TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Froolow Archive

View 3 posts and 155 comments by Froolow 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)
32

Froolow/r/MensRights10/09/12 05:12 PM
4

Froolow/r/MensRights29/05/12 08:48 AM
0

Froolow/r/MensRights07/08/12 03:02 PM
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights06/01/15 07:23 PM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights06/01/15 08:03 AM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights05/01/15 06:43 PM
1

You are choosing a dvd for tonight
/r/MensRights02/01/15 10:33 AM
6

I don't think this is a very strong argument. You can be a feminist and for equality, which means that on the issue of the pay gap (predicated on believing women earn 77 cents on the dollar) you can be for making life easier for women, but on the issue of - say - conscription, circumcision, male mental health and so on be for making life easier for men. If it is true that being for an issue which unequivocally hurts the other sex means that you are unequivocally against the other sex then I put …
/r/MensRights10/10/14 05:37 PM
1

People seem a lot more confused about whether that represents good value for money or not. It is unquestionably more expensive than Abiraterone, but it also seems to add more healthy life-years. If you look at this paper: http://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/download/350/auhe_wp10_01, produced by an academic group I have worked with and know are very good, Figure 3 suggests that Trastuzumab is right on the cusp of the £30,000/ QALY cost-effectiveness ratio. On the other hand, until NICE publish their fu…
/r/MensRights16/08/14 07:37 AM
1

I don't think the two sources contradict; the Beeb says it costs £3000 per month, the academics say it costs $129,000 per life-year saved. Ignoring the exchange rate for simplicity, the two sources stand if each year of treatment (£24,000) gains around two additional months (0.18 of a year) of life expectancy, which doesn't sound outrageous. In fact the academic source I give suggests it gains around 0.3 QALY, so roughly the same ballpark.
/r/MensRights15/08/14 09:45 PM
1

I agree the devil is in the details; this is why it is so important to compare the right numbers. The important thing is not how much the treatments cost, but how much extra health they add per dollar spent. Whether - in a global sense - we spend more on prostate or breast cancer is irrelevant, as the NHS should only and always buy the treatments which represent the most health for each dollar invested. Abiraterone costs about $129,000 per life-year saved. Kadcyla costs between $5000 and $134,60…
/r/MensRights15/08/14 08:12 PM
1

Literally less than a week ago a more effective breast cancer drug was denied funding by the same organisation - its hard to square that with your claim that NICE discriminate by gender, and it seems good evidence for their claim that they try to maximise the number of lives saved per healthcare dollar spent
/r/MensRights15/08/14 04:23 PM
6

Second, I'm going to make the standard-issue "walrasian general equilibrium analysis is based on several highly questionable assumptions" disclaimer. Oh goodness yes! I would trust my analysis only as far as predicting 'broad stroke' trends, no way would I rely on it for predicting anything important. Secondly, you also need to factor in the fact that men with nonstandard preferences also bear a cost - those who aren't looking for sex but rather simply music/drinks/atmosphere have to pay higher …
/r/MensRights19/05/13 09:02 AM
1

You're absolutely right, this is a mistake. What I meant to write was something like, "If the presence of the woman causes the man to buy extra drinks, then as far as the club is concerned you may as well model the women as 'buying' the drinks, since it is always possible to associate a specific woman with a specific purchase of a drink". It (partly) explains why clubs don't charge women more for entry if they buy fewer drinks; on aggregate they are causally responsible for the same number of pu…
/r/MensRights19/05/13 08:43 AM
30

Tl;dr: Differential pricing is exactly as /u/YetAnotherCommenter describes - a way of using women to lure men into the club. But an economic analysis suggests that the women are the real losers, because they are hit hardest if they have non-standard preferences I came here from /r/bestof - I wonder if you could explain a confusion to me; I don't really see how this is related to men's rights in any way - it seems like it discriminates more heavily against women! Nightclubs don't care about gende…
/r/MensRights18/05/13 10:39 PM
2

Have you heard that metaphor about an infinite amount of monkeys at an infinite amount of typewriters eventually producing great original pieces of literature? The Daily Mail is what happens when you publish everything else those monkeys write. I don't think it should ever be treated as a serious source.
/r/MensRights13/03/13 01:31 PM
1

We disagree on this, but I don't think you're wrong exactly; I think we just have a different standard of proof on this occasion. Thanks for the explanation, it cleared up my misunderstanding.
/r/MensRights12/03/13 01:10 PM
3

I don't think a single photo exists of me playing video games as a kid (maybe a few on my old Gameboy in the background of shots of other things), but I played games all the time. The reason for this is that my parents only ever took photographs when something 'interesting' was happening (birthdays, Christmas etc) and when something 'interesting' was happening I had better things to do than play games. As we all know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and it seems really petty not t…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:59 PM
2

Ok, I agree she might have played games as a kid and decided now she hates them. But given she says she enjoys games, has played games since she was a kid and has been playing games for a year as research for her series I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a source when someone says, "Anita doesn't even like games". I mean, what other criteria would you use to judge whether someone is a gamer other than the length of time they've been playing, the amount of games they've played recently and…
/r/MensRights11/03/13 10:48 PM
0

Anita doesn't even like games This isn't true. She has been a gamer since at least the SNES era.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:05 PM
5

