TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

From_H_To_Uuo Archive

View 0 posts and 39 comments by From_H_To_Uuo on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

You are just applying the dark side of statistics. It can be used to prove anything.
/r/MensRights04/04/15 03:10 AM
3

The primitive mind things seems a little far off. Psychologist will put it at 50/50 genetics vs culture. Biologist will put it 70/30. Anthropologist will put it 40/60. In retrospect anthropologist probably have it right. Do you think we would see this kind of behavior in different cultures?
/r/MensRights11/05/14 09:26 PM
1

Redefining? I am uncertain you know how to set up an idea. You define your terms and then state your meanings with them. It makes it easier to understand where the person is coming from. Philosophers teach this method along with theoretical scientist. In science you find proof to support and in philosophy you make a counter argument telling others why you think it is right or wrong. I am not redefining things. I am just trying to allow you to understand what these terms mean to me because words …
/r/MensRights11/04/14 09:07 PM
1

Yes I did. I will define victim so maybe you can get a sense of how I am thinking of it. A victim is one who suffered/suffers from others actions. Suffering is any type of pain or discomfort. Now that you understand how I see this concept, read this because that is how I feel when dealing with war and soldiers and how I see them both. Now, take my meaning of victim and apply it to the link I shared. I do not see soldiers who die in war as victims because that is just not how I would define it. T…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 10:25 PM
0

In the context of murder, sure. Being murdered is becoming a victim, but war isn't murder. It is just killing. Would you consider a deer a victim if you were in the woods starving and killed it? No. You killed it to survive. It is the same mentality in war. You are fighting for ideals and resources in hopes that your family and friends will be safe. Hoping one day your sacrifice will be for naught. You fight in war not because it is right or wrong. You do it because you see it as a necessity. Ta…
/r/MensRights10/04/14 10:06 PM
1

Never tried to justify it. Just told it like I see it. The dead are dead and the living have memories of those lost. Rationally, if you tried to quantify who will go through more suffering, those who die in war or those who have to pick up the pieces of their fallen comrades, family, and friends which would you choose? But, in retrospect, it would have been better if I had defined what I thought "victim" meant to me. Maybe it would have given a better understanding into what I was trying to say.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 09:47 PM
-1

I knew this opinion would not be too popular but I thought she brought up an interesting topic that seems genderless. I tried to contribute to it with my own thoughts and it did bring up discussion which is good. But it seems that my meaning wasn't well understood. Or maybe I was a bit too blunt and my meaning was taken a secondary and brought offense as a primary. Either way it is still good to discuss this. Hopefully future redditors will see this.
/r/MensRights10/04/14 02:37 AM
-1

War is a tragedy but not every tragedy comes from war. Try to understand where I am coming from on this. Hilary was on the topic of war. War, a concept that involves people fighting for resources and ideals. In this context if people die, sure it is sad. It is also horrible in every way you spin it, but you must understand that those who die in war were there full knowing that was a possible outcome. When death happens in war those who are left behind have to deal with the damage. To me this sho…
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:35 PM
-2

You are stretching my words to make your own meanings. What I simply tried to give was a truth. People dieing in a war is sad and I would never argue that it is ok to kill someone and those who die are victimless, but I would like to stress with the perspectives of widows and children who loose those loved ones vs those who are dead, the victims in this case are those who have to live with the fact not those who have died.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:15 PM
-2

True, but for perspective purposes the dead have nothing to worry about anymore unlike their family that they left behind.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 11:05 PM
-21

She has a point though. Men and women who die in war are not victims because they are dead. Those who have lost their loved ones have to live with that feeling while the dead don't have to feel anything anymore. The victims of war are those who survive.
/r/MensRights09/04/14 08:47 PM
1

Can you show me where that quote is?
/r/MensRights30/03/14 04:57 AM
2

Yes and maybe. Fighting for what you believe in is never a waste of time unless you find it isn't what you believe in anymore. There are many bigger problems that this will never address though, and that is ok. Baby steps to success. Rome wasn't built in a day, man.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 04:11 PM
2

Yes.
/r/MensRights04/02/14 03:58 PM
1

So... you are saying words are not real as apposed to someone being hit? Or are you arguing that subjects cannot be objects?
/r/MensRights30/09/13 02:19 AM
1

I understand context because I am trying to give it through concepts. "Yes, that comparison is indeed exactly wrong." How is it wrong? You didn't even address any of the reasons I gave to why your statements were fallacious. But I guess that is not important. What is important is that you do not understand what I mean by "words." You are right, it is very hard if not impossible to "talk" someone to death, but I do not mean talking. I mean words. How words can be used to assert violence, convict …
/r/MensRights30/09/13 12:48 AM
1

