people reported on it, she threatened to sue them for libel. And they're like "you can't sue us for libel for just reprinting what you said". LOL.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:32 PM
1

What will we do!?!?
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:31 PM
2

The idea of insulting someone being equivalent to a threat is too stupid for words.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:31 PM
1

“I think it’s important to remember that threats are more than someone saying I’m going to come to your house and I’m going to hurt you,” she said. “Insulting someone’s appearance, insulting someone’s religion, or their race, you know, all of that to me constitutes a threat and I think we can make changes to how we control that dialogue on the internet without threatening our First Amendment rights.” Wow...
/r/MensRights05/02/16 08:28 PM
3

I agree with this. I'm not presuming she's dead, and I'm not presuming she just couldn't hack it. I was merely responding to the question of "what evidence is there that she is dead".
/r/MensRights05/02/16 07:32 PM
2

I dunno, I'm not investigating it. That doesn't mean that her missing isn't circumstantial evidence that she might be dead. EDIT: To be clear, the fact that's she's missing is also circumstantial evidence that she just couldn't hack it and she ran away. That's why you would do an investigation, to narrow down the possibilities until you can reach a strong conclusion.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 07:29 PM
3

I dunno what to say to you. You need to read up on "circumstantial evidence". My wife is missing is circumstantial evidence that she may have been kidnapped. It may be weak circumstantial evidence, in that other inferences can be drawn, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence. What you do is you then look for other circumstances that support the inference, or refute other inferences, in order to strengthen the inference. But you can't deny that it is evidence.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 07:18 PM
3

I think that women that stay home and raise children instead of attending to a career aren entitled to some temporary alimony. For an extended period? No. But certainly for a time after divorce it's sensible and women don't unilaterally decide that they will be stay at home parents. I would agree if it's a no fault divorce filed by the husband, or a fault divorce filed by the wife. But if the wife files for a no-fault divorce or the husband files for a fault divorce, then no.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 07:13 PM
1

Circumstantial evidence is evidence. It may be weak circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't mean it's not evidence. It would be interesting to see what the ratio is of people who are missing that turn up to be murdered.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 07:04 PM
1

Make a copy What is this, the 1980s? I don't think /u/AR_lover needs to "make a copy" of the post, it'll still be here.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 06:28 PM
2

What evidence is there that she is dead? She was granted unordinary leave, and then never showed back up. Uhm... the fact that she left and never showed back up is the evidence. If she's missing, she COULD be dead.
/r/MensRights05/02/16 06:26 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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