This post doesn't exist. There are a considerable number of people in this thread who need to do some basic fact checking before launching into a rant about how all women are lunatics. Either that post was never made, or was made and immediately deleted by a mod who thought it was a troll post. Either way, I don't know what you think this says about SRS apart from the fact they have a very effective mod team.
/r/MensRights11/03/13 08:01 PM
7

There is another, perfectly logical, way of looking at this. I personally donated $0 to Sarkeesian, in exchange for which I will receive 12 videos on a topic which interests me, but is maybe not the most pressing use of my money. This works out as (0/12)=$0 per video, which is an absolute bargain. I don't care what other people spent their money on; if I did I would constantly wrack myself with paroxysms as people brought their life's savings to Vegas to risk it on one spin of the roulette wheel…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:32 PM
7

That's not an unusual length of time to produce a paper for publication in an academic journal (maybe more like four or five months if you work in social science rather than 'hard' sciences like biology). Sarkeesian claims she will produce twelve videos of a roughly academic standard, with - I assume - the majority of the research frontloaded. Whether or not the videos live up to this intellectual standard is another debate entirely, but the timeframe seems completely reasonable to me; maybe eve…
/r/MensRights06/03/13 12:23 PM
1

I don't care what is usually the sign of a poor argument I can see that I appreciate you (finally) giving me a real-world example of a task which women might take ten times longer than men to complete. I don't know anything about chainsawing so I'll take your word for it that you're accurately describing what went on. I've updated my beliefs about the physical abilities of women in line with how trustworthy and generalisable I think your anecdote is. Thanks for the chat
/r/MensRights24/02/13 03:22 PM
1

So if you knew what the binomial distribution was, and you knew that it was not relevant, why did you agree to a condition where I specifically asked you not to? Why do you only have a problem with this condition post hoc? That is usually the sign of an extremely poor argument; changing the terms of a test after the results have come in. It is 'shifting the goalposts' - you are now arguing that a binomial distribution is the correct distribution for a door-breaking test, which is evidence you ha…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:52 PM
1

I certainly can't think of any tasks women are 1000% worse at, and since this entire conversation has revolved around that one topic I'm pretty sure you can't think of any tasks woman are 1000% worse at either, otherwise you would have given me that rather than the weird example you did give. As far as I can see, the 'eleven minute' claim given in the article is the only evidence either of us has that there are some real-world tasks women are 10 times worse than men at. Have you any evidence thi…
/r/MensRights24/02/13 12:56 AM
1

You've constructed a binomial distribution of effects, which was the other thing I told you I wouldn't count, for exactly that reason. Can you find a real example of a physical task which women take 1000% longer than men to do (or are 100% worse on some other metric)?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 09:49 PM
1

No - I'm saying it is really easy to find a 25-50% difference, really easy to find an infinite difference, next to impossible to find a 1100% difference, which is why I'm very skeptical of the original claim. That was why when I stated my conditions (which you agreed to) I was clear that an infinite difference was not acceptable to me
/r/MensRights23/02/13 08:43 PM
1

So you've failed to show a difference between 10 and 100 times? You've shown a difference of 'infinity', which is not between 10 and 100. It's not a secret I'm skeptical because I don't know how much training these firefighters received (would a qualified firefighter take as long? Were these firefighters qualified?), but that is impossible for either of us to say. I am happy discussing only the 'eleven minutes is possible' claim.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 07:26 PM
1

No - I have other reasons to be skeptical of the way this information was gathered, but I will apologise to you for wasting your time in this argument and stop defending my position here because that is the key point of contention in the small debate we're having (well, 'small' is relative I guess...) I'll also substantially update my prior about women's performance at physical tasks, which might not be a big deal for you but it is pretty important to me! You're obviously under no obligation to …
/r/MensRights23/02/13 05:13 PM
1

Yes - what you're describing is a very sensible way of updating your beliefs in line with evidence. But we don't have countless examples of women performing 1100% worse than men on physical tests. We have lots of examples of women performing 25-50% worse, and plenty of examples of women performing infinitely worse (your example of weightlifting) but almost no examples of women performing 1100% worse. This is why I think the claim is extraordinary; a 1100% worse performance is bizzare. If the cla…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:50 PM
1

You asked me not to change the subject, so I'll remind you that the issue here is whether or not we have sufficient evidence that female firefighters take eleven minutes to break down a door, not whether we have sufficient evidence to prove women in general are weaker than men. So let me ask again; is anecdotal evidence good enough to justify the claim that female firefighters take eleven minutes to break down a door?
/r/MensRights23/02/13 04:29 PM
1

I feel we're doing the opposite: I want you to admit that the source presented for the 'eleven minute' claim is crap, and that is it. You are entering into the discussion a lot of additional unnecessary details like "I believe that men are in general a lot stronger than women". That's great, but that's not what I want to talk about; I want you to agree this one specific claim is not backed up adequately. I admit I've been a bit lazy about ensuring I only respond to relevant comment from you - pa…
/r/MensRights23/02/13 02:45 PM
1

Look, the simplest way to see if you actually believe what you're saying is the test proposed by Nate Silver: If I select a female firefighter at random, what is the percentage chance she takes eleven minutes or longer to open a security-enforced door in full equipment? I can even do you a favour and say we're selecting a random Swedish female firefighter.
/r/MensRights23/02/13 02:31 PM
1