Narcissist? Maybe. Ok, Fallacy #1: "Because anyone who has actually been beaten by a baseball bat would never make such a stupid comparison." This is an illogical statement because it draws on the conclusion that in the entirety of existence, no one will ever and has never made a comparison of being beaten to defamation, bullying, or otherwise; words of damage if they have be beaten. Fucking illogical. Fallacy #2: "Right there. Words don't "hit". Baseball bats hit." This is simply a lack of unde…
/r/MensRights29/09/13 10:00 PM
1

Wow. I do not know if there is an English word to describe how much empathy you do not have. I pity you......... And stop using fallacies.
/r/MensRights29/09/13 07:23 AM
1

You don't understand metaphors do you?
/r/MensRights29/09/13 02:40 AM
1

And where exactly is the illogical part?
/r/MensRights28/09/13 12:22 AM
1

How is consistently treating a group criticism? How does it lead to double standards? How am I pushing agenda? Unless I misread that and you meant something else.
/r/MensRights28/09/13 12:10 AM
1

Sounds a lot like crap logic.
/r/MensRights27/09/13 11:57 PM
1

No. Society can choose this. They already do. If you do something against the social norm and if it is serious enough like a taboo, society will cast you out. It isn't about being offensive or not. It is threatening. You can hate the American government even if you are a citizen and it is protected and should be, but what the Amendment doesn't protects is threats against the sovereignty or population. The same goes for other western countries as well. The group constantly boarders making threats…
/r/MensRights26/09/13 04:37 PM
0

Destroying the psyche has much more destruction than breaking a bone. Continue to say something enough and it will soon be believed and it is not long before actions follow words.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 04:23 PM
0

How do you know anything about my life? You do not know what I have experienced.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 04:20 PM
-3

Stopping people from seriously injuring others is suppression of expression. Words have weight. Sometimes they can hit harder than a baseball bat.
/r/MensRights26/09/13 12:54 AM
0

I disagree. Freedom of speech is a fundamental part of American liberties but they have standards and limitations on what it protects. The same should be for social cultures. We shouldn't have to put up with a hate of half the population of the world, for either side. Male and Female.
/r/MensRights25/09/13 09:15 PM
1

Or rubble.
/r/MensRights22/09/13 04:50 AM
2

Thank you.
/r/MensRights09/09/13 08:32 PM
6

I am colorblind, and it sometimes pisses me off that most subs don't think about this common of a trait; especially, a Men's Rights sub where colorblindness can be directly seen as a mostly male handicap in school systems and work. So, what option is the graph referring too? Option three or option six?
/r/MensRights09/09/13 02:28 PM
3

Fucking loaded questions and false dichotomy.
/r/MensRights01/09/13 02:54 AM
-2

Travel the world by foot/boat, sail the high seas, find a spot of land and build a house from scratch, or find purpose in helping others. Life doesn't come with instructions, reasons, or guarantees, and it doesn't mean that you have to live by other's standards. You can just as easily pick a direction and start hiking, pursue a dream or destroy an authority. Do not pretend your only choice is being a wage slave just because you are scared to take a leap of faith, man.
/r/MensRights28/08/13 06:18 PM
1

Hmm, I guess I never considered kids under 16 as part of the census as well, but over half the population seems a bit steep.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 07:40 PM
2

If I am reading it wrong, then how is it to be read? Also, their total employment for both male and female is 140 million. the census of 2010 shows that USA has roughly 300 million. This is 47% employed. That doesn't match the unemployment rate. Also, none of it adds up. If I am reading it wrong, I invite you to correct me in the most harsh of manner; otherwise, this data is skewed and can only be used to show averages.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:58 AM
1

I know I read it directly after your post.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:43 AM
2

Ah, I see the first problem with these statistics. If you add all of the totals for the jobs listed under the first column it only adds up to 26521. Their total for all women employed is 65,638. 26521/65638=0.404. Roughly 40% of the population is represented in the jobs listed. This leads another 60% in various jobs that could be major professions of importance. Your argument is inaccurate because of this.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:38 AM
1

I did but a video is easily manipulated and changed. Let me see the statistics from the source for my self as I am having trouble actually finding them on the website.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 04:21 AM
1

Well post the statistics and let me have a look at them.
/r/MensRights28/07/13 03:50 AM
1

Department of Labor only shows registered jobs. Modeling, actress, pornography, prostitution, etc are not part of it. Though some of these professions are illegal (prostitution), they are professions non the less and must be included in an opinion like this to give it a well rounded positivity. This leaves a lot out, and one could assert that since this information doesn't portray the country as a whole, the previous must not be completely accurate. Too bad not many have done studies on how many…
/r/MensRights28/07/13 03:00 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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