I think the default assumption is that we don't know whether female firefighters take eleven minutes to break down a door. Also, I once heard from a guy who dated a firefighter's sister than female firefighters can open doors in less than eleven minutes. Since we now have an equal amount of anecdotes for and against the proposition perhaps we can stop pretending they constitute any kind of worthwhile evidence Edit I don't 'think' that's the null, that actually is the null. That is what the null …
/r/MensRights23/02/13 01:13 PM
1

You've used an awful lot of words to fail to put up any evidence. Burden of proof is not a complicated concept; you are claiming, "Female firefighters take (at least) eleven minutes to complete a task", I'm saying "We have no idea how long they take to complete a task". You are making the positive claim (since I can't disprove a negative) so the burden of proof is on you. Can I take it that you accept anecdotes as evidence now? Because I have plenty
/r/MensRights23/02/13 10:35 AM
1

I agree tasks are probably (generally) non-linear in their response to strength. But the absolute kicker here is that this is a double-edged sword - if task-success is non-linear in certain parameters then for every example you find where a 5% increase in strength leads to a 50% increase in task completion time, I can find you an example where a 5% decrease makes next to no difference; this is implied mathematically by the model you're proposing, which I agree with. To put this another way - eno…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 10:58 PM
1

Apologies, I linked you to a google scholar search because I was being lazy. A very quick literature review puts gendered strength value differences at: About 50% upper body, 40% lower body About 35% (based on given vales for muscle quality and muscle mass) About 60-40% 18-46% (but study conducted on the elderly) Between 25-50% (depending on muscle group surveyed) 1100% Can you spot the outlier here? All the real science is consistent with my earlier wikipedia-based estimate of about 25%, all th…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 10:04 PM
1

I feel you are misrepresenting my position. It is absolutely not in question that women, in general, are less physically strong than men. My point is that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim made in this article that it is likely women will take ten times longer than a man to do the same task. Let me repeat that point again; there is absolutely no evidence presented in this article that I could check independently, so I have no way of knowing whether female firefighte…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 07:27 PM
1

So to put this another way; do you think it is likely that if I picked a random female firefighter and asked her to batter down a security-enforced door using any and all tools available to the service that she would take eleven minutes or longer? Because this is a testable hypothesis and we can work from there. As it currently stands we do not have a testable hypothesis, we have an anecdote that this one time some (unnamed) guy saw two women take a long time to break down a door
/r/MensRights22/02/13 04:33 PM
1

I think you've substantially misunderstood the point of that particular argument (while not addressing my other points). The argument is; are there any other test of strength where women regularly perform eleven times worse than men? I do not think there are, since in my experience the similarities between the genders are greater than the differences. So the implication of the article is that this one test causes women to perform eleven times worse than men, which seems - to me - enormously less…
/r/MensRights22/02/13 10:00 AM
3

It took two women on a training exercise 11 minutes allegedly. This is a big difference; no word on how many women did the job superbly, no word on how many men also took over ten minutes, no word on how well trained these firefighters were, and the source is unwilling to name names or locations for anyone to check their facts. Weak journalism.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:25 PM
4

The article absolutely does not make anything clear. You are basing this reading of the article on one (unattributed) comment that it took two women eleven minutes to break down a door and one attributed comment that says the quality of firefighters in general is declining
/r/MensRights21/02/13 08:23 PM
6

Trying to find more information on anything is commendable - I think I was just thrown off by your phrasing. Apologies.
/r/MensRights21/02/13 11:58 AM
10

This is completely bullshit journalism, and it should shame you you've fallen for such obvious crap. Even worse is downvoting Luxpreliator who is at least offering a valid opinion even if you disagree with him. The source - the entirety of the factual basis of the article on which you are basing your opinions, is as follows When two female firefighters were put to the task, it reportedly took them eleven minutes. So we see here a whole host of problems: Two out of how many female firefighters? I…
/r/MensRights21/02/13 11:53 AM
7

Uh... if all the scientific consensus suggests that the difference is because "girls are told that they are not good at math" shouldn't you accept the scientific consensus or do some original research yourself rather than cherry picking "interesting links"? I have no idea which way the consensus runs, it just seems really odd that you're not interested in discovering what the actual truth of the matter is so much as confirming your own prejudices
/r/MensRights21/02/13 11:38 AM
2

I'd probably go on the march, or demo, or whatever it's advertising - even if one billion is an exaggeration it's not like you're sacrificing anything else to go and promote a good cause. It's not like being against the beating and rape of women means you have to be for the beating and rape of men, and even if you think women have it pretty good in America it's unquestionable that in some countries these sorts of human rights violations are commonplace.
/r/MensRights13/02/13 10:59 AM
4

This is the Daily Mail living up to its usual high standards of journalism; circumcision is only available 'on the NHS' for medical complications that would otherwise kill or maim an infant (and even then the clinical pathway recommends medical management before surgical intervention). Some PCT's make circumcision available for religious or medical reasons, but this is not NHS policy - they are funding these operations out of a different budget.
/r/MensRights10/02/13 12:25 PM
5

Who? The British? Most PCT's don't fund circumcision when carried out for religious or routine reasons, but NICE ensures that all PCTs must perform it if it is the only way to save a life or save reproductive function (though they prefer that other methods are tried first)
/r/MensRights10/02/13 12:22 PM
2

Does someone have a proposed wording for the ERA? I can't work out how the ERA differs from the 14th amendment in case law, although I understand why it might be politically worthwhile
/r/MensRights07/02/13 12:29 PM
1

Thanks for your kind words. I actually agree with you in principle; some studies on gender are absolutely crap. For example, in my opinion this is probably the worst-designed study I have ever seen. I obviously needn't deconstruct this study for you; the flaws are obvious, the research torn to shreds by those who peer review for a living and yet it is still upheld by some people as worthwhile research. On the other hand, some research into gender is absolutely sterling, like this RCT by Moss-Rac…
/r/MensRights24/01/13 07:02 PM
1

Well, I suppose we can disagree. It's not a major point after all. This sounds very promising, but I'm very concerned you may move the goalposts later unless you're absolutely explicit about what constitutes a 'feminist funded' study. Here are a couple of possibilities: The author self-identifies as a feminist The author self-identifies as a feminist and has written about feminism (ie the author is both a scientist and a 'famous' feminist) The study is explicitly about women, or women's issues (…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 10:16 PM
0

No, my example of diversity in feminist opinion was the peer reviewed article I linked you. I thought /r/feminism might be more accessible if you weren't interested in reading a serious study with the associated statistical busywork to understand it. As it happens, though, /r/feminism's banning of non-feminists makes no difference to my argument; there exist a diversity of opinions which do not get you banned, proving that there exist a diversity of opinions in feminist canon. This is important …
/r/MensRights23/01/13 08:20 PM
-1

diversity of opinion has never been a strong suit of feminists I'm not certain where you get the idea that there is a weak diversity of opinion among feminists. For example if you visit /r/Feminism you'll see a wide variety of opinions being offered on a diversity of subjects, and the rules of the sub mean that at least all the top level comments must offer a feminist perspective. In a more formal setting, Henley et al demonstrate that there are at least six different strands of feminist thinkin…
/r/MensRights23/01/13 06:57 PM
-1

What do you mean by that? All feminists don't believe the scientific method exists? Or maybe some feminists don't believe the scientific method is always the most useful tool to approach a problem? As an economist with a degree in the philosophy of science I would say that second set of feminists has it pretty bang on the nail. Your lack of specificity makes it difficult to judge your claim, however.
/r/MensRights23/01/13 03:39 PM
2

Potentially. I can certainly see the logic that human society changes so quickly that even a decade means work will be out of date (for example, mobile phones and the internet were only just becoming ubiquitous a decade ago and it was just after 9/11). Nevertheless, as both of us are economists I'm sure we've both spotted that this proclamation means that sociologists guarantee themselves work for the foreseeable future! Anyway, I just wanted to diffuse a potentially derailing discussion about s…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:23 PM
1

Yeah, economists tend to stick with the idea that what was true in the 1950's is true now - it's the bane of my working life. But I meant to say by my claim to be an economist working in sociological areas is that sociologists tend to look very skeptically at data which are a decade old or more. It's not special pleading to bring this up, and it is not (usually) methodologically sound to rely on old data in social sciences. if the new data being introduced are unsound then this is a different an…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:11 PM
2

I had a quick look at the Kanin study. It appears that Professor Kanin himself did not find a high percentage of the accusations were false, but rather relied on the number of accusations thrown out by detectives. This itself would not be troubling if we assumed detectives were good judges of which cases were 'false' and which merely appeared false because of eg shaky victim testimony or unwillingness to submit for cross-examination, but this appears not to be the case; several other studies re-…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 06:05 PM
1

You have not used special pleading correctly. If a disputant demands you exclude certain details by alleging a need to apply special considerations to the data without due consideration as to why these conditions should be introduced, then that is special pleading. Drockers has asked that you use only contemporary sources in an argument about contemporary sociology. This is not an unreasonable request - as a sociologist myself (well, an economist specialising in sociological issues) I can tell y…
/r/MensRights08/01/13 05:51 PM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights24/12/12 07:49 PM
1

I don't really get why you've posted this here - it is a tragic but uncontestably true fact that women are more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault in everyday life than men. There are plenty of areas where there could be a legitimate debate about gender rights, but I really don't think this is one of them; maybe if the questioner had asked about 'assault' instead of 'sexual assault' but even then there's no point trying to play oppression olympics; both are an unqualified bad. Are you t…
/r/MensRights05/12/12 09:06 PM
1

I think you've made a lot of good points here. Maybe the issue boils down to exactly how drunk we think Kate is. The four possibilities I see: Kate says "No" in any state whatsoever We should stop her from going home with Chris. Kate says "Yes" in a completely sober state We should let her go with Chris Kate is clearly incapable of making decisions We should stop her going home with Chris, forcibly if needed. By 'clearly' I mean she is unconscious, under mistaken impressions about who Chris actu…
/r/MensRights22/11/12 10:56 AM
1

Except I'm arguing that an adult who makes bad decisions after drinking should be shielded from the consequences of those bad decisions. Not necessarily by the state as a matter of obligation, but by his or her friends as a matter of trust. So an example I often see is, "We hold people responsible for driving a car drunk". I think this is absolutely correct; we should hold people responsible for operating a car drunk. We say that anyone who chooses to operate a car drunk should deal with the pot…
/r/MensRights21/11/12 10:33 PM
1

Hard to say what 'one' should do in the general case, but in my case I would indeed stop Kate if I knew she was drunk and she told me she was fine (I'd also stop her getting in a car to drive, for the same reason) unless there were sound secondary reasons for assuming Kate would be fine (perhaps Chris is her boyfriend and I couldn't see in the dim light of the party). Same with a man - if the positions were reversed and Chris said he was fine when he was clearly not I would stop him unless there…
/r/MensRights20/11/12 11:22 AM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 11:07 PM
4

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights19/11/12 08:08 PM
1

Hey there, I became interested in gender at about 21, so it is great you're starting early! I would suggest that you treat 'feminism' as a broad church like you might treat 'American'. Some Americans are fucking insane, some are borderline xenophobic, some are 'American-in-name-only' and you couldn't tell them from, say, a Swiss person whereas the vast majority are basically good people who believe in the same basic values as you (freedom from gender oppression) but have different 'priors'; for …
/r/MensRights19/11/12 07:37 PM
1

I agree I've never seen the message Real men don't take no for an answer So I want to be absolutely clear so we don't keep having to go back over this that that is a pedagogic example of the kind of message society might push onto someone, not an ostensive example. There are many, many such messages and I made one up on the spot which may not actually exist. In fact, a message that I know exists, because you've just quoted it back to me, is: Sometimes, even often, when women say no they mean yes…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 05:09 PM
1

Maybe that's true, but in this particular case I was literally giving a made-up example I made up off the top of my head to illustrate a point I was trying to make about something totally different. If it bothers you I'll go back and change it to something with more hits on Google. The larger point is that we still haven't worked out this apparent contradiction in your argument that you are not worried by certain messages (all of which - if they had an effect - would mean men might do something …
/r/MensRights15/11/12 04:33 PM
1

I think you've misunderstood me again - I was giving an example of the kind of message that I think might be damaging and you are saying doesn't matter, not claiming that this message was one I'd seen around. I made it up on the spot. I'm sorry you had to check through 5,570 different results, that must have taken an awfully long time. I am a little confused about your point now. You said above that rapists commit crimes because they are disturbed individuals, not because of any effects society …
/r/MensRights15/11/12 03:45 PM
1

If you are convinced such messages have no effect I don't see why we need to argue any more! I wanted to say 'messages like "Men don't take no for an answer" have a negative effect on men' (and women, obviously) and also that 'messages like "Real men do take no for an answer" effectively countered the messages that promote toxic masculinity'. But if you don't think the first type of message has any effect then it really doesn't matter whether the second message does or not. That is to say, if yo…
/r/MensRights15/11/12 01:05 PM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights14/11/12 09:45 PM
1

Ah sorry, I maybe wasn't clear enough; although I accept your initial premise that some universities have a greater gender imbalance than others, the task of quantifying that is nontrivial. For example, the finding of women-only political groups with no male counterparts might be 'harmless' misandry (in the sense that no men actually want to set up a gender-specific organisation), 'mild' misandry in the sense that men are discouraged from setting up such groups by the organisational structure of…
/r/MensRights13/11/12 10:45 AM
1

This looks interesting. How do you propose to measure misandry on campus? And how are you measuring male student outcomes? As a difference in difference between men and women or as absolute attainment?
/r/MensRights12/11/12 06:28 PM
1

Well I would argue he has manifestly failed to identify a contradiction in law, but he has potentially identified a contradiction in the ethics of society. I obviously disagree, as per my above answer, but I won't defend my position too strongly if you're just soliciting opinions.
/r/MensRights24/10/12 01:08 PM
2

This is a common misconception; Roe categorically does not rule that an unborn foetus is not a child. In fact, best I can make out, it specifically rules that the foetus is always a potential child, and the Justices (for example Justice Brennan particularly) recognised that the framework was a little arbitrary, designed to balance several conflicting duties. The ruling is specifically on the ninth amendment; the right to privacy. The court ruled that a woman's right to privacy included whether o…
/r/MensRights24/10/12 10:56 AM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights23/10/12 01:50 PM
1

That's incorrect. The law (and morality) are very clear that sex should only occur if all parties give informed consent. I found an interesting DH factsheet defining 'consent' very clearly in a medical context, but a quick google will show that the definition extends to sex too. So it doesn't matter if she's offering or initiating, if she is incapable of giving informed consent then the men are breaking the law by having sex with her. There is no grey area at all here; even if she is begging for…
/r/MensRights19/10/12 11:07 AM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:41 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:40 PM
3

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights15/10/12 08:31 PM
2

This isn't a fair comparison. If you get behind the wheel drunk the car can't say to you, "Buddy, you've had one too many, just crash in the back seat". Cars have no capacity for moral judgement. On the other hand, a person can (and should) say, "Look, I think you're too drunk to give informed consent so I'm going to turn you down". This is because people have a capacity for moral judgement. To put this another way, "Driving drunk" is a crime, "Having sex drunk" is not a crime. So you are legall…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 12:52 PM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights13/10/12 12:48 PM
2

I broadly and basically agree with you; no-one should have the right to use more than the minimum force needed to protect themselves (I guess I'd also have to say "...or protect those around them") from immediate, serious harm. Having said that, I think we should recognise that no-one is capable of judging exactly the minimum amount of force needed and in most cases it is important to err on the side of 'too much' rather than 'too little', and when the 'fight or flight' reflex triggers it is eve…
/r/MensRights13/10/12 12:13 PM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights27/09/12 05:16 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 01:32 PM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights26/09/12 08:27 AM
1

It could be both; the men at court could be 'high class' and live longer than average (56-60), whereas the eunuchs who came from middle class backgrounds died at 70. If the average individual lived until 51-56, both statements are simultaneously true. Not mentioned in this report, however, is that the trend doesn't hold for castrati singers; it seems environmental factors are more important. This shouldn't surprise anyone since women (with much, much less male hormone than men) don't live 14-19 …
/r/MensRights25/09/12 04:06 PM
2

Actually re-reading the OP you have more of a point than I credited you in the first place; it is not immediately clear whether he is saying that the bad thing that would happen to him is the loss of money or the violence of a mugging. I guess I just extended the principle of charity because to equate the loss of money with a rape is not a very nice argument. My apologies for claiming you were arguing in bad faith.
/r/MensRights19/09/12 11:13 AM
1

Of course it is - and I think you're arguing in bad faith; it's obvious I don't think rape is non-forceful or non-violent from both the context and the fact it's ludicrous to suggest anyone rational could think otherwise. My only point was that OP was not comparing a crime against a person to a crime against an object but a crime against a person to a different crime against a person, as least as far as I understood it.
/r/MensRights18/09/12 06:09 PM
2

I thought it was a pretty clear-cut person-to-person comparison. Men are more likely to be violently attacked than sexually assaulted (and so OP was saying "I am likely to be violently mugged if I walk around with a lot of money on display") and women are more likely to be sexually assaulted than violently attacked. The point of OP's comparison isn't that he might lose his wallet while stumbling around drunk, it's that he might be physically assaulted by marking himself out in that way. At least…
/r/MensRights18/09/12 05:48 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 02:32 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights11/09/12 09:03 AM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights10/09/12 04:01 PM
2

You're absolutely right I got the top comment wrong. I don't understand how - the comment I linked is at the top of the thread for me, but has c.100 fewer votes than the actually top-rated comment. I assumed the top-rated comment jumped to the top of the thread when I sorted by 'best', but in fact there is some other algorithm used to determine it apparently. Would you accept that since 'best' is the default view, most redditors would take away the 300+ comment, with only a subset of that going …
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:19 AM
2

I can only assure you that my methodology was accurate - at the time of me posting the link the comment was on +6. I could have ignored it because it was not a very populated thread, but then I would have been open to accusations of massaging the data in other ways. The fact it is now at 0 does not really prove anything - at least that many people have read my top-level comment and this will have strongly influenced their perception of this comment. Once again, I am not claiming (nor do I even b…
/r/MensRights08/09/12 08:09 AM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 11:13 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/09/12 07:13 PM
1

It's like the cure for cancer they find every month - the causes are the same and can be traced back to lazy science reporting. The way science reporting works is that a scientist will discover a potentially interesting interaction in the lab or on the computer. He will see, for example, that chemical A inhibits chemical B and write a paper about it. This paper will be dry and academic, and will be published in "Journal of pharmacologically interesting biological chemistry" and will be read by t…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:39 PM
2

I did a little bit of research on Reddit, and it appears this is not the case - please see my reply two above you ( here ) for my supporting evidence. I suppose you could argue this is some kind of insanely well-coordinated Trojan horse strategy where every feminist on reddit secretly does not want the male contraceptive pill to be sold but pretends to be in favour of it for nefarious but undisclosed reasons, only to reverse their position once the pill is actually cleared for sale to humans, bu…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:16 PM
2

It appears they don't really care, and would basically prefer men to have the pill than not. There are three ( 1, 2 and 3 ) hits on r/feminism for 'male pill' or 'male contraceptive' and two posts on r/askfeminists for the same terms ( 1 and 2 ). There are no hits on SRS, and I think we would agree these are the three most visible feminist portals on reddit. The reaction from all five of these threads has been universally positive, with one poster saying something slightly negative in this threa…
/r/MensRights07/09/12 01:13 PM
1

This is completely plausible - for whatever reason men have a slightly disproportionate reply rate, which makes them invest less effort into their messages, which means women receive many more messages, which lowers their reply rate and so on. Are there any statistics for homosexual reply rates by gender? That might indicate the existence of the repeating cycles you believe exist (and I completely buy into, I just think it's worth looking for evidence)
/r/MensRights02/09/12 10:38 AM
2

I'm not really talking about normative things like that - I just wanted to point out the study has quite a large confounding factor that hasn't been accounted for so you shouldn't treat it as gospel truth
/r/MensRights01/09/12 04:05 PM
1

I think spam most likely it underemphasises the discrimination black people face; since the majority of spam (advertising) accounts I have seen are pretending to be attractive white women, if this particular form of spam were accounted for it would show that black people have an even worse proportional reply rate. However I'm more concerned with another form of 'spamming', which is sending low-content posts which we might charitably describe as inquiring about a casual fling, but look like "Hunn…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:56 PM
1

I don't think they are real - or at least shouldn't be counted as real when we try to work out the response rate for men and women on OKC. And it's intellectually lazy to say "Well men sometimes spam and women sometimes spam so it probably balances out in the end" (or, like you are suggesting, "Fake accounts purporting to be women sometimes spam"). The reason I think this is important is that there seems to be so much spam on dating websites - both from fake advertising accounts and random messa…
/r/MensRights01/09/12 02:18 PM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:58 AM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights28/08/12 10:45 AM
1

Eichinger wrote the film Downfall (I wanted to point out that the 'character is not author' defence worked in any medium and what better way to do it than invoke Godwin's Law?). He also has a writing credit on Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, for which there is no defence at all. Faulks wrote Birdsong which is probably the best WWII novel I have ever read and I would highly recommend to you. He also wrote the new James Bond book, which was... not quite as good. I wonder if maybe he nev…
/r/MensRights24/08/12 09:53 AM
1

I must have misunderstood you; I thought you actually believed 'it was a character I was writing for' was never a valid defence, whereas it appears you meant 'in this particular case it is not a valid defence because the character is clearly a mouthpiece for the author' My apologies, it's very easy to misread nuance on the internet!
/r/MensRights24/08/12 08:42 AM
1

Just to interject a spot of statistics, I'm assuming from your scare quotes around 'unplanned pregnancy' that you think many of these pregnancies are, in fact, planned by the woman. When cheap male birth control is introduced, I would expect the rate of sexual activity to go up as the costs of doing so decrease, and the 'unplanned pregnancy' rate per sexual act to decrease. This is because - whether women plan it or not - there will be an additional 99% (or whatever) effective barrier in between…
/r/MensRights23/08/12 10:30 AM
1

Which is why Nietzsche was burned at stake for blasphemy, Nakobov was convicted for pedophilia, Faulks is on trial for mass-murder and Eichinger is appearing at the International War Crimes Tribunal on multiple counts of racially aggravated hate crimes.
/r/MensRights23/08/12 10:16 AM
1

I think I could actually come round to your way of thinking in a few months; certainly I don't feel we disagree about anything major, just whether porn reflects or shapes the society it is embedded in (or perhaps more realistically, the extent to which it actually does both). Thanks for the constructive discussion!
/r/MensRights09/08/12 02:46 PM
1

I think I could actually come round to your way of thinking in a few months; certainly I don't feel we disagree about anything major, just whether porn reflects or shapes the society it is embedded in (or perhaps more realistically, the extent to which it actually does both). Thanks for the constructive discussion!
/r/MensRights09/08/12 02:45 PM
2

I#
/r/MensRights09/08/12 02:03 PM
1

V#
/r/MensRights08/08/12 09:58 AM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights08/08/12 09:33 AM
-2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:35 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:27 PM
-2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:21 PM
-2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:14 PM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:13 PM
-2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights07/08/12 09:09 PM
1

Thanks for the link, but there are a few things I notice: 1) There's no link to the original study (or even the name of the researchers or the paper). While the HuffPo is great for news aggregation, I don't trust any popular news outlet to report statistics correctly. For example, the statistic "Women who make more of the decisions have approximately 100 times less sex" is meaningless without a lot of other peripheral data. It also seems intuitively untrue - so I suspect there is some statistica…
/r/MensRights25/07/12 08:33 AM
1

I'm sorry to keep harping on about this, but I don't believe you if you can't cite sources. Admittedly maybe that's not a big deal if some guy on the internet doesn't believe what you think is 'obvious', but I have three reasons to be especially skeptical: 1) If there really was such data, and it really was to do with 'men's nature' then the nature vs nurture debate would essentially be solved for a significant chunk of human interaction. That is a pretty big deal, so I suspect the findings you …
/r/MensRights24/07/12 09:07 AM
-4

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:43 PM
-2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 04:13 PM
-2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 03:44 PM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 01:11 PM
2

You are correct, and I don't understand why the rest of the posters in this thread on a massively distributed intercontinental informational network can't just use their unfathomably powerful computational engines which could conceivably be powered by harnessing the fusion power of a main-sequence star 150,000,000km away to reply to you and say "In all other aspects of my life I am living as nature intended, therefore it fights against my species nature to do a bit of housework from time to time…
/r/MensRights23/07/12 12:31 PM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights23/07/12 12:21 PM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights20/07/12 04:33 PM
2

I think we're broadly in agreement; provided the performers give informed consent it is difficult to make the argument that they are exploited (I know I certainly don't intend to try). On the other hand, just because they consent and appear enthusiastic on film doesn't mean they love their work and that we should feel proud as a society that pornography exists in the quantities it does. I don't know very much about the effects of pornography on women. I suspect they are probably negative, wherea…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 04:28 PM
1

I agree with the logic of what you're writing. I think if I had to I would describe myself as an anti-porn MRA (I think it harms men in a very significant way), but you are correct that the mere presence of a 'dark underbelly' doesn't imply that the industry itself is morally bankrupt. All I wanted to point out is that the stated experiences of the top performers is not necessarily reflective of the experiences of the majority, and in fact in pornography it is fairly well established that the ex…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 04:06 PM
1

I'd wager you've only ever seen famous and successful performers be interviewed. I understand there is quite a dark underbelly to the porn industry which chews up and spits out a lot of women (and a significant number of men, though admittedly fewer). You never see them interviewed for a variety of reasons, but I won't preach; the gist is that many women are prepared to do a lot of things for a shot at being the next Sasha Grey rather than because they are happy and well adjusted right at this v…
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:31 PM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights20/07/12 03:20 PM
1

I think what this study shows is that there is a shocking gap between the rich and poor in London. It is wrong to assume this study actually shows anything about men, because no comparable figures are given for women. Off the data given in the article alone, it seems more accurate to say "The NHS is failing the poor", but I think even that misses the truth by quite a way
/r/MensRights26/06/12 10:45 AM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 12:43 PM
2

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights08/06/12 08:55 AM
1

To be honest I'm not yet good enough at clinical diagnostics to defend to the death my belief that mass screening for gender-specific cancers is harmful to the gender being screened. Hopefully in a few months I can come back and repost irrefutable evidence. For now I was hoping to discuss whether my belief, if true, has any implications for the men's rights movement. But if you don't mind me asking one quick question, I thought radical mastectomy was recommended in cases with carcinoma presentin…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:40 PM
1

Well, my point was basically that demanding the money which is saved on PSA screening be spent only on prostate cancer research is a bit short-sighted. Possibly even childish if the main reason for it is just because you want people to spend as much on men as women irrespective of healthcare outcome. So I guess in principle I would be happy with the following state of affairs: 1) All PSA screening stopped immediately 2) All money saved by this added to research into colorectal cancer I would be …
/r/MensRights29/05/12 04:11 PM
1

Aha, I see. Just on a point of science, a PSA screening is a technique which is unlikely to be improved upon (for various reasons I needn't go into unless you have a strong love of being very bored), but would you object to me being charitable with your suggestion and reading "We need to improve prostate cancer detection \ prevention, not do away with it"? Well I agree with this, but I don't agree that all the money which would be saved by cutting PSA screening funds should necessarily be ringfe…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 03:57 PM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 03:44 PM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 03:33 PM
2

It seems like having cleared up the data issue we're in the uncomfortable position of being in complete agreement on all issues. This is awkward... Would you mind clarifying for me though; imagine each dollar spent on prostate-specific treatments 'bought' one extra year of life for men, whereas each dollar spent on breast-specific treatments 'bought' two extra years for women (I'm pulling that figure out from a place very close to the prostate we've been discussing, I'm not trying to lead you in…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 03:18 PM
2

They use the word 'thrombosis', which is the medical term for what you or I would call a 'blood clot' - the section you are probably looking for is "Key Question 2" in the results, but the stat on thrombosis is in "Key Question 4". One reason why figures can be a bit misleading is that someone might see "2% perioperative risk of vascular event" and think "Goodness, better stop doing that, 2% of 100,000 people is an awful lot" when in fact a 2% risk would be very acceptable (to me at least) as lo…
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:57 PM
1

I don't think I understand. Is your contention that even if routine PSA screening was ineffective and harmful, we should do it anyway to avoid the money going towards women's health?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:45 PM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 02:06 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights29/05/12 01:57 PM
1

Nope, fewer. You can't have a fraction of a hate-spewing, compassion-free twit, so it is one fewer. If she had said "There is now fewer hate-spewing in my life" you would have been right
/r/MensRights23/05/12 12:01 PM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights27/03/12 01:41 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights27/03/12 09:57 AM
1

Ah, ok, I see where our problem is - I don't think "X is Y automatically implies "Not-X is Not-Y"; I'm prepared to concede that's because I'm a logician by training and it might not be how people actually use that phraseology in real life, but I don't think you'll ever convince me it is correct usage - anyone who makes that inference is incorrect in my opinion, and that's the long and short of it Anyway, thanks for the debate, I enjoyed it a lot even if we didn't really get anywhere! Edit: Just …
/r/MensRights20/02/12 10:15 AM
1

I don't follow you I'm afraid If WW says "Violence against women is terrible", you are claiming this means he is implying (consciously or not) "Violence against not-women is not-terrible". You have said that when he says "X is Y", that phraseology automatically implies "Not-X is Not-Y" (although you are correct to point out that there is an area of 'fuzzy' logic with the word 'terrible' that we can probably abstract away for 'man' and 'woman' - when I say "not-terrible" in the following, we can …
/r/MensRights18/02/12 11:39 PM
1

I think you are contradicting yourself; if saying "Doing X to Y is terrible" means you think doing X to Y is particularly terrible - as in, significantly worse than doing X to any other group - then when WW says "Domestic violence against women is terrible" he must mean "It is more terrible to do domestic violence to women than to do domestic violence against men". Fair enough, that's your view although I disagree and I hope I've outline why in the posts above. But you can't have it both ways - …
/r/MensRights17/02/12 08:02 PM
1

What about "We shouldn't eat cows"? This is a better example Some vegetarians believe that we shouldn't eat cows. No vegetarian believes that we should eat people. When a vegetarian says "We shouldn't eat cows", they do not mean "Eating people is more acceptable than eating animals", they mean "Some people think it is ok to eat cows, but I disagree" That is exactly what is happening here. Some people think it is ok for CB to assault Rhianna. WW disagrees. I don't disagree that it would be nice i…
/r/MensRights16/02/12 02:05 PM
1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights30/12/11 11:49 AM
-1

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights30/12/11 09:51 AM
0

deleted What is this?
/r/MensRights30/12/11 09:38 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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